4 ms·

Maybe I'm missing some context here, but as an outsider, the whole thing seems like a ridiculous setup. "Help, we shot a deer and want to find it in the dark s

Maybe I'm missing some context here, but as an outsider, the whole thing seems like a ridiculous setup. "Help, we shot a deer and want to find it in the dark so we can put it out of its misery. Will you help us?" Which person of good conscience would say no to something like that? Who would even think that would be illegal, much less under four different state laws...?! Why are we spending tax dollars on something like this? What sort of harm are we trying to prevent by forcing deer to die slow, agonizing deaths in the dark?

ceejayoz 3y ago
"Help, I'm hungry. Will you rob that store?" Good, humane results don't make the acts legal.
- solardev 3y ago
  I'm not arguing that laws should be ignored as long as the outcome justifies it. I'm asking why this is illegal to begin with. This seems more like "Help, I'm hungry. Will you turn on the kitchen light so I can find the pasta I bought?"
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    The article indicates part of the problem was the lighting on the drone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlighting is widely illegal. He most certainly would've known this; it's clear from https://www.instagram.com/wingydroneservices/ https://www.instagram.com/wingydroneservices/ they're at least close to the hunting world.
    - solardev 3y ago
      It still doesn't really explain why this is illegal. It's also not illegal everywhere. And using a drone to locate a fallen animal isn't the same as using a light to mesmerize it. If you try sufficiently hard, you can always find random charges to throw at someone, and if they don't have good enough lawyers, they're fucked. That doesn't mean the laws are just or desirable to begin with. It also doesn't explain why those laws were written in the first place, i.e. what issue they were initially trying to address.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        > It still doesn't really explain why this is illegal. You'll find various explanations, but the most compelling to me is "because you probably can't see what's behind the lit-up deer when you shoot very well". Good way to risk hitting something/someone. > It's also not illegal everywhere. It was here, it seems.
        solardev 3y ago
        > You'll find various explanations, but the most compelling to me is "because you probably can't see what's behind the lit-up deer when you shoot very well". Good way to risk hitting something/someone. Seems... dubious. If you can't see behind the deer while it's lit up, you certainly can't see what's behind it in pitch darkness. Presumably the eyeshine of other animals, or the reflective clothing / panicked shouts of another person behind the deer, would all stand out more in bright lighting. > It was here, it seems. Are you sure about that? There was no law per se against using drones to recover deer, so they had to cobble together 4 vaguely relevant statutes. And even the judge reprimanded the legislature for having such confusing, ambiguous laws on the books. I believe this is still under appeal, so it may ultimately resolve in favor of the drone operator...
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        > If you can't see behind the deer while it's lit up, you certainly can't see what's behind it in pitch darkness. You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something. Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object. > Are you sure about that? That's a reply to "It's [spotlighting] also not illegal everywhere." Yes, I'm certain, given the charges.
        solardev 3y ago
        OK, I think we're bikeshedding a little bit now, but if you're OK continuing this just a little longer... mostly just because it's interesting to think about, I hope :) > You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something. I don't hunt, but I do go outside at night with a hiking headlight, and it's never been my experience that I could see something better, further away, without lighting. Even when there's something closer to me reflecting much of the light (like a tree), some of the light will go around it and light up what it's behind it. In the absolute worst case (like when I accidentally point the light at a retroreflective street sign), yes, there'll a huge blindingly bright spot, but still much of the light will spill around it, and aiming just a few degrees left or right will then illuminate the stuff behind it. Have you had different experiences, or can you think of a specific scenario where this wouldn't be the case? > Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object. That's not really the same thing. Cameras have limited dynamic range to begin with, and in that case, both the reflected moonlight and the ambient starlight are facing the photographer... with the reflected moonlight being several orders of magnitude brighter. That's more like having someone shining a bright flashlight in your face from a foot away while there's some old dim string lights in the background. It's not the same as two objects reflecting light from the same light source pointed away from the observer, held by the observer. Unless there's some big difference in reflectance between those objects, presumably their apparent brightness would mostly be a function of their distance.
- Joker_vD 3y ago
  And if you break the window of the bakery and steal a loaf of bread, you get 5 years of bagne because that's what "breaking" part automatically entails, never mind the pettiness of the theft itself. I think a story like that would make an interesting starting point of a book.
  - solardev 3y ago
    And they'll add 14 years if you try to run. Gotta keep you looking down...
alistairSH 3y ago
Who would even think that would be illegal Anybody who hunts should know the laws around tracking and recovering game animals.
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  Nothing in the article says the drone operator was a hunter
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Their public Instagram posts make it pretty clear. https://www.instagram.com/p/CwMTdvNOuoB/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CwMTdvNOuoB/
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      I was initially giving this drone operator the benefit of the doubt, but that instagram post literally has #dronedeerrecovery on it.
- solardev 3y ago
  That's easier said than done. Do you know your state's entire vehicle code by heart when you drive? Do you know every environmental and wildlife law when you go on a hike? Do you know every state's tax laws when you do business online? Our legal system is incomprehensibly complex, and the average person stands zero chance of "knowing" all of its nuances. For every subject matter of law, there are specialized lawyers who spend their lives studying and practicing just that one little sphere. Now, maybe the context is that there is something obviously illegal and commonly understood about recovering game at night that hunters know and I don't...? Is there?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Do you have a workable alternative to a legal system that applies the laws as written, and not just against clearly intentional lawbreaking? You dont need to know the entire vehicle code for driving or hiking, but you are in fact responsible for understanding the parts relevant to the actions you are personally engaging in. But to your point, yes, a lot of this is common knowledge amongst hunters.
seabass-labrax 3y ago
I had the same initial reaction as you, but the nuance here is that Mr. Wingenroth runs a commercial company which specifically advertises UAV flights to hunters for the purpose of 'deer recovery'. So this is not merely a case of putting a wild animal out of its misery, but also one in which the UAV pilot was intending to render services to hunters - it just so happened that the hunters in this event were undercover agents. Therefore, as the prosecution's argument went, Mr. Wingenroth should have known the local rules about hunting at night regardless of whether the hunters were agents or not.
- solardev 3y ago
  Even if he wasn't approached by undercover agents, why is using a drone to recover deer illegal...? Is it even...? I'm not sure if 1) there is a difference (or should be) between hunting and recovery or 2) if it matters if it's night or 3) if it matters if it's electronically aided or not or 4) if it matters whether it's a spotlight used for mesmerization or a drone with minimal lights (or maybe IR)... Even the judge in this case seemed to believe the laws were confusing and ambiguous and wanted the legislature to clean them up. In that case, I wish they'd just let the man go (and stop enforcing these laws until they're cleaned up and rewritten). --------- Maybe there is some unspoken implication here that Mr. Wingenroth clearly knew this was an illegal act, offered his services deceptively somehow (i.e. maybe drone recovery is legal but drone hunting isn't?), but then why would he advertise such services online, and then why would they nail him for recovery instead of hunting? It just doesn't really make sense. What am I missing?
  - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
    > why is using a drone to recover deer illegal I don't know whether it is or not, or why, but harassing wildlife and livestock is certainly illegal and as someone who's had a drone flying over his herd of horses, I can assure you that it's for good reason. > difference (or should be) between hunting and recovery or 2) if it matters if it's night Are you seriously asking why hunting at night might be illegal? If it helps, I can tell you about my sister-in-law whose horse was shot and killed at dusk. "I thought it was a big deer."
s1artibartfast 3y ago
> Why are we spending tax dollars on something like this? You arent, hunters are. For the most part, hunting law enforcement, ecological work, and wildlife science are funded directly from hunting permits. Whether this is a good law or not is open to debate. There is a vast amount of hunting laws that restrict actions that are not sporting, sustainable, or have potential for abuse. I imagine the argument is that there is no viable way to discern hunting with drones from recovery with drones, so their use is prohibited entirely.

ceejayoz 3y ago

"Help, I'm hungry. Will you rob that store?" Good, humane results don't make the acts legal.

solardev 3y ago
I'm not arguing that laws should be ignored as long as the outcome justifies it. I'm asking why this is illegal to begin with. This seems more like "Help, I'm hungry. Will you turn on the kitchen light so I can find the pasta I bought?"
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  The article indicates part of the problem was the lighting on the drone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlighting is widely illegal. He most certainly would've known this; it's clear from https://www.instagram.com/wingydroneservices/ https://www.instagram.com/wingydroneservices/ they're at least close to the hunting world.
  - solardev 3y ago
    It still doesn't really explain why this is illegal. It's also not illegal everywhere. And using a drone to locate a fallen animal isn't the same as using a light to mesmerize it. If you try sufficiently hard, you can always find random charges to throw at someone, and if they don't have good enough lawyers, they're fucked. That doesn't mean the laws are just or desirable to begin with. It also doesn't explain why those laws were written in the first place, i.e. what issue they were initially trying to address.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > It still doesn't really explain why this is illegal. You'll find various explanations, but the most compelling to me is "because you probably can't see what's behind the lit-up deer when you shoot very well". Good way to risk hitting something/someone. > It's also not illegal everywhere. It was here, it seems.
      - solardev 3y ago
        > You'll find various explanations, but the most compelling to me is "because you probably can't see what's behind the lit-up deer when you shoot very well". Good way to risk hitting something/someone. Seems... dubious. If you can't see behind the deer while it's lit up, you certainly can't see what's behind it in pitch darkness. Presumably the eyeshine of other animals, or the reflective clothing / panicked shouts of another person behind the deer, would all stand out more in bright lighting. > It was here, it seems. Are you sure about that? There was no law per se against using drones to recover deer, so they had to cobble together 4 vaguely relevant statutes. And even the judge reprimanded the legislature for having such confusing, ambiguous laws on the books. I believe this is still under appeal, so it may ultimately resolve in favor of the drone operator...
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        > If you can't see behind the deer while it's lit up, you certainly can't see what's behind it in pitch darkness. You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something. Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object. > Are you sure about that? That's a reply to "It's [spotlighting] also not illegal everywhere." Yes, I'm certain, given the charges.
        solardev 3y ago
        OK, I think we're bikeshedding a little bit now, but if you're OK continuing this just a little longer... mostly just because it's interesting to think about, I hope :) > You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something. I don't hunt, but I do go outside at night with a hiking headlight, and it's never been my experience that I could see something better, further away, without lighting. Even when there's something closer to me reflecting much of the light (like a tree), some of the light will go around it and light up what it's behind it. In the absolute worst case (like when I accidentally point the light at a retroreflective street sign), yes, there'll a huge blindingly bright spot, but still much of the light will spill around it, and aiming just a few degrees left or right will then illuminate the stuff behind it. Have you had different experiences, or can you think of a specific scenario where this wouldn't be the case? > Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object. That's not really the same thing. Cameras have limited dynamic range to begin with, and in that case, both the reflected moonlight and the ambient starlight are facing the photographer... with the reflected moonlight being several orders of magnitude brighter. That's more like having someone shining a bright flashlight in your face from a foot away while there's some old dim string lights in the background. It's not the same as two objects reflecting light from the same light source pointed away from the observer, held by the observer. Unless there's some big difference in reflectance between those objects, presumably their apparent brightness would mostly be a function of their distance.
Joker_vD 3y ago
And if you break the window of the bakery and steal a loaf of bread, you get 5 years of bagne because that's what "breaking" part automatically entails, never mind the pettiness of the theft itself. I think a story like that would make an interesting starting point of a book.
- solardev 3y ago
  And they'll add 14 years if you try to run. Gotta keep you looking down...

alistairSH 3y ago

Who would even think that would be illegal Anybody who hunts should know the laws around tracking and recovering game animals.

IncreasePosts 3y ago
Nothing in the article says the drone operator was a hunter
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Their public Instagram posts make it pretty clear. https://www.instagram.com/p/CwMTdvNOuoB/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CwMTdvNOuoB/
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    I was initially giving this drone operator the benefit of the doubt, but that instagram post literally has #dronedeerrecovery on it.
solardev 3y ago
That's easier said than done. Do you know your state's entire vehicle code by heart when you drive? Do you know every environmental and wildlife law when you go on a hike? Do you know every state's tax laws when you do business online? Our legal system is incomprehensibly complex, and the average person stands zero chance of "knowing" all of its nuances. For every subject matter of law, there are specialized lawyers who spend their lives studying and practicing just that one little sphere. Now, maybe the context is that there is something obviously illegal and commonly understood about recovering game at night that hunters know and I don't...? Is there?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Do you have a workable alternative to a legal system that applies the laws as written, and not just against clearly intentional lawbreaking? You dont need to know the entire vehicle code for driving or hiking, but you are in fact responsible for understanding the parts relevant to the actions you are personally engaging in. But to your point, yes, a lot of this is common knowledge amongst hunters.

seabass-labrax 3y ago

I had the same initial reaction as you, but the nuance here is that Mr. Wingenroth runs a commercial company which specifically advertises UAV flights to hunters for the purpose of 'deer recovery'. So this is not merely a case of putting a wild animal out of its misery, but also one in which the UAV pilot was intending to render services to hunters - it just so happened that the hunters in this event were undercover agents. Therefore, as the prosecution's argument went, Mr. Wingenroth should have known the local rules about hunting at night regardless of whether the hunters were agents or not.

solardev 3y ago
Even if he wasn't approached by undercover agents, why is using a drone to recover deer illegal...? Is it even...? I'm not sure if 1) there is a difference (or should be) between hunting and recovery or 2) if it matters if it's night or 3) if it matters if it's electronically aided or not or 4) if it matters whether it's a spotlight used for mesmerization or a drone with minimal lights (or maybe IR)... Even the judge in this case seemed to believe the laws were confusing and ambiguous and wanted the legislature to clean them up. In that case, I wish they'd just let the man go (and stop enforcing these laws until they're cleaned up and rewritten). --------- Maybe there is some unspoken implication here that Mr. Wingenroth clearly knew this was an illegal act, offered his services deceptively somehow (i.e. maybe drone recovery is legal but drone hunting isn't?), but then why would he advertise such services online, and then why would they nail him for recovery instead of hunting? It just doesn't really make sense. What am I missing?
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  > why is using a drone to recover deer illegal I don't know whether it is or not, or why, but harassing wildlife and livestock is certainly illegal and as someone who's had a drone flying over his herd of horses, I can assure you that it's for good reason. > difference (or should be) between hunting and recovery or 2) if it matters if it's night Are you seriously asking why hunting at night might be illegal? If it helps, I can tell you about my sister-in-law whose horse was shot and killed at dusk. "I thought it was a big deer."

s1artibartfast 3y ago

> Why are we spending tax dollars on something like this? You arent, hunters are. For the most part, hunting law enforcement, ecological work, and wildlife science are funded directly from hunting permits. Whether this is a good law or not is open to debate. There is a vast amount of hunting laws that restrict actions that are not sporting, sustainable, or have potential for abuse. I imagine the argument is that there is no viable way to discern hunting with drones from recovery with drones, so their use is prohibited entirely.