Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/4/2015 10:17:00 AM EST
The big drone thread was germane to some of our current dinner-time discussions, but rather than post in it,
I'd rather narrow the issue. Thread went a bit off the rails, anyways, lol.

We run a large CAFO in central NC, 5000 head of cattle with all the risks, manure, permits, and headaches that entails.
If you cotton to the general public's paradigm, CAFOs are evil factory farms hell bent on ruining the planet - look it up.

In 2015 the NC Legislature passed an ag-gag bill (H405) that states in part:

Any person who gains access to the nonpublic areas of another's premises and engages in an act that exceeds
the persons authority to enter those areas is liable to the owner or operator of the premises for any damages sustained.
For the purposes of this section, nonpublic areas shall mean those areas not accessible to or not intended to be
accessed by the general public.

For the purposes of this section, acts that exceed a person's authority to enter the nonpublic areas of another's
premises include, but are not limited to, the following:

(3) Knowingly or intentionally placing on the employer's premises an unattended camera or electronic surveillance device
and using that device to record images or data.



All entries here are posted "no camera's" or "no filming". Employees are made aware of the policy at hiring. We have a
local "riverkeepers" group that's not quite full-on radical - but as more and more hippies join the fight the writing's on the wall...

This prick, for example


All of that considered, I contend a drone is as significant a threat as a biped with a camera, and should be grounded.
Our attorney contends I can no more ground the drone than I can shoot the trespasser; and have to wait until demonstrable
damage is done... Case law should be along shortly, but does the ag-gag bill end any "there's no law against it" defense?

What say you? Eliminate the threat or wait for the facebook video that sinks a family farm?

*In before the "if you're not doing anything wrong why worry about it?" - fuck off, everything I do is wrong by hippy standards.

**I've done my best to break the wall of text, I know it's blocky, so here's some awesome tits:









Link Posted: 11/4/2015 10:22:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/4/2015 10:23:11 AM EST by CasualObserver]
You're in a rough spot. I think if I were you I might consider hanging up some strategically placed netting.

You know, for pigeons.

ETA: Nice tits. 50,000 lbs or better?
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 10:32:28 AM EST
12 gauge

Salvo

See there, that was easy, now wasn't it?
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 10:43:08 AM EST
Don't know if this will help, but contact your local FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). They have law enforcement authority in some of these matters.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 11:02:14 AM EST
Personally, I would not shoot at someone else's drone. It seems to cause a fair amount of expense and unnecessary intrusion of The Man into your life.
OTOH, I'd seriously consider investing in a few relatively cheap, simple drones to fly cover when the hippy drone appears.
Hopefully, they wouldn't accidentally ram and severely damage or destroy the offending hippie drone. Oooops, sorry 'bout that, patchouli-boy.

Sonderkommando Elbe FTW
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 11:25:02 AM EST
Accidentally crash your drone into theirs while monitoring the interloper.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 11:26:38 AM EST
Does your state consider the air above property as belonging to the property owner?
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 11:50:33 AM EST
Get your own large drone. Dangle long tangling paracord from it.

Intercept.

Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:28:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
You're in a rough spot. I think if I were you I might consider hanging up some strategically placed netting.

You know, for pigeons.

ETA: Nice tits. 50,000 lbs or better?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
You're in a rough spot. I think if I were you I might consider hanging up some strategically placed netting.

You know, for pigeons.

ETA: Nice tits. 50,000 lbs or better?


netting - could be cost-prohibitive on 1500 acres.

tits - dunno, not mine, would bet not 50k tho. Too pretty to work hard IMO

Originally Posted By WilliamGray:
Does your state consider the air above property as belonging to the property owner?


Mirrors fed regs AFAIK, now working on NC HB 446 - Permits via DOT, looks 'tarded and only applies to "commercial" drones
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S446v6.pdf

The issue, and my contention, is that the hippy riverkeeper drones go beyond invasion of privacy and approach eco-terrorism...
The ground under my feet is firmer than for, say, sunbathing teenage daughters, no?

Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:30:05 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:


netting - could be cost-prohibitive on 1500 acres.

tits - dunno, not mine, would bet not 50k tho. Too pretty to work hard IMO



Mirrors fed regs AFAIK, now working on NC HB 446 - Permits via DOT, looks 'tarded and only applies to "commercial" drones
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S446v6.pdf

The issue, and my contention, is that the hippy riverkeeper drones go beyond invasion of privacy and approach eco-terrorism...
The ground under my feet is firmer than for, say, sunbathing teenage daughters, no?

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:
Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
You're in a rough spot. I think if I were you I might consider hanging up some strategically placed netting.

You know, for pigeons.

ETA: Nice tits. 50,000 lbs or better?


netting - could be cost-prohibitive on 1500 acres.

tits - dunno, not mine, would bet not 50k tho. Too pretty to work hard IMO

Originally Posted By WilliamGray:
Does your state consider the air above property as belonging to the property owner?


Mirrors fed regs AFAIK, now working on NC HB 446 - Permits via DOT, looks 'tarded and only applies to "commercial" drones
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S446v6.pdf

The issue, and my contention, is that the hippy riverkeeper drones go beyond invasion of privacy and approach eco-terrorism...
The ground under my feet is firmer than for, say, sunbathing teenage daughters, no?


I don't know. The way I understand it, the FAA does not think the air above a property belongs to a land owner.
The law you stated said something about putting a camera on the property. In the air above would not be on the property.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:34:35 PM EST
What an udder predicament.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:37:57 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WilliamGray:

I don't know. The way I understand it, the FAA does not think the air above a property belongs to a land owner.
The law you stated said something about putting a camera on the property. In the air above would not be on the property.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WilliamGray:
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:
Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
You're in a rough spot. I think if I were you I might consider hanging up some strategically placed netting.

You know, for pigeons.

ETA: Nice tits. 50,000 lbs or better?


netting - could be cost-prohibitive on 1500 acres.

tits - dunno, not mine, would bet not 50k tho. Too pretty to work hard IMO

Originally Posted By WilliamGray:
Does your state consider the air above property as belonging to the property owner?


Mirrors fed regs AFAIK, now working on NC HB 446 - Permits via DOT, looks 'tarded and only applies to "commercial" drones
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S446v6.pdf

The issue, and my contention, is that the hippy riverkeeper drones go beyond invasion of privacy and approach eco-terrorism...
The ground under my feet is firmer than for, say, sunbathing teenage daughters, no?


I don't know. The way I understand it, the FAA does not think the air above a property belongs to a land owner.
The law you stated said something about putting a camera on the property. In the air above would not be on the property.


Probably an accurate interpretation I guess, troublesome tho... Thanks
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:42:36 PM EST
Would a person flying a drone not easily fit these two below definitions?

1. Any person who gains access to nonpublic areas
2. Knowingly or intentionally placing on the employer's premises an unattended camera or electronic surveillance device ......

I think the case would be a slam dunk, of course you'd have to prove ownership, but if they're under FAA minimum specified altitudes then isn't that considered on your property?
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:45:14 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:


netting - could be cost-prohibitive on 1500 acres.

tits - dunno, not mine, would bet not 50k tho. Too pretty to work hard IMO



Mirrors fed regs AFAIK, now working on NC HB 446 - Permits via DOT, looks 'tarded and only applies to "commercial" drones
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S446v6.pdf

The issue, and my contention, is that the hippy riverkeeper drones go beyond invasion of privacy and approach eco-terrorism...
The ground under my feet is firmer than for, say, sunbathing teenage daughters, no?

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:
Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
You're in a rough spot. I think if I were you I might consider hanging up some strategically placed netting.

You know, for pigeons.

ETA: Nice tits. 50,000 lbs or better?


netting - could be cost-prohibitive on 1500 acres.

tits - dunno, not mine, would bet not 50k tho. Too pretty to work hard IMO

Originally Posted By WilliamGray:
Does your state consider the air above property as belonging to the property owner?


Mirrors fed regs AFAIK, now working on NC HB 446 - Permits via DOT, looks 'tarded and only applies to "commercial" drones
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S446v6.pdf

The issue, and my contention, is that the hippy riverkeeper drones go beyond invasion of privacy and approach eco-terrorism...
The ground under my feet is firmer than for, say, sunbathing teenage daughters, no?




For fucks sake, flying a drone over your property is not terrorism.

What damage will you claim from a drone flying over head?
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:45:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Saladman:
Would a person flying a drone not easily fit these two below definitions?

1. Any person who gains access to nonpublic areas
2. Knowingly or intentionally placing on the employer's premises an unattended camera or electronic surveillance device ......

I think the case would be a slam dunk, of course you'd have to prove ownership, but if they're under FAA minimum specified altitudes then isn't that considered on your property?
View Quote

#1 would be problematic as they would argue that a drone is not a "person".
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:47:43 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:


For fucks sake, flying a drone over your property is not terrorism.

What damage will you claim from a drone flying over head?
View Quote

The thing is, a regular manned airplane could fly over and take the same pictures/video.

For some reason people are more comfortable with a real person spying on them than a robot doing exactly the same thing.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:48:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mach1run:
Accidentally crash your drone into theirs while monitoring the interloper.
View Quote


This. It's just as much your air space to use as his. I'd buy my kids drones, model airplanes, kites, helium balloons, etc. Then they have to obtain permission to enter your property to retrieve the drone. All submissions should be notarized and submitted in triplicate to the law office of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe in Hoboken, NJ. It should take 4 to 6 weeks to process your request.

Fucking cows are clumsy as hell too, they trample everything.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:51:30 PM EST
Net Gun




And that commercial drone thing will help you. FAA says you cannot shoot down commercial aircraft. So... you can either shoot their asses down, or they cant be above your shit.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:52:00 PM EST
Eh I'm with OP. Firmly in the camp of intentionally flying a drone onto my property = trespassing.

No offense to the drone flyers. But its just like someone shooting onto my property. Or the guy that sets his tree stand up every year and "forgets" where the double fenced property line is every year during deer season.

As much as I'm a hunter, its still illegal.

As much as I'm a shooter, its still illegal.


Do it once, nice verbal warning. Do it twice, stern warning with a call to the local LE. Do it three times. Trespassing charge. (Yes. I did this same thing with the hunter who puts his stand up on my property.)

Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:56:40 PM EST
From the text you quoted, you're SOL. A drone is not unattended.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 12:58:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:



For fucks sake, flying a drone over your property is not terrorism.

What damage will you claim from a drone flying over head?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:
Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
You're in a rough spot. I think if I were you I might consider hanging up some strategically placed netting.

You know, for pigeons.

ETA: Nice tits. 50,000 lbs or better?


netting - could be cost-prohibitive on 1500 acres.

tits - dunno, not mine, would bet not 50k tho. Too pretty to work hard IMO

Originally Posted By WilliamGray:
Does your state consider the air above property as belonging to the property owner?


Mirrors fed regs AFAIK, now working on NC HB 446 - Permits via DOT, looks 'tarded and only applies to "commercial" drones
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S446v6.pdf

The issue, and my contention, is that the hippy riverkeeper drones go beyond invasion of privacy and approach eco-terrorism...
The ground under my feet is firmer than for, say, sunbathing teenage daughters, no?




For fucks sake, flying a drone over your property is not terrorism.

What damage will you claim from a drone flying over head?


When someone does that and files harassment complaints with regulatory agencies, the costs can be very, very high.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 1:02:20 PM EST
Scientists capture birds with net cannons
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 1:05:04 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
Scientists capture birds with net cannons
View Quote


How about tethered balloons with nets, fishing line, etc hanging from them. You wouldn't really be shooting anything down then.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 1:16:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dillehayd:


When someone does that and files harassment complaints with regulatory agencies, the costs can be very, very high.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:
Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
You're in a rough spot. I think if I were you I might consider hanging up some strategically placed netting.

You know, for pigeons.

ETA: Nice tits. 50,000 lbs or better?


netting - could be cost-prohibitive on 1500 acres.

tits - dunno, not mine, would bet not 50k tho. Too pretty to work hard IMO

Originally Posted By WilliamGray:
Does your state consider the air above property as belonging to the property owner?


Mirrors fed regs AFAIK, now working on NC HB 446 - Permits via DOT, looks 'tarded and only applies to "commercial" drones
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S446v6.pdf

The issue, and my contention, is that the hippy riverkeeper drones go beyond invasion of privacy and approach eco-terrorism...
The ground under my feet is firmer than for, say, sunbathing teenage daughters, no?




For fucks sake, flying a drone over your property is not terrorism.

What damage will you claim from a drone flying over head?


When someone does that and files harassment complaints with regulatory agencies, the costs can be very, very high.


What?

The Ag-Gag law says "liable to the owner or operator of the premises for any damages sustained.".

How does a drone cause damage, short of it crashing and fucking something up?

Link Posted: 11/4/2015 1:50:42 PM EST
From the article linked in the OP, I'm not sure that the ecoNazi would actually be over OP's farm:
"He’s looking at aerial drones in the $5,000 to $7,000 price range, models that would allow him to monitor farms from a safe distance, without trespassing, while being equipped with cameras powerful enough to capture high-definition images. “The increased range is what’s most important to me,” he added. “I’m not going to be violating the law with this investigation, so I need to be on public property, where I’m stationed, but it has to have a range to cover the scope of the land.”
Unless I'm missing something (quite possible), it sounds like he's planning to stand on public property, have his drone hover over public property, and point its hi-res camera onto private property. If the hippiedrone never crosses the property line, it's kinda hard to make a case for physically trespassing. Nor would barrage balloons, nets, etc. work.

The ability to cover 1500 acres would require some really high-end cameras. If that expensive camera were to get fried by some sort of powerful single-wavelength burst of light, or an RC aircraft or another drone were to accidentally have a mid-air collision with it, the hippies would be out some serious $$$. They would naturally sue OP (not that they'd win), so active measures might be cost-prohibitive, no matter how viscerally satisfying they are.

Beat the camera, not the vehicle. A couple of defensive drones mounting xenon strobes to get in the hippiedrone's face might work. Those who are more tech-savvy will have better ideas.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 3:38:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:



For fucks sake, flying a drone over your property is not terrorism.

What damage will you claim from a drone flying over head?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:
snip

The issue, and my contention, is that the hippy riverkeeper drones go beyond invasion of privacy and approach eco-terrorism...
The ground under my feet is firmer than for, say, sunbathing teenage daughters, no?




For fucks sake, flying a drone over your property is not terrorism.

What damage will you claim from a drone flying over head?


You left out "approach", and "eco" - why is that?

Also curious, how many EPA regulated CAFO's are there in MA?
Let's have a look

The flying is not the issue, no damage at all - the recording, photographing is the issue...
pretty easy for peta/HSUS to wreck my reputation and my customers to move on to another grower.
They've made a habit of doing it from the ground, they'll soon be doing it from the air.

I think you're probably a recreational drone user, and I've got no problem at all with the flying part,
would gladly let one recreate here. The thing that seems at odds with common sense is that if you're
legally barred from filming from the ground, how is it ok to do so from 50'?

Plenty of the things we do here taken out of context would look evil. We shoot cattle in the head, sure.
After they broke a leg and there's no alternative.

We have cattle hock deep in manure, sure. After a 4" rainstorm and only in the 15 feet of lane between
the feed bunk and the pasture.

We hang cattle from a chain on hip lifts with a payloader, sure. After a hard calving and just long enough
to get them in a more comfortable sling that we hope will help them become ambulatory after a day or so.

The picture, doesn't always tell the story...

Not trying to be dickish here, genuinely trying to do the right thing while waiting for a test case.















Link Posted: 11/4/2015 4:01:07 PM EST
You need a battalion of poo flinging trebuchets manned by 2000 monkeys.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 4:24:51 PM EST
Don't understand. If you fly a drone around here and record any video or take any pictures of someone else's property or persons without permission you've committed a crime. Dude just got convicted of it the other day.
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 4:32:21 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:


You left out "approach", and "eco" - why is that?

Also curious, how many EPA regulated CAFO's are there in MA?
Let's have a look

The flying is not the issue, no damage at all - the recording, photographing is the issue...
pretty easy for peta/HSUS to wreck my reputation and my customers to move on to another grower.
They've made a habit of doing it from the ground, they'll soon be doing it from the air.

I think you're probably a recreational drone user, and I've got no problem at all with the flying part,
would gladly let one recreate here. The thing that seems at odds with common sense is that if you're
legally barred from filming from the ground, how is it ok to do so from 50'?

Plenty of the things we do here taken out of context would look evil. We shoot cattle in the head, sure.
After they broke a leg and there's no alternative.

We have cattle hock deep in manure, sure. After a 4" rainstorm and only in the 15 feet of lane between
the feed bunk and the pasture.

We hang cattle from a chain on hip lifts with a payloader, sure. After a hard calving and just long enough
to get them in a more comfortable sling that we hope will help them become ambulatory after a day or so.

The picture, doesn't always tell the story...

Not trying to be dickish here, genuinely trying to do the right thing while waiting for a test case.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:
Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
Originally Posted By cc1968cc:
snip

The issue, and my contention, is that the hippy riverkeeper drones go beyond invasion of privacy and approach eco-terrorism...
The ground under my feet is firmer than for, say, sunbathing teenage daughters, no?




For fucks sake, flying a drone over your property is not terrorism.

What damage will you claim from a drone flying over head?


You left out "approach", and "eco" - why is that?

Also curious, how many EPA regulated CAFO's are there in MA?
Let's have a look

The flying is not the issue, no damage at all - the recording, photographing is the issue...
pretty easy for peta/HSUS to wreck my reputation and my customers to move on to another grower.
They've made a habit of doing it from the ground, they'll soon be doing it from the air.

I think you're probably a recreational drone user, and I've got no problem at all with the flying part,
would gladly let one recreate here. The thing that seems at odds with common sense is that if you're
legally barred from filming from the ground, how is it ok to do so from 50'?

Plenty of the things we do here taken out of context would look evil. We shoot cattle in the head, sure.
After they broke a leg and there's no alternative.

We have cattle hock deep in manure, sure. After a 4" rainstorm and only in the 15 feet of lane between
the feed bunk and the pasture.

We hang cattle from a chain on hip lifts with a payloader, sure. After a hard calving and just long enough
to get them in a more comfortable sling that we hope will help them become ambulatory after a day or so.

The picture, doesn't always tell the story...

Not trying to be dickish here, genuinely trying to do the right thing while waiting for a test case.





Because the 'eco' part is pretty meaningless, terrorism is terrorism, the reason for it matters little in this context. You haven't even alluded to any acts of terrorism, other than filming via drone, which isn't terrorism.

I have no drone.

Whats the difference between 50/500/5000'?

In the end, the pictures used to create slander/libel against you don't even need to be of your ranch, this will solve non of your problems.


Link Posted: 11/4/2015 4:35:11 PM EST
Benelli M2 with steel bird shot.

Bag with LOTS more Steel bird shot.

Cleared HOT!!!!!
Link Posted: 11/4/2015 4:36:03 PM EST
So basically your industry has already bought some laws to protect you, and now you want more regulations to protect you because what you do tends to really disgust people off when they see it up close?

Top Top