Hunters Shoot Animal Rights Drone Out of the Sky

[bathroommonkey76]

The gun totin' boys at the Broxton Bridge Plantation hunting ground were planning on having themselves a good old fashioned pigeon hunt. South Carolina's unfortunately named S.H.A.R.K. animal rights group planned to expose them via aerial drone. Guess what happened.

The Times and Democrat reports that once the hopeful hunters knew they were going to be watched from above, they started to leave the private shooting plantation. SHARK decided to send up their drone anyway—above a group of cranky firearm-wielding southerners. Big mistake, SHARK. Their drone was quickly shot out of the sky:

"Seconds after it hit the air, numerous shots rang out," [SHARK leader] Hindi said in the release. "As an act of revenge for us shutting down the pigeon slaughter, they had shot down our copter." He claimed the shooters were "in tree cover" and "fled the scene on small motorized vehicles."



Read more here:

http://gizmodo.com/5886013/hunters-shoot-animal-rights-drone-out-of-the-sky

[Enrique]

1. there are animal rights drones?

who knew?

[TheWraith]

3. A "drone" is just a radio-controlled aircraft with a camera, basically.

Even the big ones operated by the military are that. Bigger, with longer range and better cameras, but it comes down to the same basic premise. Hobbyists have been building these things for years; you could build one yourself for around $150 that'll give you fifteen minutes of flight time and live video transmission.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. or a male bee

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. .....or a brain dead republican voter

[3waygeek]

60. You repeat yourself n/t

[bathroommonkey76]

6. It looks like they are being used more and more by different groups.

Here are some recent stories about the use of drones in wildlife areas:

Animal Rights Activists Will Use Drones in SC to Film the "Horrors" of a Pigeon Shoot

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2012/02/activists-film-horrors-sc-pigeon-shoot

Unmanned aerial drones the future of Arctic reconnaissance?

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/unmanned-aerial-drones-future-arctic-reconnaissance

Meat Packing Plant Under Investigation for Dumping Pig Blood into Nearby Creek

Read more: http://greenanswers.com/news/274701/meat-packing-plant-under-investigation-dumping-pig-blood-nearby-creek#ixzz1mfzmiVRN

Civilian drones to fill the skies after law shake-up

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328506.200-civilian-drones-to-fill-the-skies-after-law-shakeup.html

[TheWraith]

40. Interestingly, as I recall the meatpacking plant case was purely an accident.

The aircraft was being operated by a hobbyist, not intent on looking at anything in particular but simply testing out his machine, when one of his photos discovered a river of blood flowing out of the back of the meatpacking plant, where it wasn't visible from the ground.

[Aerows]

72. That's a good accident, for certain

What were they thinking dumping blood into a river that could end up being used for drinking water?

[joeybee12]

2. Interesting to know if this was one of those canned hunts...

Which is hardly sport...the kind where Dead Eye Dick Cheney shot that other guy at.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. I think it is; a google search turns up one site that reviews the plantation

but Google also marks the site as "may harm your computer", so I've only got the excerpt Google gave:

"Broxton Bridge Plantation - Hunting Guide and Fishing Guide Reviews

After a sporting clays warm up, pheasants take flight from a 65 foot high tower, then there is a simulated dove shoot using pigeons. You can really blow the dust ..."

And the charge for a day's shooting is $375 - this is not just a group of hunters getting together to shoot what pigeons turn up on the private land naturally. It appears to be a competition: http://www.broxtonbridge.com/pigeonshootflyer2012.pdf

[chrisa]

98. Those are barbaric

I don't like hunting to begin with, but if people are doing it for food, that's fine. However, I can't stand the concept of taking a caged animal out into a field, and releasing it just to kill it. It's disgusting, cruel, and sociopathic.

[razorman]

4. No loaded or bigoted language here, of course. "Firearm-wielding southerners"? I be the same thing

would have happened in Ohio or Michigan if the morons sent a camera drone to spy on lawful activity. Also, they "fled the scene"? They probably just drove off, since the game had been scared away by then. Besides, who the hell hunts pigeons? They're just flying rats. Dove season I understand. They're good eatin'.

[xmas74]

143. Someone posted a link above

about the group and what it offers.

The pigeon shoot simulates a dove shoot, for $375.

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. Unless the hunt was illegal

I salute the hunters.

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. Pull!!!

[provis99]

85. what the animal rights people did was legal. what the hunters did was not.

so you're on the side of lawbreakers?

[Drahthaardogs]

99. What they did was not legal.

Check your hunting regulations. What they did was called "hunter harassment" and is pretty much illegal in every state. A guy out west got in big trouble for using his airplane to "herd" elk back onto private land so that public land hunters could not shoot them. He got in big trouble, and I believe even lost his airplane.

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. Then why, after the hunters called in the police, did the police let the copter take off?

It seems the police thought 'SHARK' were behaving legally.

[Drahthaardogs]

111. Two guesses on my part

1) Game warden has jurisdiction, not a police officer, in law enforcement jurisdiction is everything

2) Flying the plane was not a crime, the police could not stop them. When they flew below 400 ft and at the hunters, then a crime occurred.


A police officer cannot give you a ticket for an unlicensed vehicle sitting in your garage. He can tell not to drive it but he cannot give you a ticket. Take it out on the road and see what he does.

[SOS]

138. "Hunters"?

Releasing injured pigeons from a box and blasting them all day with shotguns is now
considered "hunting"?

Maybe for Dick Cheney.

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. And just like that, a new american sport was born.

Yes before that, children, the nerds and rednecks had nothing to do together... But once the call went out for a shotgun proof light drone, the games began.

[superpatriotman]

8. Much more sporting than hunting pigeons

I heart hunting accidents.

[tammywammy]

9. Are you a vegetarian or vegan? n/t

[RebelOne]

50. I am a vegetarian and also anti-hunting,

so, I agree with the above poster.

[tammywammy]

52. So you want hunting accidents?

"I heart hunting accidents."

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. That's just all kinds of fucked up.

Hope you find one.

[renie408]

62. I don't think that makes you look as good as you might think it does. n/t

[PavePusher]

125. "I heart hunting accidents. "

That's fucking vile. Retract it.

[Paladin]

126. "Got A Local Ordinance For That?" (n/t)

[PavePusher]

131. It would be nice if you had a clear and defined point. n/t

[MineralMan]

10. In Minnesota, people who harass hunters who are hunting legally during

hunting season are arrested by the DNR officers or county sheriffs. You see, it's against the law to interfere with hunters and anglers who are hunting or angling legally. Fines can be large.

If people want to stop hunting, they should change the laws. Harassing armed people who are obeying the law is a very bad idea, and illegal, to boot.

It sounds to me like these hunters were probably hunting legally. Nothing in the article says otherwise.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Well, those bold hunters need glasses if they can't tell a drone from a pigeon.

[MineralMan]

14. The hunters were wrong to shoot down the microkopter.

The police were there, too, and told the people with the drone not to fly it. They did so anyway. There's more than one story on this.

The person who shot the drone may be charged with destruction of property, according to the story I read.

http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-down/article_017a720a-56ce-11e1-afc4-001871e3ce6c.html

Now, there's a straight news story, rather than an adaptation from an advocacy site. I prefer actual news over advocacy retellings.

Have a nice day.

[surfdog]

23. Who are the police to tell him what to do

What authority do the police have to tell somebody not the fly a remote control plane ?

[TheWraith]

27. Did you read what MineralMan said?

Interfering with legal hunting is a crime. Furthermore, running an aircraft--manned or unmanned--at less than 200 feet above private property where you haven't been invited is also illegal, if I recall FAA regulations properly.

[surfdog]

33. A few questions

How do you know the hunt was legal?

Do you really think firing guns towards a highway in order to shoot a drone is legal ?there are people in cars on the road and the guys were firing their weapons in that direction, not legal , not even close

There is no evidence that they were going to interfere with their hunt , they were simply going to film it from high above in the sky

I don't see any evidence that the people flying the drone did anything illegal ....on the other hand the hunters were firing their weapons towards a highway

One-party fled the scene and one-party stayed to talk to the police and file a report

let's be honest now

[TheWraith]

37. All your questions are answered in the thread, if you want to read through.

It's fairly obvious that the hunt was legal when there was a police officer right there warning the group not to mess with the hunters. It's also just as clear that the police officer, at least, regarded their intention as being to disrupt the hunt--which they could hardly NOT do regardless, given the noise made by an RC helicopter.

Also, no one said that firing towards the road in order to shoot a drone was legal. In fact, it's explicitly noted that the person who fired may face charges of destruction of property.

[surfdog]

42. Really ?

Who gives a fuck if the police said don't fly it and because they thought they intended to disrupt the hunt , opinions of the police officers means nothing , that's why they flew the plane anyway

Like I said show me evidence that what they did was illegal I still don't see it

Then you can show me how it's legal to shoot your firearms towards a highway

Just list it right up for me ...what did they do that was illegal

[TheWraith]

78. For the same reason

"Who gives a fuck if the police said don't fly it"

The same people who give a fuck if the police say pull over, or put your hands up, or whether the officer thinks you're loitering or not. Human judgment is very often used in law enforcement. And when a police officer tells you not to do something which is at best dubiously legal, generally you should not do it.

"Then you can show me how it's legal to shoot your firearms towards a highway"

Again, you seem to miss that NO ONE SAID THIS WAS LEGAL. Period.

You are completely ignoring the facts presented in this thread.

[surfdog]

90. Facts ?

There is no evidence the law was broken , I beg you to post the crime

You failed time and time again

The capital hill police told me name calling was a crime , I then said "fuck you asshole , come and arrest me"

Police say alot of things , most of it is their opinion , which means squat , tell me why no ticket was issued ?

[Drahthaardogs]

100. The hunt was legal, I know this because

there are three species of bird that may be hunted anywhere* at anytime with no bag limit.

they are

1) the rock dove (pigeon)

2) starling

3) english sparrow


All are introduced species that have pushed native birds out.

*On Edit: Obviously you cannot hunt them in areas where hunting itself is illegal

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. Small unmanned aircraft like this one - which was basically a hobbyist's toy

with a mini-cam on it - are not regulated by the FAA in the same way as manned aircraft or large UAVs. Recreational-type RC aircraft have to stay below 400' AGL and away from busy airspace - and that's about it. http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6287

[MineralMan]

29. I don't know about the laws in South Carolina,

but in Minnesota harassing or interfering with hunters or anglers who are hunting legally is a crime. Fines are quite large, and several animal rights groups who have attempted to scare game away from hunters have been arrested and charged.

If you want to change laws, change laws. If you want to disrupt legal activities, you take your chances. Most states have laws against harassing or interfering with legal hunting and angling activities. Look it up.

This group may have said they planned to photograph the hunters. More likely, they were counting on their drone helicopter disrupting the hunting. The hunters were engaged in legal activities. What right have the helicopter owners to disrupt those activities?

See the actual news story at the link in one of the posts above.

[TheWraith]

34. If there's a state where that's not the law, I don't know of it.

And I certainly can't imagine South Carolina being more hostile to hunters than New York or Minnesota.

[surfdog]

44. And what right do you have....

To judge them on assumptions ?

you assume that they were going to interfere with the hunt, but the article clearly says that the hunters knew that they were going to be watched from above the article said nothing about harassing the game

Can you list one thing that the plane flyers did that was illegal ?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. Its pretty clear what happened...

There were probably violations on both sides including state laws and airspace violations

On a practical level, since it was done with shotguns, ballistics will be useless. Its also prima facie that the UAV was below the required altitude to fly over private property without permission if it was taken out by bird shot.


Box Score:
0 birds killed
1 RC toy shot down

Those toys are easy enough to jam as well.

[surfdog]

92. If its clear what happened

Then list the crime that was committed

The hunters clearly committed a crime by shooting towards a highway , of course I am the only one willing to admit that

List the crime , I double dare you

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. Airspace violations, trespassing, disrupting/harassing hunters, destruction of private property

unsafe use of firearms, disturbing the peace, though there may be more. Note also that my terms are general and are not specific citations.

At a practical level, nothing is going to happen in terms of police action. Any civil suit will be at the small claims level, and whom to file on is indeterminate. I think the box score speaks for its self

0 birds killed
1 R/C toy damaged

[Drahthaardogs]

102. How do they know the drone was not "accidentally" shot?

I mean, it was flying around guys shooting guns.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. Because they had already stopped shooting birds before the copter took off

That's what the article says.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

114. Per the articles, the hunt was stopped once the UAV showed up

Granted that given the vagueness in the media reports, hard to know for sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Where has "told the people with the drone not to fly it" come from?

"law enforcement officers and an attorney claiming to represent the privately-owned plantation near Ehrhardt tried to stop the aircraft from flying. "It didn't work; what SHARK was doing was perfectly legal," Hindi said in a news release."

That's from your 'straight news story'. Nothing about the police telling them not to fly. Indeed, the police seem to have left the scene after the attempt to stop the flight failed; they didn't witness the copter being shot down. If the police had said "don't fly it", I doubt they would have left while the copter was still out, ready to fly.

It's good to get the facts, I think.

[MineralMan]

31. I have checked the laws in South Carolina.

It is, indeed, against the law to interfere with legal hunting and fishing activities. Here's the law:

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusscst50_1_137.htm

If this group's intention was to harass or interfere with the hunt, they were breaking the law.

[surfdog]

45. But the article says...

The hunters knew they were going to be watched from above , says nothing about harassing the game

[NutmegYankee]

59. The state law outlaws impeding the hunt. That doesn't just mean harassing the game.

It means interfering with the hunters. If the folks with the camera were not interfering, no one would have minded the camera. The fact that the hunt was called off over the group's activity indicates they are in clear violation of the law.

[surfdog]

89. 100% bullshit

You have no evidence that the game was harassed or they planned On harassing the game

You have no evidence of that but here you are making up shit

Like I said if you have evidence posted it you have nothing

[NutmegYankee]

106. The only one here spouting bullshit is you.

I'll give you a nice rural Democratic perspective. The Group was obviously seeking to bother the hunters. The fact that a cop was there to warn them not to is all the evidence needed. As for shooting it out of the sky, that was richly deserved. The effective range of a shotgun with bird shot is within 40 yards, so the microcopter couldn't have been that high or far away. They sought to harass and interfere with the hunters and they got a response.

And it's not just southerners - if you flew that thing over the hunting clubs near me in Southeast Connecticut, they'd do the same thing. And nobody here would give a fuck.

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. What warning? That's not in the story.

The shooters (not 'hunters' - this is a competition, described in their own flyer as a 'race') brought a cop, along with their own lawyer - and the cop allowed the helicopter to go up. Nothing about a warning. it was flying over a public road. And they had given up shooting before the copter went up.

[NutmegYankee]

116. link

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/citizens-shoot-down-animal-rights-groups-surveillance-drone/

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. Yeah, that's Glenn Beck's site repeating the news article, but still nothing about a warning

The police allowed the copter to go up.

[NutmegYankee]

119. I used that link because it has video taken by SHARK. It was chosen from a list in google videos.

You have to watch carefully, but the copter goes over the property and then it is quickly flown at an angle backwards to a crash landing after the shots.

We don't have the whole story on why the police let it launch. Perhaps the SHARK group insisted they wouldn't fly over the property?

[muriel_volestrangler]

124. No, I can't see it over a property, nor flown at an angle

We don't know where the property line starts; but, even so, you can't tell from that video whether the copter stays above the cleared section either side of the road or not.

[Occulus]

107. The key mistake being made by everyone on this thread that is supporting the hunters

is equating the presence of a camera- in other words, the act of observation and filing- as harassment.

Police routinely illegally try to do the same thing. Ask Carlos. A pig recently confiscated his camera and deleted the contents because he filmed her.

They are always wrong, as are the supporters of the hunters in question here.

Filming does not equal harassment of hunters, harassment of the game, or interference with the hunt. To furiously claim that is does, however, is very telling.

[NutmegYankee]

112. You have the right to film in PUBLIC

These guys were sending a remote camera over private property to film the hunters. The people shooting the video Knew they couldn't access the property in person, so they were flying a camera over the boundaries the property. Now you have an unauthorized (trespassing) object in the "down range" space. You might argue it wasn't over the property, but the hunting would have occurred farther back from the road. Shooting it down over the road before it entered was an act of anger from a frustrated hunter who had to call off the hunt because of this group.

You do not have the right to film everywhere. If you are on private property, you are required to respect the property owners request not to film. And this wasn't just a camera, it was a small helicopter. An aircraft that would obviously make noise.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. Not sure PINAC would agree with you

The "camera" was trespassing and its means of conveyance (the UAV) was disrupting a legal hunt.

If the pictures were being taken from a public roadway, you would be correct.

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. The pictures were taken from above a public roadway

Remember, this is not a 'hunt', it's a competition. Are there laws saying there must be no noise from highways during shooting competitions?

[NutmegYankee]

120. Most people would not call a two lane road level with the ground a highway.

The road is far enough from the hunt that the group could not see the hunting through the forest.

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. Given that it's U.S. 601

I would say that most people would - eg http://www.us-highways.com/ .

[ProgressiveProfessor]

128. Seen wildly varying statements on where the SHARK UAV went

Looking at the satellite images, it seems to me that it would have had to trespass to see the shooting. Whether it did or not is not clear since not all the video was posted. It certain was at a very low level near the participants within (120 ft) which further indicates it was not over public property or in public use airspace.

Clearly both sides here have clear reasons to spin things.

[Logical]

46. Wonder how they define harass. I am sure they could not stop you from making noise to scare....

the animals away as long as you left the hunters alone.

[MineralMan]

58. Actually, animal rights activists in Minnesota have

been arrested for making sounds that would scare animals away from legitimate hunters. Interfering with a legal hunt is against the law.

[Logical]

76. Hmmm........seems like I could be out there shooting my gun and it would be legal.

[Drahthaardogs]

104. Most states also have laws about doing that.

That being, if you were out there shooting your gun (with the intent to scare) say during elk season, you darned well better have an elk license yourself. Otherwise, they arrest you for poaching. Those who do this sort of thing out west do typically have a legitimate license and a legal firearm for the game they are hunting.

These angles have all been looked at and fought in the western states where big game hunting is big money for business and the state's economy.

[Drahthaardogs]

103. Most of the laws do not work that way, using noise to frighten is harassment.

It has happened out west plenty of times, and the fines are both real and large. You cannot do ANYTHING to impede the hunt, including herding, scaring, intimidating, harassing, etc.

[Logical]

127. I assume if you were on your own land you could do anything? Make noise?

[Drahthaardogs]

129. Usually not.

Just because you own the land does not mean you own the animal. The states claim the right to all wildlife.

For example, a rancher was using a private plane to herd elk back onto his ranch to keep them off of neighboring public land. He got in a whole world of trouble.

On the flip side, if you were blasting your stereo outside and you claimed it was because you like listening to loud music, it would be pretty hard to enforce.

[PavePusher]

132. Except that private land can be posted "No Hunting" and it's legally enforceable.

And it's enforceable by the owner by a wide variety of methods, varying by state.

[Drahthaardogs]

134. I do not understand.

How posting private land has anything to do with hunter harassment? You can keep people out, but it still does not mean you can do things to keep animals in or scare them away from neighboring properties. I don't get your point.

[PavePusher]

137. You stated above....

"You cannot do ANYTHING to impede the hunt, including herding, scaring, intimidating, harassing, etc."

If the land is yours, and is posted properly, you can interfere with the hunting.

Unless you have a private herd, you usually can not restrain any wild animals, but you can encourage them to stay on your property by a variety of methods, depending on state laws.

[Drahthaardogs]

139. You can "encourage"

animals to stay on our property but that pretty much limits you to habitat improvements and is passive. You cannot "impede" their movements off of your property.

impede = obstruct, which is considered harassing

[ProgressiveProfessor]

136. You can even block state game wardens from coming on to your property without a warrant

unless there are exigent circumstances

BTDT at one point.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. No doubt the brave hunter will carry the prize home for the lil' woman to cook up for dinner.

[Johnson20]

17. Probably, but those durn drones are awful hard to skin and somewhat tough. n/t

[MineralMan]

18. Actually, no. The drone was recovered by that group.

See the real news story, just above, or at:

http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-down/article_017a720a-56ce-11e1-afc4-001871e3ce6c.html

It's good to get the facts, I think.

[dionysus]

36. these types of people would have starved to death in the frontier days....

[jsmirman]

41. "Types of people"?

Your assumptions are incredibly annoying and are stereotyping and asinine. I was a three sport athlete who wrecked people, when necessary, on the football field.

We aren't in frontier days and certainly aren't in the days of hunter-gatherers, either.

I wanted to stay out of this thread and this whole back and forth, and for the most part, I intend to. But your "ha ha ha, have a laugh at the weenie non-meat eaters" is particularly vexing.

Exactly which group are you intending to type? Nerds who fly little planes?

I hope you don't mean vegetarians and vegans. Nick Diaz may like the pot a little too much for his sport, but he would wreck you and anyone else who posts on this board, I'm pretty sure of that.

[snooper2]

32. I would have taken it home for parts LOL

[Brickbat]

13. Good for them.

The hunters, I mean. Heh.

[surfdog]

24. Really ?

The hunters were killing animals for fun, they find it fun to kill animals

I'd rather they shoot themselves in the face than shoot a pigeon

[MineralMan]

26. Are you a vegetarian or vegan?

If so, I can understand your distaste for killing animals for food. If not, I can't.

Pigeons are enjoyed by many people, and are regularly hunted. In some places, they are pests, and are destroyed for health reasons.

[Renew Deal]

35. Is pigeon the same as squab or is squab another bird?

[TheWraith]

38. A squab is a young pigeon. Think veal. nt

[Renew Deal]

43. lol

Thanks

[RebelOne]

51. I am a vegetarian and I agree with the above poster. n/t

[surfdog]

91. Yes I am a vegetarian

But to imply no-vegetarians enjoy killing animals is fucking absurd

[Brickbat]

28. Yep, really!

[dionysus]

39. i detest trophy hunters and such... but i have no problem with the folks who eat what they shoot.

shooting things for no other purpose than to kill them is horrible

[moriah]

54. IMO if they are considered pests, not so much.

Tho Australian hunters have the best of both worlds that way, when it comes to rabbit... bunnies are both an invasive species there (so it's good for the environment to shoot them) and tasty!

[Johnson20]

16. Bravo!! n/t

[Noodleboy13]

19. I question the wisdom of using a buzzing, slow helicopter

to film people with birding guns. i obviously don't condone the destruction of private property, but this outcome doesn't surprise me.

As an aside, how does one prepare pigeon? Do you roast them like quail, or do you make a stew?


peace,
Noodleboy

[tammywammy]

20. Have you ever had squab?

Squab is pigeon.

[MineralMan]

21. You can prepare pigeon in many different ways.

Google pigeon recipes.

Personally, I don't care that much for pigeon or doves. Valley quail, on the other hand...mmmm!

Here's pigeon, Turkish style, from that search:

[Noodleboy13]

25. I was thinking you could use it like quail.

I love cooking quail dishes; it's like playing with little meat dolls. Every time we had a quail special at my old restaurant, I'd make them do naughty things before plating. Chef and I were thinking of doing the Kama Sutra of quail for a v-day special.


peace,
Noodleboy

[MineralMan]

30. Pretty much, you can.

They're somewhat larger. Braising is probably the best method, but you can roast them if you're careful not to overcook. As I said, I'm not a big fan of pigeon and dove, so I've never hunted them.

I've eaten both quail and dove, though, and they're very good. All dark meat, but very nice tasting, since they're seed and grain eaters.

[Drahthaardogs]

101. Like doves

You breast them out, wrap it in bacon with salt and pepper, braise in aluminum foil until cooked through. Very good. Squab are still squeaker pigeons though, like less then four weeks.

[Logical]

47. Should be charged with destruction of property in my book.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. How do you document who actually shot it down?

Real PITA with shotguns on a practical level.

You can try and sue the hunt sponsors, but though it is small claims court, same burden of proof remains.

[Logical]

77. Good point! n-t

[Zoeisright]

87. Yep.

Sounds like those hunters were assholes.

[riverwalker]

49. If the pigeons were human and Syrian

the silence would be deafening.

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. Oopsie! n/t

[Agony]

57. Steve Hindi is probably the most intelligent and reasonable animal right person I have ever encount.

http://www.sharkonline.org/?P=0000000576
If we are no better, who can the animals count on?

by Steve Hindi, SHARK President
2003
It has happened again. Thugs operating under the cover of “animal rights activism” have struck another blow against all animal advocates and the nonhumans for whom they toil. This time the crime occurred in Chicago, where brake lines were cut on trucks owned by a company selling lobsters.
The people responsible for this act have once again allowed those who abuse animals to paint everyone who cares about animals as terrorists. I hope these criminals, whoever they are, are caught and convicted. With a little luck, it wasn’t anyone within the animal protection movement, but I’m not feeling too lucky today.
Some fourteen years ago I ventured onto a new life path, born of my rage over the use of live pigeons as shotgun targets at Hegins, Pennsylvania.
Since then I have watched, documented and exposed more animal abuse than I want to think about. I live with the rage of what I have witnessed every day, along with the knowledge that my past as a former hunter includes a world of abuse for which only I am responsible.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. A relativistic comparison like that is the equivalent of saying the Newt is good presidential

candidate since he is not as crazy as Bachman or Santorum

[jsmirman]

88. This is so disgustingly offensive, I hardly know what to say

I was going to alert this, but the hell with that - I'll respond.

We're allowed to post here as the assumption is that we don't support Gingrich, or Bachmann, or Santorum. In fact, it's rather likely that if we post here regularly, we find the policies and positions supported by the three candidates you mentioned to be appalling.

And you have the freaking nerve to compare those of us who advocate on behalf of animals to three people that you know we find offensive in their very persons?

That is hurtful, that is offensive, and that is inappropriate.

The lack of concern or care for the environment and for animals in our ranks is disturbing to me and deeply depressing. At some point, I intend to try to understand better what comes across as outright hostility far too often among "progressives," in a post in the meta area of this forum.

But this post is unacceptable. And it should be condemned by many more people around here than just animal advocates like myself.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. Actually it is a classic reductio absurdum argument

The prior poster argued that Hindi/SHARK was one of the "good" animal rights groups because he is smart and has criticized what he considers the excesses of other animal rights groups.

That is a relativistic approach and is inane at best. I chose to demonstrate just how silly that argument is by using the current crop of repuke candidates. The more inflammatory and absurd you make the parallel example, the better is rebuts the other argument. Thus the term reductio absurdum, or reduce to the absurd.

Apparently you did not recognize that though the title was clear that I was attacking his relativistic approach. It is not supporting any repuke candidate or comparing anyone to Bachman, Gingrich, or Santorm.

Umbrage is free, take all you want...

[jsmirman]

144. Actually it's a classically offensive and uncalled for deployment of rhetoric

I'm starting to get a sense of your game.

See, you imagine that by over-intellectualizing it, you can remove the content of the examples you chose to use.

Most everyone here is familiar with the structure of a relativistic argument.

You chose to employ an offensive comparison.

If you had responded to a comparison of say Gloria Steinem and Gloria Allred and said that it was like a comparison of Hitler and Stalin, plenty of people would tell you to get the heck out of here with that. So there - I've reductio'd your reductio.

Your point was pointless and your method of advancing it was offensive.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

145. Actually its a quite effective and succinct form of argument

As I said, umbrage is free...take all you want

[jsmirman]

146. So you say

but others would call it simplistic, reflexive, and pointless.

"Actually its a quite effective and succinct form of argument"



Not even bothering with (sic)

[renie408]

61. Are pigeons protected? Is there even a pigeon season? I have never heard of shooting pigeons

except for the clay kind.

[Agony]

63. in PA as documented by SHARK it is kinda like clay pigeons...except they are not clay...

*graphic*
http://www.youtube.com/user/SHARKonlineorg#p/u/21/hHDNXKxfMWw

not sure what kind of pigeon shooting SHowingAnimalsRespectandKindness is documenting in SC

[petronius]

74. If that's what was planned in SC, a 'hunter harassment' charge wouldn't

have any merit that I can see. Although the video in the news article up above looks like the helicopter flew over the trees across the road - if that's the shooting club, then aerial trespass laws would apply, if SC has such a thing...

[guitar man]

64. Rofl!!!

Wtf did they think was going to happen if they flew it over bird hunters with shotguns??!!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. At very low levels...

Bird shot has a short effective range

[guitar man]

86. Exactly

Even with a full choke it falls apart pretty quick, so they had to be pretty close with that thing.

[joshcryer]

68. This is why I'm somewhat ambivalent about commercial drone operation.

With more capability you can put a drone out of sight of these hunters (and then they can't claim they're being "harassed" like the wimps that they are), and watch their every move with excruciating detail. You could expose factory farms to detail never before imagined, you could cover kettling operations of the fascist police.

The public owns the airspace, we need to get up there.

(Note: I realize the new legislation has union busting features, I'm just sayin', we can use it against them, just like we use copyright against them, etc.)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. They also need to follow airspace rules

These bubbas clearly were not

[joshcryer]

81. These aircraft are an entirely different class.

Toys for all intents.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. There are rules for these toys too

including not over 400ft AGL, not over property they do not have permission to be over, etc.

The bubbas were not over 100ft AGL or a shotgun would not have downed it.

[jsmirman]

75. That's an intriguing point

I hadn't thought of it that way.

I foresee them building a lot of roofs, though - although if you check out this story (it can't get a lot more horrifying than this), there might be some issues with that:

Exploding Pig Manure Foam:
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2486813.shtml?cat=1|
http://grist.org/factory-farms/sht-happens-mysterious-manure-foam-causes-pig-farms-to-explode/|

[joshcryer]

79. Of course, for every transparency use there would be datamining and privacy violations...

...a magnitude higher. Think about it. Want to track your wife's daily activities? Hire a Drone Investigator and it'll be hovering around your neighborhood keeping track of her, etc, etc. Very very scary prospect.

(This is one reason I laughed at people claiming Ron Paul was pro-privacy, yeah, maybe against government meddling, but fully for corporate meddling.)

[jsmirman]

80. Well, I say intriguing point because I was inclined to be extremely against this

but it's nice to think of a silver lining or two.

[joshcryer]

82. I like to view technology as a double edged sword. For what it's worth I'm against drones...

...being used by police, corporations, and military, but... dang it if I can't appreciate their use from a purely recreational or transparency standpoint.

[jsmirman]

83. Wow - that is fascinating

I can't imagine what kind of havoc this wreaks on privacy law, what with "reasonable expectations of privacy" and the concepts surrounding spaces the public could reach without any "extraordinary means" that the authorities might be able to utilize, but only through such extraordinary, exclusively-available means.

I don't know what is going to happen.

I would think that marijuana had better be legalized soon, or it's going to be brutal to be a grower of marijuana plants under the new reality.

[geomon666]

71. Horrible shot

Barely clipped it by the looks of it. You boys need to train more.

[Generic Other]

73. If a drone comes close enough to me

I will slap it down with my purse if I can. If I was the only one around and it came at me while I was armed with a rock or a gun, I would probably shoot at it. I don't think something like that has a right to invade my space. It is like a mosquito.

I can see why the hunters enjoyed taking a few potshots at Big Brother.

[lonestarnot]

97. Dudds with boom boom sticks.

[slackmaster]

105. Whoever shot it needs to practice more often

My reaction is

[Paladin]

109. Just Curious: Was It A Pidgeon "Hunt" Or A Pidgeon "Shoot"?

Was it a bunch of guys with shotguns, waiting in a field and hoping some pidgeons would come by, so they could "hunt," or was it an event organized by that "plantation" in which live pidgeons were pre-harvested and then released, for the shooting "pleasure" of the participants? I'm betting it was a pidgeon shoot, a sick practice which used to be fairly common, catering to those for whom clay targets just aren't sufficient. Killing for killing's sake is an abomination, no matter what the Guns Are Always Good contingent says to the contrary. And I make that statement as a gun owner and former hunter......

[PavePusher]

133. "Pidgeon"? "Hunt" or "Shoot", that would seem to fall under an entirely different set of laws.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgeon

Fun with typos, it's what gets me through the days....

[Paladin]

141. Good Catch On That Typo.

I'm a big fan of classic movies (I post in the DU "Classic Films" group, among many others), and I guess I was thinking of Walter Pidgeon's last name while referencing the birds. God, do I miss the spell-check feature.

And I'd still like to know whether it was a "hunt" vs. a "shoot." That animal rights drone may have been aloft for very good reasons---and even if it wasn't, it shouldn't have been shot out of the sky......

[PavePusher]

142. I agree with you on the distinction between "hunt" and "shoot".

Hunting, I have no problem with, support it for the most part, and partake occasionally myself.

Animals raised in captivity and released for a "canned hunt", i.e. a "shoot" is, at best, very morally and ethically questionable. If the killed animals are being eaten or at least donated to a food bank or something, I can let it go. Don't support it, but wouldn't go out of my way to protest it. Any other outcome seems pretty vile to me.

As far as the remote-control camera platform ("drone" implies at least a limited self-guiding capability), if it was over private property without permission, it feels like trespassing and invasion of privacy to me, and shooting it down in an otherwise safe manner is perfectly acceptable to me. It would be interesting to know what the positions/angles were if it was shot. Hard to tell if it was from the pictures I've seen, are there any that show actual shot-pellet holes?

[fascisthunter]

121. I Guess Hunting animals is that important!

[lynne]

122. Good for them and I hope they get a better hit next time -

- a good, solid hit that will incapacitate that drone for a while. I'd do the same thing if I was engaged in a legal activity on private property and I'd do the same if anyone flew a drone for snooping over my personal property.

Pigeon is good eating. Best if cooked in a pressure cooker and then creamed in a milk gravy. My mom served it over toast but I bet its fantastic over biscuits.

[-..__...]

123. What a bunch of pearl clutching pinheads.

SHARK/Hindi are just as pathetic as the anti-choice protesters that block clinics, harass women and staff, conduct criminal actions, etc.

[hughee99]

140. The hunters were on private land, was the drone on private land too? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

147. Physics argues that it might have been, SHARK claims otherwise