Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government Technology

Drone-Assisted Hunting To Be Illegal In Alaska 397

garymortimer (1882326) writes in with news about rules for hunting with drones in Alaska. "At its March 14-18 meeting in Anchorage, the seven-member Alaska Board of Game approved a measure to prohibit hunters from spotting game with such aircraft, often called drones. While the practice does not appear to be widespread, Alaska Wildlife Troopers said the technology is becoming cheaper, easier to use and incorporates better video relay to the user on the ground. A drone system allowing a hunter or helper to locate game now costs only about $1,000, said Capt. Bernard Chastain, operations commander for the Wildlife Troopers. Because of advances in the technology and cheaper prices, it is inevitable hunters seeking an advantage would, for example, try to use a drone to fly above trees or other obstacles and look for a moose or bear to shoot, he said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Drone-Assisted Hunting To Be Illegal In Alaska

Comments Filter:
  • Redefine hunting. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ranbot ( 2648297 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @10:55AM (#46563709)
    Because at some point you can't call this "hunting" anymore. Good for Alaska.
  • by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @10:57AM (#46563733) Homepage

    How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport? And now drones? FFS , why not just nuke the whole fucking forest then Billy Bob Smalldick can claim he's killed everything and act the hero to all the toothless hags that inhabit the trailers in the area!

  • Sadistic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @11:09AM (#46563835)

    Just because you call it game doesn't make it a sport. I really do not understand the appeal of killing animals for fun. To get a meal? Sure. To deal with a pest? Makes sense. To protect yourself? No problem even though it rarely happens. For environmental stewardship? Great. But just for fun? With high powered rifles and drones? That makes that person a sadistic asshole. We're already WAY too good at killing things. If you are out to kill things for "fun" then make it a level playing field and do it with nothing more than a knife.

    Someone who would use a drone to hunt is like someone who plays a game with "god mode" enabled. They're completely missing the point. The point isn't to kill the animal at any cost. Someone who can afford a drone isn't doing it for their next meal. They're just killing to get their rocks off. Pity we aren't more evolved than that.

  • Re:Fine! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jmc23 ( 2353706 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @11:13AM (#46563885) Journal
    ah, you sound like one of those civilized types that prefers his animals to live shitty lives with no freedoms and then nicely packaged up for others to feast on. Strangely, exactly the same way a civilized person lives and dies.
  • Re:Sadistic (Score:1, Insightful)

    by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @11:14AM (#46563905)

    I think killing things "for fun" is something psychopaths do.

  • by Ranbot ( 2648297 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @11:14AM (#46563907)

    Or did you assume there was a gun on it?

    Nope, I read the article just fine and didn't assume anything. We don't let hunters use automatic rifles. Many states out-law "spot-lighting" of deer for good reason. We don't let fisherman use electro-shock or dynamite to catch fish. There are reasons to limit technology in hunting for the purpose of sport and to give the animals a chance.

  • by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@carpanet.PERIODnet minus punct> on Monday March 24, 2014 @11:19AM (#46563949) Homepage

    Actually, I think there are a few legitimate questions here.

    Aside from being done to control populations, it is also done as an activity people enjoy. So there is reason to not make it as efficient as possible. In fact, the worst case scenario for most hunters would be that it become so efficient that the people with the nicest toys end the season before they have a chance to do any hunting.

    Hunters already have plenty of advantage over their prey.

    I mean I generally agree when it comes to straight up problem solving but, when entertainment and sport is part of the process efficient technology is sometimes counterproductive to other goals.

    I could download a bot to play video games for me too. Perhaps it could more efficiently gaurd the bomb in counter strike than I could, thus solving that problem, and leaving me to go do other things.

  • by jythie ( 914043 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @11:31AM (#46564083)
    Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food. Granted these are generally poor rural people and thus are poorly represented on the internet and media so they are somewhat invisible, but there is a significant number of them spread around the country and they hunt more frequently then the recreational crowd.
  • by bored_engineer ( 951004 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @11:48AM (#46564261)
    Probably less affluent hunters. Using aircraft (or FPV drones) would allow wealthy hunters to potentially lock out subsistence hunters who have little to no income, or perhaps for whom this is an important cultural activity, rather than a fun trip for the weekend.
  • by shadowrat ( 1069614 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @11:55AM (#46564349)

    As long as there are limits on how many animals you're allowed to kill in a season, should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

    That was my first thought too. I suspect that the limits are based on a reasonable expectation of how many animals people are going to kill while walking around and just looking for them unassisted. When the DNR gives out permits to kill 500 moose, it's probably done with the assumption that only 45% of those hunters will succeed. Now, if it was suddenly way easier for the hunters to find the moose, the DNR might have severely overestimated how many permits they could safely give out. It's easier to simply ban the use of drones for scouting out game than to recalibrate your culling numbers with data based on how drones affect success.

    It's also probably in the state's interest to keep hunting reasonably difficult. if they start giving out only half the number of permits because people are just going to kill 2x as many moose with their technology, suddenly, there aren't as many reasons for tourists to come in for that activity.

  • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @12:22PM (#46564603) Journal

    its also because hunting is supposed to be a 'sport'. Hunters constantly are getting access to better and better technology, the Moose, and deer not so much. They playing field is already plenty slanted.

    Over hunting can ruin things for everyone, even non hunters. There is a legitimate social interest in NOT allowing hunters to become more effective.

    In some ways hunting on public game lands is like an MMO. Some people might like to use cheat codes, to avoid the grind of tracking and stalking or sitting and waiting, potentially spending all weekend and coming home without a prize, etc. If you let some people do this though it would ruin the 'game' for everyone.

  • by Ardyvee ( 2447206 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @12:41PM (#46564811)

    Five, ten minutes seems like an eternity for me, one who does not hunt.

  • by newcastlejon ( 1483695 ) on Monday March 24, 2014 @01:42PM (#46565441)

    There's reasons why people practice this form of hunting for a hundred thousand years.

    Because they hadn't invented guns yet. Give a subsistence hunter a choice between a bow and a rifle with free ammo and see what they choose. Even back when people were hunting with bits of flint on the end of sticks they cared about reducing the suffering of what they killed; that's to say nothing of wanting a more reliable means to bring down one's next meal.

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."