PETA Wants to Fly Drones to Stalk Hunters

[ex-LT]

Alot of states have hunter harressment laws. Not sure if Mn does.

Yes, MN has a hunter harassment law. Statute 97A.037

I'd shoot it down

That was my first thought, but tman brought up a good point about liability for willful destruction of private property.

[mrp]

True. What's your opinion of when they go into the farms with hidden cameras? Valuable service, or criminal activity?

- Valuable service.
- Not criminal activity. (As long as they're not trespassing.)
- Possibly open themselves up to liability in a civil court (breach of contract, etc.)

[tazdevil]

Alot of states have hunter harressment laws. Not sure if Mn does.

Yes, MN has a hunter harassment law. Statute 97A.037

I'd shoot it down

That was my first thought, but tman brought up a good point about liability for willful destruction of private property.

However, if the drone flew into your shooting area while you where shooting a duck/pheasant for example, and it was hit as well, or instead of the intended target, I don't think they;d have much to stand on trying to got after you for it. If they were flying that close (harassment of the hunter as well), that's the same as running in front of a live, hot firing range.

[Heffay]

Alot of states have hunter harressment laws. Not sure if Mn does.

Yes, MN has a hunter harassment law. Statute 97A.037

I'd shoot it down

That was my first thought, but tman brought up a good point about liability for willful destruction of private property.

However, if the drone flew into your shooting area while you where shooting a duck/pheasant for example, and it was hit as well, or instead of the intended target, I don't think they;d have much to stand on trying to got after you for it. If they were flying that close (harassment of the hunter as well), that's the same as running in front of a live, hot firing range.

That would be a tough one to pull off if it was filming you at the same time. Or deer hunting.

"Yes your honor. The drone, which was 150' in the air, just happened to be between me and the buck."

Lets not even get into the ethical debate of whether it is ok to do something wrong just because "they started it."

[goalie]

Lets not even get into the ethical debate of whether it is ok to do something wrong just because "they started it."

Let's.

My hunting time is precious. I get a few weeks a year to hunt deer, if that. That might change when the little-guy is older and I can bowhunt again, but right now, there is precious little time.

The ethics of responding to someone destroying my financial investment, and taking away my very limited time that I have to legally hunt deer is quite open for discussion. I don't poach. I don't hunt over bait. I don't break hunting laws at all. **** with me during that limited time at the risk of losing your aircraft.

And I'll sleep like a baby if I shoot it down.

In the end, I disagree with your premise that it is "wrong" to shoot it down. I consider it to have the same moral authority and weight as the opinion of those numerous people who feel that it is "wrong" to shoot someone, even in defense of your family.

Good day. Hope the wedding goes well and isn't outside sucker. You should have come to spin-class, my bike choice was SUPERB!!!!

[tazdevil]

That would be a tough one to pull off if it was filming you at the same time. Or deer hunting.

"Yes your honor. The drone, which was 150' in the air, just happened to be between me and the buck."

Lets not even get into the ethical debate of whether it is ok to do something wrong just because "they started it."

Beyond the duck then. I'm not saying purposely do it, I was giving a "what if" scenario to the legal question. (I was going with duck or pheasant hunting, although Goalie has a point about the deer hunting as well, especially if they're using the drones to spook the deer away from the hunter).

[Heffay]

Lets not even get into the ethical debate of whether it is ok to do something wrong just because "they started it."

Let's.

My hunting time is precious. I get a few weeks a year to hunt deer, if that. That might change when the little-guy is older and I can bowhunt again, but right now, there is precious little time.

The ethics of responding to someone destroying my financial investment, and taking away my very limited time that I have to legally hunt deer is quite open for discussion. I don't poach. I don't hunt over bait. I don't break hunting laws at all. **** with me during that limited time at the risk of losing your aircraft.

And I'll sleep like a baby if I shoot it down.

In the end, I disagree with your premise that it is "wrong" to shoot it down. I consider it to have the same moral authority and weight as the opinion of those numerous people who feel that it is "wrong" to shoot someone, even in defense of your family.

Good day. Hope the wedding goes well and isn't outside sucker. You should have come to spin-class, my bike choice was SUPERB!!!!

The proper response to someone breaking the law is not to also break the law. I'll have to do some research, but the number of time "sorry your honor, but they started it" worked as a defense is probably not that high.

Of course, shooting someone in defense of your family is legal under the circumstances you're imagining, so that particular example falls a little short.

[goalie]

The proper response to someone breaking the law is not to also break the law.

Depends on the law. Yes, I think civil disobedience has a place. This would be one of them.

Sincerely,
People who used the wrong drinking fountain illegally in the 50's.

[Chevydude]

Sounds like a new sport on the
Horizon. Lol

[tazdevil]

The proper response to someone breaking the law is not to also break the law.

Depends on the law. Yes, I think civil disobedience has a place. This would be one of them.

Sincerely,
People who used the wrong drinking fountain illegally in the 50's.

Yeah, remember how it was poisoned by them using it. Imagine the carnage it caused!!