Bullets raining from the sky (long)

From an article in the Caspar (WY) StarTribune.net -- am I wrong in
thinking this is not a good idea?

AJ

New weapon in the sky
By CHRISTOPHER SMITH
Associated Press writer

BOISE, Idaho -- Idaho's congressional delegation and the administration
of Gov. Dirk Kempthorne spent the past two years convincing the Federal
Aviation Administration to give ranchers permits to shoot coyotes and
other wild predators while flying overhead in powered parachutes and
ultralight flying machines.

After initially refusing to allow the state to issue aerial gunning
permits for experimental aircraft operated by non-certified pilots, FAA
Administrator Marion Blakey relented last spring and agreed to come up
with "the most appropriate means of accommodation," according to
correspondence obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of
Information Act.

The FAA is now allowing Idaho to issue permits to ranchers for aerial
shooting of predators to protect livestock if their vehicle qualifies
as a "light sport aircraft" under new FAA regulations. The new category
has spawned a squadron of unconventional flying craft known as "aerial
ATVs."

"These are the newest, hottest things for ranchers," said Allen
Kenitzer, a spokesman for the FAA in Renton, Wash. "This is something
people out West really wanted, to be able to use these aircraft out in
the middle of nowhere to do the things they need to do."

But wildlife activists say the use of kit-built and experimental flying
contraptions for airborne attacks on wild animals is dangerous and
absurd.

"I'm covering my eyes and laughing," said Wendy Keefover-Ring of
Boulder, Colo., coordinator of a national coalition of environmental
groups that wants to end aerial gunning of wildlife. "It's unsafe even
when you are in a plane that has a stronger engine than these
ultralights have."

State law authorizes the Idaho Department of Agriculture to issue
permits for people to "shoot, capture, harass or kill" wildlife that is
threatening livestock while the person is airborne in an aircraft. The
practice did not get FAA scrutiny until 2003, when a southeastern Idaho
rancher was cited by the FAA for illegally using his powered parachute
-- a cage-like cockpit with a motorcyle-size engine and propeller
suspended from a parachute -- to shoot coyotes.

The federal agency determined that because ultralight craft could only
be flown for sport and recreation. Using them for livestock protection
or to collect a bounty on predators was prohibited.

"It was animal rights people who turned him in," said Eulalie Langford,
a former state legislator from Montpelier who took up the fight on
behalf of the rancher, whose name was not released by the FAA. "Baby
lambs have rights too, and I told our officials that people might be
getting a lot of sport and recreation out of shooting these coyotes
that were eating their lambs."

In April 2003, the state formally asked for a waiver to allow the use
of powered parachutes in airborne predator control.

"As technology has improved, it has become apparent that powered
parachutes are an ideal vehicle for airborne predator control," wrote
Stanley Boyd, a lobbyist for woolgrowers, elk breeders and cattle
ranchers who heads the Idaho Animal Damage Control Board.

The application was denied, prompting Idaho's all-Republican
congressional delegation to write an appeal to FAA Administrator Marion
Blakey.

"It is important to note that these activities occur in the vast open
spaces of rural Idaho and pose no real threat to human safety," Sens.
Larry Craig and Mike Crapo, along with Reps. Mike Simpson and C.L.
"Butch" Otter wrote in the September 2004 letter.

After several months of investigation and negotiation, Blakey
responded, writing that FAA "does not want to unduly restrict these
activities, but only wants to ensure they are conducted safely and in
appropriately certificated aircraft."

The solution came with the creation of the new light sport aircraft
category and new sport pilot certificate issued by FAA. Under the new
rule, lighter-than-air balloons, gliders, airships, flying trikes,
gyroplanes, powered parachutes and other ultralights that meet certain
weight, speed and capacity standards can be certified and receive a
tail number just like a full-size private airplane. The test required
for a light sport aircraft pilot's certificate is not as extensive as a
traditional pilot's license.

"Now, ranchers can take eight hours of instruction, pay a small
certification fee and then just take a felt pen to write your 'N'
number on the side of your craft and bingo, you're legal," Boyd said in
an interview. "We didn't issue any permits for ultralights this past
year, but ranchers are just learning this is available to them."

Keefover-Ring, who tracks aerial gunning accidents for the conservation
group Sinapu, said although she has never seen a report of an
ultralight crashing while aerial gunning, her group has records dating
back to 1989 of 24 crashes of standard airplanes or helicopters during
airborne predator flights that killed 32 people.

"There is so little margin for error when you are flying 10 feet off
the ground shooting a gun at a moving target," she said.

But Langford maintains the ultralights are safer than standard
airplanes for picking off coyotes, foxes and other livestock predators.

"Airplanes, even small planes, can travel over 100 miles an hour, while
these aerial ATVs move along about the speed that a coyote can run,"
she said. "If there's a mountain coming up, you have plenty of time to
see it and take evasive action."

In article . com,
"AJ" wrote:

"I'm covering my eyes and laughing," said Wendy Keefover-Ring of
Boulder, Colo., coordinator of a national coalition of environmental
groups that wants to end aerial gunning of wildlife. "It's unsafe even
when you are in a plane that has a stronger engine than these
ultralights have."

so what qualifies Wendy to assess the safety of anything related
to aviation?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

I'm not sure what engine strength has to do with it, if anything at
all. My concern is having someone shooting down from a plane. Just
seems like a scenario ripe for disaster to me.

AJ

Just wondering what the "strength" of an a/c engine has to do with safety
in this context?!?

More seriously though ----Looks like the all the ingredients are in place
for
a tragic showdown between the airborne varmint hunters and the
eco-terrorists.
(by "eco-terrorist" I am NOT referring to responsible people who are
dedicated
to lawful stewardship and environmental policies which are based on sound
science. I am referring to the people who have already used terrorist
tactics
such as booby-traps, explosives, etc. to attempt to achieve their
objectives.)
(by "varmint hunters" I am referring to people who hunt varmints) :-)

TP

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"AJ" wrote:

"I'm covering my eyes and laughing," said Wendy Keefover-Ring of
Boulder, Colo., coordinator of a national coalition of environmental
groups that wants to end aerial gunning of wildlife. "It's unsafe even
when you are in a plane that has a stronger engine than these
ultralights have."

so what qualifies Wendy to assess the safety of anything related
to aviation?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

It has been long practice from J3 to Super Cub, just open
the door and shoot at a 45 degree angle, the prop doesn't
like buckshot.

We need these on the Mexican border to shoot coyotes.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"AJ" wrote in message
oups.com...
| I'm not sure what engine strength has to do with it, if
anything at
| all. My concern is having someone shooting down from a
plane. Just
| seems like a scenario ripe for disaster to me.
|
| AJ
|

"AJ" writes:

[...] My concern is having someone shooting down from a plane.
Just seems like a scenario ripe for disaster to me.

Well, it's not like they would do this in a crowded urban environment.
Has someone here done this kind of work? Can you describe how you
avoid disaster?

- FChE

"AJ" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm not sure what engine strength has to do with it, if anything at
all. My concern is having someone shooting down from a plane. Just
seems like a scenario ripe for disaster to me.

I dunno. Depending on the altitude (presumably very low, otherwise actually
hitting a predator is unlikely), it may be safer than shooting from the
ground (for any reason), in that there is a very nice backstop close to the
shooter. Shooting from the ground the bullet can travel MUCH farther than
intended.

Assuming this isn't expanded to hunting in general, it's probably not that
big of a deal.

I could be wrong. But on the face of it, I don't see anything that greatly
worries me. I'll just stop running with the packs of wolves and coyotes in
Idaho, and hopefully that'll keep me out of anyone's gunsight.

Note that the article has a variety of inaccuracies, including the
implication that one can get an Sport Pilot Certificate in only 8 hours.

Pete

"AJ" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm not sure what engine strength has to do with it, if anything at
all. My concern is having someone shooting down from a plane. Just
seems like a scenario ripe for disaster to me.



They have been doing it for years.

This topic comes up from time to time, and for me it always recalls this
particular report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...LA058& akey=1

"AJ" wrote in news:1145811157.351516.309610
@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

I'm not sure what engine strength has to do with it, if anything at
all. My concern is having someone shooting down from a plane. Just
seems like a scenario ripe for disaster to me.

AJ



I think the engine power concept is that people are flying 10' off the
ground and might hit a mountain. In Wendy's mind, a more powerful
engine might prevet such an accident. In reality, the whole argument is
non-sequiter, and if she were really worried about safety, she would
ask for a law requiring the pilot and the gunner be two separate
people.

I despise self-serving beauracrats who try to pass laws because they
are "so concerned about people killing themselves," when really they
just
have their own agenda to fill... I'm surprised she hasn't gotten PETA
involved.

I'm also not sure what disaster you are concerned with having people
shoot down from a plane. Out here in the NYC area, there are CONSTANTLY
shots fired from moving vehicles in area that are much more heavily
populated than Idaho, and you only hear about accidents two or three
times a year!

My guess is that even Idaho coyotes don't hang out in the heavily
populated areas... And it is probably easier to confuse a coyote with a
human from 50 yards on the ground through the tall grass than it is
from 50 yards in the air with a clear view.

What I find most interesting is that presumably, based on the state
law, if the pilots said they were just out hunting, as opposed to
saying they were protecting their chickens from the coyotes there would
be no question that the purpose of the flight was for
Sport/Recreation...

Now, wouldn't these guys be on or over their OWN land? Why would they
NEED permission to carry weapons or shoot from it on/over their own
land? Especially if they are in a powered parachute or ultralights,
which are not regulated.

The Monk


AJ wrote:
From an article in the Caspar (WY) StarTribune.net -- am I wrong in
thinking this is not a good idea?

AJ

New weapon in the sky
By CHRISTOPHER SMITH
Associated Press writer

BOISE, Idaho -- Idaho's congressional delegation and the administration
of Gov. Dirk Kempthorne spent the past two years convincing the Federal
Aviation Administration to give ranchers permits to shoot coyotes and
other wild predators while flying overhead in powered parachutes and
ultralight flying machines.

After initially refusing to allow the state to issue aerial gunning
permits for experimental aircraft operated by non-certified pilots, FAA
Administrator Marion Blakey relented last spring and agreed to come up
with "the most appropriate means of accommodation," according to
correspondence obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of
Information Act.

The FAA is now allowing Idaho to issue permits to ranchers for aerial
shooting of predators to protect livestock if their vehicle qualifies
as a "light sport aircraft" under new FAA regulations. The new category
has spawned a squadron of unconventional flying craft known as "aerial
ATVs."

"These are the newest, hottest things for ranchers," said Allen
Kenitzer, a spokesman for the FAA in Renton, Wash. "This is something
people out West really wanted, to be able to use these aircraft out in
the middle of nowhere to do the things they need to do."

But wildlife activists say the use of kit-built and experimental flying
contraptions for airborne attacks on wild animals is dangerous and
absurd.

"I'm covering my eyes and laughing," said Wendy Keefover-Ring of
Boulder, Colo., coordinator of a national coalition of environmental
groups that wants to end aerial gunning of wildlife. "It's unsafe even
when you are in a plane that has a stronger engine than these
ultralights have."

State law authorizes the Idaho Department of Agriculture to issue
permits for people to "shoot, capture, harass or kill" wildlife that is
threatening livestock while the person is airborne in an aircraft. The
practice did not get FAA scrutiny until 2003, when a southeastern Idaho
rancher was cited by the FAA for illegally using his powered parachute
-- a cage-like cockpit with a motorcyle-size engine and propeller
suspended from a parachute -- to shoot coyotes.

The federal agency determined that because ultralight craft could only
be flown for sport and recreation. Using them for livestock protection
or to collect a bounty on predators was prohibited.

"It was animal rights people who turned him in," said Eulalie Langford,
a former state legislator from Montpelier who took up the fight on
behalf of the rancher, whose name was not released by the FAA. "Baby
lambs have rights too, and I told our officials that people might be
getting a lot of sport and recreation out of shooting these coyotes
that were eating their lambs."

In April 2003, the state formally asked for a waiver to allow the use
of powered parachutes in airborne predator control.

"As technology has improved, it has become apparent that powered
parachutes are an ideal vehicle for airborne predator control," wrote
Stanley Boyd, a lobbyist for woolgrowers, elk breeders and cattle
ranchers who heads the Idaho Animal Damage Control Board.

The application was denied, prompting Idaho's all-Republican
congressional delegation to write an appeal to FAA Administrator Marion
Blakey.

"It is important to note that these activities occur in the vast open
spaces of rural Idaho and pose no real threat to human safety," Sens.
Larry Craig and Mike Crapo, along with Reps. Mike Simpson and C.L.
"Butch" Otter wrote in the September 2004 letter.

After several months of investigation and negotiation, Blakey
responded, writing that FAA "does not want to unduly restrict these
activities, but only wants to ensure they are conducted safely and in
appropriately certificated aircraft."

The solution came with the creation of the new light sport aircraft
category and new sport pilot certificate issued by FAA. Under the new
rule, lighter-than-air balloons, gliders, airships, flying trikes,
gyroplanes, powered parachutes and other ultralights that meet certain
weight, speed and capacity standards can be certified and receive a
tail number just like a full-size private airplane. The test required
for a light sport aircraft pilot's certificate is not as extensive as a
traditional pilot's license.

"Now, ranchers can take eight hours of instruction, pay a small
certification fee and then just take a felt pen to write your 'N'
number on the side of your craft and bingo, you're legal," Boyd said in
an interview. "We didn't issue any permits for ultralights this past
year, but ranchers are just learning this is available to them."

Keefover-Ring, who tracks aerial gunning accidents for the conservation
group Sinapu, said although she has never seen a report of an
ultralight crashing while aerial gunning, her group has records dating
back to 1989 of 24 crashes of standard airplanes or helicopters during
airborne predator flights that killed 32 people.

"There is so little margin for error when you are flying 10 feet off
the ground shooting a gun at a moving target," she said.

But Langford maintains the ultralights are safer than standard
airplanes for picking off coyotes, foxes and other livestock predators.

"Airplanes, even small planes, can travel over 100 miles an hour, while
these aerial ATVs move along about the speed that a coyote can run,"
she said. "If there's a mountain coming up, you have plenty of time to
see it and take evasive action."