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."
It's quite literally their job to enforce the laws regarding hunting/game/etc.
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?
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).
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?
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).
I would say using that time on a guy who is doing something which might not be illegal in a couple months is a dickish use of that discretion. Their hands aren't tied here.
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.
I completely disagree with you on your statement.