By David Codrea, GUNS Magazine
“New product lets sportsmen know when drones are near,” a recent Outdoor Hub headline proclaimed. “Technology firm DroneShield has created a device that is capable of detecting nearby unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones.”
Why would you need to know?
“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) announced the launch of their long-planned drone program,” the article reports. The DroneShield device will pick up acoustic signatures to alert hunters “worried about harassment from environmental and activist groups.”
So what’s a hunter to do once he’s been alerted to incoming high tech harassment? The reaction from some readers, that this represented a great target practice opportunity, was hardly surprising. But while the law on flying surveillance drones, particularly over private property, is something new that the article called “a very complicated gray area,” those who have been accused of shooting at drones have faced malicious property damage charges and been threatened with lawsuits.
This is on top of tried and true low-tech tactics. The radical In Defense of Animals offers suggestions “to combat hunting in your area,” that is, tips to sabotage hunts, such as “play loud radios and spread deer repellent or human hair (from barber shops) near hunting areas.”
It all ties into a philosophy expressed by PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk, that “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” That was recently taken to its ultimate depth of absurdity by University of Arizona Professor Emeritus Guy McPherson, who told an audience of rapt global warming environmentalcases, “We’re about as special as bacteria.”
So it’s no wonder that the “four legs good, two legs bad” crowd thinks six legs are even better. They’re now targeting the RoboRoach, a cockroach implant that will allow the insect to be remote-controlled for the purpose of “advanc[ing] the study of neural circuits [and getting] kids interested in neuro science.” PETA wants it declared illegal, and their counsel is claiming, with a straight face, that “it promotes the practice of veterinary medicine without a license by altering an animal from its normal condition.”
With this being the level of thought advanced by “leaders” of the “animal rights’ movement, it’s also no wonder that some of their low-hanging fruit followers are inspired to sink to even lower levels of lunacy, right down to the predictable outcome: Violence against humans.
“Man Opens Fire on Wis. Duck Hunters,” 5 Eyewitness News in St. Paul reported.
“I’m an animal lover and bird lover. I don’t like to see things die, especially for the sport of killing,” Van Hawkinson told reporters, explaining why he fired his .410 in anger when he saw two hunters in a canoe.
This time, no one was hurt. But had someone been, they could have expected the same sympathy a reader expressed in a comment to a story about a man shot and killed in a hunting accident.
“Chalk up one for the defenseless unarmed deer,” the useful idiot droned. “I have no sympathy for people who stalk and shoot animals for the sport of it.”