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

[WParm]

Regardless of all the bickering back and forth, banning things doesn't solve the problem. Whether you are talking about guns, drones, or drugs. People who would use these thing illegally anyway are usually the most dangerous ones. A ban will not stop them. People who take the time to learn and use thing properly and under the right conditions are rarely the ones who cause the problems.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there have still been drone incidents in parks since the ban correct? How has the ban worked so far?

 

[LAZRTX]

The fires in CA and CO are started by car fire and arson. Arson is already illegal. Ban all cars in the NP then come talk to me. Haters gonna hate no matter what. It's a mental thing. They can only be cured by death.

 

[Newmanme]

Read the article. That's how drones are a threat. How many drones had flown over that particular dry spot before? But, this day it happened. Also, I'm not interested in what percentage owns drones. That number is growing exponentially every year and not in just the high end photography drones. The $40 mall specials will be under every Christmas tree every year and how many 12 year olds would be flying those pieces of crap around our National Parks if they could? Exactly

I am a bit concerned with tones so negative. I understand what you're saying About having all these children with toys, but why would you want to punish everyone?

Common sense rules can be put into place, like age restrictions, permits, making sure drones are registered, pilots have valid safety training, minimum altitude restrictions to keep drones a safe distance from animals, and so on.

Cars and recreational vehicles kill animals, even cameras can disturb animals, heck just man's presence in the parks is a disturbance in nature.

How many times have you flown your drone out in nature? There are engaged species located in more than just national parks. Let's be sensible here and not try and ban something for all because of one.

 

[LAZRTX]

Huh? More people have always died by handguns than bazookas too so shall we legalize bazooka. That defense NEVER holds water.

I know when I'm out with my bazooka I always have at least one handgun for backup. God Bless America!!

 

[ac0j]

You can have my bazooka when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

 

[sar104]

I see both sides and can respect most of the comments.

I do have an issue with noise complaints. I was at the Algonquin summit in the Adirondacks on July 29 2018. I took my drone with me just in case I had an opportunity. Unfortunately it was a busy Sunday, perfect weather, so way too many people to attempt a flight.

However...3 commercial touring helicopter rides and one small fixed wing, touring plane flew by in just over a 45 minute time span at the summit. Alll of them made enough noise to make you want to cover your ears. So I am not buying the noise pollution argument that drones apparently are causing...Oh and two unleashed dogs got into a barking match as well...geesh!

That's definitely a problem in some areas. I think that the fact that it is a regulated revenue generator, even if most visitors find it to be an unwelcome intrusion, is the difference. Not that I agree with that situation.

In the case of personal drones the NPS, at least, has numerous concerns. Before they were banned there were a number of cases of people flying drones around very popular tourist locations, such as Arches NP, GC etc. No injuries occurred, as far as I know, but there were complaints. As the popularity of drones increased, so did the concern that these might one day become as ubiquitous as cameras. The idea of as many drones in the air as cameras on the ground around scenic centers, even if just being used as glorified selfie sticks, was not an attractive one, either from the point of view of noise and nuisance, as well as the worry that commonplace operation over crowds would inevitably lead to crashes and injuries. So they decided to get ahead of the problem and ban them until (unless) some method of regulation and control could be implemented.

The wording of the memo banning use doesn't get into detail on those arguments, but the though process is fairly clear:

"As unmanned aircraft have become more affordable and easier to operate, they have begun to appear in some park areas. Although their use remains relatively infrequent across the National Park System, this new use has the potential to cause unacceptable impacts such as harming visitors, interfering with rescue operations, causing excessive noise, impacting viewsheds, and disturbing wildlife.[2] Recent incidents at Grand Canyon National Park,[3] Zion National Park,[4] and Mount Rushmore National Memorial[5] support the need for the required closures to enable a proper evaluation of this new use. These closures are a necessary, interim measure while this new use can be properly evaluated."

​

So unfortunately I think that this was kind of inevitable. They certainly could restrict that ban to the popular tourist areas, and maybe that will happen as the technology becomes more accepted and mature. But at present, if they were not banned, while the UAV community might be happy, I'm pretty sure that the major tourist sites would instantly become drone magnets and the majority of park visitors would not be as happy, and that the NPS would be getting inundated with complaints and claims. It's hard to please everyone.

 

[LAZRTX]

You mean exuding the instance of someone dropping their DJI into Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone?? That wasn't good enough for you? It certainly was good enough for the Park Service

They also banned the guy for life that went swimming in the geyser. Unfortunately they can't find him since his body was vaporized. You're ALWAYS going to have the ultimate moron no matter what you do. Regs or no regs. Morons even work for the Park service.

 

[sar104]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there have still been drone incidents in parks since the ban correct? How has the ban worked so far?

I'll assume that's a serious question but it's a bit like questioning whether banning driving while under the influence of alcohol is effective since some people still do it. The obvious answer is that without the ban there would have been far greater use of drones in the Parks and, since incidents of any kind generally correlates, at least linearly, with frequency of use, it could be surmised with some confidence that there would have been many more incidents.

 

[Oconnb910]

I guess we better start working on Banning lightning and sunlight in National Parks which are 2 big contributors to these types of situations. And don't get me started about volcanoes!

 

[baddog]

That's definitely a problem in some areas. I think that the fact that it is a regulated revenue generator, even if most visitors find it to be an unwelcome intrusion, is the difference. Not that I agree with that situation.

In the case of personal drones the NPS, at least, has numerous concerns. Before they were banned there were a number of cases of people flying drones around very popular tourist locations, such as Arches NP, GC etc. No injuries occurred, as far as I know, but there were complaints. As the popularity of drones increased, so did the concern that these might one day become as ubiquitous as cameras. The idea of as many drones in the air as cameras on the ground around scenic centers, even if just being used as glorified selfie sticks, was not an attractive one, either from the point of view of noise and nuisance, as well as the worry that commonplace operation over crowds would inevitably lead to crashes and injuries. So they decided to get ahead of the problem and ban them until (unless) some method of regulation and control could be implemented.

The wording of the memo banning use doesn't get into detail on those arguments, but the though process is fairly clear:

"As unmanned aircraft have become more affordable and easier to operate, they have begun to appear in some park areas. Although their use remains relatively infrequent across the National Park System, this new use has the potential to cause unacceptable impacts such as harming visitors, interfering with rescue operations, causing excessive noise, impacting viewsheds, and disturbing wildlife.[2] Recent incidents at Grand Canyon National Park,[3] Zion National Park,[4] and Mount Rushmore National Memorial[5] support the need for the required closures to enable a proper evaluation of this new use. These closures are a necessary, interim measure while this new use can be properly evaluated."

​

So unfortunately I think that this was kind of inevitable. They certainly could restrict that ban to the popular tourist areas, and maybe that will happen as the technology becomes more accepted and mature. But at present, if they were not banned, while the UAV community might be happy, I'm pretty sure that the major tourist sites would instantly become drone magnets and the majority of park visitors would not be as happy, and that the NPS would be getting inundated with complaints and claims. It's hard to please everyone.

But what about regular commercial aircraft, you don't mention that at all in your comment. Just that drone noise is annoying. The point I was making is that you cannot go into to most National Parks without hearing or seeing, airborne tourist flights. I was at delicate arch back in 2014-15 to fighter jets buzzed us. a dozen or more small planes and helicopters through out the climb, the summit and the decent. Lots of noise and not a drone in site

 

[sar104]

I guess we better start working on Banning lightning and sunlight in National Parks which are 2 big contributors to these types of situations. And don't get me started about volcanoes!

Why does this obviously spurious argument keep getting wheeled out? So if you can't prevent all causes of unwelcome events then you shouldn't bother trying to prevent any of them?

 

[sar104]

But what about regular commercial aircraft, you don't mention that at all in your comment. Just that drone noise is annoying. The point I was making is that you cannot go into to most National Parks without hearing or seeing, airborne tourist flights. I was at delicate arch back in 2014-15 to fighter jets buzzed us. a dozen or more small planes and helicopters through out the climb, the summit and the decent. Lots of noise and not a drone in site

I agree - I was not defending those flights at all - merely pointing out that the only reason they are not banned is the commercial pressures to allow them. There are currently no such pressures to permit personal drone use.

 

[baddog]

I agree - I was not defending those flights at all - merely pointing out that they only reason they are not banned is the commercial pressures to allow them. There are currently no such pressures to permit personal drone use.

Ahh, makes sense now, sorry I am a little slow...LOL I am gonna bow out now, it's sunny, warm and there is a lot of NON governed space to go fly in today...at least for now...LOL

 

[Twodumbdogs]

A majority of the public, many drone owners and the NPS agree with him. But go ahead with the personal insults. That always goes over well here.

Like the OPs comment, THIS comment is why I bother to post at all. "A majority of the public"? Seriously? Let's break that down, shall we.
Public equals all people.
People in the US number roughly 325 million https://www.google.com/search?q=cur.....69i57j0l5.4799j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
A majority would therefore be 325 divided by 2 plus 1 or 162,500,001 people.
In order to determine that "a majority" was valid from your comment, someone would have had to conduct a poll of at least 162,500,001 people. Statistically, it's likely that a number of members of this forum would have been asked to participate in this poll or survey. Since no one has chimed in to support your claim and it's so unlikely that you were the only forum member to be surveyed, I have to say that your majority claim is bogus.Yes I suppose a scientific sampling poll of some kind would work too, but that hasn't been done either so it's moot.

So @Mr. Salty, I would appreciate if you could either post a link to the survey/poll/whatever that helped you establish the existence of said majority or please just stop making up carp to support your point. Can you do one of those for us please? Thanks.

 

[Fried Eagle]

You mean exuding the instance of someone dropping their DJI into Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone?? That wasn't good enough for you? It certainly was good enough for the Park Service

exuding the instance, what does that mean?

 

[Brojon]

I'm not going to read 6 pages of back and forth so forgive me if this has been mentioned.
Pretty sure I read this was an FPV racing quad. They are notorious for having the battery slung low on the bottom where the the LiPo cells can get damaged.
In fact last weekend here in Austin they had a race qualifier and one of the quads crashed and caught the grass on fire.
They had enough sense to have extinguishers there and the fire was quickly put out.
So - I doubt you'll see many FPV racers buzzing around a national park.

 

[Fried Eagle]

Like the OPs comment, THIS comment is why I bother to post at all. "A majority of the public"? Seriously? Let's break that down, shall we.
Public equals all people.
People in the US number roughly 325 million https://www.google.com/search?q=cur.....69i57j0l5.4799j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
A majority would therefore be 325 divided by 2 plus 1 or 162,500,001 people.
In order to determine that "a majority" was valid from your comment, someone would have had to conduct a poll of at least 162,500,001 people. Statistically, it's likely that a number of members of this forum would have been asked to participate in this poll or survey. Since no one has chimed in to support your claim and it's so unlikely that you were the only forum member to be surveyed, I have to say that your majority claim is bogus.Yes I suppose a scientific sampling poll of some kind would work too, but that hasn't been done either so it's moot.

So @Mr. Salty, I would appreciate if you could either post a link to the survey/poll/whatever that helped you establish the existence of said majority or please just stop making up carp to support your point. Can you do one of those for us please? Thanks.

Nothing but net.

 

[sar104]

I'm not going to read 6 pages of back and forth so forgive me if this has been mentioned.
Pretty sure I read this was an FPV racing quad. They are notorious for having the battery slung low on the bottom where the the LiPo cells can get damaged.
In fact last weekend here in Austin they had a race qualifier and one of the quads crashed and caught the grass on fire.
They had enough sense to have extinguishers there and the fire was quickly put out.
So - I doubt you'll see many FPV racers buzzing around a national park.

It was - the discussion degenerated into a much broader argument than just the fire-starting issue, which is going to be fairly low for most drones.

 

[Brojon]

It was - the discussion degenerated into a much broader argument than just the fire-starting issue, which is going to be fairly low for most drones.

Thus me skipping 6 pages of blah blah - I could see the writing on the wall...
Thanks!

 

[George-H]

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

No where in this you tube does it say anything about a National park.. There are no national parks in Springfield Oregon.