United States National Park Ban

[ColinF]

I made a video in protest of the US drone ban in national parks. Take a look and pass it on.

 

[Drone Master]

I made a video in protest of the US drone ban in national parks. Take a look and pass it on.

No video?

 

[ColinF]

I made a video in protest of the US drone ban in national parks. Take a look and pass it on.

And now the link to the video....

 

[ColinF]

No video?

Just added it. As I was posting I had to take a call and hit post prematurely.

 

[Marko9219]

Not me. This drone pilot and VERY frequent visitor to Zion and Yellowstone and Teton and Canyonlands and Arches National Parks is STRONGLY in favor of of the ban.

 

[AeroJ]

I'm with you Colin - I think it's properly outrageous that we are banned by default from these places, when the remit of these services is to make the parks available to everyone. But I also can see how a park full of multirotors could be annoying to everyone else, and don't have much in the way of viable solutions to that problem. But I don't see why there couldn't be 3 days a month when multirotors are allowed, for example, or why they can't issue limited permits to keep the numbers down and allow it all the time - 5 multirotors flying for half an hour each in a space as big as Yosemite is hardly a massive disturbance to anybody I wouldn't have thought... after all planes fly overhead, there are even helicopter tours - why isn't the (vastly louder) noise of those a problem for example ?

 

[Mr. Salty]

I'll happily pass the link along to the National Park Service.

 

[ColinF]

Not me. This drone pilot and VERY frequent visitor to Zion and Yellowstone and Teton and Canyonlands and Arches National Parks is STRONGLY in favor of of the ban.

Why?

 

[ColinF]

I'm with you Colin - I think it's properly outrageous that we are banned by default from these places, when the remit of these services is to make the parks available to everyone. But I also can see how a park full of multirotors could be annoying to everyone else, and don't have much in the way of viable solutions to that problem. But I don't see why there couldn't be 3 days a month when multirotors are allowed, for example, or why they can't issue limited permits to keep the numbers down and allow it all the time - 5 multirotors flying for half an hour each in a space as big as Yosemite is hardly a massive disturbance to anybody I wouldn't have thought... after all planes fly overhead, there are even helicopter tours - why isn't the (vastly louder) noise of those a problem for example ?

There has to be controls. I agree no one wants fleets of unchecked quads flying around. With the correct rules and controls it is managble. Allow it only at certain times of the year. Sell permits and only allow a certain number at different areas, etc. Banning everyone is the easy way out. It would take a little work by the NPS, but it would be better than just saying no to everyone.

 

[ColinF]

Why?

If there are controls and limits, permits granted etc, then it could be balanced to allow drones. In a popular beach town we frequent, you can’t fly in the busy summer, but it is allowed in the off season. That is reasonable, as opposed to just saying no to everyone.

 

[ColinF]

I'll happily pass the link along to the National Park Service.

By all means. What I did was perfectly legal. I have thoroughly studied the NPS memorandum, and I also contacted the local police to ensure no local ordinances. Further, completely checked the airspace. In fact, I was planning on posting it myself. If you watched the video, I quote directly from the memorandum.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Why?

This has been debated here TO DEATH.

 

[ColinF]

This has been debated here TO DEATH.

Well you took the time to respond to me, suggested you would tell the park service on me (if you watched the video I have a note to them), so I naturally assumed you would engage in an honest debate. Guess not.

 

[tcope]

This has been debated here TO DEATH.

Naw, only like a few hundred or so threads on this same topic.

 

[tcope]

I'm with you Colin - I think it's properly outrageous that we are banned by default from these places, when the remit of these services is to make the parks available to everyone. But I also can see how a park full of multirotors could be annoying to everyone else, and don't have much in the way of viable solutions to that problem. But I don't see why there couldn't be 3 days a month when multirotors are allowed, for example, or why they can't issue limited permits to keep the numbers down and allow it all the time - 5 multirotors flying for half an hour each in a space as big as Yosemite is hardly a massive disturbance to anybody I wouldn't have thought... after all planes fly overhead, there are even helicopter tours - why isn't the (vastly louder) noise of those a problem for example ?

If you think the NPS is only to allow everyone access than you clearly don't understand their mandate.

Allow people 3 days a month? That makes sense, make sure instead of a few drones ruining the enjoyment, get a few hundred at the same time. Yeah, that makes sense. The list bad options goes on.

 

[ColinF]

Naw, only like a few hundred or so threads on this same topic.

You guys are a very tough and sarcastic crowd. Why bother commenting then?

 

[ColinF]

If you think the NPS is only to allow everyone access than you clearly don't understand their mandate.

I think the point is drones can be allowed while also protecting the parks and the wildlife.

 

[ColinF]

If you think the NPS is only to allow everyone access than you clearly don't understand their mandate.

Allow people 3 days a month? That makes sense, make sure instead of a few drones ruining the enjoyment, get a few hundred at the same time. Yeah, that makes sense. The list bad options goes on.

You are making a straw man argument. Attributing a something to him he never said and then attacking that argument. How about permits that allow only a limited number at a time. The waits would be long, very long, but people could take videos. Or charge a very large fee, cutting down those who are not serious, or allowing only 107 permit holders. There are lots of ways to allow it.

 

[tcope]

You are making a straw man argument. Attributing a something to him he never said and then attacking that argument. How about permits that allow only a limited number at a time. The waits would be long, very long, but people could take videos. Or charge a very large fee, cutting down those who are not serious, or allowing only 107 permit holders. There are lots of ways to allow it.

Don't think I said anything that was not correct.

"when the remit of these services is to make the parks available to everyone." What I pointed out is 1) this is not a service of the NPS within that context and 2).... as its out of context, it is incorrect.

There is a 100% ban on drones in National Parks and yet, people still fly within them. "Allowing" drones would make the situation even worse. People who don't know now that they are banned would instead see that they are allowed and not bother to understand a limited permit is needed. Spend a lot of money to get to a National Park and want to fly your drone only to find out your can't get a limited permit? Screw it, just fly anyway. After all, it took a lot to get there. There is less of a chance of getting caught if they let some people fly. Limited number of permits? I guess there will only be a few drones stuck in geysers, bussing around people while they attempt to enjoy the area or just a few people getting hit because someone needed a drone shot of a popular attraction.

But hey, a few thousand people getting a drone shot outweighs the enjoyment of millions. After all, you can't take a photo if it is not from a drone.

 

[sar104]

I think the point is drones can be allowed while also protecting the parks and the wildlife.

The problem is how, though. Imagine that every camera that you see in the parks were a drone. That would obviously be both obnoxious and somewhat dangerous. I suspect that the parks will go to some kind of restricted location, permit-based system eventually, but not anytime very soon.