4 ms·

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.
  - solardev 3y ago
    An entire replacement system? No, not off the top off my head, lol. But vague ideas? Sure. Some sort of more "restorative justice" approach, e.g. make the person attend an educational workshop about why drones aren't allowed, then make him do a few hours of community service for his local parks/hunting grounds. Don't give him a criminal record for something like this. I don't think law enforcement should always be a binary, adversarial system, especially when it's the state against a lone individual for some victimless crime (or where the harm is so spread out that the victim is just a vague "everyone" rather than specific named individuals). > But to your point, yes, a lot of this is common knowledge amongst hunters. I believe you. It is surprising, then, that this drone operator just advertises his services online.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I think there is some room for what you describe in areas of low impact general law where a good faith attempt to comply and ignorance is plausible. However, I think activities that are specifically licensed are clearly different. When you get a hunter's license, driver's license, or business license, you are certifying that you understand is that a body of law exists around that activity, and you are responsible for knowing it. Another problem is that giving essentially one free pass for low detection events effectively invalidates the law. For example, things like poaching and game violations, lawbreakers might have a lifetime detection rate of 1% . Knowing you get one warning means many people will only consider compliance after that warning. >I believe you. It is surprising, then, that this drone operator just advertises his services online IMO, One brazen operator is less surprising when you consider the 10s of thousands of hunters that dont do this. I can call up hundreds of unlicensed caterers online, but I expect every one of them knows their status relative to the law. I can only speculate about this guy. If they had honest intent and actually unsure, the wardens are always 1 phone call away to clarify their understanding of the law. Maybe they thought wardens had bigger fish to fry, maybe they were making a ideological statement. I think it is even possible that the thought it was legally ambiguous and willing to risk it. I just don't think it is realistic to think they were completely ignorant in this case. If they were some recreational drone operator providing impromptu aid, and unaffiliated with a hunting business, that would be a different case (and I hope that wardens and judges would take this into consideration).
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Spotlighting deer is illegal just about everywhere in the US. This shouldn't be a surprise to hunters. In no world does "spotlighting, but with a drone" make sense where spotlighting on it's own is illegal.
  - solardev 3y ago
    My understanding of "spotlighting" (I am not a hunter) is using a bright light source to mesmerize deer to make them easier to kill. That seems fundamentally different to me than using a drone to recover a deer's body (that had previously been shot). Does that matter? Maybe it's the case that it's impossible to enforce a working difference between "using a drone light to mesmerize a deer pre-kill" vs "using a drone light to locate a deer's body", but in that case it seems like the law should just be against drones in hunting seasons/areas, rather than "spotlighting". But as far as I can tell no such law was on the books (and the judge also wanted clearer laws).
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      That's the crux of it. In this case, we can ignore the drone aspect - spotlighting is illegal on its own - and there's no question he used a spotlight. It just happened to be mounted to a drone. And spotlighting is illegal for good reason. Deer hunting (and most game hunting) is supposed to be "sporting" - there should be some challenge - tracking, hit the target, etc. Spotlighting takes away that sporting aspect - it causes the deer to freeze, making it easy to kill. And if "spotlights for recovery" is legal, then "spotlights for hunting" becomes nearly impossible to enforce as a hunter would always claim "the deer was dead, I was just recovering it".
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  When you purchase a hunting license, you're given a booklet with your state's hunting laws. Whether you choose to read it or not, you are expected to understand and follow the laws in it. It's really simple: if you don't want to follow a short set of rules, then don't go out into the woods with a lethal weapon.
zellyn 3y ago
The article goes on to make a pretty good case that _nobody_ understands the laws around recovering game animals at night.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  That's not entirely true. At minimum, spotlighting is illegal (as it is in many states). Adding a drone to the mix doesn't change that and the defendant clearly used a spotlight on a live deer. The problem comes when the game dept also makes it clear it wants hunters to recovery injured/dead game. Which is hard at night without a spotlight. The answer, to me, seems to be "don't hunt deer at night." Making spotlights legal for recovery just make it impossible to enforce anti-spotlighting laws with live game.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

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.
- solardev 3y ago
  An entire replacement system? No, not off the top off my head, lol. But vague ideas? Sure. Some sort of more "restorative justice" approach, e.g. make the person attend an educational workshop about why drones aren't allowed, then make him do a few hours of community service for his local parks/hunting grounds. Don't give him a criminal record for something like this. I don't think law enforcement should always be a binary, adversarial system, especially when it's the state against a lone individual for some victimless crime (or where the harm is so spread out that the victim is just a vague "everyone" rather than specific named individuals). > But to your point, yes, a lot of this is common knowledge amongst hunters. I believe you. It is surprising, then, that this drone operator just advertises his services online.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think there is some room for what you describe in areas of low impact general law where a good faith attempt to comply and ignorance is plausible. However, I think activities that are specifically licensed are clearly different. When you get a hunter's license, driver's license, or business license, you are certifying that you understand is that a body of law exists around that activity, and you are responsible for knowing it. Another problem is that giving essentially one free pass for low detection events effectively invalidates the law. For example, things like poaching and game violations, lawbreakers might have a lifetime detection rate of 1% . Knowing you get one warning means many people will only consider compliance after that warning. >I believe you. It is surprising, then, that this drone operator just advertises his services online IMO, One brazen operator is less surprising when you consider the 10s of thousands of hunters that dont do this. I can call up hundreds of unlicensed caterers online, but I expect every one of them knows their status relative to the law. I can only speculate about this guy. If they had honest intent and actually unsure, the wardens are always 1 phone call away to clarify their understanding of the law. Maybe they thought wardens had bigger fish to fry, maybe they were making a ideological statement. I think it is even possible that the thought it was legally ambiguous and willing to risk it. I just don't think it is realistic to think they were completely ignorant in this case. If they were some recreational drone operator providing impromptu aid, and unaffiliated with a hunting business, that would be a different case (and I hope that wardens and judges would take this into consideration).
alistairSH 3y ago
Spotlighting deer is illegal just about everywhere in the US. This shouldn't be a surprise to hunters. In no world does "spotlighting, but with a drone" make sense where spotlighting on it's own is illegal.
- solardev 3y ago
  My understanding of "spotlighting" (I am not a hunter) is using a bright light source to mesmerize deer to make them easier to kill. That seems fundamentally different to me than using a drone to recover a deer's body (that had previously been shot). Does that matter? Maybe it's the case that it's impossible to enforce a working difference between "using a drone light to mesmerize a deer pre-kill" vs "using a drone light to locate a deer's body", but in that case it seems like the law should just be against drones in hunting seasons/areas, rather than "spotlighting". But as far as I can tell no such law was on the books (and the judge also wanted clearer laws).
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    That's the crux of it. In this case, we can ignore the drone aspect - spotlighting is illegal on its own - and there's no question he used a spotlight. It just happened to be mounted to a drone. And spotlighting is illegal for good reason. Deer hunting (and most game hunting) is supposed to be "sporting" - there should be some challenge - tracking, hit the target, etc. Spotlighting takes away that sporting aspect - it causes the deer to freeze, making it easy to kill. And if "spotlights for recovery" is legal, then "spotlights for hunting" becomes nearly impossible to enforce as a hunter would always claim "the deer was dead, I was just recovering it".
HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
When you purchase a hunting license, you're given a booklet with your state's hunting laws. Whether you choose to read it or not, you are expected to understand and follow the laws in it. It's really simple: if you don't want to follow a short set of rules, then don't go out into the woods with a lethal weapon.

zellyn 3y ago

The article goes on to make a pretty good case that _nobody_ understands the laws around recovering game animals at night.

alistairSH 3y ago
That's not entirely true. At minimum, spotlighting is illegal (as it is in many states). Adding a drone to the mix doesn't change that and the defendant clearly used a spotlight on a live deer. The problem comes when the game dept also makes it clear it wants hunters to recovery injured/dead game. Which is hard at night without a spotlight. The answer, to me, seems to be "don't hunt deer at night." Making spotlights legal for recovery just make it impossible to enforce anti-spotlighting laws with live game.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]