Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Activists' Drone Shot Out of the Sky For Fourth Time

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the and-stay-down dept.

Robotics 733

garymortimer writes "Photos provided by the animal rights group show the multicopter smoking on the ground, with its lithium polymer battery supply smoldering. Another photo shows the drone's video camera smashed. The drone, dubbed 'Angel,' was a Cinestar 8 octocopter estimated at $4,000. This wasn't the first time SHARK has been shot out of the sky. This is the fourth drone that the group has lost while investigating pigeon shootings. One drone landed on club property, and is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit."

cancel ×

733 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Over private property? (5, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#42032495)

If you fly a drone over my land, ill shoot it down too. Its an invasion of my privacy and borderline trespassing.

Re:Over private property? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032541)

And if you kill animals for no fucking reason, you can bet someone will do more than just try to catch your sorry ass on camera.

hunting? (5, Insightful)

schlachter (862210) | about 2 years ago | (#42032575)

If you eat the animals...that's a pretty damn good reason for killing it.
When was the last time you ate a live animal?

Re:hunting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032621)

When you kill an animal to eat it, you're killing for a reason.

Re:hunting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032735)

They are eating the pigeons? do pigeons taste good?

Re:hunting? (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42032785)

I don't know. Do you like chicken? :-)

Re:hunting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032859)

Chickens we eat have a diet of primarily grain..

Pigeons on the other hand.. bugs.. worms?

Never tried it myself, but garlic butter does wonders..

Re:hunting? (5, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42032931)

I ate a chicken once.. Tastes like frog legs

Re:hunting? (4, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#42032861)

Actually, when they are eatten they are called "squab". But, I've heard they are delicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squab_(food) [wikipedia.org]

Sort of like how we call cooked cow "Beef", cooked pig "Pork" , and cooked deer "Venision".

Re:hunting? (4, Interesting)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#42032893)

Wild pigeons? As in ones that live on insects and seeds and the like? Hell yeah, it's like extra-gamey pheasant, quite a livery taste, very nice indeed. If you want to eat a little more efficiently then go for something bigger like goose, but pigeon is very nice indeed. I wouldn't recommend the city variety though, never tasted it but I'm sure it's not as good for you...

Re:hunting? (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 years ago | (#42032655)

It says "pigeon shootings" above... do people actually eat those flying rats? WTF?

Re:hunting? (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about 2 years ago | (#42032727)

Dunno but they're pretty closely related to doves and those are pretty tasty if you wrap the breasts in bacon and fry them in butter.

Re:hunting? (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | about 2 years ago | (#42032743)

So is bald eagle!

Re:hunting? (5, Insightful)

vuke69 (450194) | about 2 years ago | (#42032839)

EVERYTHING is tasty wrapped in bacon and fried in butter.

Re:hunting? (3, Funny)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about 2 years ago | (#42032883)

Good point. I think I'll pass on testing the full extent of that theory's correctness though.

Re:hunting? (4, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#42032779)

Ya... no shit are they going to go after people who shoot prairie dogs on their land? Those people have some pretty good reasons for doing so... Animal rights groups are so hard to take serious because of people like this, I'm sure the owner of the drone worked hard for the 4k it cost... or more than likely just asked daddy. There's actual work that can be done to help the environment and the planet, spying on flying rat shooters doesn't make the top 100 even.

Re:hunting? (5, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#42032885)

Also aren't pidgins a real nuisance in some cities that they try and exterminate them?

Re:hunting? (1)

schlachter (862210) | about 2 years ago | (#42032787)

of course people eat them.
haven't travelled much, have ya?

Re:hunting? (1)

cruff (171569) | about 2 years ago | (#42032805)

Ever heard of "squab"?

Re:hunting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032695)

You eat pigeon often?

Re:hunting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032809)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squab_%28food%29

Re:hunting? (0)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#42032873)

If you eat the animals...that's a pretty damn good reason for killing it.
When was the last time you ate a live animal?

Didn't realise pigeons were a delicacy in Pennsylvania. Quoth TFA:

"These hunting events involve capturing or breeding pigeons in cages, and releasing a large number of birds from cages to immediately be shot or wounded by hunters."

If I thought this was going on on private land or public land I'd still say that there are some sickos out there.

Re:hunting? (4, Interesting)

timothyf (615594) | about 2 years ago | (#42032941)

They're not eating them. From TFA:

The Philadelphia Enquirer reported that SHARK lobbied the Pennsylvania statehouse in January, seeking legislation that would end pigeon shooting in the state. These hunting events involve capturing or breeding pigeons in cages, and releasing a large number of birds from cages to immediately be shot or wounded by hunters.

Pigeon shooting opponents contend that these events violate animal cruelty laws, and SHARK has used aerial footage obtained from drones to strengthen that argument.

“the predictable outrage generated by gruesome videos showing captive pigeons getting released from wooden crates, attempting to fly away, only to get blasted within seconds by a shooter who’s apparently only a few yards away, reinforces both the ethical stance and the financial status of animal activists who want to ban not just canned hunting but much of animal agriculture,” read an editorial in the Drovers CattleNetwork, a beef industry news periodical.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of the practice on practical grounds (what if the pigeon gets away? you're adding to the pest pigeon population, since these are bred, not captured), but I'd say that if it's private property, drones like this deserve to be shot down.

Re:Over private property? (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 2 years ago | (#42032597)

Two wrongs do not make a right (except when near space-time singularities).

Re:Over private property? (4, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | about 2 years ago | (#42032543)

its not even borderline trespassing, your property includes the space above your property

Re:Over private property? (1, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42032559)

So when that 747 flies over my house, I can sue AA for millions for trespass?

Re:Over private property? (4, Informative)

getto man d (619850) | about 2 years ago | (#42032629)

No, check out Air Rights [wikipedia.org] . I would be careful if a military / police drone was flying high enough above your property, in regards to the OP.

Re:Over private property? (4, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#42032811)

No, check out Air Rights [wikipedia.org] .

Beat me to it.

Essentially, a property owner/renter "owns" the airspace up to about 500-ft (150m).

And no, that doesn't mean you can take pot-shots at passenger aircraft. Unmanned drones I would think are another story.

Re:Over private property? (5, Interesting)

green1 (322787) | about 2 years ago | (#42032667)

I think it's obvious that a 747 flying at 30,000 ft isn't trespassing... but it also seems obvious that somone on a hovercreaft skimming along a couple inches above the ground is. A drone weaving through your trees "feels" like tresspassing, but maybe one a couple hundred feet up wouldn't be?

It does bring up an interesting question about where the distinction lies, what altitude is considered "public" vs "private"?

Of course if the drone is camera equipped (almost guaranteed) you may be able to skip tresspassing rules and use peeping tom type laws against it at almost any altitude if it's filming parts of your property that would otherwise be private...

Re:Over private property? (5, Insightful)

Mephistophocles (930357) | about 2 years ago | (#42032833)

Well, there's also the fact that a 747 isn't spying on you - or even potentially spying on you. If someone's flying a drone on your property with the intention of watching you without your permission, I think they've definitely crossed a line. Also, is shooting pigeons a crime? If not, this also clearly differentiates the action from police investigation (assuming it's legitimate/lawful monitoring).

FAA Regulations Apply (5, Informative)

Above (100351) | about 2 years ago | (#42032853)

Here's the FAA altitude regulations:

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes;
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2.000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas.
An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.

FAA rules? Local custom? (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#42032905)

As a "rule of thumb" I'd say if you are so high up that you require FAA approval, you are in the clear when it comes to trespass claims.

If you are in that space through an emergency or no fault of your own - such as you just got shot at - then you are also free from trespass claims.

Below that height and you'll have to check state and federal laws. Absent any laws protecting the aircraft owner or any local common practices that show that this is not trespass, I'd convict on a trespass charge if I were on the jury.

Re:Over private property? (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 2 years ago | (#42032669)

If the 747 is flying at 1000 feet, probably, and you can almost certainly sue them for something.

There's ceilings where it becomes a common resource. Public airspace. But depending on your jursidiction, you do "own" up to a certain altitude over your land. Of course, it depends on where you are, and the type of land contract you have. Most of us don't own what's under our land, for example.

Re:Over private property? (1)

firewrought (36952) | about 2 years ago | (#42032881)

So when that 747 flies over my house, I can sue AA for millions for trespass?

Somebody tried that already. The supreme court smacked that down [wikipedia.org] . However, it probably would not apply to a low-flying surveillance drone that has no navigational purpose other than interfering with one's enjoyment of their own property. You would think the activist face some sort of criminal or civil liability if the drones are crossing onto private property.

At the same time, the hunters may have criminal liability too... depending on the specific of where they were shooting.

Re:Over private property? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032623)

There's a limit to how high. I forget what the FAA has here in the US.. something like planes aren't allowed to fly lower than 200' in residential areas or something

Re:Over private property? (0)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 2 years ago | (#42032843)

NO it doesn't. Air Rights cover building restrictions such as power lines restricting building height but you have absolutely no authority to shoot down aircraft over your property. That's governed by FAA regulations. Arguing you do is the same as arguing you have the right to intercept satellite transmissions into your property or cell communications. What you'll find out damn quick is the FCC and FAA hold that authority not individual property owners.

Hell in half the states you don't even own the minerals your property sits on let alone the air.

Re:Over private property? (4, Insightful)

schlachter (862210) | about 2 years ago | (#42032557)

at any altitude?
what about public airspace?

Re:Over private property? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032633)

public air space is (Ianal) 500ft. At leasts that what the black helicopters have to fly above in order to scan your property.

Re:Over private property? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032713)

In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens. Navigable air space was defined as the sky above "the minimum safe altitudes of flight" as determined by federal regulators — typically 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground.

Re:Over private property? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#42032753)

If i can shoot it down with a rifle, its not high enough.

Re:Over private property? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42032855)

Or over a neighbor's land, or above the public street.

Re:Over private property? (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#42032877)

at any altitude? what about public airspace?

This issue is well-established in law. Ever seen those balloon rides or events? They tend to land on private property. In fact, it's pretty much inevitable. You know what happens? Nothing. The police don't show up. The land owner doesn't shoot the balloons out of the sky. Strangely, people seem to act civilized (shocking, I know). On occasion, the balloon chase vehicle and pilot need to pay for property damage, because they do land in crop fields from time to time, but this is well-understood by all parties to be the cost of doing business -- hand shakes resolve these issues more than lawsuits.

Then you have animal rights activists. They take a position not supported by law (pidgeon shoots are legal) and then fly a loud mini-copter with surveillance gear over an area filled with dozens to hundreds of sharpshooters who disagree with their position. And they then acted shocked and dismayed when their toys get shot down and the police do nothing. News flash: The police don't have to investigate any crime. They have broad discretion. Know why? Because your neighbors dropping the bass at 2am may not be as important as the shots fired call four blocks away. And just about everything is more important than some inflammatory political activists pissing off their neighbors on purpose to try and make something that's legal now illegal tomorrow. If I'm a police officer, I'm going to be dragging my ass responding to any call you make, if I respond at all... because you're being a nuisance. This is like insulting the girl hanging off Mike Tyson's arm. Dude, you're gonna lose.

Re:Over private property? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032577)

Do you shoot at those 747s flying 38,000ft over your property?

Re:Over private property? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032579)

Unfortunately the cops will still come after you if start firing at random aircraft. That passenger liner flew over nurb432's house!

Re:Over private property? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032593)

what if it's a helicopter with people inside?
What if it's a police drone?

Re:Over private property? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#42032765)

Would be rather small people ..

Re:Over private property? (1)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | about 2 years ago | (#42032619)

I tend to agree. I believe the minimum altitude for operating an aircraft is 500 feet, so if it's under that altitude, I say it's fair game. But it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone shot down a government-owned drone. Anyone want to bet on how that would go down?

Re:Over private property? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#42032813)

I believe the minimum altitude for operating an aircraft is 500 feet,

The minimum altitude for operating an aircraft is 0 AGL; otherwise, they'd never be able to land.

There are different rules for altitude depending on the type of land one is over, and what type of aircraft one is operating. As I recall, helicopter rules are basically "high enough to land safely in case of trouble without endangering". Fixed wing have "within 500 feet of any structure or vessel...", or "500 AGL", or "1000 AGL" depending on population density. And, of course, the minimum is zero when making an approach to land. So, over water, the minimum for an aircraft truly is 0, as long as it is still 500 feet away from any boat or person. Ditto if one is out in the boonies.

But it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone shot down a government-owned drone. Anyone want to bet on how that would go down?

You think it would be interesting to go to prison for destruction of government property? That's my bet for your future if you do that.

Re:Over private property? (1)

Knackered (311164) | about 2 years ago | (#42032927)

I believe the minimum altitude for operating an aircraft is 500 feet

Nope. There are minimum altitudes over congested areas (with an exception for landing and take-off, of course). There's also a blanket provision about not operating at an altitude that would endanger people or property. The 500 feet you're thinking about is the minimum safe distance a pilot must maintain from people or structures. That distance can be lateral, so as long as the other endangerment clauses are not violated, you can fly a plane at any altitude.

Re:Over private property? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032661)

If you fly a drone over my land, ill shoot it down too. Its an invasion of my privacy and borderline trespassing.

Hmm...OP looking for any excuse to get out the firearms and start shooting at things.

American?

Re:Over private property? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#42032807)

Who needs an excuse? I dont.

But if you dont mind people buzzing your yard and taking pictures, more power to you.

Precedent (1)

Leuf (918654) | about 2 years ago | (#42032663)

Ah but law enforcement wants to be able to fly a drone over your property without a warrant any time they want. So not allowing these guys to do it would be a bad precedent.

Re:Over private property? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032717)

Assuming that you live in the USA (since /. is a US site), you only have rights to the airspace that is reasonable for use. If you lived in a rural area, you would have a right to erect a TV antenna to ensure you could get a clear signal. You could not erect a tower for the sake of claiming the space above your property. For the average suburban homeowner, the roof of your home is where your airspace ends, and FAA's domain begins.

Now, what these drones do when they fly over your property is another matter. You may have a case to sue the operator if they took photos of your daughter sunbathing in the backyard that's surrounded by a fence. The operator may also be violating the 500ft minimum altitude laws, but I'm not fully caught up on what laws govern drone operation. None of this, however, gives you a right to shoot down the drone.

Re:Over private property? (-1, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#42032825)

Try it at my house and lets see whos rights win.

Re:Over private property? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032763)

No. This invokes the doctrine of ad coleum, which used to state that property owners owned everything from the inferno to the heavens.

You will notice that airplanes do not have to get permission from every property they fly over. This is because the traditional doctrine of ad coleum is dead. You are limited from claiming trespassing to the area above or below your property that you can actually enjoy... and any cave systems that don't have outlets on your property (weird tweak of the law). If the drone was flying around your buildings, making annoying noises and such, then you'd have a trespassing case maybe; definitely a nuisance case.

This is simply the destruction of private property, probably augmented by special laws governing shooting down objects transversing federal airspace. I wouldn't want to be the asshole that shot this fucker down.

Re:Over private property? (3, Informative)

rjr162 (69736) | about 2 years ago | (#42032775)

Right from the FAA (and seeing how this "drone" is setup, I'd have to guess it would fall under the Helicopter section)

This is the FAR
If you're interested, shown below is Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119 of the
General Operating and Flight Rules which specifically prohibits low-flying aircraft.
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the
following altitudes;
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue
hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any
open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
horizontal radius of 2.000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas.
An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In
that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph
(b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the
surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes
specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft.
The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its
ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's
increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added
flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.

Re:Over private property? (1)

Sez Zero (586611) | about 2 years ago | (#42032901)

Exactly.

And where's the news for nerds angle? Where's the story where they make the drone more bullet-resistant? They shot it down for a fourth time. That thing should be darn hard to get down if they're actually improving it. Deploy the smoke screen!

Re:Over private property? (0)

Squiddie (1942230) | about 2 years ago | (#42032933)

You have no right to the air above your property. Tough cookies, bro. Don't get me wrong, I own firearms and hunt, but this is an abuse of that right. The SHARK people are assholes as well, but they're within the limits of the law.

Drone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032507)

Good I don't want to be spied on by the government anymore either... Err wait are these vigilantes? I guess spying is no good whoever doing it.

First Big Bird, now Bert? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 2 years ago | (#42032539)

>> This is the fourth drone that the group has lost while investigating pigeon shootings

Bert, is that you?

You'd Think They'd Learn (5, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#42032551)

Let's see here... an animal rights group flying a camera drone over private property full of gun-loving people they happen to have pissed off... yeah, um, how else would that turn out?

Need I remind the tree-huggers that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results? Or maybe they're getting the exact result they really want - lots of publicity for the low, low price of $4000 a pop.

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032625)

I think they need to invest in a drone that can fire back. Problem solved.

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42032875)

Your assumption is the hunters couldn't do the same. Problem unsolved.

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#42032879)

I think they need to invest in a drone that can fire back. Problem solved.

Problem solved, indeed, when the 'activists' get 10-15 in the clink for attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, trespassing, vandalism, etc., etc.

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 years ago | (#42032635)

Maybe they're scientists [xkcd.com] .

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032747)

They're trust fund rebels, spending daddy's money in the best way their little hearts can think of.

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032643)

You can remind them, yes, but not that it will do any good. These are almost always leftards, the kind that doesn't mind that Communism kills and/or imprisons millions every time it has a go at power, yet keep on trying and trying, hoping that one time they will hit the sweet spot.

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (2)

Comrade Ogilvy (1719488) | about 2 years ago | (#42032651)

This is a pretty good publicity stunt if your intended market would be those who are easily swayed that the hunters are doing something illegal. And the craft can probably be recovered and repaired, so you are not out the full 4k.

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032683)

If at some point in time that the "hunters" prefer shooting the drones to pigeons, may be the group had done it work.

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032723)

that people totally support shooting pigeons only moments after their release for sport? Of course people support that, the same way they support shooting children who were bred to be shot! Yes their methods suck, but no more than the activities than those whom they oppose, at least the activists are pursuing their efforts in a technoligically interesting manner, the same can not be said for a few people with scatter guns...

Re:You'd Think They'd Learn (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#42032781)

Or maybe they're getting the exact result they really want - lots of publicity for the low, low price of $4000 a pop.

Of course they are.

Their PR comes across as a little whiny though. People are remarkably unsympathetic to the victims of violence when the victims have spent a lot of time provoking the aggressors.

No it is not! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032851)

I looked up "insanity." Your definition was not in the list. See? [merriam-webster.com]

I am aware of the (political) history of your definition, and it remains a bad definition of the word, useful usually to disparage people for persistence (which is usually a virtue, (but not always)).

They might be persisting in folly. YOU are propogating ignorance (of the English language).

wait... what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032561)

They're using drones to investigate people that are good at shooting things that are flying in the air - seriously?

Re:wait... what? (5, Insightful)

BenJeremy (181303) | about 2 years ago | (#42032631)

They are actually using the drones to harass the hunters by scaring the birds they are hunting.

The drones are just a tactic to disrupt the hunters. These things should be shot down, and the idiots that keep sending them in should be arrested and thrown in jail.

Re:wait... what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032755)

Well, harassing hunters and anglers is illegal in Pennsylvania, where this story takes place.

Re:wait... what? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#42032797)

I wonder how long it will be till these hunters start scrabbling the airwaves so that these drones have to be completely autonomous to function. An autonomous robot with no outside connection cannot report back its shooter. Complete autonomy would probably add significant size, weight, and cost to the price of the drones too.

What type of shot? Was it birdshot? (1)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 years ago | (#42032569)

Were standard rounds shot into the sky?

Re:What type of shot? Was it birdshot? (0)

prehistoricman5 (1539099) | about 2 years ago | (#42032761)

From the video it seems that they were rifle rounds, not birdshot.

Re:What type of shot? Was it birdshot? (4, Funny)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#42032835)

Were standard rounds shot into the sky?

What makes you think the shooters would need anything more than birdshot for a flying bit of ABS plastic, nylon, and a lithium battery and a couple of PCB boards? If you could hit it, a single BB or pellet from a decent-quality air rifle or a "wrist-rocket"-type slingshot could take one of those quad-rotor R/C models out.

If the hunters were smart, they'd get themselves a net-gun and capture these things mostly intact, then sell them on Ebay to finance more live pigeon shoots while loudly and publicly crediting this animal rights group for helping sponsor them.

Strat

Re:What type of shot? Was it birdshot? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#42032907)

Were standard rounds shot into the sky?

What kind of dumbass would go pigeon hunting with slugs?

That in itself is illegal most places, FYI.

Spying on neighbors is illegal (5, Informative)

blogagog (1223986) | about 2 years ago | (#42032591)

This group sneaking cameras into others' private property should be arrested for being peeping Toms.

Re:Spying on neighbors is illegal (1)

gomiam (587421) | about 2 years ago | (#42032821)

Did that drone sneak onto that private property?

Pull!!! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032607)

From reading TFA I don't know what they're complaining about - they were able to make a nuisance of themsleves over private property for most of the day. That it took so long for the drone to be shot down tends to indicate that otherwise the antics of the drone operators are not having that much of an impact and they are desperate to get their aircraft shot down for the publicity.

Once an activist group get themselves a contrived title, they think they're a supreme deity....

This is really sad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032627)

What is the world coming too.

We cant bring tonail clippers through security and get treated like a sub-human. If I wanted to terrorize you all I would use something bigger then a godamn tonail clipper.

We cant shoot drones down with pigeons over a golf course. God put those godamn pigeons there for practice. Gonna be allot more shit getting shot when you cant shoot the shit you should be shooting.

People wake the fuck up and stop smoking your crackpipes. Theres way worse shit to worry about then pigeons and oppressiong other peoples rights. No one is fucking hurting you. Pigeons arent going fucking extinct. You have no right to dictate to others what they can and cannot do. This goes both ways. Flying a drone in someone elses private property is akin to bugging their underwear, you are trippin if you arent going to get a reaction, potentially violent from your stupity. If you want your pigeons to be safe, lure them into your home area and protect them with fences and shit. You got much worse shit to do then waste your time and money invading peoples property and privacy with your crap. Why don't you put that $4000s and lawsuit money to work against MONSANTO AND BAYER AND OBAMA AND BANK OF AMERICA AND GOLDMAN SACHS, for starts.

Most likely there are absolutely no laws against killing pigeons, no hunting laws. Were I live the only thing you have to worry about is tresspassing by projectile. I would say your fucking drone tresspassed and ran into one of my projectiles that "just happened" to be flying there. Be glad thats all thats happend. Local police, or fish, wildlife and game management should handle this and it shoudn't even be newsworthy.

investigating pigeon shootings (5, Interesting)

cfulton (543949) | about 2 years ago | (#42032649)

I love animals too. But, pigeon shootings? The town council in most small towns would buy the shells if you would kill the pigeons that flock to the town square. Sorry about their little toy helicopter, but you get what you deserve.

Re:investigating pigeon shootings (4, Insightful)

cfulton (543949) | about 2 years ago | (#42032677)

Just looked it up on in my hunters guide:

Pigeons, also known as rock doves or rock pigeons, are classified as a pest species, not a game species, and can be shot year-round.

What exactly are they complaining about. Sounds like lawful activity to me.

Re:investigating pigeon shootings (5, Informative)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#42032767)

The 'hunters', and I use that word loosely, seem to be growing pigeons in cages and releasing them from crates, whereupon they are shot by people standing a few yards away. 'Canned hunting' they call it. Idiot rednecks I call it.

Re:investigating pigeon shootings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032849)

Round these parts we call "idiot rednecks: 'muricans!! 'muraca!!!! ride into the danger-zone pigeons!!! pew pew pew!!!

Re:investigating pigeon shootings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032911)

So they're not even wild birds, but the club's property.
None of the activists' business then.

Angel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032687)

Naming your spydrone 'Angel', even in America, is not going to save it from harm.

They could always try praying for it, I hear that works....

It's coming right for us! (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about 2 years ago | (#42032739)

problem solved -- that makes it legal, right?

Re:It's coming right for us! (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | about 2 years ago | (#42032867)

Its legal anyways. To hit it with a rifle its below the 500ft ceiling that constitutes trespassing. In most states they can't shoot YOU but can call the police. Your property, AKA that drone, is fair game.

Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032789)

I'd rather think the animal rights sorts could be nailed with a significant civil suit for violation of privacy. Trespass? I'm less sure - there has been quite a body of law limiting "airspace rights" IIRC.

I am, of course, not a lawyer. Additionally, your mileage may vary.

Spy on people that have already taken steps to ensure their privacy? Equipment destruction is *tame*.

There is only one way to win, don't be the pigeon! (2)

James McGuigan (852772) | about 2 years ago | (#42032817)

So who's bright idea was it to choose a robot flying thing as the weapon of choice against a bunch of rednecks with guns who enjoy shooting at flying things... hey if we send up enough robots they will eventually run out of ammo and have to leave the pigeons alone!

As the Cat from Red Dwarf would say... I know this game, its called gun and pigeon, and there is only one way to win... don't be the pigeon... well unless you believe those lying cartoons.

maybe it's time to fly in a real helicoptor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032847)

How much to rent an armored helicopter and stay just outside of any "legally protected" airspace?

If anyone dares to shoot at that, then the police will have to get involved. After all, we would be talking attempted murder here.

So... (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#42032869)

So, let me get this right, people who are both trespassing and spying get mad that their "drone" gets shot down? There's nothing legitimate about using a "drone" like this. Just because someone happens to be an "activist" doesn't mean they get a free pass to spy on people and trespass on their property.

Since it's clear nobody RTFA (4, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 2 years ago | (#42032891)

“the predictable outrage generated by gruesome videos showing captive pigeons getting released from wooden crates, attempting to fly away, only to get blasted within seconds by a shooter who’s apparently only a few yards away, reinforces both the ethical stance and the financial status of animal activists who want to ban not just canned hunting but much of animal agriculture,” read an editorial in the Drovers CattleNetwork, a beef industry news periodical."

In other words, they're not killing pests. They are doing absolutely nothing to improve the environment. They are purposely breeding these birds in captivity, then releasing and redmisting them, for the sole purpose of their own entertainment.

I'm sorry, but these arn't hunters. They're 5 year olds in grown up redneck bodies who are too stupid to figure out the controls on an X-Box.

OMFG!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032929)

Dear Slashdot:

I'm a proud animal rights activist who feels so strongly about my viewpoint that I create arbitrary laws in my own head. Recently, I was surveilling an illegal(in my head) pigeon shoot at the pigeon hunters club. I was hovering an RC octocopter, that I over paid for, over their range and one of them shot my octocopter!

In fact, this is the fourth time I have flown my octocopter like this and someone has shot at it. One time I even lost my octocopter on their land. The shooting of my octocopter is as illegal(in my tiny mind) as shooting pigeons.

I've repeatedly called the cops about this, but they are all corrupt because they keep telling me that there is nothing that they can do and that I should stop flying my octocopter over other people's private property! Can you imagine. Worse, they say that shooting pigeons is OK. Obviously, they've been paid off by the pigeon eaters society.

OMFG! Help me Slashdot. Help me fight for the rights of pigeons and trespassing octocopter owners. Won't somebody think of the drones?

Love always,

Whiney Ass Bitch

Are they stupid? (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 2 years ago | (#42032937)

Flying UAV's over someone's property that you know will shoot at it is foolish. Spending 4000+ on a UAV and not opting for the high res camera that would allow you to fly it well out of range of the shot guns, pure stupidity. Keep wasting that money. I'm sure the hunters like the UAV practice more than the pigeon hunt. Your UAV only has to be within visible range. Being within range of their Ammo is not required. However, once they know this they'll get their own UAV's to take yours down.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>