Animal rights organization PETA is launching a fleet of UAVs to monitor hunters and fishers for drinking and illegal activity.
Animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) announced plans to launch hunter- and fisher-tracking drone aircraft in American airspace today. The non-armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will supposedly fly over popular fishing spots and wooded areas to make sure hunters comply with local, state, and federal law. PETA, which has an aggressive public relations arm and a history of publicity stunts, recently launched a campaign against the Iditarod.
PETA's Kaitlynn Kelly said in an email that “PETA will soon have some impressive new weapons at its disposal to combat those who gun down deer and doves.” The organization published a blog post (which, incidentally, name-dropped Morrissey) with details of the UAV project. Interestingly, PETA has not deployed the drones yet: The announcement was made to detail PETA's plans to deploy the drones--a strategy which earns the organization maximum publicity and minimum legal liability from any issues surrounding the real-life use of UAVs. Although non-profit organizations in the United States can fly drones (such as the popular AR.Parrot] and competitors such as the DJI Phantom), strict line-of-sight laws and FAA regulations turn actual use into much more of a legal gray area. In everyday life, use of UAVs in the United States largely depends on the knowledge, sympathies, and sentiments of local law enforcement.
According to Kelly, PETA plans to purchase several Aerobot Cinestar Octocopters--eight-rotored octocopters designed for use by the film industry and landscape architects. The Cinestar is designed to carry heavy cameras and has a 20 minute flight time when carrying smaller cameras; it is also intended for use by a two-person crew. Aerobot, which is based in Australia, markets to an international customer base not constrained by the FAA's rules.
Once deployed, the animal rights organization says it will use the UAVs to collect footage of illegal activity such as hunters drinking while in possession of a firearm, maiming animals for fun (leading to possible persecution on animal cruelty counts), and using locally-forbidden hunting or fishing enhancements such as spotlights and speed lures. In a prepared statement, PETA's Ingrid Newkirk said that “Slob hunters may need to rethink the idea that they can get away with murder, alone out there in the woods with no one watching.”
Spoiler:
PETA is not the first animal rights organization to use UAVs to monitor hunters, although they will be one of the first to do so within the United States if the project goes forward. In 2012, the World Wildlife Fund launched anti-poacher drones in Africa designed to provide law enforcement with video proof of poacher wrongdoing and real-time intelligence. But while the World Wildlife Fund project involves local authorities, the PETA project appears to be independent. In late 2012, a South Carolina-based advocacy group called Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) had their drone shot down while monitoring a pigeon hunt.
The animal rights group also says they will try using the UAVs to monitor wrongdoing at factory farms, which could provide a way to sidestep recently passed anti-whistleblower laws in the agriculture sector.
So yeah, PETA thinks it's the Fish and Wildlife department now apparently.
Oh yeah, and that group linked in the video? "Shark" or whatever their name is? They've already had one successfully shot down before that one.
Spoiler:
If that small group is capable of this much shenanigans, how much do you think PETA will be capable of? Many hunters are already stating they'll shoot them down, but that's what PETA wants I would bet. There's a ton of legal trouble you can get into firing weapons into the air if you're not careful. Heck, the video linked in the article has the guy flying it near a road to trick the hunters into shooting across it. Now imagine what PETA is capable of. It wouldn't suprise me if they started buzzing hunters, or even trying to scare game off by chasing it away
Also, does it bother anyone else that PETA of all organizations is going to be using drones to essentially stalk US citizens around forests? This organization isn't exactly known for their reasonable responses to people that oppose their viewpoint...
PETA is still horrible organization, who'd a thunk.
Seriously, they "protect animals" by killing every stray and abandoned pet they can get their hands on. I don't understand how people can actually support them without wanting to kill themselves.
Animal rights organization PETA is launching a fleet of UAVs to monitor hunters and fishers for drinking and illegal activity.
Animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) announced plans to launch hunter- and fisher-tracking drone aircraft in American airspace today. The non-armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will supposedly fly over popular fishing spots and wooded areas to make sure hunters comply with local, state, and federal law. PETA, which has an aggressive public relations arm and a history of publicity stunts, recently launched a campaign against the Iditarod.
PETA's Kaitlynn Kelly said in an email that “PETA will soon have some impressive new weapons at its disposal to combat those who gun down deer and doves.” The organization published a blog post (which, incidentally, name-dropped Morrissey) with details of the UAV project. Interestingly, PETA has not deployed the drones yet: The announcement was made to detail PETA's plans to deploy the drones--a strategy which earns the organization maximum publicity and minimum legal liability from any issues surrounding the real-life use of UAVs. Although non-profit organizations in the United States can fly drones (such as the popular AR.Parrot] and competitors such as the DJI Phantom), strict line-of-sight laws and FAA regulations turn actual use into much more of a legal gray area. In everyday life, use of UAVs in the United States largely depends on the knowledge, sympathies, and sentiments of local law enforcement.
According to Kelly, PETA plans to purchase several Aerobot Cinestar Octocopters--eight-rotored octocopters designed for use by the film industry and landscape architects. The Cinestar is designed to carry heavy cameras and has a 20 minute flight time when carrying smaller cameras; it is also intended for use by a two-person crew. Aerobot, which is based in Australia, markets to an international customer base not constrained by the FAA's rules.
Once deployed, the animal rights organization says it will use the UAVs to collect footage of illegal activity such as hunters drinking while in possession of a firearm, maiming animals for fun (leading to possible persecution on animal cruelty counts), and using locally-forbidden hunting or fishing enhancements such as spotlights and speed lures. In a prepared statement, PETA's Ingrid Newkirk said that “Slob hunters may need to rethink the idea that they can get away with murder, alone out there in the woods with no one watching.”
Spoiler:
PETA is not the first animal rights organization to use UAVs to monitor hunters, although they will be one of the first to do so within the United States if the project goes forward. In 2012, the World Wildlife Fund launched anti-poacher drones in Africa designed to provide law enforcement with video proof of poacher wrongdoing and real-time intelligence. But while the World Wildlife Fund project involves local authorities, the PETA project appears to be independent. In late 2012, a South Carolina-based advocacy group called Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) had their drone shot down while monitoring a pigeon hunt.
The animal rights group also says they will try using the UAVs to monitor wrongdoing at factory farms, which could provide a way to sidestep recently passed anti-whistleblower laws in the agriculture sector.
So yeah, PETA thinks it's the Fish and Wildlife department now apparently.
Oh yeah, and that group linked in the video? "Shark" or whatever their name is? They've already had one successfully shot down before that one.
Spoiler:
If that small group is capable of this much shenanigans, how much do you think PETA will be capable of? Many hunters are already stating they'll shoot them down, but that's what PETA wants I would bet. There's a ton of legal trouble you can get into firing weapons into the air if you're not careful. Heck, the video linked in the article has the guy flying it near a road to trick the hunters into shooting across it. Now imagine what PETA is capable of. It wouldn't suprise me if they started buzzing hunters, or even trying to scare game off by chasing it away
Also, does it bother anyone else that PETA of all organizations is going to be using drones to essentially stalk US citizens around forests? This organization isn't exactly known for their reasonable responses to people that oppose their viewpoint...
They should be charged with committing trespass by flying over private property. So should everyone else with a drone. This crap has to stop now.
Agreed. I wouldnt of returned the drone either. I would of said "Sorry officer, but some scrap fell onto my property and so I tossed it in the trash. Maybe you should write the owners a ticket for littering"
This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
PETA are a crank group of extremist loons and the World Wildlife Fund are an international animal protection charity with excellent recognition and respect. Comparing the two is like comparing the Westboro Baptists to the Dalai Lama as 'both a bit religious'.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
PETA are a crank group of extremist loons and the World Wildlife Fund are an international animal protection charity with excellent recognition and respect. Comparing the two is like comparing the Westboro Baptists to the Dalai Lama as 'both a bit religious'.
I don't know about WWF. I do know about PETA. They turned a good idea (stop animal testing) into a joke entity that does nothing positive. It exists for stupid stunts, tries to tell people milk is murder, and slaughters thousands of stray animals, when people think they are supporting real rescue centers. I spit on them.
You want to help animals? There are a ton of chartiies out there that to do great works. Here's a few.
ASPCA
Central Texas Dachshund rescue
Citizens for Animal Protection
Diamond Dachshund rescue of Texas
Grey Muzzle Organization (rescues old animals)
PETA plans to purchase several Aerobot Cinestar Octocopters--eight-rotored octocopters designed for use by the film industry and landscape architects. The Cinestar is designed to carry heavy cameras and has a 20 minute flight time when carrying smaller cameras
So the flight time could be as little as 20 minutes for the UAVs that they're buying. In that time they have to fly over the hunting area, find a hunter/fisher, hope that they are in the process of catching/killing an animal and then they have to fly it back. That's not counting on having staff with the proper legal training to determine if prima fascie a law was broken, or trained staff that can operate them and capturing enough footage in the small window that they have to prove that any law was broken. So what we have in effect is yet another publicity-grabbing-attention-wh*ring stunt from the people who brought us sea kittens, eating meat = Nazi/serial killer and wanting to replace cow's milk in ice cream with breast milk.
Damnit peta, stop making me agree with hunters.
See, peta is so bad it made me agree with people who do something i detest.
Also, what about private property? I know alot of hunters own stretchs of land that they use for hunter? They think they can do that?
Also, Hunters are resourceful, they will end up taking down the drones w/o firing at it.
With current FAA rules they will have a hard time pulling this off and staying legal. Frankly they could use guys/gals on the ground (or in tree stands) or remote cameras mounted in areas they are concerned about and accomplish the same goal in a more economical fashion.
Add in that the goal seems to be to allow prosecution of the offending hunters/fishers I also wonder how video from these PETA operated drones holds up in court.
The trespassing thing is a real issue too. Depending on distance from ground control station to drone and altitude of the drone they may be violating trespassing laws very easily (unless they intend to only run this op on public lands?)
SilverMK2 wrote: A 20 min flight time doesnt seem long enough to do anything other than buzz people.
Hence why I think they're a trap for hunters. They fly it over an area, provoke the hunters like in the first video, then make bank off the lawsuit and free publicity because that "evil hunter shot down my perfectly legal drone". With only 20 minutes of supposed flight time there isn't much else it can do.
PETA are a disgrace. It's idiotic extremists like them that make people's lives a misery. Ask any member of PETA wether they, or anyone they know, take any form of man made, over the counter drug. When they say yes, laugh at them. I'm not saying animal testing is a good idea, testing makeup or shampoos for instance. But when it's for the benefit of mankind? Go for it scientists, do your thing.
SilverMK2 wrote: A 20 min flight time doesnt seem long enough to do anything other than buzz people.
Hence why I think they're a trap for hunters. They fly it over an area, provoke the hunters like in the first video, then make bank off the lawsuit and free publicity because that "evil hunter shot down my perfectly legal drone".
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
PETA are a crank group of extremist loons and the World Wildlife Fund are an international animal protection charity with excellent recognition and respect. Comparing the two is like comparing the Westboro Baptists to the Dalai Lama as 'both a bit religious'.
I don't know about WWF. I do know about PETA. They turned a good idea (stop animal testing) into a joke entity that does nothing positive. It exists for stupid stunts, tries to tell people milk is murder, and slaughters thousands of stray animals, when people think they are supporting real rescue centers. I spit on them.
You want to help animals? There are a ton of chartiies out there that to do great works. Here's a few.
ASPCA
Central Texas Dachshund rescue
Citizens for Animal Protection
Diamond Dachshund rescue of Texas
Grey Muzzle Organization (rescues old animals)
Exalted!
For those who are looking for a dog, I would also suggest avoiding puppy mills like the plague. If you live in the north, and have mushers in your area, contact them first. A lot of time they will have old timers getting close to their retirement and will be looking for homes for them. You have to be careful with choosing pack-raised huskies and malamutes, but those who are social are amongst the greatest companions and protectors a family can have.
SilverMK2 wrote: A 20 min flight time doesnt seem long enough to do anything other than buzz people.
Hence why I think they're a trap for hunters. They fly it over an area, provoke the hunters like in the first video, then make bank off the lawsuit and free publicity because that "evil hunter shot down my perfectly legal drone".
Sounds like Westborro Baptist Church's MO.
I cannot think of anyone who would shoot down a drone/camera unless they were actively engaged in hunting out of season/poaching.
While I dislike PETA, I can understand why someone would do something like this.
The area I live in regularly has at least one or two people "hunting" deer out of season and relatively close to no less than three different residential areas. It got to be so bad a few years back that we had Fish & Game out here every week setting up trail cameras.
Whoever it was doing the hunting kept shooting the things whenever they saw them.
SilverMK2 wrote: A 20 min flight time doesnt seem long enough to do anything other than buzz people.
Hence why I think they're a trap for hunters. They fly it over an area, provoke the hunters like in the first video, then make bank off the lawsuit and free publicity because that "evil hunter shot down my perfectly legal drone".
Sounds like Westborro Baptist Church's MO.
I cannot think of anyone who would shoot down a drone/camera unless they were actively engaged in hunting out of season/poaching.
While I dislike PETA, I can understand why someone would do something like this.
The area I live in regularly has at least one or two people "hunting" deer out of season and relatively close to no less than three different residential areas. It got to be so bad a few years back that we had Fish & Game out here every week setting up trail cameras.
Whoever it was doing the hunting kept shooting the things whenever they saw them.
If I was out hunting ducks or something and their drones were on my property (over it) I might shoot at it with birdshot, but I'd hope most hunters have the common sense to not aim a 30.06 up in the air just to take out a drone, no matter how easy of a target it may be. If they kept flying it over my house, clearly scoping out the area, I would grab some posterboard, and write in huge letters "LEAVE OR YOU WILL BE SHOT DOWN" so I can say I warned them. If the drone isn't making an obvious effort to leave after a few minutes, I'd shoot it down, call the police, and tell them that because of PETA's past actions I was concerned for my safety. Heck, if they ask nicely, I might even let them have it back (minus a trophy for the wall of course)
But to get me to that point, they'd have to be buzzing my house regularly, threatening my actual safety (as in trying to ram me with it) or getting very low. Otherwise I could care less, I'd have nothing to hide.
Would be a lot of fun to mess with them though while that camera is on you...
CptJake wrote: With current FAA rules they will have a hard time pulling this off and staying legal. Frankly they could use guys/gals on the ground (or in tree stands) or remote cameras mounted in areas they are concerned about and accomplish the same goal in a more economical fashion.
Add in that the goal seems to be to allow prosecution of the offending hunters/fishers I also wonder how video from these PETA operated drones holds up in court.
The trespassing thing is a real issue too. Depending on distance from ground control station to drone and altitude of the drone they may be violating trespassing laws very easily (unless they intend to only run this op on public lands?)
This^
I am wondering what the legality of operating a UAV over public, and even private, land is.
There are plenty of private individuals that open their land to hunters. Flying a UAV is probably going to be illegal over areas like that.
Would be a lot of fun to mess with them though while that camera is on you...
Dude, I'd go out back and start processing a few of the way too many roosters we have running around. While wearing my PETA shirt(people for the eating of tasty animals that is)
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
PETA are a crank group of extremist loons and the World Wildlife Fund are an international animal protection charity with excellent recognition and respect. Comparing the two is like comparing the Westboro Baptists to the Dalai Lama as 'both a bit religious'.
I don't know about WWF. I do know about PETA. They turned a good idea (stop animal testing) into a joke entity that does nothing positive. It exists for stupid stunts, tries to tell people milk is murder, and slaughters thousands of stray animals, when people think they are supporting real rescue centers. I spit on them.
You want to help animals? There are a ton of chartiies out there that to do great works. Here's a few.
ASPCA
Central Texas Dachshund rescue
Citizens for Animal Protection
Diamond Dachshund rescue of Texas
Grey Muzzle Organization (rescues old animals)
There are also 2 Humane Societies, only 1 actually helps animals with its money. The other spends 99% of the funding on Lobbying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Just shoot paintballs at the sensors(Yes i knwo that is impossible, or nearly)
Depending on how low and fast you might hit them. And if its a smaller drone the paintball could actually damage it, especially if you crank the FPS up.
We can send covert ops around to various events, arranging to have big smoky BBQs in the vicinity, breaking into PETA events to walk around eating bacon, etc...
We can even raise money to donate to organizations that actually help animals.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
PETA are a crank group of extremist loons and the World Wildlife Fund are an international animal protection charity with excellent recognition and respect. Comparing the two is like comparing the Westboro Baptists to the Dalai Lama as 'both a bit religious'.
We can send covert ops around to various events, arranging to have big smoky BBQs in the vicinity, breaking into PETA events to walk around eating bacon, etc...
We can even raise money to donate to organizations that actually help animals.
The best suggestion I've seen yet was in the comments section on another forum talking about this article.
People were proposing the buying of cheap RC aircraft to ram into the drones kamikaze style, and buy small drones armed with airsoft weapons to harass them.
Utterly ridiculous, but hilarious at the same time.
Grey Templar wrote: Dude, with RC aircraft, anything capable of ramming a drone successfully is not cheap.
You're acting like the sheer hilarity of watching a PETA drone get rammed by an RC plane with the words "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals" wouldn't be the funniest things you'd ever witness in your life.
Grey Templar wrote: Dude, with RC aircraft, anything capable of ramming a drone successfully is not cheap.
You're acting like the sheer hilarity of watching a PETA drone get rammed by an RC plane with the words "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals" wouldn't be the funniest things you'd ever witness in your life.
It would have to have the words "EAT ME!" painted in bright red on it.
Grey Templar wrote: Dude, with RC aircraft, anything capable of ramming a drone successfully is not cheap.
You're acting like the sheer hilarity of watching a PETA drone get rammed by an RC plane with the words "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals" wouldn't be the funniest things you'd ever witness in your life.
It would have to have the words "EAT ME!" painted in bright red on it.
Well... I am a vagitarian... where does that put me?
I have an idea, we'll strap miniature harpoons to our drones that are attached to large BBQ cookbooks. once the harpoon has lanced the PETA drone we drop the cookbook and watch the PETA drone fall earthward.
And hey, if a hunter finds it first he'll get a bunch of recipies on how to cook his catch
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
PETA are a crank group of extremist loons and the World Wildlife Fund are an international animal protection charity with excellent recognition and respect. Comparing the two is like comparing the Westboro Baptists to the Dalai Lama as 'both a bit religious'.
Concur, especially as a regular donator to the WWF.
DU rounds would be REALLY expensive, and frankly be no better than normal buckshot, A shotgun doesn't have the velocity to help, and drones are not gonna be very armored. DU rounds are usually VERY high velocity designed to punch through VERY thick armor and tend to be a single sharpish projectile so that it punches all the mass/velocity into the tiniest possible surface area of the target.
Again, the cost/benefit ratio makes it not worth while. A lead or jacketed sabot slug will demolish a bear as easily as a DU round would. And the shotgun probably won't give the DU sabot the velocity needed to penetrate even a T-34.
CptJake wrote: Again, the cost/benefit ratio makes it not worth while. A lead or jacketed sabot slug will demolish a bear as easily as a DU round would. And the shotgun probably won't give the DU sabot the velocity needed to penetrate even a T-34.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
The WWF also hired mercenaries, by proxy, in order to target poachers.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
The WWF also hired mercenaries, by proxy, in order to target poachers.
Mercs who themselves were probably poachers at one time.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
The WWF also hired mercenaries, by proxy, in order to target poachers.
I find that oddly amusing in a "The Most Dangerous Game" sort of way...
xole wrote: I imagine these lovely flyers could pack enough force to knock down a small drone. About half way through the video one knocks over a table.
[
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
The WWF also hired mercenaries, by proxy, in order to target poachers.
That's interesting and I'd heard things but could you provide a link for me?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: This article compares PETA to the World Wildlife Fund, who used 'drones' (radio controlled model aircraft with cameras) to aid authorities in protecting the nigh-extinct rhinos and prevent ivory poaching.
The WWF also hired mercenaries, by proxy, in order to target poachers.
Mercs who themselves were probably poachers at one time.
If we are talking the gorilla-hunting-for-magical-severed-hand kind of poachers, I really couldn't care less.
Hmm, interesting.
Good for them. Given that the conservation of species is fighting criminal organisations, corrupt armed forces and well armed gangs, excellent.
Put a bounty on poacher's heads, up the anti, perhaps also take out some hits on the folks funding the poaching for crimes against our children's inherited earth.
Nah, this'll be close to the PETA HQ. We'll shoot them down soon after launch.
I'd rather we use PETOP to infiltrate PETA HQ, with a Barrett .50 cal, and sit on the rooftop and go hunting for deer or whatever other legal wildlife may be nearby
Grey Templar wrote: I wonder if you could rig some sort of jammer to make the drone cut out. Or better yet, Hack the drone and take over the controls.
That is possible but illegal, and for good reason. Passive jamming is fine (like deliberately building a cinema where you can't get a signal), but active jamming can be dangerous, like if someone needs to call 911 but can't because you're fething with their phone.
Grey Templar wrote:I wonder if you could rig some sort of jammer to make the drone cut out. Or better yet, Hack the drone and take over the controls.
A jammer would probably be pretty easy. Hacking one would be either trivial or impossible, depending on whether the connection is secured or not. Both are probably pretty illegal, but crash (or disable and toss) the thing in a lake and it would be PETA eating a charge, provided you were nowhere to be found, or at least the device you used wasn't.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm currently envisioning a method, using model rockets and cherry bombs, of miniature anti-drone flak batteries.
Small model rockets, maybe a cluster fired at different trajectories, trailing anchored streamers of fishing line to foul the rotors and drag it down. Effective, silent, and not illegal (rockets of any size carrying ordnance being "wmds" when possessed by civilians).
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: provided you were nowhere to be found, or at least the device you used wasn't.
Better hope nobody decides to borrow a helicopter and a directional antenna, otherwise the FCC is going to have something to say about your illegal radio jammer.
Monster Rain wrote:Small model rockets, maybe a cluster fired at different trajectories, trailing anchored streamers of fishing line to foul the rotors and drag it down. Effective, silent, and not illegal (rockets of any size carrying ordnance being "wmds" when possessed by civilians).
Since when is deliberate property damage not illegal? Am I allowed to use a hammer to smash the windows in your car because I don't like your political bumper sticker? After all, I'm not using any kind of illegal weapon to do it.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: Or you could try rigging up a low-budget copy of the US navy's new anti-drone laser... But I prefer the anti-aircraft firework idea, on style grounds
for the laser idea...... laser pointers+duct tape + generator = low tech icarus lascannon?
Listen guys, These things will dominate hunter for a bit, maybe force them to buy a special gun that is only useful for this. But once more and more hunters get better and update equipment these drones will have less of a presence with maybe one being worrisome, with its ability to shoot fire everwhere.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: provided you were nowhere to be found, or at least the device you used wasn't.
Better hope nobody decides to borrow a helicopter and a directional antenna, otherwise the FCC is going to have something to say about your illegal radio jammer.
Monster Rain wrote:Small model rockets, maybe a cluster fired at different trajectories, trailing anchored streamers of fishing line to foul the rotors and drag it down. Effective, silent, and not illegal (rockets of any size carrying ordnance being "wmds" when possessed by civilians).
Since when is deliberate property damage not illegal? Am I allowed to use a hammer to smash the windows in your car because I don't like your political bumper sticker? After all, I'm not using any kind of illegal weapon to do it.
I'm replying simply to say that I see what you're trying to do, but am not going to participate.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Listen guys, These things will dominate hunter for a bit, maybe force them to buy a special gun that is only useful for this. But once more and more hunters get better and update equipment these drones will have less of a presence with maybe one being worrisome, with its ability to shoot fire everwhere.
Exactly and even then we can just get some of the fresh fish to do it
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: provided you were nowhere to be found, or at least the device you used wasn't.
Better hope nobody decides to borrow a helicopter and a directional antenna, otherwise the FCC is going to have something to say about your illegal radio jammer.
Because a one-off incident of a terrorist organization's borderline illegal UAV allegedly being jammed and made to crash will totally result in any investigation, let alone one with both a helicopter and a time machine, since the only way to do what you're suggesting would be to be running the scanner at the location while it was going on.
Monster Rain wrote:Small model rockets, maybe a cluster fired at different trajectories, trailing anchored streamers of fishing line to foul the rotors and drag it down. Effective, silent, and not illegal (rockets of any size carrying ordnance being "wmds" when possessed by civilians).
Since when is deliberate property damage not illegal? Am I allowed to use a hammer to smash the windows in your car because I don't like your political bumper sticker? After all, I'm not using any kind of illegal weapon to do it.
Quotefail, and disabling an illegally operated UAV, piloted in a manner "that made you fear for your safety" with a legal device is totally equivalent to assault with a claw hammer, you're right.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Listen guys, These things will dominate hunter for a bit, maybe force them to buy a special gun that is only useful for this. But once more and more hunters get better and update equipment these drones will have less of a presence with maybe one being worrisome, with its ability to shoot fire everwhere.
Wut.
On another note, I doubt they actually intend to do this. It's too impractical.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Small model rockets, maybe a cluster fired at different trajectories, trailing anchored streamers of fishing line to foul the rotors and drag it down. Effective, silent, and not illegal (rockets of any size carrying ordnance being "wmds" when possessed by civilians).
hotsauceman1 wrote: Listen guys, These things will dominate hunter for a bit, maybe force them to buy a special gun that is only useful for this. But once more and more hunters get better and update equipment these drones will have less of a presence with maybe one being worrisome, with its ability to shoot fire everwhere.
Wut.
On another note, I doubt they actually intend to do this. It's too impractical.
Given what PETA has done in the past this isn't crazy at all.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Listen guys, These things will dominate hunter for a bit, maybe force them to buy a special gun that is only useful for this. But once more and more hunters get better and update equipment these drones will have less of a presence with maybe one being worrisome, with its ability to shoot fire everwhere.
Wut.
On another note, I doubt they actually intend to do this. It's too impractical.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Because a one-off incident of a terrorist organization's borderline illegal UAV allegedly being jammed and made to crash will totally result in any investigation, let alone one with both a helicopter and a time machine, since the only way to do what you're suggesting would be to be running the scanner at the location while it was going on.
Since when is it illegal to operate a small (well below the point where FAA regulations apply) RC plane with a camera attached over public land? There's nothing borderline at all about it, the only "problem" seems to be that hunters don't like it.
Also, I'm sure you'll find lots of people interested in buying/building a radio jammer, figuring out how to jam the drone, and then throw it away after using it exactly once. The simple fact is after the first incident makes them aware of the jammer it will be trivially easy to have someone with a directional antenna waiting for the hunters to be stupid enough to try it again.
Quotefail, and disabling an illegally operated UAV, piloted in a manner "that made you fear for your safety" with a legal device is totally equivalent to assault with a claw hammer, you're right.
Yeah, I'm sure you're really going to convince anyone that there was a legitimate threat to your safety that was best dealt with by improvising rockets with fishing line and trying to snare the prop. The moment you resort to such ineffective "safety" measures instead of getting out of there ASAP you've just proved beyond any doubt to a court that your goal was property damage not protecting yourself.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Because a one-off incident of a terrorist organization's borderline illegal UAV allegedly being jammed and made to crash will totally result in any investigation, let alone one with both a helicopter and a time machine, since the only way to do what you're suggesting would be to be running the scanner at the location while it was going on.
Since when is it illegal to operate a small (well below the point where FAA regulations apply) RC plane with a camera attached over public land? There's nothing borderline at all about it, the only "problem" seems to be that hunters don't like it.
Also, I'm sure you'll find lots of people interested in buying/building a radio jammer, figuring out how to jam the drone, and then throw it away after using it exactly once. The simple fact is after the first incident makes them aware of the jammer it will be trivially easy to have someone with a directional antenna waiting for the hunters to be stupid enough to try it again.
Quotefail, and disabling an illegally operated UAV, piloted in a manner "that made you fear for your safety" with a legal device is totally equivalent to assault with a claw hammer, you're right.
Yeah, I'm sure you're really going to convince anyone that there was a legitimate threat to your safety that was best dealt with by improvising rockets with fishing line and trying to snare the prop. The moment you resort to such ineffective "safety" measures instead of getting out of there ASAP you've just proved beyond any doubt to a court that your goal was property damage not protecting yourself.
It's legal to operate if you can see it from where you're piloting it from (from what was said/quoted in this thread), and we're talking about a terrorist organization here: they're not going to be flying it responsibly, they're going to be trolling and endangering people with it, and invading private property. When the scheme is antagonize people into shooting at the UAV, alternatives that aren't in and of themselves illegal, or which aren't traceable, should be proliferated, out of spite for PETA if nothing else.
And on their side, a jammer or another transmitter overriding theirs is going to be nothing but an unknown failure.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It's legal to operate if you can see it from where you're piloting it from (from what was said/quoted in this thread), and we're talking about a terrorist organization here: they're not going to be flying it responsibly, they're going to be trolling and endangering people with it, and invading private property.
Oh please. If flying a RC helicopter without direct line of sight was anything more than a theoretical law they'd be arresting everyone who has ever flown a RC helicopter. Flying your RC camera platform through the camera instead of with direct line of sight doesn't make you a terrorist organization.
When the scheme is antagonize people into shooting at the UAV, alternatives that aren't in and of themselves illegal, or which aren't traceable, should be proliferated, out of spite for PETA if nothing else.
So let me get this straight: idiots get annoyed and recklessly shoot at stuff and it's the RC helicopter pilot's fault? Whatever happened to "ignore it and don't do illegal and extremely dangerous stuff"?
And on their side, a jammer or another transmitter overriding theirs is going to be nothing but an unknown failure.
No, we're not. Words have meaning. Stop making gak up to prove your point.
By the way, for the genius that suggested using a radio jammer: Unlike flying a radio controlled aircraft over public property, operating a unlicensed radio jammer actually IS illegal in every state in this country. Enjoy your $112,500 fine.
No, we're not. Words have meaning. Stop making gak up to prove your point.
By the way, for the genius that suggested using a radio jammer: Unlike flying a radio controlled aircraft over public property, operating a unlicensed radio jammer actually IS illegal in every state in this country. Enjoy your $112,500 fine.
They've been known to support and fund groups labeled as eco terrorists by the US government, but I wouldn't call PETA ecoterrorists in and of themselves. They're either very oblivious to who they fund, or know full well and view them as a necessary evil.
On the whole "how to take out dem drones" stuff, I'm pretty sure 90% of these posts are in a joking manner.
You don't seriously think I'm going to start buying up RC planes and ramming them into drones... right?
Also, does anyone else find it hilariously ironic that PETA announces they're going to try and do something to stop hunters (illegal ones at least) and the first response from the hunting community is figuring out ways to hunt said device? I don't know if that says more about the futility of PETA's actions or just how crazy some hunters can be
No, we're not. Words have meaning. Stop making gak up to prove your point.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about PETA here. The financial and propaganda branch of the most active and prolific domestic terrorist organizations in the US.
By the way, for the genius that suggested using a radio jammer: Unlike flying a radio controlled aircraft over public property, operating a unlicensed radio jammer actually IS illegal in every state in this country. Enjoy your $112,500 fine.
And unless it's a static piece installed in a building, there's effectively no chance anyone who matters would even realize one was operating.
Also, does anyone else find it hilariously ironic that PETA announces they're going to try and do something to stop hunters (illegal ones at least) and the first response from the hunting community is figuring out ways to hunt said device? I don't know if that says more about the futility of PETA's actions or just how crazy some hunters can be
I don't hunt, and my first thought on seeing the thread title was "I'd sure love to hunt one of those UAV's with an anti-materiel rifle!" This progressed to some sort of compressed air netcanon as I read the thread, then someone mentions model rockets as improvised flak missiles and model rockets + fishing line streamers = fouled rotors and a smashed toy.
Not that I'll ever be in a position to hunt one, but still. Proliferation of countermeasures for the sake of spite and whatnot.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about PETA here. The financial and propaganda branch of the most active and prolific domestic terrorist organizations in the US.
So do you actually have any evidence that PETA are anything more than stupid and annoying? Because I hear the US government is really eager to make a big show out of arresting terrorists.
And unless it's a static piece installed in a building, there's effectively no chance anyone who matters would even realize one was operating.
Unless of course the people flying the drone aren't stupid and the second time you use your jammer they have someone watching for it and quickly realize that it's coming from the hunters they're documenting. One search warrant later and you've got a nice fine from the FCC.
PETA is careful not to cross the line, instead they support other organizations that do conduct terrorist activity.
But there is more political capital to be gained fighting external Terrorists who are a bigger threat than a homegrown organization, especially one that has a fair amount of public support and legitimacy(no matter how stupid or shaky)
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about PETA here. The financial and propaganda branch of the most active and prolific domestic terrorist organizations in the US.
So do you actually have any evidence that PETA are anything more than stupid and annoying? Because I hear the US government is really eager to make a big show out of arresting terrorists.
Animal rights activists form the most prolific category terrorist attacks in the US (or it did two or three years ago, at any rate). PETA has, in the past, engaged in these actions themselves, and has been caught openly funding them a number of times. They also form the largest sympathetic propaganda organization. It's only as much a misnomer as it would be applied to the Saudi Royals who back Salafist organizations.
And unless it's a static piece installed in a building, there's effectively no chance anyone who matters would even realize one was operating.
Unless of course the people flying the drone aren't stupid and the second time you use your jammer they have someone watching for it and quickly realize that it's coming from the hunters they're documenting. One search warrant later and you've got a nice fine from the FCC.
What second time? You think they'd entrust a second of their "several" UAVs to the idiots who crashed one? You think they'd run into the same people again, or that the 30 seconds it would take to knock one out would be enough time to triangulate a position through woods?
I wonder what, if any, security is on the things. A few years back you had insurgents "hacking" the US military unarmed UAVs with laptops running a program designed to allow unauthorized reception of satelite TV broadcasts. If someone seized control of a PETA UAV with a laptop, and crashed it into a lake or river, what would there be to suggest it wasn't just some idiot from PETA flying the thing negligently and losing their connection?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Animal rights activists form the most prolific category terrorist attacks in the US (or it did two or three years ago, at any rate). PETA has, in the past, engaged in these actions themselves, and has been caught openly funding them a number of times. They also form the largest sympathetic propaganda organization. It's only as much a misnomer as it would be applied to the Saudi Royals who back Salafist organizations.
So, if PETA has been caught openly funding terrorism then why do they still exist as an organization in a country that loves nothing more than arresting terrorists and sending them to secret prisons?
What second time? You think they'd entrust a second of their "several" UAVs to the idiots who crashed one? You think they'd run into the same people again, or that the 30 seconds it would take to knock one out would be enough time to triangulate a position through woods?
Yeah, because PETA's drone pilots are so stupid they don't know the difference between crashing a drone because the pilot screws up and crashing a drone because the control signal was suddenly jammed.
And yes, 30 seconds would easily be enough to locate the jammer if you're set up to do it as soon as the jamming starts, especially since you already know who is doing it and just need proof to get a search warrant and arrest them.
(I suppose you could in theory jam it from somewhere far away from the hunters the drone is observing, but then you're probably talking about power levels that require a large permanent antenna and would really get you in trouble with the FCC.)
I wonder what, if any, security is on the things. A few years back you had insurgents "hacking" the US military unarmed UAVs with laptops running a program designed to allow unauthorized reception of satelite TV broadcasts. If someone seized control of a PETA UAV with a laptop, and crashed it into a lake or river, what would there be to suggest it wasn't just some idiot from PETA flying the thing negligently and losing their connection?
Do your research better. The "hacking" wasn't taking control of a drone, it was just breaking the encryption on the video broadcast the drone sends out to everything in the area. That was entirely separate from the control signals for the drone, and much less secure since it had to be easily available to lots of people on the ground.
And yes, it's going to be pretty obvious if the drone suddenly stops obeying the pilot's commands and goes straight into the lake, especially since the default "no signal" behavior for a helicopter like that is almost certainly to just hover in place.
So, if PETA has been caught openly funding terrorism then why do they still exist as an organization in a country that loves nothing more than arresting terrorists and sending them to secret prisons?
Why don't you ask the banana company that got caught paying terrorists protection money, and hiring them to keep their local workers in line? PETA funds the ALF and a laundry list of other organizations considered terrorists by the US government. Who knows why they're still around despite this; there's no doubt they shouldn't be.
Yeah, because PETA's drone pilots are so stupid they don't know the difference between crashing a drone because the pilot screws up and crashing a drone because the control signal was suddenly jammed.
And yes, 30 seconds would easily be enough to locate the jammer if you're set up to do it as soon as the jamming starts, especially since you already know who is doing it and just need proof to get a search warrant and arrest them.
(I suppose you could in theory jam it from somewhere far away from the hunters the drone is observing, but then you're probably talking about power levels that require a large permanent antenna and would really get you in trouble with the FCC.)
I'd love to play Vigilantes and Terrorists with you, in a somehow sillier reenactment of that Tau vs IG thing from a while back, but concocting scenarios wherein not only do you have some scumbags harassing civilians with a UAV, but also someone present who can jam or hack the thing, and also the scumbags are really just trying to catch the people jamming, is an infinitely escalating back and forth that can't be resolved because it's predicated on blind speculation and hypotheticals.
Do your research better. The "hacking" wasn't taking control of a drone, it was just breaking the encryption on the video broadcast the drone sends out to everything in the area. That was entirely separate from the control signals for the drone, and much less secure since it had to be easily available to lots of people on the ground.
Guess why I put "hacking" in quotation marks. They just tuned in with a laptop and some sketchy program.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: I'd love to play Vigilantes and Terrorists with you, in a somehow sillier reenactment of that Tau vs IG thing from a while back, but concocting scenarios wherein not only do you have some scumbags harassing civilians with a UAV, but also someone present who can jam or hack the thing, and also the scumbags are really just trying to catch the people jamming, is an infinitely escalating back and forth that can't be resolved because it's predicated on blind speculation and hypotheticals.
I notice you missed the tiny little detail that radio jammers are illegal. Unlike the "crime" of flying a RC helicopter without direct line of sight (which happens about 30 seconds after someone takes their shiny new RC camera helicopter out of the box) operating unauthorized radio jamming is something that will get you into serious legal trouble with the FCC. And that's just the FCC, you'd also be in serious legal trouble for risking injury to people on the ground by deliberately making the drone lose control and crash. And then PETA sues you for destroying their property.
And the hypocrisy here is amazing: you're complaining about the "speculation" of someone losing an expensive camera drone to jamming and bringing a directional antenna to the next flight, but you're the one posting ridiculous scenarios about snaring a drone in 'self defense' with rockets and fishing line.
Guess why I put "hacking" in quotation marks. They just tuned in with a laptop and some sketchy program.
And the point is it had nothing to do with the controls for the drone, just a minimum-security video feed. That's entirely different from hijacking a drone and crashing it.
I notice you missed the tiny little detail that radio jammers are illegal. Unlike the "crime" of flying a RC helicopter without direct line of sight (which happens about 30 seconds after someone takes their shiny new RC camera helicopter out of the box) operating unauthorized radio jamming is something that will get you into serious legal trouble with the FCC. And that's just the FCC, you'd also be in serious legal trouble for risking injury to people on the ground by deliberately making the drone lose control and crash. And then PETA sues you for destroying their property.
And the hypocrisy here is amazing: you're complaining about the "speculation" of someone losing an expensive camera drone to jamming and bringing a directional antenna to the next flight, but you're the one posting ridiculous scenarios about snaring a drone in 'self defense' with rockets and fishing line.
Actually, I'm saying the whole conversation is silly and predicated on hypotheticals and one-up-manship, on both sides. It's not a winnable debate because it can escalate infinitely with more specific and absurdly unlikely hypothetical situations to justify either side.
You've really got to lighten up and relax: you bring such a palpable rage to even the silliest arguments.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Actually, I'm saying the whole conversation is silly and predicated on hypotheticals and one-up-manship, on both sides. It's not a winnable debate because it can escalate infinitely with more specific and absurdly unlikely hypothetical situations to justify either side.
Of course it's winnable, we can just wait until some idiot tries jamming a drone and discovers how much legal trouble you can get in by doing it. Which isn't hypothetical, by the way, a quick google search will give you some nice stories about idiots trying to jam RC planes and getting into serious legal trouble because they're not as sneaky as they thought.
And it's funny how conversations become "silly and hypothetical" once you lose them.
Peregrine wrote: And it's funny how conversations become "silly and hypothetical" once you lose them.
It's a conversion that's included calls for depleted uranium shotgun shells, RC Kamikazes, fireworks and model rockets as tiny flak missiles, and you think a back and forth in which the abilities, preparation, and outright coincidence for either hypothetical party escalate every round is somehow (and which included suggestions for model rocket assisted fishing for drones) a sober topic for debate?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It's a conversion that's included calls for depleted uranium shotgun shells, RC Kamikazes, fireworks and model rockets as tiny flak missiles, and you think a back and forth in which the abilities, preparation, and outright coincidence for either hypothetical party escalate every round is somehow (and which included suggestions for model rocket assisted fishing for drones) a sober topic for debate?
I don't know, you seemed pretty serious in defending your ideas until it became obvious to everyone but you that they were completely ridiculous.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: It's a conversion that's included calls for depleted uranium shotgun shells, RC Kamikazes, fireworks and model rockets as tiny flak missiles, and you think a back and forth in which the abilities, preparation, and outright coincidence for either hypothetical party escalate every round is somehow (and which included suggestions for model rocket assisted fishing for drones) a sober topic for debate?
I don't know, you seemed pretty serious in defending your ideas until it became obvious to everyone but you that they were completely ridiculous.
You have that effect on people. Then I realized we'd had this exact argument before, if you swap out UAVs and jammers for tigersharks and titans, took a step back, and realized what a ridiculous argument I'd just leapt into.
And the funniest thing is, I honestly couldn't care less about anyone actually hunting the things, but I would egg them on regardless of the consequences to them just because it would be funny for PETA's fancy little toys to get smashed, and arguing over the best ways someone could smash them is a fun conversation to have, unlike arguing over whether they'd get away with it or not (which IRL would rely entirely on luck of the draw, but here we can only ascribe ever greater awareness and ability to either side in a conflict that can escalate indefinitely).
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: (which IRL would rely entirely on luck of the draw, but here we can only ascribe ever greater awareness and ability to either side in a conflict that can escalate indefinitely).
There's no indefinite chain of escalation. Once you figure out the obvious, that someone is using a radio jammer, it's not that hard to spot. You don't need magic awareness about the other side, just basic competence and some simple equipment. After all, you already know exactly who jammed your drone, you just need to collect enough evidence to prove it in court. That is, if you can't convince a court to issue a search warrant over the obvious use of a jammer (complete with video evidence) with the first drone and skip straight to the "arrested and fined by the FCC" part.
Again, do a quick google search on the subject and you'll find out that "idiot thinks it would be funny to jam RC planes, ends up in serious legal trouble" isn't just a hypothetical.
Since when is deliberate property damage not illegal? Am I allowed to use a hammer to smash the windows in your car because I don't like your political bumper sticker? After all, I'm not using any kind of illegal weapon to do it.
They are tresspassing against property. They have no claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, I am aware a Jammer is illegal. What made you think this discussion and the suggestions were 100% serious.
I'm totally serious. If someone gets me a quad .50 cal with ammo (ammo's the problem these days) I will totally shoot down any PETA drone that comes around. I am totally serial!
Peregrine wrote: And it's funny how conversations become "silly and hypothetical" once you lose them.
It's a conversion that's included calls for depleted uranium shotgun shells, RC Kamikazes, fireworks and model rockets as tiny flak missiles, and you think a back and forth in which the abilities, preparation, and outright coincidence for either hypothetical party escalate every round is somehow (and which included suggestions for model rocket assisted fishing for drones) a sober topic for debate?
This thread is taking a turn for serious. You guys are messing with my fireworks fueld buzz here.
Another idea. A set up of Roman candles on a turn table setup. Also attached will be two IPOD speakers, which will of course be playing the mandatory ride of the Valkyries.
Dah dah dah dah DAH DAH WHOOSHWHOOSHWHOOSHWHOOSH!
Alternatively if its windy we could hook up a wiener dog to a kite. It wil be the first launch of our new new SAW (Surface to Air Wienerdog). Come on, you know you want to...
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: (which IRL would rely entirely on luck of the draw, but here we can only ascribe ever greater awareness and ability to either side in a conflict that can escalate indefinitely).
There's no indefinite chain of escalation. Once you figure out the obvious, that someone is using a radio jammer, it's not that hard to spot. You don't need magic awareness about the other side, just basic competence and some simple equipment. After all, you already know exactly who jammed your drone, you just need to collect enough evidence to prove it in court. That is, if you can't convince a court to issue a search warrant over the obvious use of a jammer (complete with video evidence) with the first drone and skip straight to the "arrested and fined by the FCC" part.
Again, do a quick google search on the subject and you'll find out that "idiot thinks it would be funny to jam RC planes, ends up in serious legal trouble" isn't just a hypothetical.
You're about a nine on the tension scale there Vern. Why don't you take it private. This thread is about shotguns and PETA drones. Faux Rage is on thread three, just down the hall.
Depleted uranium is a waste product. It's what's left once you take the fissile uranium out.
Which does not negate my comment. DU is hard to machine, the waste is an EPA nightmare, and as a waste product of uranium it is still expensive to get the material you need to make the projectile. Which is why current DU rounds (and other products made from DU) are pretty rare and expensive.
Catapults/giant slingshots full of fireworks for a really heavy flakfield.
Once the flight path is established, everyone in the hunting party work on bending a tree down to the ground acme style and whipping it into the thing, making it stop in its place with a hilarious 'dong' noise, and little UAV's circle around it's camera.
Same thing as option two but launch a member of your hunting party at it.
Same thing as option three but launch an animal you caught at it (some kind of pest, whatever your equivalent to a feral pig is...probably a feral pig)
Erect a giant pane of glass around your acreage without anyone noticing, and have it so clean that nothing reflects off of it/distorts through it. Let the drone fly into it.
Train a bald eagle to hunt UAVs. Bring hawking back, but more in line with these high-tech, modern times.
1. Start dressing up as Sasquatch and then wait for PETA to capture you on tape and start a campaign to save you. Rinse and repeat with other mythical creatures.
2. Stage a body dump complete with shallow grave and fake body (unless you have dead hookers you need to get rid of).
3. Film low budget slasher flicks on your land. If PETA don't phone the police (pretty likely as they only care about animal suffering) then ask PETA for the aerial footage.
4. Breed endangered birds and release them in the vicinity of the UAV forcing PETA to back off or face the bad publicity from maiming/killing them
5. Dress up as Elmer Fudd, have a friend dress up as Bugs Bunny and hunt him with a paintball gun (or hire a hooker and hunt for real - this leads us nicely back to 2 above)
For the record, and the humourless, I do not condone violence against sex workers
Unfortunately those don't shoot up high enough to be useful for this. Also, they rapid fire in serial but you don't get one huge volley of 100 shots. (darn it!)
The will scare away anything you are hunting though.
Oh, and my horses HATE when we set them off anywhere near the pastures....
dogma wrote: For the record, if you need to say that you were trying to be humorous; then to probably weren't.
Seeing as we had an outbreak of seriousness in a thread about DU shotgun shells, fireworks, Kamakazi RC aircraft attacks and other assorted craziness I thought I'd make sure it was taken in jest before the super serial dissection of my post started.
But for the record don't let your humour failure stand in the way of that
dogma wrote: Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?
There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.
If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it
dogma wrote: Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?
There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.
If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it
Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.
dogma wrote: Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?
There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.
If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it
Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.
dogma wrote: Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?
There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.
If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it
Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.
Or maybe people just get tired of every thread in the off-topic section in regards to serious topics becoming overloaded with pictures/references to wiener dogs.
dogma wrote: Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?
There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.
If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it
Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.
Or maybe people just get tired of every thread in the off-topic section in regards to serious topics becoming overloaded with pictures/references to wiener dogs.
Obviously you are a cat lover, and probably a PETA member too. Cat lovers will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. Your only hope of being saved from wiener dog rocket forces is repentance. The Great Wienie is merciful.
dogma wrote: Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?
There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.
If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it
Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.
Or maybe people just get tired of every thread in the off-topic section in regards to serious topics becoming overloaded with pictures/references to wiener dogs.
I have no tolerance for these people.
On a more serious note, any of you math whizzes out there want to help me figure out what the maximum effective range of a skyward launched shuriken is?
dogma wrote: Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?
There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.
If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it
Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.
Depends on how the video is obtained. If it, or indeed any type of evidence, is ever obtained illegally it usually gets thrown out.
I remember a case where the Police were tracking down some Growhouses and were using Thermal Cameras to see if a house was glowing warmer than normal. The Judge ruled that using a Thermal Camera was a violation of Privacy and so threw out that evidence.
Given PETAs track record of illegally spying on things such evidence is useless besides putting it on the Internet.
CptJake wrote: So, could any video PETA collects be used to prosecute hunters/fishermen?
In theory it could be evidence used by the appropriate agency, or if PETA brought a private suit against the individuals involved. However there are practical problems;
1. If they fly the UAV over private land they may be considered trespassers, and any evidence collected may not be admissible.
2. The flight time for the model they have listed is 20 minutes. That's 20 minutes to get into the air, get over a large expanse of land, get footage, hope that the footage taken shows something that at least gives them ground for complaint
3. Finding trained individuals to pilot the UAV
4. Finding legally trained individuals to watch the tapes and determine if any law was broken
5. Complying with any FAA or other regulation concerning the flying of these UAV
6. The image recording device has capture decent quality images, have a decent battery life, and be lightweight enough so as not to further impede the flight time
7. Liability. If the UAV collides with a person or property PETA could find itself explaining their actions before a court
8. If any action is taken on the basis of evidence collected by their UAVs they can expect subpoenas for all the footage captured, and not just the edited highlights that they may have passed on. That means legal fees, and the possibility that their members will be called upon to testify
9. The big one - their footage has to be ruled as legally admissible.
That list is by no means exhaustive either. So it seems like an awful lot of effort for potentially very little return, other than some publicity which they have already gotten from this news being made public.
other than some publicity which they have already gotten from this news being made public.
That seems to be PETA's MO. They don't really seem to actually give a gak about animals, or want to make a difference, they just want attention and to be a pain in everyone's ass.
PETA is not a terrorist organization. The practice Militant Hippyism, which I oppose in all of it's forms. Tossing blood on people wearing fur coats, ramming fishing vessels, etc.
kronk wrote: PETA is not a terrorist organization.
Yet...
They appear to be becoming more and more extreme as the years go by, and they do support some groups that are definitly terrorists. They may cross the line someday, and are currently walking it.
Grey Templar wrote: I remember a case where the Police were tracking down some Growhouses and were using Thermal Cameras to see if a house was glowing warmer than normal. The Judge ruled that using a Thermal Camera was a violation of Privacy and so threw out that evidence..
To clarify your comment a little, the ruling was that thermal penetration constitutes a search (and yes, the evidence was tossed). However, the police can absolutely do this legally, they just are required to obtain a warrant as they would with any other search.
Grey Templar wrote: I remember a case where the Police were tracking down some Growhouses and were using Thermal Cameras to see if a house was glowing warmer than normal. The Judge ruled that using a Thermal Camera was a violation of Privacy and so threw out that evidence..
To clarify your comment a little, the ruling was that thermal penetration constitutes a search (and yes, the evidence was tossed). However, the police can absolutely do this legally, they just are required to obtain a warrant as they would with any other search.
Also every Greenpeace minion I've ever BS'd with has been a hunter or been cool with hunting. That alone marks them as a far more sane and reasonable group then PETA because they accept that ceasing hunting would absolutely devastate the ecosystem.
We are the apex predator in these parts. That means we have a certain responsibility to have enough deer and elk steaks a year to keep the populations balanced and healthy.
kronk wrote:PETA is not a terrorist organization. The practice Militant Hippyism, which I oppose in all of it's forms. Tossing blood on people wearing fur coats, ramming fishing vessels, etc.
I would consider actions such as arson to be terrorism.
kronk wrote:PETA is not a terrorist organization. The practice Militant Hippyism, which I oppose in all of it's forms. Tossing blood on people wearing fur coats, ramming fishing vessels, etc.
I would consider actions such as arson to be terrorism.
They are more of a criminal organization then as they condone their members, or even make them, commit crimes on purpose. Paint on fur, ramming ships etc. is a crime, no matter your intention.
You'd think it would bend when pressed against a ship's hull.
I mean, you can bake it into chips, but even then I don't think it would do much damage. You then have to wonder how a middle-eastern flatbread got out on the open sea to begin with.
You'd think it would bend when pressed against a ship's hull.
I mean, you can bake it into chips, but even then I don't think it would do much damage. You then have to wonder how a middle-eastern flatbread got out on the open sea to begin with.
Welp, now I'm hungry for shawarma. I hope you're all happy.
I know PETA's pulled off some fairly extreme shenanigans in the past, and have been associated with extremist groups who HAVE done some jacked up stuff. I don't recall them ramming whalers though.
I know PETA's pulled off some fairly extreme shenanigans in the past, and have been associated with extremist groups who HAVE done some jacked up stuff. I don't recall them ramming whalers though.
I think he's mixing them up with those guys on animal planet who "wage war" on the Japanese whalers yet pretend they're not breaking any laws whatsoever (not that I'm against what they do, I just think they're going to get someone killed for a stupid reason, like where their "stealth ship" got rammed in half)
I know PETA's pulled off some fairly extreme shenanigans in the past, and have been associated with extremist groups who HAVE done some jacked up stuff. I don't recall them ramming whalers though.
I think he's mixing them up with those guys on animal planet who "wage war" on the Japanese whalers yet pretend they're not breaking any laws whatsoever (not that I'm against what they do, I just think they're going to get someone killed for a stupid reason, like where their "stealth ship" got rammed in half)
The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, codenamed Opération Satanique,[1] was an operation by the "action" branch of the French foreign intelligence services, the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE), carried out on 10 July 1985. It aimed to sink the flagship of the Greenpeace fleet, the Rainbow Warrior in the port of Auckland, New Zealand, to prevent her from interfering in a nuclear test in Moruroa.
Fernando Pereira, a photographer, drowned on the sinking ship. Two French agents were arrested by the New Zealand Police on passport fraud and immigration charges. They were charged with arson, conspiracy to commit arson, willful damage, and murder. As part of a plea bargain, they pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to ten years in prison, of which they served just over two.
The scandal resulted in the resignation of the French Defence Minister Charles Hernu. . .
Sinking of the ship Agents had boarded and examined the ship while it was open to public viewing. DGSE agent Christine Cabon, posing as environmentalist Frederique Bonlieu, volunteered for the Greenpeace office in Auckland. Cabon secretly monitored communications from the Rainbow Warrior, collected maps, and investigated underwater equipment, in order to provide information crucial to the sinking. After the necessary information had been gathered, two DGSE divers beneath the Rainbow Warrior attached two limpet mines and detonated them 10 minutes apart. The first bomb went off 11:38 P.M., creating a large hole about the size of an average car. Agents intended the first mine to cripple the ship so that it would be evacuated safely by the time the second mine was detonated. However, the crew did not react to the first explosion as the agents had expected. While the ship was initially evacuated, some of the crew returned to the ship to investigate and film the damage. A Portuguese-Dutch photographer, Fernando Pereira, returned below decks to fetch his camera equipment. At 11:45 P.M., the second bomb went off. Pereira drowned in the rapid flooding that followed, and the other ten crew members either safely abandoned ship on the order of Captain Peter Willcox or were thrown into the water by the second explosion. The Rainbow Warrior sank four minutes later
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Also every Greenpeace minion I've ever BS'd with has been a hunter or been cool with hunting.
I used to work for them, and my experience was similar. In general the organization is fine with hunting, as it is a conservation group, not an animal rights group.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Also every Greenpeace minion I've ever BS'd with has been a hunter or been cool with hunting.
I used to work for them, and my experience was similar. In general the organization is fine with hunting, as it is a conservation group, not an animal rights group.
Well, it is now.
That's what really hacks me off about PETA, they're all about the environment and animals, but they don't know the first thing about what they're talking about, especially when it comes to wildlife. That their shelters have some of the highest kill rates in the country adds to the sad irony of it all.
They think that companion animals are inducted slaves that cannot be saved.
Serious about that to, they think that since a domestic dog cannot live by itself and it doesnt belong to humans in any way, it should die.
I'm sure PETA think that nature is a wonderfully happy place where everything is happy and nothing starves, or gets killed, or optionally as roosters can do , bonks something to death.
Nature isn't a happy place and if a hermit crab can wear a shell I sure as hell can wear a fur coat.
Sometimes i think we should listen to farmers and hunters about wildlife they seem to have more realistic views of what really happens in the wild.
I am also heartened by greenpeaces' new attitude, it seems much more relaxed and logical, I might have to actually read what they write now. Thanx to the person that posted the link to the sea sheapard/greenpeace article.
If domestic pets get killed because they cannot live without humans or human society, where do humans stand in PETAs agenda?
I've always wanted to drop PETA activists into the middle of the Yukon territory (during summer! I'm not a monster... mostly) or remote Alaska/Montana, and just kinda "let'em go" shall we say. Come back with an aircraft rigged with FLIR in a week or two and see how many are left. See how good your hippy gak does with a Grizz, Kodiak or pack of wolves bearing down on you. Or even worse... an angry moose.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I've always wanted to drop PETA activists into the middle of the Yukon territory (during summer! I'm not a monster... mostly) or remote Alaska/Montana, and just kinda "let'em go" shall we say. Come back with an aircraft rigged with FLIR in a week or two and see how many are left. See how good your hippy gak does with a Grizz, Kodiak or pack of wolves bearing down on you. Or even worse... a horny moose.
azazel the cat wrote: There is no part of PETA that isn't fraught with fraud, hypocrisy and stupidity.
Yeah - you know, I defended their right to do their stupid drone plan earlier in this thread; but I just want to make 110% clear that I in no way endorse anything PETA does. Or anything about PETA. They are just a notch above the Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion, and similarly situated - I'd respect and defend their right, within our legal limits, to do the awful, reprehensible things they do - without particularly liking the message or mission.
azazel the cat wrote: There is no part of PETA that isn't fraught with fraud, hypocrisy and stupidity.
Yeah - you know, I defended their right to do their stupid drone plan earlier in this thread; but I just want to make 110% clear that I in no way endorse anything PETA does. Or anything about PETA. They are just a notch above the Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion, and similarly situated - I'd respect and defend their right, within our legal limits, to do the awful, reprehensible things they do - without particularly liking the message or mission.
Living in a country that doesn't do the whole free speech thing i sometimes wonder at the value of it when people are respecting others rights to make ridiculous statements.
The only good thing PETA and westboro could do is have a a cage match to the death, i would pay to see it.
CptJake coming from a country that doesn't have mooses (moosi- how the hell do you pluralise moose) I have to really thank you for putting the idea of a horny moose on a rampage into my sick little mind. I'm now wondering if there is an amusing video of a moose mounting a small car.
Bullockist wrote: Nature isn't a happy place and if a hermit crab can wear a shell I sure as hell can wear a fur coat.
I'll take issues to that comparison. Hermit crabs salvage the empty shells of sea snails, you kill up to dozens of advanced mammals for a single luxury item you could manufacture with synthetic replacement. Sometimes, those animals are even skinned alive to cut down on the cost of euthanasia.
Hell, the simple fact that you lowered yourself to the level of a crustacean should be enough to tell you that your analogy is problematic.
my point might have been slightly hyperbolic and missapropriated.
Thing is, things die, things get killed, what food you eat has always resulted in things dying, same with clothes. I personally don't see the difference in killing animals for skins or deforesting areas to grow cotton.
Synthesising things is all well and good but how do you get the chemicals to synthesise, what's the enviromental cost of synthesising?
Making youself feel better because you think creatures don't die so you can live how you live if you don't directly kill them is a little naive.
Pesonally, I don't see what's wrong with killing things as a rescource, it's a part of life, animal products go into an incredible amount of consumer goods, and i for one am more than happy they do.
You can grow more animals just like you can grow more trees (if you manage them well).Not killing animals that are excess like the kangaroo plagues that happen here every 10-15 years dooms them to starvation and disease.
This whole anti killing attitude is weird, humans have killed animals for millennia. People who can't eat food with heads on is really strange, I kinda prefer it as it makes me appreciate what went into what I'm eating (that yes a steak is a cow). I actually think that people understanding that a creature died so they could eat, it might make people appreciate it more.
I am not overly callous , i say thankyou to the fish just before i kill it when i go fishing, i just feel that it is part of life, most animals kill or harm other organisms to survive- whether that be through predation, out competing or habitat reduction or accidental squashing.
If someone comes along with the line "it's cruel", most predators eat their prey alive , incapacitated but alive, humans are the apex predator.
This being said i like most animals, with the exception of horses and rats - though i do tend to like predatory animals more, like ravens cats, dogs, kookaburras, though i do love cows for some weird reason.
Seems like i'm on the hyperbole (or as my exceptional prime minister said "Hyperbowl") train atm, but my points still stand I just can't be bothered retyping to make it more diplomatic.
azazel the cat wrote: There is no part of PETA that isn't fraught with fraud, hypocrisy and stupidity.
Yeah - you know, I defended their right to do their stupid drone plan earlier in this thread; but I just want to make 110% clear that I in no way endorse anything PETA does. Or anything about PETA. They are just a notch above the Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion, and similarly situated - I'd respect and defend their right, within our legal limits, to do the awful, reprehensible things they do - without particularly liking the message or mission.
Living in a country that doesn't do the whole free speech thing i sometimes wonder at the value of it when people are respecting others rights to make ridiculous statements.
The only good thing PETA and westboro could do is have a a cage match to the death, i would pay to see it.
CptJake coming from a country that doesn't have mooses (moosi- how the hell do you pluralise moose) I have to really thank you for putting the idea of a horny moose on a rampage into my sick little mind. I'm now wondering if there is an amusing video of a moose mounting a small car.
Bullockist wrote: Thing is, things die, things get killed, what food you eat has always resulted in things dying, same with clothes.
I know that. I've killed and participated in the killing of half a million hogs. I'm not a tree-hugging hippy, if that's the impression you are under. You can hardly avoid meat without carence, so it's perfectly fine as it is necessary. Fur clothes isn't. Not in this day and age
I personally don't see the difference in killing animals for skins or deforesting areas to grow cotton.
Really? You don't see that one of those two beings killed is capable of suffering, that it has a consciousness, and that it trashes against what wishes to kill it?
Synthesising things is all well and good but how do you get the chemicals to synthesise, what's the enviromental cost of synthesising?
Certainly less than killing a predator for it's skin. Remember that graph in ecology on how much calories it took to produce one pound of predator? Even if you were to eat that cat or dog, let me assure you, as I've already skinned a wild cat, you can't make much more than soup with it.
Making youself feel better because you think creatures don't die so you can live how you live if you don't directly kill them is a little naive.
What?
Pesonally, I don't see what's wrong with killing things as a rescource
By that standard alone, I could kill you and be justified in the fact that I've just obtained some of the most valuable ressources on earth ; human organs. I should also be happy because I've just freed the amound of ressources you were going to take. Everything can be a ressource. The reasons why you shouldn't kill other human beings, and avoid killing other animals when it isn't necessary isn't based on ressource allocation, but on the value of higher life forms.
This whole anti killing attitude is weird, humans have killed animals for millennia.
See first statement above.
People who can't eat food with heads on is really strange
Currently eating chicken nuggets.
I kinda prefer it as it makes me appreciate what went into what I'm eating (that yes a steak is a cow). I actually think that people understanding that a creature died so they could eat, it might make people appreciate it more.
That's fethed up. Again, by that logic, murdering people should be appreciated because it makes the survivors appreciate their lives more.
1. you aren't a hippy.
2. synthesising being cheaper.
3.eating chicken nuggest is most likely eating pulverised chicken head.
However i don't see the correlation at all in your last point. Your point would apply ikf we were talking about cannibals eating said human, but i seee where you are going with it.
I also don't accept this concept of higher life. I have quite alot to do with bees , I see them struggle to survive when you half squash them, i see them trying to get back into the hive after being thrown out, i see them trying to fight off ants trying to kill them, i see them getting distressed at dirtiness created by a parasitic beetle (they leave if it gets bad enough) all these types of actions are pointed at (not all of them by you) as markers of higher life forms. I think higher life forms are a fallacy, bees are acclaimed as one of natures simpler life forms but have an extremely complex society and language system, i fail to see what makes them a lesser life form than a mammal.
Along this line of thinking I group all life forms into the same group, abeit with more empathy for mammals.
Point I don't get about leather/furs, a lot of leather and fur is a byproduct of making the steak I had for lunch. Is it not more environmentally friendly to use all the animal? Or at least as much of it as possible?
Course I say this as man with leather belts, boots, jackets and a powerful love of steak. In short. I hate cows.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Point I don't get about leather/furs, a lot of leather and fur is a byproduct of making the steak I had for lunch. Is it not more environmentally friendly to use all the animal? Or at least as much of it as possible?
Course I say this as man with leather belts, boots, jackets and a powerful love of steak. In short. I hate cows.
I agree with this although I don't know what it has to do with the environment, it's more about getting as much use of the animal as possible.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Course I say this as man with leather belts, boots, jackets and a powerful love of steak. In short. I hate cows.
To be fair, leather is the only good material for both shoes and belts. Jackets have better (and much cheaper) alternatives, as do other clothes, but with shoes in particular there's no other good option.
Also what on earth animal that produces usable fur do we eat in this day and age? Not that I have a problem with the industry, mind (for all that I don't really see the appeal), but nobody eats foxes or weasels or whathaveyou.
Beaver has good pelts I hear, and those fat little suckers would probably make a good meal. Coyote pelts are also pretty nice, I have yet to eat one, but next one I take is getting BBQ'd in the name of trying to be more fair to the animal. (field butchered mind) otherwise I'll continue my policy of digging a grave for 'yotes. (fertilizer is good for the earth too)
I have non leather belts, they're the rigging belts the Corps gave me, they certainly have their place but they're about as fashionable as a traffic accident.
Cheesecat wrote: Thanks KalashnikovMarine I want to eat a beaver now.
Who doesn't
Oh man, I just realized I did a double entendre oh well it still works for me both ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Beaver has good pelts I hear, and those fat little suckers would probably make a good meal. Coyote pelts are also pretty nice, I have yet to eat one, but next one I take is getting BBQ'd in the name of trying to be more fair to the animal. (field butchered mind) otherwise I'll continue my policy of digging a grave for 'yotes. (fertilizer is good for the earth too)
I have non leather belts, they're the rigging belts the Corps gave me, they certainly have their place but they're about as fashionable as a traffic accident.
Oh look, PETA's making it extremely difficult for the rest of us Animal Welfare/Rights people to get our point across without being laughed at again.
Thanks, PETA. Thanks ever so much.
azazel the cat wrote: There is no part of PETA that isn't fraught with fraud, hypocrisy and stupidity.
Yeah - you know, I defended their right to do their stupid drone plan earlier in this thread; but I just want to make 110% clear that I in no way endorse anything PETA does. Or anything about PETA. They are just a notch above the Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion, and similarly situated - I'd respect and defend their right, within our legal limits, to do the awful, reprehensible things they do - without particularly liking the message or mission.
Its sad. I was fully behind their original mission - reduction in animal testing. Then they got weird.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Beaver has good pelts I hear, and those fat little suckers would probably make a good meal. Coyote pelts are also pretty nice, I have yet to eat one, but next one I take is getting BBQ'd in the name of trying to be more fair to the animal. (field butchered mind) otherwise I'll continue my policy of digging a grave for 'yotes. (fertilizer is good for the earth too)
I have non leather belts, they're the rigging belts the Corps gave me, they certainly have their place but they're about as fashionable as a traffic accident.
Do you live in a rural area?
Yes and no? Colorado Springs is a fairly populous city, but we're spread out enough that deer or coyote any where but the city center and the freeway are not a shocking occurrence. With 'yote populations on the rise they're considered pests and can be taken year round at any time with rifles. (outside of city limits, X distance from inhabited buildings, etc) Coyote calling is a popular sport/challenge around here. Personally it's a fall/winter sport for me even though you can hunt year round, I wouldn't want to risk taking a pregnant female or half a mated pair with a dependent litter of pups. No bueno.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Beaver has good pelts I hear, and those fat little suckers would probably make a good meal. Coyote pelts are also pretty nice, I have yet to eat one, but next one I take is getting BBQ'd in the name of trying to be more fair to the animal. (field butchered mind) otherwise I'll continue my policy of digging a grave for 'yotes. (fertilizer is good for the earth too)
I have non leather belts, they're the rigging belts the Corps gave me, they certainly have their place but they're about as fashionable as a traffic accident.
Do you live in a rural area?
Yes and no? Colorado Springs is a fairly populous city, but we're spread out enough that deer or coyote any where but the city center and the freeway are not a shocking occurrence. With 'yote populations on the rise they're considered pests and can be taken year round at any time with rifles. (outside of city limits, X distance from inhabited buildings, etc) Coyote calling is a popular sport/challenge around here. Personally it's a fall/winter sport for me even though you can hunt year round, I wouldn't want to risk taking a pregnant female or half a mated pair with a dependent litter of pups. No bueno.
my old PLT SGT lived a couple blocks from Bristol Brewing, and his neighborhood trashcans were regularly terrorized by the local bear populations... and that's not exactly the outskirts of town either.
Yotes are one of those animals that transitions to urban environments pretty well, and unlike Raccoons they are very dangerous. Small children have been attacked by the little pests.
Bullockist wrote: Nature isn't a happy place and if a hermit crab can wear a shell I sure as hell can wear a fur coat.
I'll take issues to that comparison. Hermit crabs salvage the empty shells of sea snails, you kill up to dozens of advanced mammals for a single luxury item you could manufacture with synthetic replacement. Sometimes, those animals are even skinned alive to cut down on the cost of euthanasia.
Hell, the simple fact that you lowered yourself to the level of a crustacean should be enough to tell you that your analogy is problematic.
Suppose I lived in the woods, killed the animal humanely and then used the skin. Is that more acceptable?
Personally if we have any PETA equivalent groups in the UK (do we ) and they try this stunt i will be rigging up anti-drone countermeasures EVERY WHERE i actualy had this weird idea of building a pintle mount for a paintball or airsoft gun onto a vehicle sort of like WW2 German staff cars. Or racks of fireworks.
Or maybe an RC hellicobter carrying remote operated spray cans. Or if your a pyro like me ghetto flamers.
Alternatively have one with a canister full of blood (or paint if your a pansy) fly it above the drone and open the canister. Lets see them deal with that one
Or get make some rocket fuel (theres how toos all over the internet), load them into cans, attach a tailpipe fins and stabilizer jets and unleash in volleys.
Or as above but make into mini V1 doodlebugs for increased range/accuracy.
master of ordinance wrote: Personally if we have any PETA equivalent groups in the UK (do we ) and they try this stunt i will be rigging up anti-drone countermeasures EVERY WHERE i actualy had this weird idea of building a pintle mount for a paintball or airsoft gun onto a vehicle sort of like WW2 German staff cars. Or racks of fireworks.
Or maybe an RC hellicobter carrying remote operated spray cans. Or if your a pyro like me ghetto flamers.
Alternatively have one with a canister full of blood (or paint if your a pansy) fly it above the drone and open the canister. Lets see them deal with that one
Or get make some rocket fuel (theres how toos all over the internet), load them into cans, attach a tailpipe fins and stabilizer jets and unleash in volleys.
Or as above but make into mini V1 doodlebugs for increased range/accuracy.
Bullockist wrote: Nature isn't a happy place and if a hermit crab can wear a shell I sure as hell can wear a fur coat.
I'll take issues to that comparison. Hermit crabs salvage the empty shells of sea snails, you kill up to dozens of advanced mammals for a single luxury item you could manufacture with synthetic replacement. Sometimes, those animals are even skinned alive to cut down on the cost of euthanasia.
Hell, the simple fact that you lowered yourself to the level of a crustacean should be enough to tell you that your analogy is problematic.
Suppose I lived in the woods, killed the animal humanely and then used the skin. Is that more acceptable?
If you have a need for it that you cannot reasonnably answer another way, and you target animals that are also good food sources, like rabbits, or pests like racoons and yotes like previously mentionned, then yeah, I don't see that as problematic. I don't either have a hatred for people that wear fur. There was, a few months ago, this video of a guy walking in the streets of montreal with a fox pelt as a scarf, and was getting stuff thrown at him by passerby. I took more offense with his acute hipsterism than with his wearing of a pelt.
What pisses me off is the horrible treatment of animals by an industry that could easily find alternative sources. That video on the chinese dog and cat fur trade gave me nightmares for days. I've heard that some eastern european countries do the same, live skinning the animals, but since they don't have a market for cat's and dog's meat, they throw the skinned live dog or cat in a crematory.
At least at the butcher plant, we had the decency to gaz and shock the hogs at the beginning of the process. We also used 97% of the weight of the animal in one manner or the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Point I don't get about leather/furs, a lot of leather and fur is a byproduct of making the steak I had for lunch. Is it not more environmentally friendly to use all the animal? Or at least as much of it as possible?
Course I say this as man with leather belts, boots, jackets and a powerful love of steak. In short. I hate cows.
I wouldn't say a lot. Cats, dogs, foxes and other predators don't usually have enough meat on them to warrant an industry based on it. Rabbits and seals, yeah. I don't know about beavers, never even saw beaver meat being sold.
Beaver have been known to build nuisance damns that flood people's properties and endanger crops and/or livestock in certain areas. I have no problem with the killing of nuisance beavers. You might as well collect and use their furs, too.
Grey Templar wrote: Supposedly Beaver is quite tasty, all the first hand accounts I've read from trappers in the 1800s held them as a delicacy.
They should be, same as capybara or Guinea pig, large rodent makes for good food.
I've always been in favor of hunting and eating animals that are not endangered and not during their breeding/raising season.
Not carnivores though, mammalian carnivore meat is entirely disgusting. Folks in PA were telling me how good bear tasted, they were lying, it's bloody awful. Too much machismo around the hunting of predators, not enough common sense, you hunt for food? Good, go shoot a deer, there's millions and they are bloody wonderful to eat.
Hey without leather the entire fashion scene of the 80's would've been jeopardized. What would people have worn If there were no skin tight leather pants around?
MrMoustaffa wrote: Hey without leather the entire fashion scene of the 80's would've been jeopardized. What would people have worn If there were no skin tight leather pants around?
Couldn't have been any more of a assault on fashion I'll promise you that.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Hey without leather the entire fashion scene of the 80's would've been jeopardized. What would people have worn If there were no skin tight leather pants around?
Now now...are you sure you want the share that on the interweb
master of ordinance wrote: Personally if we have any PETA equivalent groups in the UK (do we ) and they try this stunt i will be rigging up anti-drone countermeasures EVERY WHERE i actualy had this weird idea of building a pintle mount for a paintball or airsoft gun onto a vehicle sort of like WW2 German staff cars. Or racks of fireworks.
Or maybe an RC hellicobter carrying remote operated spray cans. Or if your a pyro like me ghetto flamers.
Alternatively have one with a canister full of blood (or paint if your a pansy) fly it above the drone and open the canister. Lets see them deal with that one
Or get make some rocket fuel (theres how toos all over the internet), load them into cans, attach a tailpipe fins and stabilizer jets and unleash in volleys.
Or as above but make into mini V1 doodlebugs for increased range/accuracy.
Ill think of more soon
You should build a laser.
Would do if i had the money and power source. ive got a whole designe concept for a mech but money is money......
model rockets + fishing line streamers = fouled rotors and a smashed toy. 
