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

[PandaCheese]

Panda, that is the most idiotic thing I've read in a long time. What is a sky high death rate to you? Other than criminals killing other criminals, the gun death rate is very low. The gun free zones you invented are the worst areas for violence. I carry concealed EVERYWHERE and will protect you if the need arises. You're welcome.

You should read this: On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman to understand.

Your hypocrisy is laughable! I will bet $1 million that you are also a person who respects freedoms that matter to you. Lets try this - do you drink alcohol? do you smoke tobacco? do you drive a car? are you overweight?

Alcohol, cigarettes, cars, and junk food all kill millions more per year than guns. (11,000 gun homocide deaths vs 1.3 million auto deaths and 435,000 smoking and 111,000 die from being overweight) Yes, its millions more. So, you are 10 times more likely to die from being fat than being shot! Get a grip on the facts before you talk about scary guns.

As far as the "allowed public use" of a public space, its a rigged system. Bicycles, humans, and horses can use most trails but not dirt bikes. Why not? If its all about the noise then why are we allow to speak in a nat park? It is all complete bs from the tree huggers as they drive their prius with bikes on the roof to ride in a nat park and ruin it. If they like to ride bikes, what's wrong with their neighborhood? I moved to Nevada from California recently because your type has ruined MY state. I am a native born Californian and my rights are gone. Let's assign some of the hours for drone flights and some for quiet walking in the nat parks. Let EVERYONE use the space.

I can't even understand how you are interpreting what I said in this way...my point is if we are able to live with widespread gun ownership we can't figure out a sensible way to share NPs with drones? Which one is inherently more dangerous?

You are just jumping to conclusions and assuming I'm an anti-gun nut...I'm not. I do find it funny how gun enthusiasts are so touchy when it comes to the topic, like you felt personally offended when I made an analogy between drone regulation and gun regulation.

Looks like we are in agreement though about sharing NPs.

 

[tcope]

I feel that given the size of NPs and the limited range of most UAVs banning takeoff/landing effectively prevent overflights. Bigger aircraft certainly don't have that problem, but their noises are a lot more noticeable. My comparison to guns is that even for something inherently dangerous we are allowing it with rules.

I don't disagree about the noise from aircraft but it has nothing to do with this. As I mentioned, aircraft are not governed by the NPS so that have 0% input on how close the come to the park.

Same thing for guns... nothing to do with this. You then attempt to turn this into a danger issue (as this is the only way your example even comes close to working). Drones are not only banned as a danger to humans. That is probably one of the last reasons. I see little reason to carry on this avenue of discussion as I've already pointed out, the difference between guns and drones is the US Constitution and why it allows ownership of guns. You can own a drone in a park... you just can't use it. You also can't simple _use_ a gun on a National Park (you are to bring one into a park... same as a drone). Still..... completely two different things.

 

[Scubaerik]

I can’t agree with you more. The pictures and memories I create can’t be bought. I’m looking for something that draws my attention and isn’t staged. I’ve caught so many shots no one else could have imagined. So to those who don’t want me to fly, I say fly away. If you see a drone, run away. I love freedom and not into artistic repression.

I'm very happy that my right to take pictures do not depend on whether they might be of interest to you. I must also inform you that as a very active photography hobbyist, have taken tens of thousands of pictures all over the world. Photography is a very personal love of mine. Quite a few of my photos are better than any I could have bought in the form of postcards and photo books, etc. There is a tremendous difference between purchased photos and ones you took yourself. Reasonable accommodations, such as permits could be instituted and do away with total bans which are among the most unreasonable of regulations.

 

[Classic flyer]

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.

Tell it as it really is bro...be safe fly smart

 

[Classic flyer]

I predict this thread will contain the exact same arguments, repeated over and over again, as the last five threads on drones in national parks, and no one will yield an inch.

Take no prisoners...LOL

 

[Classic flyer]

Nope not 107. No need for me. OK, here's reasons that work for me: Fire risk. Nuisance noise.Safety around crowds. Wildlife disruption. Wildlife harassment Environmental concerns. Resource usage. Law enforcement costs. Trying to figure out how to retrieve drones from a small lake full of boiling water. Shall I continue

Yes

 

[Classic flyer]

You fly at night, but you’re worried about BVLOS?

Tell him bro

 

[Classic flyer]

But you can see how starting a fire in a national park would be bad, right?

What about campfires that get out of control??

 

[Classic flyer]

... And yet the Harleys, screaming babies, and snowmobiles continue.

Reasons people, reasons.

As for this damage you keep citing, I am assuming you mean the geyser.

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.

Nice observation sir!....be safe fly smart

 

[Classic flyer]

Cougars, leopards, buffalos... Etc

I don't think we have leopards here in the U.S.A.

 

[Classic flyer]

We're not getting rid of the NPS.

I agree, they are part of our "NATIONAL HERITAGE"

 

[Classic flyer]

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.

Awsome advice...be safe fly smart

 

[Classic flyer]

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

That would really be great if they did it nation wide

 

[Classic flyer]

You lost a great opportunity to be quiet!!!

So did you!

 

[Classic flyer]

Was the pilot smoking? Seat in an upright position? Wearing his seatbelt? Too bad a firefighting tanker drone wasn’t in the area.

It’s getting to a point where we drone enthusiasts are loathed for flying them. I know it only takes one bad or careless “dronie” to ruin things for everyone. In today’s society, many people are just looking to be offended or something to get their panties in a wad. It’s getting so we need to fly indoors only.

Haha you said PANTIES!!

 

[Classic flyer]

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.

Well said sir...be safe fly smart

 

[Red Baron]

I'm off to fly in Yosemite --Good luck everyone

 

[Mossiback]

Man...If we here in the "drone community" cannot agree on how or where we fly I have little hope that those that make the rules will satisfy us. We just need to fly responsibly and not give them a reason to ban us.

 

[lmel2005]

Ban yourself from the parks, before they ban you!

 

[Classic flyer]

Man...If we here in the "drone community" cannot agree on how or where we fly I have little hope that those that make the rules will satisfy us. We just need to fly responsibly and not give them a reason to ban us.

Very well said...be safe fly smart