PETA Wants Drone To Monitor Hunters
BY Herschel Smith
11 years ago
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is actively shopping for a drone that would “stalk hunters,” the organization said Monday.
The group says it will “soon have some impressive new weapons at its disposal to combat those who gun down deer and doves” and that it is “shopping for one or more drone aircraft with which to monitor those who are out in the woods with death on their minds.”
The group says it will not weaponize the drones, but will use them to film potentially illegal hunting activity and turn it over to law enforcement.
[ … ]
The group may want to carefully monitor its drone—last year, an animal rights group drone was shot down while it was attempting to monitor pigeon hunters in South Carolina.
Pigeon hunters in South Carolina. Did PETA think it would end well? South Carolina? Really? And the PETA representative on the video thinks it amazing that “a blogger” would advocate shooting down this drone.
Let me say it here and now, for everyone to see. I not only advocate shooting down this and similar drones, I advocate that we find out when the drones will be used and we deploy hunting parties specifically for them.
Can we get a PETA representative here to debate it?
|
|
On April 9, 2013 at 4:03 am, GunRights4US said:
I’d have walked right out there and got in their face. On the issues of big brother intrusion (the very existence of the drone) and being undisturbed in my legal hunt (the use of the drone), I think I could have made a compelling impression on them that they wouldn’t soon forget.
As for their drone: “Did you see ME shoot it?”
To turn tail and run, well – I am ashamed of them fellers
On April 9, 2013 at 9:26 am, Chuck said:
Drone? What drone? I was shooting at a pigeon.
On April 9, 2013 at 10:16 am, RAN58 said:
If I’m not mistaken, if the drone is over your property and flying under 400 feet, it is in your airspace, and trespassing on your property. So I would think it fair game to engage. This could be great practice.
On April 9, 2013 at 4:24 pm, Bill said:
Can we hover one over their processing, erm, slaughtering, erm, “rescue shelters”?
On April 9, 2013 at 7:48 pm, UncleTuck said:
We still have a 4th Amendment to our Constitution, though this administration ignores most of the Constitution anyway.
The 4th is supposed to protect us from illegal search and seizure. That is exactly what they propose to do, “spy on hunters” effectively stalking humans! They are now the terrorists! Millions of us patriots know what to do with terrorists, foreign or domestic!
Additionally, since when did PETA become a law enforcement agency with such sanctioned powers of search and stalking of humans conducting legal and NATURAL activities?
What about our HUMAN rights to privacy, even when hunting. I have not signed a disclosure statement they can use my likeness in any manner.
My likeness is copywrited and any unauthorized photography of any type will be defended in court!
While we’re at it, it is these PETA-Nazis who are sick and sickening to those of us who know, understand, acknowledge and embrace God’s intended food chain!
The PETA-Nazis can choke on a chicken sandwich!
They warned us of their illegal intensions, so now I am returning the courtesy – Their drones better be out of range of my .308 and .50 BMG!
Can I get an “Amen” from the choir?
On April 9, 2013 at 7:57 pm, Herschel Smith said:
UncleTuck,
Of course, that’s exactly what I’m suggesting happen. No running away, shoot them out of the sky, no prejudice, no apology.
On April 9, 2013 at 8:25 pm, MarineOfficer said:
Let’s back up a step here…
What PETA is proposing to do is to fly an aircraft over airspace with a camera. While I agree that this type of surveillance is disturbing, the legal argument is pretty strongly on their side. The 4th Amendment restricts only government action (as do all amendments to the constitution, with exception of 13).
RAN58 makes the best argument, that if the drone enters airspace that you can legally claim as your property, you could shoot it down. However, if you are hunting on public lands or anywhere you do not have an ownership interest, you are on much shakier grounds. PETA can come out into the woods and follow you around while you are hunting, there is no privacy right in that. The woods in this way are no different from you being on the street, wherever you are in “open view,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted very broadly, you are subject to observation and therefore have no privacy right.
So back to shooting at the drone. I say fire away, but you are destroying somebody’s private property, property that will be equipped with a powerful camera, and likely a broadcast antenna. If an image of you firing comes out, and you are dragged into civil court, how will you defend yourself? That is the practical implication here.
I also want to focus here on the second to last paragraph in the US News report. Law Enforcement frequently asks private citizens to do things for them that it cannot (this is the core of informant legality), for example they will ask somebody who lives in a home to search it, to avoid a search warrant requirement. PETA is doing the same thing. Right now, it is difficult for law enforcement to operate drones in surveillance mode in this manner without probable cause. Such restrictions do not exist on private citizens.
A much better answer therefore might be to operate in your local political scene to enact legislation that prohibits the use of private drones in this manner. This will likely be an uphill struggle, but one I would encourage none the less.
And last, let me return to one of my broken record themes of the interwebs…lets not throw around the word domestic terrorist to much. PETA is filled with imbeciles, morons, idiots, and statists. We give them too much credit by labeling them as terrorists, and we give them too much power. You have no right to prohibit “unauthorized photographs.” Have you heard of Google Maps Streetview? Have you seen a recent newspaper or maybe visited TMZ? The modern news media is built on taking unauthorized pictures, that’s a loser of a legal fight.
PETA is very well resourced, and looking for the ability to drag the good name of a hunter through the mud, to have the ability to have somebody say something stupid on camera, so they can point to you while their lawyer takes you for everything you are worth. Deliberation, circumspection, and the avoidance of unnecessary confrontation while building a legal framework that prevents these actions may be the better course of action.
On April 10, 2013 at 7:00 am, scott s. said:
I suppose you could argue a theory of common law trespass if you had ownership of the underlying land, but that could play out in different ways. Undoubtedly it will have to be resolved by statute to avoid extensive litigation. I don’t see that observation, either intentional or incidental, has any bearing without some new theory of privacy. As it is privacy has been applied to the home and curtilage only, though recent USSC case on GPS tracking of vehicle may signal changing views of courts on privacy.
On April 10, 2013 at 9:50 pm, Josh said:
MarineOfficer gives a good response to ignorant hyperbole.
The answer here isn’t destruction – it’s disabling. Technology to disable cameras in a non-destructive fashion exists, it just has not been consumerized. If PETA really digs in, the free market will step up and provide the sanctuary hunters demand and they will adopt it just like game cameras, night vision and GPS collars for tracking hounds.
Really though, PETA is just a master troll. They seek maximum publicity with minimum effort. In the end, the drones will just be shot out of the sky (hopefully not with a rifle cartridge – keep your wits) like they have been.
Also, the only thing separating a “drone” from any other RC aircraft is the miniaturization of cameras. IIRC, weaponizing civilian aircraft is against at least FAA regulations, although some hobbyists have succeeded in mounting full-auto paintball guns to them, which makes for good YouTube.
Perhaps hunters should fly their own drone for their party that harasses troll drones. Sounds like fun to me!