Has Mankind Gone Too Far With Drone Fishing?

Previously man was limited in his ability to fish the waters of this world by the power of his arm or his ability to procure the services of a boat. Now, as long as man is willing to risk a thousand dollar drone set-up, he can descend upon unsuspecting fish with robotic precision. It is very unfair, and awesome.

The concept is simple. Buy one of those drones every upper middle class teenager seems to get for Christmas. Attach a streaming camera set-up to it. Next, rig it up so that it can fly the fishing line from the rod out, but when the fish bites the line can easily detach. Finally, attach a friend to the controls of the fishing rod.

After that it’s like shooting fish in an ocean. Fly the drone around, pulling the line behind you, until you see a school of fish. Next, dangle the bait in the center of the school. Inevitably one will strike, the line will detach, and it’s up to your friend to reel in your catch. Either that or a bunch of tuna will wreck your drone and you’ll get to watch a livestream of a thousand dollars sink to the ocean floor. Video after the break.

63 thoughts on “Has Mankind Gone Too Far With Drone Fishing?

  1. Commercial fishing has been “unfair” for years and the result is that the fish population has diminished alarmingly, No doubt, with the progress in artificial intelligence there will be drones that require no fisherman at all necessary. But then fishing will cease to be a contest between the fish and a skilled fisherman, not a sport but a harvest. I personally concede that killing other creatures for sustenance is an in integral part of being alive but take no enjoyment out ot of it. But that’s very personal and impractical. A sport requires overcoming limitations and deveoping special skills. If you want sport then it’s probably better to steer clear of technology that kills the development of skills.If you want fish, drones are OK.

      1. Do it like me and go hunting them underwater with a harpoon gun. No air bottles. No cameras. No flashlights.
        People don’t really understand, they need to have killed a big octopus using a knife and watch the light fade from his eyes..
        I don’t like doing it but it is more humane than buying fish in the supermarket.

        1. They are not human so personifying them or wishing to treat them [more] as a human is irrational. I agree that taking a life, even for food, isn’t pleasant though required to live. However, having it more ‘humane’ is pointless and irrelevant.

          1. “Taking a life[…] (is) required to live”

            Except it isn’t. Lets not circle jerk about how killing animals is a “sad, necessary fact of existing on this brutal sad earth :(” – Its not. Either stop killing animals for food, or stop diddling yourself over how bad you feel about it. And don’t you dare come back with some “plants feel pain” horse shit.

          2. @loplop. “plants feel pain horse shit”? What does pain have to do with it? Life is life. If it’s all about pain then are you ok with meat so long as the animal is anesthetized first?

      2. They are not using it to snare or snag fish, they are using it just as you would casting and reeling in.. It simply moves the line/lure to entice/make the fish bite. The camera shows where the fish are so they know where they are, not unlike fishing from an elevated position so you have the advantage of seeing the fish, be it on a boat/trawler or a pond with raised sides.
        Not once did they say they are air-racing that drone to harpoon unsuspecting fish. Stop reading what YOU would do into the use of a gadget.

        1. Not if you fish at my skill level. I can sit for hours next to a friend who’s reeling them in left and right from an identically rigged line. Very relaxing indeed, except when I need to help him get a particularly big fish off his hook.

          And I think that this drone fishing is very un-sporting and probably illegal in most places.

    1. This is slightly off topic but with the change of weather and its catastrophic dangers to food production in the long run which is already doing damage to California’s breadbasket of agriculture it seems likely that the huge area which has remained relatively untapped for artificial food culture is the seas which cover a major part of the planet’s surface has been greatly neglected. There are many salt water plants with possibilities for genetic modification to becoming food crops and water and air drones could be developed for sea farming which probably would encourage other sea life to prosper. Sun and irrigation is no problem but violent weather is a consideration. Humanity is edging into the stage of development where humanity can fully take charge of the planet. We are still quite weak in many ways but the possibility is arising and it would solve many problems. Your drone experience is just the bare edge of the possibilities.

      1. GMO Dulce ? GMO fish ? What kind of NWO groupie are you? Since Fukishima the Pacific is certainly not safe any longer, and may even be in a state of die off as we speak..TBD at this point.. I personally don’t claim any solutions, but certainly manipulation by man of stable living systems that have been in place for thousands of years has not been shown to work.. perhaps living within our means with the resources available without the massive raping and pillaging of the earth we have witnessed of late would be more practical.. Our modern so called civilization could take a few lessons from our Native predecessors.

        1. Living systems are no longer stable. Huge die offs of corals worldwide will destroy much of the areas where fish and other sea creatures replenish their populations . Because rapacious corporate efforts have totally screwed up productive areas does not mean that technological efforts are thereby totally destructive. Humans are very new at this game and have made horrendous mistakes but all natural reactions are not beneficial. We regularly cook our food to destroy dangerous infections, innoculate our children to ward off diseases, build shelters to keep ourselves safe and healthy. Humanity must be careful, but we are no longer safe with subjecting ourselves to all natural forces.

          1. There are very powerful commercial interests concerned with negaring whatever damages the Fukushima incident has inflicted on the safety of the Japanese ecology, the prospects for the Olympics in Japan, the future of nuclear power installations in Japan and the rest of the world and the safety of food out of the Pacific where radioactivuty from Fukushima has already been detected off the California coast. There for it is very difficult to assess the dangers and the damages. It may be acceptable or it may not. There is no way to tell. True information is blocked.

  2. This is… different. I wouldn’t fly above the ocean with 100’s $$ of equipment. But it’s their hobby not mine. At some point that drone will get wet.
    Please be carefull with flying fish-hooks!

  3. You’re still catching one fish at a time here; I don’t think anyone (including fish) has much to worry about from this new technology in the hands of recreational fishermen. It’s the overfishing by trawlers with giant nets that’s the real problem, and they’ve had sonar technology for decades.

  4. In this application they are using the rc quadrocopter (to me a drone must be able to operate autonomously, otherwise its nothing more that a fancy rc toy) as a fish finder/ way to surf fish.

    The time to be concerned is when the quad is attached to a trawling net and other quads.

    1. From what it looks like, they do have a DJI Phantom, which does have GPS therefore is capable of autonomous flight. So it is a drone. Plus the definition of “drone” – or to be correct a UAV for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle – only implies that the vehicle is unmanned, regardless of whether it’s self controlling or remotely controlled.

  5. I agree with most of the comments so far that I wouldn’t risk my drone, but what about this is “unfair”? My original theory was that “unfair” is (considered by the author to be) artificially extending your reach from shore, but a boat does that too, and the author seems to imply that is fair.

    Not trolling, just asking.

    1. The concept of ‘fairness’ in any bloodsport where the prey hasn’t some chance of killing the predator is little more than a light handicap to salve the conscience of the hunter.

      1. Humans evolved the ability to make and use tools. Other animals evolved sharp claws and teeth. I’ll apologize for my tools when a shark apologizes for it’s bite!

        That in mind we have done so much better than our competitors that I do agree we need to take responsibility for how we manager the natural resources that we have won.

    1. I think catch and release by responsible fisherman is fine. Sorry if that bothers you but I think the fishermen who practice it (serious fly fishermen, for instance) are far more concerned about sustainable fishing than you are.

  6. for me it is utterly important that the caught fish gets completely eaten, being it by the lads, their friend guests and the leftovers by the cats and dogs -and nothing of this food-was-fish gets thrown away- then the caught fish did serve its purpose.

    I do not live in a country with seashore, so I apply the same metric to e.g. yogurts: I kindly take care to eat all (I mean ALL) of it out of the plastic cup I bought it in and avoid leftovers stuck in the cup or under the lid getting thrown away or washed off down the sink.
    Moreover, I teach the same attitude to my kids.

    Now if the by-drone-fishermen just cut their fishing time by using the assist of the drone, e.g. instead of fishing the traditional way a whole day long they do fish only for two hours then spend the rest of the day slacking off, the environmental impact of the drone (the production of it) has to be compared with that of, let’s say, the rowing/motor/sailing boat and the additional hours the fishermen would have spent until they got the same amount of catch.
    What would be the outcome of such a comparison? (not enough data here to compute on…)

    Then, on the same note the hi-tech fishing gear (carbon fiber, epoxy, various types of steel, nylon, lead, lubricants) shall be compared to say bow and arrows, handmade out of natural material…

    Only waiting by the seashore(*), keeping the mouth wide open, ’till the fish jumps right in will be “fair” – isn’t it?
    (* better: atop of a mountain, at least 1000 m.a.s.l tall ;-)

    1. Several species in nauture have evolved to live off of the scraps of others. Had our ancestors held your values we wouldn’t even have our best friend, the dog. Why do you hate vultures and bacteria so much?

  7. I can’t really logically argue against such individual drone-assisted fishing, but something about it irks me, rubs me the wrong way.
    I guess I could sit down and think up a good sounding rationalization, but why bother for an internet comment though..

  8. It was so beautiful watching the school of fish from the drone. Getting a view of something that very few people will ever see was amazing…

    And then to watch the last half where this beautiful animal was dragged to the shore, fighting, and failing to stay alive.

    I wonder what my kids’ experience of this broken, abused world will be.

    Made me very sad.

    1. If you are suggesting the fisherman was being cruel to the fish, you should watch a group of coyotes run down a white tail deer. I did – they started eating the deer before she was dead! There is nothing humane in the wild when it comes to hunting and killing food, so why should we be any different?

      ….and BTW, I bet the fish tasted good!

      1. It’s not a question for logic. I agree completely that the nature of life and survival is rampant with necessary cruelties. Why should we criticize a cancer that is merely acting to carry out its biological nature? When a city is bombed to acheive a required victory and women and children and cats and dogs are brutally torn abart, we calm ourselved by calling it collateral damage. But there is something unmanageable inside of me that simply says no. Not me. I cannot. Evidently many people do not have this denial. I do and somehow it is fundamental with me and I cannot help it.

        1. “Why should we criticize a cancer that is merely acting to carry out its biological nature?”
          Many people don’t. Just ask a smoker!

          “When a city is bombed to acheive a required victory and women and children and cats and dogs are brutally torn abart…”
          If people suddenly started caring then most democratic nations would see a sudden massive turnover in leadership. Obviously human nature is not to give a shit about that. Also.. how many “required” victories have there been since WWII?

          1. As I indicated, it is not a matter of logic, but personal feeling. Otherwise I might be eating stray cats and dogs and perhaps vulnerable children who have wandered away from home.

  9. i have no problem so long as they fish within their limits. the real bane to fish are those big factory trawlers that scoop em up by the ton and process them into those nasty square patties the sell on a bun at those fast food places.

    1. Umm.. those aren’t fish. Those are made from mostly floatsam, dolphin with an occasional dash of whale and/or scuba diver. Why would anyone ever turn a tasty fish into that crap?

  10. I agree with the observation that this is not a drone, but an R/C controlled quadcopter. Drones are autonomous. What would be interesting would be a true drone fishing all by itself. Can a Reaper drone fly fish, I wonder?

    1. It’s not last century. In previous centuries hunters had to outwit brighter animals. In sync with current intellectual levels people have to outwit fish.

          1. Humans be easy prey mate. A hole in the sidewalk would have it’s fill of oblivious cellphone users. Crikey, you could just stand next to the hole with a mallet and they’d hover-board in by the dozens.

          2. When I was in the US Airforce, back in 1944, the guys used to tell me how they appreciate a piece of ass. It’s something to look forward to.

          3. Your comment, of course, was ambiguous and mine merely pointed that out. What strikes me about this game of individual fishernen catching individual fish i that it is obvious that they do not pursue their sport becaus they are hungry. Eating the fish is just an added reward for their real enjoyment which is torturing dumb animals. That does not particularly fascinate me.

  11. Less sophisticated, but my dad build 40 years ago a semi-sumersible trimaran. It had a washer’s mechanical timmer that controls an electric motor from a 24v truck ran and a homemade auto-release hook. The trimaran just start “diving” into the sea for the programmed time carrying the fishing hook and releasing it when the trimaran stop. But it didn’t had a return function so it had to be pulled by a secondary line back to the beach. I wish i had pictures, because i think my dad throw it away a few years ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s