Flying in National Parks and restricted areas

[EpicFlight]

Too sensible and accommodating, @Eagle Eye 62. More people would be allowed to enjoy the Park. Not Good

 

[EpicFlight]

I doubt that it's a problem with them listening, but more with having resources available. NPS has serious budget issues. They've had to curtail operations and they're short on personnel in many locations.

Seriously, I suspect the additional resources may be fully offset by resources spent dealing with enforcement.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I doubt that it's a problem with them listening, but more with having resources available. NPS has serious budget issues. They've had to curtail operations and they're short on personnel in many locations.

Yes, the same here with resources / budgets.
Then you face the issue does each park do this ? Or a central section at head office ?
Cost $$$ to set up and run, $$$ they don't have to properly do their normal day to day ops as it is.
Low priority for all concerned with such an organisation, a quite small number of outside people concerned (us), so blanket ban it.

 

[Eagle Eye 62]

Yes, the same here with resources / budgets.
Then you face the issue does each park do this ? Or a central section at head office ?
Cost $$$ to set up and run, $$$ they don't have to properly do their normal day to day ops as it is.
Low priority for all concerned with such an organisation, a quite small number of outside people concerned (us), so blanket ban it.

You could charge for permits to offset the cost. They charge for everything else so it would be pretty easy to add this to the current system. I'm not saying it would be as easy as flipping a switch but it could be done.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

You could charge for permits to offset the cost. They charge for everything else so it would be pretty easy to add this to the current system. I'm not saying it would be as easy as flipping a switch but it could be done.

Anything is possible for sure, and hopefully one day they might do this where the National Parks drone use bans exist.
I'm sure many would not mind paying a fee to operate under certain conditions.

It would require a lot of resources, from local parks who would set the conditions / places of flight allowance, so many parameters to go through !!
Popularity of the site mostly, visitor times, numbers, other risks with wildlife, potential crashes / fires.
Then you have to have a system, build to do this, a dept somewhere whose task it is to handle issuing and monitoring permits and feedback from flights.

This is why they might find it all too hard, and for the visitor breakups of normal foot traffic vs drone fliers, pretty sure drone flights would be tiny in comparison . . . would they do it for a tiny fraction of drone flights vs overall visitors.

I suppose they do it for fishers, hunters, possibly some commercial photography, etc, so maybe it could be tacked on to that sort of dept.

 

[EpicFlight]

There are many ways to share these spaces. Also keep compliance costs modest through self-selection.

In the first case, drone permits can be limited to certain dates and times.

In the second, develop, test, and require some sort of advanced certification to fly in these sensitive areas.

There would, of course, be much more to all this, just pointing out there are reasonable ways to enable everyone's enjoyment.

 

[Kentucky Ranger]

Parks are full of cars, motorcycles, ATVs, people walking around, talking, shooting selfies. All these things we don't notice because they have been around forever and we put up with them. Now a drone, no matter how quiet, seems to be a nuisance. And people complain even if they see one off in the distance. I get not having lots of drones in popular and crowed places like Old Faithful in YNP. But otherwise I think many of the rules are overkill.

Here in Kentucky, most national forest are open to drones, as long as they aren’t flown over public areas.
But I can see where some areas in the US, could be a real headache, and need to be restricted.

 

[mavic3usa]

I would actually like to see the NP divided into 3 tiers. Parts of the park (the vast majority of most parks) would be marked at "Uncontrolled" where drone flying is completely allowed with no restrictions. This would be remote parks where there is nobody and there are no sites and access is limited, etc. Then there is "restricted" where permits are required or you have "drone days" where drones are allowed for the weekend, maybe 5 times a year or some limited period. Like the Grand Canyon or Mt Rushmore. Then there are no fly zones where drones are never allowed such as over Old Faithful or sensitive areas like breeding zones.

May I suggest Red Rock Canyon which is a National Conservation Area where drones are allowed. I believe one day, all parks will look like this.

I've been well into the backcountry at Denali, should have been able to fly my drone there. All we are asking for is sensible legislation instead of blanket bans.

 

[MS Coast]

Here in Kentucky, most national forest are open to drones, as long as they aren’t flown over public areas.
But I can see where some areas in the US, could be a real headache, and need to be restricted.

National Forests and National Parks are different entities and the drone regulations are different. Drones aren't allowed in National Parks but are in National Forests, with some exceptions, including Wilderness Areas. This USDA page has details.

I lived in Kentucky for a while and I still miss the Big South Fork of the Cumberland River and The Red River Gorge. I had some great canoeing and backpacking trips there.

 

[karlblessing]

Here in Kentucky, most national forest are open to drones, as long as they aren’t flown over public areas.
But I can see where some areas in the US, could be a real headache, and need to be restricted.

Are National Forest and "Public Areas" not the same thing ? Or do they have private ownership intermingled thru them?

 

[dronerdave]

Are National Forest and "Public Areas" not the same thing ? Or do they have private ownership intermingled thru them?

Many National Forest areas are scattered with private property parcels. Certain hobbies/activities in specific forest service areas are allowed, including target practice, as off-road vehicle travel, dispersed vehicle camping and more. I have friends who run cattle on forest service land so while out backpacking you might have a steer visit your campsite. Yet I'd think FS campgrounds might have some other restrictions possibly including drone regulations, I've just never researched it. Maybe it depends on the district offices views...I don't know. National Parks on the other hand are highly regulated compared to most forest service lands.



One of my thoughts on drones in national parks is from a visitor’s point of view who wants to shoot ground photography. To tell the truth I'd be a little upset of a drone was in my cameras FOV when looking to produce a scenic nature shot. Short of a full-sized aircraft at high altitude, there isn't much I have to worry about when framing a scenic image. A lot would depend on where drones would be allowed to fly and there would have to be some kind of rules involved regarding interaction with the public. Would I like to fly and capture a beautiful image of something like Half Dome with my drone...heck yeah, but my guess would be it's just an added activity difficult for the park service to enforce. I certainly don't see self-compliance considering how many ignorant things some people seem to try with drones already. Any common-sense rule will be challenged by someone who gives the regulations the finger. It's sad that I can go off road for miles in a place like Death Valley and be restricted to use my drone responsibly when nobody is around. But what is irresponsible to some isn't to others and that is an issue the park service has to deal with. Perhaps drone zones could be developed in some national parks where a park service employee can control drone usage. But I'm guessing the park service doesn't want to add more to their plate.

 

[karlblessing]

In regards to ground photography, even the larger mavics are not much more than a bird size blip further than 100 or so feet out. (At worse it's usually only a 10 pixel dot to clone out, or a tiny streak on a time lapse).

 

[dronerdave]

In regards to ground photography, even the larger mavics are not much more than a bird size blip further than 100 or so feet out. (At worse it's usually only a 10 pixel dot to clone out, or a tiny streak on a time lapse).

Years ago I was at Yellowstone and had never seen Old Faithful. Some idiot walked out where he wasn't allowed to be to capture a close up of the geyser. His irresponsible actions ruined it for everybody visiting who want to capture a picture without him in it. No I'd consider someone with a drone doing the same thing as an irresponsible operator. It's why we can't regulate ourselves. But I wouldn't have a problem at all if drone operators were allowed to fly from a spot that wouldn't interfere with others shooting from the ground. But my guess is if they did allow that, some overzealous drone operator would want to get a closer shot and do like the idiot I had to deal with. JMO.

 

[karlblessing]

A human body, or flight rather close to a very specific landmark is quite a big difference from a grey tiny dot on general landscape.

 

[Kentucky Ranger]

Are National Forest and "Public Areas" not the same thing ? Or do they have private ownership intermingled thru them?

I have no idea.
I called the ranger station at the Red River gorge, and that’s what she told me.
I haven’t flown there yet, but I have read the same thing on Kentucky’s forest service website.

 

[karlblessing]

I have no idea.
I called the ranger station at the Red River gorge, and that’s what she told me.
I haven’t flown there yet, but I have read the same thing on Kentucky’s forest service website.

Given the notoriety of local officials inaccurate knowledge on the topic, I wouldn't rely solely on what they said.