[HN Gopher] Man convicted for trying to help undercover game war...
___________________________________________________________________
Man convicted for trying to help undercover game wardens recover
deer with drone
Author : peterleiser
Score : 95 points
Date : 2024-02-28 15:39 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.outdoorlife.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.outdoorlife.com)
| rolph wrote:
| "The state of Ohio permits the use of drones in the recovery of
| downed game. Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania Game Commission
| appears to be taking a hostile view of the use of drones in game
| recovery," Coleman wrote in a Jan. 2 memorandum seeking co-
| sponsors for his bill. "Pennsylvanians deserve better. With the
| advent of drones, hunters have an additional tool to use and
| reduce the amount of dead game that goes uncollected."
|
| Coleman also told the Philadelphia Inquirer last month that he
| thinks using drones to recover deer is "common sense" and that
| the state shouldn't overthink regulations around the technology.
| bsder wrote:
| I'm a _strong_ disagree on multiple fronts:
|
| 1) This will be used to let deer with small racks die
|
| This won't be used to collect wounded game--it will increase
| it. It will be used to verify the size of the rack. If the rack
| is too small, the deer will be left to die and a different one
| will be shot.
|
| 2) Quit being such a lousy shot.
|
| Get closer. Learn to use your gun better. Hit the deer in the
| correct spot so that you don't contaminate the meat, dumbass.
| Idiots won't chase down shitty shots anyway.
|
| And just so you know, I don't really care one iota about deer
| or deer poachers. I regard white tailed deer as four foot tall
| disease carrying vermin who should be exterminated to the last.
|
| However, if you're going to kill an animal, it's your duty to
| _kill it_ and not let it suffer.
|
| 3) Drones are a _nuisance_
|
| Drones are loud as fuck and are going to scare the hell out of
| wildlife. Some of us like the woods because it's relatively
| _quiet_. The noise of a drone can carry a _very_ long way in a
| place like PA.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| On 1... No hunter I know would ever abandon a wounded animal
| to go find a bigger one.
| bsder wrote:
| I would argue that most of the hunters I know are just like
| you say.
|
| However, some percentage are not. And they will be
| responsible for the majority of the problem.
|
| There is a reason why you can find cows in PA with "COW"
| painted in orange crylon (wish I were joking, but, sadly, I
| am not).
| mrguyorama wrote:
| You don't know many hunters then, or worse, you believe
| them when they tell you stories about hunting.
| wccrawford wrote:
| What stops them from just abandoning small racks as it is?
| Just the inconvenience of having to find and kill another
| deer instead?
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| You need to spend the time to do it. With a drone which is
| fast and does,t get slowed down you can engagr the next one
| waay faster.
|
| It's the classic ruining the fun for the law abiding
| people.
| downut wrote:
| Inconvenience? Hunter here, trying to understand why that
| would be.
| floren wrote:
| Anybody who shoots a deer without having a pretty good idea
| of the rack size before pulling the trigger is hunting badly.
| If you can't see the antlers, how do you even know it's a
| buck?
|
| I also don't see that much difference between your
| hypothetical hunter who sees a dying deer via a drone and
| decides to leave it, vs. seeing a dead deer in person and
| deciding to leave it. The woods are big (well, not so big in
| PA, but still pretty big) and realistically he'd be a
| colossal shithead but it'd be hard to catch him. "That deer?
| Nah, officer, I did shoot at a big 6-pointer, but I haven't
| been able to find it. That deer must be somebody else's, it
| is opening day after all"
|
| edit: I've only hunted in the western states, so practices
| may differ in the land of treestand-sitting.
| downut wrote:
| All three points are true, except for the bit about
| "exterminated to the last". Ideally the size of the deer
| population would reside more or less within the carrying
| capacity of the ecosystem but the eradication of the apex
| predators (wolves mainly) has led to an explosion in the
| population. This has knock on effects that are very
| destructive to the point that deer in most places might
| accurately be called "vermin". Those who disagree might
| consult an authority such as Aldo Leopold on the subject. He
| knew this a long time ago.
|
| About the hunters: unfortunately there's a lot trash hunters
| out there now that don't follow norms and what formerly was
| considered socially aberrant behavior is considered cool,
| even righteous.
|
| Noisy drones in the forest/desert/canyons wherever truly suck
| for everyone not the drone operator. Who knew the choppers
| that flourished in the skies above the Grand Canyon would
| proliferate to fill every former natural refuge from the
| clamoring industrial noises of modern life.
| marssaxman wrote:
| > 3) Drones are a nuisance
|
| How difficult would it be to hunt them?
| bluGill wrote:
| Not hard at all, but you would use a different gun. You
| want a shotgun not a rifle. (some states only allow
| shotguns for deer hunting, but you load with a slug not a
| shot so not the same thing despite being the same gun)
| Vicinity9635 wrote:
| Slug or "00 Buck" - it's literally named for killing
| deer. https://ammo.com/bullet-type/00-buck
|
| Not as long range as a high power rifle but it'll kill
| big stuff just fine if you hit something important.
| ben7799 wrote:
| White tail deer are definitely not scared of drone noise. Heck
| they are not scared of road noise, which is much much louder.
| xemoka wrote:
| It always shocks me how what appears as entrapment turns out
| legal.
| westmeal wrote:
| never interact with feds ever
|
| never help anyone ever because they may be a fed
| generalizations wrote:
| He didn't know he was interacting with feds.
| westmeal wrote:
| I realized that now and I'm gonna remove the comment.
|
| edit: I guess I can't now so I'll just edit it
| chris_wot wrote:
| Nobody thinks worse of anyone who later acknowledges they
| made a mistake. Hell, I personally think more of them!
| sumtechguy wrote:
| Neither did John DeLorean.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Assume everyone is a government agent.
| mjhay wrote:
| The legal definition of entrapment is so narrow it may as well
| not exist.
| thsksbd wrote:
| If say it has been narrowed, rather than narrow.
| kristjansson wrote:
| If you're habitually doing crime[0], and someone ask you to do
| crime for them, and you do, and that person turns out to have
| been a agent of law enforcement... that's not entrapment, and
| law enforcement's involvement shouldn't be a defense.
|
| N.B. In no way do I think the conduct here is doing crime, but
| for the purposes of entrapment take the illegality as given.
| His site[1] clearly markets his business as doing deer
| recovery, so the conduct falls into a pattern. It's not like
| the warden called up his friend with a drone, asked him to look
| for a deer, and then was like 'Ha I caught you doing crime give
| me $1500'
|
| [1]: https://www.wingyds.com
| boringg wrote:
| Agree with you. How is this entrapment?
|
| Is everyone up in arms here only because HN likes drones and
| feels like this is an encroachment on drone operators?
| qup wrote:
| I think we generally expect cops to catch you doing a
| crime, not to ask you to do a crime.
|
| Whether or not it's technically entrapment, or bears
| similarities to undercover drug cops.
| solardev wrote:
| Ambiguous truncated headline: The drone isn't deer-shaped, it was
| just a regular drone used to find a deer. The original title was
| "Man Convicted of Wildlife Crimes for Trying to Help Undercover
| Game Wardens Recover a Deer with His Drone"
|
| The man was set up by two game wardens who called him for help
| locating a deer (edit: to clarify, to "recover" a previously-shot
| and injured/killed deer's body) with his drone, and subsequently
| charged with using electronic devices while hunting and
| disturbing wildlife, among other things.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Seems pretty entrapmenty.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| No; it's the same as a drug/prostitution sting.
| solardev wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "Help, I'm hungry. Will you rob that store?"
|
| Good, humane results don't make the acts legal.
| solardev wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The article indicates part of the problem was the
| lighting on the drone.
|
| 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/
| they're at least close to the hunting world.
| solardev wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Have you had different experiences, or can you think of
| a specific scenario where this wouldn't be the case?
|
| Yes, I've looked at lit-up objects at night and not been
| able to see very well behind them. If you need a light to
| see the deer, you need a light to see the stuff that's
| potentially dozens or hundreds of feet behind it too.
|
| Humans have better dynamic range than a camera, but not
| unlimitedly so.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| And they'll add 14 years if you try to run. Gotta keep
| you looking down...
| alistairSH wrote:
| _Who would even think that would be illegal_
|
| Anybody who hunts should know the laws around tracking
| and recovering game animals.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Nothing in the article says the drone operator was a
| hunter
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Their public Instagram posts make it pretty clear.
| https://www.instagram.com/p/CwMTdvNOuoB/
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I was initially giving this drone operator the benefit of
| the doubt, but that instagram post literally has
| #dronedeerrecovery on it.
| solardev wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The article goes on to make a pretty good case that
| _nobody_ understands the laws around recovering game
| animals at night.
| alistairSH wrote:
| 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.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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."
| godelski wrote:
| > why is using a drone to recover deer illegal...? Is it
| even...?
|
| This is an important part to me. Just because something
| is illegal does not make it correct. A big reason we have
| a court of peers in the first place is to have this
| check. We have jury nullification which is the equivalent
| to "that law is dumb" or "law is fine, but applying it
| here is dumb"
|
| Not to mention that times change. All rules are made to
| be broken. I think of all people, programmers would be
| experts in understanding how any set of rules cannot have
| complete coverage over all situations. If you don't
| understand this, go visit your QA team and ask them why
| this random HN user told you to visit them, and bring
| donuts or something.
| chucksta wrote:
| You realize "deer recovery" means the deer has already
| been hunted and hit right? At best its in misery, at
| worst the misery ends in waste.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| > 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.
| archontes wrote:
| "The four charges against Wingenroth stemmed from a
| December sting operation by the Pennsylvania Game
| Commission in which an officer called Wingenroth pretending
| to be a hunter who had wounded a deer and needed help
| recovering it."
|
| "Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on
| the theory that 'Government agents may not originate a
| criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the
| disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce
| commission of the crime so that the Government may
| prosecute.'" - Justice.gov
|
| The only way this doesn't look like entrapment to me is if
| the agent called the man and said, "Hey I wounded a deer,
| can you help?" and the man replied, "I'll use my drone!"
| Even then, I seriously wonder how this doesn't stray into
| the territory of implanting the disposition to commit said
| crime.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| You are misunderstanding entrapment the way people always
| misunderstand it. If you offer a service (on the low) to
| do something illegal, and law enforcement calls you
| pretending to be a legitimate user of your service, that
| is not entrapment.
|
| Entrapment is when law enforcement coerces you into
| taking an illegal action that you otherwise would not
| have taken. I.E. A federal agent telling you that if you
| don't walk into that bank and rob it, they will arrest
| you for (a planted) firearms possession.
|
| This case is about whether the defendants actions
| actually _were_ illegal, because PA law seems ambiguous
| about it.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Was the drone operator offering a drone hunting service
| or just a dude with a drone that they called?
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Based on his Instagram, this is a regular service he
| offers for deer recovery. It doesn't really matter
| though, it's the operators responsibility to know the
| law. If you are going to operate a drone for the purposes
| of hunting, common sense would dictate Googling the
| legality of doing so, since both airspace and hunting are
| generally heavily regulated. Upon finding ambiguity, I
| would probably opt not to do that kind of work or accept
| the potential for consequences.
| archontes wrote:
| "We have held that 'persuasion or mild coercion' and
| 'pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship' constitute
| sufficient inducement to permit jury consideration of the
| entrapment issue." - United States vs. Nations
|
| Need, sympathy or friendship. I think it's trivial to
| allow that finding a wounded animal would constitute a
| sympathetic plea.
|
| It's the predisposition that gets him here. Given that he
| advertises the service, he's obviously predisposed to the
| action.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Sure, if the game wardens were maliciously trying to
| arrest a person who does real estate drone footage for
| kicks, then yes, a jury would probably hold that it was
| entrapment. Luckily most law enforcement isn't that
| comically evil or bored, and most of these situations are
| legitimate law enforcement actions.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The guy publicly posts that he does this to Instagram.
| https://www.instagram.com/p/CyolA3-pYJH/
|
| (In case it gets deleted: a photo of a dead deer, from
| October 20 2023, with the caption: "We were happy to help
| Nate locate his personal best buck. The roller coaster of
| emotions is hard to explain, but the end result of this
| story was awesome to share. Congratulations, Nate!
| #wingydroneservices #from400above #drone #dronedeer")
| swores wrote:
| Given they claimed to be hunters, not officials, I'm
| fairly sure you're not right (though I'm not a US
| lawyer).
|
| To give a simile example to show why I think this: if
| someone calls me up and says "I don't like a person and
| wish I never had to see them again, please shoot them
| dead" vs. them calling me saying "I don't like a person
| and wish I never had to see them again" and me thinking
| on my own and shooting them dead - either way, I'm
| choosing to do something illegal, and I haven't been
| asked to do it by anyone I have reason to believe has the
| authority to let me legally murder someone. My shooting
| the person would, rightly, be illegal and not entrapment
| even if the person pretending to be my friend on the
| phone actually was a police officer.
| ryandrake wrote:
| This seems to be what happens when your police run out of
| actual crime: Do whatever it takes to find more. If you
| have to walk this close up to the "entrapment" line just
| to find someone you can arrest, are you really providing
| the public with a valuable service? I wonder what
| taxpayers think about this. I think whether it's
| tEcHnIcAlLy entrapment or not is not really the issue--
| the issue is bored cops scraping the bottom of the
| barrel.
| Gunax wrote:
| Given that this drone was apparently designed for game
| recovery, I think it's easy to show he had prior intent.
| kristjansson wrote:
| Gotta be something you wouldn't have done otherwise; clearly
| this doesn't meet that standard.
|
| (obligatory I Am Not A Lawyer)
| peterleiser wrote:
| My bad! I fixed it. Thanks! The original title is too long for
| submission, and I mistakenly deleted the wrong words.
| solardev wrote:
| No worries, and thanks for the submission!
|
| Lol, only SLIGHTLY disappointed since my initial thought was,
| "They make deer-shaped ones now? That's interesting, I wonder
| how they move...".
|
| But still, the legal murkiness of this situation is
| interesting in and of itself. Thanks for sharing!
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _Under the "recreational spotlighting" section of Title 34, the
| Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code explicitly prohibits the use
| of a spotlight "to search for or locate for any purpose any game
| or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth at any time during
| the antlered deer rifle season and during the antlerless deer
| rifle season." It is not immediately clear if this applies to
| dead or wounded game, since Title 34 does not explicitly address
| the use of lights or flashlights for recovering game. Another
| section prohibits hunters from using artificial lights of any
| kind while carrying a firearm or other weapon, but there is no
| mention anywhere in the game code of prohibitions against
| recovering or tracking downed game at night._
|
| I know nothing about hunting, or the laws surrounding it, but why
| would it be illegal to recover a dead animal at night using a
| spotlight?
| empathy_m wrote:
| It sounds like there's a distinction between looking for a
| corpse with a flashlight and looking for new things to kill
| with the flashlight, and that the latter is sometimes
| prohibited (some discussion at
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlighting ).
|
| Also seems like it would be tough to do the former without
| accidentally doing the latter.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Reaction: "That's your story, eh? Okay - if you can describe
| and find that corpse, then I won't arrest you."
| krisoft wrote:
| > Also seems like it would be tough to do the former without
| accidentally doing the latter.
|
| Like put away your gun? I have walked in forests with a
| flashlight without killing anything many many times. The
| trick is to not bring a gun to the experience.
| peterleiser wrote:
| The defense attorney said: "Both the arresting officer and
| the undercover officer -- both a game warden for over 30
| years each -- testified that it is illegal to recover
| downed game at night without a weapon"
| Johnny555 wrote:
| But also, they couldn't point to a law prohibiting it:
|
| _He says that during the trial, neither game warden
| could recall ever citing a hunter for trying to recover
| downed game at night -- nor could they point to a single
| section of the state's game code that supported their
| position. That code was amended in 2018 to allow the use
| of tracking dogs when recovering deer and other big
| game._
| bluGill wrote:
| If you are recovering down game you should have a gun on
| you. Sometimes you discover the animal is not dead, just in
| pain and will die many hours in the future. The ethical
| thing is to deliver a clean kill - which requires a weapon.
| Shooting a gun at close range under light is not dangerous.
| Most uses of a gun at night are stupid and recklessly
| dangerous, but this is one of the exceptions where it is
| safe.
|
| Note that the above is at odds with telling if someone is
| illegally hunting at night. Which is why it is often
| prohibited.
| BytesAndGears wrote:
| > The ethical thing is to deliver a clean kill - which
| requires a weapon.
|
| Isn't a knife also well suited to this purpose? Assuming
| the animal is on the ground and not able to move well.
| Though I guess it depends _how_ injured they are
| solardev wrote:
| It probably upsets the night vision goggle lobby
|
| /s
| CoopaTroopa wrote:
| Most likely to get rid of the confusion between a hunter
| recovering a dead animal at night and poachers using a
| spotlight to illegally hunt
| superkuh wrote:
| Because it would be infeasible to determine if the hunter that
| has a firearm found and shot the deer using the light. When
| using lights at night the animals are temporarily blinded and
| stand still, making it easier for hunters to kill them. This is
| generally not legal.
|
| The situation is much less clear in the case of a hunter that
| does not have a firearm at hand like this case.
| wizerdrobe wrote:
| Note that spotlighting is typically an issue around deer
| hunting.
|
| For the American Alligator night hunting is the norm with
| lights being legal (to spot for eye reflection.)
|
| https://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/alligator/pdf/alligatorhunti.
| ..
| bonton89 wrote:
| It is likely illegal simply because everyone you caught deer
| jacking with a spotlight would say they were just looking for a
| deer they previously wounded.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| > why would it be illegal to recover a dead animal at night
| using a spotlight?
|
| Because it would be used as a loophole to hunt at night with a
| spotlight. In the old south park episodes they used to do a bit
| where you could hunt anything you wanted as long as before you
| shot it you said "It's coming straight for us!" so you had a
| self-defense excuse. Loopholes will be used.
| daveslash wrote:
| When I was a kid, my dad was driving us home along a rural
| road from cub scouts. We came across a neighbor who needed
| help loading a bear into his truck. He claims that he hit it
| in the road and injured it so badly he had to put it down.
|
| It was outside of bear season. We always suspected that he
| shot it first, then dragged it in front of his truck to hit
| it. We'll never know.
|
| I dive for lobsters. You need to measure them before you put
| them in your bag. You can't put them in your bag and measure
| them later and release the small ones. The reason is if you
| could bag first and measure later, people would use this as a
| loophole when confronted by wardens with undersized lobsters.
| Similar regulations with fish and open alcohol containers
| while driving.
| linuxftw wrote:
| Where I live, it's lawful to collect your own road kill (as
| in this scenario), you're supposed to call law enforcement
| first. Back in the day, nobody had a cell phone, so it
| might have been okay.
| giantg2 wrote:
| In PA you have 24 hours to notify about road kill.
| bhickey wrote:
| Do they tail notch berried females where you live?
| neaden wrote:
| While this is true, in this case clearly they know he isn't
| using it for a loophole since they are the ones who asked
| him. Sure it's technically illegal and I can buy that it
| isn't a sting operation but it also very obviously isn't
| serving any sort of public interest.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Totally agree, this specific case is 100% entrapment. I was
| responding to the general question.
| hyperhopper wrote:
| But the critical difference here is that no weapon was
| involved. Pretty hard to hunt with no weapon.
| TrueSlacker0 wrote:
| It is legal to spotlight hunt some animals though (I am sure
| it differs based on location).
|
| In Texas it is legal to spotlight wild hogs (on your own
| property). Even without a hunting license!
| kristjansson wrote:
| If you don't know: deer freeze if you shine a bright light at
| them. Hunting with a spotlight at night is unsporting, so there
| are laws against using a light at night at all.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlighting
| crdrost wrote:
| So this is what the article is talking about, that it's not
| clear about the difference between killing vs recovering, they
| are both lumped together as hunting.
|
| The reasons that you don't want people to use spotlights for
| killing the animal are not too hard to come up with. (Actually
| kids on college campuses do this for zombies-vs-humans, smart
| zombies will blind humans at night with spotlights to make it
| hard for them to fire their nerf guns back at the zombies.)
|
| It is considered unsporting/unethical for a couple reasons:
| first because the animals like to feed nocturnally so it's
| easier to find them near people's fields, so there's no
| "tracking it through the forest" step; second the animals will
| often freeze and stare into the light, making them easier to
| target; third you can't see behind the animal to ensure that
| the shot is safe if you miss; for all you know you might be
| aimed at a neighbor's house in the distance after they've
| turned out their lights; fourth, getting a spotlight in your
| windows is a mild nuisance while folks are wandering around
| near your property; fifth because nighttime hunting is in
| general discouraged or illegal because that's when the poachers
| would be out and when you can't see other humans very well.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| On the other hand, _recovering_ an animal with a light is a
| good thing, because otherwise you might lose an injured
| animal that will slowly die over hours, days, or weeks
| omginternets wrote:
| The impact of spotlights on nocturnal life are also
| significant.
| bee_rider wrote:
| If everybody is following the rules in good faith, it
| should be pretty rare, right? You only have to track down
| an injured animal in the dark if you shot it in the light
| and then it became dark before you got to it. Hunting
| ends almost everywhere around or a little after sun down.
| watwut wrote:
| Hunters don't follow the rules in good faith in my
| experience. If they would, they would combine drinking
| and hunting less often. Which would lead to less shot
| dogs or even (!) injured people.
|
| No, too many of them break the rules the moment it is
| hard to prove it.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| TBF, if it's injured, it will probably either die in a
| matter of hours from its injuries or be taken down as easy
| prey by a predator. If it survives a day, it's probably
| going to live.
|
| But yes, I get your point.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Back in the day, in my rural county, people would drive with
| a spotlight, find a large deer, and run it over.
|
| Result? Food for months and months for the family, and the
| insurance company produced a replacement car. And yes, people
| would do this when their car was in poor shape, eg
| transmission going or some such. Car rusting out, etc.
|
| They eventually changed the laws so that deer were no longer
| given to people in car accidents, for obvious reasons. I
| imagine the light law mentioned here, is due to this too.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Not really. PA will still allow you to keep roadkill if you
| report it.
| Arrath wrote:
| Even in states where you can't legally keep roadkill its
| often with a wink and a nudge that the officer/trooper on
| scene will say "I've taken my report and I'm going home.
| If that deer vanishes before fish and game gets here to
| collect it in an hour or so, well, I guess the coyotes
| were hungry tonight."
| bluGill wrote:
| In most states it is up to the police (game warden is
| police and should be consulted) discretion. They will
| almost always give you a permit for the roadkill. The
| animal is dead and despite OP, most people are not
| killing deer with their car, so may as well not let it go
| to waste. Of course there are exceptions and so if the
| police suspect something they will not give the permit.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| One interesting thing that I learned when I visited the
| Minnesota Wolf Center (20 years ago, but still...) was
| that their wolves were fed only from roadkill collected
| in a 100 mile radius.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Here in Norway they usually give it to a nearby nursing
| home, assuming it's in good shape for human consumption.
|
| Nice dinner for the elders.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "between killing vs recovering"
|
| There's a third reason - scouting. PA allows night time
| spotlighting during specific hours and times of year for
| deer. You can't shine it on farm animals, houses etc. You
| also have spotlights for other species. So many of those
| points don't really apply (3, 4, and 5 specifically).
| autokad wrote:
| > zombies-vs-humans I didnt have this game when I was in
| college, but sounds cool
| jstarfish wrote:
| > Actually kids on college campuses do this for zombies-vs-
| humans, smart zombies will blind humans at night with
| spotlights to make it hard for them to fire their nerf guns
| back at the zombies.
|
| Also the mechanic behind all the strobing lights during
| police traffic stops. You can't see through them enough to
| know where to shoot at the officer.
| rapind wrote:
| I'd wager that spotlight's stress out crepuscular animals, even
| if you aren't about to shoot them.
|
| I'm sure the many other things humans do stress out animals
| even more though, so I'm not offering an opinion on this case,
| just what I think the justification (if any) might be.
| bluGill wrote:
| Animals get used to things though. You see deer on trails all
| the time when you ride a noisy ATV on ATV trails through the
| woods, but walk the same trails and you never will. Deer gets
| used to ATVs and don't run. Deer generally are not used to
| humans on foot and will stay away.
| ben7799 wrote:
| Same with mountain bikes. Ride up to the deer on a bike and
| it's not scared.
|
| Get off to take a picture and it bolts.
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| > Another section prohibits hunters from using artificial
| lights of any kind while carrying a firearm or other weapon
|
| Well, that's idiotic. I understand that it's probably easier to
| ban lights _all_ of the time since it would be difficult to
| prove either way that they weren 't used to actively hunt. But,
| at least for deer hunting, a hunter needs to be at their spot
| well before it gets light out. So you're going to make them
| walk through the forest at night with no source of light?
| Likewise, you're walking back at night.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The PGC hunter education courses specifically teach you to
| use lights on your walk in and out as a safety measure
| against any idiot that might be out there poaching (shooting
| at sound before light). A classic example of an agency
| playing God with their "interpretation" (advocating breaking)
| the law.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "I know nothing about hunting, or the laws surrounding it, but
| why would it be illegal to recover a dead animal at night using
| a spotlight?"
|
| If you live in PA you'll know that the game commission and game
| laws are pretty messed up in many cases, specifically anything
| that has to do with technology. A lot of the technology has
| been essentially "reviewed" by the PGC to see if it's lawful or
| not, even when I clearly isn't. They have trouble getting
| timely legislative updates. PA was probably one of the last
| states to allow laser range finders because they "project a
| beam", even though the beam was not visible and that technology
| would provide a better chance of making an ethical shot.
| sokoloff wrote:
| > explicitly prohibits the use of a spotlight to search for or
| locate for any purpose any game or wildlife anywhere within
| this Commonwealth
|
| > It is not immediately clear if this applies to dead or
| wounded game, since Title 34 does not explicitly address the
| use of lights or flashlights for recovering game
|
| How is that not immediately clear (at least for wounded game)?
| I think it's also pretty damn clear for freshly killed game.
|
| "locate for any purpose any game" doesn't seem to leave a lot
| of leeway for "yeah, but what about using a spotlight to locate
| _this specific type of game_ for _this specific purpose_ ;
| surely that's OK, right?!" "No."
| newsclues wrote:
| The trend of legal rulings that bring the judicial system into
| disrepute is accelerating and this ought to terrify everyone.
| solardev wrote:
| Freedom for me but not for thee! The US is a country where
| bribing politicians and enslaving prisoners is legal, but it's
| criminal to not want a baby or use lights to look for deer.
| paleotrope wrote:
| Wickard v. Filburn
|
| Dred Scott v. Sandford
|
| Long history here of bad judicial decisions
| alistairSH wrote:
| Use of drones and use of spotlights to hunt are both illegal.
| Not sure how this ruling brings the courts into disrepute.
|
| Should the laws on drones be updated? Possibly. But the
| spotlighting law exists for good reason.
|
| And the defendant was knowingly providing an illegal service
| (they didn't call him randomly - he advertised this service on
| Instagram).
| kristjansson wrote:
| > advertised
|
| and on the front page of his website: https://www.wingyds.com
| mindslight wrote:
| What leads you to say it's accelerating? The "war on drugs" was
| launched decades ago. Police have been unaccountable basically
| forever. For each right listed in the Bill of Rights, there
| have been egregious violations of it that have been blessed by
| the courts.
|
| If anything this seems like a relatively straightforward
| application of bad law. The court has actually avoided
| increasing their scope with more lofty ideals like equity
| (often referred to as "legislating from the bench").
| IronWolve wrote:
| It was also entrapment. It wasn't hunting with a drone. It was
| just flying a drone looking for the dead deer.
|
| This is another example of state trying to outlaw something by
| chipping away at it. Making normal things illegal. Drones are
| legal. Looking for your kill is legal. Looking for your kill with
| a drone is a crime!
| solardev wrote:
| The ultimate crime of "doing legal things together, illegally"
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I don't think this qualifies as entrapment. The agents were
| "pretending to be a hunter"; entrapment requires the crime be
| one "that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or
| unwilling to commit".
|
| It would've been entrapment if they'd openly said they were
| game wardens who needed assistance - the defense would be that
| they wouldn't normally help someone outside the context of a
| law enforcement request - but because this person would've
| helped a non-warden hunter in the same way, it's not
| entrapment.
|
| Same deal as drug/prostitution sting operations.
| jandrese wrote:
| I think this is something the courts will have to decide.
| This guy has the possibility of setting some precedent here.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| So, "by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the
| trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent"
| means that if they do something that they would have done
| because of the trickery, persuasion or fraud of someone who
| is _not_ the officer or state agent, it 's not entrapment.
| For instance, if an undercover cop threatens you to commit
| some crime at the gun point, it's not an entrapment since if
| he was not a cop, you'd probably do it anyhow. Is that how we
| read this? Really?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They publicly post on Instagram that they do this
| regularly. https://www.instagram.com/p/CzaboSqu4qx/
| czinck wrote:
| Yes, an undercover cop (or anyone) putting a gun to your
| head is not entrapment, it's duress.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| That's not what entrapment is. In practice, entrapment is when
| you goad/harass/coerce someone into committing a crime they
| wouldn't otherwise commit. Asking nicely for a strangers help
| to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment.
| spacebacon wrote:
| Entrapment defenses are rarely successful. It sounds good in
| theory Only. What the average human observes at blatant
| entrapment won't hold up in court unfortunately.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| A being legal and B being legal doesn't imply using A to do B
| is legal.
| alias_neo wrote:
| Drinking is legal, and driving is legal...
| IronWolve wrote:
| Drinking water is legal, driving is legal.
| pierat wrote:
| And having legally required parking spot MINIMUMS for a bar
| directly implies the state endorses drinking and driving.
|
| Note that drinking and driving does not mean 'drunk
| driving'. But the state is expecting that soon-to-be-buzzed
| and drunk patrons drive home.
| alistairSH wrote:
| No, it wasn't entrapment. This defendant advertises recovery-
| by-drone as a service. He wasn't compelled to do something he
| wouldn't otherwise do - he was "hired" to perform an illegal
| task that he was previously known to offer.
| IronWolve wrote:
| It was entrapment. It might not have have been criminal
| entrapment under the law.
| kristjansson wrote:
| It's only entrapment if you would haven't have done it
| otherwise. This guy had a business doing it so...
|
| (that said clearly the conduct itself shouldn't actually be
| illegal, viz. the laws being passed to make it explicitly
| legal)
| bsamuels wrote:
| I love these threads because nobody in them ever knows what
| entrapment is
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| yes because the legal definition is intentionally narrow and
| nearly toothless. not the fault of anyone but legislators and
| lawyers.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| No, the legal definition has a purpose. If the only thing
| stopping you from doing a crime is easy access, and a cop
| provides you that access, and you commit the crime, you were
| in the wrong.
|
| If you don't want to go to jail or be fined, don't commit the
| crime, no matter how convenient or easy it seems to be.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| I am not denying the existence of the legal definition. I
| am saying that the contrast with the public expectation is
| because the legal definition is a sort of regulatory
| capture. You are debating with an irrelevant point that
| only you brought up.
|
| > If you don't want to go to jail or be fined, don't commit
| the crime, no matter how convenient or easy it seems to be.
|
| This in particular
|
| > If the only thing stopping you from doing a crime is easy
| access, and a cop provides you that access, and you commit
| the crime, you were in the wrong.
|
| If you don't see how this is different from the example
| above, then I can see you are bringing up irrelevant
| points.
| bell-cot wrote:
| My general reaction to such stories is "If law enforcement had
| time for this, then they're either over-staffed, or short on
| managers with some sense. Or maybe both."
| Eji1700 wrote:
| Yeah. I get why people want to trot out entrapment, even when
| it's not, but it does certainly reek of a waste of time.
|
| That said, they're game wardens. It's not like they could've
| been off solving murders or arresting domestic abusers or
| whatever. It might just be this is become a major problem in
| their area and this is a pretty good way to make sure everyone
| knows it's not ok.
| alistairSH wrote:
| These were game wardens.
|
| It's quite literally their job to enforce the laws regarding
| hunting/game/etc.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Game wardens should be neither mindless enforcement bots, nor
| "we'll show you who's boss, punk!" machos.
|
| If (per the the article) both Pennsylvania and other states
| are busy moving toward de-criminalization - well, gosh, it
| sure sounds like top-level government policy makers believe
| the "crime" is neither bad, nor worth using state resources
| to discourage. Maybe the game wardens could take a hint from
| their way-up-at-the-top bosses?
|
| Or -
|
| > "The Legislature needs to address this," Magisterial
| District Court Judge Raymond Sheller said while delivering
| his verdict, according to the Associated Press. "Everyone is
| playing catchup to science."
|
| - which seems to loudly hint that, from the PoV of current
| best practices for wildlife management, the "crime" is
| reasonable/acceptable/responsible behavior. Game wardens are
| supposed to know and care a bit about that kinda stuff,
| aren't they?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Game wardens are law enforcement officers. They should be
| enforcing the law as written. Anything else undermines the
| rule of law and leads to selective enforcement.
|
| If the government truly wants to make spotlighting with a
| drone legal, the correct place for intervention is at the
| DA level. They could have chosen not to prosecute.
|
| And regardless of the drone, spotlighting is still illegal
| and for good reason. It would never make sense to allow
| spotlighting from a drone but not from ground - that
| defeats the purpose of banning spotlighting. If the state
| does make spotlighting legal, that's fine I guess (I
| disagree, but don't live in PA).
| bell-cot wrote:
| > They should be enforcing the law as written. Anything
| else...
|
| Ah - you live in one of those towns that writes tickets
| for driving 1 MPH over the speed limit, or jaywalking
| across an empty street, or having a burned out brake
| light, or ... correct?
| alistairSH wrote:
| _should_ not _are_
|
| As for officer discretion, I'd prefer they had less.
|
| But even still, there's a pretty massive difference
| between mindlessly speeding by a small margin (which
| isn't even a criminal offense in the US) and doing
| something that explicitly illegal and impossible to do
| without forethought (spotlight deer).
| Vicinity9635 wrote:
| Wardens vary in quality as much as hunters do.
| boringg wrote:
| I mean if they aren't doing any of this its gotta be the wild
| west out there. They are sending a signal to people trying to
| set up businesses like this.
|
| I completely disagree with you on your statement.
| wepple wrote:
| Agreed. I actually get ads for "start your own drone-based
| deer recovery business"; this reinforces the idea that you
| need to stay legal in your state.
| mjhay wrote:
| Good to know that the PA game commission has their priorities
| straight. PA has a tremendous deer overpopulation problem. You'd
| think they wouldn't want to discourage hunting with all sorts of
| ambiguous legal gotchas.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| What's ambiguous about this law?
| thsksbd wrote:
| Whether this was entrapment.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| I think that is an ambiguity belonging to enforcement
| rather than the law, no?
| unclenoriega wrote:
| That is the least ambiguous part of this. The defendant
| runs a business offering drone deer recovery.
| thsksbd wrote:
| They've become vermin in suburban PA. I once counted a dozen of
| deer on my 1/4 acre property just grazing. During dead-deer
| season (early spring and late fall) I can easily count a half
| dozen dead deer on my morning drop off routine (about 14 mi
| round trip).
|
| I want to slowly convert my lawn to produce vegetables and
| fruit, but what's the point? The deer will eat the whole plant
| unless its very toxic to them.
|
| They have no fear of man, like wild deer would. On account of
| their unnaturally high density [1] they carry nasty diseases
| for us, other animals and themselves.
|
| Heck, Ive seen dead deer on the part of the interstate that
| cuts _through_ the city.
|
| [1] suburban deer have no predators (except cars), unnaturally
| vast lawns to graze on and idiots feeding them (why??)
| chankstein38 wrote:
| It's weird your comment was gray/getting downvotes. God
| forbid someone with personal experience speak out on a topic,
| I guess. You're right. In more rural PA, it's as bad if not
| worse. People from around the world judging us have no idea
| what we live with here.
|
| Sometimes during dead-deer season I wish it was possible to
| hold my breath on my entire commute because it's just smelly
| rotting flesh after smelly rotting flesh.
| pierat wrote:
| Yep, deer are a scourge all through the Midwest and east
| cost.
|
| They were reintroduced here in the early 1900s. Turns out,
| reindeer are ALSO an invasive reintroduced scourge too.
|
| Deer meat tastes good... At least that's their saving
| grace.
|
| I say we eat them out of the area. They have no current
| predators, and humans likely won't want bears and wildcats
| (mountain lions out)to be reintroduced.
| nemomarx wrote:
| We could probably reintroduce wolves and cut down on the
| population a bit.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| When livestock and pets get eaten then people forget how
| much much they hate deer and start remembering why they
| didn't want wolves around. Not saying it is a good reason
| not to do it, but people that's what happens.
| watwut wrote:
| Out of curiosity, why not fence the vegetables field?
| kbelder wrote:
| Needs to be a 7'+ tall fence. Some people do that, but it's
| not practical for many. May not be allowed in some places.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| This was my thought reading this. The deer population here in
| PA is out of control and needs quelled. Each year we have less
| and less people out hunting because it kind of sucks to wake up
| at 6am and go sit in frigid weather (that's why I stopped at
| least).
|
| We need to be encouraging people to help knock down the deer
| population not trapping people who are using tools to recover
| bodies, that will otherwise rot, into crimes/fines on weird
| technicalities.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Maybe market hunting needs to return. Commercial hunting was
| stopped in most of the country due to over hunting and
| ultimately federally outlawed in 1918. Seems like a good tool
| to use to combat deer overpopulation.
| sarchertech wrote:
| Don't worry if we don't do something to control the deer
| population, CWD will.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| this sounds like a great opportunity for jury nullification to
| fix a wrong.
| ct0 wrote:
| What is the difference between a drone and a electronic trail
| cam?
| kristjansson wrote:
| Drone has lights and makes noise, trail cam is disguised,
| silent, and probably IR (or at least a single flash, not a
| spotlight)?
| peterleiser wrote:
| Which allows the drone to flush out the deer. Kind of like
| using hunting dogs, which is not legal everywhere.
| peterleiser wrote:
| I would look at the law regarding use of trail cams, but I'm
| guessing it has to do with trail cams being in a fixed position
| while drones are mobile.
| wepple wrote:
| This is a big part of it
|
| Same reason many areas (eg Alaska) allow you to fly into a
| hunting area, but not hunt the day you land. Otherwise you
| could use the plane for locating and/or driving animals
| fairly precisely
| karaterobot wrote:
| They talked about how they caught the guy spotlighting a live
| deer at night. I can see it from both sides. On the one hand, you
| want to allow hunters to recover animals they've killed,
| otherwise it's all a waste. On the other hand, some people will
| use drones for poaching, or to get an unfair advantage. There are
| artificial restrictions built into hunting, that is not new. The
| question is how to write regulations to get the good effects and
| not the bad effects, which is incredibly difficult.
|
| I agree that it seems unfair to charge this guy when he was _not_
| trying to poach, he was just trying to help recover the animal,
| and using a flashlight on the drone to do it. That 's really not
| the guy you should make an example of.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think there's a missing element on the pro side--putting
| aside whether or not it is a waste for the hunter, it is wildly
| unethical to injure an animal and then leave wandering around
| slowly dying. If we're going to have hunting, we should be
| extremely reluctant to limit the ability to find the injured
| animals.
| godelski wrote:
| This is the bigger aspect to me. "All for nothing" is not the
| right description for failure to recover. Hunting is actually
| an important part of maintaining a proper ecosystem. It still
| serves as a management tool even if the animal dies in
| needless pain.
|
| Counterintuitively, hunting can often be an ethically right
| decision to make (depending on animal). This is because we
| humans have displaced natural predators and these prey will
| tend to over populate, over consume their food sources, and
| then starve. Remember that hunting is limited to seasons and
| that these seasons are decided per species and the population
| of that species. There are a lot of regulations around this
| and it isn't simply kill anything you want.
|
| Similarly there are even moral big game hunting, where they
| specifically target aggressive and harmful animals, and use
| the money to fund the nature preserve.
|
| In this manner, the ethical obligation is then to do the
| least harm and make the most out of it. If we need to cull
| some populations, it should be done as humanely as possible.
| Applying the same ethical ideals (distinct from practice)
| that we apply for livestock.
|
| Some articles if anyone wants to read more. This is a
| controversial topic still but I'm providing this information
| because there is legitimacy to this side of the argument that
| many may not be aware of. I'd encourage discussion, but not
| bashing.
|
| Unfortunately, like most things, there's a lot of complexity
| and nuance to all these things. The claim is not that there
| is no abuse, but that there is a difference between abusing a
| practice and a practice being useful.
|
| https://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Pages/hunt_trap/deerhuntas.
| ..
|
| https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-
| hunters-...
|
| https://thehill.com/changing-
| america/opinion/539071-misinfor...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y7YFjisSTg
| hk1337 wrote:
| > it is wildly unethical to injure an animal and then leave
| wandering around slowly dying.
|
| It's only unethical if you do it on purpose and do not make
| an honest effort to find the animal. It can happen that you
| shoot an animal and cannot find it because it ran off.
| margalabargala wrote:
| Your intentions behind the injury, and the effort you put
| into the search, are irrelevant to the amount of suffering
| experienced by the animal if it is not found.
|
| Perhaps one person's behavior is more ethical with regard
| to the decisions they made, but their effect on the world
| is not different.
|
| Thus, we should make it easier for people to use tools to
| find such injured animals, so their effect on the world
| will be more positive (or less negative) than otherwise.
| mlyle wrote:
| > ...do not make an honest effort to find the animal...
|
| And here we're talking about the law forcing unethical
| behavior by limiting honest efforts to find the animal.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the law forcing unethical behavior by limiting honest
| efforts to find the animal_
|
| Fair enough. On one hand, you have the harm caused by
| animals I found. On the other hand, you have the blanket
| plausible deniability granted to anyone using drones to
| find targets.
|
| Perhaps there could be a rule about not discharging a
| firearm while a drone is in flight. I don't see how that
| would be enforceable, however, inasmuch as it requires LE
| to witness the illegal kill, which almost never happens.
| mlyle wrote:
| > On the other hand, you have the blanket plausible
| deniability granted to anyone using drones to find
| targets.
|
| Yah, I appreciate the problems; perhaps you can't have a
| weapon on your person while doing certain permitted
| recovery things.
|
| In this case, it's some poor SOB who got a phone call
| from some hunters^H^H^H^H^H^H agents who wanted help
| finding a hurt animal.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Sure. I'm not sure if this is an adding-on comment or an
| objection.
|
| Of course, in general ethical behavior also includes one's
| own preparation, in this case practicing appropriately and
| making sure to only take a good shot. (Although, I don't
| think I'm contradicting you here, actually I'm not really
| sure what you meant, sorry).
| julianeon wrote:
| What is the "unfair advantage?" Seems legitimate to me (or no
| less legitimate than whatever the 'fair' method is).
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| Hunting is a sport and there is some element of sportsmanship
| reflected by the laws.
|
| Although with spotlighting in particular I am pretty sure
| it's because the man doesnt want you shooting guns in the
| dark. When you light it up you ruin your own night vision and
| cannot see your backstop.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Using the drones to track deer seems unfair. Take an extreme
| example: imagine using several drones with thermal imaging
| cameras to follow in real time the location of every deer in
| an area. The hunter then uses their phone to select the
| largest and best of them to take. The drones sweep in and
| frighten the target deer in the direction of the hunter, who
| is waiting beside their truck on a nearby access road.
|
| People say "just having a rifle makes it unfair to the deer,"
| but I think even if you believe that, using drones seems
| unsporting to the deer, and unfair to other hunters who don't
| have access to the same resources.
| konschubert wrote:
| I don't think the dear is interested in the sport, either
| way.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I disagree, I think they're more invested in it than
| anybody.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I don't really get the idea of any type of hunting as
| sporting or not, between the hunter and the animal. Sports
| are games where consenting players agree on some set of
| rules.
|
| If people want to hunt for animal population control or
| food--I get it, fine. But any idea of fairness between the
| animal and the hunter is blatantly absurd.
| samatman wrote:
| Sport has an older meaning, of anything one does in
| leisure for the enjoyment of it. Hunting was always
| sport, and certainly in English circles, the question of
| good sportsmanship, and what is sporting, have also
| always been applied to hunting in those very terms.
|
| It's not a game, however. That's what you hunt.
| friendzis wrote:
| > On the one hand, you want to allow hunters to recover animals
| they've killed, otherwise it's all a waste.
|
| I don't think that's a _good_ take. Yes, you don 't want to
| _obstruct_ ability to take hunted animals, however this kind of
| tosses away one the core rules of weapon handling - shoot to
| kill (the others being shoot only if you are certain you want
| to kill the target and shoot only if you are certain you can
| kill). Having to search for animal is indicative that animal
| was wounded mortally, which is... dangerous and unsafe
| practice.
| effingwewt wrote:
| This sounds like you've never been hunting. Animals move,
| sometimes right as you pull the trigger. Wounding doesn't
| mean you mortally wounded it either, sometimes it takes
| several shots no matter how good a marksman you are.
|
| No hunter wants a wounded animal as it will fill the meat
| with fight or flight hormones such as adrenaline.
|
| I don't know why you think its any more dangerous, no hunters
| save maybe bows are right up next to it.
|
| Some hunters will track for hours upon hours only to lose the
| prey, and this would help alleviate that.
|
| I think nixxing drones completely is throwing out the baby
| with the bath water.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| How was hunting ever been without drones?
|
| If the animal is hunted, wounded than another animal will
| take it's place in hunting the animal. You loose your hunt,
| tough luck.
|
| Drones are a cheat.
| samatman wrote:
| Who is getting cheated here?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| The animals, who else?
|
| They get no cover, no protection. no surroundings to
| protect them, no chance of escape. Drones are not fair-
| game. It's not like they can equip themselves with anti-
| radar gear.
|
| With AI being able to track their movements, predict
| future movements from a air-drone how the hell do they
| have any chance of from being hunted.
|
| If you use a drone to hunt your a coward.
| why_at wrote:
| I've never hunted before in my life and I only just learned
| about "Spotlighting" in hunting, so I'm a little confused.
|
| I get that using a light makes it easier to hunt deer and other
| animals since they will stay still as you shine it on them,
| what I don't get is why this should be illegal. Can any hunters
| explain it?
|
| So far one reason I've seen is that it can disturb wildlife to
| shine bright lights all over the place which I understand, but
| it's not illegal to walk around in the woods with a flashlight
| in other circumstances so this seems odd.
|
| The other reason I've seen is that it's too easy or
| "unsporting" to hunt deer in this way. I don't really
| understand this since you already need a permit/tag/whatever to
| hunt in the first place, so it's not like you'll get too many
| deer. If someone wants to hunt this way, why not let them?
| rcurry wrote:
| I'm a predator hunter and do most of my hunting at night. The
| reason they don't want you using lights is that deer are
| mostly nocturnal creatures and so jacklighting them gives you
| a huge advantage. I see trophy bucks at night every time I'm
| out after coyotes - the same animals would be really hard to
| sneak up on during daylight hours, when their senses are more
| highly attenuated to avoiding threats.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I'm not against hunting - I think it's hypocritical for
| anyone who eats meat to tsk tsk at hunting.
|
| But doesn't a hunter with a gun already give you an unfair
| advantage over a deer?
| samatman wrote:
| The unfair advantage is over other hunters.
|
| Hunters would prefer to hunt by daylight, for the most
| part. If light-hunting at night were allowed, that would
| be the only way to take the best game, because as the
| comment you're responding to notes, it's much easier.
|
| So everyone would be forced to do the thing they don't
| want to do, if they want to take a deer at all. That's a
| bad equilibrium, what we call "not sporting".
| why_at wrote:
| I get that using lights makes it easier, the part I don't
| get is why it should be _illegal_ for it to be easier.
|
| It would make sense to me if there was a "hunting league"
| like the NFL or something which had rules on what you're
| allowed to use, but why should this be a law?
|
| It feels like making RVs illegal because they make camping
| too easy. If you want the challenge, just don't use them?
| cptskippy wrote:
| Everyone is saying it's entrapment but y'all need to read the
| article:
|
| * The agency's position is that recovery is part of the activity
| of hunting.
|
| * The state law prohibits the use of spotlights for hunting
| during either of the hunting seasons.
|
| * The drone operator was cited when he used a light on the drone
| to highlight a live deer.
|
| * There's no indication as to what type of light was on the
| drone.
|
| * The article doesn't provide the definition of a spotlight is
| under the law.
|
| * The article states that the law allows recovery of game at
| night.
|
| * There's currently legislation to legalize and define legal use
| of drones for hunting.
|
| * Law enforcement is being accused of inconsistent enforcement of
| the law.
|
| I guess my question is, how do you recovery a deer at night
| without a light? Is there a definition of spotlight and
| differentiates it from any other light that might be used to
| recover a light?
| _xerces_ wrote:
| Use an infrared spotlight and sensor?
| chankstein38 wrote:
| I was confused about that too. Let me just wander around the
| woods at night with no light, I'm sure that'll go well.
| watwut wrote:
| It tends to not be a pitch dark in the forrest, you can see
| huge objects like a deer and roughly navigate in general.
| _xerces_ wrote:
| Not mentioned are FAA rules on night flights, flight out of line-
| of-sight, flying drones commercially (licensing required) etc. So
| this could end up being federally illegal no matter what PA
| decides.
| blackfawn wrote:
| The linked page to their company site specifically states "We
| are FAA Part 107 Certified and Fully Insured." As the article
| does not state anything related to violating FAA rules, it'd be
| safe to assume (until proven otherwise) that this commercially
| licensed company was following FAA rules.
|
| This seems to be specific to PA game laws and at least at a
| glance, seems like it might be entrapment by the game wardens.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >seems like it might be entrapment by the game wardens.
|
| This is nonsense. Entrapment requires that the accused would
| NOT have done the crime, even with easy access to means,
| without the actions of the police. This man runs and
| advertises a business to do exactly this crime. This cannot
| possibly entrapment.
|
| Entrapment is when a cop says "if you don't cook this meth, I
| will kill your wife" so you cook meth. Entrapment is NOT
| "here's all this equipment and supplies to make some meth,
| and I will buy it from you at 2X market rate, and I know you
| need the money since your wife is dying from cancer and you
| can't afford treatment". If you cook the meth in that
| scenario, you were not entrapped. The philosophy is that you
| should not commit a crime no matter how convenient or
| beneficial to you it gets. Entrapment is not a "cops set me
| up" get out of jail free card.
| ben7799 wrote:
| So many of these small businesses are certified but break the
| law like crazy.
|
| Part 107 means you can apply for waivers with the FAA for
| specific activities. They almost never do for routine stuff
| because it would be a huge extra cost for them.
|
| My town is in a no-fly zone. Almost every house for sale
| still gets a drone video overfly. I highly doubt the guy
| doing them is applying for waivers and getting them approved.
| It is too trivial of a justification to get an approval.
|
| You can actually look up the waivers on the FAA website,
| there are orders of magnitude too few of them to explain all
| the flights that appear illegal.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| The article mentions this person runs a "drone services"
| company. While it's not explicitly mentioned that he's
| licensed, I also didn't see any explicit mention that he wasn't
| and it's safe to assume that, if he runs a drone service
| company, he is probably licensed (to fly commercially).
|
| As far as I understand, flying at night is legal for most
| licensed drone pilots. Flying out of line of sight is still
| illegal.
| bluGill wrote:
| This could be a case where the FAA says what he was doing is
| federally legal and you states have no jurisdiction so shut up.
| Will be interesting to see if he plays that angle. (I'm not
| sure what the FAA rules are on offering drone services are)
| balderdash wrote:
| This just a seems like a poor use of resources... why go after
| someone for doing something that is in a grey area of the law,
| and at least morally doesn't seem like a bad thing to do. I mean
| if they busted him for helping them poach game, great. But seems
| like there would be more productive uses of their time - or hey
| maybe they just wanted to boost their "stats"
| dwighttk wrote:
| This kind of sting operation should be illegal... go catch a real
| criminal
| FpUser wrote:
| >"in which an officer called Wingenroth pretending to be a hunter
| who had wounded a deer and needed help recovering it."
|
| Dirty sleazebag. It is good to know what kind of moral character
| government cultivates. Not that I would expect anything honorable
| coming from that direction.
| trhr wrote:
| If you can't recover wounded game, you shouldn't be hunting.
|
| The first rule is you don't chase it. Just sit still for an hour
| or two. The deer will bed down in nearby trees and bleed out.
| djmips wrote:
| Not all wounded game is going to bleed out.
| u32480932048 wrote:
| > In his written statement, Siddons argues that by citing
| Wingenroth on Dec. 6, the agency was enforcing its laws
| inconsistently and "further confounding the situation." He says
| that during the trial, neither game warden could recall ever
| citing a hunter for trying to recover downed game at night -- nor
| could they point to a single section of the state's game code
| that supported their position.
|
| This has got to be the dumbest case for entrapment that I've ever
| seen.
|
| The taxpayers should have recourse against agencies that do
| things like this, particularly given the PA Game Commission's
| history of dimwitted fuckery.
| japhyr wrote:
| As a long-time search and rescue volunteer, this passage sounds
| really problematic:
|
| > Another section prohibits hunters from using artificial lights
| of any kind while carrying a firearm or other weapon
|
| I absolutely understand why we don't want people using lights to
| attract animals while hunting. But failing to carry a headlamp or
| other light source when you might be out in the woods after dark
| would easily lead to more people needing assistance.
| coldbrewed wrote:
| Laws like this stem from an attempt to ban the use of flood
| lights to stun deer and thus make a shot easier. Like much
| firearms legislation it's still intentioned but leads to absurd
| scenarios.
| eastbound wrote:
| Or simple lights that disrupts sleep in the forest.
| rickydroll wrote:
| Using red light would give hunters the ability to see where
| they are going and limit the impact on nighttime wildlife.
|
| https://www.sepco-solarlighting.com/blog/why-wildlife-
| friend...
| crazygringo wrote:
| This whole thing is so weird.
|
| What I'm most curious about is, why did the Pennsylvania Game
| Commission set up this sting operation in the first place?
|
| And why did they choose to target this man in particular?
|
| Is people recovering deer with drone flashlights some huge
| problem that they're trying to publicly crack down on? Because it
| doesn't sound like it from the article -- it sounds like this is
| an ambiguous section of the law where what he was doing was
| helpful rather than harmful.
|
| Or did the commission have other problems with the guy but they
| couldn't do anything about it, so they targeted him specifically,
| and this sting operation was the best they could come up with?
|
| None of it seems to add up, from what's in the article.
| rcurry wrote:
| I have to agree with you. This whole thing is bananas - it's
| not like you have some good ol' boys jacklighting deer and
| shooting them. It just sounds like some guy who was excited to
| have a little drone business and was happy to help some folks
| out with his toy.
|
| As a sheriff friend of mine would put it, busting a guy like
| that really isn't in the "spirit of the law." Maybe there was
| some bad blood or something between this guy and the wardens.
|
| Don't get me wrong - wardens can be pretty strict and I've
| known a few who have actually ticketed themselves for making a
| mistake, but this wasn't a warden just coming up on a scene and
| issuing a citation, and saying "sorry boys, I wish I didn't
| have to write you up but here we are..." this was a calculated
| setup and seems like a pretty cheap shot.
| nijave wrote:
| I kind of get the vibe there's some small town politics and
| someone complained to the game warden about this guy so they
| set out to catch him doing something illegal.
| syspec wrote:
| Is deer recovery here used literally? Like to recover a deer that
| was lost? Or is that some kind of code word for hunting them?
|
| Isn't recovering something good?
| hiddencost wrote:
| Recovery of a dead deer that they couldn't find.
|
| They were allowed to shoot and kill the deer. They were not
| allowed to find the corpse of the legally killed deer using a
| drone.
|
| Deer run after you shoot them. On many states people use
| bloodhounds to recover the harvest.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-28 23:01 UTC)