Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Idle

Hunters Shoot Down Drone of Animal Rights Group 1127

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the thought-it-was-a-cyber-pigeon dept.
Required Snark writes "A remote control drone operated by an animal rights group was shot down in South Carolina by a group of thwarted hunters. Steve Hindi, the group president said 'his group was preparing to launch its Mikrokopter drone to video what he called a live pigeon shoot on Sunday when law enforcement officers and an attorney claiming to represent the privately-owned plantation near Ehrhardt tried to stop the aircraft from flying.' After the shoot was halted, the drone was launched anyway, and at this point it was shot down. 'Seconds after it hit the air, numerous shots rang out,' Hindi said in the release. 'As an act of revenge for us shutting down the pigeon slaughter, they had shot down our copter.' 'It is important to note how dangerous this was, as they were shooting toward and into a well-travelled highway,' Hindi stated in the release."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hunters Shoot Down Drone of Animal Rights Group

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Animal Rights? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @05:44AM (#39108369)

    So? The law stipulates that animals must be treated with certain amount of welfare. That does not imply that the animals have "rights," any more than an anti-graffiti law implies that a piece of wall has rights.

  • Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tim C (15259) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @05:48AM (#39108397)
    That's because while it's perfectly natural for animals to kill and eat other animals (including for humans to do it), the activists believe that unlike other carnivorous animals we have a choice.

    Even a lot of those of us who do eat meat tend to believe that the animals shouldn't be caused unnecessary suffering, which also tends to fall under the "animal rights" label. As for the name, it's similar enough in intent to human rights that the name is appropriate (and even more so for those of us who do not consider human rights to be "God-given", but to be an artificial construct of a rational, civilised society).
  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @05:57AM (#39108463)
    They weren't just "turning around in the driveway", they were deliberately spying on actions taking place on private property. There is a pretty big difference.

    If they are using the drone to perform illegal surveillance (it would be illegal in my state anyway), then they have the right to prevent that action, within reason. If that means damaging the equipment that is being used to do it, especially if it is "on" your property (over counts as on), without endangering people, then yes that is almost certainly allowed.

    Over the highway? No, they probably didn't have a legal right to shoot it. But depending on the state, the drone operators might still have been breaking the law.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:03AM (#39108511)
    Yes. Less than 5% of rapes are stranger rape, for men or women. Stranger rape tends to happen to people dumb enough to get so hammered that they pass out, or dress slutty, or go down dark alleys at night thinking they are invincible. Again, those rapes are a handful out of the barrels of rapes reported, which are generally perpetrated by significant others, family members or friends. Now, these stats are completely based on USA rape reports, so they don't apply in Africa where a woman is more likely to be raped than to learn how to read, or where 1 in 3 women claimed to be raped, out of a group of 4000, or where 400 men out of a group of ~1550 admitted to raping more than one woman.
  • Re:Just wondering... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dr. Tom (23206) <tomh@nih.gov> on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:30AM (#39108697) Homepage

    Seriously, people are missing out on the obvious business opportunity here. Shooting at clay pigeons is boring. Why not get a fleet of armored drones and get people to PAY to shoot at them? You could have competitions among pilots to see how long they can last without getting shot, and make people PAY for that as well. I'm sure the hunters in this case were high-fiving each other like crazy. C'mon peeps, if you can't fight 'em, join 'em!

  • by metacell (523607) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:35AM (#39108727)

    On my property, I expect a right to privacy. If my property and privacy is invaded after I deny permission, then your flying camera is merely a "peeping tom tool" at this point.

    So you think they were justified in taking the law in their own hands?

  • by metacell (523607) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @06:37AM (#39108735)

    The issue here is that they were denied permission to fly the chopper and did it anyhow. That's the first breach of law. The other issue is that somebody fired a single shot from a small-caliber firearm which seems to have damaged the chopper.

    Which article did you read? TFA doesn't say anything about applying for permission; it only says the hunters' lawyer tried to stop them, but failed. TFA also says several shots were fired as soon as the drone was launched.

  • by mpoulton (689851) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @07:37AM (#39109159)

    Forget the hunters. What if some Bozo flying a drone manages to crash it causing significant damage somewhere? Sue the Bozo? Naw, he ain't got no money. Sue the manufacturing for selling a dangerous product?

    How do serious RC flyers handle this? Fly only over club owned land? Maybe a collective liability insurance for members?

    The AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) is the national organization that most RC fliers are members of. They carry a liability insurance policy which covers members in the event of aero-modeling related accidents, as long as the member complied with the AMA code of conduct - which prohibits flying in the manner these people did. Flying over land that's not yours, or in a manner that could result in crashing on a roadway or other occupied area, is a violation. These guys created a much greater public hazard than the hunters. In fact, having seen the video, the hunters did not break any of the standard rules of gun safety and caused no hazard at all. The helicopter was well above and also to the side of all bystanders, such that falling shot would have landed far from any of the people.

  • Re:Ya well (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:16AM (#39109451)

    "For those wondering, the parent is correct: birdshot will fall to the ground harmlessly."

    * Doesn't sound like a shotgun to me.
    * The "highway" was smaller than many country roads.
    * They claim the UAV was over the highway, but it doesn't look that way to me, they were definitely over the property across the the road.
    * The video doesn't show any damage to the UAV not consistent with the hard landing.
    * The only evidence that it was shot is someone saying it was shot on the conveniently running camera recording the flight of the UAV. (Not from the UAV itself)
    * They claim that the shots were coming from the bushes near the road, yet the UAV camera was focused on the property on the opposite side of the road.

    They've stretched the truth on their easily verifiable claims, to the point I'm not inclined to believe a word of their other claims until there is clear and good quality proof.

  • Re:Youtube video. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:28AM (#39109599)
    Wow I was on the side of the copter (primarily because childish behavior by gun owners concerns me since I don't want my guns taken away) until I saw this video. I'm so freaking tired of the extreme propaganda approach these days. This type of idiotic black and white, binary view of the world is dangerous and stupid and that applies to all sorts of issues from religious intolerance, to ethnic cleansing, to environmentalism, to apparently hunting pigeons.
  • by glennrrr (592457) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:31AM (#39109615)
    Having spent the weekend having an impromptu Mythbusters marathon, I've learned that once bullets start to tumble their terminal velocity is between 60 and 100 mph which will really really hurt if it hit you on the head but is not going to penetrate and kill you. However, if it keeps on its ballistic trajectory (i.e. not straight up) they can kill at quite a distance just like the poster said. These are not mutually exclusive positions. At the most it means you can't kill yourself by shooting up in the air.
  • Re:Ya well (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:35AM (#39109655)

    Because any law enforcement seeing that or the video can have your Concealed carry permit revoked.

    You seem to be unaware that you don't actually need a Concealed Carry permit to carry a shotgun...

    You are aware that a shotgun is too big to conceal, right?

    It should also be noted that not all that many hunters bother with Concealed Carry, because they don't have any use for them, carrying, as they do, shotguns and rifles, neither of which are concealable....

  • Re:Animal Rights? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater@gmFREEBSDail.com minus bsd> on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:45AM (#39109771) Homepage

    Animal rights activists aren't trying to stop the killing of animals altogether. They are trying to stop the unnecessary killing and torture of animals.

    I don't know about your planet - but here on earth animal rights activists form a spectrum, and the vast majority *are* trying to stop the killing of animals altogether. You don't need to be an apologist for them, and you just look stupid for trying to whitewash their activities.

  • Re:Animal Rights? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gtall (79522) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @08:49AM (#39109809)

    Animals generally kill for food or because they feel threatened. Hunters generally kill because they can. Nope, no difference, kill'em all, let G-d sort'em out.

    In other words, let the damn critters alone, they have enough with which to contend without a bunch of blood-thirsty hunters after them. And hunting is not a sport, a sport is where you can lose as well as win. I don't see the critters firing back. Now if the hunters want to make a sport of killing each other, that would be okay, especially if they got stretched out on the hood a car as a trophy by another hunter.

  • Re:Youtube video. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:39AM (#39110333) Homepage Journal

    There's a marked difference between hunters who eat what they kill (pheasants, deer, fish, etc), and proto serial killers who kill/torture for a thrill. You're conflating the two.

    No sir, I am not. If you kill to eat, welcome to the human race.

    If you kill for sport, welcome to my shit list.

    And if you kill for sport but use "But I eat what I kill" to try to dress up your blood sport as something noble, then you are ugly and dishonest as well as a member of my shit list. You dishonor everyone who has ever had to kill to eat. If you take trophies, even greater shame on you.

    How much clearer can I make it? If you kill for sport, fuck you.

  • by postbigbang (761081) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:50AM (#39110497)

    We'll have to disagree.

    The hunters, operating legally, were goaded. Trespassing can be a 3-dimensional endeavor. If an aircraft goes under 600' over my house, the FAA is getting a complaint-- they already do where I live, as people like to fly over a nudist camp not far from where I live. We get the tail # and call it in.

    The people operating the RC helicopter aren't peace officers. They don't have a warrant, or suspicion of a crime in progress. I'm not a hunter and am not a fan of hunting in general, but I am a fan of privacy.

    Should some idiot's RC helicopter have free reign over the private property of another? No. Shooting it down? A little over the top, but this is the one place where I think the Castle Doctrine has a place. The RC copter is a proxy agent of a human. Warn a human to stop and it's up to the human to do so or take the consequences; and yes, the consequences could be legal or illegal and possibly gruesome. Hunters, by their nature, are likely to use gruesome consequences, and to expect them to genuflect is certainly out of the realm of possibilities.

    The outcomes in this case are that the RC copter was shot, other actions on the part of the operator of the RC copter (hovering over the highway, etc) aside.

    The threat to the hunters was invasion of privacy. It's a real and present threat. Did each side over react? I find it incredulous that I'm siding with the hunters, but there it is: weighed regarding two sets of behaviors, I have to side with the injured party, and in this case, that's the group of hunters.

  • Re:Animal Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:00AM (#39110619) Homepage
    Around in my area the animal lovers thing all hunting is cruel because the [animal in season] is such a majestic creature. My wife's family use to think like that until my wife and here mother smashed a large buck in a Mercury Grand Marquis at 60 MPH. Every year there are people decrying the barbaric practice of hunting wild game in the paper. Even some of my wife's relatives give me a hard time about taking wild game yet they still eat meat but it has to be free range and organic. I don't think they really understand what free range means as the deer, bear (still haven't managed to get one of these), pheasant, grouse, and rabbit I hunt are much more free range than anything they are buying. I also have relatives who live in Colorado and the animal lovers there have a similar view, they love the animals and don't want hunters until they hit one their car or it eats their garden and then they call my uncle out there and he hunts deer from their porch with his muzzle loader.

    When I take game I am always trying to take it in the quickest most humane way. I practice shooting (I can consistently hit pop cans at a quarter mile with my deer and bear rifle), I know where I have to shoot to get the quick clean kill, I use the appropriate type of ammunition (203gr soft point for deer and bear, #2 to #4 steel shot for pheasant and grouse, 122gr hollow point for rabbit), I will immediately retrieve and clean the animals so they don't spoil (I have a cooler with ice in it back at the vehicle when small game hunting). The deer I got this year was a very quick clean kill with the shot going trough the heart and 1 lung and the deer only made it another 20 yards. From the time I shot it until it was at the butcher was less than 3 hours with a little over 1 hour drive to the processor and I had to clean it and drag it a half mile out of the woods. The same holds true with other in my hunting party, hunting stops for everyone until the game is retrieved, cleaned and on its way, we all help out. One year we spent over an hour looking for a pheasant that we shot and were using 5 dogs, we did retrieve it. I don't want it to go to waste and at the moment with the meat I have the best thing I can do is create the best tasting food I can with it
  • Re:Youtube video. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:26AM (#39111137) Homepage Journal

    I have a friend who lives on fifteen acres he owns. Why should his right to privacy be negated on his own property just because he's carrying a perfectly legal tool?

    I don't have any problem with him carrying a "legal tool". I'm a handgun owner and a shooter. I've killed more bottles than a thirsty wino. When skeet see me coming down the street they run and hide. I love guns. I was at the range on Sunday, in fact. I practice for the day a hunter steps on to my property. I want to make sure I'm a good enough shot to scare him off without blowing his brains out.

    The problem doesn't start when your friend carries a gun. The problem starts when he kills for fun.

    AFAIK humans are the only species with the concept of "privacy".

    Forty years ago, people believed that humans were the only species that experienced pain. (It's true). If you don't think an animal has a concept of privacy, why do you think animals camouflage their nests? And you're still missing the point. I don't loathe hunters because I'm so sentimental about animals. I loathe them because killing for fun is creepy. If something has to die for you to have a good time, then I would like round the clock surveillance on you. One of the reasons I like camo gear is because it allows easy identification of assholes.

    Most hunters eat what they kill. So you're OK with eating that pig that was raised in inhumane conditions and killed, but you're not OK with killing it yourself?

    I said I don't have a problem with killing an animal to eat. My problem comes with killing for "sport". Killing to eat is part of the world. Killing for fun is sick.

    There may have been a time when the "fun" part of killing was an evolutionary adaptation. In the post-apocalyptic zombie future, we may once again need this adaptation. Until then, I want a Google maps overlay of the whereabouts and movements of every hunter. Better yet, let's set aside a few thousand acres and let them hunt each other. Put aside the pretense. Let's see them put some skin in the game. I would say "Make it pay-per-view and give the proceeds to food banks", but I believe that would be going a little over the top.

  • Re:Youtube video. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @02:22PM (#39114611) Homepage Journal

    If you hunted & killed it yourself even though you could have just bought food instead, then fuck you

    No. If you hunted & killed it yourself for fun, then fuck you.

    There are people all over the world who hunt and kill their own food. If I was in a position of need, I would not hesitate to take a rabbit or turkey.

    There's a big difference between hunting and killing to eat and hunting and killing for sport. They even call themselves "sportsmen". If something has to die for your entertainment, there is something wrong with you.

    I've spent time on a farm. I witnessed and participated in slaughter of animals for food. There was no sense of "sport" or "entertainment" involved. And (this is important) no trophies kept. No glory claimed. And if the plan was to butcher a pig, there were no extra pigs slaughtered for self-aggrandizement. It was for food, not fun.

  • Re:Ya well (Score:4, Interesting)

    by evil_aaronm (671521) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @12:43AM (#39121297)

    I should be in bed, but I can't let this one pass.

    You're asking why a "city boy" can't understand hunting. First, I'm not a city boy. I grew up in rural western NY under a father that loved to hunt and fish. I did both, as well, up to a point. I have no less than five guns in my house. I have three shotguns (12 ga), a double-barrel shotgun (12 ga), and a .22, which is my favorite. I've also had a 30-06 and a rifle .45. My house butts up to the bottom of the hill on which I spent a large part of my childhood and have seen shit-tons of deer, turkey, squirrel, rabbit, etc.

    I'm one of six boys in the family. Four of us hunt, two do not. I see my youngest brother, a fat, lazy slob - but otherwise a nice guy - go out and take down Nature's finest with the single pull of a trigger. He's gotta huff and puff his ass out to a tree stand and then wait for some dumb deer to walk in front of him. Having wrestled and played lacrosse, I don't consider that "sporting." It's blood lust, plain and simple. If he wants to feel good about killing that deer, let him do it Nature's way: chase it down and kill it with his bare hands. I'd even let him use a knife, since the deer's hooves can be pretty sharp. That would even the fight.

    Either way, he doesn't have to shoot the deer; he can survive just fine without it. The deer, otherwise left alone, could go on to do his own thing, have babies of his own, get eaten by wolves, whatever. That's Nature.

    You put feed out to attract them to your slaughter points, just like you stalk salt licks, waiting for deer to show up. If you were really humane, you wouldn't draw them to an area where they couldn't survive without your traps. They'd migrate where the food was naturally more plentiful.

    Guys like you, and my brothers, just want to shoot the shit out of every thing that moves, showing off your "manhood" in an unfair battle. Ok, it's not illegal. But don't expect me to support your barbarianism, or your rationalization that what you're doing is "good fer the critters." It ain't.

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...