At least, for now, that is not true.
FYI, the PETA drone that got shot down was intent on harrassing a pigeon shoot on a private site. It was trespassing. The shoot was legal, drone was not.,
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?
It has already been shown in this thread that PETA's real motive here is to harass ALL hunters. This is a group of unstable people that does despicable things such as target elementary school kids with pamphlets depicting gruesome images of Bambi being killed, then tells them that 'daddy did that'.... Why should we trust the motives of any group of unhinged people like this?
Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
I usually do not support PETA, as they are usually more interested in "being outrageous" than in actually fixing a problem.
However, I don't see any problems with this plan.
Poaching -- as in, illegal hunting -- is a serious problem. It damages the environment, and gives all hunters a bad name. If the government is unwilling or unable to work on the issue, I see no problem with a private organization stepping up.
And no, there is no legal reason why a private citizen cannot be photographed in a public place. What PETA cannot do is use an identifiable image of a person for commercial purposes. If you're walking down the street or in a park and I take your photo, that action is legal.
While there is no doubt that PETA opposes all hunting, they are not planning to send drones onto private property, or buzz legal hunters, or commercializing anyone's image without permission. As long as they abide by the rules, there is nothing wrong with this proposed action.
No. ocean515 addressed this long ago in the thread here....
"That is not what they said. According the news article link accompanying this thread they claim the following.
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 operative word is "potentially" illegal hunting.
"Potentially"? So after buzzing around with a drone, chasing off whatever game might be in the area, and determining all is well, they plan to move on? Yea right.
Don't put words on this thread that are blatently false.
When their statement includes the following: "out in the woods with death on their minds", it's quite clear what they are looking to do.
As to your question, I think the answer is obvious. Why don't you go throw rocks in the water around a bunch of people fishing and tally their response."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1061672215 (PETA Plans to Fly Drones That Would 'Stalk Hunters')
This is largely being ignored by people that are using the guise of "illegal" hunting as the premise of their arguments, when PETA has made it more than clear that "ANY" hunter is fair game to them.
If PETA interferes with a legal hunt, I'd disapprove of it. Until it actually happens, my sympathies for poachers are basically zero.
And really, the more I think about it, the less this seems like an actual viable policy and more like a way to get attention. A drone with a 20- or 40-minute flight time won't be all that effective. Your outrage has brought them more attention, which is probably what they really want in the first place. So... good job!