Hacker News Reader

Comment by karaterobot | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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

> 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.

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.

> ...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.

> 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.

> 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.

> perhaps you can't have a weapon on your person while doing certain permitted recovery things

Oh, duh. They're surveilling themselves.

Drone needs to keep last X hours of footage on file at all times. If you're caught, the ranger manually reviews for a moment, takes a copy of the tape and your information, and thanks you for your time. If during the spot or extended review it's found you were stalking an animal with the drone, you're fined. Pay for it with a hunting-drone use fee.

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).

It was unethical to hunt prior to the cheap availability of drones? How about not killing the animal unless you’re sure you can recover it.

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?

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 crepuscular 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.

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?

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".

Seriously, your post was the second one talking about an unfair advantage.

As a non hunter, I was thinking of hunter vs deer not hunter vs hunter. That makes perfect sense.

Makes sense.

Not trying to be a jerk, believe me, but try it some time. Deer have this mysterious ability to f*cking vanish during hunting season. In one town I lived in 3M had a plant with a little pond that was fenced off. During deer season all the deer would hop the fence and hang out at the factory because they knew nobody was allowed to hunt there. It was hilarious.

Sounds like natural selection. The ones that had that intuition survived, and the ones that didn’t were removed from the gene pool.

I'm always entertained by how deer will wait at sidewalks for you to stop or drive by (excluding the dead ones).

Edit: https://i.imgur.com/IssfH8d.jpeg

I would be afraid to eat meat from those animals as they were drinking water from "3M fenced pond".

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?

Because all hunting laws are (or should) be to either a) keep people safe or b) to give the animals a fighting chance, to keep it more "sporting". There's a lot more to hunting than just killing animals, in fact that's a tiny percentage of what you're out there doing (scouting, tracking, hiking around, sitting still for hours, etc). All of the "sport" part of hunting goes out the window if you can simply spotlight deer after dark and knock em over.

And if you wanted to know the REAL reason these laws exist, it's the same reason that gyms over-sell memberships. In many places, including where I live, the state wants your money, but don't want EVERYONE with a license to get an animal, because that wouldn't be sustainable. There are places where more tags are given out, and special hunts are provided to do actual population control, but I'd wager that a lot of states don't have that level of problem, and simply want the cash.

So there ya go. It keeps the "sport" of hunting alive, and generates more revenue for states because they can sell a ton of tags that don't get filled.

Over-selling tags for profit generation sounds like a problem that needs to be taken care of.

I'm a hunter, and it's not a problem at all. You shouldn't be successful every time, and there should be some dang rules :) The state is doing exactly what they should be, given the circumstances. In fact, I'd expect a state with a game PROBLEM to do the same damn thing!

If I was successful every time, I'm not sure I'd enjoy the game as much. And if you've ever hunted, you'd know that you can do everything right and still walk away with nothing to show from your time. That's how it goes, anything less and you end up with killing and not hunting. I appreciate the meat in my freezer, if/when it comes, but being able to guarantee it isn't what I signed up for.

Plus, that "over-selling" is money into outdoor conservation, as long as it's not mismanaged to hell I don't care that they get a little extra. If you start moving that money into other bullshit then sure, we have an issue. But most of us like the outdoors and want to keep it around.

I guess, and give me some rope here because I’m not a deer hunter, it’s that trophy bucks make more trophy bucks.. if you make it easy to cull them then you lose the next generation.

Deer are pretty smart, but they are crepuscular which means they feed at dawn and at dusk, when it’s harder for predators to see them. Using lights gives a hunter a huge advantage.

Because it's basically pouching?

>it's too easy or "unsporting" to hunt deer in this way

To hunt a defenseless deer with a firearm is unsporting in any way. Anyone wanting real, not pretend, sport of hunting can go to Ukraine. One can use any weapons, cameras, lights and drones there, and it still will be noble and "sporting".

How about with a crossbow?

My understanding that even with crossbow the hunter is in no danger. Going with a knife against a large deer would probably be something that may start to feel like a small achievement.

bare hands or it's unsporting and even then our superior brains make it an edge case.

forgot to mention, that because of its power and thus "un-knightly" character the crossbow was banned in 1096 by the Pope.

> 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.

This is not how hunting tag systems work or are designed. Not all tags are filled or should be filled. These systems have to balance many many different competing requirements and interests.

1) You might want to write the rules so the maximum number of people are able to participate in hunting and have an opportunity to connect with nature and their place in the circle of life.

2) You might want to write the rules to make sure you have maximum control over the population of a specific animal. (Ether to protect a native species or control an invasive species)

3) You might want to write the rules to protect commercial interests such as agriculture and livestock production

4) You might want to write the rules to protect human life (we don't think of it as hunting per say be we have declared our intention to wipe aedes aegypti off the face of the earth)

5) Maybe you want to maximize the safety of the hunters and the surrounding communities

6) Maybe you want to write the rules so you don't make people you are not fans of hunting don't have to witness the act. (restricting hunting in some parks or areas of parks/forests)

7) Maybe you just don't like hunting and you want to ban it all together

When you buy a hunting tag you are not buying a permit to KILL an animal you are buying a permit to HUNT the animal within the rules we as a society have decided to use to balance many competing interests. So for invasive animals or animals with overpopulation issues we might have open year round hunting with very little restrictions on weapon type or hunting techniques and you might not even have to buy a permit/tag (think wild boar in texas/clown fish in florida/asian carp in mississippi). For other animals such as elk, moose, mule deer the amount of people who would like to hunt each season out strips the number of animals that can be taken sustainability. So we add restrictions like season dates to make sure the maximum number of young can make it to adulthood. Restrictions on weapons such as a 4 month archery season and only a 1 week rifle season (You might be able to shoot a rifle 300 yards where as a bow you have to be within around 25-40 yards) allowing far more hunters an opportunity to hunt each animal before it is harvested.

If this dude is running a business, he should act professionally and not break the law even a little bit.

Or at the very least, have the professionally dignity to gather up enough cash and resources to control the law and have sway in its enforcement

> 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.

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.

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.

Who is getting cheated here?

The animals, who else?

With the technologies nowadays, they have no cover. No protection, no surroundings to protect themselves; no privacy.

Here in the UK they are using drones to hunt foxes. The drone watches the fox run and then ride with the hounds to the exact point where to hunt, flushing the fox out of the ground.

With no chance of escape; drones are not fair-game.

The only act of protection are outdated rules which are criminality exploited and illegally broken or underfunded to be able to protect. Ironic how we are against drones on humans yet when it comes to animals, oh it's just fine. How long until animal hunting is done by drone?

With AI being able to track their movements, predict, monitor movement all from the air, how the hell do they have any chance of from not being hunted? You tell me, how is that fair? You can't.

I understand hunting, and to some; sure, it's not for fun. I can understand that. I'll be pissed but can turn an eye if your genuine about it. But when it becomes a disadvantage, your a shite of a person.

Don't give me an "would you rather a limping deer who is bleeding to death" -- Don't shoot it in the first place if you know you can't kill it.

Considering HN is American, enjoy slaughtering of animals from hunting to eating veal. Using drones on animal takes all protection away from the animal.

It's not like your local Canadian moose has an Anti-AI vest or a tiger with an RPG or a fox with a nuke.

> Here in the UK they are using drones to hunt foxes.

To your enduring shame, I do believe you've banned coursing of hounds in its traditional form.

Pity. You had a country once. I hope you remember it in your dotage, because it isn't coming back.

> Considering HN is American

I believe you have it confused with the Internet, but, no matter.

Feel free to rail against Americans using drones to find downed prey, however little sense it may make. I assure you we won't notice, but I do hope it leaves you feeling better about things.

Hunters without drones.

I think you might be mixing things up here.

This isn't about using drones to help find an animal you haven't shot yet and are having trouble finding.

This is about using a drone to help locate an animal you did already shoot, but now are having trouble finding because it still managed to run off a bit, and now night is falling. It's going to die no matter what. It's not about not losing your hunt, it's also about putting the animal out of its misery.

This isn't about cheating. It's about reducing suffering.

What is the "unfair advantage?" Seems legitimate to me (or no less legitimate than whatever the 'fair' method is).

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.

I don't think this is the primary reason all though it may be part of it. You are often allowed to hunt/shoot animals at night such as preditors or nocturnal animales like coyotes, skunks, racoons etc..

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.

I don't think the dear is interested in the sport, either way.

I disagree, I think they're more invested in it than anybody.

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.

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.

I’m aware that it is a thing, but it still makes no sense to me, in the framework of fairness. It sounds like it is still a game, just a single-player one, the player is handicapping themself not out of a sense of fairness but in the interest of keeping it fun.

It seems really inhumane, to be honest. However we gussy it up, any rules of sportsmanship that get in the way of a good quick clean kill are just animal cruelty with extra steps.

Lots of traditions, in retrospect, don’t look so great—dogfighting, bullfighting. Times change.

I always figured that the more athletic ability, strategy, and respectable behavior that was required of the humans in order to prevail, the more sporting the pursuit whether there were any games or competitions involved at all.

> I always figured that the more athletic ability, strategy,

But why do people want to do that? I think the purpose is to provide enjoyment, entertainment, fun.

> and respectable behavior

This is where I want to quibble most I think. The only respectable way to kill an animal is in the manner that causes the least possible pain and suffering. If there comes a point where fun impedes the goal of reducing the suffering, then that fun is evil.

I’m probably missing something because I don’t see any distinction between sports and games other than an arbitrary social classification that calls the former more respectable. (The deer don’t see it either, though).

Well, I did want to frame my comment in a way that would still apply for those whose point of view is that no type of hunting is sportsmanlike in their opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com