Flying near wildlife

[AMann]

All I can say is, "you've got to be kidding me!"

A 10,000-pound killer whale which is 98% under the water even when on the surface is going to be spooked by a 1-pound drone that is twenty feet away???

Not a chance.

I live near some of the most famous natural preserves in the world, and hike or explore several times a week. The idea that a drone is going to be a threat, in any way, shape, manner, or form to any animal is just plain nonsense.

Here's a video showing the absolute panic a small flying object induces in wildlife in my backyard:

Science also starts with an opinion or question, and supports it or not through repeatable results obtained from experiment and observation.

 

[Meta4]

I wouldn’t want to use that as my defense against a ticket for violating the marine mammal protection act in front of a Federal Magistrate

I agree ... was just pointing out the origin of the regulations.

 

[AMann]

I agree ... was just pointing out the origin of the regulations.

Yeah, they do treat drones as aircraft, but I’d hate to get one of these letters over it:

 

[dronerdave]

Never heard of this. Very good to know.
What if you're just flying along and a whale pops up while you're videoing?

 

[AMann]

Never heard of this. Very good to know.
What if you're just flying along and a whale pops up while you're videoing?

That last sentence in the notice above is a good course of action; just immediately head away at a constant speed.

 

[dronerdave]

That last sentence in the notice above is a good course of action; just immediately head away at a constant speed.

Sorry I was actually asking about showing the video. I might fly right over one and never see it until I look at the video on a larger screen well after the flight is over. I'd hate to be turned in for something like that. There are some parks who allow flying that have nesting geese. Would that constitute the 1000' rule?

 

[Meta4]

There are some parks who allow flying that have nesting geese. Would that constitute the 1000' rule?

Rules for marine mammals don't apply to geese

 

[AMann]

Sorry I was actually asking about showing the video. I might fly right over one and never see it until I look at the video on a larger screen well after the flight is over. I'd hate to be turned in for something like that. There are some parks who allow flying that have nesting geese. Would that constitute the 1000' rule?

The 1000’ was for marine mammals, but if your drone makes nesting migratory geese (such as snow or Canada geese) flush from their nest then yes, that would be considered as “take” under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act:

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712) implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S.

www.fws.gov

 

[dronerdave]

The 1000’ was for marine mammals, but if your drone makes nesting migratory geese (such as snow or Canada geese) flush from their nest then yes, that would be considered as “take” under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act:

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712) implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S.

www.fws.gov

Thanks that's what I was after.

 

[THE WOMBLE]

pigeons in the city are not wildlife. what you did is a lot better than i used to do, growing up with a bb gun.

These wood pigeons are native to New Zealand. Often called kereru and are protected by laws. Can not be harmed or kept as pets. Quite often they stray from their bush surroundings and visit us humans in the towns/cities. Just recently a person was fined NZ$12,00 for shooting 5 birds and NZ$12,500 reparation to Dept of Conservation, 3 months community detention, 100 hours of community work and ordered to forfeit his riffle. He was caught with 5 frozen kereru in his freezer. We try to protect our WILD LIFE.

 

[johnmeyer]

These wood pigeons are native to New Zealand. Often called kereru and are protected by laws. Can not be harmed or kept as pets. Quite often they stray from their bush surroundings and visit us humans in the towns/cities. Just recently a person was fined NZ$12,00 for shooting 5 birds and NZ$12,500 reparation to Dept of Conservation, 3 months community detention, 100 hours of community work and ordered to forfeit his riffle. He was caught with 5 frozen kereru in his freezer. We try to protect our WILD LIFE.

But this shows how stupid and crazy these laws and their enforcement have become.

Killing an animal is just a wee bit different than taking it's picture, wouldn't you agree? The idea that you are going to endanger an entire species by stalking it -- whether on foot, or by drone -- and then simply taking its picture, is absurd

Equating killing and photo taking via drone is silly.

 

[AMann]

But this shows how stupid and crazy these laws and their enforcement have become.

Killing an animal is just a wee bit different than taking it's picture, wouldn't you agree? The idea that you are going to endanger an entire species by stalking it -- whether on foot, or by drone -- and then simply taking its picture, is absurd

Equating killing and photo taking via drone is silly.

Your opinion is noted, but flushing a bird off it’s nest has been documented to directly cause abandonment and predation of the unprotected young, and there have been numerous studies documenting how tourism and encroachment by people have caused harm to local populations of wildlife, and to migrating species that needed time to rest and eat.

 

[kensteele]

These wood pigeons are native to New Zealand. Often called kereru and are protected by laws. Can not be harmed or kept as pets. Quite often they stray from their bush surroundings and visit us humans in the towns/cities. Just recently a person was fined NZ$12,00 for shooting 5 birds and NZ$12,500 reparation to Dept of Conservation, 3 months community detention, 100 hours of community work and ordered to forfeit his riffle. He was caught with 5 frozen kereru in his freezer. We try to protect our WILD LIFE.

understood and i agree with you, i forget those animals can sometimes stray or we encroach on them.

 

[BerndM]

IMO, if your drone is causing the wildlife to move away from it, then you are too close.

 

[CAG]

Arizona's regs on the use of drones and wildlife. Simply put, your definition of disturb/harass might be different than the game manager's but you certainly will get the opportunity to explain your's to the judge. And someone said pigeons are not wildlife, but in Arizona all birds, include pigeons are protected and come under the mentioned reg. If there is a season, they then become "game" and subject to the harvest rules.

"Because the Federal Aviation Administration classifies drones as aircraft, the department explains, the technology cannot lawfully be used for pursuing, disturbing, harassing or taking wildlife. In addition, a drone shall not be used to locate wildlife beginning 48 hours before the opening of a big game hunting season. "

 

[AMann]

Arizona's regs on the use of drones and wildlife. Simply put, your definition of disturb/harass might be different than the game manager's but you certainly will get the opportunity to explain your's to the judge. And someone said pigeons are not wildlife, but in Arizona all birds, include pigeons are protected and come under the mentioned reg. If there is a season, they then become "game" and subject to the harvest rules.

"Because the Federal Aviation Administration classifies drones as aircraft, the department explains, the technology cannot lawfully be used for pursuing, disturbing, harassing or taking wildlife. In addition, a drone shall not be used to locate wildlife beginning 48 hours before the opening of a big game hunting season. "

“Pigeons” (Columba livia) found in many cities across the world, also known as rock doves or rock pigeons, are not protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but as mentioned, they are protected as a game bird on a state by state basis in the US.

 

[johnmeyer]

"Because the Federal Aviation Administration classifies drones as aircraft, the department explains, the technology cannot lawfully be used for pursuing, disturbing, harassing or taking wildlife."

Except for the word "disturbing" I agree with this language.

I do, however, take issue with that one word because the drone does no more "disturbing," than does any other of thousands of threats every wild animal faces every day, and to which they constantly react. A ten second interaction with a drone isn't going to alter that animal's life one single bit because it is just one of those thousands of perceived threats.

So, IMHO, simply flying by the animal, or tracking at a great distance isn't going to change anything, but buzzing a few feet away, and continuing to do so for several minutes should not be allowed. The regulations need to do a MUCH better job at cleanly defining this line. Something along the lines of "a deliberate, protracted pursuit of an animal designed to elicit a reaction, or to direct their behavior, shall not be permitted."

In some ways, these laws remind me of how screwed up sexual harassment laws have become where, because the lawmakers now want to err on the side of protecting the victim, even normal interactions that are part of the courtship process are being criminalized. In both cases (drones and harassment) we need some really sharp lawyers to provide clear delineation between permitted and banned behavior, complete with examples of what is, and what is not, permitted.

 

[dronerdave]

I do agree that language is probably more suited to full sized aircraft. I fly along rivers and shores where I might cause a bird to fly away but I don't chase it around or go peeping their nests. Common sense IMO.

 

[CAG]

"Except for the word "disturbing" I agree with this language."

Without trying to be snarky, whether you agree with it or not, it is the law in Arizona. The law was recently enacted mostly for drones although some of the law has been there awhile because "guides" were overflying elk herds with fixed wing the same day they were taking clients out. Unethical, and not fair chase.

And you HO will mean nothing when the game managers decides you were in violation and writes the summons. You can explain your HO to the judge, however you not only have your drone seized during that time but Arizona can and usually does assess a civil penalty along with the criminal penalty when warranted. Messing with G&F is not something you want to bet your HO on.

 

[johnmeyer]

"Except for the word "disturbing" I agree with this language."

Without trying to be snarky, whether you agree with it or not, it is the law in Arizona. The law was recently enacted mostly for drones although some of the law has been there awhile because "guides" were overflying elk herds with fixed wing the same day they were taking clients out. Unethical, and not fair chase.

And you HO will mean nothing when the game managers decides you were in violation and writes the summons. You can explain your HO to the judge, however you not only have your drone seized during that time but Arizona can and usually does assess a civil penalty along with the criminal penalty when warranted. Messing with G&F is not something you want to bet your HO on.

We have a LOT of bad laws which people ignore all the time. Those people include our own lawmakers who, if you follow headlines the past few years, have decided to ignore certain federal laws. This country's history is full of examples of individuals, groups, and local/state governments willfully ignoring bad laws. Sometimes they pay the price, although oftentimes the enforcement agencies will eventually side with the offender, if the law is stupid enough and if enough people openly oppose it.

I'd agree, however, that this is probably not a law worth risking a lot of money or time trying to defeat, but it is both annoying and -- for parts of it -- stupid.