Drones and the National Parks...

[MavicCF]

I was thinking more of a system similar to how hunting licenses are procured. There would be a limited number of permits that you could put-in for to fly at a certain park. Every time you put in and didn't get a permit you would get a "preference point" the more "preference points" you have, the more likely you are to get a permit. Thus the number of droners would be controlled but everyone would have a chance for a permit. That's the best plan I could come up with anyway. Now will that ever happen? Probably not, but I can always hope!-CF

 

[floyd]

I should have added a poll to this thread. Maybe the consensus on this forum is the ban should remain in effect. I would have thought folks on this forum would have been anti-government regulations.

 

[Mr. Salty]

I think most people are against senseless government regulations. Having spent a decent amount of time visiting national parks, I think banning drones from them is not only reasonable, it’s desirable. I don’t need to fly my Mavic where it’s going to bother people. I also know a fair number of the drone pilots out there who think they’re Chuck Yeager would be crashing them, making it even worse.

 

[beachcombing]

I should have added a poll to this thread. Maybe the consensus on this forum is the ban should remain in effect. I would have thought folks on this forum would have been anti-government regulations.

If people in the drone community would follow the rules there likely would be less need for "government regulations". But instead, we get threads asking why a person can't fly near an airport in (what is likely) controlled airspace. Why is DJI acting like the drone police???

 

[tcope]

I think most people are against senseless government regulations. Having spent a decent amount of time visiting national parks, I think banning drones from them is not only reasonable, it’s desirable. I don’t need to fly my Mavic where it’s going to bother people. I also know a fair number of the drone pilots out there who think they’re Chuck Yeager would be crashing them, making it even worse.

I'm 100% with you on this post. Do I think there are places a person could fly in a NP that would not bother anyone? Yes. However, I agree that they should be banned in a NP where there are people and I don't see a partial ban as something that would work. I think it's _far_ more important that a vast majority of people _will_ not be bothered then people who want to fly an aerial weeb wacker around.

I see it even in posts here from people. People posting here thinking that no one should tell them where and when they can fly a drone, no matter what. If there are people in this forum that think they should be able to do this, there are thousands more that would do the exact same thing. Truth is, there are plenty of other places to fly. Bottom line.... nothing (especially post here) is going to change this. So we can talk about it again and again and again (and we do) and it won't change anything.

 

[Marko9219]

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.

I've got video of a red fox that was was definitely scared of my drone 100 ft over his head. This same fox lives within a few miles of the active runway at Hill AFB, UT and he obviously hears and sees afterburner equipped f-35s over his head 5 days a week. I doubt he ever even looks up a those. But, my much quieter Mavic had him scared. Scared enough he wouldn't come out from under a tree for a while. he just sat there watching it, moving in and out from under the tree untill he finally bolted away on a full run. So, in a nutshell, you are wrong. Animals are for sure scared by new and noisy things near them.

 

[maxfaxdude]

I've got video of a red fox that was was definitely scared of my drone 100 ft over his head. This same fox lives within a few miles of the active runway at Hill AFB, UT and he obviously hears and sees afterburner equipped f-35s over his head 5 days a week. I doubt he ever even looks up a those. But, my much quieter Mavic had him scared. Scared enough he wouldn't come out from under a tree for a while. he just sat there watching it, moving in and out from under the tree untill he finally bolted away on a full run. So, in a nutshell, you are wrong. Animals are for sure scared by new and noisy things near them.

I hope you are being facetious or are just kidding!

 

[Marko9219]

I hope you are being facetious or are just kidding!

Why would you say that? I have those same jets flying over my house the same 5 days a week. Airport proximity? If my drone is flying 300 ft. straight above my head, it is still below the runway altitude of Hill AFB. If any F-35 is at the same altitude as my Mavic on any flight I have ever made, he has waaaaay bigger problems than my drone being in front of him.

 

[genesimmons]

i seen a vid of a phantom in a field and was pretty close to a coyote that was hunting some mice,the coyote was clearly firghtened of the sound and abondonded the hunt to run and hide, i have noticed the few times i had mine out and some people came by with dogs the dogs hated it and she was up a few hundred feet. i think the noise really affects some animals

 

[gjmphoto]

My dogs go crazy every time I fire up my MPP. The chime upon start up apparently reminds them of the doorbell.

So I thought about that for a while and then disconnected the doorbell.

Seriously, they allow helicopter tours in the Grand Canyon and other national parks - every day - several times a day. They don't seem too concerned about whether the coyotes are eating well. This isn't about wildlife conservation, this is a worry that it will be a nuisance for people -> in particular tourists, who might not come back if they get annoyed by a flock of drones.

That said, there is something to preserving the purity of the national parks. I do like that the only birds that circle the canyon are the ones that live there. The allure of going to the monuments is that they are preserved and pristine. That's why I'm in favor of quotas and flight restrictions as suggested in the OP.

 

[ScubaBob]

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?

I deal with this issue in Mexico as there are many areas, especially the marine parks where Whale Sharks hang out, where drones are prohibited except with a special permit that is a real pain in the butt to get. But I understand the reasoning. They do not want 50 drones flying around the same area at the same time. Your drone crashes into my drone and we both lose our drones. Who is at fault? Others have mentioned the concern about noise, hitting tourists, etc. and I concur with all of these reasons. Just as the parks have regulated ultra-light aircraft so have they regulated drones. It is a cost we all bear for being a member of a society. To us as photographers what is beautiful from the air is also beautiful to a person walking without the noise or visual of the drone. I too love the Four Corners area and the slot canyons but I will follow the laws when I am in the US because laws make a society.

 

[adshz]

What about using something similar to FAA's LAANC system for authorization? Seems this could be partially automated, controlled and authorized simply via Smartphone from Rangers. They would know where/when they'd expect drones so as to control unauthorized use. Used wisely this could prevent staffing up and help purport the Park's mission, to share and preserve it's beauty.

As far as wildlife, minimum altitudes/max db levels/education could address that. There are studies out there that have shown angle of approach is more important than repetition or speed.
See: Approaching birds with drones: first experiments and ethical guidelines
A guide to using drones to study wildlife: first, do no harm
I must agree with those who say it's ironic that helicopters and planes flying over these parks but drones are banned. Cars at ground level are much louder than drones at 100' plus. Being that a rooster crows at 130db, a dog barks at 90db a Mavic Pro Platinum at or below 70db is really quiet, especially at a reasonable altitude.

 

[wordupmag]

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.

I was going to write my opinion but you summed it up perfectly for me. I was at Santa Monica Beach last week and you legally cannot fly your drone there however over a dozen low flying (under 200 feet) helicopters kept buzzing overhead. Not to mention the numerios airplanes. Can't believe someone thinks the noise from drones are worse. They should ban all noise makers if noise is an issue.

 

[beachcombing]

Noise concern was only one of many reasons for the ban.

 

[Marko9219]

Noise concern was only one of many reasons for the ban.

You mean like the NPS trying to figure out how (or even if) to get the drone out of Grand Prismatic Pool in Yellowstone, because some blithering idiot put one into it? Yeh, that sort of stuff was what immediately got them banned. Not the noise issue. They didn't have much of an issue with the noise, being as Harley Davidsons and Ram Cummins diesels and helicopter tours are all OK. Nope, none of them had EVER crashed into Grand Prismatic Pool before, and NOW they had a good case against drones.

 

[nealh]

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?

Any idea that allows us to fly in more areas has my support. Your reasons for less restrictions and more freedom is both admirable and spot on.
I would suggest less restrictions and even more availability at various times and more pilots to enjoy our natural resources that we all pay taxes for. Suggesting reasonable rules is must, especially on safety, however don’t eliminate the hobbyists who are caring thoughtful supporters of their beloved flying of drones.
Keep up the good work, let’s hope that your ideas bear fruit for us all!

 

[dronerdave]

Myself I'd love to fly and capture some of the NP treasures close to me. Problem is I wouldn't know if I was bothering other ground based photographers or just even the sight seeing folks. To quarantine an area for drones that I feel has no scenic interest seems worthless and we all know they'd never allow a drones allowed day at the better sight seeing spots that people frequent. But I do a lot of off road travel in places like Death Valley and it seems silly I can't fly up and get some images when I think nobody is around. I just think permits would be so restrictive and so difficult to regulate it just won't happen for the everyday Joe. I just hope the small little cheap drones don't cause more restrictions in the places currently open to us now.

 

[raymo]

i seen a vid of a phantom in a field and was pretty close to a coyote that was hunting some mice,the coyote was clearly firghtened of the sound and abondonded the hunt to run and hide, i have noticed the few times i had mine out and some people came by with dogs the dogs hated it and she was up a few hundred feet. i think the noise really affects some animals

Could be that dogs and coyotes recognize drones as "bee swarms". They definitely don't like those!

 

[Classic flyer]

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?

It sounds very reasonable to me and is a good starting point

 

[Classic flyer]

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.[/QUOTE

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 like the way you think...the drone community is very much dis-liked for what ever reason...people are always talking about the noise but they aren't really that bad...and hordes of them flying around , I personally haven't seen it...just saying