Review temp law on drone ban in National Parks

[Brojon]

I gotta tell ya that when I flying my MP I've never seen anyone else flying one...just saying

It's rare for me to see another drone unless we're having a meetup - and we have a pretty good sized community.
I was actually astonished while walking the dog to see two guys in a church parking lot fooling around with a Mavic and a pair of those Lumicube lights. Went over and talked with them and the guy has had it for months and barely flies it, knows nothing of the local groups. Literally takes it to the parking lot and fools around every now and then. Of course I'm taking some of it with a grain of salt - some folks are naturally reticent about drones given the generally bad press.
But yeah, people talk and act like there's saturation but the reality is they throw all those toy drones into the numbers and it skews perception.
The reality is expensive drones are the province of geeks and guys who want to get on the ground floor of the next wave in photo/video-graphy. As such there's simply not as many as we're led to believe and they aren't all in the air at same place or the same time.

 

[dennyc39]

I feel about this the way I feel about dirt bikes, ATV's and snowmobiles in National Parks. Regular drone use in National Parks have a definite effect on the environment and would expose millions of park visitors to that irritating buzz in places that are expected to be quiet. Also, some people are a bit paranoid about eyes in the sky. Especially tragic could be a rare battery fire. Finally, there are legitimate issues about wildlife disturbance. The result is likely to be an angry public demanding more regulation.

There are better places to fly. Let's not antagonize the non-dronie public.

I'd make exception for search/rescue, etc.

 

[Brojon]

You obviously haven't been around people lately - chattering like monkeys to each other and friends on their phones, snapping selfies while climbing on stuff and generally being more of a noisy intrusive PITA than a drone ever would be.

 

[Cuervo]

The "business model" is antithetical to the spirit of the National Parks.
Granted goods and services in and around them need to be at least self sustaining, but the notion of using them for personal profit goes against the grain of what the National Parks were established for in the first place.
The concessions and commercial exploitation is bad enough as it is, and the gross underfunding of public lands administration is a source of shame.

 

[Colberado]

There are a little over 50 NP’s in the U.S. spanning about 50 million acres...while there are about 150 national forests spanning roughly 200 million acres and completely accessible to drones. Add in grasslands and other areas, it’s much more.

 

[jag32266]

We don't need hobbyists buzzing their drones around national parks pissing off the general public. That would give the hobby an even worse reputation than it already has.

Yea, as a drone pilot this has ONE interesting aspect to it- photography.

But, as a CAMPER I would never want to see all the yahoo's out there ruining my peace and quiet. Period.

 

[Classic flyer]

Yea, as a drone pilot this has ONE interesting aspect to it- photography.

But, as a CAMPER I would never want to see all the yahoo's out there ruining my peace and quiet. Period.

So what I'm hearing is that drone pilots are noisy, and disrespectful of others and campers are pure as the driven-snow? Come on brother we're all tax payers and should be allowed to use the NP like everyone else..and I've never seen the "dozens"of drones flying that you speak of.

 

[Classic flyer]

You obviously haven't been around people lately - chattering like monkeys to each other and friends on their phones, snapping selfies while climbing on stuff and generally being more of a noisy intrusive PITA than a drone ever would be.

Yell it like it really is!

 

[Colberado]

So what I'm hearing is that drone pilots are noisy, and disrespectful of others and campers are pure as the driven-snow? Come on brother we're all tax payers and should be allowed to use the NP like everyone else..and I've never seen the "dozens"of drones flying that you speak of.

I think lifting the ban of drones in NP’s would require further descrimination from park to park in terms of 1) Wildlife (Elk, endangered migratory birds and nesting birds of prey, etc.) 2) rare ecosystems and sensitivity of, and 3) increasing numbers in foot traffic and campers.
Dirtbikers, snowmobilers, ATV, hunting finatics pay taxes too but that doesn’t mean they can go rip apart sensitive or archeological land wherever and whenever they want just because a chip of their federal income goes into sustaining it. That’s why they have designated areas and seasons for this. Which brings me to my next point-if you’re concerned about paying for it, if they were to lift the bans your taxes would surely go up as they’ll have to further designate certain areas for these activities while also further regulating it. And then...you will certainly see “dozens” of drones flying. Too many people are in national parks in the first place, just put a little more work in and go to the forests and you’ll have much more freedom and much rarer views.

 

[pixl]

Another group that is dying to get access to National Parks is mountain bikers. Just pause for a second and think what that would be like.

 

[Classic flyer]

I think lifting the ban of drones in NP’s would require further descrimination from park to park in terms of 1) Wildlife (Elk, endangered migratory birds and nesting birds of prey, etc.) 2) rare ecosystems and sensitivity of, and 3) increasing numbers in foot traffic and campers.
Dirtbikers, snowmobilers, ATV, hunting finatics pay taxes too but that doesn’t mean they can go rip apart sensitive or archeological land wherever and whenever they want just because a chip of their federal income goes into sustaining it. That’s why they have designated areas and seasons for this. Which brings me to my next point-if you’re concerned about paying for it, if they were to lift the bans your taxes would surely go up as they’ll have to further designate certain areas for these activities while also further regulating it. And then...you will certainly see “dozens” of drones flying. Too many people are in national parks in the first place, just put a little more work in and go to the forests and you’ll have much more freedom and much rarer views.

Taxes are going up regardless, flying drones consent distroy the ecosystem, they have designated areas for RVs, hunting, primative camping, hiking, fishing, kayaking, rock climbing etc., why can we have a designated area?

 

[Classic flyer]

Another group that is dying to get access to National Parks is mountain bikers. Just pause for a second and think what that would be like.

Amen brother...getcha some a that!!!

 

[Colberado]

Taxes are going up regardless, flying drones consent distroy the ecosystem, they have designated areas for RVs, hunting, primative camping, hiking, fishing, kayaking, rock climbing etc., why can we have a designated area?

Not sure I understand your stance here but I’m assuming you meant “doesn’t destroy” and “why can’t”. The word primative camping went over my head so not sure what you’re implying there. Anyways, that was kind of my point. The only way this could happen is if they designated certain areas for it in the park/preserve/monument. Which defeats the purpose of why people want to drone there in the first place. Why else would you want to fly in Yellowstone other than snap some videos of the geysers? To photograph and film the abundant protected wildlife of course. And that could get out of control very easily. Not to
mention, all of the recreational activities you mentioned have zero impact on say...a Perigrine falcon nesting on a cliff face for example. They’re all at ground level and limited to human energy. That will forever be the limiting factor of drones in national parks.

 

[Classic flyer]

Not sure I understand your stance here but I’m assuming you meant “doesn’t destroy” and “why can’t”. The word primative camping went over my head so not sure what you’re implying there. Anyways, that was kind of my point. The only way this could happen is if they designated certain areas for it in the park/preserve/monument. Which defeats the purpose of why people want to drone there in the first place. Why else would you want to fly in Yellowstone other than snap some videos of the geysers? To photograph and film the abundant protected wildlife of course. And that could get out of control very easily. Not to
mention, all of the recreational activities you mentioned have zero impact on say...a Perigrine falcon nesting on a cliff face for example. They’re all at ground level and limited to human energy. That will forever be the limiting factor of drones in national parks.

Yes sir my smart phone is doing as it pleases...primitive camping is as the name impplies...no elec., no water, no RVs etc. Good exchange of views

 

[gvg3]

geofox784 (#38),...... As I recall, FAA Part 107 supports your position. In general, you can fly over the parks,...(etc).. as long as you don’t take off or land inside.... [emoji106]

 

[Gringorio]

National Parks are often composed of wilderness areas where I sure would not want to see or hear a drone and where they are prohibited from launching or landing. Before worrying about trying to reverse the ban on drones in national parks (A ban I fully support), you're more likely to lose even more flying areas as the current administration's efforts are to privatize and lease out even more public lands to the extraction industries. The recent Bears Ears reduction is just a start. Try flying your drone over oil and gas wells or a uranium mine. There are bigger issues at stake than whether or not you can get a few moments of aerial video to post on youtube.

 

[Classic flyer]

National Parks are often composed of wilderness areas where I sure would not want to see or hear a drone and where they are prohibited from launching or landing. Before worrying about trying to reverse the ban on drones in national parks (A ban I fully support), you're more likely to lose even more flying areas as the current administration's efforts are to privatize and lease out even more public lands to the extraction industries. The recent Bears Ears reduction is just a start. Try flying your drone over oil and gas wells or a uranium mine. There are bigger issues at stake than whether or not you can get a few moments of aerial video to post on youtube.

Well check yes... Drones do far more damage to the ecosystem that that kinda stuff...I still believe the reason drones are ban is because UNCLE SAM dissent want us to see "WHATS IN THE WOODS"

 

[Cuervo]

Well check yes... Drones do far more damage to the ecosystem that that kinda stuff...I still believe the reason drones are ban is because UNCLE SAM dissent want us to see "WHATS IN THE WOODS"

(Doesn't want us to see all the gas wells, log skidders and the cattle in the woods...)

 

[Classic flyer]

(Doesn't want us to see all the gas wells, log skidders and the cattle in the woods...)

Say it's not so...lol !

 

[Brojon]

Another group that is dying to get access to National Parks is mountain bikers. Just pause for a second and think what that would be like.

Apples meet oranges.
Drones fly - they don't destroy turf and intrude upon delicate plant life and ecosystems, nor do they encourage erosion.