United States National Park Ban

[Robert Mitchell]

You asked for me to get my facts straight. I'm simply doing this. Sorry if you see my facts vs your made up information as a "pissing match".

No and no. First, it started as 50 and 80. Second, where is your quote in response to me pointing out that the NPS ran 80 million acres in the entire US; "At that point I was referring to the NPS lands in my state, not the entire nation." . So in your prior statement you clearified that your 50 million NPSA acres were referring just to NC, not the entire US. Now you are stating your 50/52 million acres was referring to NC only and not the entire US.


Again... no. Here is your post; "In some areas, such as states like mine virtually ALL public lands are now off limits, and private lands are also." So you stated that virtually _all_ public and private lands were off limits. Not just NPS land. Of course all NPS land is off limits. That what this entire thread has been about. If you are now just saying that NPS lands are off limits. Great. No one disagrees with that. But again, these are _very_ limited areas. In NC is it is 7.7% of the land.

You only stated private lands. Feel free to provide _ANY_ support for this statement. It is simply not true. There are PLENTY of public and private lands to fly on. I _just_ got done pointing out the _millions_ of national forest as just one example. This is just public land. I don't really feel the need to point out that saying all private lands are off limits is simply ludicrous.

Well, now we are getting somewhere. You now appear to agree that there are millions of acres in NC where you can fly. Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I was okay with "arbitrary bans" now and in the future. I only stated that I was okay with the ban in National Parks.

Was this ban on everyone looking at these scenes? Was the ban on taking photos of these locations? I thought it was simply on one, very limited, use of drones. Feel free to visit all of the NPS lands any time you want and take as many photos as you want... just feel free to take them from a land camera and not from a drone.

There is clearly no ban on using NPS land as you mention. Again, you are simply stretching the truth and even making things up in an attempt to support your position. You can use and photo these lands all you want. Simply not using a drone. It's not the end of the world as you make it out to be. I too would love to use a drone in a NPS. I also respect the rights of everyone else to enjoy these areas and my wanting to use a drone should not ruin the enjoyment of hundreds of other people. Not when I can still enjoy the national park myself.

[QUOTE="Robert Mitchell, post: 612108, member: 1489"You can use all the "facts" you want to make the case that this is OK, but I am not on board.

That is certainly your right and I respect that.[/QUOTE]
My point all along was to emphasize there is a vast amount of land (much of it NPS land) in my state alone, being denied to users of a benign form of photography, for no good reason.

However you took my intent, numbers or presentation, I know exactly what the facts are, and federal bans, without good cause, or process, are not a good thing

For the record, you took my meaning of the word “here” to mean in my state. I was referring to here in this forum and yes I incorrectly stated 52m and not 84.6 m for the entire US.

Nevertheless I’m still not sure what YOUR point is. That it’s ok if they deny us a few million acres of the best, as long as we get a few of the remaining?

I have not the time or energy to continue arguing with your continued hair splitting.

I voted my position here, and made my opinion clear, and that's pretty much where I'll leave it.

Incidentally, you might be surprised to know I voted for access, WITH restrictions, because I tend to be reasonable, unlike those who feel "If I don't like it, it cannot be allowed under any circumstances!".

 

[Jim D]

I'm with Marko and many others on the ban. I want places to go with as much peace and quiet as possible. Of course the crowded areas of popular parks don't have much, but it isn't hard to get away from there if you are willing to work a little. I'd be open to something like they do in Denali opening the road to Wonder Lake once a year to lucky people who win the lottery to drive in. A similar plan for drone operators might work with a promise not to disturb wildlife or fly over people. Not sure how to accommodate those who don't want to encounter drones on that day.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I live near Yellowstone and visit often, alone or with guests. I DO NOT want to see or hear a drone while I am in the park. Drone use, as well as helicopter and fixed wing airplane flying is incompatible with the stated mission of the NPS (and my opinion). Everything someone wants is not therefore a right to it.

And yet there are dozens of activities already allowed which are much more disruptive than my 2 lb Mavic.

Is your “right” not to hear a Harley, or even a snowmobile, more important than his “right” to ride one?

What makes those things compatible with the NPS mission, but not a drone?

 

[DroningOn]

But but but..... Our national parks are so peaceful and serene and quiet. We can’t subject visitors or the wildlife to the “buzzing” of our evil drones! :-O

...To those on the “ban them all” side of this debate, the disturbing the peace justification is the least credible part of your argument and shows your true motives.

 

[ac0j]

But but but..... Our national parks are so peaceful and serene and quiet. We can’t subject visitors or the wildlife to the “buzzing” of our evil drones! :-O

...To those on the “ban them all” side of this debate, the disturbing the peace justification is the least credible part of your argument and shows your true motives.

So it is possible to get nice photos without a drone.....
Now if you could only do it with a powered skateboard or motor scooter it would be even better. Heck if you could pitch a tent on a presidential head at Rushmore, think of the shots you could get.

 

[Drgnfli]

Guys and Gals, I hate that put too fine a point on it, but if anyone has fooled themselves into believing that this has anything to do with flying drones in a national park you are not paying attention. This thread has clearly evolved or devolved depending on how you see it, into a debate between concerned naturalist that feel like some things should remain unspoiled and (I apologize ahead of time) and the “I don’t care it’s all there for me to use.” What I think is also being unnoticed by the “pro-fly in the parks” folks is that there’s not a drone operator on either side of this debate that doesn’t share your enthusiasm and would give their right arm to fly in the parks and get the shots of a lifetime and fill their reels with the beautiful images. But some of us are happy even if we can’t have it all so as to assure that no one’s experience is diminished, and others simply don’t like to hear the word no. But, let’s put that aside as I have no need to anger anyone. Let’s say that a magic wand could be waved and we could all, thousands of us, fly invisible, silent cameras that don’t bother people or disrupt the natural setting. To what end? So that we could now all have the same shots of the same waterfalls and canyons until they are no longer precious or unique cause any idiot with no other qualifications other than owning a drone already has and has posted the same footage on YouTube? Imagine a world where every once-amazing and wide-eyed experience of watching a National Geographic show, became a yawnfest because you and everyone else on your couch could say “yea been there shot that”. It’s like everything thing else in this fading Republic of jaded citizens. We once got chills or a thrill of something simple. Those magical moments are just gone and we are not better for it. Everything that was once amazing and special like having enough food or being the first one on your block to get color tv becomes so commonplace and expected that if we can’t all have what everyone else has, our fragile sense of entitlement gets offended and we get indignant. And I am no better. I loved my iPhone 6 until the 8 came out. I got the 8 then the 10 came out. How sick is that when you get right down to it? But alas regretfully it is human nature and it is disappointing. I am embarrassed to admit that I too have lost the magic and wonder of many things over the years that I wish that I could get back. I would very much NOT like to add the Parks to that list.

Remember that many of the people that come to these parks might have had to save up for years to make this one week experience possible and they perhaps will never be able to come back. I can not imagine the prospect of possibly changing their experience to take a photo that will be no better than the one that I can buy in the gift shop.

I will close with the way I opened. This is not a debate over flying drones. It is about 2 conflicting ideologies regarding the sanctity of nature, the possible infringement on someone else’s experience, and how much is too much. It’s as simple as that.

As you can tell this is something that I am very passionate about so if I have come off too strongly or offended anyone, I apologize it was not my intention.

I "liked" your response but it sounds too much like all of us droners should just say the heck with it & sit on the couch & watch National Geographic. Personally, I love "exploring" with my MP & while doing so, I record the view. Mostly I delete my videos because they are not "perfect" in color or they are boring views of the dry northern AZ plains. Occasionally, I get some scenic views of craggy canyons with flowing water (not much water in AZ) or colorful fall colors of hidden riparian areas way up some deep wash. (BTW a 'wash' is a dry creek bed to you poor folks who don't live in AZ).

That is why I drone! We should not give in to the anti-drone PIAs who complain about a hobby/job they know nothing about. IMHO!

 

[Gut Stuff]

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

We have had a change of policy in Western Australia after the State Government lifted their total ban on drones in National and State parks. You don’t need permission or permits but must follow established rules governed by the National body, CASA ie not within 30 m of people, height limit of 120m, not over built up areas etc.
National and State Forrest’s can prosecute drone operators under their existing legislation for activities that causes nuisance, park damage, hooning etc which also covers any park activities so it is a very sensible solution.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

We have had a change of policy in Western Australia after the State Government lifted their total ban on drones in National and State parks. You don’t need permission or permits but must follow established rules governed by the National body, CASA ie not within 30 m of people, height limit of 120m, not over built up areas etc.
National and State Forrest’s can prosecute drone operators under their existing legislation for activities that causes nuisance, park damage, hooning etc which also covers any park activities so it is a very sensible solution.

At least someone somewhere is being reasonable and taking a logical approach to the issue.

 

[ColinF]

I filed a Freedom of Information Act with the US National Park Service today. It can take 45 days for them to provide the information, and they could try to charge me an exorbitant fee to deter me. I'll let all know the responses I get from the NPS. Here is my filing for your reference:

On June 19, 2014, the National Park Service Director issued Policy Memorandum 14-05 titled, Unmanned Aircraft Interim Policy. This policy prohibited all use of all unmanned aircraft to American citizens in all lands and waters managed by the NPS. The prohibition was to be an "interim measure until the NPS considers how to address this new use on a long-term basis...." Further, the memorandum stated the objective of the NPS was to "determine whether specific uses of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS are appropriate and will not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values."

This Freedom of Information Act requests the NPS provide all studies, evaluations, use-case proposals, determinations, policy statements, and analysis done by the NPS to determine the appropriateness and impact of citizen use of unmanned aircraft across all lands and waters managed by the NPS.

The use of drones in lands and waters administered by the NPS is of significant public interest to both those for and against, particularity since drone ownership and use is growing exponentially in the United States. sUAS, commonly referred to as drones, and defined as unmanned aircraft by the NPS, are owned and operated by millions of Americans. In January 2018 the FAA reported that 878,000 hobbyists and 122,000 commercial, public and other drones, registered with the FAA. The number of drones in the United States is projected to grow to more than 2.2 million by 2022. It is of public interest and benefit to release the information requested in this filing so the American People can understand NPS findings relevant to drone use in the National Park System.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I filed a Freedom of Information Act with the US National Park Service today. It can take 45 days for them to provide the information, and they could try to charge me an exorbitant fee to deter me. I'll let all know the responses I get from the NPS. Here is my filing for your reference:

On June 19, 2014, the National Park Service Director issued Policy Memorandum 14-05 titled, Unmanned Aircraft Interim Policy. This policy prohibited all use of all unmanned aircraft to American citizens in all lands and waters managed by the NPS. The prohibition was to be an "interim measure until the NPS considers how to address this new use on a long-term basis...." Further, the memorandum stated the objective of the NPS was to "determine whether specific uses of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS are appropriate and will not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values."

This Freedom of Information Act requests the NPS provide all studies, evaluations, use-case proposals, determinations, policy statements, and analysis done by the NPS to determine the appropriateness and impact of citizen use of unmanned aircraft across all lands and waters managed by the NPS.

The use of drones in lands and waters administered by the NPS is of significant public interest to both those for and against, particularity since drone ownership and use is growing exponentially in the United States. sUAS, commonly referred to as drones, and defined as unmanned aircraft by the NPS, are owned and operated by millions of Americans. In January 2018 the FAA reported that 878,000 hobbyists and 122,000 commercial, public and other drones, registered with the FAA. The number of drones in the United States is projected to grow to more than 2.2 million by 2022. It is of public interest and benefit to release the information requested in this filing so the American People can understand NPS findings relevant to drone use in the National Park System.

With you on this. Keep us posted and let us know how we could help.

 

[ColinF]

With you on this. Keep us posted and let us know how we could help.

I will. Thanks!

 

[bushie]

We have had a change of policy in Western Australia after the State Government lifted their total ban on drones in National and State parks. You don’t need permission or permits but must follow established rules governed by the National body, CASA ie not within 30 m of people, height limit of 120m, not over built up areas etc.
National and State Forrest’s can prosecute drone operators under their existing legislation for activities that causes nuisance, park damage, hooning etc which also covers any park activities so it is a very sensible solution.

Where can i find details of this? I live in WA. Looked up the web site but it says you must apply fof permit.
Would love to use my Mavic in some NP around here

 

[Gut Stuff]

Where can i find details of this? I live in WA. Looked up the web site but it says you must apply fof permit.
Would love to use my Mavic in some NP around here

I know there is more about it on this site but can’t find it just now.

DJI Owners Australia - No Sheriffs

 

[Chip]

So it is possible to get nice photos without a drone.....
Now if you could only do it with a powered skateboard or motor scooter it would be even better. Heck if you could pitch a tent on a presidential head at Rushmore, think of the shots you could get.

Lincoln appears to have a flat head perfect for a tent but that seems excessive. Why not just hand launch from the highway....

 

[bushie]

I know there is more about it on this site but can’t find it just now.

DJI Owners Australia - No Sheriffs

The links on that site are to the NP site which are old and say you need a permit.

Would love to see the actual release. Will look further

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Master

I think that this thread has become a bit of an echo chamber. As both sides are making very good points, but we do not seem to be making progress and perhaps there is no answer and only opinion. If I could, could I pose a larger question to the group that might not only help clear up the debate, but could more-importantly, reveal the attitudes and general belief systems held by this crowd?
Ok here we go:
Putting all safety issues aside ie. flying over crowds, sporting events, etc. do we believe that there should be anywhere on this earth that is reserved exclusively for the soul to have peace where it is safe from the intrusion of technology, motorized vehicles and the throngs of the great unwashed public? Does everywhere truly need to be accessible to everyone? And if the answer is no, then where would these places exist?
As for me I am fortunate enough to have a beautiful camp in the heart of the Adirondack State Park in the Silver Lake Wilderness. Nothing motorized is allowed, not even a silent electric motor, so walking, snowshoeing, kayaking and canoeing is it. Now I know that’s not for everyone, but it is for me so I go there when I can to recharge and decompress. And as I am that blessed, I do not need to rely on the National Parks. But what of the simple tax-paying citizen who is not that fortunate, but also craves the same for he and his family? Should he not have the same opportunity as I? And again if we believe that to be reasonable, then where would this place exist if not in some of our wild National Parks?

You make good points here, and good food for thought.
I would respectfully suggest however, that those places pretty much no longer exist, whether or not you include drones in the equation.

Precisely because the airspace is open to anyone, there is nowhere in the US that you can be guaranteed that you won’t hear a passing aircraft. Granted it will probably be at an altitude where you will hardly notice it, and in areas they are very rare, but it’s there nevertheless. Rare exceptions are restricted airspace and TFRs, but National Parks generally don’t have these as we speak.

Our arguments ( those on the side of limited access) are for operations which would limit the exposure to someone wanting the peace you seek, to almost the same probability that already exists.

I couldn’t imagine a 5 second exposure of passing drone at 200 feet, being a great disturbance to a lone hiker anyway, but I respect the right to disagree.

 

[sar104]

Master

You make good points here, and good food for thought.
I would respectfully suggest however, that those places pretty much no longer exist, whether or not you include drones in the equation.

Precisely because the airspace is open to anyone, there is nowhere in the US that you can be guaranteed that you won’t hear a passing aircraft. Granted it will probably be at an altitude where you will hardly notice it, and in areas they are very rare, but it’s there nevertheless. Rare exceptions are restricted airspace and TFRs, but National Parks generally don’t have these as we speak.

Our arguments ( those on the side of limited access) are for operations which would limit the exposure to someone wanting the peace you seek, to almost the same probability that already exists.

I couldn’t imagine a 5 second exposure of passing drone at 200 feet, being a great disturbance to a lone hiker anyway, but I respect the right to disagree.

Your post illustrates the other problem with this discussion - cherry-picking scenarios. If the result of allowing drones to operate in National Parks were the occasional drone passing over at 200 ft then I doubt anyone would have much of a problem with it at all.

At the other end of the scenario spectrum, swarms of drones buzzing around at low altitude at the popular tourist locations as people try to get selfies or cool photos of features or wildlife would be both obnoxious and dangerous. And that is what would happen as they become more and more popular and commonplace.

Any solution has to address the latter use case more than the former.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Your post illustrates the other problem with this discussion - cherry-picking scenarios. If the result of allowing drones to operate in National Parks were the occasional drone passing over at 200 ft then I doubt anyone would have much of a problem with it at all.

At the other end of the scenario spectrum, swarms of drones buzzing around at low altitude at the popular tourist locations as people try to get selfies or cool photos of features or wildlife would be both obnoxious and dangerous. And that is what would happen as they become more and more popular and commonplace.

Any solution has to address the latter use case more than the former.

Those of us advocating for reasonable, restricted access, are actually addressing your apparent distress of the latter scenario becoming a reality. We are not suggesting allowing hundreds of noobs, taking off from the rim of the Grand Canyon. Once again, we are suggesting limited permitting in locations, (millions of acres available) and at times where the risk of disturbance is minimal. This is not "cherry picking" scenarios. It is, in fact, an attempt at dictating the most desireable one. Look at the poll, majority want restricted access.

Incidentally, what makes everyone think there are going to be swarms of drones at any location, anyway? ... "And that is what would happen as they become more and more popular and commonplace".

Most of these new drone purchasers are going to either lose their drone or lose interest in the first month anyway. Quit listening to the media worst case scenarios!

Why is it all or nothing for you total ban supporters? The interim policy was NEVER MEANT to be a total ban in the first place.

 

[sar104]

Those of us advocating for reasonable, restricted access, are actually addressing your apparent distress of the latter scenario becoming a reality. We are not suggesting allowing hundreds of noobs, taking off from the rim of the Grand Canyon. Once again, we are suggesting limited permitting in locations, (millions of acres available) and at times where the risk of disturbance is minimal. This is not "cherry picking" scenarios.

Incidentally, what makes everyone think there are going to be swarms of drones at any location, anyway? ... "And that is what would happen as they become more and more popular and commonplace".

Most of these new drone purchasers are going to either lose their drone or lose interest in the first month anyway. Quit listening to the media worst case scenarios!

Why is it all or nothing for you total ban supporters?

That's not my position at all - I would be fine with permitted, restricted access. But your scenario was completely cherry-picked - it was a particular scenario that you know isn't going to bother anyone. Well nearly anyone. If you want to argue for limited access then at least acknowledge the problems that need to be addressed.

As for the reason to envisage swarms of drones - I think it is reasonable to conclude that airborne cameras will continue to become more affordable and easier to use, and therefore more and more popular. They will replace selfie sticks, and they will open up entirely new opportunities to take photos and video to the masses. And tourist destinations at National Parks are just the kinds of places where people will want to use them most.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

That's not my position at all - I would be fine with permitted, restricted access. But your scenario was completely cherry-picked - it was a particular scenario that you know isn't going to bother anyone. Well nearly anyone. If you want to argue for limited access then at least acknowledge the problems that need to be addressed.

As for the reason to envisage swarms of drones - I think it is reasonable to conclude that airborne cameras will continue to become more affordable and easier to use, and therefore more and more popular. They will replace selfie sticks, and they will open up entirely new opportunities to take photos and video to the masses. And tourist destinations at National Parks are just the kinds of places where people will want to use them most.

We do acknowledge the problems, at least those with a reasonable odds of existing. That is why most of us advocate restricted access.
As for your apparent fear of flying cameras becoming common, don't you think they had better develop a better policy than a ban, which the masses are probably going to ignore anyway, if everyone has one in their pocket. Even the NPS recognised this, which is why it was an INTERIM policy.
We just want them to do their jobs and get on with it.