From The Verge:
In October, PETA launched the Air Angels program, a line of drones meant to let concerned citizens report illegal activity by hunters. Hunting groups pushed back and, as of January 1st, the program has been made illegal in Illinois with a law prohibiting "the use of drones to interfere with hunters or fishermen." The only problem: PETA isn't buying it.
According to Jared Goodman, PETA's director of animal law, Air Angels aren't about interference at all. "The intention is simply to monitor what hunters are actually doing," Goodman says, "and whether they're engaged in any illegal activity, such as drinking in possession of a firearm or illegally using spotlights or feedlures." If they spot any illegal activity, PETA members are advised to report it to a local game warden and not take any further action themselves. As a result, PETA is eager to challenge the new law, but even more eager to test out the project in states.
Hunting groups like The US Sportsman's Alliance, which has applauded the Illinois law, aren't so sure. "PETA's approach here was essentially just to get some press," says CEO Nick Pinizzotto. He says his members were incensed by the idea of the project, but he hasn't heard any instances of hunters actually being harassed by the drones. (Goodman, in his defense, says "dozens" of the Air Angels have been sold through PETA's website.)
Still, the legal issues are thorny enough to cause problems even without widespread hunter-watching programs. If the Illinois law is challenged, it's not clear hunters would be able to appeal on privacy grounds. "It's being done on public land in a nonresidential area," Goodman says. "There's no reasonable expectation of privacy there. Any other hunter who's on the same land could see the same thing." It might be more unnerving to be watched by a drone than a person, but the legal distinction is less clear, which presents regulators with real uncertainties as they look to draw up rules for the bots.
Even if the law isn't settled, Pinizzotto is sure public opinion is on the side of hunters. "I don't think Americans in general appreciate being spied on, whether it's hunting or anything else," he says. "People are really concerned about the idea of drones. If they can spy on me hunting, what else can they do?"
Comments
and yet in spite of childish arguments and trying to apply the bill of rights where it doesn't extend..
BTW there is NO statutory right to privacy in the bill of rights, the constitution or ANY Federal body of Law and its NOT likely that will change given the Googles and Facebooks of the world working for the NSA/IRS/DEA...
it(surveillance drones) will happen.. get a hint in the USA there is NO right NOT to be watched/detained/arrested when you commit crimes or act out in public or try and intimidate a neighborhoods residents with gang behaviors... Drone surveillance IS happening as we speak by police and other law enforcement types and private types both on an individual bases and officially..
I support the right of citizens to use same(drones) to monitor public places just like any LEO.. if you dont then you are a leaf before the onrushing storm of surveillance drones coming..
Given that a surveillance drone can be as small as the Helimax 1si/Alien Visitor 2 in 720P(palmsized and almost noiseless) and while RC today they do have an STM32 autopilot aboard and it will probably be next year when we see whole crop of GPS self guided microdrones you cant hear operate from 20 ft over your head with fpv video.. all the elements to to it with toy sized microquads and robotic dragonflys are already there.
So its coming and next years and the years after the tech will be ever smaller and harder to notice. It wont and cant be stopped by the likes of you or I.. the ONLY thing possible is to ride the wave and not get crushed...
HZL
the fact that its happening at all IS a problem. the bill of rights for all of us in the good old usa, is primarily mean to protect criminals including felons, a right to privacy is granted to all, but after a crime you forfeit it more and more. Still short of legal drone spying.
Try living in Oakland and dealing with gang influxes to the oakland hills before you judge neighborhood watch folks about using drones for surveillance of felons...
its happening whether you like it or not :)
HZL
you see the real issue is.. you(hunters) cant tell one drone from another from the ground very well except for a few basic types(especially when its at 400ft or above) and with so many law enforcement officers buying their own drones for surveillance from above... and you may be shooting down an agricultural property owners drone or even worse a USGS or BLM owned drone(Both agencies own and use) and now you have maliciously destroyed private,federal or state owned property with a firearm which just automatically bumped you from a misdemeanor to a felony(firearms enhancement additionally at sentencing).
something to think about before posting threats to commit a crime with a firearm in a public forum and explain it away as a "mistake"
HZL
You tell me what neighborhood watch is using uavs? Because as soon as you put that information out here the powers that be will be all over that and create a big hub bub.. I don't have a problem with using Uav's for civilian use but this BS of oh I am going to watch you cause you might be up to no good or I don't like your politics is not gonna fly literally. That's the whole problem with the discussion in the US today and why the FAA is doing what they are doing.
Many local ranches and farms here permit hunting to a limited number of folks under various conditions. I would not seriously suggest shooting down anything that you don't have a permit to shoot down <-- carefully worded to take into consideration towns like Deer Trail, CO... :D
So, what about other groups using drones? Neighborhood watch?
sorry the trolling is done in this thread.. you applied too late :)
all the best
HZL
ps game of drones should provide adequate reusable targets(they test with 12 gauges) and with the competition started we should have some fairly unique countermeasures going fairly quick pro and con.. and good thing you are in a free state(nevada).. that actually has some 2nd amendment rights.
But I would make sure you are NOT shooting down someone's valuable agricultural surveillance drone used to monitor crops and conditions.. YOU might be confused with a dad gum crop thief or poacher and dealt with accordingly by the country sheriff(they after all have video evidence of your malicious and illegal intent . Have a nice day citizen!)
BTW a LOT of locals in the agricultural community have ALL their properties posted against trespass and hunting due to gun toting idiots with hunting licenses shooting at anything that moves including livestock)
Go on those properties with a firearm, shoot a multithousand dollar aggie drone down and enjoy your next 5-10 years in the California Penal System. Do it in Oklahoma and enjoy the farmer shooting back and ending your trespassing ways for good.
Bot Peta is not a Enforcement agency period and if I saw one while I was hunting.. Oh oopss sorry shot it down thought it was a duck. So No they do not have the right to "monitor" hunting activities because they have no business being on the hunting grounds unless they are hunting or are law enforcement.
PETA is all about interference and causing trouble like always they hide behind anything and everything they can. They will do anything to get in the news. They can't do anything ethically or honestly because no one really cares about PETA.
Here in Colorado, where I go hunting for elk and deer, 2-3 Department of Wildlife officers watch the goings on of the hunters to enforce legal hunting while 5+ officers monitor the spread out pronghorn area I hunt.
Every hunter I've ever talked to shares with me the ethic and action of hunting fairly and legally and protecting and preserving game populations. Overhunting is bad. Illegal hunting is a path to extinction. And so, I support any reasonable monitoring (including drone use) by DoW because that is their mandate.
However, PETA has a different mission and so there's an element of vigilantism to special interest groups monitoring the activities of groups they traditionally oppose.
So the question is, do people have a right to watch other people in hopes of catching them doing something illegal? Do they have a right to interfere with the rights -- or legally permitted activities -- of others? And do the answer to these questions depend on whether it's with drones, telephoto lenses, manned aircraft?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next