Random anti-poaching people are examples of doing it wrong, just like the jackasses on Whale Wars. Every example of anti-poaching with UAVs 'I've SEEN' has been an example of breaking the law because its okay for you but not them.
If I understand correctly you are saying that the FAA's June Interperative Ruling, which bans FPV and claims that model aircraft are subject to the same rules as full-sized aircraft (all in direct opposition to the 2012 Reauthorization Act which says FAA cannot regulate model aircraft at all),
You're utterly wrong on your interpretation of this. It reiterates that FPV is banned. This isn't new. Doesn't stipulate that RC aircraft are required to follow the same rules as full sized aircraft at all, unless they want to operate for commercial purposes, but again, this isn't new.
FAA claims their Interpretation of the law is enforcable as law
The FAA makes the law in this area. They are correct in principal. From a technical perspective however, they are suing based on policies not actual regulations.
that's the whole point of these lawsuits.
No, the point of these lawsuits is the FAA is attempting to enforce based on policy they haven't made into official regulation yet. They are attempting to stop people who refuse to wait until proper regulation can be ironed out. This is not a good thing. Its a horrible thing.
Its horrible because these people are essentially going to force the FAA to rush the process of coming up with actual regulations.
The easiest thing for the FAA to do is to open the regulation for public comments, ignore them all, and just turn their policy as it stands into actual regulation. Then these court cases are over and the FAA wins, period. NO ONE WANTS THAT.
It's true that they have not gotten any signficant bills to congress
They don't have to get any bills to congress. The FAA makes the regulations governing the skys. Congress delegated that authority to them the 50s or so. The FAA has to follow certain rules about how it makes regulations, including open public comment periods, but they are in no way required to listen to the public comments and congress doesn't get to tell them what to do, only appoint people to lead the organization.
The FAA is one of the few government organizations that actually does its job reasonably well. I have no idea how this manages to be the case, but so far it is.
It seems you are arguing that their incompetence is actually a clever tactic they are using to protect us from themselves. Is that what you meant?
... I'm stating that they are NOT INCOMPETENT. They are taking the time to properly evaluate the situation and come up with a workable plan, as they always have. One that allows hobbyists to keep doing our thing and allows for safe commercial use without killing or maiming people.
By the way, I disagree with most of your supporting anectdotes and facts
Well of course you do ... Its possible to disagree with anecdotes, though doing so by offering your own response without providing any facts or anecdotes at all just makes you look silly. Disagreeing with fact just makes you look stupid however.
If you look at the postings related to UAVs on slashdot its fairly easy to see my point, but that would require you educating yourself rather than just disagreeing, wouldn't it?