Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States It's funny.  Laugh.

Colorado Town Considers Drone-Hunting Licenses 341

Posted by Soulskill
from the heck-yeah-'murica dept.
New submitter ciotog writes "The town of Deer Trail, Colorado (population approximately 550) will be voting next month on whether to offer licenses for drone hunting. Furthermore, a bounty of $100 for each drone shot down will be offered (upon offering proof that the drone was potentially owned by the U.S. government). Is this just a fun gimmick, or a serious commentary on an increasingly surveillance based society?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Colorado Town Considers Drone-Hunting Licenses

Comments Filter:
  • or could it be ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:05PM (#44329367)

    a completely illegal destruction of government property?

    • If it's done right (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:13PM (#44329493) Journal
      There should be nothing left on which a bounty could be claimed.
      Obviously, there is no need to buy a license, either.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:33PM (#44329771)

      That depends on the DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED representatives of the People of Deer.
      If the People say they don`t want drones over their heads, and the People`s Representatives truly "represent" vox populi,

      THE DRONE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL.

      • by pspahn (1175617) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:46PM (#44329951)

        Everyone, please! Take this story seriously!

        It was actually on the news the other night and they interviewed I believe the mayor, the guy drafting the bill, and some other sheriff or somebody. They clearly stated "this is a symbolic gesture only". Everything about this bill says so. You're only allowed to use a shotgun firing pellets (lot of good that will do with the drone at altitude), and the bounties paid out are nowhere near a practical amount of money for the effort put in.

        Besides all that, they even said that they have never even seen a drone over the town.

        • by minstrelmike (1602771) on Friday July 19, 2013 @02:01PM (#44330157)

          Besides all that, they even said that they have never even seen a drone over the town.

          Yes but that was before the town fathers took their anti-USA (Homeland Security) stance.
          I suspect the NSA has pulled all the records of the Deer Trail council folks by now.

          • by pspahn (1175617)

            Yes but that was before the town fathers took their anti-USA (Homeland Security) stance.

            Your intuition meter might need to be serviced. This is not an "anti-USA" stance, it is a gimmick crafted solely to put a few more pennies in the town's coffers. Nothing more. They can wrap it all up in a story that is on many people's minds right now, but that's what gimmicks do.

            Do you think those guys at the flea market selling knock off apparel are there because they are genuinely into high fashion?

            • by lymond01 (314120) on Friday July 19, 2013 @02:51PM (#44330773)

              This is not an "anti-USA" stance,

              Indeed. It is actually a pro USA stance, though it is also an anti-US Government stance. Something both sides should do well to remember: the US Government is not the United States of America. When the government starts committing acts in the name of its citizens that those very citizens disagree with, this is when people get voted out in our happy democracy.

              • by Bartles (1198017)
                It's anti-surveillance, anti-totalitarian, and anti-authoritarian, but it is in no way shape or form anti-government, as the town government created the law.
              • by awkScooby (741257)

                When the government starts committing acts in the name of its citizens that those very citizens disagree with, this is when people should get voted out in our happy democracy.

                FIFY

        • by JTsyo (1338447) on Friday July 19, 2013 @02:15PM (#44330329) Journal
          So you're saying there's a market for cannons that shoot shotguns which in turn has a prox sensor to fire and take out drones?
          • So you're saying there's a market for cannons that shoot shotguns which in turn has a prox sensor to fire and take out drones?

            Well, my History Channel official Civil War Reenactment kit did come with a few Ancient Aliens. You call 'em what you like, but them's UFOs to me, sonny.

        • by Bartles (1198017)
          I think a drone armed with remotely fired shotguns would be pretty effective.
        • by Jawnn (445279) on Friday July 19, 2013 @04:11PM (#44331667)

          You're only allowed to use a shotgun firing pellets (lot of good that will do with the drone at altitude), and the bounties paid out are nowhere near a practical amount of money for the effort put in.

          Well of course shootin' 'em at altitude makes no sense. Waste of birdshot. And sluicin' 'em (shooting them at rest on the ground) ain't sportin'. That's why I got my brother-in-law working on some decoys right now, and I fired up the ol' cassette recorder to practice my drone callin'. See, you want to catch just as they're coming in low over the decoys.
          Might have to find me a bigger bird dog, though.

          • by wierd_w (1375923) on Friday July 19, 2013 @06:45PM (#44333311)

            I realize that this is a joke, but it might not be.

            Hear me out here:

            Drone operators send their drones to LOOK for something. Usually, out in rural america land, that thing they are looking for is "illegal marijuana farms".

            So, to decoy the drones, all you have to do is make marjuana plant decoys made out of silk, and stake them out in secluded pastures and clearings. Spread some rumors about pot farming happening in the area you are staking out.

            Then, when the drones fly in to investigate and take pictures, you pop them.

      • by Obfuscant (592200) on Friday July 19, 2013 @03:36PM (#44331289)

        If the People say they don`t want drones over their heads, and the People`s Representatives truly "represent" vox populi,

        So if the majority of the city council decided to condemn your home, tear it down, and sell the land to McDonalds, you'd be fine with that because it was "vox populi"?

        The ordinance doesn't say that the drone has to belong to the US government or even be flying at the time. All it has to have is "markings similar to" the markings on a kind of UAV known to be owned by the US. That means if you put a US flag decal on your private UAV, well, that's a marking that meets that definition. If your neighbor sees you holding it and shoots it out of your hand, he gets a bounty. Destruction of private property now nets anyone who does it not jail time but a bonus.

        Oh, but nobody owns their own UAV, right? I got one for Christmas, and I've seen them in the stores for about $30.

        THE DRONE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL.

        What utter and complete nonsense. You may have the opinion that the use of a UAV in a certain manner may violate the constitution using your own interpretation of same, but claiming that "the drone itself is illegal" is just pathetic. In fact, your claim to "vox populi" shoots you in the foot on this one, since there is no "vox populi" laws making them illegal.

    • by Luyseyal (3154)

      ... or personal property? http://diydrones.com/ [diydrones.com]

      -l

      • by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Friday July 19, 2013 @02:15PM (#44330333)

        ... or personal property? http://diydrones.com/ [diydrones.com]

        I own a drone (an RC helicopter w/ camera). I fly it in public parks and on my mom's farm. I don't fly it over other people's private property without their permission. If I did, I would have little right to complain if they shot it down.

  • Inciting rebellion (Score:2, Insightful)

    by i kan reed (749298)

    We're going to suggest you attempt to damage or destroy property of the US federal government. This is in no way a serious crime that removes all free speech ambiguity by offering to pay people to do it.

    We promise we're not brain-dead morons.

    • So, damaging US Federal Government Property by deliberately firing your gun at it is free speech now?
      • No, but saying to do so could be argued to be if it were clearly satire or something similar.

      • by Applekid (993327)

        So, damaging US Federal Government Property by deliberately firing your gun at it is free speech now?

        About as much as permanent domestic spy programs are authorized by interstate commerce.

    • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:13PM (#44329505)

      We promise we're not brain-dead morons.

      Good enough for me. I've got my Ted Nugent brand bow and am ready to take down a predator! Cat scratch fever! Duh duh duh! Cat scratch fever! Dur dur dur!

      • I use targets with Ted's face on it. Gives me more incentive to hit the bulls eye than just a bunch of circles.

  • I hope it happens. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by intermodal (534361) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:06PM (#44329381) Homepage Journal

    There's no good reason to allow a surveilance state, and I support any government entity that helps the populace fight back against it in such efforts.

    • by i kan reed (749298) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:10PM (#44329449) Homepage Journal

      And there's certainly no legitimate uses for aerial devices besides spying on people. I'm given to understand that missing persons [americasmi...adults.com] cases never crop up in rural Colorado. And I certainly can't envision using aerial drones to help with wildfire control. Or environmental surveys. Or mapping. Or weather. Or any number of legitimate government functions. It's all to spy on intermodal

      • by Immerman (2627577) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:22PM (#44329621)

        Do you honestly believe that once establish such surveillance would not be abused? If so I have an NSA to sell you...

      • by Beardydog (716221) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:24PM (#44329649)
        If the federal government wanted to use drones for science and fire control, they shouldn't have broken trust with the American people vigorously and repeatedly, to the point that no one believes anything they say about their own motives or operations. I mentally append "and spying" to every described use they offer. "On intermodal" is a childish straw man.
        • by mjwalshe (1680392)
          well thats ok just increase taxes to pay for maned choppers /planes then
        • by jklovanc (1603149)

          to the point that no one believes anything they say about their own motives or operations.

          Yet another baseless generalization to support a position. Have you done a poll to back up this claim? I personally believe the government some of the time.

      • by Natales (182136)
        We are at the very beginning of this technology. You can't possibly say there is no legitimate uses only because you haven't thought of any. Besides, the image you have in your mind of a drone can change radically in the next few years (think insect-sized drones for example).
        • by Grishnakh (216268) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:31PM (#44329735)

          You're absolutely right that there's legitimate uses for this technology, however as Beadydog says above, the federal government has completely broken trust with the American people, so as far as I'm concerned, there's NO legitimate uses as long as they're the ones operating the drones. They simply can't be trusted.

          • Should the federal government have guns? They've misused those. Should the federal government have cars? Police have run over more people than the NSA has wiretapped (I would rather be wiretapped than run over). Should the federal government not be allowed to have computers since the NSA misused them? Should we not perform the census since Hitler used it for evil? Should we not let the police have helicopters?

            The NSA has proven that they don't need drones to spy on you. Maybe the federal government s

            • > Maybe the federal government should only be able to use horses and parchment.

              That might not be such a bad idea. That should be roughly sufficient for them to perform the enumerated powers, the only things they are Constitutionally allowed to do.

              Yes, that would mean the local and state governments would need to take over some responsibilities, as the founding fathers designed it. You can call your local mayor if there's a problem, though, and cities would compete.
        • by mcrbids (148650) on Friday July 19, 2013 @03:20PM (#44331055) Journal

          All this banter about the NSA = bad or Echelon = bad or the requirement of warrant is entirely missing the point. The truth is that this fundamental lack of privacy is guaranteed to happen. We live in an era when recording data is so cheap and so easy that it's happening accidentally, automatically, as a daily part of living life. Last time I had contact with the police, my phone recorded the entire thing from my pocket. Audio quality was quite good, too. With 32 GB of space on my phone, I could literally record my entire day, every day, and keep days worth of audio on hand in case something "interesting" happened. Oops! What happened to the privacy of those around me?

          But, the problem isn't the computers recording your every move, it's the secrecy with which it's being done and the lack of accountability that secrecy gives rise to.

          This was predicted years and years ago and the brilliant, understandable answer to avoid abuse is simple: transparency [wired.com].

          I don't think that cops should have the option of wearing cameras; I think that no arrest should ever be done without them, and simply lacking the arrest footage should be enough to dismiss the case. Any and all public places should be open to be recorded without further notice. And all recordings of public places or of public officers in the performance of their duties should also be public. (with an appropriate time delay)

          Some areas are already experimenting with these ideas and the result is nearly 90% reduction in police misconduct complaints. [nytimes.com] The privacy of our actions is far less important than the abuse of the information collected.

    • by Kaenneth (82978)

      Frank Herbert is my favorite Sci-Fi author not because of Dune, but because of the BuSab.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Sabotage [wikipedia.org]

  • by SeaFox (739806) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:06PM (#44329391)

    Encouraging destruction of government property...

    With a population of 550, Deer Trail, CO could suddenly find itself a bunch of empty buildings if Washington wished it.

    • How many Hellfire missiles does it take to destroy Deer Trail, CO?

      • by SeaFox (739806)

        No, that would make too much noise. Deer Trail is only 55 miles from Denver.

        Silently making the population disappear would be better. With a group that small it would be longer before any of them were missed.
        It's probably the sort of town that frequently loses all phone service when the one line gets cut.

        • by Nexus7 (2919)

          Ah, come on! They don't need to disappear them! With a population of 550, the rest of the country is probably heavily subsiding their post office, sheriff, the road that lets them even exist. In other words, the purse strings. They probably think they're out there, pioneers in the wilderness, and such BS.

        • by Grishnakh (216268) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:33PM (#44329763)

          Well the DHS has purchased over a billion rounds of ammunition, plus lots of tanks and coffins, so they're ready to brutally put down an uprising.

    • I'd hope that Washington would be smart enough not to make martyrs of them like that. NOT because I disagree with opposing drones, just because if the government is so stupid as to make that mistake, we're fucked.
    • by The Grim Reefer (1162755) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:47PM (#44329963)

      Encouraging destruction of government property...

      With a population of 550, Deer Trail, CO could suddenly find itself a bunch of empty buildings if Washington wished it.

      At which point the government will have made those crazy ass militia types some of the most sane people in the country.

      • Encouraging destruction of government property...

        With a population of 550, Deer Trail, CO could suddenly find itself a bunch of empty buildings if Washington wished it.

        At which point the government will have made those crazy ass militia types some of the most sane people in the country.

        They're already doing just that - murdering an entire town for opposing their rule would merely fast-track the process.

  • Sounds like a cool place full of brave, freedom loving patriots.

    Drone surveillance is pretty close to an antithesis to freedom - mindless minions of the faceless Big Brother watching people from the sky

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      More likely a bunch of nutbags.

      How will you feel when that drone was being used for weather research, mapping, searching for lost people, fire fighting, surveying, or another normal government function? How dare they use new technology to do an old job in a new way and save the taxpayer money!

      • by Immerman (2627577)

        There are some causes worth not saving money over. I would rank liberty as one of them. And if there's one thing history has shown repeatedly it's that corrupt government agents/agencies will end up abusing any information sources at their disposal.

    • One person's brave, freedom loving patriot is another's gun toting, redneck idiot with too much beer in his belly and time on his hands, I suppose.
  • I'm sure if it passes, Deer Trail, Colorado will be the site of a horrific chemical spill, forest fire, or other such catastrophe shortly thereafter.
  • WTF people! I was joking. I'm the last person you should take seriously most of the time!

  • by Sparticus789 (2625955) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:08PM (#44329415) Journal

    This is not a gimmick, this is 'Murica!

    Although, given an average altitude of 8,000 feet for a drone, this is not an easy shot. Nor is the fact that the drone will be flying at ~100 MPH and winds at that altitude could easily be 50 MPH. It would be a hard task for even the best shot. And that math would be terrible.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by camperdave (969942)
      I wonder how many people will be hurt from falling bullets and buckshot, and how many private planes, kites, bats, birds and other things will be shot at. I sincerely hope that this legislation is the first thing shot down.
    • by Rockoon (1252108)
      20 years later all the U.S. Army sharpshooters will coincidentally be from this town.
    • by Grishnakh (216268)

      They're not talking about Predator drones, they're talking about the much, much smaller ones that are basically like high-end R/C vehicles. Those don't go anywhere near 8000 feet or 100mph.

      • Those drones are also much smaller, so still difficult to hit.

        • Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)

          by Grishnakh (216268) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:54PM (#44330055)

          No, they're much, much larger. Look up at a 747 flying overhead (assuming you're not near an airport and in the flight path): it's tiny, to you. Now fly one of those 4-rotor "quadrocopter" R/C toys at 20 feet over your head. It's not that small, and would be pretty easy to hit with a shotgun, certainly much easier than a clay pigeon. Clay pigeons travel faster than R/C vehicles.

    • by Ioldanach (88584)

      This is not a gimmick, this is 'Murica!

      Although, given an average altitude of 8,000 feet for a drone, this is not an easy shot. Nor is the fact that the drone will be flying at ~100 MPH and winds at that altitude could easily be 50 MPH. It would be a hard task for even the best shot. And that math would be terrible.

      You just need the right bullet [pcmag.com] for the job.

  • by kawabago (551139) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:13PM (#44329481)
    They'll hear!!!!!!!!
  • by Orleron (835910) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:13PM (#44329491) Homepage
    I thought they were saying a license to hunt animals using drones. THAT would be awesome! :P *pew pew* *deer falls down*
  • That $100 will even cover bail at best maybe some candy bars from the jail commissary

  • by PhxBlue (562201) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:19PM (#44329579) Homepage Journal
    Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better.
    • by rsborg (111459) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:45PM (#44329935) Homepage

      Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better.

      An armed drone firing at an american citizen on american soil might be a PR bigger victory for the anti-drone libertarians than taking down the drone itself. Of course, I'm not sure I'd want to be the one to get precedented [google.com].

    • by WaffleMonster (969671) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:45PM (#44329941)

      Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better

      I can think of no better way to get all drone programs shut down post-haste.

      • by PhxBlue (562201)

        I can think of no better way to get all drone programs shut down post-haste.

        Really? Because I see shooting at drones as no better way to get all government-owned drones armed in the first place. Because, y'know, domestic terrorists.

        You want to do civil disobedience, stage a sit-in. You don't need to jeopardize equipment in the air -- or people on the ground when you inevitably miss -- to make a political statement. That's the definition of terrorism.

  • Not a joke (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smarkham01 (896668) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:20PM (#44329593)

    Visit the West once or twice and you won't need to ask. Individualists were driven West by the crowds of "help me, I'm being picked on". Three are still a lot of them out there and when it comes to stopping illegal government actions, they don't joke around a lot. AC though "a completely illegal destruction of government property?" would result, but that's OK, see the illegal activities of the government have always been fair game:-). You do need a license though, the town has to know who's shooting up the sky.

    • Re:Not a joke (Score:5, Interesting)

      by whistlingtony (691548) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:41PM (#44329873)

      I live in Oregon. That's as west as you can get. :D Does that mean I'm a rugged individualist? Does that mean Texas is full of Help Me People?

      Maybe we should stop stereotyping. Maybe you need to talk to a hippy and see what they have the government just as much as you, and probably for much better (and much more real) reasons.

      Maybe these crowds of "Help me, I'm being picked on" people are just a stereotype that's been fed to you, so you dismiss lefties as whiners. Maybe because if lefties and righties got together and realized that they all hate what's being done in their name.... something would get done.

      Sorry, I'm being unfair here. I'm a little peeved. I spent last night listening to lefties talk(at a political meeting) about surveilance state, politics, the problems with our systems, and how Obama is continuing Bush policies if not making them worse. They're pissed off. And this morning, I endure a rant from a righty about how all lefties do is lick Obama's ass.... while he sat on the couch doing nothing but whining.... It has me a little annoyed, and your post prodded that.

  • Is there a problem that guns can't solve?

  • by TimO_Florida (2894381) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:29PM (#44329709)
    Before you grab your shotguns and crossbows, remember that there are nearly a half-a-million radio-control plane enthusiasts out here in the countryside and we're NOT trying to spy on you. But we will send you a lawsuit and a big bill if you shoot down our planes.... ;-)
  • So the bounty is for "proof that the drone was potentially owned by the U.S. government". Sounds easy. Make a drone for less than 100 dollars. Place a "if found return to FBI" sticker on it. Profit. There is no "???".

  • All joking aside (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RevWaldo (1186281) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:32PM (#44329755)
    A friend of a friend once got shot in the leg and face while on a passenger jet because some yahoo on the ground took a shot at it while it was coming in for a landing. Taking pot shots at low-flying aircraft is something we may wanna discourage.

    .
  • Someone has installed [cbslocal.com] geninue appearing fake road signs warning that vehicle speed is 'enforced' by missile launching drones.

    wrt to Colorado; tired of being governed by coastal state refugees a set of rural counties in Northern Colorado are pursuing statehood. [ordinary-gentlemen.com]

    • by PhxBlue (562201)

      wrt to Colorado; tired of being governed by coastal state refugees a set of rural counties in Northern Colorado are pursuing statehood.

      No, a few people in those rural counties are pursuing it. And they're fucking nuts if they think anything will come of it, because guess where all the water for their crops comes from?

  • Did anyone else think this article was going to be about hunting animals WITH drones?
    • Did anyone else think this article was going to be about hunting animals WITH drones?

      That's Oklahoma. They have a problem with 'invasive' hogs and are thinking of allowing folks to hunt their own properties from airplanes.
      Of course, if the ranchers in OK were really serious about getting rid of wild boars, they'd probably let you hunt the properties free of charge instead of charging hundreds of dollars a day.

      in other words, many of those ranchers make money when hogs 'invade' their ranch.

  • It's probably a twofer.
    The town of Deer Trail will give you $100
    The USA Federal Government will give you an all-expenses paid vacation to the water treatment facilities at Guantanomo Bay.
    • It's probably a twofer.

      The town of Deer Trail will give you $100

      The USA Federal Government will give you an all-expenses paid vacation to the water treatment facilities at Guantanomo Bay.

      Do you honestly believe the personality types that would open fire on a government drone would willingly submit themselves for detention in an illegal government torture facility? Or that the feds would be able to 'disappear' people in a town that is 100% hostile to their presence (i.e., without compliance from local law enforcement)?

      To some folks, the phrase "give me Liberty, or give me Death" is more than just words they're forced to hear in history class.

      And that's a good thing, despite all the hand-wrin

  • Isn't attacking the government with guns protected by the constitution ?
    Or is it only the brandishing and talking about that is protected ?
  • Shot down over Deer Trail!

    Join us on 9News for updates. :)

    [John]

  • You can get a sticker for this license and put it in what remains of the rear window of your old Chevy truck, right next to your infinitely clever "terrorist hunting permit".
  • by Kingston (1256054) on Friday July 19, 2013 @03:24PM (#44331125)
    how many of these people realise that just driving around with a smartphone gives away more information about your movements than a squadron of drones could ever collect. You would be better off shooting your phone instead.

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.

Working...