I can't imagine the problems that would arise if they legalized alcohol. People would be driving around under the influence and killing other people with their cars. Oh wait. Never mind. Good thing drones are getting banned and keeping people safe.
I can't imagine the problems that would arise if they legalized alcohol. People would be driving around under the influence and killing other people with their cars. Oh wait. Never mind. Good thing drones are getting banned and keeping people safe.
No, making statements like "While it does nothing to stop those willing to shove explosives into orifices (i.e. bomb mules), it conditions the masses into accepting the absolute authority and control our .gov has over us, our possessions, and even our own bodies" makes you a paranoid conspiracy theorist.Yes, wanting to adhere to our Constitution makes me paranoid and a conspiracy theorist.
I've never thought anything HOAs did makes any sense. That's why I refuse to live in a development governed by an HOA.The point is - and read this slowly - there is NO benefit, NO logical justification, and certainly NO D&C that requires the permission to be sought for trees in the ROW. In fact, the county has made an exception to the standard tree removal permitting process specifically to expedite requests in our neighborhood.
Attempts, not successful, as I said. And a couple of attempts in 16 years isn't bad. You can bet that would go up if there was no security screening.I do recall a number of attempts since 9/11.
Whether the underwear bomber (who got through TSA), or the shoe bomber (who got through TSA),
These incidents don't require weapons, so they're irrelevant to the discussion. Although it's a good argument for not letting passengers get drunk during flights.or deranged/drunk/psychotic passengers who try to open emergency exits or the cockpit door, each and every time a) they got no the plane, and b) it was the self-preservation instinct of the passengers that saved the day - not .gov.
Maybe some people would like to enjoy a national park without a drone whizzing around them taking pictures and video. Perhaps quiet is preferable to them over what sounds like a swarm of insects, Your comments are a perfect example of why (thank goodness) drones are banned in national parks.
Well Mr Danman, I seems I have flown both drones AND manned aircraft, so your statement is both ignorant and inaccurate.Another 107 who thinks they are an aviator. You are not an aviator, or even a pilot. Your comments and attitude make that exceedingly clear. When I fly my airplane I must maintain a minimum of 2,000 ft. AGL altitude over any sensitive wildlife areas. I guess you think that is ridiculous as well?
Seems that the majority are with you on this one.In addition to Harley's, dogs and screaming children, while visiting a national park, I "could" be creepy and take pictures of the hot women walking around in skin tight yoga pants - ban all cameras. My car "could" catch fire (like many do on the highway) causing damage to a protected area - ban cars. I "could" fart contributing to air pollution over the park - ban people and all the animals in the park. Anyone else want to contribute your hypocritical "reasons" for banning drones in the parks? I started this on a positive note that I felt fortunate to encounter cool cops who could have made my day completely suck, but chose to be nice. It turned into a bunch of people telling me how glad they are that I was chased out of somewhere that isn't even clearly in the park, because drones make noise?????
In addition to Harley's, dogs and screaming children, while visiting a national park, I "could" be creepy and take pictures of the hot women walking around in skin tight yoga pants - ban all cameras. My car "could" catch fire (like many do on the highway) causing damage to a protected area - ban cars. I "could" fart contributing to air pollution over the park - ban people and all the animals in the park. Anyone else want to contribute your hypocritical "reasons" for banning drones in the parks? I started this on a positive note that I felt fortunate to encounter cool cops who could have made my day completely suck, but chose to be nice. It turned into a bunch of people telling me how glad they are that I was chased out of somewhere that isn't even clearly in the park, because drones make noise?????
Drinking and driving is illegal, so your argument doesn't work. And banning drones in national parks really isn't about safety. It's about not creating a nuisance in a natural environment.I can't imagine the problems that would arise if they legalized alcohol. People would be driving around under the influence and killing other people with their cars. Oh wait. Never mind. Good thing drones are getting banned and keeping people safe.
Yeah, I'd like to enjoy a National Park without frigging Harleys blasting along, and dogs barking or children screaming, but that isn't going to happen because they aren't BANNED, are they?
And what about snowmobiles and 4 wheelers in some parks? They don't disturb anything right?
yet 4wheel drive vehicles, pff road motorbikes, harley davidsons and helicoptors are all ok for you?Maybe some people would like to enjoy a national park without a drone whizzing around them taking pictures and video. Perhaps quiet is preferable to them over what sounds like a swarm of insects, Your comments are a perfect example of why (thank goodness) drones are banned in national parks.
I had a ranger say that to me at a State Park, as well as disturbing the wild life. The disturbing wildlife was worth a ticket he said, but never wrote it, I guess since I was packing up and starting to kayak.Wow actually that's the first I had heard of that angle. I guess I did not consider that.
i thought you were saying buzzing around people would be the nuisance, which is already illegal just like drinking and driving. So yes, the argument holds up and you're basically saying that because the existing law won't stop people from doing it (just like alcohol), then we just completely ban it (unlike alcohol). If you fly where there are no people, how in the world is it a nuisance? In fact, the places people would want to fly for photography, are where people AREN'T. Again, based on your logic, we are being regulated based on what "could" happen which is nonsense. This is punishing everyone because there are a few who might do dumb things that are already against the law. If that's how we regulate, we need to ban the entire human race from ever leaving their homes. I propose implementing that in Iowa firstDrinking and driving is illegal, so your argument doesn't work. And banning drones in national parks really isn't about safety. It's about not creating a nuisance in a natural environment.
Alcohol, like drones, is legal, but both are banned in places where it has been decided they would be disruptive. You can't drink everywhere you might want to, just like you can't fly your drone everywhere you might want to.i thought you were saying buzzing around people would be the nuisance, which is already illegal just like drinking and driving. So yes, the argument holds up and you're basically saying that because the existing law won't stop people from doing it (just like alcohol), then we just completely ban it (unlike alcohol). If you fly where there are no people, how in the world is it a nuisance? In fact, the places people would want to fly for photography, are where people AREN'T. Again, based on your logic, we are being regulated based on what "could" happen which is nonsense. This is punishing everyone because there are a few who might do dumb things that are already against the law. If that's how we regulate, we need to ban the entire human race from ever leaving their homes. I propose implementing that in Iowa first
Those are valid points and I respect your point of view. However, most of the national parks I've visited are massive and have plenty of places that drones could be operated safely, non-nuisancely (I just made that word up), and most importantly, promote the very thing that got the national parks system started - photography. Now we have the ability to add the 3rd dimension to that, but no, we can't because a few nugget heads can't be respectful.Alcohol, like drones, is legal, but both are banned in places where it has been decided they would be disruptive. You can't drink everywhere you might want to, just like you can't fly your drone everywhere you might want to.
National parks are rarely desolate. Just because you don't see people hiking the trails or the backwoods doesn't mean they aren't there. The national parks ban didn't come about because of what might happen, it came about because of what was already starting to happen.
So what you are saying is that the NPS took the time to develop policies so that these things could be used but with reasonable restrictions and limitations.Drinking and driving is illegal, so your argument doesn't work. And banning drones in national parks really isn't about safety. It's about not creating a nuisance in a natural environment.
Harleys are required to stay on the roads in developed areas of the parks just like other motor vehicles. They don't get to tool around in the back country on nature trails.
And dogs, snowmobiles and 4-wheelers are actually pretty heavily regulated as to where they are and are not allowed to go in national parks. Snowmobiles, for example, have to be inspected for noise and air pollution, and many snowmobiles don't meet the requirements. There are also restrictions on how many per day are allowed in a given park, and they have specific trails they can be on.
Now children ... well, you've got me there.