Slashdot Mirror


Drone-Assisted Hunting To Be Illegal In Alaska

garymortimer (1882326) writes in with news about rules for hunting with drones in Alaska. "At its March 14-18 meeting in Anchorage, the seven-member Alaska Board of Game approved a measure to prohibit hunters from spotting game with such aircraft, often called drones. While the practice does not appear to be widespread, Alaska Wildlife Troopers said the technology is becoming cheaper, easier to use and incorporates better video relay to the user on the ground. A drone system allowing a hunter or helper to locate game now costs only about $1,000, said Capt. Bernard Chastain, operations commander for the Wildlife Troopers. Because of advances in the technology and cheaper prices, it is inevitable hunters seeking an advantage would, for example, try to use a drone to fly above trees or other obstacles and look for a moose or bear to shoot, he said."

23 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Redefine hunting. by Ranbot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because at some point you can't call this "hunting" anymore. Good for Alaska.

    1. Re:Redefine hunting. by Ranbot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or did you assume there was a gun on it?

      Nope, I read the article just fine and didn't assume anything. We don't let hunters use automatic rifles. Many states out-law "spot-lighting" of deer for good reason. We don't let fisherman use electro-shock or dynamite to catch fish. There are reasons to limit technology in hunting for the purpose of sport and to give the animals a chance.

    2. Re:Redefine hunting. by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I think there are a few legitimate questions here.

      Aside from being done to control populations, it is also done as an activity people enjoy. So there is reason to not make it as efficient as possible. In fact, the worst case scenario for most hunters would be that it become so efficient that the people with the nicest toys end the season before they have a chance to do any hunting.

      Hunters already have plenty of advantage over their prey.

      I mean I generally agree when it comes to straight up problem solving but, when entertainment and sport is part of the process efficient technology is sometimes counterproductive to other goals.

      I could download a bot to play video games for me too. Perhaps it could more efficiently gaurd the bomb in counter strike than I could, thus solving that problem, and leaving me to go do other things.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Redefine hunting. by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's always questions around this about "how much restriction is too much restriction?". There's places that don't allow barbs on fishing hooks. Also, hunting isn't just a sport, for many it's also a source of food. Fishing can be a sport because you can do catch and release. Most other forms of hunting I'm aware of aim to kill the animal. So while they may be "sport", there's very real consequences for the animals in question. As long as there are limits on how many animals you're allowed to kill in a season, should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Redefine hunting. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not for bear or moose. You could do it, but it's not common - as opposed to deer. The latter often use the same trails day in and day out so parking yourself in one place that you know the animals traverse is a good strategy. Bear wander all over the place. Moose are sort of in the middle.

      In Alaska, the big 'purisim' issue is black bear baiting. That's still legal - and blatant cheating IMHO. As would be using drones. In most western states it is illegal to use aircraft to spot game within 24 - 72 hours of the hunt (depends on the state). This would be just like that only easier to do. You can buy one of these for a couple of hours of air time.

      That said, you'd have to have a pretty powerful drone to have the kind of range needed to be useful. Well within technological limits and getting closer to being easily affordable. Remember, bear hunting clients spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a brown bear. Perfectly insane, but that's human nature. Bear guides might want to use this sort of thing for an extra edge - you don't want your client to go home empty handed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Redefine hunting. by shadowrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as there are limits on how many animals you're allowed to kill in a season, should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

      That was my first thought too. I suspect that the limits are based on a reasonable expectation of how many animals people are going to kill while walking around and just looking for them unassisted. When the DNR gives out permits to kill 500 moose, it's probably done with the assumption that only 45% of those hunters will succeed. Now, if it was suddenly way easier for the hunters to find the moose, the DNR might have severely overestimated how many permits they could safely give out. It's easier to simply ban the use of drones for scouting out game than to recalibrate your culling numbers with data based on how drones affect success.

      It's also probably in the state's interest to keep hunting reasonably difficult. if they start giving out only half the number of permits because people are just going to kill 2x as many moose with their technology, suddenly, there aren't as many reasons for tourists to come in for that activity.

    6. Re: Redefine hunting. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bow hunting is for unethical assholes. Humane hunters and those that respect wildlife use firearms.

      No matter how good of a bow hunter you are or how good your aim is, simple fact is that an arrow travels at a third the speed of sound, meaning game can both see and hear your shot long before the arrow arrives. Every bow hunting season, forums are slammed by bow hunters that take a heart shot, the buck digs off at first sound, and the arrow ends up in its gut because it had time to travel the foot and a half or so to turn a good shot into an ethical hunter's worst nightmare.

      Rifles do not have that problem. Bullet arrives too soon after first flash for game to react ( usually traveling 10x faster than an arrow ).

      Anyways, as for drones, I don't mind so much that it allows hunters to find game, as infrared does a similar job. The problem I have is that it allows a hunter to know about game that is far away or hidden, encouraging long-distance shots (as soon as distanced game becomes visible), and thereby decreasing the chance of a clean kill.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    7. Re: Redefine hunting. by Ardyvee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Five, ten minutes seems like an eternity for me, one who does not hunt.

      --
      I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
    8. Re: Redefine hunting. by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's reasons why people practice this form of hunting for a hundred thousand years.

      Because they hadn't invented guns yet. Give a subsistence hunter a choice between a bow and a rifle with free ammo and see what they choose. Even back when people were hunting with bits of flint on the end of sticks they cared about reducing the suffering of what they killed; that's to say nothing of wanting a more reliable means to bring down one's next meal.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    9. Re: Redefine hunting. by Rhacman · · Score: 3, Funny

      My brother and I use hammers for ranged attacks all the time. It's a clean kill in one hit if they don't have any power-ups.

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
    10. Re:Redefine hunting. by Smauler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Besides, I've never been to a supermarket that serves venison.

      They don't have venison in the US? Every supermarket has venison in the UK, even the cheapest ones like Lidl and Aldi. They don't have a big selection, though.

  2. Sadistic by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because you call it game doesn't make it a sport. I really do not understand the appeal of killing animals for fun. To get a meal? Sure. To deal with a pest? Makes sense. To protect yourself? No problem even though it rarely happens. For environmental stewardship? Great. But just for fun? With high powered rifles and drones? That makes that person a sadistic asshole. We're already WAY too good at killing things. If you are out to kill things for "fun" then make it a level playing field and do it with nothing more than a knife.

    Someone who would use a drone to hunt is like someone who plays a game with "god mode" enabled. They're completely missing the point. The point isn't to kill the animal at any cost. Someone who can afford a drone isn't doing it for their next meal. They're just killing to get their rocks off. Pity we aren't more evolved than that.

  3. A lot of hunters are asshats by Gothmolly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In Maine it's legal to bait an area until bears come to it, then chase them up a tree with a pack of dogs, then walk up and shoot them out of the tree.

    This pervasive mentality (shooting wolves from a helicopter) and now this new drone thing is what gives hunters a bad name.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  4. Re:Fine! by Jmc23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ah, you sound like one of those civilized types that prefers his animals to live shitty lives with no freedoms and then nicely packaged up for others to feast on. Strangely, exactly the same way a civilized person lives and dies.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  5. Re:Fair is fair by rossdee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Citizens should have the right to arm bears

  6. Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport? by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

    How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport?

    That's because by the original rules the deer got the rifles every alternate week. Ever since we changed things around I've boycotted the sport.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  7. Re:Red herring arguments by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food. Granted these are generally poor rural people and thus are poorly represented on the internet and media so they are somewhat invisible, but there is a significant number of them spread around the country and they hunt more frequently then the recreational crowd.

  8. But by slapout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is it legal to hunt drones in Alaska?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  9. Re:Video games are not real life by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters?

    There is a HUGE difference between doing something imaginary in a video game and killing a real, live creature or a real live person.

    Yea, namely that one is a method of food acquisition that requires training, certification, and licensing, and the other is a way for little kids (or people with little kid mentalities) to play up fantasies about murdering other humans.

    Here's a hint, in a video game no one actually dies and all the participants know that.

    No one actually dies when hunting either. At least, you hope no one actually dies, but accidents do happen.

    Trouble is, if a kid's only interaction with firearms is playing a fantasy game where "no one dies," if/when they encounter a real firearm they aren't going to understand just how dangerous of a tool it is. Kids who hunt know the difference.

    It's one thing to fantasize about something and quite another to actually do it in the real world.

    True. Now apply that to your own thought process: your fantasy about what hunting is, and how hunters are motivated, is one thing, and reality is another.

    We're talking about people getting amusement from the real world suffering of another creature.

    Proof that you don't know jack about hunting, other than what [insert preferred 'envronmentalist' group] told you to think. FWIW, most hunters try to avoid causing the animals to suffer.

    That's why we invented target practice.

    I hope you can actually understand why that is very very very different.

    I do. I hope you can understand how unreasonably uninformed you are presenting yourself as.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  10. Re:Bans Drones not Guns. by bored_engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Probably less affluent hunters. Using aircraft (or FPV drones) would allow wealthy hunters to potentially lock out subsistence hunters who have little to no income, or perhaps for whom this is an important cultural activity, rather than a fun trip for the weekend.

  11. Re:Bans Drones not Guns. by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    its also because hunting is supposed to be a 'sport'. Hunters constantly are getting access to better and better technology, the Moose, and deer not so much. They playing field is already plenty slanted.

    Over hunting can ruin things for everyone, even non hunters. There is a legitimate social interest in NOT allowing hunters to become more effective.

    In some ways hunting on public game lands is like an MMO. Some people might like to use cheat codes, to avoid the grind of tracking and stalking or sitting and waiting, potentially spending all weekend and coming home without a prize, etc. If you let some people do this though it would ruin the 'game' for everyone.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  12. Re:What's the difference by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

    What's the difference between a hunter with a drone and a factory fishing vessel with spotter planes? Is it scale? money? Both models are using airborne technology to assist in the gathering of food.

    Alaska does a really good job managing its fisheries; probably the best in the world. Commercial fishing "season" is not just a "catch as much as you can" free-for-all. It starts on a specified date, each ship is allocated a certain tonnage it's allowed to catch, and they have until a certain date to catch it. The use of spotter planes (actually I'm not sure they use those in Alaska, but hypothetically) would allow a ship to meet its quota more quickly, thus minimizing cost and risk to the lives of those at sea.

    If there were commercial hunting, then it'd be the same. Drones would make sense because it would make the activity safer and more cost-effective. However, "commercial hunting" turned into cattle ranching several thousand years ago. The only remaining forms of hunting are sustenance and recreational. While an argument for drones could be made for sustenance hunters (people living in remote areas who have to kill wild game for their food), it contradicts the rationale for recreational hunters who are presumably doing it for "the thrill of the hunt."

  13. I lived in Alaska for 5 years... by AntiTuX · · Score: 5, Informative

    From what I recall from the hunting laws, you had to have a 72-hour "cooling down" period after using a helicopter or aircraft to spot animals.

    Honestly, we (my father and I) were more interested in terrain issues than we were the animals. You want to try to find the path of least resistance, and also making sure that we could actually cross specific rivers, and at what points they were broken open during the winter time. At some places the snow would be so deep that if you stepped wrong, you would be up to your neck almost instantly. That doesn't even count making sure that you weren't in a hunting route for a grizzly bear, which makes things even more difficult. Having something that is the size of a VW beetle running at you full-bore at around 40 MPH is not something I want to ever repeat. It was hard living. It was more a survival thing for us.

    Every winter, there was a herd of about 400,000 caribou that would come within about 50 miles of town. Honestly, getting to the animals was the hard part. Getting one was as easy as taking a 200 yard shot with a high-powered rifle.

    Keep in mind that where I lived, we were 500 miles away from any major city, and the only way in and out was by aircraft. We actually lived off of what we killed and made use of it. We weren't out there looking for the big racks. We were doing it for survival, and we also followed the rules.