Another great reason drones should be kept out of America's National Parks

[macoman]

What endangered species live in our national parks??

Cougars, leopards, buffalos... Etc

 

[UAVNV]

there is a lobby to regulate airspace for future commercial sUAV use below a certain altitude, look it up

 

[mad monkey]

Your argument and source material have no correspondence, or even far reaching correlation..
I agree recklessly flying will end age anyone anywhere. But using recklessness as a basis for national parks specifically is ludicrous..
Based on the current political situations happening on the hill, it won't be long until you're arguing they need to even have national parks! Soon enough you will not have that environment to enjoy on foot or in the air. That should be the concern, not a single guy being a dumbass

 

[Twodumbdogs]

Your argument and source material have no correspondence, or even far reaching correlation..
I agree recklessly flying will end age anyone anywhere. But using recklessness as a basis for national parks specifically is ludicrous..
Based on the current political situations happening on the hill, it won't be long until you're arguing they need to even have national parks! Soon enough you will not have that environment to enjoy on foot or in the air. That should be the concern, not a single guy being a dumbass

We're not getting rid of the NPS.

 

[beachcombing]

Not the only reason just one of MANY.
FPV drone pilot burns two acres after crashing his quadcopter!

I'm completely in favor of keeping drones out of National Parks, but this post and this incident have nothing to do with flying in National Parks.

 

[Red Baron]

Cougars, leopards, buffalos... Etc

Agh there are no leopards in US national parks. Buffalo and mountain lions are not on the endangered list--Just sayin

 

[tcope]

Fairpoints, I suppose, but the laws in this country tend to be an acted to prevent something from happening again or to exert control over the populace.

Laws are not made just to stop something from happening again.

So let’s look at your points individually.
1. Are there any documented cases of drones causing damage to the NP system (yes I know about the drone in the geyser)

Then.... yes (was this a trick question?)

2. Tens of drones? News story,video, articles?

Right now it is illegal to fly in National Parks. In that there have not been this many drones so far only shows how well most people are abiding by the law. Last time I was at Canyonlands someone was flying a drone. This is when it was illegal. With 776,000 visitors per year, you really don't think many of them would be flying drones? Last time I was at Arches National Park someone flew their drone all around Delicate Arch. He flew directly at some people sitting down and got about 20 feet away from them. I think he did not realize what direction he was flying. With 1.5 million visitors each year you don't think there would be a lot of fliers each day?

3. Injury to a person? See #2

See your second reason why laws are made. Again, I could easily simply argue that this just proves that the law is working. Your argument only even works if all laws were only pasted once something happens and not before. This is obviously incorrect.

4.Harassing wildlife. There are many stories of people doing that (just saw a story today) and yet people aren’t banned from the park.

Simply because this National Park Service has the responsibility to the public in allowing them access to the park and what it contains. People don't need a drone for this. They do need their bodies.

So does it make sense?

Not at all. It all falls apart when you realize that plenty of laws are made to _prevent_ crimes and losses.

 

[Mr. Salty]

As opposed to starting a fire anywhere else?

Potentially, yes. Read about the financial toll the wildfires around Yosemite are taking on park-related businesses. And most national parks are national parks because they're unique areas that benefit from protection.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

My responses in red

Laws are not made just to stop something from happening again./QUOTE] I didn't say that was the only reason

Then.... yes (was this a trick question?)

No I meant besides that incident.

Right now it is illegal to fly in National Parks. In that there have not been this many drones so far only shows how well most people are abiding by the law. Last time I was at Canyonlands someone was flying a drone. This is when it was illegal. With 776,000 visitors per year, you really don't think many of them would be flying drones? Last time I was at Arches National Park someone flew their drone all around Delicate Arch. He flew directly at some people sitting down and got about 20 feet away from them. I think he did not realize what direction he was flying. With 1.5 million visitors each year you don't think there would be a lot of fliers each day?

So not tens of drones. Thanks for the clarification.

See your second reason why laws are made. Again, I could easily simply argue that this just proves that the law is working. Your argument only even works if all laws were only pasted once something happens and not before. This is obviously incorrect.

If the law was working there'd be no discussion. Not everyone follows laws.

Simply because this National Park Service has the responsibility to the public in allowing them access to the park and what it contains. People don't need a drone for this. They do need their bodies.

Need isn't an issue. We going to go that route who needs a drone for anything? Who needs a car? cellphone? and on and on

Not at all. It all falls apart when you realize that plenty of laws are made to _prevent_ crimes and losses.

And we're back to the beginning. What crimes and losses? And aren't crimes by their very nature, defined as such because of a law that makes them such?

 

[Mr. Salty]

Do you really think a 2 lb piece of plastic stands a chance against thousands of gallons of sulfuric laden, at hundreds of degrees, flowing water? That thing dissolved long ago.

A crashed drone could destroy Yellowstone’s Grand Prismatic Spring

 

[Twodumbdogs]

Potentially, yes. Read about the financial toll the wildfires around Yosemite are taking on park-related businesses. And most national parks are national parks because they're unique areas that benefit from protection.

Right. Any fire has the potential to cause financial, physical and loss of life damage. Instead of making drones that COULD cause a fire illegal, shouldn't we ban fire? (being ridiculous on purpose with this one)

 

[Twodumbdogs]

A crashed drone could destroy Yellowstone’s Grand Prismatic Spring

Incident happened "On Aug. 2, 2014, a tourist crashed a remote-controlled drone into the hot spring’s waters."
Geyser has not been destroyed.

 

[Mr. Salty]

What endangered species live in our national parks??

There are hundreds.

https://nature.nps.gov/biology/endangeredspecies/assets/docs/SpeciesStatusSummary.pdf

The National Park with the Most Endangered Species

 

[Twodumbdogs]

There are hundreds.

https://nature.nps.gov/biology/endangeredspecies/assets/docs/SpeciesStatusSummary.pdf

The National Park with the Most Endangered Species

Great article about Hawaii. No cougars, leopards or buffalo in that park though.
And I'd be willing to bet that the people in the park, in their cars, pose a vastly larger threat to any species than a flying camera 200' over head.

 

[Mr. Salty]

And I'd be willing to bet that the people in the park, in their cars, pose a vastly larger threat to any species than a flying camera 200' over head.

You realize motor vehicles are greatly restricted as to where they can and cannot go in national parks, right?

 

[Twodumbdogs]

You realize motor vehicles are greatly restricted as to where they can and cannot go in national parks, right?

Now you're just teasing me.
Yes, of course I am aware. That's because vehicles that move on the ground have a direct impact on said ground.
Aircraft on the other hand, do not impact the ground they fly over, unless of course there is an impact with the ground.

 

[mad monkey]

I would have thought everyone here was pro drone.... I guess not lol

 

[Mr. Salty]

Now you're just teasing me.
Yes, of course I am aware. That's because vehicles that move on the ground have a direct impact on said ground.
Aircraft on the other hand, do not impact the ground they fly over, unless of course there is an impact with the ground.

There are endangered --- and nonendangered --- species of birds in the national parks as well.

And given that a lot of the people buying their drones at the local big box store do so without knowing the first thing about flying them, the chances of impacts with the ground are a certainty. How many threads are there right here at this forum about unexplained crashes and flyaways?

And in the end, the ban comes down to a combination of the potential damage from drones to the fact that the public just doesn't want them there because of the annoyance factor. Many national parks have tens of thousands of visitors a day and they don't want dozens of drones buzzing around, flown by a bunch of amateur hobbyists who think they're all Chuck Yeager but are far from it.

And a previous poster was right: The advancement of technology may mean the average drone will be able to take off and land from outside even very large parks. Good luck with that. Because that's when the public pushes the FAA into restricting the air space.

 

[tcope]

My responses in red

They don't show up in the reply as they were quoted. Formatting on the board can be difficult, I agree.

No I meant besides that incident.

You think laws are only made once something bad happens (again, that is simply not correct) and asked for confirmation that something went wrong. But as you know something _did_ go wrong, you now state that this needs to be ignored. Sorry, but you defeated your own statement and are asking me to ignore that. It does not work that way. Your statement was incorrect to begin with, you then proved it wrong yourself and now you want further proof it is incorrect.

If the law was working there'd be no discussion. Not everyone follows laws.

I think it misunderstand why people make laws. Because a few people break any law does not mean that they are not working. If you think laws fail because they are broken then you just don't understand that they are made to be a deterrent. I guess that pesky law against murder should be thrown away.... obviously it is not working.

Need isn't an issue. We going to go that route who needs a drone for anything? Who needs a car? cellphone? and on and on

I'm not sure you understand my statement. The need part was only a support for my actual statement, it was not my point at all. I think my statement was quite clear.

And we're back to the beginning. What crimes and losses? And aren't crimes by their very nature, defined as such because of a law that makes them such?

It seems that you either don't really understand why laws or made or are simply trolling at this point. So I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Weaponized]

I've come to the conclusion that I just don't like other humans. They should be banned in my immediate vicinity. Most of them couldn't win a spelling bee against my dogs and they regularly set my brain on fire.