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

Land of the Free!

[beh]

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...

Re:Land of the Free!

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of pirates: gratuitous "r" inserted. Was supposed to be "land of the fee".

In the US, you are free if one of two categories applies:

1) You have the money to pay people with the power to make you less free;

2) Nobody is listening to you anyway. Lip service costs nothing.

In fact, most people come under category 2 - and this is where dictatorships have all gone wrong: out of paranoia, they silence even the people who would do no harm if they could speak. The illusion of freedom is Western civilisation's greatest gift to human psychology.

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: Land of the Free!

[JWW]

I'm more in favor of not infringing on PETA's rights to harass hunters with drones. But I'm also in favor of the hunters destroying PETA's drones, especially if they are harassing the hunters on private land.

Also depending on the level of harassment and monitoring, I am also in favor of the hunters and fisherman pressing charges against PETA.

Re: Land of the Free!

[jythie]

Well, one question is, is PETA infringing on rights? Their stated goal is to monitor for violations since in many areas enforcement of hunting and environmental regulations is pretty much non existent. While I am no fan of PETA, there is something to be said for citizens steeping up when local governments refuse to implement the laws or are so budget starved that they do not have the resources to actually do any monitoring or enforcement of their own.

So in a way, what this law has done is made it illegal for a group with a weak lobby to determine how badly a group with a strong lobby is breaking the law.

Sad thing is, I suspect the push behind this law is not coming from hunters but from private industry. There has been a lot of grumbling at how it is increasingly easy for local watchdog groups to catch environmental violations via drones after farms and factories spent so much time making sure the local police and regulators don't come looking, so there have been pushes to make such things illegal. Activists are a lot harder to pay off or threaten then local officials, so making it illegal for activists to aid in enforcing the law is a high priority for some.

Re: Land of the Free!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they do, an issued permit means they have a legal right to kill animals within the confines of said permit.

PETA, on the other hand, does not have a legal right to harass people, especially on private land. If they want to change things, a sound arguement and political campaign is a better idea than publicity stunts and rhetoric. If states are actually legalizing weed, who knowns maybe hunting can be outlawed.

Something PETA completely fails to understand though, we have kind of killed off most of the natural predators. It is funny because I have heard PETA complain about this but never realize the implications. If the predators are gone, the prey doesn't stop breeding. Hunting permits are carefully issued to maintain wild population stocks. We already did the damage to the predators and now have to clean up our mess. If the wild predator populations climb back up to a level that can keep the prey levels in check, I would be happy reassess my positions. I don't actually like hunters, but my personal distaste with them and what they do doesn't mean they don't have a role to play.

Do I need a license?

[blocsync]

Do I need a license to go drone hunting? or is it just open season? because that sounds like fun! Also, I believe shooting drones stays well within PETAs goals as I wouldn't be shooting animals :)

Re:clearly...

[TWiTfan]

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.

Good!

[Murdoch5]

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

Comments are missing the point

[DaveV1.0]

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.