DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Is it now legal to fly in the national parks? I just watched this video

Dale D

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
7,239
Reactions
8,049
Location
Miami
Site
vimeo.com
Has anyone else seen this?

Is it now legal to fly a drone in a national park? I just watched Jeven Dovey's video
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
.
H.R. 6492 passed 4 days ago in Congress. If so that would be a fantastic experience since I have a 6 day private astrophotography workshop scheduled in Utah for this May, 2025!

I have been following this You Tuber for years and he is usually very reliable. I am assuming only still and video but no drones. I've been photographing in national parks all of my life without a problem, and often in the presence of a ranger. I think it applies only to still and video cameras ant not drones.

Dale
 
Last edited:
I just read the whole bill and see no mention of drones whatever. Filming and still photography are mentioned extensively but no mention of aerial photography at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAW
I just read the whole bill and see no mention of drones whatever. Filming and still photography are mentioned extensively but no mention of aerial photography at all.
I have tried to remove this post but it is still there. I agree with Alan.L. I truly cannot imagine allowing drones in parks with all of the bother that it would cause to people on trails, etc. I am ok with not allowing drones- there are many equally nice views adjacent to these parks.
 
If you have nothing else to do, here's the text of the bill.
 
Last edited:
Jeven is just as active with his DSLR camera as with his drones. For years, there has been a battle whether also *any* photography in the US NPS is commercial in nature. It has gone back and forth such that the rules because unclear and it took a legal battle to determine the outcome. there are literally hundreds of videos on this topic. And they plead the same case the drone pilots plead. Sounds familiar?

This is how I remember it and since this is my opinion going forward (and it's completely biased) then prepare for the worse: The government declared that anyone who used a camera for pretty much anything because snapping a single photo of something interesting *must* be commercial photographer and therefore follow the rules, pay the fees, follow the rules, make appointments, follow the rules, ask for permission, follow the rules. We all know if you work on behalf of a media company or you have expensive equipment and a crew and setup including tripods and lights, etc and you seek to takeover a part of the park temporarily....you need a permit. But along came Youtube. And making money while visiting *exotic* places. And the government wanted to control that, no surprise. If you took a picture of a butterfly inside the Park and it posted on social media and you made $1, it was illegal without a commercial license and yeah, they came after you. Completely the opposite of the commercial model for drones where we have the rules but basically zero enforcement unless it was egregious. The only difference is they just outright banned the flying camera (drone) from the Park.

Photographers fought and they fought hard and they united and they worked together and they used the legal system, the courts, and the Constitution and they won but they understand, even today their fight is not over. Even today, there will be Parks that stop them or trying to limit them or even eject them because YouTubers are targets and just because there's a law doesn't mean *you* get to exercise it. Battles are won/lost but freedom is never free forever. We should take a page from the professional photographer community and begin the fight today. We should have had some type of text or concession in that bill.

One day drones will be legal in the NPS system to some extent since I think we are all at a place where we would accept a rigid and limited drone permitting process even if it were somewhat expensive an/or timely. That's because the drone community is waiting for a handout from the government which takes a long long time (if ever) but I bet one day in my lifetime, I will be flying drones in the traditional NPS (and I don't mean standing outside the Park boundaries and flying over my own land that I pay for). So the headline in this post is just a few years (or a decade or two) early. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dronecation
Dear Mavic 3 usa:

I want to doff my hat and bow to you, and thank you for your well- explained and passionate statement. I inserted the video mistakenly when I was not cognizant that the new house bill did not include drones. I rapidly tried to take down the video and the post, but it remained up, and I tried to explain my reversal. Your well explained statements above are much appreciated. It is understandable that the park service did not want to have every day visitors bothered by large professional film crews, with their gear and light reflectors,etc. filming for commercial reasons. Of course that would disturb the very essence of a visit to the park and its spectacular scenery. I think that a balance has been struck by this bill to allow the photography in a limited way. I hope you are right that someday the tight restrictions on drones will fall.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mavic3usa
I have taken my camera into countless national parks and taken thousands of pictures and have never had to pay a fee beyond getting in and have never been questioned.
 
The law as it pertains to drones isn't about the photography. It's about the aircraft.
Drones can't fly in National parks.
It's really that simple.
 
The law as it pertains to drones isn't about the photography. It's about the aircraft.
Drones can't fly in National parks.
It's really that simple.
Maybe you missed that part of the law that says:

“(H) The person conducting the filming or still photography activity complies with other applicable Federal, State (as such term is defined in section 3 of the EXPLORE Act), and local laws (including regulations), including laws relating to the use of unmanned aerial equipment."


This basically says the person using their photography equipment must follow these laws regardless if they are using traditional photography equipment and cameras or even if they are drone [cameras], this law still applies and so do the laws of the state and the local area where the Park is located. This means if you happen to get a permit or get permission to fly or you stand outside the Park and fly over or you flying inside a building, the law applies to you. Or for example, if for some reason sub-250g drones are allowed in the Park, the traditional photographer can't pull out his Mini in lieu of his DSLR to get around the applicable rules.

As pointed out, it doesn't grant or prohibit drone flights but just only includes drones as part of photography. Federal drone laws continue to apply. Rather than take this as a sign of future preparation to allow drones, to me this signals the traditional federal language that is used to regulate permissible activity on federal lands not only to applicable federal laws but also state and local laws. This is almost always the case which is why I make this assumption; federal govt doesn't have traffic laws so when in the NP, you obey the traffic laws of that state. Basically this says if something is illegal in the state, you can't come onto federal property and expect to be legal there (as if you are no longer under the purview of that state). Again, not the way it is for everything but certainly the way many federal laws seem to evolve. If the state of UT [wrongly] decides TikTok creation is illegal or Chinese-made light stands over 10 feet long are prohibited then the NPs inside UT would be the same, for example. (H) lumps drones into "filming and still photography activity."
 
I hope not. I hate the sound of drones, particularly in nature, and I never fly a drone when I know someone is within earshot.
So once drones become near-silent then you will be ok with drones in the NP? I believe the same was said for shutter cameras when their clickers and flash bulbs made a lot of noises with a hundred people standing around waiting to see a geyser erupt or an animal come out of hiding or when cars pull over in the roadway in the middle of nowhere and everyone jumps out to take pictures but they probably shouldn't never mind the cars that backfire and the loud engines that are left running.

As mentioned in the video, drone flyers are ok with quiet zones and quiet times; minimum altitudes and distances and other reasonable restrictions. No need to ban drones in every square inch of the entire park 24/7; that's excessive and it doesn't have roots in this nation's historical tradition of Park restrictions (up until drones I had heard of prohibiting things in the park that make annoying noises). Why not let that be up to common decency and decorum like everything else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dronecation
Once my Mini 4 goes above 100 feet, I can't hear it anymore.
I think he'd be OK with a 100' minimum distance from anyone. That should be satisfactory, right?
 
There is an incorrect assumption in the above two messages that everyone is not a moron. People fly drones a few feet from you, they buzz over you, etc.

And drones will be near silent the day helicopters become near silent.

Want to fly a drone in a NP? Find BLM land right outside the park. It is usually 90% as pretty with 1% of the visitation
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrhoffman75
There is an incorrect assumption in the above two messages that everyone is not a moron. People fly drones a few feet from you, they buzz over you, etc.

And drones will be near silent the day helicopters become near silent.

Want to fly a drone in a NP? Find BLM land right outside the park. It is usually 90% as pretty with 1% of the visitation
The only people who fly drones at the BLM are the law-abiding drone flyers. The so-called "morons" are flying drones in NP today. Again, "silence" is not a valid qualification for prohibiting NP entry else no cars or motorcycles would be allowed. Shouldn't I be able to fly my drone wherever a car can drive in the Park? Hate to break it to you but drones are already "near silent."

Not to worry, these excuses for keeping drones out of the Park won't last for long. Allowing limited drone flights in the Park won't end up with drones flying a few feet from you or drones buzzing over you. Those were the excuses for not allowing drones inside the city limits, remember?
 
Dear Mavic 3 usa:

I want to doff my hat and bow to you, and thank you for your well- explained and passionate statement. I inserted the video mistakenly when I was not cognizant that the new house bill did not include drones. I rapidly tried to take down the video and the post, but it remained up, and I tried to explain my reversal. Your well explained statements above are much appreciated. It is understandable that the park service did not want to have every day visitors bothered by large professional film crews, with their gear and light reflectors,etc. filming for commercial reasons. Of course that would disturb the very essence of a visit to the park and its spectacular scenery. I think that a balance has been struck by this bill to allow the photography in a limited way. I hope you are right that someday the tight restrictions on drones will fall.
No, I do not think drones should ever be permitted in National Parks. There are many reasons for this , including documented cases of even a single drone causing a mass nesting failure of an entire shorebird colony, and just their noise alone makes that the deciding factor in my opinion. Quiet places with only natural sounds are rare enough in this world. Why must drones be allowed in national parks?

The rules regarding photography should include camera drones - Insert drones in this section:

“(c) Protection Of Resources.—The Secretary shall not allow a person to undertake a filming or still photography activity if the Secretary determines that—

“(1) there is a likelihood that the person would cause resource damage at the System unit, except as otherwise authorized;
“(2) the person would create an unreasonable disruption of the use and enjoyment by the public of the System unit;
 
Last edited:

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
135,358
Messages
1,605,143
Members
163,812
Latest member
MichaelC
Want to Remove this Ad? Simply login or create a free account