Air 3 Endangered fish rearing ponds

[hank970]

These are located a stone's throw from Snooks Bottom, a popular recreational lake near Fruita, Colorado. Also a hop, skip, and jump from the Colorado River.

I'm not sure who manages them. Could be the State of Colorado, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, or a cooperative effort among two or three of them.

 

[Cafguy]

UHMM..... You do understand that if that is not a commercial fish operation, drones are prohibited in that area! You need to contact the Fish and wildlife Dept in that area before you go near it!
Flying a drone over Wildlife refuges or areas controlled by the government for that purpose, is strictly prohibited by federal law. and you can be fined 5,000 dollars and could spend up to six months in jail. if those are indeed endangered fish it could be much more.
The dept of wildlife has special rules that apply to unmanned aircraft over their facilities. One of those rules PROHIBITS you from flying directly over them.
My suggestion is to stay well away from that with your Drone.

 

[hank970]

UHMM..... You do understand that if that is not a commercial fish operation, drones are prohibited in that area! You need to contact the Fish and wildlife Dept in that area before you go near it!
Flying a drone over Wildlife refuges or areas controlled by the government for that purpose, is strictly prohibited by federal law. and you can be fined 5,000 dollars and could spend up to six months in jail. if those are indeed endangered fish it could be much more.
The dept of wildlife has special rules that apply to unmanned aircraft over their facilities. One of those rules PROHIBITS you from flying directly over them.
My suggestion is to stay well away from that with your Drone.

UHMM..... You do understand that if that is not a commercial fish operation, drones are prohibited in that area! You need to contact the Fish and wildlife Dept in that area before you go near it!
Flying a drone over Wildlife refuges or areas controlled by the government for that purpose, is strictly prohibited by federal law. and you can be fined 5,000 dollars and could spend up to six months in jail. if those are indeed endangered fish it could be much more.
The dept of wildlife has special rules that apply to unmanned aircraft over their facilities. One of those rules PROHIBITS you from flying directly over them.
My suggestion is to stay well away from that with your Drone.

I'd appreciate if you could cite a federal law or regulation which expressly forbids drone flights over hatcheries and the like.

 

[Cafguy]

Sure here you go .. From the Dept of Fish and Wildlife :
"It is illegal to fly a drone over an endangered fish hatchery or other federal lands like national wildlife refuges because the activity is prohibited by law, specifically --- 50 CFR 27.34/51---"
Just tryin to keep our members out of trouble and out of the news...

 

[GFields]

Interesting photo, but not worth the risk

 

[hank970]

Sure here you go .. From the Dept of Fish and Wildlife :
"It is illegal to fly a drone over an endangered fish hatchery or other federal lands like national wildlife refuges because the activity is prohibited by law, specifically --- 50 CFR 27.34/51---"
Just tryin to keep our members out of trouble and out of the news...

Thanks for those citations. I'm relieved to inform you that I was not in violation of either 50 CFR 27.34 or 50 CFR 27.51 because:

1) They apply only to national wildlife refuges. The hatchery is not located within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge. It is not designated as a refuge by perimeter fencing or signage on the ground, it is not denoted as such on the current air sectional map or any other map, and it is not designated as such on the Air Aware app.
2) If it were a national refuge, and it is not, then 50 CFR 27.34 does not generally prohibit overflights, only flights which might harass wildlife. Otherwise, it prohibits only ground operations like the landing and launching of aircraft.
3) I did not launch or land within the hatchery's boundaries. Rather, I launched, operated, and landed my drone on adjacent public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. There are no general restrictions pertaining to the launching, landing, or operation of drones on the public domain. Air Aware designates the airspace above them and the hatchery as clear airspace.
4) I was not flying at an altitude that any reasonable person might conclude would disturb wildlife, least of all, fish.
5) There is no reference in the regulation to fish hatcheries, whether dedicated to the propagation of endangered fish or not.
6) If it were a national refuge, and it is not, the USF&WS has no authority to regulate use of the nation's airspace above refuges. That's the province of the FAA. Under 14 CFR 107.45, the FAA acknowledges and adopts other agencies' restrictions and prohibitions relating to the operation of aircraft on their lands, but like those other agencies, it does not expressly forbid overflights. The land-managing agencies can't prohibit overflights, because they lack jurisdiction over the airspace, and the FAA, for whatever reason, hasn't.
7) 50 CFR 27.51 broadly concerns various harms to plants and animals on national refuges (injuries, spearing, poisoning, destroying, and unauthorized collecting). It's not even remotely germane to this discussion.

The precise wording of regulations matters. One shouldn't read more into them than is there.

 

[Cafguy]

They apply only to national wildlife refuges. The hatchery is not located within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge.

You are flying at what I am pretty sure is the Hotchkiss National fish hatchery. If you are not sorry BUT ..in your post you state that You are not sure whom it belongs too. If it is the Hatchery, You cant be there.

then 50 CFR 27.34 does not generally prohibit overflights, only flights which might harass wildlife. Otherwise, it prohibits only ground operations like the landing and launching of aircraft.

Overflights of those areas can only be done at a minimum altitude of 1000 ft. Drones are only allowed up to 400 ft. therefore Drones are prohibited from overflying these areas.

I did not launch or land within the hatchery's boundaries. Rather, I launched, operated, and landed my drone on adjacent public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

You cannot Fly a drone on these lands.
It does not matter if you took off from the adjacent land and if you did you must still follow 14 CFR prt 107. You flew into restricted airspace ( the space below 1000ft.) when you flew in, not took off.

I was not flying at an altitude that any reasonable person might conclude would disturb wildlife, least of all, fish.

If you were below 1000ft. Yes you were.

There is no reference in the regulation to fish hatcheries, whether dedicated to the propagation of endangered fish or not.

If you contact the Fish and wildlife service in your area they will be happy to explain how they are indeed referenced in the regulation.



50 CFR 27.51 broadly concerns various harms to plants and animals on national refuges (injuries, spearing, poisoning, destroying, and unauthorized collecting). It's not even remotely germane to this discussion.
NO.
The regulation governs the treatment of all wildlife on these lands . It Protects the wildlife in these areas.
Like it or not flying a drone amongst wildlife is detrimental to their health and is therefore banned in these areas without permit.
I am not trolling you or even calling you out as doing anything wrong. What I am doing is telling you to be cautious especially these days

 

[anotherlab]

You are flying at what I am pretty sure is the Hotchkiss National fish hatchery. If you are not sorry BUT ..in your post you state that You are not sure whom it belongs too. If it is the Hatchery, You cant be there.

Overflights of those areas can only be done at a minimum altitude of 1000 ft. Drones are only allowed up to 400 ft. therefore Drones are prohibited from overflying these areas.

I don't think it belongs to Hotchkiss National fish hatchery, that's about an hour away from where the picture was posted from. It's to tell who owns this hatchery, but if it's this location, then it's adjacent to Snooks Bottom Open Space, a park owned by the city of Fruitia. That would put it in the Horsethief Canyon State Wildlife Area, a state park. You can't take-off or land from nearly CO state parks, as per Colorado State Parks Regulation #100-c.24

It's still the responsibility of the drone operator to verify that the location is protected from drones. Common sense would suggest that you don't fly over fish hatcheries at less than 400 ft.

 

[sarahb]

I guess the OP is a fisherman that likes to take huge risks.

 

[hank970]

Thanks for your concerns. It's always best to err on the side of caution.

Beyond that, I think you're jumping to conclusions. As the crow flies, I was 59 miles from the Hotchkiss Federal Fish Hatchery. The facility I photographed is on state land, but it's not in a state park where (again) ground operations like launching, landing, and operation are prohibited by state law, but not overflights in airspace regulated by the FAA. I also think you're reading more into existing regulations than their actual wording.

Here is the exact wording of 50 CFR 27.34 Aircraft which is applicable to national wildlife refuges:

"The unauthorized operation of aircraft, including sail planes, and hang gliders, at altitudes resulting in harassment of wildlife, or the unauthorized landing or take-off on a national wildlife refuge, except in an emergency, is prohibited. National wildlife refuge boundaries are designated on up-dated FAA aeronautical charts."

Please note that there is no reference to hatcheries, no express prohibition against flight that's deemed to be non-harassing, no mention of restricted airspace, no prohibition against operating from outside refuge boundaries and flying over refuges, or any definition, in feet AGL, of permissible flight altitudes. Absent such language, I doubt that you are qualified to determine at what altitude a flight might harass a fish.

If you believe that it's generally* impermissible to launch, land, or operate a drone on public lands administered by the BLM and US Forest Service, then you're not only mistaken, but you're also depriving yourself of many flight opportunities. If you believe the airspace over a fish hatchery is restricted airspace, then show me a regulation which definitively supports that contention -- that actually spells it out in black and white.

Here is the exact wording of 50 CR 27.51(a) Disturbing, injuring, and damaging plants and animals.

(a) "Disturbing, injuring, spearing, poisoning, destroying, collecting, or attempting to disturb, injure, spear, poison, or collect any plant or any animal on any national wildlife refuge is prohibited except by special permit unless otherwise permitted under this subchapter C."

(b) (Reserved)

It appears to me that what might be construed as disturbing of wildlife is in the eye of the beholder. I contend that flying a drone at several hundred feet above a hatchery would not disturb resident fish. Apparently, you think otherwise. What would a reasonable person think? That's the usual test in a court of law.

It also appears to me that most regulations governing aircraft operations on or over federal lands were written with regard to general aviation practices -- long before drones were invented and in widespread use --, and that those agencies haven't revised their regulations to address UAS concerns (the National Park Service has issued Policy Memorandum 14-05 in an attempt to refine its policies regarding unmanned flight but, because it lacks jurisdiction to enforce its regulations in the nation's airspace, it still can only prohibit the launching; landing, and operation of drones within park boundaries).

Regulatory omissions don't give individuals like you and me license to make stuff up. Just conform to the regulations as currently written and adapt if/when they are revised.

*Obviously, if the public lands are with the five-nautical-mile exclusion zone around a class B, C, or D airport, then drone flight in controlled airspace without prior authorization under LAANC would be prohibited.

 

[Cafguy]

I doubt that you are qualified to determine at what altitude a flight might harass a fish.

I am not.. but the hundreds of scientists that study this matter and advise the Government are more than qualified. and they say for fish its 1000'.

Regulatory omissions don't give individuals like you and me license to make stuff up.

I dont recall making anything up or giving you any bad info for that matter.
If you choose to fly there, Its no skin off my nose and excuse the answers with my apologies. BUT as stated above by other members It would behoove you to find out just what that place is before flying there. Just my two cents. and I dont really want to turn this into a debate of how you interpret the regulations as written. I will simply tell you to call the ones who know for sure.
If you think you are legal to fly there by all means go for it!!
If your "not sure" tho, Don't be upset if you make the local news as "The Drone guy that harassed endangered wildlife" or worse yet if you happen to be Hispanic (or any person born of foreign decent) "The Mexican National who was spying on Government activities"... That one might go national!

 

[hank970]

I don't think it belongs to Hotchkiss National fish hatchery, that's about an hour away from where the picture was posted from. It's to tell who owns this hatchery, but if it's this location, then it's adjacent to Snooks Bottom Open Space, a park owned by the city of Fruitia. That would put it in the Horsethief Canyon State Wildlife Area, a state park. You can't take-off or land from nearly CO state parks, as per Colorado State Parks Regulation #100-c.24

It's still the responsibility of the drone operator to verify that the location is protected from drones. Common sense would suggest that you don't fly over fish hatcheries at less than 400 ft.

Bingo! The land on which the hatchery is located is indeed a part of Horsethief Canyon State Wildlife Area. It's administered by Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife*, but as far as I know, it isn't designated as a state park. Regardless, I'm sure it enjoys the same protections. Colorado law prohibits drone activity (launching, operating, and landing) on state park lands but lacks the jurisdiction to enforce flights in the airspace above. Neither, owing to a lack of jurisdiction, can it restrict the launching, landing and operation on adjacent lands beyond park boundaries.

In the immediate vicinity of the hatchery, the SWA is bordered on the north by the Colorado River and on the south by a county road. Jim Robb State Park is located immediately across the river from Snooks Bottom. The lands on the south side of the road are administered by the BLM or, much farther west, miles from the hatchery, by private interests. There are no restrictions on launching, operating, or landing drones on BLM land (except in its designated wilderness farther south). Because the state exercises no influence or authority over drone activities on BLM lands, it's perfectly legal to launch there and fly in the nation's airspace over adjacent state lands. Cessnas, ultralights, and helicopter ambulances fly over Horsethief SWA at varying altitudes with monotonous regularity.

Regulation #100 (c)(24) addresses the operation of radio-controlled craft in the parks, not over them. Why? Because the state is hobbled by the same limitations as the federal land-managing agencies -- it has no jurisdiction over the nation's airspace. There are no park-specific restrictions under Part D which relate to Horsethief Canyon SWA.

*To complicate matters further, the SWA may be situated, at least in part, and maybe all, on lands it leases from the US Bureau of Reclamation. Back in the day, a local gravel contractor operated gravel pits there under lease from BuRec. I'm not sure if BuRec still owns the land or if it formally conveyed those lands to the state. BuRec may even operate the hatchery. For the purposes of this discussion, though, that doesn't matter.

 

[hank970]

I am not.. but the hundreds of scientists that study this matter and advise the Government are more than qualified. and they say for fish its 1000'.

C'mon, that's almost laughable. I'd love to see a study which concludes that fish are perturbed by flights less than 1000 feet in altitude. Agency work vehicles rumbling around the ponds and employees casting their shadows across the water would have a greater effect, and I suspect even they wouldn't upset the fish.

Sorry, but I have a science background, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

 

[Meta4]

I am not.. but the hundreds of scientists that study this matter and advise the Government are more than qualified. and they say for fish its 1000'.

Hundreds of scientists determined that ??
Really ?

 

[anotherlab]

I am not.. but the hundreds of scientists that study this matter and advise the Government are more than qualified. and they say for fish its 1000'.

Do you have a source for that?

There have been studies that show an adverse rejection by marine mammals and birds. Fish seem to be less affected, but it hasn't been deeply studied, Short-term behavioral changes in bottlenose dolphins has been observed in reaction to drones at 10m to 30m above the water. (source)

One thing was suggested in that article was that researchers fly the drones in patterns and avoid start/stop and rapid changes in speed or heading.

 

[Cafguy]

A simple look at google reveals this:
A.I. would like you to know,


Numerous researchers and institutions have conducted studies on the effects of drones on wildlife, including NOAA Fisheries scientists, a team from the University of South Australia (UniSA), researchers in Europe from institutions like the WUR (Wageningen University & Research), and conservation organizations like The Nature Conservancy. These studies examine how drone presence affects animal behavior and explore ways to use drones for less invasive monitoring.

• NOAA Fisheries scientists:
  Analyzed the behavioral responses of Antarctic predators like leopard seals, fur seals, and chinstrap penguins to drone surveys, finding that altitude and wind direction played a key role in the level of disturbance.
• 
  
• University of South Australia (UniSA):
  Researchers like Professor Javaan Chahl demonstrated that drones can be used for non-invasive health checks on wildlife, such as detecting vital signs from a distance in animals like zebras, giraffes, and antelopes.
  
  
• 
  
• Wageningen University & Research (WUR):
  A team of researchers reviewed the impact of drone disturbances on wildlife and also conducted studies on the effects of drone noise on large mammals in captive environments (such as zoos), noting that noise at altitudes below 100 meters caused behavioral reactions in many species.
  
  
• 
  
• The Nature Conservancy:
  This organization has been involved in using drones for conservation work, including tracking wildlife, and Gustavo Lozada is a leader in this area for the organization.
  
  
• 
  
• Other researchers:
  A broad range of studies have been published in scientific journals, including a meta-analysis on the impact of drones on birds published by the Ecological Society of America and reviews on automated detection of wildlife in drone images published by the British Ecological Society. Other studies are cited by the University of Bristol, the University of Reading, and the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

 

[Cafguy]

A.I. would also like to include the following.........


1. Drones are considered a direct threat

Many animals perceive the sudden noise, shadow, and movement of a drone as a predator. Even at 1,000 feet, the sound can cause enough distress to disrupt critical life functions such as breeding, nesting, and raising young.

2. Harassment is illegal

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service strictly prohibits drone use in national wildlife refuges. Harassing wildlife is a serious offense punishable by fines and other penalties. Disturbing protected species like eagles is illegal under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

3. Noise and disturbance still occur at high altitudes

• Acoustic footprint: While less intense than at lower altitudes, drone noise can still travel and disturb sensitive species that rely on a quiet environment. For instance, marine mammals, which have acute hearing, can be disturbed by drone noise from a significant distance.
• Behavioral changes: Animals can be spooked even when they don't see the drone. Deer, for example, rely heavily on their hearing and may be confused and stressed by a drone's buzzing, even at high altitudes.

4. Nest abandonment and trampling

A significant threat posed by drones is causing animals to flee in a panic. For nesting birds, this can be catastrophic. If an adult bird is scared off its nest, its eggs and chicks are left vulnerable to predators or die from exposure. In 2021, an illegally operated drone crashed at the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, causing 3,000 Elegant Terns to abandon their nests and 2,000 eggs.

5. Official regulations advise against it

Even for manned aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends flying at a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet over noise-sensitive areas like wildlife refuges. This is a request to avoid noise disturbance and reduce the risk of mid-air collisions with birds, which are more common under 1,000 feet. The FAA's stance reinforces that altitudes lower than 2,000 feet are not considered safe for these environments.

6. "Safe distance" is a subjective judgment

A drone operator cannot reliably determine a "safe" altitude or distance, as different species have varying sensitivities and responses to threats. As a U.S. Forest Service official states, if an animal notices you or your drone, you are too close. Relying on a specific altitude to guarantee safety is therefore unreliable and dangerous.


P.S. Nothing in these statements has been redacted or changed by me.
Thanx...
P.S.S. I am not sure what background you have as a scientist but conclusions require details and proof not assumptions.. You have assumed what altitude is safe. I have proven that not to be so......Sorry I am not a right fighter. I simply state the facts as I know and see them.
You may believe these organizations have no authority over their airspace. I will tell you that the FAA works closely with land management to create laws that protect wildlife and follows their advice when making regulations that involve airspace over certain areas of the country. This is backed up by the statement above that reads.......
"The FAA's stance reinforces that altitudes lower than 2,000 feet are not considered safe for these environments."

 

[anotherlab]

That reinforces what I posted about birds and mammals being affected. It's different for fish. And there haven't been published studies on the effects of drones on fish fry in hatcheries.

Larger fish, like sharks, are not affected because they don't consider it a threat. Smaller or immature fish face the risk of being picked off by birds.

None that changes that it's still a bad idea to fly over a fish hatchery without permission.