• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PETA Plans to Fly Drones That Would 'Stalk Hunters'

Finders keepers. They put on your property you may do what you wish. If they fly it over your house they are technically violating FAA regulations.

No they aren't. Aircraft fly over your house all the time.
 
No they aren't. Aircraft fly over your house all the time.

Not below 400ft. They that low they in trouble of some kind.
 
You mean cost YOU money. Destroying private property is a crime.

In theory at least you own from the center of the earth to the sky above. Drones over your property are trespassing. Fair game.
 
To those who think PETA shouldn't be watching out for people breaking the law and turning that info over to the police I have two questions:

Do you think neighborhood watches are wrong?
Those are property owners watching their own property, from their own property.

Do you think private citizens who monitor the border for illegal crossings (such as the Minutemen) and then notify border patrol are wrong?

If property owners are ok with what they do on their land, then power to them. But if they are on their own, then they just vigilantes.
 
The limit is 500 feet, unless they are in the process of landing or taking off, or an emergency.

FAA regulations for remotely operated hobbyist aircraft is 400ft max altitude and away from congested areas. Flying your drone over the neighbors property is frowned upon by the FAA. The 500' rule would apply to manned aircraft for minimum altitude as I understand the rules.
 
FAA regulations for remotely operated hobbyist aircraft is 400ft max altitude and away from congested areas. Flying your drone over the neighbors property is frowned upon by the FAA. The 500' rule would apply to manned aircraft for minimum altitude as I understand the rules.

I was referring to the floor(500ft) of aircraft, but I'm not sure if traditional drones, which are much larger than a hobby plane, would be subject to that rule.
 
I was referring to the floor(500ft) of aircraft, but I'm not sure if traditional drones, which are much larger than a hobby plane, would be subject to that rule.

Commercial drones, IE drones other than hobbyist aircraft must have a permit and waiver, and currently sponsorship from a public entity. The exception would be US government drones.
 
Depends on what they are hunting and when. Unfortunately we have killed off most of the predators so hunting can help control populations, such as in the case of hunting deer.

Poppycock. Coyotes are a huge nusance and have invaded the middle of cities. A coyote goes through my backyard every night. Same with smaller predators like raccoons and opposums. The only large predator not common now is the wolf and they were never very plentiful.
 
In theory at least you own from the center of the earth to the sky above. Drones over your property are trespassing. Fair game.

How many people hunt on their own property? That is not what I was talking about.
 
Well, the rich will be able to afford the nicest drones. Game on.
 
How many people hunt on their own property? That is not what I was talking about.

More than you would think. Either on land owned or leased. True there is as good deal of hunting on public land, and if a condition of licensing is acknowledgement that you do not shoot down drones, then so be it. But that is a contractural obligation, not a trespassing issue.

I've hunted over 60 years in several states and in Germany. At least 95% of my hunting was on private land.
 
To those who think PETA shouldn't be watching out for people breaking the law and turning that info over to the police I have two questions:

Do you think neighborhood watches are wrong?
Do you think private citizens who monitor the border for illegal crossings (such as the Minutemen) and then notify border patrol are wrong?

Most states have laws prohibiting harassment of hunters or wildlife. PETA's drones would be breaking both laws.
 
Most states have laws prohibiting harassment of hunters or wildlife. PETA's drones would be breaking both laws.

Just think of yourselves as celebrities and drones are your paparazzi. It's tough to prove just observing someone in a public place is "harassment".
 
Just think of yourselves as celebrities and drones are your paparazzi. It's tough to prove just observing someone in a public place is "harassment".

Your hunting lodge is a public place? Your hundred acre farm is a public place?

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.,
 
Just think of yourselves as celebrities and drones are your paparazzi. It's tough to prove just observing someone in a public place is "harassment".

We are not public figures and thus have a higher legal expectation of privacy. It wouldn't be very hard at all. Try following someone around filming them with a camera and see what happens.
 
To those who think PETA shouldn't be watching out for people breaking the law and turning that info over to the police I have two questions:

Do you think neighborhood watches are wrong?
Do you think private citizens who monitor the border for illegal crossings (such as the Minutemen) and then notify border patrol are wrong?

To the people who think that PETA wouldn't use their drones to harass legal hunters and run off whatever they're hunting, do you also believe that unicorns frolic in fields of daisies under rainbows created by spectacular waterfalls?
 
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?
 
people that hunt in this day and age are vermin.

there is no need to kill whats left of the wild and beautiful..

of course with the gun mentality america tried and almost wiped out the buffalo and native indian.

I shoot vermin. Coyotes, wild dogs, ect. are vermin. Hunters aren't. I don't care what you think. I wont have vermin on my property.
 
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.
 
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/break...nes-would-stalk-hunters-6.html#post1061672215

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.
 
"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.
Unless drones are banned by the FAA, or whoever manages that particular park: You're gonna have drones there anyway. They could be operated by drone enthusiasts, photographers, park management, map services companies, and so forth. Might want to get used to it.

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! :mrgreen:
 
Unless drones are banned by the FAA, or whoever manages that particular park: You're gonna have drones there anyway. They could be operated by drone enthusiasts, photographers, park management, map services companies, and so forth. Might want to get used to it.

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! :mrgreen:


No, I don't have to "get used to it"....It's little authoritarians like yourself that make the mole hills into mountains.
 
Back
Top Bottom