Illegal Drone flying kills 3000

[IceCoffee]

I counted 2956 eggs.

 

[sar104]

Inflammatory is the correct modifier for that headline. Nonsensical Bovine Excrement is even more accurate. It's one of the most blatantly misleading headlines I've seen.

In that case you clearly don't read much news.

Show us where pilot behavior caused this. The article itself mentioned additional causes of why the birds "may" have vacated the nesting site. There is absolutely no way the rangers or the author know whether or not the birds left because of the drones. I stand by my assertion it's a garbage headline.

Irrelevant deflection. The news article is reporting the Department of Fish and Wildlife statements on this event. Reporting news and critiquing opinions are different things entirely. It's neither their job nor mine to prove or disprove the assertions.

One doesn't need a degree in ornithology to understand logic. You have 2000 birds (another misleading aspect of this fairly tale) who mysteriously left a nesting site. The rangers insist it was the drone that scared them away because they were afraid they were a predator. That entire flock would have died out years ago if two predators can scare away an entire colony by simply flying over them, or in one case, dying (crashing) in their midst.

Logic and life experience dictates this, no degree necessary.

Of course - you know better than the Department of Fish and Wildlife - who needs stupid education and qualifications anyway. Remember that next time you are lecturing people while boasting about your sUAS and FAA qualifications - presumably those don't matter either by your logic.

And I don't the bandwidth or desire to continue this conversation. Here or in other forums.

Of course you don't, because your position is indefensible. You are attacking the media for accurate reporting (aside from the distorted headline) just because you don't like the fact that the Department of Fish and Wildlife are being mean to drones. The fact that they are possibly wrong doesn't justify the media suppressing their opinion.

When a reporter turns off comments on his personal FB page, because people were challenging his assertion, and using logic and facts in the process, it screams volumes about what his agenda is. And what his journalistic integrity is.

The reporter isn't making the assertions - the reporter is reporting assertions. That's his job.

I will continue to do my part in defending this industry against hit pieces and the ignorant. And I strongly encourage everyone to do the same. We are well on our way to being fully accepted by the general public. Garbage like this set us back, and if left unchallenged, will continue to permeate the media. Whether it's in the media, local officials, or even federal lawmakers, we all need to speak up when this type of behavior is present.

And you will become increasingly counterproductive if this is your idea of defending the industry. Intelligent and civilized discussion of the topic is absolutely the solution. Simply ranting belligerently about "BS", "hit pieces" and "ignorance", in reference to reporters and wildlife professionals may get you cheers of support on drone forums, but to the detached observed just makes you look like part of the problem. It's a very poor image for someone trying to be an ambassador for the industry.

And yes, no one should be flying over areas like this. But no one should let their stupid dogs run free either. Fair is fair, let's ban dogs too. [sarcasm]

Ah yes, the obligatory whataboutism just to round off your position. Dogs are already banned there. Incredibly disappointing.

 

[Chip]

The reporter isn't making the assertions - the reporter is reporting assertions. That's his job.

Right but it’s selective assertion reporting which may manipulate or mislead the reader. I think you are being a bit harsh with Vic btw. It’s okay to have different opinions. Both of you are great in your own way. ? namaste

 

[sar104]

Right but it’s selective assertion reporting which may manipulate or mislead the reader.

Fair enough, but as I said before - the headline (in that one specific article) is inflammatory, but reporters rarely write the headlines. I don't understand the issue with the actual reporting. In what way was it selective - i.e. what was not reported that would have made it more balanced?

I think you are being a bit harsh with Vic btw. It’s okay to have different opinions. Both of you are great in your own way. ? namaste

Maybe so, but I have high expectations for ambassadors. He's clearly an influential and valuable contributor to the sUAS industry, and I just hate to see his position diminished by the kind of language he posted in this thread. A better approach might have been to reach out to the news outlets which reported on this event, offering to provide a reasoned and responsible counterpoint to the negative image while still clearly condemning the misuse of drones that did occur here.

 

[DARKSeifer]

Birds in general don't give a f. about drones but:

• If a predator thinks the drone is food, you are down.
• If the birds think the drone is a predator, they'll fight back and try to take you down or move you out from the area, specially if you are near their nesting place, but they'll never abandon their eggs due to that.

Once I was caught in the middle of 500.000 starlings and guess what, nothing happened. Those starlings where being forced out of the area by local workers.

I fly almost every day from my garden and lots of birds are living and nesting there, and none of them flew away when I started flying drones a year ago. I even have a dove that I rescued myself living in a tree in my garden and despite me having more than 150 hours of flight... still lives there.

Like many other "news" that try to criminalize drones, more info is needed to prove the hypothesis that a drone moved thousands of birds of their nesting area.

Like someone said before, humans walking through that area to retrieve their drones could be the cause, but birds don't care too much about drones, they are just curious abut them, but don't associate them with danger, like for example do with gunshots, humans, dogs, etc.