Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
peta cares about animals (does that mean they don't care about humans?
My experience with PETA is that the only thing they care about is themselves. They've done way more to serve their own smug senses of self-importance than they've ever done to help any animals.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
PETA is not a group that anyone should frankly support. PETA is known for terrorist threats and actions against humans and large scale property destruction for the job of destroying animal hospitals and humane societies. PETA makes large statements about how animals have the right to attack humans and will verbally and publicly bash victims of hunting accidents where the animal attacks. PETA should be shut down by the government, they are a nonprofit society that seeks to punish humans with no clear case, cause or rational. Anything PETA seeks to do is to purely hurt humans for the sake of animals, what logical society would do that? If you think I'm blowing smoke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4D1godY4vI
A state government outlawed the use of drones by a private group to harass and/or spy on a group or class of citizens. This can be the basis to extend the law to be against against the use of drones by private individuals, corporations, and businesses to harass, spy, and advertise.
BTW, those who are comparing PETA to the NSA and other government agencies are making a false comparison. PETA is a private organization that would be violating the privacy and personal freedom of people. They are not a governmental agency and most of the governmental agencies in the comments so far do not fall under the jurisdiction of state governments.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Does PETA have a working solution for maintaining a sustainable population of game? Like some type of birth control or are they happy with uncontrolled heards getting bigger and bigger and expanding? Times have changed, there is no longer a natural balance of various wildlife to maintain populations in check. Until some other method of control comes around, PETA has no chance of stopping hunting. Hunting is beneficial in many areas, that is why there are a set number if hunting licenses and specific time frames for each type of game.
I assume PETA believes the wild boars should be able to expand as needed unchecked as well.
As long as I can still use a drone to monitor activity on my own property during hunting season. It would make it safer to look for trespassers and call the sheriff by eliminating the possibility of being "mistaken" for a deer and shot.
Not against hunting, just against hunters shooting on my property.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
What hyperbole? I'm not sure you actually know what the word means.
My experience with animal rights activists has been pretty similar. People with too much privilege to have personal experience with human problems and an utter lack of strategy in pursuing their agenda that results in a bunch of actions that only sound clever to people inside the group, that alienate everyone outside of it, and that more often than not hurt the cause of animal rights by being the worst living strawmen against it.
My law school had an animal rights program that overlapped a lot with the environmental program I was in, and most of the animal rights people were pretty flaky -- harmless and not nearly as self-sabotaging as PETA activists, but prone to stupid things like running around "casing" Asian food markets for sharks fin while all being a bunch of suspicious-acting white people who didn't speak a bit of Chinese and not really realizing the cost of shark's fin vs. the income bracket the stores they went to serviced.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
What hyperbole? I'm not sure you actually know what the word means.
Well, thanks for giving us two more paragraphs of examples of hyperbole in action.
Why is it that nobody who dislikes PETA is able to talk about them without obvious exaggeration? "Utter lack of strategy," "worst living strawmen," But on re-read it turns out you aren't even talking about PETA members.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.