drones and fair chase

[7mag.]

I agree whole heartedly with your post. I guess the spill over from all other aspects of my life is making me think I'm tired of the government telling me what I can and cannot do when it doesn't infringe upon others rights.

If I think of it from a hunting perspective and how hunting "should" be... I agree. Drones have no place in hunting. Neither do many things we already use as well.

When I think of it as actually making it into a LAW that we cannot use these devices it just rubs me the wrong way. What right of the government is it to tell me I can't fly an RC plane around? If I remove the camera it is legal but with camera onboard it is illegal? Just seems backwards to me.

Maybe it would be easier to consider the fact that hunting is a privilege, not a right. Just like laws against flying and hunting on the same day. You could make the argument that it infringes upon your right to move freely about the country, but it's not about rights, it's about fairly governing a privilege. We have no constitutional right to hunt.

 

[MattB]

I agree whole heartedly with your post. I guess the spill over from all other aspects of my life is making me think I'm tired of the government telling me what I can and cannot do when it doesn't infringe upon others rights.

The purpose for which drones are generally deployed has great potential to infringe on the right to privacy of others, and IMO it is the potential for misuse (with very few legitimate reasons to use them) that provides the government a vested interest in regulating or even prohibiting their use by civilians. While I generally agree with the notion the government should stick to things like national defense, infrastructure and delivering the mail, this is one instance where strict regulation or prohibition may make sense.

Ironically, scouting would be one of the few legitimate uses that wouldn't likely infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Coveyleader]

I can tell you from an engineering point of view, it is incredible what can be done with them. Same for Agriculture. We are truly missing the boat.

 

[Clarktar]

(with very few legitimate reasons to use them)

Ignorance at its finest.

 

[muleman]

I can tell you from an engineering point of view, it is incredible what can be done with them. Same for Agriculture. We are truly missing the boat.

Speaking of intresting things that can be done.

How about an autonomous taser packing drone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ty-drone-STUN-GUN-built-attack-intruders.html

 

[Backpack Hunter]

Bull.

Flying a toy helicopter around infringes on my "right" to enjoy public ground in a natural setting.

Not sure I remember seeing that as a right anywhere.

Seems those against are arguing that this could potentially be used invasively or potentially violate someone's rights.
Are we going to ban something for the "potential" it has to do bad without it actually happening? Seems to me that is a slippery slope.

 

[realunlucky]

All laws are about preventing the possibility of wrong doing. Apparently some people don't have common sense and need something to regulate them

 

[Beastmode]

I highly doubt we will see useable drones that are affordable for the average joe that are worth a chit. You may see some thaf work a mile away or so that some can afford. Bottom line you are not going to have guys like us using drones to scout a wilderness area 1000 miles away while sitting in a bean bag chair naked eating cheetos any time soon.

 

[Backpack Hunter]

All laws are about preventing the possibility of wrong doing. Apparently some people don't have common sense and need something to regulate them

I would agree that all laws or the great majority are reactive. Banning a particular item because it has potential to be used wrong does not follow that logic. That is like banning cars because you might rob a bank with it. Or banning knives because you might kill someone with it.

 

[realunlucky]

Could be flown over private land also?

 

[Darren Best]

They are not viable for civilians .......... yet and I doubt that will change anytime soon considering the nanny state we live under.

Limited battery power severely limits flight time and range.

Eye contact must be maintained in order to fly.

You still have heavy cover, trees, terrain and weather to deal with.

Video is not remote, it has to be downloaded and viewed, which means at home or a person has to bring a computer with them, which causes even more logistic problems.

Even if a guy had a pile of batteries with him in his truck, he is still limited on battery time, which in turn limits range.

Granted I feel people shouldn't be using them to hunt or scout, but I think it's being blown way out of proportion.

I also agree with the above poster that said banning things is a slippery slope.

 

[JoshTX]

If you can't locate animals on your own then you don't deserve to hunt them, regardless of time of year

i agree 100%

 

[MattB]

Ignorance at its finest.

Since you obviously have a strong opinion on this, please enlighten us as to the many legitimate recreational uses for drones that wouldn't have any implications as to the right to privacy of others

 

[MattB]

I would agree that all laws or the great majority are reactive. Banning a particular item because it has potential to be used wrong does not follow that logic. That is like banning cars because you might rob a bank with it. Or banning knives because you might kill someone with it.

It is about weighing the pros and cons. Cars and knives have legitimate purposes aside from those that are ill-intentioned. Similarly, that is why we see pressure to increase restrictions on guns and not cars despite the fact that exponentially more people are killed by cars each year than guns - some folks believe the benefit from cars outweighs the cost, but think the cost of guns outweighs the benefit. I personally do not see a compelling benefit to permit the recreational use of drones such that it would outweigh the potential harms.

 

[gelton]

Fair chase and drones shouldn't be used in the same sentence, what a misnomer. Of course drones shouldn't be able to be used for scouting. I have a guy that has some uber expensive drone in my neighborhood, can fly it 10-12 blocks away, and he flies it around at night. To me that's a peeping tom. Last time I heard it out there I took out my phone and videotaped it, think he knew people were getting disturbed because I haven't seen it since.

 

[gelton]

Maybe it would be easier to consider the fact that hunting is a privilege, not a right. Just like laws against flying and hunting on the same day. You could make the argument that it infringes upon your right to move freely about the country, but it's not about rights, it's about fairly governing a privilege. We have no constitutional right to hunt.

I disagree with the fact that hunting is a privilege. If you ask the state or the government that's what they will tell you, and the current laws back your statement but the reason why the right to hunt and forage never made it to the constitution was because that right was self evident. If you are hungry and need to eat then the government doesn't have to grant you a privilege to fill your stomach.

Although this guy sounds like a raving lunatic, on many points he is right and it hits to the core of my argument. This guy was hauled into court for fishing without a license in Montana (and check out all of his supporters):

[video=youtube;2MyhDusFMOQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MyhDusFMOQ[/video]

 

[jherald]

http://www.adn.com/2014/03/23/3389846/drone-assisted-hunting-to-be-illegal.html

 

[Coyote Commander]

Not sure I remember seeing that as a right anywhere.

Seems those against are arguing that this could potentially be used invasively or potentially violate someone's rights.
Are we going to ban something for the "potential" it has to do bad without it actually happening? Seems to me that is a slippery slope.

Hence the quotes.

Banning something that has "potential" to do bad is the new American way. Gun control is a perfect example. Someone could do harm with one, so lets ban them for everyone. The majority of the guns in this country will never do anyone harm (and in fact, will do good), yet the "potential" is there for them to do bad. So lets get rid of them all.

We're fighting an initiated measure in MT again this year that wants to ban trapping on public land. One user group feels their self perceived "rights" to enjoy public land without the "threat" of a pet or themself being caught in a trap is being infringed upon. Funny thing is, they're more than willing to infringe on the trappers "rights" to enjoy that same public land.

 

[Coyote Commander]

. We have no constitutional right to hunt.

Not federally.

But in both States ive lived in, hunting was a protected right.