Has anybody ever flown in a national park?

[Tinmania]

If you are referring to illegally modified vehicles then why is that even part of the discussion? They are already illegal - in parks or on any other highways. Surely the discussion here was about noisy, but legal, motorcycles.

No, that is most definitely not what the discussion here was about. Noisy motorcycles don’t roll off the assembly line. No bike from Harley Davidson comes with straight pipes. There is litte doubt the bikes people in this very thread are referring to were running illegal exhausts. Nearly all of the people I know with Harleys have illegal exhausts. I once had slip-ons on a Harley that were not that loud compared to many bikes I hear, but they were not legal.

Furthermore, the sound from loud motorcycle pipes propagates quite far:

Trevino and her team are now recording audio at more than 70 national parks around the country. They're trying to get a handle on just how noise polluted the parks are. They found that motorcycles can sometimes be heard up to 18 miles away. That noise can make it harder for animals to hear predators or listen for prey. Elk and songbirds have trouble finding mates. Trevino says that while there are plenty of blind vertebrates, there aren't any deaf ones

Motorcycles Rev Up Noise Fears In National Parks



Mike

 

[Gringorio]

It's important to understand that while you can snowmobile, drive cars etc. in National Parks, you can only do that in designated areas within the park. Many National Parks include areas of designated wilderness where those activities are not allowed. So it's important to keep this in mind when discussing the issue in this thread. Just for example, nearly 95% of Yosemite is designated wilderness.

From the Wilderness Act (the bold is mine for emphasis):
"Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."

Here's from the NPS about Yellowstone and wilderness designation:
"Yellowstone National Park has always managed its backcountry to protect natural and cultural resources and to provide visitors with the opportunity to enjoy a pristine environment within a setting of solitude. Yet none of the park is designated as federal wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

In 1972, in accordance with that law, the Secretary of the Interior recommended 2,016,181 acres of Yellowstone’s backcountry be designated as wilderness. Although Congress has not acted on this recommendation, all lands that fall within Yellowstone’s Recommended Wilderness are managed to maintain their natural wilderness character so as not to preclude wilderness designation in the future. The last Yellowstone wilderness recommendation sent to Congress was for 2,032,721 acres."

 

[sar104]

No, that is most definitely not what the discussion here was about. Noisy motorcycles don’t roll off the assembly line. No bike from Harley Davidson comes with straight pipes. There is litte doubt the bikes people in this very thread are referring to were running illegal exhausts. Nearly all of the people I know with Harleys have illegal exhausts. I once had slip-ons on a Harley that were not that loud compared to many bikes I hear, but they were not legal.

Furthermore, the sound from loud motorcycle pipes propagates quite far:


Motorcycles Rev Up Noise Fears In National Parks



Mike

This started with some comments questioning why drones are banned in National Parks while noisy motorcycles are not. The question obviously makes no sense if it refers to motorcycles that are, in fact, already illegal in National Parks.

Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here - are you making the point that the motorcycles in question are probably already illegal and that therefore the "illegal drones vs. legal motorcycles" comparison was flawed to begin with?

 

[Drgnfli]

In Yosemite they regulate some standard photography at specific times of the year due to the popularity of the event. I don't have an issue with the park service looking at opening up spots for the use of UAV photgraphy under some regulation. But how do park officials control that when is obvious that people push the legal limits right now? It's a shame they can't find some central ground but I don't see the park service wanting to add more on their list of duties to monitor. Just makes me laugh when I can't take a aerial picture of my vehicle off roading in Death Valley when there's nobody w/i eyesight. Wish they would allow low level flying with a controlled flight distance in certain spots.

As usual, the majority of honest, forthright drone pilots are screwed by the actions of the reckless minority. Welcome to life where our leaders judge & control the majority according to the few dirtbags of the world. Gee, you don't see that anywhere else, do you?

 

[Drgnfli]

Even if he is hidden... The police park trooper explore and go every corner possible. I saw it before. Plus, if you hide yourself too much, can be dangerous, what happened if he found a bear or leopard or a venomous snakes?. So hidden in a national park... Not a good idea

"...if he found a bear or leopard or a venomous snakes..." Ahhh, you'd better stay out of all the parks. I thought those were reasons people go to parks...?

 

[tcope]

Utter nonsense. Clearly what people are referring to here are modified motorcycle exhausts. Straight pipes or modified loud exhausts are illegal in most states, and certainly in the states with the most popular NPs (eg, AZ and CA). Many aftermarket motorcycle exhausts are even clearly marked “Off Road Use Only.”

If that were the case, the NPS ranger would issue a citation and perhaps ask the person to leave the park. So they would not simply "allow" motorcycles as mentioned above.

Truth is, what you mentioned is not what people were posting about.

Bottom line, motorcycles are not the same as drones. So comparing the two is not valid.

 

[Tinmania]

If that were the case, the NPS ranger would issue a citation and perhaps ask the person to leave the park. So they would not simply "allow" motorcycles as mentioned above.

Truth is, what you mentioned is not what people were posting about.

Bottom line, motorcycles are not the same as drones. So comparing the two is not valid.

Another clueless post. What the heck do you think “straight pipes” mean? Also, please tell me in what states they are legal, for street use. I won’t hold my breath.

If you honestly believe the thundering sound from some bikes is “normal” and yet find the slight buzz of a drone at 100’ vacation-killing annoying I think the only answer is hypocrisy.

At least I got a laugh from this gem, “the NPS ranger would issue a citation and perhaps ask the person to leave the park.” Good lord. I, over 10-years-ago when I was younger, once was going 100+ MPH on a BMW K bike in Yosemite. A ranger flagged me and said please slow down there will be traffic ahead. No “please leave,” no citation—at 60 MPH over the posted limit. But since they (USUALLY) don’t bother with loud pipes, your first assumption is “must be legal.” Too funny.




Mike

 

[Robert Mitchell]

It's important to understand that while you can snowmobile, drive cars etc. in National Parks, you can only do that in designated areas within the park. Many National Parks include areas of designated wilderness where those activities are not allowed. So it's important to keep this in mind when discussing the issue in this thread. Just for example, nearly 95% of Yosemite is designated wilderness.

From the Wilderness Act (the bold is mine for emphasis):
"Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."

Here's from the NPS about Yellowstone and wilderness designation:
"Yellowstone National Park has always managed its backcountry to protect natural and cultural resources and to provide visitors with the opportunity to enjoy a pristine environment within a setting of solitude. Yet none of the park is designated as federal wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

In 1972, in accordance with that law, the Secretary of the Interior recommended 2,016,181 acres of Yellowstone’s backcountry be designated as wilderness. Although Congress has not acted on this recommendation, all lands that fall within Yellowstone’s Recommended Wilderness are managed to maintain their natural wilderness character so as not to preclude wilderness designation in the future. The last Yellowstone wilderness recommendation sent to Congress was for 2,032,721 acres."

I'll speak for myself in saying I am not advocating for flying in designated wilderness areas.

But there is a lot of land in NPs that is neither that, nor filled with tourists. Plenty of no/low impact areas exist.

 

[raymo]

Mt. Rushmore???? The pristine mountain revered by the Lakota for generations? Oh wait, that has already been desecrated far more than anything a 2 lb. quad could do.



Mike

like maybe jackhammers and tons of explosives.

 

[raymo]

Wrong again. Click the link in post # 14. This was the original document defining the ban. You do know what the word “interim” means right?
Additionally, it was widely reported by both the agency and industry insiders at the time as temporary.
Now, go in and read the original document as published by the NSP and then tell me what their intention was.

In Canada, we know what "interim" means. It means this restriction will apply until we can get even greater restrictions into place by means of moving it from policy to regulation to Act! This happens in all arenas where socialism takes root. So while we think it may just be applied to UAVs, this principle is applied to most other areas where political and judicial forces come to bear. In the U.S., perhaps "interim" means something different, I certainly hope so, but here in Canada we have seen it go the way I describe.

 

[raymo]

I have been cross-country skiing in pristine areas of Yellowstone only to have the beauty and serenity of the day ruined by a train of snowmobilers zipping through the area and chasing the bison. I agree, drones, are less noisy than snowmobiles but I don't like either in the national parks. The reason snowmobiles are allowed is that they are a larger group of customers to the park than are drone owners, are more vocal and got their permission to use the parks decades ago. I wish the NPS would keep them out the same way as the citizens of Lake Tahoe banned jet skis on Lake Tahoe. There should be some places in the US where you can enjoy nature without man-made buzzing. I love my drone but I also love Mother Nature. I vote to keep the drones out of the parks.

I once had the opportunity to go to one of the most serene places in Western Montana. They allow NO motor systems of any kind in the wilderness area, no chain saws, pumps or generators or anything else having a motor. It was most annoying to have jet aircraft flying overhead at 30,000 feet totally messing up the serene quietude and the contrails completely destroyed the natural beautiful blues skies. Guess they should ban those things too ... tongue well in cheek. The real world (parks included) has more than its fair share of visual and audio distractions. Curiously, in all this discussion about pristine isolated nature, my wife refuses to go anywhere where there aren't tons of people around. It's unsafe to be in a wilderness area under any circumstance for her as it's unsafe because of what MIGHT happen! If she wrote the laws, people would be banned from all wilderness areas because so many have died as the result of bad situations as well as what might happen.

 

[ElGringo]

you people just don't understand how easy it is to start one and how hard it is to fight one.

What do you mean you people?

 

[DonnyMac]

And so, predictably, the thread turns into mud slingling flame out.
Happy Saturday everybody!

 

[Siwyleeds]

I d get there early in the mornind around 6 am when not many people around.

 

[FL1H1]

Many of the activities allowed within the parks pose a far greater risk of fire than a Mavic.

We in the UK have restrictions too. National trust owns gazillions of acres in the lake district, in good weather, genuinely one of the most beautiful parts of the entire world. Colors are incredible, like looking at a painting. They also look after numerous country estates and the old palaces within them, Blenheim Palace. Maybe one day at certain times, they will one day allow drones in. This was once the way with cameras, videos, recording equipment in theatres and cinemas but as phones became cameras and everyone got one, so they simply had to relent and all learned to live with them. Be no different with drones. At present there's opposition and legitimate issues so they adopt the position of fine, ban them but eventually they will have to bend a little, it'll just take time. Few years.

 

[Cessna pilot]

I think the main reason for the ban is the fire risk due to the battery’s if your bird goes down.

 

[FL1H1]

I think the main reason for the ban is the fire risk due to the battery’s if your bird goes down.

No fire risk in the UK and that's not going to affect All national parks. We have similar issues in the UK. Not that many own drones yet so a ban is easy to enforce, and the low level of ownership means it can be easily enforced. One day it'll become an issue and then they'll have to reassess matters

 

[PhoebeSnow]

Yes, many times. Would fly in from outside the park, perhaps a rental house or from a border line to the parks. Flew over the entrance to Zion and then a few miles into the park from a 1/2 mile away.

 

[moonlitnite]

As the saying goes, when you have a hammer - everything looks like a nail. And so it goes with us drone pilots, assuming it’s zero sum “us versus them” game.

This ignores the historic development struggles of the NPS dating back to President Lincoln’s years with industrialist fighting naturalist for 150 years. For instance 100 years ago the so-called bullies after the San Francisco earthquake/fires were able to wrestle away a significant portion of the #2 NPS park, the Hetch Hetchy valley adjacent to the Yosemite valley was converted to a reservoir and despite fights to regain the valley is recent years, as the saying goes - possession is nine tenths of the law. Passionate groups like the Sierra Club, documentaries by Ken Burns, and even elementary school lessons on ecology of our pristine assets underscore a collective consciousness of the masses putting pressure on administration - both NPS, the government and politicians.

So aside from the drone issue in NPS airspace, consider even a seemingly trivial act of taking photos or videos from a camer on the ground. Do it as a tourist and you’re (most often) good to go. But if you are doing a COMMERCIAL shoot, all the NPS bells, whistles, red flags and sirens go off, so you’d better have official, costly permits with lots of red tape that can take months to obtain clearance - drone or no drone!

Over the years, I’ve found it’s worth at least taking the time to learn the viewpoints of others - whether we agree with them or not. And so while I am relieved to see the California STATE Parks flip their rules to allow drone flight in their parks in recent years, I appreciate that at a National level, emotions run strong based on its background and the crosses that we are all now forced to carry.

Happy trails, Michael

 

[Rogat19]

I never understood this. Unless you are legit flying your drone in front a bears face to the point where you are about to hit it I don't see the issue. In my experience, 99% of animals don't seem to mind drones at a reasonable distance. To them it's probably just a weird looking bird, lol.

I would argue that humans walking through trails are significantly more stressful to wildlife as they can't determine if you are a threat or not thus we should ban humans from walking on the trails and instead force people to enjoy the wildlife via a drone because it's much safer and less stressful.

The point I'm trying to make is that it seems extremely odd that they would ban drones in a place where drones were literally made to explore. The more the FAA restricts locations the less people are going to care and start disregarding the rules.

I like to consider myself a very responsible pilot, but it sucks when the FAA bans places just to ban them. [emoji25]

It’s not the FAA it’s parks and wildlife or national parks that ban them and I’m sure it’s as others are saying much easier to ban them than actually put a bit of thought into it come up with guidelines and restrictions where you can fly and can’t fly etc etc all to much like work let’s just ban them mention safety and animal disturbances and the drone guy hasn’t got a chance hehe back to the couch and my exotic plants book !