Drones and the National Parks...

[floyd]

I realize there are a couple other threads on this topic, but they don't discuss (that I could find) possible options where drones could be used at our national parks.

I fully understand and agree with the current policy where drones are prohibited from flying in national parks. Those trying to enjoy the park while drones buzz around would certainly be annoying. BUT it seems such a shame to not be able to film/photograph our national parks from the unique perspective drones provide. Plus, we have so many excellent drone flyers/cinematographers, not allowing them to create and share their art with others seems a huge loss.

So what, if any, solutions are there?

I'm just going to throw this at the wall to see what sticks. Please, no hating! Let's have a frank, civil, insightful discussion about this topic. If we can come up with some options, maybe the national park people (whoever they are) will take notice (yes, I think one of them visits this forum) and consider our thoughts.

Last summer my wife and I visited Paige, Arizona and the Antelope Slot Canyons... yeah, the canyons with those amazing sandstone formations and stratifications. I was excited to spend some time photographing in the canyons. Then I learned I had to apply for a special photographer's permit to use a DSLR and tripod. I had no problem applying for the permit. The Navaho people were wonderful. After answering some questions and paying a rather high fee, I was granted the permit.

When I arrived I was treated like a National Geographic photographer (trust me, I am NOT!). I was given more time in the canyons with a personal Navaho guide. The guide stopped tour groups while I setup and made my photos.

Anyways, I was wondering if a semi-similar arrangement could be made with national parks. Each national park would have an application that a perspective drone pilot would have to fill out (maybe part of it would require the Part 107 certification). There would be a special fee (of course) the pilot would have to pay, with only so many permits per day and only for specified parts of the park. Under the permit, I'm thinking drone pilots would only be allowed to fly at sunrise and sunset, when there are fewer tourists.

For example: If each day seven pilots were allowed to fly at different parts of a give park at sunrise for two hours. Then, at sunset, another seven pilots would be allowed to fly at different parts of the park for two hours. Once a pilot is allowed to fly at a certain park, he/she can no longer fly there for a year but can still apply at other parks.

Okay, what's good about my idea?
What's bad about it?
How can it be improved?
Or, do you have other ideas?
Or, should the ban be permanent?

 

[Dabrain]

Seems rather realistic and reasonable. Having worked for a State government for 23 years, I can tell you there are a lot of very smart folks working for the government. They do work slowly however. I like your approach, I'm sure there will be some suggestions for improvement. Let's see how this goes.

 

[Aerial Gopher]

Well... The laws are not there to protect tourists only and thier ears. Its about the wildlife too. A drone is like a predator to the animals ... they do not know what it is, they get scarred.

Having a permit process in place would work, but then you will need more park rangers to enforce that permitting and I think it's probably the same everywhere that there isn't enough if them around to enforce other park laws and to add drone supervision is probably not going to happen.

If you look at this whole thing like a park ranger, you would understand what they are trying to protect. Put simply, the point of the designated areas considered to be national parks, was to protect the natural area and it's environment from humans. That included removing trees, a rock, anything, and even introducing flying drones to the picture. There is a reason that aircraft have to fly a minimum of 2000feet agl when flying over park areas.

Your idea will not work. Well, as a large scale. They do have a process in place for film and promoting of a park. Ie like a commercial, or magazine ads. Your YouTube channel does not count.

I could not even get permission to fly a mavic pro for 1 day before a snowstorm was to move in , and my purpose was to help look for a crashed airplane with two people missing.

Good luck, but won't happen. Its easier to make a rule that says NO instead of making designated areas that are ok, not enforceable this way.

 

[tcope]

I realize there are a couple other threads on this topic, but they don't discuss (that I could find) possible options where drones could be used at our national parks.

There are many more threads that that and they do discuss what you mentioned.

Okay, what's good about my idea?
What's bad about it?
How can it be improved?
Or, do you have other ideas?
Or, should the ban be permanent?

If people here agree or disagree, why would it matter? I won't go into details, as this has been discuss many times before but part of the issue is in allowing some access to fly drones means they would be opening the door for issues such as people knowing that drones _are_ allowed but not knowing the times, places and other conditions on flying their drones. So now the National Park has even more issues to deal with. You don't think sunrise and sunset are prime times for people to enjoy the natural beauty of a National Park?

At the end of the day we an agree or disagree.... it does not change anything.

 

[gjmphoto]

I understand the points about wildlife and noise...but helicopter tours are OK, though? Seems contradictory. The suggested permit process with the daily quota seems like a very reasonable solution that would bring in revenue and keep things controlled. It's always easier to say no is no, but that's not the way laws are made. I'd love to see this changed.

 

[floyd]

It's always easier to say no is no, but that's not the way laws are made. I'd love to see this changed.

Exactly!

 

[mavicdriver]

At risk of being flamed - here is my 2 cents worth plus a little extra... would you think that millions of humans invading Nation Parks each year with all the accompanying noise, garbage, human waste and vehicle pollution etc is worse then maybe a relative few electric powered Mavic type drones flying three to four hundred feet up where no one will likely even be aware of them. Just saying.

Seems like there is just a lot of baseless level of hate out there for our beloved hobby. I like the OP's idea for some methodical approach to giving us drone pilots access in some reasonable way. Granted you don't want swarms of these things intruding into the parks and ruining the experience or endangering people. Maybe if they restrict drones to a 300-400 foot minimum altitude and not over crowds it would work. Also, many of these parks are very large and there are very remote places where there is almost zero tourist traffic - why not make some remote areas like this designated drone flight areas? Don't tell me something fair could not be worked out. Personally, I just don't see much difference between large numbers of people taking pictures, selfies etc all over the landscape and blocking our view of things, and our drones taking pictures/videos way up out of everyones way. The drones may be less invasive in many ways.

OK, rant over lol

 

[floyd]

Completely agree!

 

[maxfaxdude]

Wildlife being disturbing by drone noise?!?! Oh please...I'm not buying it! Any manned aircraft are much louder and therefore more disruptive yet still legal to fly in national parks! And let's not even talk about those Harleys which can sometimes be heard a mile or more away from the road! The real reason that drones are banned from national parks is the same reason why they are banned from other places -- the general public perceives drone use as an invasion of privacy.

 

[Mr. Salty]

At risk of being flamed - here is my 2 cents worth plus a little extra... would you think that millions of humans invading Nation Parks each year with all the accompanying noise, garbage, human waste and vehicle pollution etc is worse then maybe a relative few electric powered Mavic type drones flying three to four hundred feet up where no one will likely even be aware of them. Just saying.

Seems like there is just a lot of baseless level of hate out there for our beloved hobby. I like the OP's idea for some methodical approach to giving us drone pilots access in some reasonable way. Granted you don't want swarms of these things intruding into the parks and ruining the experience or endangering people. Maybe if they restrict drones to a 300-400 foot minimum altitude and not over crowds it would work. Also, many of these parks are very large and there are very remote places where there is almost zero tourist traffic - why not make some remote areas like this designated drone flight areas? Don't tell me something fair could not be worked out. Personally, I just don't see much difference between large numbers of people taking pictures, selfies etc all over the landscape and blocking our view of things, and our drones taking pictures/videos way up out of everyones way. The drones may be less invasive in many ways.

OK, rant over lol

And then you add a whole lot of bureaucracy and expense to implement and enforce the process at a time when National Parks are already underfunded and staff is stretched thin. Even charging a fee won't cover everything involved in this scheme, including rangers who would have to police drone pilots to make sure they have their permits and are flying according to the rules.

And you WILL get blowback from the general public who don't want a bunch of drones buzzing around National Parks. It would give our hobby an even worse reputation and make our lives more difficult.

 

[MavicCF]

I think a permit system similar to the one you mentioned in the Page area would work well. If you have a permit from the NPS and fly responsibly I think the general public would be more welcoming as you are officially "authorized". It's kind of like the FAA registration, when you tell people you are registered and have rules to follow they tend to be more welcoming and open to you flying. Hope it happens someday... -CF

 

[mavicdriver]

And then you add a whole lot of bureaucracy and expense to implement and enforce the process at a time when National Parks are already underfunded and staff is stretched thin. Even charging a fee won't cover everything involved in this scheme, including rangers who would have to police drone pilots to make sure they have their permits and are flying according to the rules.

And you WILL get blowback from the general public who don't want a bunch of drones buzzing around National Parks. It would give our hobby an even worse reputation and make our lives more difficult.

I completely understand your position sir. I just don't agree with almost any of it. You seem to want to attribute many bad things to drones and mostly it is not true in my opinion. And you seem to want to paint a picture of the poor Park Ranger and being overworked - not sure why - are you a Park Ranger? The Park Rangers job is to serve all of us - not just the ones they might chose. I for one don't think any of us need to run and hide or give up one inch to those who put up negative arguments which are mostly just not true as I see it.

In this forum you and I are entitled to our own opinions so I do truly respect yours and opinions like yours do cause me to re-think about my position - but I am not budging for now.

 

[Mr. Salty]

I completely understand your position sir. I just don't agree with almost any of it. You seem to want to attribute many bad things to drones and mostly it is not true in my opinion. And you seem to want to paint a picture of the poor Park Ranger and being overworked - not sure why - are you a Park Ranger? The Park Rangers job is to serve all of us - not just the ones they might chose. I for one don't think any of us need to run and hide or give up one inch to those who put up negative arguments which are mostly just not true as I see it.

I'm not a park ranger, but I do know people who have worked as park rangers, at both the federal and state levels, and know their staffing and budget limitations. Implementing any kind of new program comes with a price tag, and it also means park employees will have to do the enforcement on top of whatever existing duties they have. In other words, they have bigger things to worry about.

I've never attributed "many bad things to drones." But you do have to be aware of the general public's attitudes toward drones. You also need to spend some time in national parks and be aware of how crowded they can be. The general public doesn't want to see a bunch of drones buzzing by George Washington's nose at Mount Rushmore, or echoing through the Grand Canyon or Yosemite.

 

[floyd]

But you do have to be aware of the general public's attitudes toward drones. The general public doesn't want to see a bunch of drones buzzing by George Washington's nose at Mount Rushmore, or echoing through the Grand Canyon or Yosemite.

I always love the use of hyperbole, assumption and generalization in hopes of making a point. First, to "assume" the general public's attitude toward drones is negative is completely erroneous. Because of a few youtube videos of conflicts between a drone pilot and a member of the "general public" (whoever that is), suddenly the entire general public is anti-drone? Sure if a drone pilot behaves in an annoying, disrespectful way he or she may deserve some animosity. But prejudicing an entire hobby because of a few poor representatives is foolish. I hate it when people ask me to take their pictures when I'm at a national park. Do I suddenly hate everyone who uses a camera? Of course not. Do I suddenly hate everyone who owns an iPhone? Of course not. Do I hate everyone who wants their picture taken? Of course not. I think we, as drone pilots, are a bit prejudicial of the general public and their feelings toward people who fly a drone.

And now we have "drones buzzing by George Washington's nose at Mount Rushmore." What a foolish statement. Classic case of "It's easier to say no than find ways to say yes." Negative, negative, negative. Any sane, clear-thinking park ranger would not allow drone flights in such as area. Just as flying in other sensitive areas in other national parks would be prohibited. Your myopic thinking is not seeing the big picture. No one is saying it's suddenly the Wild Wild West for drones at national and state parks. I'm just saying, as others have pointed out, the parks belong to drone pilots, just like they belong to iPhone users, just like they belong to people who picnic, just as they belong to people who camp, just as they belong to Harley riders, etc. etc. etc.

I think there's a reasonable solution where drones can be flown at national parks without disturbing other folks enjoying the park or the wildlife. But if Mr. Salty wants to continue to be Mr. Negativity, so be it. So far it's still a free country.

I do, however, agree adding some type of drone policy to already over-worked National Park employees is a problem. BUT... maybe local drone groups in coordination with the Parks Service could work out some kind of volunteer program. I thought I'd throw that suggestion in there to fuel further disagreement and hate.

 

[Mr. Salty]

First, to "assume" the general public's attitude toward drones is negative is completely erroneous.

Have you seen all the lengthy threads around here about pilots' encounters with hostile members of the public? Neighbors, strangers, people having their drones thrown in the ocean. Read through a few of them. I think the evidence is on my side.

suddenly the entire general public is anti-drone? Sure if a drone pilot behaves in an annoying, disrespectful way he or she may deserve some animosity.

There you go with your own hyperbole. Not the "entire" general public, but there is a notable percentage of people who are anti-drone. And you can add flying at national parks to the list of things they might find annoying and disrespectful.

I'm just saying, as others have pointed out, the parks belong to drone pilots, just like they belong to iPhone users, just like they belong to people who picnic, just as they belong to people who camp, just as they belong to Harley riders, etc. etc. etc.

No, they don't, given that drones are specifically banned from national parks, while cellphones, picnics, camping and Harleys are not.

 

[beachcombing]

At risk of being flamed - here is my 2 cents worth plus a little extra... would you think that millions of humans invading Nation Parks each year with all the accompanying noise, garbage, human waste and vehicle pollution etc is worse then maybe a relative few electric powered Mavic type drones flying three to four hundred feet up where no one will likely even be aware of them. Just saying.

Seems like there is just a lot of baseless level of hate out there for our beloved hobby. I like the OP's idea for some methodical approach to giving us drone pilots access in some reasonable way. Granted you don't want swarms of these things intruding into the parks and ruining the experience or endangering people. Maybe if they restrict drones to a 300-400 foot minimum altitude and not over crowds it would work. Also, many of these parks are very large and there are very remote places where there is almost zero tourist traffic - why not make some remote areas like this designated drone flight areas? Don't tell me something fair could not be worked out. Personally, I just don't see much difference between large numbers of people taking pictures, selfies etc all over the landscape and blocking our view of things, and our drones taking pictures/videos way up out of everyones way. The drones may be less invasive in many ways.

OK, rant over lol

Someone crashed a drone into the Grand Prismatic Spring at Yellowstone National Park. That's what prompted the ban.

 

[floyd]

Have you seen all the lengthy threads around here about pilots' encounters with hostile members of the public? Neighbors, strangers, people having their drones thrown in the ocean. Read through a few of them. I think the evidence is on my side.

Okay, here's what I want you to do. Go to all those "lengthy threads around here about pilots' encounters with hostile members of the public" and add them ALL up. In fact, then go to youtube and add up ALL those nasty encounters. Add up both numbers, then compare that number to the "general public" population of the United States. If the "nasty encounter" number is larger than the "general public" number, then I concede, the evidence is on your side. If you're going to use hyperbole, at least use it correctly.

The point of this thread is to find a way to "un" ban drones from national parks. Did you miss that somewhere in the thread? Just because something is currently banned doesn't mean it has to stay that way. There was a time when women were "banned" from voting. Oh, wait, you're probably still in favor of that ban.

I'm done. You get the last word. Hopefully you'll be able to squeeze out some optimism.

 

[dbyantis]

At risk of being flamed - here is my 2 cents worth plus a little extra... would you think that millions of humans invading Nation Parks each year with all the accompanying noise, garbage, human waste and vehicle pollution etc is worse then maybe a relative few electric powered Mavic type drones flying three to four hundred feet up where no one will likely even be aware of them. Just saying.

Seems like there is just a lot of baseless level of hate out there for our beloved hobby. I like the OP's idea for some methodical approach to giving us drone pilots access in some reasonable way. Granted you don't want swarms of these things intruding into the parks and ruining the experience or endangering people. Maybe if they restrict drones to a 300-400 foot minimum altitude and not over crowds it would work. Also, many of these parks are very large and there are very remote places where there is almost zero tourist traffic - why not make some remote areas like this designated drone flight areas? Don't tell me something fair could not be worked out. Personally, I just don't see much difference between large numbers of people taking pictures, selfies etc all over the landscape and blocking our view of things, and our drones taking pictures/videos way up out of everyones way. The drones may be less invasive in many ways.

OK, rant over lol

I was told by a local state ranger that there are concerns over fires the LiPo batteries. in the event of a crash, I know silly, but that is what is out there.

 

[Fergy]

It's disappointing that you are not allowed to fly in your NP we are fortunate to be able to here in Queensland Australia.

 

[beachcombing]

...
Anyways, I was wondering if a semi-similar arrangement could be made with national parks. Each national park would have an application that a perspective drone pilot would have to fill out (maybe part of it would require the Part 107 certification). There would be a special fee (of course) the pilot would have to pay, with only so many permits per day and only for specified parts of the park. Under the permit, I'm thinking drone pilots would only be allowed to fly at sunrise and sunset, when there are fewer tourists.

For example: If each day seven pilots were allowed to fly at different parts of a give park at sunrise for two hours. Then, at sunset, another seven pilots would be allowed to fly at different parts of the park for two hours. Once a pilot is allowed to fly at a certain park, he/she can no longer fly there for a year but can still apply at other parks.

Okay, what's good about my idea?
What's bad about it?
How can it be improved?
Or, do you have other ideas?
Or, should the ban be permanent?

Okay, what's good about my idea?
You'll get what you want.

What's bad about it?
Where to start? Do you have any idea the number of people who visit National Park properties every year? Over 300 million. And the Park Service is immensely underfunded and understaffed. Where exactly are they going to find the staff to chaperone drone flyers throughout your chosen park? The area that you mentioned visiting is Tribal location. The Navajo Tribe manages it not the National Park Service. Apple and oranges. Not even comparable. How Tribes manage there land is completely different from the National Park Service.
And what about areas like National Seashores and such that are not staffed with entrance gates (thus no fees gained)? How would those locations accommodate these "pilot tourists"?
How would you decide which parts of the park would be eligible for these special permits?
And there are not necessarily fewer tourists at sunrise and sunset.
Lots of people dislike drones, rightly or wrongly. Forcing them in an area what already has a lot of visitation pressure from other side isn't likely to gain "fans" for the hobby.

How can it be improved?
For your part where you say that a pilot could no longer fly at a park for a year, I would change that to 5 years. Actually, I would say that they shouldn't do it at all, but if we are playing in fantasyland, then I would say that you can't fly in that park for 5 years. And I would say that you would be allowed a maximum of 2 parks per year and that would extend to everyone in your household.

Or, do you have other ideas? Yes, rather than trying to force ourselves on the National Parks, find somewhere else to fly. It's a big country. There's LOTS of open space. Support the National Parks in other ways.

Or, should the ban be permanent?
Yes.