Illinois Law Grounds PETA Drones Meant To Harass Hunters

schwit1 writes "Illinois passed a new state law that set back the efforts of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), making the use of drones to interfere with hunters and fishermen prohibited. The law was created in response to PETA's plan to employ drones called "air angels" to monitor outdoors enthusiasts engaged in hunting and fishing nationwide."

Comments

Re:Land of the Free!

[LWATCDR]

Wow that is the most confused reply I think I have ever seen.
"Strange - people fishing should be "free" to fish unmonitored... ...people hunting should be "free" to hunt unmonitored... ...people on the Internet should be "free" to be monitored at will...

To me that sounds like future terrorist plots could best be discussed on a hunting trip, because you have the gun lobby ensuring that you'll be undisturbed..."

First so do you think that people should be allowed to take part in totally legal activity without out harassment? If so what does the monitoring of internet meta data have to do with anything?
Second do you understand that these drones are often flown over private property without consent? Yes aircraft can fly over private property but they must do so at a safe altitude which is 1000 feet from any obstacle within 2000 ft of the aircraft. In none congested areas it is down to 500 ft of altitude and no closer than 500 ft from any person, vehicle or obstacle. So you can fly any lower than a 50 story building.
The rules for flying a radio controlled aircraft have been around for at least 50 years and those are. The big rules are you must be in VISUAL contact with the aircraft at all times and you do not fly over people. You also do not fly over private property without permission.
So PETA was already breaking safety regulations with these operations and should be stopped before they hurt someone. BTW I do not fish, hunt, or have a gun. I do fly RC aircraft.

Re:clearly...

[Wootery]

Also the way they put down huge numbers of animals, which on its own might be defensible, but then kinda-sorta argue that there's a moral equivalence between humans and animals.