Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
line 28 says they have to get landowners permissionI'm not too enthusiastic about it since some will take advantage of using a drone for scouting/moving deer and say they are looking for a wounded deer. The way it is written doesn't make me think many people will take advantage of it since the hunter has to fly the drone rather than someone else, and they have to be licensed.
I wish they would have added that the land owner has to be notified.
How do you feel about hunters that own a flashlight and a rifle?Sounds like lots of potential for misuse. I'd rather it not be legal.
I reckon that argument falls under a false analogy. I have no problem with flashlights and rifle. I am opposed to drones. Are you saying because we allow some technology we should allow all technology? The two, while having similarities are not in any way equal. Which leads us to a false equivalence fallacy as well. Can we try to get on the same page at least? Using logical fallacies to support an argument only clouds the picture. Some ( many) among us want less technology in the forest instead of more. I hate drones with a passion. We’ve got enough $&?0@& going on out there already. In most cases I don’t support their use unless absolutely necessary. Why create another layer of regulations in the hunting space. My solution to not allowing drones is to employ better shot selection/shooting/hunting/tracking skills. If I still end up having difficulty finding or cannot find my animal then I guess i punch the tag. It’s not the end of the world. And the other wild critters will thank me for it.How do you feel about hunters that own a flashlight and a rifle?
I wonder how many drone owners are actually licensed? As you point out use of drones for recovery isn’t as simple as it might look.I am an FAA licensed drone pilot. It's a tough test and costs a lot. I noticed that the bill would require that, so as to add some extra legal "boundaries." I have thought about this quite a bit but I still lean to the no side. Even my lightest drone is loud enough to spook animals below. I know that a drone could be a good tool if it has infra red but those drones cost a lot more, upwards of 5k. I could see this used in some test cases but hopefully not anywhere that I hunt.
I think that most of us want less technology in the effort to hunt an animal. Drone recovery is after the fact. The usual argument is that people will go beyond recovery in the use of the drone, the same as you could use a flashlight to shoot a deer on the hike out. So in that sense, the analogy makes sense to me.I reckon that argument falls under a false analogy. I have no problem with flashlights and rifle. I am opposed to drones. Are you saying because we allow some technology we should allow all technology? The two, while having similarities are not in any way equal. Which leads us to a false equivalence fallacy as well. Can we try to get on the same page at least? Using logical fallacies to support an argument only clouds the picture. Some ( many) among us want less technology in the forest instead of more. I hate drones with a passion. We’ve got enough $&?0@& going on out there already. In most cases I don’t support their use unless absolutely necessary. Why create another layer of regulations in the hunting space. My solution to not allowing drones is to employ better shot selection/shooting/hunting/tracking skills. If I still end up having difficulty finding or cannot find my animal then I guess i punch the tag. It’s not the end of the world. And the other wild critters will thank me for it.