Forty-five of the 50 US states prohibit the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for the purpose of hunting wildlife, including bears, deer and birds.  The reasons are largely moral and ethical:  Using a drone to scout wild animals is viewed as a violation of the “Fair Chase Rule,” which stipulates that human hunters should not have undue advantage over their prey.  Prior to passage of state and local laws, some hunters were tempted to deploy drones to identify and scout wild animals, even tracking them into their hideouts and then closing in or flushing them out for easy kills.

The five states that appear to allow hunters to deploy UAVs contain some surprises:  Maryland and Connecticut, for example, have restrictive gun laws overall and hunting is not a widespread practice.  So why allow drones?  It could be that the relatively low level of hunting in the two states has kept the issue from becoming salient.  Other states passed their ordinances in response to highly-publicized drone hunting incidents.  Could these two states follow suit at some future point?  Perhaps.

Less surprising is that Texas is one of the states that allows hunters to employ drones to help track and kill their prey.  In fact, the state does have a general ban on the practice but hunters often apply for a special permit that allows them to hunt with drones.  In recent months, hunters have even pushed for a new law that would allow them to use drones to hunt feral pigs, which are considered to be overpopulated and prone to infestations that threaten other wildlife as well as humans.  Under current Texas state law, hunters can use drones to target hogs during sunlight hours but are prohibited from hunting them at night.  A proposal currently before the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) would lift that restriction.

Some major hunting states like West Virginia do have strict bans on drone use for hunting – but neighbors like Kentucky do not.  In September, the Kentucky State Fish & Wildlife Commission tabled a proposed new regulation that would have restricted drone use in hunting, citing the need for more time to study the issue.  Kentucky has a sizable population of bears, turkeys and deer that are hunted seasonally.  Other than adding stricter licensing requirements for hunters, the Commission seemed more concerned with passing a new resolution that would punish citizens that try to interfere with lawful hunting.

Interestingly, restrictions on drone hunting of wild animals rarely apply to the pursuit of marine species.  In fact, some of the same states that ban drone hunting on land seem to support – rather enthusiastically, in fact – the use of drones to catch fish.  Currently, the main use of fish-hunting drones is for scouting and tracking, but some anglers are also using UAVs to cast baited lines and even reel in their prey.  In some states, anglers are using underwater drones to identify large schools of fish and to plant bait and lures to create a swarm of fish susceptible to being harvested from boats loitering on the water’s surface.

How do states that oppose drone hunting justify support for drone fishing?

Apparently, the issue rarely even comes up.  Critics say that in addition to moral and ethical issues, expanded drone use could lead to overfishing, depleting local fish stocks and disturbing a habitat’s ecological balance.  Supporters counter that drones are no different from fish-finding sonar and other technological devices that make it easier for anglers to track and target their prey.  They may have a point, but as fishing drones move beyond mere scouting and become more involved in baiting and capture, new ethical considerations could well arise.

Previous Drone News: