Illegal Drone flying kills 3000

[sar104]

Thats my point that it should not, I may be stating that wrong, but news organizations and people without drone knowledge will try to put us all in the same boat. The accusations should go to the individual, not the community.
Especially if an illegal act was committed.

Ah - so I agree to an extent. But I don't see any evidence that the news organizations are doing that - in this case the report was about the abandonment (it clearly happened), that they had been having problems with drones flying over the reserve (no reason to doubt that - they have a crashed drone and at least one cited pilot) and the allegation that the crashed drone caused the abandonment (seems a bit circumstantial). So whether or not the reserve management correctly attributed the blame, I didn't see any negative connotations associated with drones in general from the reporter. In fact what I think reflects more poorly on the drone community is the impression of denialism regarding the majority of the negative events that are reported. Much better would be to acknowledge these events for what they are - inappropriate or simply illegal flying.

 

[GFields]

Interesting read, thanks for sharing

 

[Lets Fly]

Ah - so I agree to an extent. But I don't see any evidence that the news organizations are doing that - in this case the report was about the abandonment (it clearly happened), that they had been having problems with drones flying over the reserve (no reason to doubt that - they have a crashed drone and at least one cited pilot) and the allegation that the crashed drone caused the abandonment (seems a bit circumstantial). So whether or not the reserve management correctly attributed the blame, I didn't see any negative connotations associated with drones in general from the reporter. In fact what I think reflects more poorly on the drone community is the impression of denialism regarding the majority of the negative events that are reported. Much better would be to acknowledge these events for what they are - inappropriate or simply illegal flying.

Agreed.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Ah - so I agree to an extent. But I don't see any evidence that the news organizations are doing that

I did see another article where the news site left out info about the new housing at one end of the reserve.
In fact it was in only one of the 2 stories linked in post 7 to as well, the other with minor detail didn't mention any other factors apart from the drones !
Very poor form, and omitting such information is just as bad as media 'embellishment' of stories.

No, Google shows multiple new agencies and television with actual video showing the damage.

No one's denying it happened.
Just either blaming drones straight out, discarding all the other factors more likely to have caused this.

Dogs would be my guess . . . as much as I am a dog person, when 2, 3 or more form small packs and roam, they are extremely destructive.
Dogs in packs like that can become killers of livestock and wildlife, even when they normally are docile.

I can certainly picture dogs running through such a reserve, simply just running amok chasing the birds, and they keep going for a long time.
That's more the type of incident that would cause such a mass abandonment.

I don't think drones, bikes, or people of foot would cause such an event, though it goes without saying that these types of reserves should be totally off limits when the birds breeding season is on.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The trouble is that whether it was a drone(s) that caused this, or dogs, cats, people on foot or on bikes, the mainstream media is generally running with drones causing the event.
Even if a follow up story is made sometime later saying it was something else that caused this, some of the media won't bother reporting it, and some of the public who see the original report won't see the follow up.
Damage is done, one more black mark for drones in the publics eyes.

 

[sar104]

The trouble is that whether it was a drone(s) that casued this, or dogs, cats, people on foot or on bikes, the mainstream media is generally running with drones causing the event.
Even if a follow up story is made sometime later saying it was something else casued this, some of the media won't bother reporting it, and some of the public who see the original report won't see the follow up.
Damage is done, one more black mark for drones in the publics eyes.

No - the media are reporting what the reserve and game and fish people told them, which is their job. And drones have been flying there, which is a black mark whether or not they directly caused this event, and so whining that it is unfair to drones just isn't going to fly. And lastly, this occurred on the island in the middle, surrounded by at least 100 meters of open water, so whatever it was it was unlikely to have been the residents' dogs.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

No - the media are reporting what the reserve and game and fish people told them, which is their job. And drones have been flying there, which is a black mark whether or not they directly caused this event, and so whining that it is unfair to drones just isn't going to fly. And lastly, this occurred on the island in the middle, surrounded by at least 100 meters of open water, so whatever it was it was unlikely to have been the residents' dogs.

No. Read my post again.
Some media are omitting info they've gotten (or have nicked from other media sites), omitted info about the subdivision, the dogs, the people on bikes, etc etc.
THAT is as bad as embellishing their stories for hits and revenue, or to create sensationalism.
One of the linked stories in post 7 only mentions drones (as the cause).

An island ? More of a spit with easy access either end, and there is obviously a road, carparks, buildings, and homes within easy dog distance. Google maps Bolsa Chica

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Another thread popped up, this one NY Times.
Air 2 shown as the crashed aircraft.
This report says 1500 eggs, but can't read beyond the basic info for what they report overall, subscription required.

UAS-OPERATOR crashes drone in ecological reserve

The story is in the New York Times at 1,500 Eggs Were Waiting to Hatch. Then a Drone Crashed. About 2,500 elegant terns fled the reserve, abandoning 1,500 eggs. Photo of the crashed drone looks like a DJI Air 2S to me. The owner has not come forward to claim the aircraft. I hope they can...

mavicpilots.com

 

[sar104]

No. Read my post again.
Some media are omitting info they've gotten (or have nicked from other media sites), omitted info about the subdivision, the dogs, the people on bikes, etc etc.
THAT is as bad as embellishing their stories for hits and revenue, or to create sensationalism.
One of the linked stories in post 7 only mentions drones (as the cause).

I read your post, and I completely disagree with your assessment. The reserve and the department of game and fish stated (correctly or otherwise) that drones were a problem and that the drone crash caused this event. They also stated that other pressures were causing problems, but not this problem. Those news articles were about this problem, and they were under no obligation to wander off into what were presented as peripheral issues just to assuage the feelings of the drone community.

An island ? More of a spit with easy access either end, and there is obviously a road, carparks, buildings, and homes within easy dog distance. Google maps Bolsa Chica

No, it's not a spit with access - it's an island.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I read your post, and I completely disagree with your assessment. The reserve and the department of game and fish stated (correctly or otherwise) that drones were a problem and that the drone crash caused this event. They also stated that other pressures were causing problems, but not this problem. Those news articles were about this problem, and they were under no obligation to wander off into what were presented as peripheral issues just to assuage the feelings of the drone community.



No, it's not a spit with access - it's an island.

View attachment 130299

So all that, the 3000, or 1500 eggs, or whatever it was, it all happened on that little rectangle island 100m x 50m (328' x 164') ?
That is but a tiny part of the reserve, which includes the larger sand area the the NE.

I was only going by what the warden did say about dogs, people on foot, bikes, and new housing on the edge of the boundary bringing more dogs off leash problems (and quite likely drones).
The warden (reserve manager Melissa Loebl) actually emphasised this in the report “We’ve seen a significant increase in dogs, particularly off-leash,” Loebl said. “That’s devastating for wildlife and this is prime nesting season. The dogs chase the birds and the birds abandon their nests.”

It matters not what we both think may be the issue, the media reports as they like, leaving out info about other problems, that even the warden quoted in the story report as contributing.
The omitted info is as bad as fake news where they embellish the facts.

 

[passedpawn]

Every spring two little wrens make a nest in my garage (I try to stop them, but they always manage it). This year, as in the past, a nest full of eggs. From those eggs, I now have 5 new wrens nibbling in my feeder in the woods behind my house. I think there are generations of them that used my garage as a hatchery.

In my garage, I have 3 cars (incl a full size truck), lawn equipment, a workbench. Two bird dogs go in and out all the time. And, I drone a bit out front

I srsly doubt that a little plastic drone scared away the entire population of birds from the entire island. I'll go have a look at the links, but the story does not pass the smell test.

 

[Tomk_]

I think people are missing a few facts here. Dogs do in fact chase the birds on that little island. But the bigger issue with the drones that crashed on the nesting area (I believe there were two different ones documented) is that the drone owners (and their friends) walked through the nesting area to find and retrieve the drones. I suspect the humans walking about the nests did more disturbing of the birds than the drones did.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I think people are missing a few facts here. Dogs do in fact chase the birds on that little island. But the bigger issue with the drones that crashed on the nesting area (I believe there were two different ones documented) is that the drone owners (and their friends) walked through the nesting area to find and retrieve the drones. I suspect the humans walking about the nests did more disturbing of the birds than the drones did.

It get worse, doesn't it ?

Looking at my Google maps link above (2 posts with it), there is a clear notice :

Bolsa Chica Basin State Marine Conservation Area
Temporarily closed

Why can't people just respect that, there'd be signs around too, I'm sure.

 

[Ripdog]

I don’t know, maybe, but consider the source.

 

[Vic Moss]

It may well come across as a hit piece, but the newspaper that first published on this was simply reporting what they were told by the reserve manager and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. That's what they do - they report the news.

And whether or not it is credible that a Mavic 2 Pro (apparently the aircraft in question) could permanently scare off that many birds, it is still pretty clear that these (and other) drones have been flying illegally and harassing the wildlife in that location. So your response itself risks coming across as a knee jerk attempt at deflection that then paints the drone community in a poor light.

My beef is with the headline and the story. Whether is came from the author of the Rangers, it's a BS headline. There is ZERO evidence the drones scared them off. None whatsoever. It is a hit piece. Just like all other nonsensical drone stories and headlines designed to use drone paranoia to get advertising clicks.

It could have just as easily been the dogs or the increase in human visitors. The story even says that.

A more accurate headline would be "3000 nests abandoned. Multiple theories being look into."

That is the story.

 

[DavidT_ NZ]

Very foolish for anyone to fly there. And it is very negative publicity that adds to anti drone stereotype. But, I agree with those who question proof of causal connection between one drone crash and abandonment of those eggs. As already pointed out, it could just as easily have been caused by dogs, bicyclists, too many people, or who knows what. The use of loaded word like “kill” in title of post reflects the subjective view of author not scientific or moral fact.

The key issue in this narrative is “did the drone pilot have a Special Use Permit to fly a drone in the Conservation Ecological area”? If not, then the reasons why the birds left are immaterial. The drone shouldn’t have been there. If there was a permit issued, then more questions would need to be asked about the flight allowances and if they were breached. Emotional defensive reactions serve no useful purpose. Does anyone know more background??

 

[pdipasquale]

Thanks for the links and still think it’s just more propaganda.
Title of thread says (

Illegal Drone flying kills 3000)​

?
Sorry but as a retired GameWarden I know better. Yawl
can keep on but I know better. ?

Not under-playing how wrong this is. The New York Times stated 1,500 eggs otherarticles say 3000. Illegal to fly there. Looks like a Mavic 2. They have the drone and you know FAA is not going to be kind. Just gets me how 1500 eggs across a somewhat large area that is disrupted by coyotes, birds and other predators was completely abandoned by 1 drone. Did the drone hover over the entire area. Once the drone hit the ground it probably was quiet. They must have harassed the birds for a time. Nevertheless it said they have a SD card. Definitely ruined things for legal fliers.

 

[Chip]

The key issue in this narrative is “did the drone pilot have a Special Use Permit to fly a drone in the Conservation Ecological area”? If not, then the reasons why the birds left are immaterial. The drone shouldn’t have been there. If there was a permit issued, then more questions would need to be asked about the flight allowances and if they were breached. Emotional defensive reactions serve no useful purpose. Does anyone know more background??

I agree that we have enough facts to reasonably conclude the drone should not have been there. I agree that emotional defensive reactions serve no useful purpose (at least as far as determining what happened and why). I was actually trying to make that exact point by objecting to the thread title, "Illegal Drone Flying Kills 3000." Its rhetorical hyperbole intended to evoke an emotional response.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Terns are fearless when it comes to protecting their nests. They are particularly aggressive when there are eggs or chicks, and will swoop at and even make physical contact with humans or dogs walking in the area. I've seen this first hand at a local Bird Observatory - they will give you a nasty peck on the head. If you believe that headline I'd be very careful not to let anyone else know lest they try to sell you a bridge.

 

[dirkclod]

And I was about to sell all my Drones as our flying had been ruined again ?