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!

Drone-Assisted Hunting To Be Illegal In Alaska

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the eye-in-the-sky dept.

Government 397

garymortimer (1882326) writes in with news about rules for hunting with drones in Alaska. "At its March 14-18 meeting in Anchorage, the seven-member Alaska Board of Game approved a measure to prohibit hunters from spotting game with such aircraft, often called drones. While the practice does not appear to be widespread, Alaska Wildlife Troopers said the technology is becoming cheaper, easier to use and incorporates better video relay to the user on the ground. A drone system allowing a hunter or helper to locate game now costs only about $1,000, said Capt. Bernard Chastain, operations commander for the Wildlife Troopers. Because of advances in the technology and cheaper prices, it is inevitable hunters seeking an advantage would, for example, try to use a drone to fly above trees or other obstacles and look for a moose or bear to shoot, he said."

cancel ×

397 comments

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

Bans Drones not Guns. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563691)

What are they trying to protect?

Re:Bans Drones not Guns. (3, Insightful)

bored_engineer (951004) | about 7 months ago | (#46564261)

Probably less affluent hunters. Using aircraft (or FPV drones) would allow wealthy hunters to potentially lock out subsistence hunters who have little to no income, or perhaps for whom this is an important cultural activity, rather than a fun trip for the weekend.

Redefine hunting. (5, Insightful)

Ranbot (2648297) | about 7 months ago | (#46563709)

Because at some point you can't call this "hunting" anymore. Good for Alaska.

Re:Redefine hunting. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563751)

Real men bow hunt, firearms are for lazy assholes.

Re:Redefine hunting. (0, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46563787)

For a truly fair fight it would be no weapons at all. Then lets see how tough these rednecks are when they try and wrestle an 800lb bear.

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563953)

We already know the answer to that. Don't most "hunters" just hide in their "blind" up a tree and shoot with a long range rifle and scope?

Re:Redefine hunting. (3, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#46564033)

Not for bear or moose. You could do it, but it's not common - as opposed to deer. The latter often use the same trails day in and day out so parking yourself in one place that you know the animals traverse is a good strategy. Bear wander all over the place. Moose are sort of in the middle.

In Alaska, the big 'purisim' issue is black bear baiting. That's still legal - and blatant cheating IMHO. As would be using drones. In most western states it is illegal to use aircraft to spot game within 24 - 72 hours of the hunt (depends on the state). This would be just like that only easier to do. You can buy one of these for a couple of hours of air time.

That said, you'd have to have a pretty powerful drone to have the kind of range needed to be useful. Well within technological limits and getting closer to being easily affordable. Remember, bear hunting clients spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a brown bear. Perfectly insane, but that's human nature. Bear guides might want to use this sort of thing for an extra edge - you don't want your client to go home empty handed.

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | about 7 months ago | (#46564205)

. . .have a pretty powerful drone to have the kind of range. . .

I live outside Fairbanks, AK. In the outdoor section of the local paper late last fall, was an unconfirmed mention that "a friend" of the editor was using a fixed-wing drone and FPV setup to locate moose. I don't recall any mention of success.

Re:Redefine hunting. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#46564369)

I'm sure it's going to happen - after all Alaskans are famous for using any advantage over the natural environment that they can get away with. It is telling that one of the most popular bumper stickers just says "Cut, Kill, Dig, Drill".

Re:Redefine hunting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564003)

I'd like to see you live in a place where you and your kids had to deal with bears/cougars/poisonous snakes and all the other animals we killed to make space for humans to live.

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 7 months ago | (#46564335)

Dude, have you ever tried hunting? Depending on the animal you're going after hunting with a rifle is no guarantee either and slogging around through forests or grasslands all day is no picnic.

And bow hunting can be just as lazy. Dumping bait on the ground then getting into a tree stand waiting for all the critters thinking they've found a free lunch?

Re:Redefine hunting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563793)

Why? I don't see why people shouldn't use every technology available to them to give themselves an advantage.
Are we going to make laws that say that technology can never advance again and we will all just stay in the twentieth century?
In many cases hunting is done to control animal populations so the population doesn't explode.
Why does hunting have to be difficult?

Uh, It's not... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563889)

Difficult to start with. AH, yes, it DOES require that you turn the TV off, shutdown the computer and... GASP... go outside. I'd continue, but I know I just lost %90 of you at this point.

Re:Redefine hunting. (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about 7 months ago | (#46563949)

Actually, I think there are a few legitimate questions here.

Aside from being done to control populations, it is also done as an activity people enjoy. So there is reason to not make it as efficient as possible. In fact, the worst case scenario for most hunters would be that it become so efficient that the people with the nicest toys end the season before they have a chance to do any hunting.

Hunters already have plenty of advantage over their prey.

I mean I generally agree when it comes to straight up problem solving but, when entertainment and sport is part of the process efficient technology is sometimes counterproductive to other goals.

I could download a bot to play video games for me too. Perhaps it could more efficiently gaurd the bomb in counter strike than I could, thus solving that problem, and leaving me to go do other things.

Re:Redefine hunting. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564029)

If you enjoy killing things, you are a psychopath.

Re:Redefine hunting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564125)

If you enjoy killing things, you are a psychopath.

I would enjoy seeing the common deer hunted to near-extinction in North America. I mean I really don't have much love for a creature so damned stupid, it says "hmm is that a large, heavy, fast moving object moving along a predictable course (the road)? hmm. I think I better jump out in front of it, yeah that'll be great!"

Ever hit one with your car? At highway speed with no warning whatsoever? Yeah. Kill 'em all. I never understood the restrictions placed on hunting a creature that no longer has any natural predators. Seriously deer numbered in the hundreds of thousands in America before, back when there were wolves and such. Ranchers and farmers killed off the wolves. Now there are many millions of deer. Hunt them down, says I. The gov't should not restrict how many you can bag.

Re:Redefine hunting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564195)

I've never hit one, however I totally get what you're saying since I need to drive nearly 90 minutes on a small two-lanes road with forest on both sides to get to another town.

The moose has a new natural predator, it's ticks. The moose population is being eradicated by tick infestation because of climate change. Maybe they'll jump to deers too.

 

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 7 months ago | (#46564215)

If you enjoy killing things, you are a psychopath.

Bullshit! While there probably are psychopaths who hunt. They are in the minority. Granted, I'd rather they hunt deer, squirrels, or what ever rather than humans.

I used to hunt, but haven't in decades. But there is something nice about getting away from everyday life and being surrounded by nature. There's the satisfaction of eating something that you had to work for. I think the same can be said for gardening too. There's also the argument that it's healthier to eat wild deer than hormone, antibiotic, growth enhanced meat.

That being said. I think having a high powered rifle with a high powered scope is more than enough advantage. Using drones is ridiculous.

Red herring arguments (0, Troll)

sjbe (173966) | about 7 months ago | (#46564031)

Aside from being done to control populations, it is also done as an activity people enjoy.

Most population control does not require the involvement of people hunting for amusement. That argument in most cases is simply a red herring. The vast majority of hunting in the US is simply done for amusement and any other goals it accomplishes are purely incidental.

Hunters already have plenty of advantage over their prey.

That's putting in mildly. Humans are ridiculously efficient killers.

Re:Red herring arguments (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 7 months ago | (#46564083)

Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food. Granted these are generally poor rural people and thus are poorly represented on the internet and media so they are somewhat invisible, but there is a significant number of them spread around the country and they hunt more frequently then the recreational crowd.

Hunting for food is not needed in the US (2, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about 7 months ago | (#46564209)

Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food.

The answer is a very small percentage and close to none of them actually need to do it. We spend over $22 billion [statisticbrain.com] on hunting which could easily feed every person in the US that actually needs to hunt to put food on the table. Furthermore there are plenty of food assistance programs available to anyone in the US should they need the help. This argument that we have people that "need" to hunt for food is an absurd and false justification to whitewash the fact that most of them do it for their amusement and no other purpose.

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

slapout (93640) | about 7 months ago | (#46564109)

"Aside from being done to control populations, it is also done as an activity people enjoy."

People also do it to eat.

No one "needs" to hunt to eat. (-1)

sjbe (173966) | about 7 months ago | (#46564287)

People also do it to eat.

That is how they justify it but very very few people in the US actually need to hunt to eat and we have food assistance programs that more than cover any of those who might. The claim that people "need" to hunt to eat is an absurd fiction in a country with the resources of the US. If they are actually reduced to the point where they have to hunt to eat in order to not starve then we should be deeply embarrassed as a nation because there is no need for that.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564323)

Annnd where is the food from these food assistance programs coming from? I suppose the meat is all grown at the grocery store?

Re:Redefine hunting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563959)

This is such an odd time that video games form a parallel. The use of drones for this purpose ruins a hunt. They aren't hunting, they are following directions. The use of drones to find / track prey ruins the hunter / prey dynamic, were it would be like going into a game with a hack. I will state that I have no issue with such things done on a private reserve made for hunting, such as those that stock birds to be shot. Those are already not about hunting. I do take issue with using drones to hunt wildlife. I take issue with shooting from helicopters and trains or other vehicles when hunting. Transportation to get out there, there is no problem with that.

This is just one step away from having automated guns on drone to hunt for you. Where is the fun in that? Where is the risk / reward dynamic? Where is the effort of physical labor and skills that gives the refreshing feeling after the hunt is over?

Some hunting may be done for population control, but they aren't having any issues with it to make it any easier. At worst, they may lengthen the hunting season. Why isn't there a jellyfish hunting season?

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

Ranbot (2648297) | about 7 months ago | (#46564053)

I sort of answered this in another post below, but there are plenty of reasons to limit technology in hunting for the purpose of sport and to give the animals a chance. If herd populations warrant additional culling and more technology is needed then fine, but I think that should be on a case-by-case basis. I won't pretend to know anything about the health of Alaska's game herds (I live in PA), but I would guess the herds there are in a much more natural balance than other more populated states and giving hunters extra advantage isn't really in the interest of the herds. If anything, with tech like this I would expect more "trophy-hunters" who are just going after the biggest and strongest of the animals... not culling of the weak/sick animals as should happen naturally.

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

gnick (1211984) | about 7 months ago | (#46564065)

Why? I don't see why people shouldn't use every technology available to them to give themselves an advantage.
Are we going to make laws that say that technology can never advance again and we will all just stay in the twentieth century?

Kind of... It's not like spotlights were just invented last week, but they're still regulated for hunting. So is the time of year you can hunt different species, how many you can kill, and what kind of weaponry/traps/bait can be used. This isn't new - It's just evolving slowly to maintain some sense of balance. If we could just set up turrets, everyone with a license would be bagging their limit every day.

For a while...

Re:Redefine hunting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564103)

In many cases hunting is done to control animal populations so the population doesn't explode.

No, in many cases that is the excuse. The reason is still enjoyment.

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46564353)

Hunting as a sport using advanced technology? Um, nope. Maybe for food or population control, but for sport? No, I don't think so.

I'm good with hunting for sport, but where's the thrill in killing that big buck using a spotlight to get him to stand still? For sport hunting, you need to get out and tromp around the woods and actually engage in the sport. You don't break out the night vision goggles and set up feeding/salt stations to draw animals in, you go out and find them Now for population control or food, the gloves come off in my mind. Let's be efficient in these cases. Culling herds and eating the kills is even better.

So if this law prevents the outfitters/guides from "cheating" on the sport part for their customers, I'm good with banning drones. But if it keeps folks from being more efficient in gathering food, I'm not so sure.

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 7 months ago | (#46564365)

Hunting for "sport".

Why is it against the rules to take a cab to skip over the boring middle part of a marathon?
Why is it against the rules to use a golf cart on the PGA tour?
Why can't we use a snowmobile during cross-country skiing races?

If all you care about is getting the kill without any effort at all... go to a butcher's shop.

Re:Redefine hunting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564387)

Why? I don't see why people shouldn't use every technology available to them to give themselves an advantage.

To paraphrase a Chuck Norris joke: because it's called "hunting" and not "killing". Just like it's called "fishing" and not "catching". :)

Why does hunting have to be difficult?

What kind of satisfaction does one actually get in the activity if there is no difficulty in it? Why not just go to the supermarket?

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 7 months ago | (#46563795)

Why would using a camera in the sky be defined as hunting all of a sudden? Or did you assume there was a gun on it?

Re:Redefine hunting. (5, Insightful)

Ranbot (2648297) | about 7 months ago | (#46563907)

Or did you assume there was a gun on it?

Nope, I read the article just fine and didn't assume anything. We don't let hunters use automatic rifles. Many states out-law "spot-lighting" of deer for good reason. We don't let fisherman use electro-shock or dynamite to catch fish. There are reasons to limit technology in hunting for the purpose of sport and to give the animals a chance.

Re:Redefine hunting. (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 7 months ago | (#46564009)

There's always questions around this about "how much restriction is too much restriction?". There's places that don't allow barbs on fishing hooks. Also, hunting isn't just a sport, for many it's also a source of food. Fishing can be a sport because you can do catch and release. Most other forms of hunting I'm aware of aim to kill the animal. So while they may be "sport", there's very real consequences for the animals in question. As long as there are limits on how many animals you're allowed to kill in a season, should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46564081)

for many it's also a source of food. [...] should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

This right here (given the elesion) is precisely what I wanted to say. Sure, maybe even most hunters are out for yuks. But if there's limits, who gives a shit how sporting it is? As a comment addressed to the general population, worry about your own food, which was probably mistreated all the way to your plate, and not about the animal that the hunter did his damndest to drop with one shot.

False distinctions (-1, Flamebait)

sjbe (173966) | about 7 months ago | (#46564343)

As a comment addressed to the general population, worry about your own food, which was probably mistreated all the way to your plate, and not about the animal that the hunter did his damndest to drop with one shot.

Are you seriously going to pretend that that same hunter gets all their meat from hunting? No one does and you know it. Hunters don't hunt because they need the food or because it is more humane or because of population control. They hunt because it amuses them to kill something. Any other benefit that results is simply a second order effect. We spend over $20 billion per year on hunting so any argument that it is about food for the needy is preposterous.

Re:Redefine hunting. (3, Insightful)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 7 months ago | (#46564349)

As long as there are limits on how many animals you're allowed to kill in a season, should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

That was my first thought too. I suspect that the limits are based on a reasonable expectation of how many animals people are going to kill while walking around and just looking for them unassisted. When the DNR gives out permits to kill 500 moose, it's probably done with the assumption that only 45% of those hunters will succeed. Now, if it was suddenly way easier for the hunters to find the moose, the DNR might have severely overestimated how many permits they could safely give out. It's easier to simply ban the use of drones for scouting out game than to recalibrate your culling numbers with data based on how drones affect success.

It's also probably in the state's interest to keep hunting reasonably difficult. if they start giving out only half the number of permits because people are just going to kill 2x as many moose with their technology, suddenly, there aren't as many reasons for tourists to come in for that activity.

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 7 months ago | (#46563929)

In fact it is still 'hunting', even if you start using Reaper drones and Hellfire missiles. Your mistake is the romantic, disturbing, and false notion that 'hunting' is meant to be fair to both parties.

Re:Redefine hunting. (1)

jythie (914043) | about 7 months ago | (#46564051)

I think we passed that point a long time ago. I imagine it will not be all that long till people start arming drones so they do not even have to go sit in the cold.

Re:Redefine hunting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564267)

After reading that comments, I realize that most of you get your meat that was grown at the grocery store, huh?

Lots of misinformed, liberals in here. Its embarrassing.

Whats the poing of hunting as a sport? (1, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46563733)

How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport? And now drones? FFS , why not just nuke the whole fucking forest then Billy Bob Smalldick can claim he's killed everything and act the hero to all the toothless hags that inhabit the trailers in the area!

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563811)

Just for that comment, we're only issuing you a bowie knife for your next hunting expedition. Good luck making and stringing your bow and fletching your arrows out in the wilderness. Say hello to mama grizzly for me.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563871)

Your attempt at trolling is only funny because you assume that everyone goes on hunting "expeditions". Such redneck thinking is hilarious.

LOLLERTROLL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563917)

You're assuming you and the original troll are qualified to comment on hunting, something you admit to everyone you know NOTHING about.

Nice try, TROLL

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563827)

You must be real fun at parties.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563869)

How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport?

Yea know, most hunters like myself hunt for food. I don't see a difference between using a rifle to put dinner on my family's plate or a cow that has been raised in a pen for its life only to be ground up, mixed with horse meat, processed in a plant with similar cleanliness to an auto garage, then sold to the customer via a dollar menu.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport? (4, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 7 months ago | (#46564059)

How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport?

That's because by the original rules the deer got the rifles every alternate week. Ever since we changed things around I've boycotted the sport.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport? (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 7 months ago | (#46564357)

Because unlike your latest Call of Duty download, hunting doesn't consist of moving a mouse until the crosshairs are over the head. It's an entire process.

No! (1, Funny)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 7 months ago | (#46563755)

But what else are my drones good for?

What about hunting FOR Drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563765)

That would be more sporting...

Re:What about hunting FOR Drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563803)

Oh you mean like in Tennessee, where they've passed a law to make it illegal to use drones on people hunting legally?

Certain hunters took that to mean they can now shoot down any drones they see.

Just waiting for one of them to piss off the DEA, FBI, or other federal agency by doing that.

Re:What about hunting FOR Drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563849)

GOOD! Fuck the FBI, NSA, DEA etc for spying on the American people,

The more drones citizens shoot down, the better...

Re:What about hunting FOR Drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564329)

Except for those citizens who find themselves sitting in federal prison.

Hunting is not for the poor (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 7 months ago | (#46563769)

I can still do a flyby in a brush plane.

Re:Hunting is not for the poor (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#46564165)

Not just before the hunt. In most western states that is specifically illegal. Timing varies, usually between 24 and 72 hours. Yes, it happens but most commercial bush pilots won't do it because they can get into trouble. So it's harder to do than if it were legal. Planes are easy to identify (those nice large numbers on the side). Lots of paperwork and other forensic clues. Not the smartest of ideas.

Fine! (2)

DaMattster (977781) | about 7 months ago | (#46563781)

Then law enforcement using drones should be illegal too.

Re:Fine! (-1, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46563831)

Right, because obviously some inbred inadequate halfwit blowing out the brains of some forest animal minding its own business is an identical situation to the police trying to catch a criminal.

Not.

Re:Fine! (4, Insightful)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 7 months ago | (#46563885)

ah, you sound like one of those civilized types that prefers his animals to live shitty lives with no freedoms and then nicely packaged up for others to feast on. Strangely, exactly the same way a civilized person lives and dies.

Re:Fine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563891)

This is a really strange non sequitur. Could you please explain?

Re:Fine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564239)

No, They call those killings "police work". Refering to it as "hunting" would be crass.

Re:Fine! (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 7 months ago | (#46564393)

Then law enforcement using drones should be illegal too.

yeah! and while we're just trying to get some pork passed with this bill lifeguards shouldn't be allowed to warn swimmers of sharks and my construction company gets a $5 million grant!

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563813)

Bear uses drone to hunt YOU (BearCav close air support)

Bah (2, Funny)

grub (11606) | about 7 months ago | (#46563825)


Real men drone hunt in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

Fair is fair (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563829)

I say, lets arm the moose and bear so they can fire back!

Re:Fair is fair (5, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 7 months ago | (#46563999)

Citizens should have the right to arm bears

Sadistic (4, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 7 months ago | (#46563835)

Just because you call it game doesn't make it a sport. I really do not understand the appeal of killing animals for fun. To get a meal? Sure. To deal with a pest? Makes sense. To protect yourself? No problem even though it rarely happens. For environmental stewardship? Great. But just for fun? With high powered rifles and drones? That makes that person a sadistic asshole. We're already WAY too good at killing things. If you are out to kill things for "fun" then make it a level playing field and do it with nothing more than a knife.

Someone who would use a drone to hunt is like someone who plays a game with "god mode" enabled. They're completely missing the point. The point isn't to kill the animal at any cost. Someone who can afford a drone isn't doing it for their next meal. They're just killing to get their rocks off. Pity we aren't more evolved than that.

Re:Sadistic (1, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46563905)

I think killing things "for fun" is something psychopaths do.

Re:Sadistic (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46563915)

Just because you call it game doesn't make it a sport. I really do not understand the appeal of killing animals for fun

Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters? Same concept, only with sport hunting you get a meatspace trophy to hang on the wall, as opposed to some sort of digital achievement.

Not that I agree with the practice (much the opposite), but I do understand it.

As for "hunting with drones," I also see a legitimate use case: scouting. Being able to establish migratory and feeding habits without having to hike through miles of wilderness and spend weeks camping along deer trails would be a real boon to those of us who like to hunt (for food), but work real jobs and thus do not have the time necessary to establish said patterns.

Video games are not real life (-1, Flamebait)

sjbe (173966) | about 7 months ago | (#46564097)

Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters?

There is a HUGE difference between doing something imaginary in a video game and killing a real, live creature or a real live person. Do I really have to explain the difference to you? Here's a hint, in a video game no one actually dies and all the participants know that. It's one thing to fantasize about something and quite another to actually do it in the real world. We're talking about people getting amusement from the real world suffering of another creature. I hope you can actually understand why that is very very very different.

Re:Video games are not real life (3, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46564253)

Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters?

There is a HUGE difference between doing something imaginary in a video game and killing a real, live creature or a real live person.

Yea, namely that one is a method of food acquisition that requires training, certification, and licensing, and the other is a way for little kids (or people with little kid mentalities) to play up fantasies about murdering other humans.

Here's a hint, in a video game no one actually dies and all the participants know that.

No one actually dies when hunting either. At least, you hope no one actually dies, but accidents do happen.

Trouble is, if a kid's only interaction with firearms is playing a fantasy game where "no one dies," if/when they encounter a real firearm they aren't going to understand just how dangerous of a tool it is. Kids who hunt know the difference.

It's one thing to fantasize about something and quite another to actually do it in the real world.

True. Now apply that to your own thought process: your fantasy about what hunting is, and how hunters are motivated, is one thing, and reality is another.

We're talking about people getting amusement from the real world suffering of another creature.

Proof that you don't know jack about hunting, other than what [insert preferred 'envronmentalist' group] told you to think. FWIW, most hunters try to avoid causing the animals to suffer.

That's why we invented target practice.

I hope you can actually understand why that is very very very different.

I do. I hope you can understand how unreasonably uninformed you are presenting yourself as.

Re:Sadistic (2)

jythie (914043) | about 7 months ago | (#46564157)

Which is kinda the disturbing part since it speaks to hunters seeing animals as equivalent to those digital representations, no life before the player enters the scene, doesn't feel pain, exists for their amusement.

Which is why, even though it sounds a bit hyperbolic, 'psychopath' is really not that far off. Granted the disorder is only really defined in terms of not having empathy for other humans, history has shown we have a rather sliding scale about what counts as 'like us' and what does not, and all that really varies is where the disconnect is.

Re:Sadistic (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46564337)

Which is kinda the disturbing part since it speaks to hunters seeing animals as equivalent to those digital representations, no life before the player enters the scene, doesn't feel pain, exists for their amusement.

Oh please.

See, this is the other reason* why the hunting community ignores you "environmentalists," - the hyperbole. I mean, really, calling a person a 'psychopath' because they hunt for food, rather than wait for someone else to kill it for them? Childish narcissism doesn't even begin to describe it.

Re:Sadistic (1)

Brian (2887359) | about 7 months ago | (#46564211)

"Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters? Same concept," You...you might want to get that checked.

Re:Sadistic (2)

hippo (107522) | about 7 months ago | (#46564105)

It's not a level playing filed if you carry a knife. Vladimir Putin strangles them with his bare hands and Chuck Norris just kills them with a single punch.

A lot of hunters are asshats (3, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 7 months ago | (#46563839)

In Maine it's legal to bait an area until bears come to it, then chase them up a tree with a pack of dogs, then walk up and shoot them out of the tree.

This pervasive mentality (shooting wolves from a helicopter) and now this new drone thing is what gives hunters a bad name.

Bloodlust (-1)

sjbe (173966) | about 7 months ago | (#46563975)

This pervasive mentality (shooting wolves from a helicopter) and now this new drone thing is what gives hunters a bad name.

Damn right. Even a high powered rifle with no other technology is a ridiculously one sided advantage when hunting. There are several perfectly practical reasons to go hunting that have nothing to do with entertainment. (food, pests, protection, environment) They even have the gall to call hunting a "sport" and euphemise their bloodlust by calling their kills "harvesting" as if it was no different than planting corn. I'm not quite sure how it is a "sport" if the other team doesn't know they are playing.

I don't have a problem with allowing hunting for practical reasons but most hunters I know (and I know lots of them) are pretty disingenuous about their motives for killing harmless animals. 99% of the time it is for no purpose other then their own amusement. I find that sort of mentality rather disturbing.

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46564299)

In Maine it's legal to bait an area until bears come to it, then chase them up a tree with a pack of dogs, then walk up and shoot them out of the tree.

Sounds more like trapping than hunting. [footloosemontana.org]

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats (0)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 7 months ago | (#46564347)

You're talking like there is a bear holocaust, but if the number of kills is restricted, it is irrelevant how easy they are. Less efficient methods can introduce more struggle and pain for the animal

What's the point of it all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563845)

Hunting was never a fair contest between hunter and prey. And anyway, I am not overly familiar with Alaska, but wouldn't a drone be rather useless against everything but the very biggest animals (moose, deer, bear)? I always thought that Alaska was pretty much one big forest. And forests have trees. And trees block your view.

What's the difference (2)

JimMcc (31079) | about 7 months ago | (#46563859)

What's the difference between a hunter with a drone and a factory fishing vessel with spotter planes? Is it scale? money? Both models are using airborne technology to assist in the gathering of food. If we are going to ban aerial observation, than it should be for all applications and uses of it regardless of how monied the operator is.

Re:What's the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563997)

Hunting only works because there are only so many assholes who go out into the woods to shoot animals for fun... if say it was stupidly easy with you relatively detached from the process (send an autonomous drone out, and have it txtmsg you gps coordinates where you pickup the kill), then we wouldn't have any animals left!

Re:What's the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564111)

The issue is that the number of wild land animals aren't sufficient to feed everyone that wants to eat them. There aren't enough deer/moose/elk/etc. for that. Limiting the technology available to hunters helps prevent overpredation of these critters.

Hunting also serves a dual purpose: it produces food, and it provides recreation for the hunters. There are lots of folks who enjoy chasing game using old-fashioned methods. If we're going to limit the number of wild elk (say) that people eat, saying "You can use a helicopter and eat a wild elk if you win this lottery" is less preferable to "You can kill and eat a wild elk if you can do it with a rifle the old-fashioned way", since lots of people enjoy the latter -- even if they don't actually kill one.

This gets modified in a lot of situations based on the game/hunter ratio. In some places there are far more hunters than game, and they have to impose a lottery on top of technological limitations. In some places they impose more or less severe technological limitations, etc. All of this is to tune the amount of game killed while enabling as many people as possible to enjoy the forest (or desert, etc.) while doing so in a traditional way.

Re:What's the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564259)

As if the sea isn't depleted to near extinction by overfishing.

Re:What's the difference (1)

jythie (914043) | about 7 months ago | (#46564183)

Money. Hunting is 'non-profit', you do it for entertainment (or at minimal, the people who can afford a lobby do it for entertainment). Factory fishing is for-profit, thus anything they do that decreases the cost to consumers and increases their personal wealth is 'ethical'. Same applies to killing animals for purposes of protecting livestock or farmland, pretty much anything goes since wealth=better.

Re:What's the difference (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#46564199)

Rules. It is simply a societal choice to limit the effectiveness of recreational hunters vs. commercial activities.

Sarah Palin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563873)

I'm sure she's upset with this ban. At lest she still can legally look out her window to see Russia.

Re:Sarah Palin (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46564061)

In Soviet Alaska, Windows look at YOU!*

* because Russian hackers installed spyware on your PC and spy on you via your webcam.

My drone doesn't assist me. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563887)

It does all the work. Finds a bear/moose, kills it, then flies it back to my house. The future is finally here.

Perfectly good State Law and Rule Making (2)

nevermindme (912672) | about 7 months ago | (#46563923)

Kudos to Fish and Wildlife of Alaska. Drones are no different than shooting from a quad or using a helicopter or plane for wildlife spotting, It is fine to use that gear to scout the area the day before, but once sun rises the day of the hunt it is the one sport that for all practical purposes stuck in 1910 technology. It would be nice to have a regulation that you can search for a wounded animal with a drone as that is where a few hunters run out of steam, in the tracking or chase of elk or moose that didn't get hit with the hunters goal of a ethical mortal shot.

A drone in the back woods with 3 cans of bear repellant and 3 noisemakers would be a very ethical use of drones to keep bears and hunters apart. And we are fooling ourselves if we think illegal hunters and poachers wouldn't use a easy to fly drone to monitor police activity.

Needless legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46563977)

Assuming that they give out licenses to hunt for the purposes of food/materials, and that they place a limit on how many animals the hunter can kill in a season, there is no point to denying hunters the use of drones (barring issues with licensing and operating drones). The ability to more quickly hunt and kill an animal doesn't actually do anything besides give some people a better 'feeling' about hunting not being so unfair to the animal.

Re:Needless legislation (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 7 months ago | (#46564331)

On the contrary, it biases the animals taken in a given year. If you are a hunter and have a week to take a large game specimen, you are likely to make a different decision about what is an "acceptable" take if you are limited to ground review vs being able to survey a much larger area and select a better trophy animal to hunt.

This seems to be aimed specifically at sport hunters since subsistence hunters would be less selective or would simply have more time, as local residents, if they felt some odd need to harvest a particular size animal.

Bigfoot (1)

Emilio Nicoli (3590773) | about 7 months ago | (#46563989)

Now we will never find Bigfoot

Re:Bigfoot (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46564255)

Of course we won't, because he's naturally blurry [youtube.com] .

But (3, Funny)

slapout (93640) | about 7 months ago | (#46564123)

Is it legal to hunt drones in Alaska?

Spotting with helicopter still okay? (0)

Manfre (631065) | about 7 months ago | (#46564227)

They're not okay with drones, but I thought Alaska allowed people to hunt and shoot from a helicopter. If this is the case, then I guess they don't want the poor people to enjoy an aerial advantage.

Where's the sport? (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 7 months ago | (#46564291)

Doesn't anyone remember when we used to go out after wooly mammoths with clubs? Youngsters these days!

Well, glad the drones arent doing the shooting yet (2)

luckytroll (68214) | about 7 months ago | (#46564377)

At least folks are still getting out in the fresh air.

Seems like its only a matter of time before people can just sit in their living rooms and run an armed drone around the bush to shoot stuff for them.

It already happens a bit with the astronomy crowd - why stand shivering when you can remote your telescope from the comfort of home?

On the plus side, if you do happen to design a drone smart enough to hunt down a critter, you may have a future building dystopian tech for the defense industry.

Palin's friends don't want competition (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564381)

That's because Palin's rich friends with helicopters don't want the competition.

Sarah Palin hunting from helicopter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46564411)

Sarah Palin can hunt wolves from a helicopter and it's OK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPFPBmzRrQ
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/palin-shooting-wolves/

Once again, in the US you are above the law if you have $$$.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?