From the Times and Democrat newspaper in South Carolina:
A remote-controlled aircraft owned by an animal rights group was reportedly shot down near Broxton Bridge Plantation Sunday.
Steve Hindi, president of SHARK (SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness), 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.
"It didn't work; what SHARK was doing was perfectly legal," Hindi said in a news release. "Once they knew nothing was going to stop us, the shooting stopped and the cars lined up to leave."
He said the animal rights group decided to send the drone up anyway.
"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."
He claimed the shooters were "in tree cover" and "fled the scene on small motorized vehicles."
"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. He said someone from SHARK called the Colleton County Sheriff's Department, which took a report of the incident.
The Colleton County Sheriff's Department filed a malicious damage to property incident report.
The incident report went on to state that "once shot, the helicopter lost lift and crash landed on the roadway of U.S. 601."According to the report, Hindi told the responding deputy the group's remote-controlled aircraft "was hovering over U.S. 601 when he heard a shot come from the wood line. The shot sounded to him that it was of small caliber."The deputy noted in the report that he was unable to speak to anyone at Broxton Bridge Plantation following the incident.
Hindi estimated damage to the drone at around $200 to $300.
Hindi said he will seek charges against those who shot down the drone.
"This was SHARK's first encounter with the Broxton Bridge Plantation, but it will certainly not be the last," Hindi said in the release. "We are already making plans for a considerably upscaled action in 2013."
Comments
Gareth, good point. And on-board video of the people shooting at it, would be epic.
An on-board video of the copter going down would be legendary!
Some commenters said the event ended at noon, which is when the cars lined up to leave and it had nothing to do with the copter. That being said, it still appears they didn't want to be filmed.
IMO, there's a reason they attempt to do this in private. They know how this would be received by the general public if the images got out.
It brings up that question about privacy rights on private property. Up until now, people have been able to do things that are... distasteful if not illegal... within the privacy of their property. The public up until now have been largely oblivious to things like this, because as long as they are a long enough distance away from public land, it goes unseen. Uninvited guests are not allowed on the property, so cannot get pictures to expose the event.
People say things like, how is taking pictures into windows with a drone any different than taking pictures into windows with a camera on a pole? And it's not. But drones allow photos to be taken far into large properties, where poles and telephotos cannot reach.
Sure, activists could also use a full-scale plane. But drones are SO much more accessible.
There's one thing in this story I'm curious about:
"It didn't work; what SHARK was doing was perfectly legal," Hindi said in a news release. "Once they knew nothing was going to stop us, the shooting stopped and the cars lined up to leave."
Why would the threat of someone filming this event cause the event to end? Is Hindi bragging a bit here, or did this group really not want what they were doing to be filmed? We need the other side of the story, I guess.
@Ellison, no it's not illegal to shoot live pigeons.
(I have nothing against hunting, if done for food, and have actually considered doing it myself)
But I had no idea something like this was going on. They trap live pigeons, and bring them to the site in cages. Then release them at the shooting range. They shoot them just for fun. They just gather the bodies and dump them when they're done. Some/many/most are not killed instantly, but just wounded.
Dislike.
This is clearly not hobby use so a COA should be required.
Looks bad for SHARK, should have used pole mounted cameras.
The test appears to be whether it was recreational use or not.
lol. expensive clay pigeon. If animals rights send up lots of mikrokopters, pigeons can be replaced then. Then they might have success saving pigeons. As hunters might shot mikrokopters instead.
If the quad was operated by / for an organization (no matter the non profit ness of it) it is considered commercial and thus requires a COA. Weather the data from it will be free or not does not factor into the equation to my knowledge. If it was personally owned and operated then the taking no compensation for the work could be claimed, but you are still in muddy waters in the US anyway.
Well, I don't think it's illegal to shoot live pigeons, is it? So, this Hindi, was just trying to interfere with a law abiding shooting event. Not that I would ever want to shoot anything live myself, it's too messy. Basically, he ruined some people's fun, and they ruined his.
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 7 Next