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!

Colorado Town Considers Drone-Hunting Licenses

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the heck-yeah-'murica dept.

United States 341

New submitter ciotog writes "The town of Deer Trail, Colorado (population approximately 550) will be voting next month on whether to offer licenses for drone hunting. Furthermore, a bounty of $100 for each drone shot down will be offered (upon offering proof that the drone was potentially owned by the U.S. government). Is this just a fun gimmick, or a serious commentary on an increasingly surveillance based society?"

cancel ×

341 comments

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

or could it be ... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329367)

a completely illegal destruction of government property?

If it's done right (3, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#44329493)

There should be nothing left on which a bounty could be claimed.
Obviously, there is no need to buy a license, either.

Re:or could it be ... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329771)

That depends on the DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED representatives of the People of Deer.
If the People say they don`t want drones over their heads, and the People`s Representatives truly "represent" vox populi,

THE DRONE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL.

Re:or could it be ... (4, Informative)

pspahn (1175617) | about a year ago | (#44329951)

Everyone, please! Take this story seriously!

It was actually on the news the other night and they interviewed I believe the mayor, the guy drafting the bill, and some other sheriff or somebody. They clearly stated "this is a symbolic gesture only". Everything about this bill says so. You're only allowed to use a shotgun firing pellets (lot of good that will do with the drone at altitude), and the bounties paid out are nowhere near a practical amount of money for the effort put in.

Besides all that, they even said that they have never even seen a drone over the town.

Re:or could it be ... (2)

Luyseyal (3154) | about a year ago | (#44330123)

... or personal property? http://diydrones.com/ [diydrones.com]

-l

Inciting rebellion (1, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44329371)

We're going to suggest you attempt to damage or destroy property of the US federal government. This is in no way a serious crime that removes all free speech ambiguity by offering to pay people to do it.

We promise we're not brain-dead morons.

Re:Inciting rebellion (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44329499)

So, damaging US Federal Government Property by deliberately firing your gun at it is free speech now?

Re:Inciting rebellion (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44329527)

No, but saying to do so could be argued to be if it were clearly satire or something similar.

Re:Inciting rebellion (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#44329505)

We promise we're not brain-dead morons.

Good enough for me. I've got my Ted Nugent brand bow and am ready to take down a predator! Cat scratch fever! Duh duh duh! Cat scratch fever! Dur dur dur!

Re:Inciting rebellion (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44329867)

We promise we're not brain-dead morons.

Good enough for me. I've got my Ted Nugent brand bow and am ready to take down a predator! Cat scratch fever! Duh duh duh! Cat scratch fever! Dur dur dur!

I'm thinking Phalanx [youtube.com] is a better option.

Re:Inciting rebellion (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#44330129)

I use targets with Ted's face on it. Gives me more incentive to hit the bulls eye than just a bunch of circles.

I hope it happens. (5, Interesting)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44329381)

There's no good reason to allow a surveilance state, and I support any government entity that helps the populace fight back against it in such efforts.

Re:I hope it happens. (4, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44329449)

And there's certainly no legitimate uses for aerial devices besides spying on people. I'm given to understand that missing persons [americasmi...adults.com] cases never crop up in rural Colorado. And I certainly can't envision using aerial drones to help with wildfire control. Or environmental surveys. Or mapping. Or weather. Or any number of legitimate government functions. It's all to spy on intermodal

Re:I hope it happens. (5, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44329621)

Do you honestly believe that once establish such surveillance would not be abused? If so I have an NSA to sell you...

Re:I hope it happens. (4, Insightful)

Beardydog (716221) | about a year ago | (#44329649)

If the federal government wanted to use drones for science and fire control, they shouldn't have broken trust with the American people vigorously and repeatedly, to the point that no one believes anything they say about their own motives or operations. I mentally append "and spying" to every described use they offer. "On intermodal" is a childish straw man.

Re:I hope it happens. (1)

dowens81625 (2500160) | about a year ago | (#44329757)

I better concept would be to pay a monthly $100 to who ever can get a drone to photograph them doing the most outlandish stunt. Naked Keg stands for instance would be right up there. Or dress a group in Red Ski Jackets and on a snow covered field flash mob spelling out "We See You Too"

Of course we need to convince the NSA to share the photos, maybe they should up load to http://facebook.com/iSPYONEVERYONE [facebook.com]

Re:I hope it happens. (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year ago | (#44329805)

well thats ok just increase taxes to pay for maned choppers /planes then

Re:I hope it happens. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330143)

Why do we need to put manes on planes and helicopters? Are they bronies or furries, and hoping to do some cosplay?

Re:I hope it happens. (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#44330095)

to the point that no one believes anything they say about their own motives or operations.

Yet another baseless generalization to support a position. Have you done a poll to back up this claim? I personally believe the government some of the time.

Re:I hope it happens. (2)

Natales (182136) | about a year ago | (#44329663)

We are at the very beginning of this technology. You can't possibly say there is no legitimate uses only because you haven't thought of any. Besides, the image you have in your mind of a drone can change radically in the next few years (think insect-sized drones for example).

Re:I hope it happens. (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#44329735)

You're absolutely right that there's legitimate uses for this technology, however as Beadydog says above, the federal government has completely broken trust with the American people, so as far as I'm concerned, there's NO legitimate uses as long as they're the ones operating the drones. They simply can't be trusted.

Re:I hope it happens. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329839)

I know scientific research isn't very popular here, but here's an example of using drones in a non-malicious way. They can fly much longer and further than other aircraft, Additionally, according to my father (an atmospheric scientist) the get their data live, where as if instraments are flown on the ER-2 (U2 spyplane used for environmental research), they must wait until the aircraft returns to get the data.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/30/nasa-to-use-second-drone-to-monitor-hurricanes/ [usnews.com]

Re:I hope it happens. (0, Troll)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#44330029)

Tapping all phone calls and monitoring every email has tremendous benefits as well. Child pornographers can be caught. Racists can be tracked and cataloged. We must think of the children. And Trayvon. Do it for the children and Trayvon!

Proof it's U.S. Government owned (4, Informative)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year ago | (#44329391)

Encouraging destruction of government property...

With a population of 550, Deer Trail, CO could suddenly find itself a bunch of empty buildings if Washington wished it.

Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#44329423)

How many Hellfire missiles does it take to destroy Deer Trail, CO?

Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year ago | (#44329561)

No, that would make too much noise. Deer Trail is only 55 miles from Denver.

Silently making the population disappear would be better. With a group that small it would be longer before any of them were missed.
It's probably the sort of town that frequently loses all phone service when the one line gets cut.

Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned (1)

Nexus7 (2919) | about a year ago | (#44329701)

Ah, come on! They don't need to disappear them! With a population of 550, the rest of the country is probably heavily subsiding their post office, sheriff, the road that lets them even exist. In other words, the purse strings. They probably think they're out there, pioneers in the wilderness, and such BS.

Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned (5, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#44329763)

Well the DHS has purchased over a billion rounds of ammunition, plus lots of tanks and coffins, so they're ready to brutally put down an uprising.

Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329731)

none. Deertrail is already a bit of hell with all of the neo-cons there, so it would never fire on itself.

Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329487)

Then they will have another town to go after because where I am from, we will take up the cause if Deer Trail goes down.

Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44329917)

I'd hope that Washington would be smart enough not to make martyrs of them like that. NOT because I disagree with opposing drones, just because if the government is so stupid as to make that mistake, we're fucked.

Re:Proof it's U.S. Government owned (5, Insightful)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44329963)

Encouraging destruction of government property...

With a population of 550, Deer Trail, CO could suddenly find itself a bunch of empty buildings if Washington wished it.

At which point the government will have made those crazy ass militia types some of the most sane people in the country.

Cool (1)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about a year ago | (#44329393)

Sounds like a cool place full of brave, freedom loving patriots.

Drone surveillance is pretty close to an antithesis to freedom - mindless minions of the faceless Big Brother watching people from the sky

Re:Cool (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44329519)

More likely a bunch of nutbags.

How will you feel when that drone was being used for weather research, mapping, searching for lost people, fire fighting, surveying, or another normal government function? How dare they use new technology to do an old job in a new way and save the taxpayer money!

Re:Cool (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44329651)

There are some causes worth not saving money over. I would rank liberty as one of them. And if there's one thing history has shown repeatedly it's that corrupt government agents/agencies will end up abusing any information sources at their disposal.

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329717)

It is rural Colorado. If helicopters can't find lost people, how are magical drones supposed to? How are drones supposed to fight forest fires? With missiles? They sure can't carry enough retardant aloft to even put out a sizable bonfire. For everything else we already have satellites.

It just sounds like you are willfully ignorant. How can the added expense of multi-million dollar drones save tax money when we need to keep the current way of doing those jobs in place because drones either cannot do it without the support or can't do the job at all?

Re:Cool (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44329743)

Drones are cheaper per hour.
Drones are used to map the fire, not fight it directly. Satellites are not always where you need pictures.

It sounds like you are a nutcase, have fun with that.

Re:Cool (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44329611)

One person's brave, freedom loving patriot is another's gun toting, redneck idiot with too much beer in his belly and time on his hands, I suppose.

Not sure if it's a gimmick, but... (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about a year ago | (#44329395)

I'm sure if it passes, Deer Trail, Colorado will be the site of a horrific chemical spill, forest fire, or other such catastrophe shortly thereafter.

Re:Not sure if it's a gimmick, but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329563)

You're right but not for the reason you think.

Libertarians hate the government until it saves their ass in something like a natural disaster, for example.

So sure there could be a disaster there. They happen everywhere, it's just the nature of the world, and of risk. And since these citizens hate the government so much, maybe we should just let them handle it by themselves.

Now that being said, I'm not sure about domestic drones... for some uses, like, again, fighting forest fires, or land management remote sensing, it could be useful.
But I'm not exactly excited about the US government OR big companies spying on me or you.

I just am getting tired of seeing libertarian drivel on Slashdot. I'm seriously sensing infiltration by the Koch brothers here or something. I mean are you seriously a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist that honestly believes "they" are 'out to get you'? I'm guessing you think 9/11 was an inside job, too. Lots of theories, so little evidence. Murica!!! F Yea!!!

Re:Not sure if it's a gimmick, but... (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#44329769)

I just am getting tired of seeing libertarian drivel on Slashdot. I'm seriously sensing infiltration by the Koch brothers here or something. I mean are you seriously a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist that honestly believes "they" are 'out to get you'?

Yes, your "sensing the infiltration by the Koch brothers" makes you a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Funny how you folk always seem to attribute to others what you are actually the guilty party of.

I was Joking! (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | about a year ago | (#44329401)

WTF people! I was joking. I'm the last person you should take seriously most of the time!

Tally-Ho.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329405)

Is this just a fun gimmick, or a serious commentary on an increasingly surveillance based society?

Dunno but If they really do pass a law like that I'll be up there in a flash with my WWII vintage Mustang shooting down Predator/Reaper drones left right and center.

Nope (2)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#44329415)

This is not a gimmick, this is 'Murica!

Although, given an average altitude of 8,000 feet for a drone, this is not an easy shot. Nor is the fact that the drone will be flying at ~100 MPH and winds at that altitude could easily be 50 MPH. It would be a hard task for even the best shot. And that math would be terrible.

Re:Nope (1, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44329657)

I wonder how many people will be hurt from falling bullets and buckshot, and how many private planes, kites, bats, birds and other things will be shot at. I sincerely hope that this legislation is the first thing shot down.

Re:Nope (2)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year ago | (#44329945)

I wonder who would be hurt or what would be damaged by a falling drone...

Re:Nope (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#44329685)

20 years later all the U.S. Army sharpshooters will coincidentally be from this town.

Re:Nope (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#44329787)

They're not talking about Predator drones, they're talking about the much, much smaller ones that are basically like high-end R/C vehicles. Those don't go anywhere near 8000 feet or 100mph.

Re:Nope (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#44329959)

Those drones are also much smaller, so still difficult to hit.

Re:Nope (5, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#44330055)

No, they're much, much larger. Look up at a 747 flying overhead (assuming you're not near an airport and in the flight path): it's tiny, to you. Now fly one of those 4-rotor "quadrocopter" R/C toys at 20 feet over your head. It's not that small, and would be pretty easy to hit with a shotgun, certainly much easier than a clay pigeon. Clay pigeons travel faster than R/C vehicles.

Re:Nope (1)

spiritgreywolf (683532) | about a year ago | (#44329803)

That would be my first thought. But considering the relative advances in the private hobbyist sector with drones, navigation, etc.?

It probably wouldn't be beyond the realm of conceivability that some smart ass "Engineer In A Garage" doesn't build a guided model rocket with visual or other acquisition tech with off-the-shelf technology - and at least manages to splash the thing with paint. No high-explosive - just a way to say "You've been pwned!"

Of course when that magical moment it dies down and this guy finds himself in Gitmo forgetting all about what it means to be human, we know who wins in the end...

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329937)

It just means they'll develop better weapons for shooting down drones.

Re:Nope (1)

Ioldanach (88584) | about a year ago | (#44330049)

This is not a gimmick, this is 'Murica!

Although, given an average altitude of 8,000 feet for a drone, this is not an easy shot. Nor is the fact that the drone will be flying at ~100 MPH and winds at that altitude could easily be 50 MPH. It would be a hard task for even the best shot. And that math would be terrible.

You just need the right bullet [pcmag.com] for the job.

NO ONE ANSWER THAT QUESTION! (2)

kawabago (551139) | about a year ago | (#44329481)

They'll hear!!!!!!!!

I read it wrong.... (4, Insightful)

Orleron (835910) | about a year ago | (#44329491)

I thought they were saying a license to hunt animals using drones. THAT would be awesome! :P *pew pew* *deer falls down*

Re:I read it wrong.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329679)

You are an idiot.

You would have been one of those morons shooting buffalo from the window of the train 100 yrs ago.

Dick.

Now, open season on idiots like you, that would be something worthwhile.

Re:I read it wrong.... (1)

dowens81625 (2500160) | about a year ago | (#44329827)

It would be more like *deer explodes and is instantly ground up and shredded" just grab a shovel and some butcher paper.

Re:I read it wrong.... (3, Funny)

datavirtue (1104259) | about a year ago | (#44329961)

IT's COMING RIGHT FOR US!!

Owned by the U.S. government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329547)

Another good reason for the government to outsource to the private sector.

that's sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329557)

why do you need a license? in the US you have the right to defend yourself with a weapon. no other license required. trespass onto my property and you'll see.

That $100 will even cover bail at best maybe (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44329565)

That $100 will even cover bail at best maybe some candy bars from the jail commissary

not cover (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44329573)

not cover

Re:That $100 will even cover bail at best maybe (1)

Broken scope (973885) | about a year ago | (#44329909)

There incredibly few places where trespassing justifies deadly force.

Wasn't this a Muppets episode? (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about a year ago | (#44329571)

Drones aren't deer. (4, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year ago | (#44329579)

Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better.

Re:Drones aren't deer. (3, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | about a year ago | (#44329935)

Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better.

An armed drone firing at an american citizen on american soil might be a PR bigger victory for the anti-drone libertarians than taking down the drone itself. Of course, I'm not sure I'd want to be the one to get precedented [google.com] .

Re:Drones aren't deer. (4, Informative)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#44329941)

Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better

I can think of no better way to get all drone programs shut down post-haste.

Not a joke (3, Insightful)

smarkham01 (896668) | about a year ago | (#44329593)

Visit the West once or twice and you won't need to ask. Individualists were driven West by the crowds of "help me, I'm being picked on". Three are still a lot of them out there and when it comes to stopping illegal government actions, they don't joke around a lot. AC though "a completely illegal destruction of government property?" would result, but that's OK, see the illegal activities of the government have always been fair game:-). You do need a license though, the town has to know who's shooting up the sky.

Re:Not a joke (4, Interesting)

whistlingtony (691548) | about a year ago | (#44329873)

I live in Oregon. That's as west as you can get. :D Does that mean I'm a rugged individualist? Does that mean Texas is full of Help Me People?

Maybe we should stop stereotyping. Maybe you need to talk to a hippy and see what they have the government just as much as you, and probably for much better (and much more real) reasons.

Maybe these crowds of "Help me, I'm being picked on" people are just a stereotype that's been fed to you, so you dismiss lefties as whiners. Maybe because if lefties and righties got together and realized that they all hate what's being done in their name.... something would get done.

Sorry, I'm being unfair here. I'm a little peeved. I spent last night listening to lefties talk(at a political meeting) about surveilance state, politics, the problems with our systems, and how Obama is continuing Bush policies if not making them worse. They're pissed off. And this morning, I endure a rant from a righty about how all lefties do is lick Obama's ass.... while he sat on the couch doing nothing but whining.... It has me a little annoyed, and your post prodded that.

Re:Not a joke (4, Funny)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year ago | (#44329907)

Does that mean Texas is full of Help Me People?

Yes. They're called state Republican legislators, and they clearly need help. :P

Guns: Solution to every problem (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | about a year ago | (#44329605)

Is there a problem that guns can't solve?

Re:Guns: Solution to every problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329725)

Guns are the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. Kinda like alcohol. Now there's a winning combination, if I ever saw one!

Re:Guns: Solution to every problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329807)

Is there a problem that guns can't solve?

No unless you don't use a large enough caliber.

Re:Guns: Solution to every problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329843)

If a gun can't solve it you can be damn sure duct tape will solve it!

Nothing serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329653)

These are a bunch of right-wing nut jobs that support drones bombing the crap out of Afghanistan, pakistan, etc, but are now worried that they are being spied on, even though it was in 2002-2005 that all of that came about. As it is, you are required to use a 12 gauge or smaller to shoot it out. IOW, they are not serious. Besides nothing medium to large that the feds has, flies that low. Their systems fly around 60K'.which is why taliban can not shoot them out with regular firearms.

Obligatory (1)

m1ndcrash (2158084) | about a year ago | (#44329681)

What happens in Deer Trail, stays in Deer Trail.

Sounds like it will nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329695)

Sounds like it will have some nice sensors, I want to get one intact!

Not all 'drones' are drones.... (4, Interesting)

TimO_Florida (2894381) | about a year ago | (#44329709)

Before you grab your shotguns and crossbows, remember that there are nearly a half-a-million radio-control plane enthusiasts out here in the countryside and we're NOT trying to spy on you. But we will send you a lawsuit and a big bill if you shoot down our planes.... ;-)

Re:Not all 'drones' are drones.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329897)

No way you can afford a lawyer after crashing your last three planes.

Re:Not all 'drones' are drones.... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#44330035)

Before you grab your shotguns and crossbows, remember that there are nearly a half-a-million radio-control plane enthusiasts out here in the countryside and we're NOT trying to spy on you. But we will send you a lawsuit and a big bill if you shoot down our planes.... ;-)

I'd think someone going after these things would want to use EMP, not a .22....

Still wouldn't be nice for the RC hobbyists though.

Bounty (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#44329711)

So the bounty is for "proof that the drone was potentially owned by the U.S. government". Sounds easy. Make a drone for less than 100 dollars. Place a "if found return to FBI" sticker on it. Profit. There is no "???".

Re:Bounty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329983)

I can see the classifieds now....
"Licenced drone hunters sought for well-remunerated work in the Highlands of Pakistan. 10,000 USD per target. Apply to Government of Pakistan"

But drones have self-destruct sequences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329715)

I live in the panhandle of Florida. I read a story in the local paper that the Air Force pretty much shut down a whole town and evacuated its citizens for a full 24 hours because a drone went off course and crashed and they could not find it.

It was leaked by an anonymous Air Force cadet that the reason for the "quarantine" was not just because of it being a drone and didn't want people to take pictures of it or because it was lost and didn't want to be embarrassed that they lost their plane, but it was because the drone had a self-destruct sequence and the battery that powered this sequence required at least 24 hours for it drain if the self-destruct sequence was not successful.

So, Colorado needs to be careful because they might shoot it down, be near it and then BOOM the drone explodes.

All joking aside (3, Insightful)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about a year ago | (#44329755)

A friend of a friend once got shot in the leg and face while on a passenger jet because some yahoo on the ground took a shot at it while it was coming in for a landing. Taking pot shots at low-flying aircraft is something we may wanna discourage.

.

Good for turism (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about a year ago | (#44329767)

This might be interesting as a TV game.
Drop the gamers of inside a 20 mile perimitter. Those that escape win a... ( survives ).
Does sound like the plot of an eighties b-movie.
But then again isn't that the game that the rich sons of the Saudi are playing in Afghanistan?

Recommendations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329789)

OK, what kind of musk do you attract drones with? When are they in season? Anybody know a good make of drone call? Are the readybuilt stands any good?

My cousin bagged a 9 point drone once. Got it hanging up in the rec room.

Re:Recommendations (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about a year ago | (#44330115)

drone attractant is made up of 2 parts turban and 5 parts young male
Carrying around some kind of explosives or some outrageous reading material such as the Q'uran or the US Constitution will also attract them.

Related news (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year ago | (#44329877)

Someone has installed [cbslocal.com] geninue appearing fake road signs warning that vehicle speed is 'enforced' by missile launching drones.

wrt to Colorado; tired of being governed by coastal state refugees a set of rural counties in Northern Colorado are pursuing statehood. [ordinary-gentlemen.com]

Re:Related news (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year ago | (#44329947)

wrt to Colorado; tired of being governed by coastal state refugees a set of rural counties in Northern Colorado are pursuing statehood.

No, a few people in those rural counties are pursuing it. And they're fucking nuts if they think anything will come of it, because guess where all the water for their crops comes from?

You americans... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329901)

... are so, so fucked.

Hunting with drones (1)

dittbub (2425592) | about a year ago | (#44329905)

Did anyone else think this article was going to be about hunting animals WITH drones?

Re:Hunting with drones (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about a year ago | (#44330073)

Did anyone else think this article was going to be about hunting animals WITH drones?

That's Oklahoma. They have a problem with 'invasive' hogs and are thinking of allowing folks to hunt their own properties from airplanes.
Of course, if the ranchers in OK were really serious about getting rid of wild boars, they'd probably let you hunt the properties free of charge instead of charging hundreds of dollars a day.

in other words, many of those ranchers make money when hogs 'invade' their ranch.

Anyone else mentally reverse the headline & st (1)

EGenius007 (1125395) | about a year ago | (#44329911)

I thought they were going to offer licenses to hunt WITH drones not FOR drones. (As in the difference between a "bow hunting" and "deer hunting" license.)

Hunting WITH drones seemed a bit technologically innovative. Though given the target is drones it also seems like a practical method. Who wouldn't enjoy a little drone on drone violence?

Just need an aa gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329915)

You just need a 40mm AA gun (radar aiming is good too), and if that doesn't quite do it for you, a q-motor rocket with steerable flight control fins (does that make it a missile?) powered by an arduino. The best drone is good for about 300 miles per hour, the rockets 'very gently' break the sound barrier (no more than 200-300 miles per hour faster than mach 1). You don't even need an explosive charge, just slamming into the drone will likely knock it out of the air.

sheep hunting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329925)

This is a target rich thread.

free vacation (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about a year ago | (#44329975)

It's probably a twofer.
The town of Deer Trail will give you $100
The USA Federal Government will give you an all-expenses paid vacation to the water treatment facilities at Guantanomo Bay.

Constitutional protection (1)

alexibu (1071218) | about a year ago | (#44330019)

Isn't attacking the government with guns protected by the constitution ?
Or is it only the brandishing and talking about that is protected ?

Really Really BAD idea (0)

foxalopex (522681) | about a year ago | (#44330087)

To be honest this is a really bad idea. Let's put it this way, do you think it's a good idea to shoot at an airplane? This would be an accident waiting to happen as I will bet some folks won't be able to tell the difference between a plane and a drone. What about stray bullets missing the "drone"? and hitting an airplane. Even worse is what do you do if you hit a drone and it goes up into a fireball (some are gas powered) and crashes onto someone's house because it is loaded with fuel.

Huntring from drones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330139)

Oh, I hoped it was a license to hunt USING a drone

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>