Colorado town considers drone hunting licenses

Colorado town considers drone hunting licenses
US Government drones may not be welcome in Deer Trail, Colorado come Aug. 6
US Government drones may not be welcome in Deer Trail, Colorado come Aug. 6
View 1 Image
US Government drones may not be welcome in Deer Trail, Colorado come Aug. 6
US Government drones may not be welcome in Deer Trail, Colorado come Aug. 6

Deer Trail, Colorado (population 600 or so) is to vote on a local ordinance that would allow drone hunting licenses and bounties for shooting down UAVs, according to ABC affiliate KMGH-TV.

Those with a valid drone hunting license will be rewarded US$100 if they present "identifiable parts" of UAVs "known to be owned or operated by the United States federal government," the draft ordinance states.

"We do not want drones in town," local Phillip Steel, who came up with the draft, tells KMGH-TV. "They fly in town, they get shot down."

If passed, the ordinance would see one-year drone hunting licenses sell for $25, and there's talk of a novelty drone-hunting festival to boost tourism.

To Steel it's a serious issue, however. "This is a very symbolic ordinance. Basically, I do not believe in the idea of a surveillance society, and I believe we are heading that way."

The town board is set to vote on the ordinance on Aug. 6.

See KMGH-TV's report for the full story.

Source: KMGH-TV

As much as I approve of the sentiments of the town, short of using shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles, there is no simple way to knock a drone out of the sky.
Offering "hunting licenses" encourages knuckleheads to shoot rifles in the air. That never ends well. Especially since they haven't any idea how to discriminate between a drone and some adventurous soul in an ultra-light.
I agree with flink, I wonder how many ultralight pilots would be shot down by some one on the ground thinking they are a drone. This is in addition to how many remote controlled planes and helicopters that might get shot down by some one thinking it was a drone.
While I think it is creepy to have a drone watching us, I doubt they are all used to spy on people. I can see drones being used in search and rescue. If one of these are shot down, the life or lives of those it was sent to look for is at risk.
I guess one could tell the home of a drone hunter by the nose cone and landing gear of a drone being on their wall their deer hunters have heads and hoofs of deer they hunted.
@flink: I'm sure a drone can easily be brought down with small arms fire. We're not talking about million dollar military drones here like that pictured. The real issue is what happens when the drone crashes on someone's house or worse?
There are a lot of problems with this ordinance, but I like its style.
Drones are a danger to commercial and private air traffic. That was a stupid idea to begin with. Yes, shoot them down. We need a whole new class of weapons to do so. this could create millions of jobs.
What a bunch of morons! Not only are they drawing unwanted (?) attention to themselves with this idiotic move, but they're kidding themselves if they think drones are a bigger threat to their privacy than the massive number of security cameras that are basically ubiquitous all over our society. In terms of privacy, drones should be among the very, very least of our concerns.
I love how they are trying to make destruction of private and public property legal. Not to mention all of the formentioned logistical issues in regard to safety. This has to be one of the dumbest laws ever considered.
So, any yahoo with $25 can now legally fire projectiles into the air with absolute no regard to where resulting airborne projectiles land (say on a nearby school). The next logical step is to shoot stationary surveillance cameras, and after that anyone who might be suspected as a "government eavesdropper". A fine line between civil liberties and anarchy indeed.
They don't have a right to be judge jury and executioner and they are overstepping their authority.
How many drones "known to be owned or operated by the United States federal government" are they expecting to be flown over their town of 600 people anyway?
You are talking about giving permission to anyone with weapons without having to call any centralized command for permission to fire on overhead aircraft. This will go well about the day Jennifer Lawrence lifts my restraining order and starts returning my phone calls.
Silverbird, I understand your statement, but you seem to miss the point of laws. This law requires you to have a hunting permit before you can shoot down a drone. It doesn't make anything legal.
That said if a town wanted to make dumping garbage on the side of the road illegal, they have that right. If the town wanted to pass a law that said anyone who removes trash from the side of the road would be rewarded, that would be legal. One could argue that the person is stealing the trash that belonged to someone else, but the law is the law.
Instead of considering a drone as an expensive government tool, consider it trash that some people put in the air. So removing that trash would be permitted if the town deemed it so.
Luke Parsons
Just curious how a local council law can overrule a federal law? Wouldn't shooting down a drone owned by the US Fed Govt. be an act of terrorism? Or at the very least vandalism against the Fed Govt.?
Load More