The cited article does not provide any proof that the EPA is using drones to look at feedlots in Nebraska.
Quite the contrary, it is a good example of sensationalized and misleading news reporting. If you actually watch/listen to the article, you find it full of stock footage of large military style drones, much of it showing take offs from desert airfields in the mountainous west (not Miami nor Nebraska).
Yet at time 0:57 in the footage, the drone that the Miami police actually purchased is described as "20 pounds" -- basically a medium sized model airplane and entirely different from all the footage shown in the article.
I personally oppose the idea of Federal Agencies expanding police powers within US boarders. I"m not trying to debate whether or not the EPA should be cracking down on these feedlots.
My argument here is a practical one. Why would the EPA want to use drones? What would drones accomplish that a rented Cessna 182 with a camera port could not? They don"t need the aircraft to be aloft for long periods, they don"t need to do continuous surveillence, they don"t need to view the property from 9 miles away, and (except for the most radically opposed farmers) they don"t need to worry about hostile gunfire.
The US Government has for years used tethered balloons over the Gulf of Mexico to watch for low flying drug planes. There has been talk of drones for this, and similarly for using drones to patrol the US/Mexican border and the US/Canadian border. Here the rationale is clear -- you need to be up there a long time to monitor relatively fleeting events. So it makes sense to use drones, for purely practical reasons.
But it doesn"t make sense to use drones to monitor feedlots. The letter of complaint sent by Congress to the EPA never mentions drones. The Omaha newspaper article never mentions drones. (Both talk about "aerial surveillence", but neither mentions drones.)
I disagree with Mr Dean that he has cited a reliable article connecting the EPA, drones, and Nebraska/Iowa feedlots.
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]
Today's Featured Article - A Cautionary Tale - by Ian Minshull. In the early 1950s my father bought an Allis Chalmers B and I used it for all the row crop work with the mangolds and potatoes, rolling and the haymaking on our farm. The farm and the Allis were sold and I have spent a lifetime working on farms throughout the country. I promised myself that one day I would own an Allis. That time event
... [Read Article]
Latest Ad:
1964 I-H 140 tractor with cultivators and sidedresser. Starts and runs good. Asking 2650. CALL RON AT 502-319-1952
[More Ads]
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
