Good reason to carry some less than lethal shells in the field while bird hunting?


PDA






Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 20, 2009, 12:04 AM
Some rubber shot or rock salt maybe?

Warning - you are about to witness the activities of some real nincompoops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frv4iKaisFc

If you enjoyed reading about "Good reason to carry some less than lethal shells in the field while bird hunting?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
shaggy430
July 20, 2009, 12:37 AM
They appear to be a domestic terrorist group. Using aircraft to wage mayhem.

2RCO
July 20, 2009, 12:59 AM
Wouldn't this be trespass? I need to look and see where "airspace" actually begins.
The fact then evading an officer--all put on tape. They put the Hunt Club out of business???? We really need someone to sue this group out of existence.

Precision Paper Puncher
July 20, 2009, 01:09 AM
looks like a good reason to keep some bolo loads....


take that chute right to the ground...




no officer, i thought it was one of those peta groups, the way he swooped down at me, i thought he might have had a gun, and retaliate for me trying to get some dinner for my family tonight....

i wasn't aiming at him, but i figured i might try to disable the chute, before he made another pass at me...

CapnMac
July 20, 2009, 01:09 AM
Comments section is a mix of sad and hillarious.
The "spokesperson" for shark.org is willing to embrace any illegality as long as that oppresses what that same person sees as "the immorality of hunting."

So, not only do we see a video of deliberate FAA flight rules violation, and a hunter harrassment violation (which draws the County LE), the shark.org commentator has made comments supporting any future violation of hunter harassment. Video closing comments reports that they actions clised the hunting club, too.

Hmm, willful violation of FAA flight/safety rules?
Deliberate aforethought intention to violate hunters' rights laws?
Deliberate intentention to prevent a person engaging in lawful trade oe commerce?

Sounds a bit like an "admission against interest" to me, but, I'm only an RKI, not a barrister.

jim in Anchorage
July 20, 2009, 01:31 AM
No hunter harassment laws in Illinois? The goofy chicks shooting the vidio would be easy to catch. I wonder how they would feel about it if they where on a plane going down after sucking geese in the jets.

41magsnub
July 20, 2009, 01:40 AM
No hunter harassment laws in Illinois? The goofy chicks shooting the vidio would be easy to catch. I wonder how they would feel about it if they where on a plane going down after sucking geese in the jets.

If it saved one goose from being culled I would guess they would be cool with it, or at least they should be if they were intellectually honest.

41magsnub
July 20, 2009, 01:41 AM
I'm proud of the hunter for not reacting. I would be having a very very hard time not doing something I would regret later for a number of reasons. Making a Martyr for the wackos would be one of them.

rondog
July 20, 2009, 01:44 AM
At last! A perfect use for those 12 gauge "flamethrower" Dragon's Fire shells. Nylon parasails and fire don't get along well.

2RCO
July 20, 2009, 01:56 AM
The Hunter made us all look good. This guy should be applauded!

bang_bang
July 20, 2009, 03:30 AM
I have a feeling these idiots will end up like many geese do each year when they try and ruin the right hunter's day....:D

paintballdude902
July 20, 2009, 03:35 AM
here in nc there are laws to protect from this

i dont remember the exact phrasing but its something like "interfering with ones right to legally hunt" its a misdomener with a decently hefty fine

j-easy
July 20, 2009, 06:35 AM
wow what a bunch of jerks. i hope the FAA revokes whatever licensing that pilot has.

BFE
July 20, 2009, 07:39 AM
In most State's we have laws against this kind of thing and they would be arrested for these kind of action's. Goes to show what kind of President we have now being he came from this State and helped make their laws. IL has plenty of stupid laws to deal with and I will not spend a dime in that State period and no I have never been there but took this stance a long time ago because of their laws.

3pairs12
July 20, 2009, 08:51 AM
Crazy treehuggers are flying now. Great.

627PCFan
July 20, 2009, 08:55 AM
I was waiting for the hunter to introduce the pilot to the butt end of a Browning on one of those fly byes.

mbt2001
July 20, 2009, 08:55 AM
domestic terrorist group. Using aircraft to wage mayhem.

+1

Sometimes I wonder if these groups don't actually work for land developers.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 20, 2009, 09:08 AM
Crazy treehuggers are flying now.

Don't confuse tree huggers with anti hunting idgits. I'm a tree hugger but not an anti-hunting idgit. Two different things.

mbt2001
July 20, 2009, 10:24 AM
If you are a hunter, you ARE a conservationist. So we are all treehuggers.

These folks are something else entirely. They are criminals. Terrorist nut jobs that live free from fear of prosecution because they are PC.

MCgunner
July 20, 2009, 10:32 AM
In Texas, we have a hunter harassment law. I'd be shooting at chutes, myself.

There's a model airplane club next to some land where I used to dove hunt. One of them was buzzing me one day when I stood up and swung on the airplane. He took the hint. ROFL!

ArmedBear
July 20, 2009, 10:36 AM
i hope the FFA revokes whatever licensing that pilot has.

The Future Farmers of America?:D

Hell, I hope 4H and the Campfire Girls revoke his license as well, goddammit!

I don't know about other states, but I don't think anyone here has ever been convicted of anything for "peppering" someone who walks (or flies) in front of hunters who are actively hunting, with their legal quarry there.

WRT less lethal: I doubt it matters if you hit the chute with rocksalt or steel shot. A couple hits and the thing is going down. Don't shoot anything you don't want to shoot, even with rocksalt.

MCgunner
July 20, 2009, 10:41 AM
I don't think there is licensing of ultralights.

ArmedBear
July 20, 2009, 10:44 AM
Guy should be ashamed of himself anyway. Untreated gasoline exhaust, and oh what a carbon footprint.:D

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 20, 2009, 11:33 AM
I guess if your state *does* have a hunter harassment law, then you'd be privileged to use *reasonable* force to effectuate the citizen's arrest for the crime in progress. Since this guy you don't know can easily make his escape in his little chute-plane, seems to me it'd be reasonable to tackle him as he made a low sweep or otherwise try to bring him down (unharmed of course, or with only minor brusing). I would then cuff him, duct tape his mouth shut and put him in the pickup truck, finish my hunt (while he watched from the pickup), and THEN take him in to the sheriff/ magistrate for booking. Wonder what the cheering section would have done if he had done THAT? :evil:

Does Illinois have, or do they not, a hunter harassment law?

The Future Farmers of America?

Hell, I hope 4H and the Campfire Girls revoke his license as well

Hee hee. :)

ArmedBear
July 20, 2009, 11:43 AM
Got to practice with that lasso...

Hippie team roping!

I'd never actually been to a rodeo until a few weeks ago. It was kinda fun. Felt a little bit sorry for the calves, though, getting thrown on the ground and tied up like that, not even knowing what the hell was going on...

Team-roping hippies would make it even more fun, since nobody would feel sorry for them...:D

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 20, 2009, 11:45 AM
Hippie team roping!

I'm in!

Funny you mention rodeos - this same Shark group has a bunch of anti-rodeo videos on youtube, which can be seen right from that page I linked to above. Crusading against rodeos is their biggest thing - I actually agree with them to an extent on that issue.

The bolo 12 ga shells are a good idea. Not for the chute though - that may cause him to crash & die - but to bolo his legs/body to maybe bring him down.

Brings new meaning to the phrase "Pull!", don't it?

And when you're quacking away on your duck call, remember that it can also attract 'quacks' (after all, it IS a "quack call"!). :)

Tim the student
July 20, 2009, 11:54 AM
WOW! Just WOW!

Things like that make me want to take a video camera with me when I hunt. I would like to know the outcome of this.

I like that they invite people to do something with real "sport" in the comments, like giving the game a gun. If they are willing to play that game, I am. Even if it was just with a paintball gun so I don't go to jail.

JohnnyOrygun
July 20, 2009, 01:16 PM
Bear strength pepper spray!

black_powder_Rob
July 20, 2009, 01:35 PM
i would say pepper spray or even better bring a paint ball gun with you on your hunt for just such an occasion. Can you see the look on his face when you start opening up on him with one:D probably scare the crap out of him.:p and i don't think that you could be charged with anything other than having a good game of paint ball!!!:evil:

ArmedBear
July 20, 2009, 01:39 PM
One of the paint ball guns that looks like an M4 would be ideal.:D

ArmedBear
July 20, 2009, 01:43 PM
Also have been curious about chain shot, since I saw Master and Commander.

schlockinz
July 20, 2009, 01:56 PM
Idjuts like these piss me off to no end. I had to deal with a woman trying to ruin my bow hunting one day in NY, damn m*******s coming down and making matters worse.

mbt2001
July 20, 2009, 02:40 PM
These folks WANT you to do something... That is why they were taunting the dude from the road and from the Air. The cops should have arrested them for Inciting a Riot or some other disorder type law. The police are there to ensure this kind of thing doesn't turn ugly and the fact that they left should be a crime.

Marlin 45 carbine
July 20, 2009, 03:01 PM
evidently a private hunt club so I say open up on the wings - and repeatedly!:evil:

chas08
July 20, 2009, 05:34 PM
I admire the hunters restraint. I might have been more apt to whittle away at the wingtips with T-Shot. :evil:

CoRoMo
July 20, 2009, 05:54 PM
IT’S AGAINST THE LAW TO:
17. Interfere with hunters, including alarming or distracting prey; causing
prey to flee by light or noise; chasing prey by foot or vehicle; throwing
objects; making movement; threatening hunters; erecting barriers to deny
access to hunting areas and intentionally injecting yourself into the line of
fire. Violators face criminal prosecution and may have to pay damages to
the victim, as well as court costs.

From the Colorado DoW Big Game Brochure. (http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/3F234E0F-9A7E-4E36-9263-7DE1CE74B424/0/index_information.pdf)

It be nice to see these types prosecuted.

ArmedBear
July 20, 2009, 06:21 PM
intentionally injecting yourself into the line of
fire. Violators face criminal prosecution and may have to pay damages to
the victim, as well as court costs.

ROTFLMAO

So you can shoot 'em, then have them arrested, press charges, and also sue them for wrecking your day of hunting.

We need MORE laws like this!

bad_aim_billy
July 20, 2009, 08:45 PM
Typical Illinois absurdity.

That stuff wouldn't fly out here.

Pun intended.

MCgunner
July 20, 2009, 09:51 PM
Guy should be ashamed of himself anyway. Untreated gasoline exhaust, and oh what a carbon footprint.

And those ultalights all use big displacement two strokes! God, the fumes, the unburnt hydrocarbons, probably killed 3 or 4 birds by themselves!

I might have been more apt to whittle away at the wingtips with T-Shot.

Frankly, that'd be my first thought. LOL Probably why these idiots don't pull this stuff in Texas. Don't mess with Texas.

MCgunner
July 20, 2009, 10:06 PM
Texas 62.0125. HARASSMENT OF HUNTERS, TRAPPERS, AND FISHERMEN. (a) This section may be cited as the Sportsman's Rights Act.
(b) In this section:
(1) "Wildlife" means all species of wild mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, or amphibians.
(2) "Process of hunting or catching" means any act directed at the lawful hunting or catching of wildlife, including camping or other acts preparatory to hunting or catching of wildlife that occur on land or water on which the affected person has the right or privilege of hunting or catching that wildlife.
(c) No person may intentionally interfere with another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife.
(d) No person may intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife for the purpose of disrupting a person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife.
(e) No person may enter or remain on public land or enter or remain on private land without the landowner's or his agent's consent if the person intends to disrupt another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife.
(f) This section does not apply to a peace officer of this state, a law enforcement officer of the United States, a member of the armed forces of the United States or of this state, or employees of the department or other state or federal agencies having statutory responsibility to manage wildlife or land during the time that the officer, member, or employee is in the actual discharge of official duties.
(g) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
(h) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the defendant's conduct is protected by the right to freedom of speech under the constitution of this state or the United States.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 731, 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1985.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 700, 1, eff. Sept. 11,
1993.



Notice part h at the end. They can easily wiggle out of this with a hot rod lawyer, I'm betting.

This is from this site.... http://www.huntsab.org/hunter_harassment_laws.htm

Check these buttwipes out.... http://www.huntsab.org/ They sound like domestic terrorists. Their site talks about "bomb recipies" and such. The top of they page says something like "Tired of signs? We have guns". Sounds like there could be a shooting war if they come to MY marsh.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 20, 2009, 10:23 PM
Hmm, well there it is right there in the Illinois statute:


Illinois (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 125/2 (Supp. 1996))ILLINOIS COMPILED STATUTES ANNOTATED
CHAPTER 720. CRIMINAL OFFENSES OFFENSES AGAINST PERSONS ACT 125. HUNTER INTERFERENCE PROHIBITION ACT125/1. Definitions 1. Definitions. As used in this Act:
a. "Wild animal" means any wild creature the taking of which is authorized by the fish and game laws of the State.
b. "Taking", means the capture or killing of a wild animal and includes travel, camping, and other acts preparatory to taking which occur on lands or waters upon which the affected person has the right or privilege to take such wild animal.
P.A. 83-153, 1, eff. Jan 1, 1984.
Formerly ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 61, p 301.
125/2. Interference with lawful taking of wild animal
2. Any person who performs any of the following is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor:
(a) interferes with the lawful taking of a wild animal by another with intent to prevent the taking.
(b) disturbs or engages in an activity that will tend to disturb wild animals, with intent to prevent their lawful taking.
(c) disturbs another person who is engaged in the lawful taking of a wild animal or who is engaged in the process of taking, with intent to dissuade or otherwise prevent the taking.
(d) enters or remains upon public lands, or upon private lands without permission of the owner or his agent, or a lessee, with intent to violate this Section.
P.A. 83-153, 2, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.
125/3. Failure to cease and desist
3. Any person who knowingly performs any of the following acts is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(a) fails to obey the order of a peace officer to desist from conduct in violation of Section 2 of this Act if the officer observes such conduct, or has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has engaged in such conduct that day or that the person plans or intends to engage in such conduct that day on a specific premises.
(b) is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of Section 2. For purposes of this Section, a "second or subsequent violation" means a conviction under this Act within 2 years of a prior violation arising from a separate set of circumstances. The sentence of any person convicted of a second or subsequent violation shall include imprisonment for not less than 7 days. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation is not eligible for court supervision.
P.A. 83-153, 3, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.
125/4. Injunctions--Damages
4. (a) Any court may enjoin conduct which would be in violation of Section 2 of this Act upon petition by a person affected or who reasonably may be affected by such conduct, upon a showing that such conduct is threatened or that it has occurred on a particular premises in the past and that it is not unreasonable to expect that under similar circumstances it will be repeated.
(b) A court shall award all resulting costs and damages to any person adversely affected by a violation of Section 2, which may include an award for punitive damages. In addition to other items of special damage, the measure of damages may include expenditures of the affected person for license and permit fees, travel, guides, special equipment and supplies, to the extent that such expenditures were rendered futile by prevention of the taking of a wild animal.
(c) A court shall revoke, for a period of one year to 5 years, any Illinois hunting, fishing, or trapping privilege, license or permit of any person convicted of violating any provision of this Act.
P.A. 83-153, 4, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.


So I don't know why they weren't arrested in this case (or maybe they were, but they omitted that part in the video).


MC:

Notice part h at the end. They can easily wiggle out of this with a hot rod lawyer, I'm betting.

Yes and no - actually the TX legislature, by making free speech an affirmative DEFENSE is actually trying to make it harder to defend against the charge. An affirmative defense must be proven by the Defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, after the prima facie case of the crime has been proven (beyond a reasonable doubt). So if it were NOT specifically labeled as an affirmative defense, then the defendant could argue that the prosecutor had the burden of proving - beyond a reasonable doubt - that the action in question was NOT an expression of free speech, as an element of the crime, in addition to the other elements. That would make it harder on the prosecutor.

And in any event, convicted or not, the LEO is gonna haul your stupid blissninny butt into the pokey until you post bail. A valid defense won't prevent that, if the LEO is on the hunter's side of things.

MCgunner
July 20, 2009, 10:28 PM
Dang, Doc, that's why I hate lawyers. They don't use simple logic. ROFL!

Whatever, but groups like that are kinda scary. I mean, these idiots are kinda radical. They don't care a nit for human life, not one nit, apparently. This "hunt sabotage" group sounds a bit like ALF or the goons that go around blowing up hummer dealerships in the NW. Now they're not going to have hummer dealerships to attack. Maybe I need to start carrying more firepower to the marsh on my duck hunts, toss the SKS in the van and a few hundred rounds in stripper clips. Non-lethal? I don't think so.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 20, 2009, 10:44 PM
Now they're not going to have hummer dealerships to attack. Maybe I need to start carrying more firepower to the marsh on my duck hunts, toss the SKS in the van and a few hundred rounds in stripper clips. Non-lethal? I don't think so.

Now that made me LOL! Yeah, I'm sure they're coming after YOU now that the Hummer dealerships are closing! :)

MCgunner
July 20, 2009, 11:00 PM
Well, they have more time on their hands, now. LOL

On that site, they condone ALF tactics. ALF has killed people, mostly industry types for off the wall reasons, laboratory animal testing or such. I guess this might be a new attempt to put fourth ALF type tactics in the field against hunters? I know they're few and we are the many, but still, could be some incidents to read about in the paper this season, never know. I figure they'll all be in the more liberal parts of the world, though, where this scum resides, like maybe Austin....ROFL!

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 21, 2009, 10:15 AM
On that site, they condone ALF tactics

Wow, didn't catch that part - a bit frightening, yes. More so if you live in a place where they are concentrated.

ArmedBear
July 21, 2009, 11:06 AM
The top of they page says something like "Tired of signs? We have guns".

Perfect, in a way.

Our society frowns on shooting people with signs. If they're pointing guns at people, it's open season on them legally, morally and in the eyes of the public at large.

Note to self: keep a .30-06 around when bird hunting. I'll bet I could hit them farther away than they could hit me, if they really think they can SHOOT me to keep me from getting some quail to eat.

That's what we're talking about, here: people who would be willing to KILL me because I'm going to harvest and eat a few birds (with a 95% season-to-season death rate from natural causes).

EatBugs
July 21, 2009, 11:32 AM
geeze... these guys are going to get themselves killed.... that hunter showed alot of restraint...Hunters(slobs) have shot and killed other hunter for less.... what about trespassers will be shot? wasn't that guy acting aggressively towards the hunter?.. the hunter could of acted in self defense....I might of... I would be scared that the next sweep was when I was going to get hurt by some crazy radical.... they have killed in the past.....

And wasn't standing in the road and yelling and basically just being there an act of disturbing the hunt? Even if the ultralight wasn't flying overhead the geese wouldn't of come with those people hanging out....It was obvious by their comments what they were up to.... even if they couldn't get the flier they could of gotten the others and confiscated the camera for evidence....

Did u read any of the comments? typical radical crap... someone says something and the shark guy comes back with a smart@$$ comment... not an actual defense for his actions...

I just hate it when a squirrels life is valued over mine...

MCgunner
July 21, 2009, 11:46 AM
Quote:
On that site, they condone ALF tactics
Wow, didn't catch that part - a bit frightening, yes. More so if you live in a place where they are concentrated.


http://www.huntsab.org/about_us.htm

Go to this page. Down at the bottom it says....

We believe that every non-human life is important in its own right. We encourage, promote and support a Vegan lifestyle.

Though in no way affiliated with the Animal Liberation Front, we condone any action to save animal lives as long as those actions are conducted in accordance within A.L.F. guidelines:

1. To liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.

2. To inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.

3. To reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.

4. To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.

5. To analyze the ramifications of all proposed actions, and never apply generalizations when specific information is available.

Note number four. They seem to value non-human life over human life just judging by past actions of ALF. They will bomb laboratories and farms and such with no apparent concern for who might be there when the bomb goes off or the fire starts.

More info on them at this site. Note that ALF and ELF (Earth Liberation Front formerly known as "Earth First") work hand in hand.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

This "huntsabotage" site is the first I've seen, however, to condone attacts on hunters. The mention of guns, not signs, is the scary part to me, knowing full well what these fruitloops have done in the past to various establishments. ALF/ELF is quite violent and their members are mentally deranged IMHO.

tunnug
July 21, 2009, 11:53 AM
next time anyone expects this type of harassment, throw a can of wasp/hornet spray with your gear, the stream of this will go about 20 feet, when they get close hit them with it, works like pepper spray just cheaper.

ArmedBear
July 21, 2009, 12:18 PM
LOL

Good idea, tunnug.

It might also be a good way to test out bear spray.

schlockinz
July 21, 2009, 02:56 PM
I wonder if they'd come after bear or cat hunters, they wouldn't hurt the kill dog if it was loosed upon them would they?:evil:

indoorsoccerfrea
July 21, 2009, 06:19 PM
That hunter showed remarkable restraint... good for him. I don't think I could have acted quite so calm.

SHusky57
July 21, 2009, 07:05 PM
I bet they own leather products and consume factory processed meat and cheese.....

frogomatic
July 22, 2009, 01:02 AM
"it's comin right for us!!"

seriously though, if he's flying low and in my direction, I would percieve it as an attack, and a potentially deadly one at that, especially if it happend more than once. I think the bear spray idea would be an excellent deterrant to this kind of stupidity, or maybe a flamethrower aimed at the chute...:D

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 22, 2009, 11:47 AM
Giant dose of pepper spray to the face of that guy sounds hilarious to me. I wonder if you could buy an uber-powerful pepperspray that shot out like 15 feet like a flamethrower? Like to see him continue to fly after that. And hey, it was self-defense - as you said:

"it's comin right for us!!"

Ha ha! :D

Art Eatman
July 22, 2009, 11:53 AM
As long as y'all remember that the FAA and the FBI have no sense of humor whatsoever when it comes to messing with any airplane of whatever sort...

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 22, 2009, 12:09 PM
Unless they're South Park fans like you, Art! :)

schlockinz
July 23, 2009, 11:46 AM
Just make sure that scuzzlebutt isn't the pilot

ArmedBear
July 23, 2009, 12:07 PM
wonder if you could buy an uber-powerful pepperspray that shot out like 15 feet like a flamethrower?

http://www.udap.com/images/Marksprayanimated2.gif

http://www.udap.com/

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 24, 2009, 09:17 AM
Nice; that's exactly what I want; what brand is that?

ArmedBear
July 24, 2009, 10:47 AM
Website link under pic.:)

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 24, 2009, 06:29 PM
OK, I'm a moron - didn't see the link. Thanks.

Nicodemus38
July 25, 2009, 12:28 AM
hunter harressment is a mere misdameanor, maybe some probation with a fine

interfering/harrassing federally regulated game birds is something that normally falls into the 6-12 months of jail time, federal stuff you know.

ultralight aircraft are registered by the faa. you need to have a pilots liscence with correct endorsement for ultralight/experimental aircraft.
I went through an aircraft phase and discovered that to fly ultralights, sail plans, and powered parachutes you need to have a pilots liscence with special endorsements. Otherwise you go to jail if caught.
Sadly enough, a person would need to spend 30 thou at the local college to get a pilots liscence, and then another 10 thou for the endorsement to fly a sail plane in order to merely wiggle the control stick of a sail plane when its off the ground.

H&Hhunter
July 25, 2009, 01:45 AM
Sadly enough, a person would need to spend 30 thou at the local college to get a pilots liscence, and then another 10 thou for the endorsement to fly a sail plane in order to merely wiggle the control stick of a sail plane when its off the ground.

Absolutely and totally incorrect. You do not need to go to a local college to get a pilots license and a private license is under $10,000 much less 30K A sail plane "endorsement" Is, depending on where you do it around $3,000.

However to fly a powered parachute as per FAR 61.313 you are required to posses a sport pilot certificate with a Powered parachute endorsement which requires 12 hours flight time with 2 hours solo and 10 hours instruction. So yes these guys are required to have a license and yes they are operating an aircraft in a dangerous and reckless manner which is a grounds for violation up to and including certificate revocation. I will be sending these links to my local FAA FSDO office.

FAR(Federal Aviation Regulations) 91.13 is quite clear on this subject here it verbatim.

'Sec. 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.'

jim in Anchorage
July 25, 2009, 02:01 AM
103.7 Certification and registration.
(a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness.

(b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates.
(c) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type.


Right out of the federal aviation regulations. By the way,my license cost $10,000,and knowing some things I know now,it could have been a lot less.

jim in Anchorage
July 25, 2009, 02:41 AM
However to fly a powered parachute as per FAR 61.313 you are required to posses a sport pilot certificate with a Powered parachute endorsement which requires 12 hours flight time with 2 hours solo and 10 hours instruction. So yes these guys are required to have a license and yes they are operating an aircraft in a dangerous and reckless manner which is a grounds for violation up to and including certificate revocation. I will be sending these links to my local FAA FSDO office
I think that the LS certificate would only be needed if carrying more then one person,or the aircraft weighs more then 254 lbs empty.Otherwise,its a ultra light,and 103.7 app

H&Hhunter
July 25, 2009, 12:30 PM
Jim,

I think you're right about the single seat PP going under 254LBS the twin seat ones do require a license.

However FAR part 103 is quite clear on the the operation of an ultralight in dangerous manner.

"Subpart B-Operating Rules
103.9 Hazardous operations.

(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property.

(b) No person may allow an object to be dropped from an ultralight vehicle if such action creates a hazard to other persons or property. "

I've been an active CFII-MEI for 22 years and I will not go anywhere near these things or will I consider doing sport pilot certs. It is simply to much liability.

jim in Anchorage
July 25, 2009, 10:44 PM
He may not have a certificate to pull but I wish a smart prosecutor could figure a way to confiscate the machine. I would think using something in a menacing manner would be grounds for seizure.

Double Naught Spy
July 25, 2009, 11:00 PM
Good reason to carry some less than lethal shells in the field while bird hunting?
Some rubber shot or rock salt maybe?

You would be using lethal force for a non-lethal situation. That would be bad.

Lou McGopher
July 29, 2009, 02:05 PM
I bet they own leather products and consume factory processed meat and cheese.....

I doubt this. Mostly these are vegans, and they are pretty careful about not consuming animal products, including medicines (although they hypocritically may not reject medicine discovered or tested on animals).

Their belief is that all animals have equal rights, and that it is wrong to cause or increase the suffering of another animal. By "animal," they mean the ones that have a central nervous system (CNS) (thus by their reasoning it's okay to kill jellyfish with your outboard motor, but not okay to kill manatees). It's this line of reasoning where you can expose their hypocrisy. Insects have a CNS. Ask them how many bugs they've killed with the grill or windshield of their car this week (or sucked into and chopped up by the propeller of that ultralight). Ask them how many annelids or rodents or birds were killed or injured by the construction of the house in which they live, or by the planting of the crops that they eat. You won't trip up a well-read vegan/animal rights activist with most arguments, but this is one area that you always will. Confronted with these facts, every vegan/animal rights advocate I've spoken to has stammered or muttered some half-baked excuse about not really trying to stop animal suffering, but reduce the level of it (how does one measure that and where should that level be?), or simply had no answer at all. They condemn your hobbies and lifestyle while making exceptions for the conveniences of modern living that they are not willing to give up themselves.

Of course, pointing out their hypocrisy doesn't invalidate their argument - it simply shows that they are hypocrites. To invalidate the argument, you could argue that only humans have rights. For example, say that rights come about as a tacit agreement between people - you don't hurt me, I won't hurt you, and if you hurt me, then you have no claim to demand that I continue respecting your wish not to be hurt - and such agreements cannot be made between humans and other animals. But do some reading and know the subject well before getting into that. It's a complicated subject, but you can bet that the strict vegan with whom you're arguing will be educated on the subject. ;)

But I wouldn't shoot that ultralight flyer unless you genuinely believed yourself to be in danger of grave bodily harm. It'd be wiser to bust them on trespassing charges... maybe attempted assault or reckless endangerment. But, IANAL.

zombienerd
July 29, 2009, 04:07 PM
ultralight aircraft are registered by the faa. you need to have a pilots liscence with correct endorsement for ultralight/experimental aircraft.

Not true at all.

Regulation of ultralight aircraft in the United States is covered by the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 (Federal Aviation Regulations) Part 103 or 14 CFR Part 103, which defines an "ultralight" as a vehicle that:
* Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;
* Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;
* Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and
* If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or
* If powered:
*# Weighs less than 254 pounds (115 kg) empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;
*# Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons (19 L);
*# Is not capable of more than 55 knots (102 km/h) calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and
*# Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots (45 km/h) calibrated airspeed.
Certification
* Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness.
* Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates.
* Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type.
Operations
* No person may operate an ultralight vehicle except between the hours of sunrise and sunset.
* Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, ultralight vehicles may be operated during the twilight periods 30 minutes before official sunrise and 30 minutes after official sunset or, in Alaska, during the period of civil twilight as defined in the Air Almanac, if:
*# The vehicle is equipped with an operating anticollision light visible for at least 3 statute miles; and
*# All operations are conducted in uncontrolled airspace.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.

Weight allowances can be made for two-seat trainers, amphibious landing gear, and ballistic parachute systems.

In the United States no license or training is required by law for ultralights, but training is highly advisable.

Art Eatman
July 29, 2009, 08:42 PM
Whatcha do if some doofus harasses you in his ultralight is do a wind dance. Ever see one at wide open throttle, going downwind whether he wants to or not? We had a bit of wind come up during an ultralight's maiden voyage. 30 mph plane in a 40 mph headwind to get back to the strip. He set down okay after running out of gas, but it was a long walk home.

MCgunner
July 29, 2009, 09:58 PM
I read a lot about UL's with interest 20 years ago, never bought one, though. I'm not suicidal even though I have done some crazy things with motorcycles in my life. But, from what I've read, you should stay on the ground if the wind gets 15 mph and it's windy as hell most of the time down here, so I really don't know if you could get a lot of air time in one in this area. I've seen a few fly over, though, on the calm days. They sure look like fun and it's the only way my broke butt would ever fly other than on a Southwest flight or something.

Clifford
July 30, 2009, 12:22 AM
That made me so mad I wanted to scream. Kudo's to the hunter, I don't know if I could have handled that as well as he did.

JimmAr
July 30, 2009, 03:18 AM
I wouldnt of been able to hold myself back I would of maced him and or shot at his parachute when he flew so low.. This kind of thing pisses me off.. makes me wanna go out to that field in season and video me blasting birds all day. Mail that to the prick..

They are the west burrough baptist church of peta.

deerhunter61
July 30, 2009, 08:11 AM
This is why I am glad I live in Texas....Not that something like this can not happen here...it is just less likely to happen here!

MCgunner
July 30, 2009, 09:43 AM
I remember one duck season about 20 years ago, some animal rights morons showed up east of Houston at a boat ramp with their signs and megaphones. I'm not sure where it was, but I'm thinkin' around Annuac somewhere. The hunters showed up, lauched their air boats and shallow draft outboards, and went hunting. So, the activists decided they needed to hire a boat to take them into the marsh. They hadn't figured on the hunters making a get away. They all got out to the marsh, stepped off the boat in their Nikes, got back in the boat, and met up for a meeting at the nearest Starbucks. Seems they didn't much like the reality of the situation. ROFL!

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 31, 2009, 10:07 AM
They all got out to the marsh, stepped off the boat in their Nikes, got back in the boat, and met up for a meeting at the nearest Starbucks. Seems they didn't much like the reality of the situation. ROFL!

Cryin' shame that. :D :D

bootless
August 1, 2009, 06:11 AM
bunny huggers go too far. The only ones that I'll even listen to/consider their argument are the one's that don't eat meat. If they do and are still bunny huggers then they are fools.

MCgunner
August 1, 2009, 09:38 AM
Personally, I don't listen to any of 'em, vegan or no. If they don't eat meat, they deny their heritage and the laws of nature. :D

hotlead
August 4, 2009, 04:23 PM
Did you hear the hecklers in the background? They did not sound like they were the brightest Crayolas in the box. I actually found it funny and amazing how "bright" they sounded!

Would flying kites with 60lb test line in the pathbe fun? O.k., maybe not. I guess 2 wrongs dont make a right huh? Would make me feel good though!

Way to go unknown hunter! Good job keeping your head on straight!

hotlead
August 4, 2009, 05:12 PM
I dont get it?

N.Schafer
August 4, 2009, 06:39 PM
I like the kite idea! Maybe somethin like this?
http://www.kitesrus.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=K/PROD/JFBK/CGKBJ
With strong cord and staked to the ground :)

Oops. Didn't you see my kite? :neener:

hotlead
August 4, 2009, 07:10 PM
Yes that kite would be perfect! HAHAHAHA........SUCKERS!

If you enjoyed reading about "Good reason to carry some less than lethal shells in the field while bird hunting?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!