A detection is worth what you can prove about it afterwards.
Anti-poaching work produces the most consequential evidence in this industry and the least defensible handling of it — because the priority at 02:00 is correctly the incursion, not the filename.
- Tracking
- Aircraft and targets, live
- Alerting
- WhatsApp with escalation, poor-signal friendly
- Evidence
- Sealed on ingest, admissible
Why the chain of custody matters more here
A wildlife crime prosecution can turn on footage from a reserve’s own aircraft. The defence question is the same one an insurer asks a security company, with more at stake: how do we know this is the file that came off the drone?
A digest computed when the footage arrived, and an access log nobody can edit, answers it. A folder on a laptop does not.
Alerting a team that is not at a desk
Rangers are in a vehicle or on foot, often on poor signal. The alert is a WhatsApp message with a map pin that opens in whatever they already use, and an acknowledgement link that stops the escalation to the next person.
If nobody acknowledges, it escalates. That is the whole point — an alert nobody answers has to become somebody else’s alert.
What this is not
It does not fly the aircraft, identify faces, or match anybody against a police database. It tracks what your pilots fly, records what they find, and produces something a prosecutor can use.
See the evidence trail
A sandboxed night shift — one aircraft, one estate, one intruder — ending in a real court-ready PDF. No signup, nothing to install.