hunting with a drone

bunnystalker

Hi all,
Talking with a lad yesterday and he was telling me that he has a drone to help him find deer . I,m not to sure about that as I think it takes most of the fun out of the stalk. What are your views ?

wirehairmax

If I ever saw a drone out hunting, it would be getting a crash landing quick enough. It would take a fat lazy bastard to even consider that.

Cass

A drone!!!! FFS :rolleyes:

Its called stalking for a reason. Half the sport is being out trying to find the deer, stalk them. A battle of wits if you will. A lot of my stalks end in nothing for me, but if it ever came to a point where i thought i needed a drone i'd sell my gear and stay at home playing video games.

Funny this comes up now. Was looking at a lads blog the other day. Not being critical of him but he had a picture of his set up (all his gear) as he was about to start a nights shooting (foxes/rabbits). He had his binoculars, rangefinder, Ballistic calculator, electronic caller with remote, and rifle with NV scope/Nite Sight systems on it, etc.

Now each to their own, but i just thought to myself "how much stuff do you need?". Or more accurately at what point is it "too much"?

Reati

I fly drones for fliming and they are fairly loud. The ready to fly ones you buy are not great that'd you can see much detail to be honest. I'd be surprised if he finds anything using one. Unless he builds them, then he has to much time or money. Either way, I'm pretty sure it's not allowed under the rules for drones in Ireland. Report it to the IAA: drones@iaa.ie and they won't be long telling you.

wirehairmax

Dont forget thermal imaging at approx €4k. Fools with too much money and no sense and too stupid to learn how to actually hunt. There are idiots out there who have all the toys and you see them here constantly chopping and changing gear. Most of them probably never leave the house!!

Birdnuts

Hunting with a drone cannot be justified for game hunting. Drones themselves though are going to becomes a very usefull tool in the near future to crack down on poaching and other wildlife crime. In Africa they are already being deployed to tackle the elephant/rhino poaching crisis.

cookimonster

Something tells me that if the following is necessary for the photographing and filming of protected wild species then the unlicensed practice is contravening some Act etc and therefore the use of a drone for hunting may not meet the merits of a license, the following is taken from http://www.npws.ie/licences/disturbance/photograph-or-film-protected-wild-animal-or-bird :

Licence to Photograph or Film a Protected Wild Animal or Bird
The Minister is empowered to give licences:

under Section 23 (6)(b) of the Wildlife Act, 1976 (as amended) for a person to take or make photographic, video or other pictures of a protected wild animal of a species specified in the licence, and
under Section 22 (9)(f) of the Wildlife Act, 1976 (as amended) for a person to take or make photographic, video or other pictures of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence on or near a nest containing eggs or unflown young.


These applications are considered on their merits in accordance with the Statutory Obligations of the Minister set out in the Wildlife Act, 1976 (as amended).

Applications for permissions are made on a standard application form available from:

Wildlife Licensing Unit,
National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht,
7 Ely Place,
Dublin 2.

Email: wildlifelicence@ahg.gov.ie
Tel: (01) 888 3242

Download an application form for a Licence to Photograph/Film a Protected Wild Animal  [1MB]

Download an application form for a Licence to Photograph or Film a Protected Wild Bird  [1MB]

barnaman

use of a drone to hunt is illegal the Act clearly says so ..." any kite, light trap, balloon, aircraft (including model aircraft) or similar device,..." to hunt any wild bird or animal is unlawful.

dodderangler

That's pure lazy. That's worse than using a high seat.

ezra_

Birdnuts wrote: »

Hunting with a drone cannot be justified for game hunting. Drones themselves though are going to becomes a very usefull tool in the near future to crack down on poaching and other wildlife crime. In Africa they are already being deployed to tackle the elephant/rhino poaching crisis.

Next logical step: Anti poaching drones hunting other drones!

Half-cocked

wirehairmax wrote: »

If I ever saw a drone out hunting, it would be getting a crash landing quick enough. It would take a fat lazy bastard to even consider that.

I wonder about the legality of shooting down a drone? Say, for example, it was hovering over private property with no permission to be there and it was a safe shot?

Bad_alibi

Half-cocked wrote: »

I wonder about the legality of shooting down a drone? Say, for example, it was hovering over private property with no permission to be there and it was a safe shot?

The yanks are selling specific drone rounds for this reason.

*not saying it's correct

ezra_

Half-cocked wrote: »

I wonder about the legality of shooting down a drone? Say, for example, it was hovering over private property with no permission to be there and it was a safe shot?

Illegal.

If someone drove into your property, you wouldn't start shooting the car (assuming the person had left it).

Even after you've asked them to leave, you wouldn't start shooting the car because they weren't leaving fast enough.

Even if they refused to move, you wouldn't start shooting the car.

J.R.

Bad_alibi wrote: »

The yanks are selling specific drone rounds for this reason.

*not saying it's correct

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a16967/drone-munitions-shotgun-shells/

ezra_

And before we get here (because in every conversation I've had with people, this is where it seems to end up),

If the drone lands in your field: (and I'm assuming that it didn't land because it was set upon by shot and that it wasn't worrying livestock or doing anything other then just buzzing around) the following outcomes can happen:

1) The operator asks you can either he retrieve his drone or can you get it for him. You agree, he says sorry and gets his toy back. World moves on.

2) The operator asks you can either he retrieve his drone or can you get it for him. You say no and in effect, you are now in possession of his property and your actions are such that you intend to permanently deprive the operator of his property. Broadly speaking (real lawyers will cringe now) this is theft as you intend to prevent the owner for exerting his property rights and you are acting in a way to prevent the action from happening.

This is pretty minor theft, and will probably result in a copper rocking up to your door and saying cop the hell on and give the man his drone back. But you can't just continue to say get off my land because by doing so, you are interfering with the drone operators property rights.

3) The operator asks you can either he retrieve his drone or can you get it for him. You say no but he goes and gets it anyway. This is trespass and you could sue, but the operator would counter sue and accuse you of theft which he was preventing. Assuming that no damage was caused, a judge would probably just get annoyed with you both and tell you both to cop on. If damage was caused, you can seek redress but if you acted the maggot and prevented the man from (reasonably) seeking his drone which then lead to trespass which lead to damage to your land, you'd probably not get much in the way of compo as you would be part of the reason why damage was caused.

4) The operator just goes and gets his drone. Trespass is your remedy and any damage caused by the drone or by the operator can be claimed against the operator. You didn't do anything here so are 'out of the equation' really.

Half-cocked

ezra_ wrote: »

Illegal.

If someone drove into your property, you wouldn't start shooting the car (assuming the person had left it).

Even after you've asked them to leave, you wouldn't start shooting the car because they weren't leaving fast enough.

Even if they refused to move, you wouldn't start shooting the car.

I kinda knew this would be the answer;)

dodderangler

"Sorry mr Garda. It looked like a crow to me. I've very bad eyesight. Left me glasses at home"

Cass

dodderangler wrote: »

Suppose people will be attaching guns on them next and just shooting em aswell.

Eh, no. Because a drone cannot get a license and once the gun is out of your hands and your control you've a legal problem. I guarantee you that somewhere there is an Irish law that would state you are now in possession of a Fighter Jet.

Not to mention it's pure stupid.

dodderangler wrote: »

"Sorry mr Garda. It looked like a crow to me. I've very bad eyesight. Left me glasses at home"

As said above you cannot shoot the drones down, and lets not start getting into a debate on the matter. The chances of seeing one are slim, and even then shooting at them is not something we should be talking about, even in jest.

Public perception, etc.

Grizzly 45

ezra_ wrote: »

And before we get here (because in every conversation I've had with people, this is where it seems to end up),

If the drone lands in your field: (and I'm assuming that it didn't land because it was set upon by shot and that it wasn't worrying livestock or doing anything other then just buzzing around) the following outcomes can happen:

1) The operator asks you can either he retrieve his drone or can you get it for him. You agree, he says sorry and gets his toy back. World moves on.

2) The operator asks you can either he retrieve his drone or can you get it for him. You say no and in effect, you are now in possession of his property and your actions are such that you intend to permanently deprive the operator of his property. Broadly speaking (real lawyers will cringe now) this is theft as you intend to prevent the owner for exerting his property rights and you are acting in a way to prevent the action from happening.

This is pretty minor theft, and will probably result in a copper rocking up to your door and saying cop the hell on and give the man his drone back. But you can't just continue to say get off my land because by doing so, you are interfering with the drone operators property rights.

3) The operator asks you can either he retrieve his drone or can you get it for him. You say no but he goes and gets it anyway. This is trespass and you could sue, but the operator would counter sue and accuse you of theft which he was preventing. Assuming that no damage was caused, a judge would probably just get annoyed with you both and tell you both to cop on. If damage was caused, you can seek redress but if you acted the maggot and prevented the man from (reasonably) seeking his drone which then lead to trespass which lead to damage to your land, you'd probably not get much in the way of compo as you would be part of the reason why damage was caused.

4) The operator just goes and gets his drone. Trespass is your remedy and any damage caused by the drone or by the operator can be claimed against the operator. You didn't do anything here so are 'out of the equation' really.

Actually aLOT more complex than all this.
You OTOH can counter as to

1] Why was he flying his drone over your private property,as this is tresspass and for what intent? Spying on your 16 year old daughter sunbathing?Recceing the farm for whatever malicious purposes?[ask NARA about THAT one they got into hot water already by spying on mink farms here in Ireland with a drone,and especially as they were liscensed as drone operators] Or being a general PIFH nosey busybody?AKA hunt sabs and antis.
If you are a liscensed drone operator you have ZERO chance of explaining away a tresspass without consent under Irish law.A quarter of the course on drone operation in Ireland is concerned with this very subject.

If you are an amatuer pilot associating with a doo gooder organisation,you are tresspassing with intent to invade privacy,no matter how justified your cause is
Your right to privacyon your own property over rides alot of other rights and laws in Ireland.

You OTOH cant shoot down this drone unless it is actually being used to physically attack you.iE you are being buzzed with it.Or it is following you in an aggressive manner.As they are liscensed supposedly by the IAA it would be simmilar to be shooting at a normal aircraft .BUT again this is all new technology and not exactly clear cut law either.So it will be a court situation of much cost to establish precedent.IE what would be the situation if you launched a counter drone with a net to catch the invader?Or used a signal blocker gun to bring down the drone undamaged[costs about 200 usd in parts to put one together] All intresting and novel ways to make barristers and solicitors tricher in the future.

Reati

Half-cocked wrote: »

ezra_ wrote: »

Illegal.

If someone drove into your property, you wouldn't start shooting the car (assuming the person had left it).

Even after you've asked them to leave, you wouldn't start shooting the car because they weren't leaving fast enough.

Even if they refused to move, you wouldn't start shooting the car.

I kinda knew this would be the answer;)

The other thing to note, as someone who is a licensed drone operator, is they are classed as small aircraft here. Broadly speaking of course, It's pretty illegal to shoot down an aircraft in flight. So shooting down a drone would be more trouble than it's worth if it is simply flying around your land and if like mine, it's registered as a small aircraft with the IAA. That said, I normally will get permission from a landowner to do fly overs because it's the right and best way to do things. It also is important for insurance reasons.

On the other point, a drone operator is required to have permission to land / takeoff from private property. So if someone sets up base on your land, you have all the right to get them removed etc. You can't keep the drone though, same as if someone was walking through a field and you ask them to leave but take their phone. A grey area to this is if a drone needs to land for emergency reasons in a field. One example where this happens is flying on the coast and the coast guard heli enters your airspace. You are required to land asap till they clear the airspace. As such if you were to land in a field to facilitate this emergency and the landowner kept the drone it would be an interesting test case but I imagine in that case the law would favor the drone operator in that case. Again, for me I would have asked for permission before even operating but not everyone will.

The long and short of it is - People shouldn't fly over property but some will. In the same way people will take a shortcut through a field without permission. The best course of action is to ring the guards who have the power to take the drone and report that person to the IAA to be fined etc

Bad_alibi

dodderangler wrote: »

"Sorry mr Garda. It looked like a crow to me. I've very bad eyesight. Left me glasses at home"

mr. Garda's reply: sorry but if you can't see what your shooting at I think we'll just revoke your licence for public safety.

bunnystalker

Just how up off the ground is considered YOUR property ? Is lets say 50 feet up in the air still considered YOURS ? What about 100 feet 200 feet ? and so on.

ezra_

Not defined by the Courts.

Higher altitude airspace is public space. You have no rights to try and sue Ryanair who fly planes over your land.

Lower altitude airspace can be private property, essentially you 'own' the lower altitude space to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of your property.

Reati

ezra_ wrote: »

Lower altitude airspace can be private property, essentially you 'own' the lower altitude space to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of your property.

While this is in essence true, 30 meters or less is the defined legal limit at which you may not operate a drone without permission of the property owner.

ezra_

Reati wrote: »

While this is in essence true, 30 meters or less is the defined legal limit at which you may not operate a drone without permission of the property owner.

I don't think this is strictly true. The SI on Drone use puts a cap at flying over 120m, and has some limits that means you can't fly within Xm of people / buildings. This is different from 'you can't fly a drone within 30m of a person without their consent. As of now, there is no precise legal definition of what constitutes 'aerial' trespass. The courts haven't put a hard limit on it either.

If you live in a busy area, you'd probably find it harder to argue that a drone flying 100m overhead was trespassing as opposed to if you live on your own in the country, with sparse neighbours and no flightpaths nearby.

All up to the judge on the day though!

Reati

It is strictly true. As in the limits are specified in Irish law.

"A person who has charge of the operation of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of less than 25 kilograms, without fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft and including cargo at the commencement of its flight shall not allow such an aircraft to be flown, unless otherwise permitted by the Authority and subject to such conditions as are required by such permission:

at a distance of less than 30 metres from a person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under the direct control of the operator;"

Direct control to me is permission granted from a person. If you want to do it without direct control /permission of a person or building owner you need IAA permission. That, which I have had before, involves lots of details on how you will operate safely, why you are doing the flight, why you can't get permission etc.

Where you are right is there is no defined "Aerial Trespass". A court case in this area would fall into the world of expectation of privacy, the intent of the pilot etc. If someone is flying 10 feet above your house, whether we define it as "Aerial trespass", invasion of privacy or just an annoyance, the SI states it's not allowed. It's clear cut if the judge follows the letter of the law. Until there is a case though, we're simply expressing opinion and to be honest, it's my opinion based on everything I've experienced so far doing work in the RPAS field (and knowing countless operators here) that there will unlikely be a court case brought. People have flown down O'Connoll street and over restricted areas like the Aviva Stadium and nothing was done about it.

As a side note on the point of a busy area. You're not allowed operate drones in urban areas without IAA permission. The limit increases form 30 to 120 meters once there is 12 or more people in an area. At that point you can't fly above that area as 120 meters is the height ceiling for drones, you'd always be inside the limits.

ezra_

You are missing the point.

Lets say I have 20 acres and only 1 acre is buildings / sheds etc. I'm standing beside my house.

A drone can fly over an empty field of mine, it is not in breach of that SI, as it is more than 30m away from me and my buildings. However, it is still flying over my land and so could be guilty of trespass as my property rights include some elements of low altitude air space.

Currently, there is no set limit that if you fly at a minimum altitude of Xm, you are not trespassing. Instead, if I took a trespass case, the courts would examine whether the drone was flying at a height that disrupts my enjoyment of the property. They could rule that as it was 100m high, it wasn't trespass or they could rule that even at 119.9m it was trespass. Depends on the circumstances and the land.

The SI only covers proximity to people / buildings, it doesn't cover trespass and the courts haven't set a hard limit on this, it is case by case.

ezra_

Reati wrote: »

Until there is a case though, we're simply expressing opinion and to be honest, it's my opinion based on everything I've experienced so far doing work in the RPAS field (and knowing countless operators here) that there will unlikely be a court case brought. People have flown down O'Connoll street and over restricted areas like the Aviva Stadium and nothing was done about it.

Not even! Until there is a high court case, it won't set precedent.

You raise a good point though - public areas like that are, IMO, less likely to have a case brought because they are public.

Whereas people can get very prickly about their land and property rights and there are a large volume of trespass cases taken that really could be sorted in the pub with a beer but which end up in the DC/CC.

If someone starts buzzing animals or winding someone up, you'll see cases taken as we see these already when people annoy livestock / people in a manner other than by drone.

Won't solve the issue raised though as a DC/CC case won't set precedent and probably won't be reported unless something like the drone being shot out of the sky happened and the local papers report it.

Cass

Right folks.

The topic of using drones for hunting is sketchy at best, but the thread has turned into a debate solely on drones and the legality of flying them.

The thread will remain open, but lets get back to the original topic. Failing that i think the topic has been covered and this thread will have run its course.

dodderangler

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

BTW Whats wrong with using a high seat??? It is a standard piece of hunting equipment in Europe for decades and is actually alot safer for shooting .

Just don't think a high seat is hunting. It's sitting in a chair waiting on deer to come out in range. Just IMO it's not hunting. Going out and walking around looking for deer and stalking them is hunting.

Vegeta

dodderangler wrote: »

Just don't think a high seat is hunting. It's sitting in a chair waiting on deer to come out in range. Just IMO it's not hunting. Going out and walking around looking for deer and stalking them is hunting.

Do you think the same of flighting ponds for duck or shooting pigeons from a hide?

To each their own and my opinion is not better or more correct than anyone else's but I see no harm in it. Not my cup of tea either but I don't see it as a lesser form of hunting.

Rimfire Shooter

dodderangler wrote: »

Just don't think a high seat is hunting. It's sitting in a chair waiting on deer to come out in range. Just IMO it's not hunting. Going out and walking around looking for deer and stalking them is hunting.

When you're calling foxes are you constantly moving or stationary? I'm always stationary calling foxes so to me no different to being in a high seat.

Birdnuts

Nothing wrong with concealing oneself in a stationary position for the purpose of hunting. There's far worse going on eg. tower hunting of reared birds which involves birds being literally thrown out of a tower in front of guns. Done in the US on pheasant shoots

Rimfire Shooter

Birdnuts wrote: »

There's far worse going on eg. tower hunting of reared birds which involves birds being literally thrown out of tower in front of guns. Done in the US on pheasant shoots

OMG ! Now that is wrong but then again it's America might as well be shooting clays at that stage

dodderangler

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

When you're calling foxes are you constantly moving or stationary? I'm always stationary calling foxes so to me no different to being in a high seat.

Don't do much of calling foxes. Daytime is my hunting with foxes. But even at night il call for five minutes and move on. Wouldn't sit in a tree for hours waiting on deer. As one poster said each to their own and everyone has their opinion. I have mine of it.
Do you think what they do in America is ok? Sitting in a tree using female scent and using callers for deer is ok? It's not hunting. Just requires a decent shot and even then in America it's not good shots

Cass

dodderangler wrote: »

But even at night il call for five minutes and move on.

Spend a lot of time moving so. Hardly any time for shooting. I like to take my time each each spot. Can be 20 minutes, could be an hour. Depends on activity and my mood.

Wouldn't sit in a tree for hours waiting on deer. As one poster said each to their own and everyone has their opinion. I have mine of it.

Deer are not foxes. They move differently, cannot legally be lured, baited or called in, and react differently to our presence. So it requires different strategies.

Do you think what they do in America is ok? Sitting in a tree using female scent and using callers for deer is ok?

Yes, i do. You may not, but that is why so many people have so many ways of hunting. Diversity. Plus while Americans can use scent, callers, or whatever, different states have different laws so it varies. Also it's not a free ride in most places. Sometimes it consists of fees and a lottery system to see if you even get to hunt.

It's not hunting.

Yes it is, maybe not to your liking, but it is hunting.

Just requires a decent shot and even then in America it's not good shots

Don't be fooled by Youtube. A few videos of poor shots does not represent the whole of the American shooting community much like shot road signs here does not represent the majority of Irish shooting community.

Grizzly 45

Actually in Europe tree stand hunting is considerd alot safer than having people tramping about the forests.

1] Less likely to spook your game out of your reserve by crashing about in the forest.Quite a big deal where you are paying on average 5grand a head on a let just to go hunting.

2] Safer as you have a better observation position for your shot of whats going on with height than at ground level.Also your shot is going from height into ground if you miss.

3]Easier to spot,observe and decide if you want to shoot from a height.And somtimes the only way of shooting in young tree planttions.

4] Not as easy as it seems either.Try sitting still for a few hours on a plank of wood,you are stuck in position and are very much at the whim of the wind carrying your scent much further than at ground level.

dodderangler

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

4] Not as easy as it seems either.Try sitting still for a few hours on a plank of wood,you are stuck in position and are very much at the whim of the wind carrying your scent much further than at ground level.

Would you not rather be more active in hunting than sitting in a tree?? We all know hunting isn't always about the kill. I don't know about you but the chase is the most exciting part. Rather spend all day out walking and have missed opportunities or close calls ( I don't mean missed shots) than spend hours in a tree and come home with a kill. There's no memories in that.
But look it's my opinion and each to their own but as I said everyone has their own ways. Some agree with it others don't. I won't argue with someone over it.

Grizzly 45

Birdnuts wrote: »

Nothing wrong with concealing oneself in a stationary position for the purpose of hunting. There's far worse going on eg. tower hunting of reared birds which involves birds being literally thrown out of a tower in front of guns. Done in the US on pheasant shoots

Dont have to go to the US .It is pretty common in Italy as well.Seen it done in Hungary too with ducks.Raise a bunch of ducks between two flight ponds about two miles apart. Position the guns on both ponds and the ducks fly between the two ponds trying to get a rest.
Depends on what you consider "sporting" I guess.

Grizzly 45

dodderangler wrote: »

Would you not rather be more active in hunting than sitting in a tree?? We all know hunting isn't always about the kill. I don't know about you but the chase is the most exciting part. Rather spend all day out walking and have missed opportunities or close calls ( I don't mean missed shots) than spend hours in a tree and come home with a kill. There's no memories in that.
But look it's my opinion and each to their own but as I said everyone has their own ways. Some agree with it others don't. I won't argue with someone over it.

I've done both types of hunting and have come home from both either with a kill or without a kill.You are not grauenteed any more success with tree stand hunting than with stalking.Plus ,as you get older stalking does become abit harder to do on the legs and body. One thing I can say for stand shooting is ,it is proably the best way to introduce newbies and those un sure to hunting.Simply put if you are unsure of somthing and are made uncomfortable by having to exert yourself climbing up numerous hills,lepoard crawling thru a turf bog and then having to be dead still while being eaten by midges and black flies is not going to enarmour you to it very much. I took numerous ex girlfriends and my current main squeeze out deer hunting and it was all tree stand hunting.Even if we saw nothing shootable,they got to observe nature without having to stress themselves to do so.We got to see some fine sunsets too,and you also find out how much modern people cant sit the fuk still for five minutes or need to gab every three minutes to fill the silence.:rolleyes: Thats how I found my current was a keeper.:)She could STFU for an hour or so and watch nature. without complainng about her butt hurting,being cold,being eaten by midges etc. So a tree stand can also be quite useful in that sense of finding yor partner in life too.:pac:
But thats just my take on it.A tree stand to me is just a tool that can make the job easier,and if you have to build one[part of the practical German hunting exam] You will have memories aplenty.But thats my take on them.Give one a try sometime.You might surprise yourself on it.

ezra_

Saw this and had to post it here:

https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/770349336439909/

arrowloopboy

Like it or not Drones will be used to locate deer etc in the very near future in Ireland ,the tec is gone so good,and the price of something like a DJI Phantom 4 ,which is an awesome piece of kit ,is now the same price as a high end scope !
They've been used since the 70s by the US govt to hunt men !

Grizzly 45

Along with trailcams,[which no doubt will be subject to privacy regulations,as they are in some EU states] I can see them being a useful tool more for hunting let surveillance against poaching or for even assisting in whenever this national deer census will ever be done,or equipped with thermal image be a help in locating injured and downed deer,or deer calves in fields that are due to be mowed . But as a flying rifle ala a "terminator" hunter killer drone,that is still a long way away yet.
Again an inanimate object ,more or less,that can be used for good or ill.

Kiltris

I'd class anyone using a drone for deer stalking as a poacher.

Rimfire Shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.................................Again an inanimate object ,more or less,that can be used for good or ill.

Exactly !