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

[Twodumbdogs]

https://nyp.st/2O6h9p9

Drones in the park are definitely the problem.

 

[Classic flyer]

How many percentage of people own drones in the entire country? It's probably less than 1% out of 400 million people. Compare that to the amount of people visiting the national parks everyday. How drones can be a threat?

Gotta blame somebody... might as well be a drone driver...lol

 

[ac0j]

This is a stupid argument at this point.
To the people that think they need to fly in parks, just go do it. Its's your money, spend it on fines if you want to.
To the people that think they need to enforce ANYTHING involving drones, give it a rest.
There will be new rules and laws, AND there will be new criminals to ignore them. Just like always.
Quit arguing about NOTHING and go fly your drones. Where ever makes you feel comfortable, and at your own peril.

 

[melmartin]

I don't think this is a difficult problem to resolve. The National Parks can designate an area for a limited amount of drone flyers, who will buy a permit (helping with NP expenses.) This areas will be a distance from heavy tourist areas. The times this is allowed can also be limited.

Dead Horse Point State Park in Utah has a very similar policy which works quite well. Quoting from their web page:

Between November 1st and February 28th/29th of each year, drone use is permitted by permit only. Permits cost $10 and must be filled out at the visitor center (open daily 9am-5pm) before operating.

Permits are valid for one calendar day from 9am of the date of purchase until 9am of the date after. Additional permits must be acquired for more days.

Permitted operators must follow special regulations to respect the traditional visitor experience of Dead Horse Point State Park and protect sensitive wildlife resources. These regulations are:

The unmanned aircraft:
will not fly higher than 400 feet
must be kept in eyesight at all times
will not fly over people and vehicles (moving or parked) and remain a minimum of 25 feet from individuals and property
will not intentionally disturb or harass wildlife
will not be flown over park buildings or structures
will not be flown in high winds or adverse weather conditions
will not interfere with park rescue operations or programs
will not fly below the canyon rim
Park staff has the authority to enforce regulations and check permits at any time and violations of the rules can result in a revocation of permit privileges.

NOTE: Because of the high use by visitors and concentration of structures, drone operation at the main viewpoint of Dead Horse Point is illegal. Operators must hike at least a short distance and get away from the developed rim to comply with regulations.

Quite an intelligent policy. Tourists are kept away from the drones, and the noise. Drone operators get to take some pictures of the scenery. The park makes some money, because they will have some expense administering this.

I doubt drone flyers are any worse than pet owners, campers leaving litter and starting fires, etc etc. I think there's something rather nice about drone flyers being able to capture the wonder of our national parks from perspectives not usually seen. I could envision a program where the National Parks get to share the best videos to run in the Visitors Center.

As I say, this isn't all that complicated, and everyone would benefit. My $.02

 

[tcope]

I don't think this is a difficult problem to resolve. The National Parks can designate an area for a limited amount of drone flyers, who will buy a permit (helping with NP expenses.) This areas will be a distance from heavy tourist areas. The times this is allowed can also be limited.

There are several people that fly against the current ban. If drones were allowed to some degree in National Parks it would open up the door for people to be "confused" and fly all over. This would then create an additional burden on an already the over taxed rangers. You'd also then have people fly miles away from this "limited" area. You'd then also have people try to fly even further and crash their drones.

Dead Horse Point State Park in Utah has a very similar policy which works quite well. Quoting from their web page:

Dead Horse gets 90,000 visitors vs 775,00 0 for nearby Canyonlands. Dead Horse is also the size of a Walmart parking lot. Not very difficult to manage.

 

[melmartin]

There are several people that fly against the current ban. If drones were allowed to some degree in National Parks it would open up the door for people to be "confused" and fly all over. This would then create an additional burden on an already the over taxed rangers. You'd also then have people fly miles away from this "limited" area. You'd then also have people try to fly even further and crash their drones.



Dead Horse gets 90,000 visitors vs 775,00 0 for nearby Canyonlands. Dead Horse is also the size of a Walmart parking lot. Not very difficult to manage.

Yes, it's a small park with an enlightened policy. It could be tried in some National Parks. If it doesn't work, they can kill it. It's better than no access, which is what we have now. A 'pilot' program, excuse the pun, would be worth the small effort involved. People in the parks now are violating all sorts of rules. The parks survive. I think trying something innovative is far better than just doing nothing and hoping it all goes away.

 

[tcope]

I think trying something innovative is far better than just doing nothing and hoping it all goes away.

The test is how millions of people feel each year vs a few thousand that want to fly drones. We could try it... and have more and more cause damage and become a problem. All for what? So someone can have a picture from the air? Go out and enjoy the sights. Take a few photos with your camera. There are _plenty_ of other places to fly a drone.

You are... it _could_ be tried. But if we are talking about that... it simply won't happen and it won't happen from a discussion here. What this thread is really about is why the ban exist.

 

[ryanolivas]

Or maybe this will do, they should put a park that is only for drone flyers.

 

[lmel2005]

Banning drones from parks, is a stupid idea, I think.

People flying drones there, just want to take some nice footage of the site.

Drone users, must follow some simple rules, as all other visitors do, and that's all.

All this hysteria about drones beeing evil machines, which will take down aircrafts, with cameras that penetrate walls, making noise capable of driving crazy people and animals, etc, is nonsense.

Usually, I can't hear my drones, and almost can't even see them. And crashed drones, don't explode.

If a drone user violates the simple rules, e.g. flies above crowds, flies where machines are not allowed, etc, he could be arrested, as every visitor violating rules.

Everything else, is about ignorance, and hating unknown technology.

 

[YsniperY]

How many percentage of people own drones in the entire country? It's probably less than 1% out of 400 million people. Compare that to the amount of people visiting the national parks everyday. How drones can be a threat?

In my opinion they aren’t a threat. They are just another wonderful tool some of use to capture the magnificent places in our country. It’s the few idiots that cant obey the rules that ruin it for the rest of us. I fly my drone exactly as I’m suppose to and never take risks or screw around. For those of you that cant or wont follow the rules please stop flying your drone and sell it.

 

[YsniperY]

Campfires, cigarettes, vehicles of all sorts, and lightning, are all a much greater threat, and ongoing.

Thousands of manned aircraft overfly NPs daily, any one of which, if crashed, could cause a fire much larger than a drone.

Besides, drones, like manned aircraft are not banned from flying over NPs, just taking off or landing there.

No, that is not a good reason for their ban. In fact there are NO good reasons for their ban, other than someone might be annoyed hearing one.

Exactly. People need to stop complaining about everything. I bet most of those people that don’t like drones would actually change their mind and enjoy them if given a chance and to see what amazing video that some of them take. Most of those people think we are spying on them or invading their privacy. I couldn’t care less about some idiot out walking around. I’m not filming them! Get over yourselves already.

 

[Thwyllo]

In my opinion they aren’t a threat. They are just another wonderful tool some of use to capture the magnificent places in our country. It’s the few idiots that cant obey the rules that ruin it for the rest of us. I fly my drone exactly as I’m suppose to and never take risks or screw around. For those of you that cant or wont follow the rules please stop flying your drone and sell it.

Your theory sounds great apart from the fact that despite huge numbers of drones in circulation, there hasn't been a single significant injury or major incident. And for your information, there is a very large class of people who do break the rules, based on the "fools and wise men" principle.

We aren't all gibbering idiots and, believe it or not, often find ourselves capable of making a decent risk assessment and flying anyway in a lot of situations where ill-conceived rules might preclude it. And before you go all "drone police" on me, I'm obviously NOT talking about breaches like flying near aircraft etc..

Think about it the next time you're doing 40 in a 30.

 

[NSMTim]

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

This is another great reason why dog owners should have their dogs on a leash.

 

[Ren57]

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

Yes, I read/watched the article very carefully. Wasn't it the 2 dogs that caused the drone to crash, not the drone pilot? If the dogs hadn't jumped up at the pilot, everything would have been alright. Guess they'll just have to ban dogs in National Parks then?

 

[Robert Mitchell]

A crashed drone could destroy Yellowstone’s Grand Prismatic Spring

Well it didn’t.

And if you believe even a syllable of this overreactive nonsense, then I can understand how successfully paranoia can be distributed.

 

[787steve]

I think more people start fires flicking cigarettes out of car windows. It’s just like more people drown vs. being eaten by a shark.

I’ve experienced a fire after a crash. Luckily for me it happened after a rain storm so the ground was wet.

What caused your fire? Lipo?

 

[Mr. Salty]

Well it didn’t.

And if you believe even a syllable of this overreactive nonsense, then I can understand how successfully paranoia can be distributed.

How about we don't go dropping drones and other human trash into sensitive natural areas anyway, just to be courteous and safe? Is that such a controversial concept?

 

[ac0j]

I dont want drones flying around in any park that I am in. You getting pictures and video are of no interest to me and not that important for you to get in reality. Most good parks sell photo books and postcards of the scenery. Dont think you can take any better pictures than have already been taken.
It comes down to people trying to do something that a lot of people don't want done. Just because it is controversial.
Stupid pictures and video are no reason to disrupt others.

 

[Mr. Salty]

https://nyp.st/2O6h9p9

Drones in the park are definitely the problem.

Not to state the obvious, but the problem would be not so much the drones as the humans flying them.

 

[daasmangi]

What endangered species live in our national parks??

Mosquitoes and flies