Review temp law on drone ban in National Parks

[mph300]

Why don't you start a poll to gauge the opinion here? You may want to change the thread title to something actually relevant so that people find it and see what happens. If anything, the opinion here should be heavily skewed towards supporting the idea.. and if it isn't here, it certainly won't be anywhere else.

Great ideas. I'll change the title. Can I add a poll to this thread?

 

[Plawa]

Great ideas. I'll change the title. Can I add a poll to this thread?

Upper right, thread tools, add a poll.

 

[MavicCF]

I think it would work if, like you said, you set up some sort of application process to apply for a permit to fly. There would have to be NFZs around key locations, but as many NPs are wilderness, there would be plenty of beautiful locations away from the main tourist attractions where you could fly. -CF

 

[Plawa]

Yeah that poll isn't exactly unbiased... I very much support a conversation but I don't share your opinion.. what do I pick?

 

[mph300]

There's a simple reason this idea is DOA.. the last thing the NPS needs right now is to have to dedicate resources that are being taken away from them to a process that will benefit a very small minority of their visitors and be a nuisance to everyone else (i.e. their source of income). Let them live.

Privatize and percentage back to NPS.

 

[mph300]

Yeah that poll isn't exactly unbiased... I very much support a conversation but I don't share your opinion.. what do I pick?

Seems pretty simple. I didn't ask you about my opinion. Even though I think it should be the same. Why would you support a conversation about flying drones in NP and not want to do so? Because that's what I want to do also.
Edit: Please put your thoughts into a post.

 

[jazar]

Yeah..no. This is actually the one regulation that I'm OK with, as much as I'd like to get some great shots in the parks I don't want idiots flying all around the Grand Canyon etc when I'm out there hiking..

Perhaps hikers are more intrusive than drones. There are more of them, they carry cameras, they leave way more tracks than drones. It all depends on perspective.

 

[jazar]

I would suggest that the ban is way too broad. Perhaps drones should be banned or allowed in designated areas.

 

[mph300]

Perhaps hikers are more intrusive than drones. There are more of them, they carry cameras, they leave way more tracks than drones. It all depends on perspective.

And some of them have absolutely no respect for the land in more ways than we could even think of flying a drone.

 

[finlayson]

The Grand Canyon is massive. I'm sure that something reasonable could be accomplished. Definitely not just open season. I'm all about the serenity too but dang, it'd be nice to get an opportunity to film some of these wonders of nature.

Yes, the Grand Canyon was a bad example for the OP to use - because it's so large. One could imagine several 'drones OK' zones there that would cause no disruption for the vast majority of visitors.

The blanket ban on drones in *all* NPS land seems excessive.

 

[AgentOrange2015]

National Parks and National Forests are off limits from what I understand. The problem is that the National Forests are so huge why even try and enforce drone laws in them. Some of them have some extremely beautiful area's that will never be seen by John Q Public unless someone can get above the trees and take pictures and video's of those places. I am totally against banning Drones from Parks or Forests, Federal or State. I would very much prefer to pay an Annual Fee to be able to fly in those area's. That way, the funds could be used by the Parks and such as they really need the money and then not have to waste resources stopping or going after drone pilots. A simple sticker or Wallet I.D. would work great.

 

[smurfslayer]

Generally, people are way, way too generous in their assumption of government authority only being used for good or, stated more accurately, ‘they won’t ever use it against me’. NPS is an exceedingly bad neighbor, and an even worse property manager. I’m not sure if they still do, but an example - entry into Organ Pipe Cactus NM used to require you to sign a waiver of liability if you were injured or killed by coyotes (the human kind) or drug smugglers They knew it was dangerous and did nothing. This “regulate, regulate, regulate” mentality permeates DOI and NPS and its employees. They advocate huge for using bear spray instead of firearms against bears. Bear spray, however is a chemical irritant, illegal to posses in NPS lands, but firearms are legal. They’ve even acknowledged this to me, but their hatred of guns overrides their common sense.

36 CFR 1.4 - What terms do I need to know?

Even if you were to have an administration friendly to your particular cause; in this case, UAV usage, bureaucratic forces within the agency will obfuscate and attempt to thwart any attempt to curb their power. You have to go through the motions, let them reject your proposed regulatory change and then go to congress.

I disagree with the posters here who complain about possible constant buzzing sounds, or wing nuts flying drones in the parks. I support completely repealing all bans on UAV operations in NPS properties.

 

[finlayson]

National Parks and National Forests are off limits from what I understand.

What you understand is wrong. In the US (I presume you're talking about the US), drones are banned in National Parks and National Monuments and National Recreation Areas (those that are managed by the National Park Service, which is most of them) - but not National Forests (at least, not by default).

 

[MavicCF]

What you understand is wrong. In the US (I presume you're talking about the US), drones are banned in National Parks and National Monuments and National Recreation Areas (those that are managed by the National Park Service, which is most of them) - but not National Forests (at least, not by default).

Yup, no restrictions on National Forrest. (At least I hope not as I fly in one every day).

 

[mph300]

Yup, no restrictions on National Forrest. (At least I hope not as I fly in one every day).

Makes me inquisitive to state forests as I'm surrounded by them.....hmm...I'll check it out.

 

[Dw911]

Dont really understand the noise thing people are having issue with, i thought some of these national parks are bigger than some of the smaller states in the US.
How hard can it be to allocate some areas to allow drone flying in which it wont bother other park users?

My local park is 100 acres and even they managed to find an area that allows drones and the flying of the considerably noisier ic powered model aircraft and choppers.

How hard can it be

 

[mph300]

How hard can it be

Well, the government is involved so probably harder but not impossible.

 

[geofox784]

For those interested, here is an interesting document. It is the letter from the director RE the ban. What is interesting is that it specificly says the following:

"The closures do not apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on non-federally (e.g., private or state) owned lands located within the exterior boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to the flight of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above a park if the device is launched, landed, and operated from or on lands and waters that are not administered by the NPS. "

To:

 

[Classic flyer]

I think the reason the Govt. dosent want us flying drones in NPs is because they have a lot of secret stuff hidden that the public can't see and get to because of the restricted access. Just a thought.

 

[STKNRUD]

At a number of NPs and Monuments, the public has to make a reservation or arrive for a daily lottery of a specified number of visitors to visit a specific site. Why not ask that drone flyers have the same access to the NPs at specified times and locations? Death Valley and the Grand Canyon are so large that I would think this kind of arrangement could be made.