This is using the thermal drone
2 Likes
Some more footage of the hunters 
3 Likes
I’d not considered videoing a hunt’s activities with my drone before, but many thanks to @CirrusFlyer and @SparkyFPV for highlighting this. May go and keep an eye in the sky on them next time, just to make sure they comply with the law… 
5 Likes
3 Likes
Can wait to see the footage, and to report the bastards 
2 Likes
It’s another firm ‘no’ from me too.
Fox hunting is no more tolerable in today’s society than hare coursing or badger baiting. The only difference is the former is done in broad daylight, whilst the latter skulk around at night. Maybe something to do with the social status of the people taking pleasure in watching their dogs tear a defenceless animal to pieces?
We’d all be cheering if this was Iolo Williams using a drone to disrupt fly-tippers or Michaela Strachan catching people on thermal camera tipping chemicals in to a water course.
More power to him, I say, and I’m certainly not going to go out of my way to nitpick the drone code in the hopes of finding some way of making this about the drone pilot instead of the eejits on the horses.
6 Likes
Oscar Wilde got it right
The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable!
Privileged, entitled wankers. I’m not a fox fan as a country boy but I’d see more sport in chasing a fat fuck in his little red suit and letting the hounds rip him apart.
8 Likes
Oh, we get loads of poachers on our land. Proper poachers commiting multiple offenses (poaching, criminal damage, aggravated trespass, etc). Had quite a lot of fun (*all within CAA code) filming them a few times with my drone, working with the Police Rural Crime Taskforce. They loved the footage.
Poachers are what actually got me thinking about drones in the first place.
2 Likes
Another great use of a drone, by one of our members @ash2020
Pull up a chair, you probably won’t eat salmon again
5 Likes
Havent touched it since Andrew brought this to my attention in 2020
Is @ash2020 still about for any updates?
1 Like
Yes I’m still here. Another day above the ground, as the saying goes. I’ve moved from Scotland down to Cornwall and all but given up the activism. Retired but still sailing although everything’s more difficult. Not flying much these days. It’s a shame because I used to really enjoy flying out over the lochs and getting as close as possible before they clocked me. Usually they have so much noise going on that they don’t hear the swarm of bees above them. I always used a sub 250g drone so I was more or less legal. Here’s another oldie for your delight, just uploaded to YouTube. I’m afraid if you’ve switched from Salmon to Trout you’ve got another surprise. And don’t forget, It’s all RSPCA Assured!
Fillet of Trout
5 Likes
Great, so it’s old outdated info and before my time. At least you could grab some proof for me 
1 Like
Its old legislation. The current is the definition qouted above, ( in the quote below)
This was changed as a group of 20 or 30 can also be at risk if they are in an enclosure and cannot avoid a falling drone.
2 Likes
Seems to me that ‘interpretation’ of the CAA’s Drone Code in this matter is (at least partly) based on their idea that we are pilots (of UAVs), which I think implies that we accept that we are individually responsible & competetent adults capable of making our own risk assesments. Not saying this is necessarily always the actual case, but…
The rule regarding VLOS,
for example, is an absolute; you (or your fpv spotter) are required to be able to see your drone with your naked eye, (as I’m sure we all do, all the time) no ifs no buts no ‘interpretation’. In contrast, defining the word ‘crowd’ in a given situation relies on your individual judgement, like deciding if conditions are suitable for flying in the first place; you, the pilot, are responsble for making such decisions in the same way that a ‘proper’ pilot, or the skipper of a boat, makes similar assessments, and is held legally to account if things go wrong.
I rely on my own instincts when it comes to crowds, because the situation on the ground can change unexpectedly in real time. You may be safely flying over a town square which is nearly empty, and then a few hundred punters pass through from an event a mile or so away that you didn’t know about and you have a situation to react to; do you feel comfortable flying over them or does it feel a bit risky? If it feels risky, you should move away to stand-off, and possibly land until they’ve all gone away; you are not expected to ask them all if they think they can dodge a falling drone!
In this hunting situation, where feelings are partisan and running high, an extra element is involved. The hunters, if they were awae of the drone, would almost certainly complain that it was being flown dangerously over a crowd, but I cannot see that they’d have much of a case (assuming the drones were standing off, as they probably were for a better camera angle, not directly overhead, and high enough not to be considered a nuisance). If, as Packham says, the hunt was behaving illegally and he has footage, this will emerge in court, as will any illegal flying by his people!
I’ve no brief for hunting, barbaric activity, this is not the middle ages, but Pacham seems to me to be acting provocatively ans the sabs do not have a reputation as upholders of civilised society either. But, FWIW, I don’t personally think this shows up dronery in any worse than an ambivalent light
I don’t do Twitter these days so forgive the Faceache link (I know, not much better than Twitter)…
Hunt supporter: “Shouldn’t you be looking at a Tit somewhere?”
Packham: “I am”
3 Likes
He is an absolute cnut. I shoot air rifles and do a fair amount of pest control for farmers, dairies, golf clubs etc. His rant about the shooting of birds put a stop to all corvid shooting for months before DEFRA stepped in and reinstated the rules. Some dead crows tied to his gate over that period.
2 Likes
The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible, eh?
I think it’s fair game for someone to ask for a source when information is presented as fact in that manner. Otherwise we all just end up basing the rules on hearsay, and that’s Geeksvana territory… 
4 Likes
Difference being, (a) it was a comment on something I’d read, which was not in itself the primary issue being discussed, and (b) it was adequately explained where any misunderstanding might have arisen by @JoeC. It wasn’t a YouTube channel which was purporting to be authoritative, and it wasn’t a peer reviewed paper, it was a comment in a chat. Take it at whatever value you wish. When I write a paper I’ll provide references, but frankly I’ve much better things to do with my time than to be bothered referencing everything single thing I might say in a chat, just because someone wants the source 
1 Like