Look. I appreciate the point your trying to make, I do....but you make your point from the mindset of a brain washed "sheeple". !!!My point!!! Is no harm was done! You have no more right to enjoy the moment in silence without the buzzing drone than he had to fly it. We are equal. Now to your illegal point....why is it illegal? Drone falls from sky and lands in national park, tree injured.....hardly front page news now is it. So its illegal, but why? I didnt vote for it to be this way, to be fair I'm sure we'd all vote opposite. Stop being a sheep and preaching illogical laws.
Bro, you nailed it. 100% dead-to-rights. It's like those stupid "can't buy beer before 1pm on Sunday" laws. WTF? Who benefits from that? Who voted for that?
About two years ago, the FAA finally admitted that cell phones and wifi hotspots DO NOT cause interference to aircraft while in flight. Yet for decades, the flight attendants were militantly unforgiving to customers who didn't shut them down quick enough. Those flight attendants were brainwashed/trained/taught that having a phone on (never mind whether in airplane mode or not) would cause the flight to crash - and the reacted accordingly.
Once they admitted that there is no interference risk, the FAA tentatively allowed the airlines to devise their own implementation of how to restrict the use of these electronics. Fine.
And recently, the FAA was reviewing whether to allow people to actually use their cell phones to make phone calls WHILE IN FLIGHT. Mind you, they've already admitted that there is no SAFETY ISSUE to operating a cell phone. But, according to the FAA head at the time, they were considering banning the practice because of "the aggravation factor for passengers who don't want to listen to someone on their phone for the entire trip." I kid you not. The FAA was considering banning something, not because it's unsafe (either due to interference or distraction) but rather because it's ANNOYING. Get that?
In general the NPS is responsible for keeping the site enjoyable for _all_ people. In most case this is the ability for people to enjoy nature in it's current state.
So picture this... you are sitting with your family enjoying view of the Delicate Arch and the surrounding rolling hills and foliage. You understand the deep history of the arch and that it's the arch on the UT license plate. You are taking pictures of the arch so that you can enjoy and recount the time you visited this historic place. Then, 10 drones start buzzing around your head and flying around the arch. You can no longer obtain a photos or video without several drones in view.
Or picture this.... you are watching and waiting for one of the most famous geysers to erupt. Right before this happens 10 drones all buzz out and over around the geysers. You can't get any photos of video of the eruption without a drone in the shot (which is going to look really cool when you go back and view them)...
So as
@tcope is suggesting, a justifiable reason to ban drones at NPS is due to the annoyance factor.
Well, how about this... Let's ban children under 10 from flying on airplanes and visiting national parks too - because, quite frankly, they annoy me. And if we're all about making the world less annoying, heck, let's ban it all.
Finally, what to do about that large, loud, single-engine plane that is dragging a football field-sized banner advertising Geico Insurance that's constantly flying around where I happen to be? Can we ban that too? I would just love some quiet, natural setting without that loud plane shoving advertising in my face while I'm relaxing at the park.
Anyone else see the slippery slope when we start blindly accepting laws that have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with annoyance?