California Governor Vetoes Bill Banning Drones Over Private Property

[sfsuphysics]

Just curious: How many people here are property owners? As in, you actually own real estate, not rent/board/couchsurf/live with parents/live in dorm?

I own property, and while it is quite pricey property, it is hardly a large amount of property (due to the city I'm in). As it stands now there's at least half a dozen neighbors that can see into my backyard from their 2nd story window, I really do not have any expectation of privacy from them, I really don't care if someone flies a drone to get effectively the same view. Now maybe if I owned a lot of property such that I did have "private" areas from everyone I might feel different, but unless I was actively doing something privately that I wouldn't do publicly (e.g. nude sunbathing) then I doubt I would care in that case either.

I absolutely recognize some people with drones are absolutely douche bags, especially when they interfere with people like firefighters even if it's just because they pay attention to the drone instead the task at hand. But we don't need legislation that punishes everyone because there are a few douche bags out there with expensive toys.

There aren't any laws preventing me from taking it out with a slingshot.

If a car swerves out of control and crashes on your property, hell if it crashes into your house, being on your property in no way gives you the right to destroy that property. You can't take a chain saw to the car to chop it up, or anything else destructive unless it's posing a danger to someone.

Garden hose?

And when droplets of water leave your property and go onto another property are you willing to accept litigation by you invading their personal space?

 

[aShrubbery!]

Any intentional destruction of property is typically illegal.

It's unclear what liability there would be if the drone had an "accident" over your property though.

Surely a person has the expectation of freedom of movement of themselves (and their baseballs) over their own property?

It's not all clear cut. Property owners have rights over their property - Castle doctrine - and the FAA trumps those rights from a certain altitude on. I suppose there could also be city ordinances where flying drones could be illegal WITHOUT authorization from respective property owners.
It's not so much people taking those drones down, but more how they are taken down; i.e. over unauthorized space, in FAA regulated airspace where obviously you couldn't touch it, firing a gun within city limits...!

 

[griffinhart]

Well, the difference is this.

We have long had the expectation of privacy in our own homes or on private property not visible from outside said private property.

So, put up a fence or a dense hedge and you have the expectation of privacy when you are in your yard.

Jerks with quadracopters override that expectation of privacy.

If you brought a ladder, and used it to climb up and take pictures over my fence, we'd have a problem. The same should apply for any flying camera equipped vehicles.

There are far easier, cheaper and inconspicuous ways of taking photos without you noticing without using a drone. The reality is, just because you see a drone doesn't mean it is looking at you. There are already laws in place to protect your privacy.

A "spying drone" is a pretty obvious thing. Just seeing one flying about in your neighborhood isn't an indication that it is taking videos or pictures of you. There are plenty of lawful and reasonable reasons why a drone would overfly someone's property. People should maintain a minimum altitude above other properties, but honestly, 350 feet is too high of a floor given the FAA rules allow a max of 400 AGL. Manned aircraft can fly as low as 500 feet (though often time fly lower) 100 to 200 feet is probably much more reasonable. This is why the veto in CA is a good thing.

I see a lot of complaints about "privacy" in public places as well. Some places have tried to ban drones with cameras on public beaches without banning other types of cameras that are far more capable on average.

IMHO the whole privacy issue is much ado about nothing, and there are laws in place addressing this issue that apply very well. The more difficult question is on airspace. Here I see real problems. There are too many idiots that get a drone and fly them near airports or as high as they can go without considering other air traffic. Flying low over crowds is probably a bad idea as well. There is always someone dumb enough to try to knock one out of the sky, causing injuries.

 

[aShrubbery!]

...

If a car swerves out of control and crashes on your property, hell if it crashes into your house, being on your property in no way gives you the right to destroy that property. You can't take a chain saw to the car to chop it up, or anything else destructive unless it's posing a danger to someone. ....

The driver in this case would have to compensate you for damages, or get arrested for not being able to do so. More often than not, such an incident would be involuntary.
Someone merely flying over your property is one thing, that I wouldn't condemn. Hovering over someone else's property OTOH is at least rude, and should be illegal. Also, while cars are usually registered with their owners/drivers, drones are not, nor are people likely to come forward in case something bad happens.

 

[flashoverride]

I own property, and while it is quite pricey property, it is hardly a large amount of property (due to the city I'm in). As it stands now there's at least half a dozen neighbors that can see into my backyard from their 2nd story window, I really do not have any expectation of privacy from them, I really don't care if someone flies a drone to get effectively the same view. Now maybe if I owned a lot of property such that I did have "private" areas from everyone I might feel different, but unless I was actively doing something privately that I wouldn't do publicly (e.g. nude sunbathing) then I doubt I would care in that case either.

If you have a privacy fence, you most certainly have a reasonable expectation of privacy. There's a reason it's called *private property*.

But no, drone jerks, keep flying those drones over people's property. It's not like the FAA is a governmental organization susceptible to political pressure or anything. If laws like this fail, then pressure will be applied to the FAA to regulate drones, and the FAA will go and regulate drones, and then you won't have anyone to veto it.

Something around 80% of the land mass of the US is not populated, or populated very very sparsely. Drive out to the countryside and fly your drones there where you aren't infringing on anyone else. I like to shoot guns, but guess what? I don't get to set up a range on my street or even on my own property. I have to go somewhere else to do it.

 

[lcpiper]

Or maybe breeding an army of trained attack hawks?

It's not how you do it that matters, it's that you did it that will get you into trouble.

The law basicly says you own the airspace above your property that you can "reasonable use", it's pretty vague. I saw a picture the other day that sums it up nicely.

All bold talk aside, someone flying a drone over your property, even in violation of the law, does not allow you the legal right to destroy that drone. It will not absolve you of liability for your actions.

If it bothers you, you should try to seek out the owner and ask them not to do it. If they continue and it's against the law, call the cops, if it's a neusance, call the cops. If the cops won't do anything, build an obstacle which is legal, as long as your HOA approves. Think like this;

It's perfectly legal, and not that expensive, and if the drone operator destroys his drone by flying it into the wires it's not your fault, really.

 

[lcpiper]

There are far easier, cheaper and inconspicuous ways of taking photos without you noticing without using a drone. The reality is, just because you see a drone doesn't mean it is looking at you. There are already laws in place to protect your privacy.

A "spying drone" is a pretty obvious thing. Just seeing one flying about in your neighborhood isn't an indication that it is taking videos or pictures of you. There are plenty of lawful and reasonable reasons why a drone would overfly someone's property. People should maintain a minimum altitude above other properties, but honestly, 350 feet is too high of a floor given the FAA rules allow a max of 400 AGL. Manned aircraft can fly as low as 500 feet (though often time fly lower) 100 to 200 feet is probably much more reasonable. This is why the veto in CA is a good thing.

I see a lot of complaints about "privacy" in public places as well. Some places have tried to ban drones with cameras on public beaches without banning other types of cameras that are far more capable on average.

IMHO the whole privacy issue is much ado about nothing, and there are laws in place addressing this issue that apply very well. The more difficult question is on airspace. Here I see real problems. There are too many idiots that get a drone and fly them near airports or as high as they can go without considering other air traffic. Flying low over crowds is probably a bad idea as well. There is always someone dumb enough to try to knock one out of the sky, causing injuries.

Actually, the exact altitude requirements (except for purposes of takeoff and landing) are as follows. In congested areas, airplanes must stay 1,000 feet (300 m) higher than any obstacle (building, antenna, etc.) within a 2,000 feet (610 m) radius of the aircraft. In non congested, sparsely populated areas, or over bodies of water, the pilot must remain at least 500 feet (150 m) from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure.

 

[NickJames]

I'm sure, that within a certain altitude, he'd be in his own right to shoot down anything over his property. Especially if it's loitering/hovering over his property.
And truthfully, while I don't condone people destroying other people's property, if something is doing anything else other than overflying my property from a safe altitude, I'd be willing to consider it trespassing, thus property owners could well be within their right to remedy the situation.

In most states, regardles of how close, it is unlawful discharge of a firearm as well as destruction of private property. Hell a guy can break into your backyard, drown in your pool and the family can sue.

 

[DarkZen]

When does a drone, controlled by an individual, constitute trespassing? Personally, I think the issue is a matter of privacy on my personal property. I don't care if I'm mowing the lawn or being spanked by a hooker in a nun habit. Depending on the intent of the pilot, my privacy is being invaded when a drone is hovering over my private property. I think the existing privacy/trespass laws will hold up if a property owner has issues with the person flying the drone. There are definitely laws that regulate any local or federal government entities utilizing unmanned drones on private property without a legal warrant. Basic trespass laws state...

One is subject to liability to another for trespass, when s/he intentionally:
enters land in the possession of the other;
causes a thing or a third person to do so;
remains on the land; or
fails to remove from the land a thing which s/he is under a duty to remove.
http://trespass.uslegal.com/trespass-to-real-property/

 

[lcpiper]

I agree. We don't need a new law to govern illegal activity conducted by a drone operator for the same reason we don't need a new law that covers illegal activity consucted by an icecream truck vendor. The tech is sweet, but it doesn't change anything. If someone is flying a drone over your property and you actually suspect they are actually violating your privacy or being a neusance, call the cops and report it. Better still, get your own video of it first so you have some evidence to back your claim. Then let existing law deal with it.

 

[AVogel]

Kickstarter for non-firearm Drone disabler in 3...2...1....

 

[sfsuphysics]

The driver in this case would have to compensate you for damages, or get arrested for not being able to do so. More often than not, such an incident would be involuntary.
Someone merely flying over your property is one thing, that I wouldn't condemn. Hovering over someone else's property OTOH is at least rude, and should be illegal. Also, while cars are usually registered with their owners/drivers, drones are not, nor are people likely to come forward in case something bad happens.

In the case of a drone if it crashed into your property the operator would be liable for all damages (provided you were not the reason it crashed into your property), only difference is drivers are required to have insurance, so getting a drone operator to pay up for busting a hole in your roof might be a bit more difficult if he threw all his money into that drone. Drones are pretty pricey too, if someone doesn't come forward, you have their property, maybe there's a neat camera on it, maybe some of the mechanics still work, you have a bit of leverage there (doubly so if they don't realize it caused a lot of damage, and are just trying to get their property back), but fair enough it is definitely harder to get things taken care of if something bad does happen. But just because they may damage your property doesn't give you the right to preemptively damage their property.

Now the rude bit, flying over your property or driving a loud motorcycle in front of your property is not grounds to destroy said property, regardless of how rude it is. Much like you're not allowed to attack those rude Mormon's that walk onto your property and ring your door bell on a Saturday. And again you can destroy other peoples property just because of acts of "rudeness". Even if you want to call it your personal property they're "trespassing" on you do not have the right to damage their property, in the same way you can't beat a homeless guy for squatting in your garage.

 

[bexamous]

'privacy concerns' .. to essentially anyone who has those I guarentee you no one gives a fuck about you or what you are doing. That said you don't need new laws to handle problems covered by existing laws, all new law is doing is adding on some more unintended consequences. The person who proposed that new law in CA had to make up a fucking story about how she was on a balcony and a quadcopter came and recordered her conversation... the made up story doesn't even make sense! WTF?! If you're reduced to make up a story perhaps that is an indication you don't have actual cause for taking any action.

 

[Methadras]

Just curious: How many people here are property owners? As in, you actually own real estate, not rent/board/couchsurf/live with parents/live in dorm?

I own multiple properties.

 

[/usr/sbin]

Projectiles leave video evidence. Be smart about protecting your privacy, not retarded. While jamming is against the law, most drones (ie. non-govt.) do operate in unlicensed frequencies. This means they are subject to interference. If you just happened to be transmitting a ton of data via multiple high powered access points across all channels, well, that would be quite unfortunate. Legitimate traffic after all

Common R/C frequencies:
Band 1: 2.4 GHz – WIFI g/b/n: ≈ 2.4 – 2.5 GHz
Band 2: 900-915 MHz, older cordless phones
Band 3: 5.8 GHz, commonly used for video feeds, not telemetry.

Band 1 and 2 are the common telemetry frequencies, which also overlap with common user frequencies. It would be such a "shame" if the drone picked up interference and crashed.

 

[potency]

Kickstarter for non-firearm Drone disabler in 3...2...1....

Projectiles leave video evidence. Be smart about protecting your privacy, not retarded. While jamming is against the law, most drones (ie. non-govt.) do operate in unlicensed frequencies. This means they are subject to interference. If you just happened to be transmitting a ton of data via multiple high powered access points across all channels, well, that would be quite unfortunate. Legitimate traffic after all

Common R/C frequencies:
Band 1: 2.4 GHz – WIFI g/b/n: ≈ 2.4 – 2.5 GHz
Band 2: 900-915 MHz, older cordless phones
Band 3: 5.8 GHz, commonly used for video feeds, not telemetry.

Band 1 and 2 are the common telemetry frequencies, which also overlap with common user frequencies. It would be such a "shame" if the drone picked up interference and crashed.

Just a thought, but when you start talking radio frequencies and such, aren't you squarely within the jurisdiction of the FCC? Which means that any type of signal disruption would be a federal offense?

I'd build one in a heartbeat as soon as someone provided the dd-wrt build to turn my old wrt54g into a drone jammer of course, but I thought I'd raise the question either way.

 

[wrangler]

Wow.
Between the FCC and the FAA, drones are pretty untouchable.

I guess everybody needs to get a drone. So, if my drone crashes into your drone over my property, what then.

Drone wars?

 

[bexamous]

Projectiles leave video evidence. Be smart about protecting your privacy, not retarded. While jamming is against the law, most drones (ie. non-govt.) do operate in unlicensed frequencies. This means they are subject to interference. If you just happened to be transmitting a ton of data via multiple high powered access points across all channels, well, that would be quite unfortunate. Legitimate traffic after all

Common R/C frequencies:
Band 1: 2.4 GHz – WIFI g/b/n: ≈ 2.4 – 2.5 GHz
Band 2: 900-915 MHz, older cordless phones
Band 3: 5.8 GHz, commonly used for video feeds, not telemetry.

Band 1 and 2 are the common telemetry frequencies, which also overlap with common user frequencies. It would be such a "shame" if the drone picked up interference and crashed.

Yeah just jam entire 2.4ghz and 5.8ghz range, no one is going to notice you doing that.

 

[c3141hf]

It's not how you do it that matters, it's that you did it that will get you into trouble.

The law basicly says you own the airspace above your property that you can "reasonable use", it's pretty vague. I saw a picture the other day that sums it up nicely.

All bold talk aside, someone flying a drone over your property, even in violation of the law, does not allow you the legal right to destroy that drone. It will not absolve you of liability for your actions.

If it bothers you, you should try to seek out the owner and ask them not to do it. If they continue and it's against the law, call the cops, if it's a neusance, call the cops. If the cops won't do anything, build an obstacle which is legal, as long as your HOA approves. Think like this;

It's perfectly legal, and not that expensive, and if the drone operator destroys his drone by flying it into the wires it's not your fault, really.

You may live in a state run by gun-hating liberals but here, the sheriff would most likely give you a medal for having good aim.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Just curious: How many people here are property owners? As in, you actually own real estate, not rent/board/couchsurf/live with parents/live in dorm?

I own.

This is a good veto, the bill was way too broad. There is a giant difference in flying over someone's property and actually invading their privacy. Combine that with the fact that the average person couldn't tell if a aircraft was 350' or 500' and you had a recipe for a ridiculous amount of litigation and my word vs their word.

 

[westrock2000]

I do, my house in Sierra Vista, a condo in Tucson, another house in Korea.

Stay out of debt, the difference is unbelievable.

It's just that easy folks, in fact you have to wonder why EVERYONE isn't financially successful. Must be something wrong with them right

Entire countries full of idiots who couldn't get rich.

 

[Revdarian]

You may live in a state run by gun-hating liberals but here, the sheriff would most likely give you a medal for having good aim.

Contrary to the expressed belief, what the sheriff thinks about your actions provides no defense whatsoever against lawsuits for property damage.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Contrary to the expressed belief, what the sheriff thinks about your actions provides no defense whatsoever against lawsuits for property damage.

I want to point something else out to the "I'll shoot it down crowd". Frankly unless you are an avid bird hunter, I would wager most of you couldn't shoot it down at those distances if you wanted to. I doubt a single person here could tell me the proper choke shot combination to accurately hit a small fast object at 100+ yards. This and the simple fact is, if it's that high it isn't invading your privacy. It is no more a problem than someone flying a model plane. Your argument doesn't even come into play unless it's around roof level obviously being nosy. Oh and guys, that's sub 40' in most cases for those unsure.

 

[dcds1]

I am happy to see that governor veto'd the bill. I having been playing with RC Helicopters and Planes for years and there is already enough laws governing where you can fly it. In Grand Rapids, MI there is a park just for RC toys and with stupid laws about drones, it will end up effecting places like that. Before you take a stance on something just cause it doesn't interest you, next time it might be your hobby they outlaw.

 

[david_]

I doubt a single person here could tell me the proper choke shot combination to accurately hit a small fast object at 100+ yards.

... because at 100+, if you're worried about a choke/shot, you're doing it wrong. Surely you've been in Genmay and know many here know plenty..

 

[griffinhart]

Projectiles leave video evidence. Be smart about protecting your privacy, not retarded. While jamming is against the law, most drones (ie. non-govt.) do operate in unlicensed frequencies. This means they are subject to interference. If you just happened to be transmitting a ton of data via multiple high powered access points across all channels, well, that would be quite unfortunate. Legitimate traffic after all

Common R/C frequencies:
Band 1: 2.4 GHz – WIFI g/b/n: ≈ 2.4 – 2.5 GHz
Band 2: 900-915 MHz, older cordless phones
Band 3: 5.8 GHz, commonly used for video feeds, not telemetry.

Band 1 and 2 are the common telemetry frequencies, which also overlap with common user frequencies. It would be such a "shame" if the drone picked up interference and crashed.

And if you want to get that technical, Drones registered for commercial use are registered with the FAA as Aircraft (Complete with Tail number). Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a felony.

 

[Darunion]

And if you want to get that technical, Drones registered for commercial use are registered with the FAA as Aircraft (Complete with Tail number). Interfering with the operation of an aircraft is a felony.

Many operate on different frequencies fyi

 

[Decibel]

Actually, the exact altitude requirements (except for purposes of takeoff and landing) are as follows. In congested areas, airplanes must stay 1,000 feet (300 m) higher than any obstacle (building, antenna, etc.) within a 2,000 feet (610 m) radius of the aircraft. In non congested, sparsely populated areas, or over bodies of water, the pilot must remain at least 500 feet (150 m) from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure.

I fly helicopters. You know what I say to your minimums? What minimums?

Or as FAR 91.119 says, " Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed... ...if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. "

 

[Dekoth-E-]

... because at 100+, if you're worried about a choke/shot, you're doing it wrong. Surely you've been in Genmay and know many here know plenty..

I don't have a genmay unfortunately, things been tight. That said, you would use a choke if you wanted a chance at hitting something like a quadrotor as it doesn't really present a large solid body. Of course I'm being supremely generous that you are hitting anything at 100+ yards with a shotgun. The point was really that these people are just being asses and aren't shooting anything.

 

[DocSavage]

Wow.
Between the FCC and the FAA, drones are pretty untouchable.

I guess everybody needs to get a drone. So, if my drone crashes into your drone over my property, what then.

Drone wars?

I like this idea. It shouldn't be too difficult to program a drone to seek out and hover over other drones and maybe drop wires or strong string into the blades. You just need it to follow a convoluted path back home so the owner of the destroyed drone can't track you down.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

People are really going to need to get over their fear of drones.

It's only a matter of years until there are hundreds of these things flying all over the place, at all times, and yes, they *will be* monitoring and recording you.

It's really no different than it is now though: if you are in public, you have no privacy... same goes if you are in your yard or ifyou leave a window open... If you're strutting around in the backyard buck ass naked, or wandering in front of windows nude, expect to get sited for PUBLIC indecency if anyone sees it and complains.

Drones will be used to monitor everything. Make deliveries. Supplement (and even eventually partially replace) law enforcement.

They will only get more sophisticated and more common place, so get used to them and stop bitching.

Oh, and I wouldn't suggest shooting them down... because it's only a matter of time before that becomes a massive criminal offense and probably makes you a terrorist. Enjoy your trip to gitmo because you interfered with something that flew over "your" property.

 

[Commander Suzdal]

Curtains are cheaper than shotguns or lawsuits. The whole drone hysteria is so overblown. Law enforcement does need to develop tools/methods to identify those who misuse them (a mandatory identifying transponder/beacon on every drone, perhaps), but otherwise, sensible move by the governor (never thought I'd say those words about Jerry Brown).

Take the panic every time an airliner sees a drone near a flightpath. Yes, they don't belong there and whoever put them there needs a smackdown (see transponder above). But in the real world, the "threat" is almost zero. If the drone impacts the aircraft anywhere but down an engine intake, there would barely be a scratch on the paint. And as for the engine intake, has anyone performed a simple impact test to see what would happen? I'm guessing the intake would win.

"Oh, but a flock of geese took down that airliner in the Hudson River!" First of all, Sully is the man. Second of all, how many of them hit the intake? Even if it was just one, an adult goose probably weighs at least twice as much as a drone.And meat is a lot denser/more elastic than plastic or carbon fiber.

To illustrate, I will tell a sad, gross story from personal experience. I was mowing my lawn one day, and as I passed by a spot I had already gone over, I saw a terrible sight. A small rabbit had made a sort of burrow in a depression that been overgrown with grass. When I passed over with my mower, he panicked and tried to run for it. His ears were more than half gone down to his skull. Two, maybe three of his feet were gone. And he was still alive. I cringed, but I knew I had to do something. Off the cuff, the best I could think of was to take a shovel and use the blade to decapitate him. I put one foot on him to hold him still, placed the blade on his neck, and pushed. I expected a clean slice. Instead, it squished without breaking through. I had to push again and again until I was reasonably sure that he was out of his suffering, but I don't think I ever cut all the way through.

All that to say, living flesh is very tough and resilient in a way that rigid manufactured materials are not. So I would not assume that even a drone engine strike would kill the engine.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

"Oh, but a flock of geese took down that airliner in the Hudson River!" First of all, Sully is the man. Second of all, how many of them hit the intake? Even if it was just one, an adult goose probably weighs at least twice as much as a drone.And meat is a lot denser/more elastic than plastic or carbon fiber.

To illustrate, I will tell a sad, gross story from personal experience. I was mowing my lawn one day, and as I passed by a spot I had already gone over, I saw a terrible sight. A small rabbit had made a sort of burrow in a depression that been overgrown with grass. When I passed over with my mower, he panicked and tried to run for it. His ears were more than half gone down to his skull. Two, maybe three of his feet were gone. And he was still alive. I cringed, but I knew I had to do something. Off the cuff, the best I could think of was to take a shovel and use the blade to decapitate him. I put one foot on him to hold him still, placed the blade on his neck, and pushed. I expected a clean slice. Instead, it squished without breaking through. I had to push again and again until I was reasonably sure that he was out of his suffering, but I don't think I ever cut all the way through.

All that to say, living flesh is very tough and resilient in a way that rigid manufactured materials are not. So I would not assume that even a drone engine strike would kill the engine.

I'll add another story about the density of birds...

I was driving through a wooded area when a group of turkeys decided to fly out in front of me. I dodged them all successfully, but the guy coming in the opposing direction did not...

He caught one of the smaller turkeys head on, and sent it flying in some weird upwards, sideways trajectory that that led it to impact onto my driver side fender, then skip across my hood and straight *through* the windshield on the passenger side.

Now, safety glass and all, so the entire windshield crumpled up and the hole the turkey left dented inwards...

But this turkey took a head on collision with one car going 60MPH, and then a fender, a hood, and a windshield of another car going 60MPH, and yet it sill **BROKE** the passenger seat backwards and ended up on the rear shelf of my car with the rear window busted outwards holding, the still relatively intact, turkey from going any farther.

So yeah, seeing as geese and turkeys aren't hugely different in anatomy... I'd say those fuckers are rather dense.

 

[Commander Suzdal]

I'll add another story about the density of birds...

I was driving through a wooded area when a group of turkeys decided to fly out in front of me. I dodged them all successfully, but the guy coming in the opposing direction did not...

He caught one of the smaller turkeys head on, and sent it flying in some weird upwards, sideways trajectory that that led it to impact onto my driver side fender, then skip across my hood and straight *through* the windshield on the passenger side.

Now, safety glass and all, so the entire windshield crumpled up and the hole the turkey left dented inwards...

But this turkey took a head on collision with one car going 60MPH, and then a fender, a hood, and a windshield of another car going 60MPH, and yet it sill **BROKE** the passenger seat backwards and ended up on the rear shelf of my car with the rear window busted outwards holding, the still relatively intact, turkey from going any farther.

So yeah, seeing as geese and turkeys aren't hugely different in anatomy... I'd say those fuckers are rather dense.

Great googly moogly!

 

[Phoenix333]

The uneducated among humans think of us birds as these light balls of floof. We birds have humongous flight muscles because flight requires a hell of a lot of power, and a very strong and rigid skeleton to handle all the associated stresses. We're not delicate little puffballs. We're supercharged, high-octane dynamos with a metabolism that make mammals look like slugs by comparison. Pound for pound we're stronger, lighter, and faster, and burn through energy faster than you can blink. That's the demands of having bodies engineered for active flying. We're pretty tough, and something like a goose impacting into an aircraft is going to do catastrophic damage to the aircraft. That's why humans have been using hawks and falcons near airports to help keep geese and other flocks of birds away from the runways. It's better for all of us if birds and airplanes never mix.

Now speaking of hawks... here's something to keep in mind. If you have property - and I mean rural property - and there's a nest for a bird of prey present anywhere on that property or nearby, and someone operates a drone over your property against your will, call the local forest ranger. Coming within a certain distance of a bird of prey nest or disturbing it in any way is a federal crime, and if someone's operating a drone in the vicinity they'll be none too happy about it. You don't have to say it was close to the nest... just that you're concerned that the operator might be flying it near the nest. They'll be more than happy to investigate it. Now for those who own drones, keep that in mind as a warning. Don't fly them near bird nests. You want to play with your high-tech toys, fine, but have some decency about it.

 

[ToddW2]

The uneducated among humans think of us birds as these light balls of floof. We birds have humongous flight muscles because flight requires a hell of a lot of power, and a very strong and rigid skeleton to handle all the associated stresses. We're not delicate little puffballs. We're supercharged, high-octane dynamos with a metabolism that make mammals look like slugs by comparison. Pound for pound we're stronger, lighter, and faster, and burn through energy faster than you can blink. That's the demands of having bodies engineered for active flying. We're pretty tough, and something like a goose impacting into an aircraft is going to do catastrophic damage to the aircraft. That's why humans have been using hawks and falcons near airports to help keep geese and other flocks of birds away from the runways. It's better for all of us if birds and airplanes never mix.

Now speaking of hawks... here's something to keep in mind. If you have property - and I mean rural property - and there's a nest for a bird of prey present anywhere on that property or nearby, and someone operates a drone over your property against your will, call the local forest ranger. Coming within a certain distance of a bird of prey nest or disturbing it in any way is a federal crime, and if someone's operating a drone in the vicinity they'll be none too happy about it. You don't have to say it was close to the nest... just that you're concerned that the operator might be flying it near the nest. They'll be more than happy to investigate it. Now for those who own drones, keep that in mind as a warning. Don't fly them near bird nests. You want to play with your high-tech toys, fine, but have some decency about it.

Hmm.. if you live rural and it's bugging you, well you know....

 

[Commander Suzdal]

The uneducated among humans think of us birds as these light balls of floof. We birds have humongous flight muscles because flight requires a hell of a lot of power, and a very strong and rigid skeleton to handle all the associated stresses. We're not delicate little puffballs. We're supercharged, high-octane dynamos with a metabolism that make mammals look like slugs by comparison. Pound for pound we're stronger, lighter, and faster, and burn through energy faster than you can blink. That's the demands of having bodies engineered for active flying. We're pretty tough, and something like a goose impacting into an aircraft is going to do catastrophic damage to the aircraft. That's why humans have been using hawks and falcons near airports to help keep geese and other flocks of birds away from the runways. It's better for all of us if birds and airplanes never mix.

Now speaking of hawks... here's something to keep in mind. If you have property - and I mean rural property - and there's a nest for a bird of prey present anywhere on that property or nearby, and someone operates a drone over your property against your will, call the local forest ranger. Coming within a certain distance of a bird of prey nest or disturbing it in any way is a federal crime, and if someone's operating a drone in the vicinity they'll be none too happy about it. You don't have to say it was close to the nest... just that you're concerned that the operator might be flying it near the nest. They'll be more than happy to investigate it. Now for those who own drones, keep that in mind as a warning. Don't fly them near bird nests. You want to play with your high-tech toys, fine, but have some decency about it.

Rarely have I seen better use of an alias--bravo!