***For a person to be “hunting,” they must have the intent to reduce an animal to their possession and ownership, while having at their disposal the means (e.g., firearm, archery equipment, crossbow, or other weapon) to achieve their intended goal.****

The hunting community has become somewhat familiar or at least heard of recovering deer carcasses with thermal drones. As of now the law was written long before this technology was available and it is such a grey area that it can be interpreted in multiple ways where there is a clear argument for both sides. This law needs to be made clear.. There are DNR agents that will tell you it is great and give you the go ahead to recover the deer with the drone and others in the same jurisdiction that will tell you your breaking the law and seize your equipment on site.. I could go on for days on why it should be legal but below is a perfect example of how it should be written.. either way just make the law clear and take all the guessing out of it please.

 

********************************************By statutory definition, unmanned aircraft systems are considered aircraft, and are subject to the general prohibition of "hunting with the aid of aircraft." The broad text of the aircraft hunting prohibition means there is no legal application of a UAS for hunting.

The term "hunting" must be interpreted in light of the legislative purpose, which can be gleaned from the statutory language and from case law. In State v. Herwig, 17 Wis. 2d 442, the court stated that hunting is "a privilege of reducing wildlife, which the hunter did not own, to possession and to ownership and at a time and place by a means and which are lawful."

The operation of a UAS to retrieve an animal killed would be lawful, while the operation of a UAS to retrieve an animal crippled may be a violation 

The operation of a UAS is not required for a hunter to demonstrate they made a reasonable effort to avoid being in violation 

Each situation involving the operation of a UAS to aid in retrieval presents different circumstances that must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Some of the factors that may contribute to the determination that a person is engaged in recovery of a wild animal killed or presumed dead, as opposed to hunting, include:

A reasonable but unsuccessful effort was made to locate the animal without the aid of a UAS. An articulable explanation why they believe the wild animal is dead (e.g., well-placed shot into the chest cavity, distance of the shot, blood trail, etc.).

None of the involved parties present during the flight or subsequent recovery efforts are in possession of a firearm, archery equipment, crossbow, or other weapon legally capable of reducing an animal to possession.

The UAS is being flown within the line of sight of the operator.
:

The AS operator does not have a vested interest in locating the downed animal beyond assisting with locating it. The UAS operator locates the dead animal and then provides the animal's location to the hunter. 

• The UAS operator is a third party and does not disclose the location of the crippled wild animal to the hunter upon locating it.

It is recognized that the hunter who shot the animal may choose to be the UAS operator. By doing so, the hunter/AS operator risks being in violation

The hunter/UAS operator clearly has a vested interest in locating and reducing the animal to possession. If the animal proves to still be alive when located, the hunter now has the location of the crippled animal and they may be in violation since the UAS was used to pursue a live animal 

 

if you agree with the above then sign this and let’s get it to TWRA and DNR before 2024 deer season