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!

Illinois Law Grounds PETA Drones Meant To Harass Hunters

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the air-scare dept.

Government 370

schwit1 writes "Illinois passed a new state law that set back the efforts of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), making the use of drones to interfere with hunters and fishermen prohibited. The law was created in response to PETA's plan to employ drones called "air angels" to monitor outdoors enthusiasts engaged in hunting and fishing nationwide."

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

Land of the Free! (5, Insightful)

beh (4759) | about 10 months ago | (#45844697)

Strange - people fishing should be "free" to fish unmonitored... ...people hunting should be "free" to hunt unmonitored... ...people on the Internet should be "free" to be monitored at will...

To me that sounds like future terrorist plots could best be discussed on a hunting trip, because you have the gun lobby ensuring that you'll be undisturbed...

Re:Land of the Free! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844735)

Land of pirates: gratuitous "r" inserted. Was supposed to be "land of the fee".

In the US, you are free if one of two categories applies:

1) You have the money to pay people with the power to make you less free;

2) Nobody is listening to you anyway. Lip service costs nothing.

In fact, most people come under category 2 - and this is where dictatorships have all gone wrong: out of paranoia, they silence even the people who would do no harm if they could speak. The illusion of freedom is Western civilisation's greatest gift to human psychology.

Re: Land of the Free! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844739)

Good. Peta are hypocritical arseholes. Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.

Re: Land of the Free! (2)

Wootery (1087023) | about 10 months ago | (#45844913)

Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.

How idiotic. Way to stand a well-reasoned stand, AC.

Re: Land of the Free! (5, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | about 10 months ago | (#45845025)

I'm more in favor of not infringing on PETA's rights to harass hunters with drones. But I'm also in favor of the hunters destroying PETA's drones, especially if they are harassing the hunters on private land.

Also depending on the level of harassment and monitoring, I am also in favor of the hunters and fisherman pressing charges against PETA.

Re: Land of the Free! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845279)

You're in favour of "free" speech that nobody listens to, destroying things with guns, and lawsuits.

You, sir, are a Yank.

Re: Land of the Free! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845375)

Strange... *I* was about to lambast JWW for claiming that PETA has "rights to harass" hunters, when (in point of fact) *nobody* has the "right" to harass *anyone* else.

You, on the other hand, are lambasting him for suggesting that, when being harassed, people take measures to stop said harassment, and prevent it from reoccurring.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Re: Land of the Free! (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 10 months ago | (#45845385)

You on the other hand seems fond of the idea of making people listen by force your "free speech" they do not want to listen, right?

Where is the force making you listen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845415)

Or was that claim pulled straight from your anus?

Re: Land of the Free! (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about 10 months ago | (#45845411)

You're in favour of "free" speech that nobody listens to

Free speech is only worth defending if there's a big audience, then?

Reminder: there is no need to defend inoffensive, non-controversial speech.

destroying things with guns

Fair point, but it's not exactly a very nasty case of it.

and lawsuits

Well, rule of law. We're not talking about suing local authorities because you tripped over a curb.

Shooting Them Down (4, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | about 10 months ago | (#45845169)

It was so much fun to read about their drones being shot down and PETA's incredulous reactions to it.

Re: Land of the Free! (1)

xenobyte (446878) | about 10 months ago | (#45845327)

Good. Peta are hypocritical arseholes. Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.

Well said. I agree 100%!

Re:Land of the Free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844773)

Why should the freedom stop with hunting?
Why shouldn't the freedoms that we enjoy also extend to flying drones?

To put it simply, your freedoms and use of them stop when they interfere with the exercising of my freedoms (and vice versa.)

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844821)

The problem here is that it is hard for me to pick sides here.

On one side I don't like people who hunt for entertainment and on the other hand I don't like PETA.

Can anyone suggest a solution that pisses both sides off?

Re:Land of the Free! (3, Funny)

Charcharodon (611187) | about 10 months ago | (#45844843)

Let people hunt members of PETA?

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

xenobyte (446878) | about 10 months ago | (#45845309)

That would be fun! - Give them a taste of their own medicine.

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 10 months ago | (#45844865)

Open season on hunters and PETA members?

Re:Land of the Free! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844905)

On one side I don't like people who hunt for entertainment and on the other hand I don't like PETA. Can anyone suggest a solution that pisses both sides off?

Simply support maximum freedom. Let hunters use drones to stalk and harass PETA members. Let hunters field armed drones to disable or shoot down PETA drones, so long as the hunter pay for any property damage. Let hunters hunting on private land pursue legal remedies for trespassing if PETA drones fly over the property. PETA is backed by big money from limo liberals so they will be able to outspend your average hunter in the battle.

Incidentally, whether or not you "like" the way other people exercise their freedoms is irrelevant so long as it doesn't encroach on your freedom.

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 10 months ago | (#45845199)

Let hunters field armed drones to disable or shoot down PETA drones

Now that's a reality show I'd watch anytime. You would need gun camera's and something flammable on board.

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 10 months ago | (#45845209)

Simply support maximum freedom. [..snip..] Incidentally, whether or not you "like" the way other people exercise their freedoms is irrelevant so long as it doesn't encroach on your freedom.

Winner of the thread.

Re:Land of the Free! (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 10 months ago | (#45845275)

On one side I don't like people who hunt for entertainment and on the other hand I don't like PETA. Can anyone suggest a solution that pisses both sides off?

Simply support maximum freedom. Let hunters use drones to stalk and harass PETA members. Let hunters field armed drones to disable or shoot down PETA drones, so long as the hunter pay for any property damage. Let hunters hunting on private land pursue legal remedies for trespassing if PETA drones fly over the property. PETA is backed by big money from limo liberals so they will be able to outspend your average hunter in the battle.

Incidentally, whether or not you "like" the way other people exercise their freedoms is irrelevant so long as it doesn't encroach on your freedom.

The concern that led to this was that while PETA says they just want to 'monitor', the fear is that they will actually use these drones to chase off game and/or harass the hunters, thus infringing on the hunters' freedom to hunt.

Re: Land of the Free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844925)

You really can't figure that out? There is really a dilemma between a group infringing on peoples right and people exercising their rights?

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

jalopezp (2622345) | about 10 months ago | (#45844939)

Ban hunting animals. Shoot down the PETA drones.

Re:Land of the Free! (2)

ka9dgx (72702) | about 10 months ago | (#45845223)

I, for one, do not wish to be hunted by any animals, nor rodents for that matter.

Re:Land of the Free! (2)

Hartree (191324) | about 10 months ago | (#45845349)

So, you don't support the right to arm bears?

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about 10 months ago | (#45845075)

Declare open season on PETA drones.

Re: Land of the Free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845213)

You cannot assume they hunt for entertainment only. Our family hunts to put meat in the freezer.
I think PETA should have the right to fly their drones in public areas, but if over private land, they should be subject to lawsuit for trespass and harassment. Also subject to being shot down.

Re:Land of the Free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845407)

Have the Dept of Wildlife issue hunting licenses for PETA?
permissible on private property only. not valid on public lands.
limit 2 per day. 6 per season.

Re:Land of the Free! (3, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 10 months ago | (#45845439)

I don't like people who hunt for entertainment

I hate people who assume most hunters hunt for sport. Every hunter I've ever known hunts for food.

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 10 months ago | (#45845155)

Why should the freedom stop with hunting? Why shouldn't the freedoms that we enjoy also extend to flying drones?

To put it simply, your freedoms and use of them stop when they interfere with the exercising of my freedoms (and vice versa.)

Drones aren't silent. If there's a drone tracking me while I'm tracking game, it will scare the game away and prevent me from exercising my right to hunt.

Re:Land of the Free! (2)

RandomFactor (22447) | about 10 months ago | (#45844775)

The thought of hunters being harassed by PETA drones brings to mind the the immortal words of King Louis XVI who said... "Pull!"

Re:Land of the Free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844829)

You should quote the full context. It was "Pull my finger!"

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 10 months ago | (#45845391)

Brings back fond screen saver memories of Opus shooting down flying toasters.

Re:Land of the Free! (1, Troll)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 10 months ago | (#45844901)

I always use a shotgun when I'm fishing.

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 10 months ago | (#45844909)

Well no one likes competition and there are plenty of people already watching everything, as you point out. Of course they will use the courts to regulate away competition just like they do in every other field.

Re:Land of the Free! (5, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 10 months ago | (#45844917)

Wow that is the most confused reply I think I have ever seen.
"Strange - people fishing should be "free" to fish unmonitored... ...people hunting should be "free" to hunt unmonitored... ...people on the Internet should be "free" to be monitored at will...

To me that sounds like future terrorist plots could best be discussed on a hunting trip, because you have the gun lobby ensuring that you'll be undisturbed..."

First so do you think that people should be allowed to take part in totally legal activity without out harassment? If so what does the monitoring of internet meta data have to do with anything?
Second do you understand that these drones are often flown over private property without consent? Yes aircraft can fly over private property but they must do so at a safe altitude which is 1000 feet from any obstacle within 2000 ft of the aircraft. In none congested areas it is down to 500 ft of altitude and no closer than 500 ft from any person, vehicle or obstacle. So you can fly any lower than a 50 story building.
The rules for flying a radio controlled aircraft have been around for at least 50 years and those are. The big rules are you must be in VISUAL contact with the aircraft at all times and you do not fly over people. You also do not fly over private property without permission.
So PETA was already breaking safety regulations with these operations and should be stopped before they hurt someone. BTW I do not fish, hunt, or have a gun. I do fly RC aircraft.

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

phrostie (121428) | about 10 months ago | (#45845445)

+1 if I had it

Re:Land of the Free! (2)

Firethorn (177587) | about 10 months ago | (#45844927)

People fishing and hunting are already monitored by law enforcement - Game Wardens. PETA types aren't law enforcement and they deliberately don't just 'monitor' hunters - they deliberately use their loud RC aircraft to harass people and spook wildlife in an attempt to spoil their hunts. Though personally I'd love it if I could arrange for them to scare game TOWARDS me, which would allow me to then thank them for making my hunt easier...

Re:Land of the Free! (3)

rwise2112 (648849) | about 10 months ago | (#45845113)

deliberately use their loud RC aircraft to harass people and spook wildlife

Spooking wildlife with an aircraft is already illegal according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 10 months ago | (#45845413)

they deliberately use their loud RC aircraft to harass people

I think that is the essential part of this issue . . . should people be allowed to use drones to harass other people for anything that they don't like? Hey, look, there's a Catholic Church . . . there's probably a priest raping an altar boy in there. If I launch my fleet of drones, and get all "Ride of the Valkyrie", maybe I will distract the priest from his "Chocolate-Star Fudge-Pack-ula."

Heaven forbid that the Westboro Baptist Church learn how to fly drones.

We'll end up with an escalating "Battle of Britain" drone air war in our skies.

Re:Land of the Free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844929)

Obtuse much? Why must you link a couple favorite past time for many Americans to terrorism? Dumb liberal. You purposely want to inflame the discussion. Idiot.

Re: Land of the Free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844937)

Haha! Because terrorist plots are often hatched on hunting trips? Wha? LOL!

Re:Land of the Free! (1)

nharmon (97591) | about 10 months ago | (#45845123)

You know how I can tell you've not done any real fishing or hunting in your life? Because you believe if PETA can't "monitor" sportsmen, that sportsmen will not be monitored. But in reality, wildlife and natural resources officers constantly monitor sportsmen.

But please, don't let facts get in the way of you bashing the gun lobby.

Re:Land of the Free! (2)

seven of five (578993) | about 10 months ago | (#45845233)

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.

Re:Land of the Free! (0)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 10 months ago | (#45845257)

Your forgetting the police do not have to follow the rules. Of course they will have there surveillance drones out with there fake cell phone towers, laser mic's and whatever other gadgets they can strap on them.

clearly... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 10 months ago | (#45844737)

peta cares about animals (does that mean they don't care about humans?), but using drones to "interfere" with people sounds like something only the government would engage in

i guess this is proof that governments intend to defend their high ground

Re:clearly... (5, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45844803)

peta cares about animals (does that mean they don't care about humans?

My experience with PETA is that the only thing they care about is themselves. They've done way more to serve their own smug senses of self-importance than they've ever done to help any animals.

Re:clearly... (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 10 months ago | (#45845163)

My experience with PETA is that the only thing they care about is themselves.

Could you elaborate on your experience with PETA?

Re:clearly... (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 months ago | (#45844833)

peta cares about animals (does that mean they don't care about humans?)

PETA puts animal welfare above that of humans - they've demontrated it time and time again. That's what I hate about them. But it's pretty ironic in a way, since humans are animals too...

but using drones to "interfere" with people sounds like something only the government would engage in

Paparazzis do it too nowadays.

Do I need a license? (5, Funny)

blocsync (320897) | about 10 months ago | (#45844745)

Do I need a license to go drone hunting? or is it just open season? because that sounds like fun! Also, I believe shooting drones stays well within PETAs goals as I wouldn't be shooting animals :)

Those aren't drones! (4, Funny)

capebretonsux (758684) | about 10 months ago | (#45844753)

They're the next gen of skeets!

pendantic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844815)

skeet is the sport; clay pidgeons are the target. I strongly suggest that everyone have a try at shooting skeet; it's a great sport, less likely to pull a Cheney and shoot someone than bird hunting, and, well, it's a lot of fun.

Re:pendantic (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 10 months ago | (#45844873)

Except, wasn't Cheney on a staged hunt? I wouldn't call that bird "hunting" so much as.... using birds as targets.

Staged hunt? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 10 months ago | (#45844941)

I'm not aware that the hunt was 'staged' any more than the local farmer knows his land and that X birds tend to be in Y field and Z time of the year, and if you line up a bunch of people to walk the field you're sure to get quite a few.

It's not like the animals were staked there or hand raised until that morning.

Re:Staged hunt? (3)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 10 months ago | (#45845045)

Actually, the way it works is lame. I'm a hunter... There are places you can go where they raise the birds, clip their wings and fence them in. The wings are clipped in such a way that they can fly a "bit" but can really fly off. So they'll still get up when your dog gets on them, but they cant get far. They raise so many that walking through their land pretty much assures you will get some.

Most of the other hunters I know consider this "cheating" because you're basically just shooting Livestock. There are even worse places where they keep the birds caged and just have guys release them to fly so you can pick them out of the sky. Again, totally lame. I'd agree that, if that were the kind of hunt her were on, he wasn't doing much more than using the birds as targets.

Re:Staged hunt? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 10 months ago | (#45845243)

There are places you can go where they raise the birds, clip their wings and fence them in.

You know, while I'm sure this has existed, it's actually a lot of work compared to simply setting the conditions and letting the pheasants nest there naturally. Given the way wildlife works, they'll even settle back into the same spots because other birds have claimed the other habitats.

Also, I'd want to see some evidence that Cheney was doing that.

Let them fly (1)

bhenson (1231744) | about 10 months ago | (#45844755)

let them fly. i need a new target

Common sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844759)

Hmmm.... Drones harassing hunters? I suspect that the hunters would have taken care of the problem without the intervention of the government. In the form of sighting in their rifles ....

Re:Common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844797)

Which would likely result in PETA getting on them for destruction of property.

Re:Common sense (1)

RandomFactor (22447) | about 10 months ago | (#45844881)

Heh...PETA getting pissed at someone else for destruction of property? (+1 Irony).

But this is precisely the enforcement headache the gubment is trying to avoid.

- Harassing outdoors-men and scaring off game (Hunters are paying the government, that's a revenue stream) - Drones getting blasted out of the sky - Lead flying off in dangerous ways (hunters know better than to go shooting rifles in the air, but if you start buzzing 'em with drones, it would happen) - blasted drones falling out of the sky - Lawsuits all around

Re:Common sense (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 months ago | (#45844967)

(Hunters are paying the government, that's a revenue stream)

Not only that, it's revenue that pays for the parks and wilderness, preserving the habitat of those animals PETA loves so much. If the hunters didn't exist, then neither would the animals because it would all be farmland instead.

Re:Common sense (1)

RandomFactor (22447) | about 10 months ago | (#45844805)

Now now, safety first. Use a shotgun loaded for skeet.

Re:Common sense (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 10 months ago | (#45844841)

A highly logical conclusion, but this is Illinois, an anti-gun state, we're talking about. Instead of just allowing hunters - or any other demographic - to take care of a problem themselves, Illinois needs a new law, with additions to its army of richly-pensioned bureaucrats..

Re:Common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844947)

I always though everyone from Illinois came up to Wisconsin to hunt anyway, at least it seems that way.

Re:Common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844975)

A fair number of them keep heading north and wind up in the UP of Michigan. We call them FIBs. (Fucking Illinois Bastards)

Re:Common sense (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 10 months ago | (#45844987)

Contrary to your belief, most hunters are law abiding citizens and shooting the drones down would not be legal.

Now, if the state makes it legal, as they should, then yes, its open season.

Re:Common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845049)

Jokes aside, shooting a rifle aimed much above the plane of the ground (into the air) is never a good idea.

Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844823)

Seems like you could save a few steps by just issuing hunting permits for peta members... At $10,000 each we could make some money too.

captcha:vulgar (but still true)

I prefer drone hunting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844825)

I think I prefer the response of Texas when the made drone hunting Legal. I will just shoot them down,

Sorry Sir, your license has no drone tag. (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 10 months ago | (#45844827)

And even if it did, you've exceeded the daily limit.

Re:Sorry Sir, your license has no drone tag. (0)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 10 months ago | (#45845237)

No limit on drones and reporter jumping fences to "interview" kids.

shooters beware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844839)

for those shooting them down, they do video-to-phone, and if you shoot one down, these fucks will call the cops, I can guarantee that I'm for a law that allows you to shoot them down legally if you are being harrassed or intruded upon! however, I am unsure the communication method, bluetooth and wifi only go so far, and where I live, there is no cell phone service at 90% of the places I fish and hunt so it would be like me seeing a mountain lion, no one will know, but you can bet I'll have the hide in my garage....

Re:shooters beware (2)

Firethorn (177587) | about 10 months ago | (#45844957)

for those shooting them down, they do video-to-phone, and if you shoot one down, these fucks will call the cops,

Let them. A number have been shot down already and when it comes out that the 'fucks' were using the drone to harass people it's really treated no different than if you try to get somebody for property destruction if they cut YOUR lock and chain that YOU put on THEIR bike. IE 'tough shit'.

Not a lawyer of course, mileage will vary by jurisdiction and circumstances, etc...

PETA, contact the NSA! (1)

fygment (444210) | about 10 months ago | (#45844845)

_you_ can't monitor the hunters and fishers but the NSA can. They don't have to listen to laws.

Re:PETA, contact the NSA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845159)

let's be honest here Peta isn't trying to monitor anyone, they are just trying to scare away any animals the hunter might be after, with their noisy drone. and/or annoy the hunter until they give up trying to hunt.

Re:PETA, contact the NSA! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845245)

Yeah, these off-topic NSA references sure don't get tiring. Keep 'em coming. We all admire your fresh and on-topic humour. I'm sure somewhere around here Fouad is laughing at your cleverness [memegenerator.net] .

kreme of the kode contest add-ons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844871)

the hit single video 'so strange" by hootie.... is lost as in unfound, that is strange... the lyrics live on

Good! (5, Insightful)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 10 months ago | (#45844921)

PETA is not a group that anyone should frankly support. PETA is known for terrorist threats and actions against humans and large scale property destruction for the job of destroying animal hospitals and humane societies. PETA makes large statements about how animals have the right to attack humans and will verbally and publicly bash victims of hunting accidents where the animal attacks. PETA should be shut down by the government, they are a nonprofit society that seeks to punish humans with no clear case, cause or rational. Anything PETA seeks to do is to purely hurt humans for the sake of animals, what logical society would do that? If you think I'm blowing smoke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4D1godY4vI [youtube.com]

Re:Good! (-1, Offtopic)

TechnoGrl (322690) | about 10 months ago | (#45844951)

Penn and teller are most definitely NOT a reputable source. They are an "infotainment" show.

Re:Good! (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 10 months ago | (#45845061)

Yea, but they're still right in this case. Peta sucks. Just meat with a couple of them sometime to hear their "Real" views and it'll become clear pretty quick.

Re:Good! (1)

Kentari (1265084) | about 10 months ago | (#45845101)

Just meat with a couple of them

animal or human?

Re:Good! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845071)

I don't understand how PETA even exists, given their overt hypocrisy. They claim to be all about animal rights, yet they kill more animals than all the shelters in the US combined, every single year. They are no better than the Westboro Baptist Church, in the sense that they fight for a bogus cause for the purpose of raising money and notoriety. They are professional attention whores, no more and no less, and they care less about animals than the hunters and meat-eaters they harass.

Re:Good! (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 10 months ago | (#45845083)

OK, accepted. Now let me troll you back. Ostensibly, PETA's aim is

"PETA aims to collect video footage of any illegal activity, including drinking while in the possession of a firearm; using spotlights, feed lures, and other forbidden hunting tricks; and maiming animals and failing to pursue them."

Which, on its face, sounds good. If a game warden saw you doing any of those things, you'd be in deep trouble. You're clearly a hunter or know a few, ever know someone to have a few beers at lunch and head back out? Or gawdawful hungover? How about baiting? Ever see the old "Warning! Deer eating this corn will be shot!" gag sign? And now to the one that bugs me the most: as a target (only) archer, I don't know how many really terrible "archers" I've seen hanging around the shop/range bragging about "yeah, I hit him, but then lost the blood trail after an hour...". Bow hunters injuring and maiming animals is just a dirty little secret of the sport. Of course, rifle/slug hunters always go for the heart/lung shot, because all they care about is the head. If they were hunting for meat, they'd go for the head shot, where you get either a clean kill or a clean miss. So, while not for a second supporting the douche collective that is PETA, I have to say, their stated aims don't sound all that bad.

Re:Good! (4, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 10 months ago | (#45845161)

You're clearly a hunter or know a few, ever know someone to have a few beers at lunch and head back out? Or gawdawful hungover?

Nope, never met one. Course, the hunters I know are the strict "no alcohol Christian" types.

How about baiting? Ever see the old "Warning! Deer eating this corn will be shot!" gag sign?

Nope, never met one. Course, the hunters I know are mostly farmers.

BLOCKQUOTE> And now to the one that bugs me the most: as a target (only) archer, I don't know how many really terrible "archers" I've seen hanging around the shop/range bragging about "yeah, I hit him, but then lost the blood trail after an hour...".Bow hunters injuring and maiming animals is just a dirty little secret of the sport.

Where I come from, those guys are known as "liars". That's what you say when you miss.

BLOCKQUOTE>Of course, rifle/slug hunters always go for the heart/lung shot, because all they care about is the head. If they were hunting for meat, they'd go for the head shot, where you get either a clean kill or a clean miss.

Umm, no. Only an idiot goes for a headshot. And the hunters I know hunt for meat, not for trophies. And still aim for center-of-mass, just like you're taught in any marksmanship course.

Re:Good! (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 10 months ago | (#45845217)

Heart/lung is a fairly clean kill and leaves most of the meat, When your subsistence hunting you go for the most probable kill that leave a usable carcass ammo and time are not free. Now that it's not critical to bag one and it's as much about curbing pop growth and keeping the skill set primarily head shots at a distance, but I've never taken a trophy either.

MMMMMMMM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844953)

Ground Drone, OM NOM NOM NOM

Does this law really ground PETA drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45844965)

I'm not sure this law would actually make the PETA drones illegal. If you look at the law it prohibits drones that interfere with hunters. According to the law "Interfere with" means to take any action that physically impedes, hinders, or obstructs the lawful taking of wildlife or aquatic life. The purpose of the PETA drones is to monitor hunters and record any illegal activity. Recording a hunter from a distance doesn't physically impede, hinder, or obstruct them from the lawful taking of wildlife or aquatic life.

Re:Does this law really ground PETA drones? (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | about 10 months ago | (#45845031)

Scaring the prey away from the hunters is interferring with the hunt.

Re:Does this law really ground PETA drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845121)

And you really think that's all they will do with those drones? What about the fact that the noise from the drone will scare away any prey the hunter is after? A two-minute buzzing session is enough to ruin a hunter's entire day and make him go home in frustration. If it happens a few days in a row that "poisons the well", so to speak.

Comments are missing the point (5, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 10 months ago | (#45844981)

A state government outlawed the use of drones by a private group to harass and/or spy on a group or class of citizens. This can be the basis to extend the law to be against against the use of drones by private individuals, corporations, and businesses to harass, spy, and advertise.

BTW, those who are comparing PETA to the NSA and other government agencies are making a false comparison. PETA is a private organization that would be violating the privacy and personal freedom of people. They are not a governmental agency and most of the governmental agencies in the comments so far do not fall under the jurisdiction of state governments.

Ontario has a similar law (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845241)

In Ontario it's illegal to interfere with a hunt.

As well every few years there is some wingnut who runs out to disrupt wildlife (with the goal of disrupting a hunt.)
Under Ontario Law disrupting animals is "hunting". It's always hilarious when the anti-hunting protestors get charged with illegal hunting.

Another drone hunting state? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845003)

Looks like Illinois added another thing to hunt.

Preferred hunting method:
      Lure with decoy hunting,
            then EMP to confuse,
                  then 00buck for effect.

Result suitable for trophy mounting.

Shoot em down (1)

p51d007 (656414) | about 10 months ago | (#45845023)

The fly fisherman might try to snag one in the air with a hook, but I don't think the shooters will have a problem. They see one, they'll just shoot it down, as they should.

Solution for population control (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845115)

Does PETA have a working solution for maintaining a sustainable population of game? Like some type of birth control or are they happy with uncontrolled heards getting bigger and bigger and expanding? Times have changed, there is no longer a natural balance of various wildlife to maintain populations in check. Until some other method of control comes around, PETA has no chance of stopping hunting. Hunting is beneficial in many areas, that is why there are a set number if hunting licenses and specific time frames for each type of game.

I assume PETA believes the wild boars should be able to expand as needed unchecked as well.

Re:Solution for population control (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45845255)

PETA won't even broach such topics, as they have no logical answer that falls in line with their bogus agenda. If they say "culling the herds is okay as long as it's done humanely", they catch flack from their celebrity sponsors and lose money and credibility from that arena. If they say "let the animals live and breed no matter what" they show a severe lack of understanding of the way nature works, and again they lose credibility with their sponsors. So they ignore the issue and continue to harass and intimidate people so the money and fame keep rolling in from Hollywood.

You call it "harassment" (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 10 months ago | (#45845329)

I call it "target practice"!

Illinois State...Really? (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 10 months ago | (#45845377)

It seems this is more a topic for the FAA vs the state of Illinois. I do recall there being something in FAA FAR's about operation of a drone by commercial entities and that operation requiring a COA for the drone and pilot training.

The very least they could be reported to the FAA for unsafe operation of aerial vehicles.

For an idea google Trappy of Team Black Sheep. http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471/the-faas-complaint-against-trappy/ [suasnews.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?