An animal rights group stopped a planned pigeon shoot over the weekend, leaving the would-be marksmen to shoot down another target: The animal group's aerial drone.
A group called SHARK, SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness, went to Broxton Bridge Plantation near Ehrhardt, S.C., on Sunday to video a live pigeon shoot, according to the Times and Democrat of Orangeburg, S.C. The group lofted a small Mikrokopter drone and planned to tape the shoot. Law enforcement officers and an attorney tried to stop the drone from flying, according to the T&D. The group persisted, and apparently the shooters got back in their cars to leave, said Steve Hindi, president of SHARK.
The drone took off anyway, and then several shots rang out. One eventually struck the drone and it spiraled to the ground, to the dismay of the SHARK representatives who were filming it from the ground. The T&D has video of it here.
Civilian use of drones is becoming more widespread, with sometimes strange and interesting results. Microdrones, the maker of the drone used in this case, previously unleashed a drone to chase African wildlife to get some new animal footage. Last month an amateur drone pilot spotted a river of blood streaming from a pig slaughter facility in Texas, prompting the Texas Environmental Crimes Task Force to launch an investigation. And paparazzi drones could soon be stalking celebrities.
With new rules governing drones in U.S. airspace taking effect this fall, stories like this could become more common.
Well, I just watched the video and whoever was filming needs to learn how to point the camera. It's hard to tell if the drone was even shot down at all.
"One can resist the invasion of armies; one cannot resist the invasion of ideas."
It is going to be a very sticky time, legislation-wise. I can see this becoming a very polarizing issue. Some will say that airspace is public, so they can use a camera just as if they were driving down the street. On the other side, some will say that they should have privacy on their own property that is shielded (by fences or trees) from public areas, and that they shouldn't have to put up domes over their property to have some privacy.
My biggest concern for myself is this: With these copters so cheap, what's to stop some pervert from buying one and flying around neighborhoods taking pictures of kids who are in their own fenced-in back yards? How about being able to fly above the public street 25 or 50 feet and peer down into homes with zoom lenses, in scenarios where people are protecting only against views from the street?
Lots of sticky questions, no easy answers.
thats so cool. its like woa dude
wye dont you just be quiet. nobody likes retarded rude comments.
I'm glad that they shot that pos down. Like another poster already mentioned, this is essentially the same activity as being a peeping tom. There is no problem with flying over someone's home at altitude just to get somewhere. There is a VERY BIG problem with someone rigging up a camera on an RC and flying it over your private property to spy on you. If you believe that someone is doing something illegal, then take it to a judge. The fact of the matter is that the pigeon shooting that this private club does is not illegal in their state and they are simply harassing people and invading their privacy. I wish they would have completely destroyed that toy.
I'm with @KemalyanPA there is no way you could tell that it was shot down. I see no spiraling out of control it looks to me like it came down rather quickly but it certainly didn't look like it had been hit.
There needs to be some kind of middle ground. Police and border patrol agencies have increasing access and use of drones, I think we should have access as well. We should have the ability to watch just as we are being watched. The government and corporations will have to tighten up their activities. There are a lot of people that would put these things to good use, it is unfortunate that there are just as many that would use them for lascivious activities. As they proliferate, defenses and counter measures will become more common. I would like to see a little E.M. pulse gun, just powerful enough to keep drones out of my back yard.
I watched this video several times because I thought I heard something interesting. If you listen at 0:42 you can hear someone say "bring it down?" then someone answers "no".
That leaves me to believe that the someone wanted the drone to be shot so that the issue could be exploited and sensationalized.
I also agree that there is no proof that it was hit.
Where is the footage showing the damage? That would have been valuable in proving their point.
I agree that there is no real evidence that the drone was shot down.
I also wonder what this is doing in PopSci. This is a social/legal issue not a scientific one.
I'm sure that these drones will cause significant amounts of conflict because they are a new tech -- and people will start using them invasively. Possibly that will get them outlawed.
Of course it's very possible and highly likely that folks who enjoy shooting at pigeons (being launched out of a box) - Would also be capable of shooting down an instrument that documented them doing so!
It's an embarrassing activity to be caught in the act of. Furthermore, if S.C. followed the laws of their own state this event would have been shut down for being illegal. Clearly the pot-shots taken at these birds leave them injured and dying a death with intense suffering... These thugs don't retrieve the ones who were nicked or wing-clipped. These pigeons die a cruel and "inhumane" end. That's against the law in S.C.
As far as I'm concerned SHARK is just gathering evidence in S.C. as well as in Pa. that the paid "law" entities can't or won't get. Shame on S.C. for allowing such a vile event! And even more corrupt would be if they didn't pursue the ones responsible for this certain property damage!
It seems we have two members of SHARK on this forum, Bea Elliott and somthingsup.
FYI pigeons were not originally native to North America. They are the rat of the skies and very over populated. Allowing hunters to hunt them legally, as in this case, is actually good for thier species to prevent further over population. SHARK could seek damages for destruction of private property IF they can prove it was shot and ther person who shot it. However, they certainly had it coming.
legal harvesting of designated game animals is moral thing. It prevents starvation and reduces the likelihood of devastating diseases. We are natures regulators.
Seriously? When will the animal activist learn that it is our right to hunt animals as long as we are legally qualified to do so. I think some regulations should be enacted, otherwise we will have aerial creepers invading our privacy.
First of all they are not hunting cage released pigeons they are hunting wild Mourning Doves. These birds fly fast as heck and are swooping and diving all over the place. They are very hard to shoot but are also very delicious!!! No body shoots pigeons because they have no food value, they can land next to a hunter and won’t be bothered. The shotgun loads used to harvest them use little BBs are only effective up to about 80 feet high, after that they do little damage.
I grew up near there and participated in many hunts with the other men in my family. These hunts are a staple of growing up as a boy in the south and are part of the culture that breeds things that make the south great. You know… things like respect for other people, love for America, knowing what being a gentleman is, stuff activists don’t understand.
Hunters are some the greatest stewards of our lands. They do things like pick up trash, only take what they need, are knowledgeable of the wildlife and have respect for it.
If that RC copter was flying over a field that I was hunting on with all of that buzzing noise, I would be one of the first to fire. On my way home I would pick up some shells made for ducks and goose which would be much more effective taking down this loud toy. I would make sure I had some in my pocket for the next time they didn’t respect my rights as tax paying American. Go occupy something productive.
that video is super disappointing
They're missing a business opportunity here. equip the drones with paintball guns and I'd pay to hunt them too.
@cordesowen Well said! I hunt with my children and I know I'm building memories they'll carry long after I'm gone.
I no longer hunt because a stroke left me with shakey hands, I strongly support responsible hunters. Pigeons taste just as good as mourning doves, after all they eat the sames stuff. As for those critter 's rights terrorists and their toy chopper, I 'll just dust off the old belt fed 10 gauge.
In most states it is legal to hunt any critter not specifically designated as a "game" species, for instance possum, starling, and feral pigeon. I guess the hunters were within their rights to shoot at that winged gadget....
Harassing game animals is a crime, even if you think you are "saving" them.. I don't hunt often, but would love to go on a drone shoot.
HOW does "DRONE" taste?
"But I'm much better now"
To all of you think they were "hunting", watch the other videos by the same guy. I grew up hunting with my Dad too, and not ONCE was the animal spring ejected from a box upon my command. Not ONCE did I leave an injured animal to slowly die. MY Dad taught ME to take my responsibility to nature seriously.
If launching caged birds on your command into a wide open field is what you call "hunting" and THAT is one of the things that makes The South "great", I can only imagine that the future must be a very difficult and scary place for you.
If this type of "hunting" is your idea of good stewardship of our natural resources, I pity you for your poor upbringing.
I'm going to have to check a library in S.C. to see if their dictionary has a different meaning for "hunting", because I can't find in my dictionary where is says, "for no reason other than knowing you injured an animal instead of a clay pigeon, after adequate preparation, issue the command to eject the caged animal directly into your line of sight, and then see if you have pre-aimed at least enough to wing the animal so that you can proclaim a hit."
And they didn't see this coming?
I am right in the middle on the issue of hunting. I recognize the crucial role hunting has had on human evolution. The chase and availability of animal protein has allowed us to become who we are. I also understand that the ecological imbalance we have created by wiping the natural predators need to be fixed one way or the other. However, in an opposing view to most on this blog, we humans have come a long way morally and intellectually. Ideally we are obliged to find ways to satisfy our protein needs elsewhere to minimize the suffering of other animal species. But the self-centered view that earth has been given to us by a creator justifies any mean to exploit it. Animal rights is not my cause though. I fly multicopters. Like you hunters, I will defend my interests. Most of us are not on the business of spying on our neighbors. We simply enjoy recording images of the landscape – like any photographer would – but from above. Is not fair to have to worry about someone shooting down my aircraft for fun just to run to mama and tell her the tale. I do have heard that other states are moving to make unlawful the use of Remotely Controlled (RC) Vehicles equipped with First Person View (FPV) systems. I took this issue to Senator Robert W. Hayes Jr. and his office seems to be sympathetic to my concerns.