United States National Park Ban

[sar104]

We do acknowledge the problems, at least those with a reasonable odds of existing. That is why most of us advocate restricted access.
As for your apparent fear of flying cameras becoming common, don't you think they had better develop a better policy than a ban, which the masses are probably going to ignore anyway, if everyone has one in their pocket. Even the NPS recognised this, which is why it was an INTERIM policy.
We just want them to do their jobs and get on with it.

Yes - they absolutely need to do that. But I disagree that you even acknowledge the problem. I've been following these threads intermittently and many of those arguing for either full or limited access wheel out the "isolated drone flying past at altitude" example for why it should not be a problem. That's not a constructive way to address the issue.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Making stupid policies is the best way to get people to ignore the reasonable ones.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Yes - they absolutely need to do that. But I disagree that you even acknowledge the problem. I've been following these threads intermittently and many of those arguing for either full or limited access wheel out the "isolated drone flying past at altitude" example for why it should not be a problem. That's not a constructive way to address the issue.

Again. look at the poll results. The majority do not think that way.

 

[AirBear]

Fear of flying cameras??? I saved a photo from Google Earth zoomed into my sisters house. There she was, walking her dog and retrieving her mail. So much for worrying about the occasional hobby drone.

 

[yaktop]

It’s way to inclusive. You can request permission from an airport but can fly in an area around a brick building deemed historic. For instance.

 

[yaktop]

It’s way to inclusive. You can request permission from an airport but can’t fly in an area around a brick building deemed historic. For instance.

 

[jaengle]

I agree that the drone ban should be changed. Some parts or NP should be banned such as Old Faithful. However, many thousands of acres are in remote areas that should be open. Scheduling days and times for drones or issuing permits are not bad ideas too.

 

[m0j0]

I'll happily pass the link along to the National Park Service.

Shocked

Use a regular camera all you want. .

Wait a minute. I don't like taking pictures at all. I take my kids there. I don't like poeple taking pictures of my kids or grandkids. I should be able to go to the parks and just enjoy it the way it is... no camera's or people blathering on their phones. Phones and cameras should be outlawed at National Parks. It makes the experience less enjoyable for everyone.

 

[DroningOn]

Shocked

Wait a minute. I don't like taking pictures at all. I take my kids there. I don't like poeple taking pictures of my kids or grandkids. I should be able to go to the parks and just enjoy it the way it is... no camera's or people blathering on their phones. Phones and cameras should be outlawed at National Parks. It makes the experience less enjoyable for everyone.

Don’t forget that cell phone cameras also promote dangerous Instagram selfies. People are dying!! Ban them now NPS

 

[m0j0]

That is not the entire issue. I've mentioned the issues in most of my prior posts.
I'm okay with the ban 1) because the use of drones detracts from the enjoyment of the parks (namely, sound and safety); .

That is not necessarily factual. That's your opinion.

; 2) the ban does not remove the ability of everyone to enjoy National Parks and .

Neither would banning Harley's which are far more of a noise issue than a quad.

3) there is no other good way to incorporate drone use into National Parks.

Another opinion - not a fact.

But yes, laws and rules are made to protect us from the actions of the few. My speed limit example applies... would you be for removing all speed limits because only a "few" people speed?

Perfect!!! So what you are saying is that all cars should be banned because a few idiots drive to fast? Of course not. A speed limit and other restrictions, like restrictions to driving under the influence, are logical responses to safety concerns with operating an automobile. Of course you don't want people flying over crowds at the monument. (There is a rule already for that isn't there?) Of course you don't want some booger eater flying a drone into old faithful. That's a reasonable restriction. Of course you don't want anyone flying their drone into the monuments at Rushmore etc... assigning restrictions based on park usage and the area seems completely reasoanble. Completely banning drones in National Parks is unreasonable.

 

[m0j0]

Another futile and annoying thread. Just follow the rules. Fly from outside the park. Post your beautiful video.

Yet you replied and bumped it to the top of the page ... Congrats

That's not a comparable argument. Roads were designed and intended for vehicle use. National Parks were not designed or intended for drone use. A better comparison would be the prohibition on vehicles in wilderness. Is that overregulation?

It is a great argument. It is in response to the rules comment a few posts earlier. IT is absolutely germaine. And your comment about vehicles is the wilderness is valid. There is a reason vehicles aren't allowed in the wilderness.. If they said you couldn't drive your vehicle on paved roads in the wildeerness Yeah... I would say that is too much. Preventing, four wheelers from driving through geysers... 100% reasonable. I am for regulation just not over regulation and government over reach.

I don't know but at about 2:26 in the video, it sure looks like you were flying over a person. I'm just saying.

Not even close.

but if there were tens of them flying around over scenic hotspots taking photos and selfies then firstly, there's a high chance of collisions and secondly, people would definitely be disturbed by them. And when your Mavic is far enough away that it's not audible to you, how do you know that it's not disturbing wildlife or other people? As pointed out multiple times, there are plenty of videos posted by people apparently pleased with themselves, or at least oblivious, for having chased animals.

Yay - based on these comments we are banning Harley Davidson groups, crying babies and teenagers. Fantastic!!!

 

[Prmath]

Fear of flying cameras??? I saved a photo from Google Earth zoomed into my sisters house. There she was, walking her dog and retrieving her mail. So much for worrying about the occasional hobby drone.

Hail, I was photographed walking to the mail box by the GoogleMobile

 

[sar104]

It is a great argument. It is in response to the rules comment a few posts earlier. IT is absolutely germaine. And your comment about vehicles is the wilderness is valid. There is a reason vehicles aren't allowed in the wilderness.. If they said you couldn't drive your vehicle on paved roads in the wildeerness Yeah... I would say that is too much. Preventing, four wheelers from driving through geysers... 100% reasonable. I am for regulation just not over regulation and government over reach.


Yay - based on these comments we are banning Harley Davidson groups, crying babies and teenagers. Fantastic!!!

I'd be happy to continue the discussion but I'm afraid I have no clue where you are going with most of those comments. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

 

[tcope]

That is not necessarily factual. That's your opinion.

Sure.. I guess we could all simply act like a drone does not make an annoying noise. It's not like DJI sells a version of the Mavic and props _specificlly_ for this reason.

Neither would banning Harley's which are far more of a noise issue than a quad.

With this again. A motorcycle is a valid means of transportation. They are kept on public roads. Drones are neither.

Perfect!!! So what you are saying is that all cars should be banned because a few idiots drive to fast?

You are simply saying things that were not said in order to support your view. A drone is not an accepted means of transportation to and from the parks. There is a _slight_ difference. Ever try to get to your house to a National Park on a drone? How about a vehicle?

Of course you don't want people flying over crowds at the monument. (There is a rule already for that isn't there?) Of course you don't want some booger eater flying a drone into old faithful. That's a reasonable restriction. Of course you don't want anyone flying their drone into the monuments at Rushmore etc... assigning restrictions based on park usage and the area seems completely reasoanble.

Are you going to pay the fee to hire more park rangers so that these rules can be enforced? The NPS is already spread _way_ to thin.

 

[m0j0]

Sure.. I guess we could all simply act like a drone does not make an annoying noise. It's not like DJI sells a version of the Mavic and props _specificlly_ for this reason.

Nobody said they don't make noise. What I am arguing is.. what is annoying to one person may not be annoying to another. I am far more annoyed by a pack of Harley's than I am a drone. I am also irritated by children crying in movie theatres but I understand that I am not the only person in the theatre. I don't demand that the parents leave the theatre. I don't throw rocks at the Harley riders.. I'm a grown up. I understand that my perspective isn't the only one in the theatre or park.

With this again. A motorcycle is a valid means of transportation. They are kept on public roads. Drones are neither.

That makes no difference to me at all and is not the point of my comment. Motorcycles are annoying to me. Far more than annoying than a quad 100 feet off the ground. One of the arguments in this thread was "noise." I'm stating that a Harley is far more noisy than any small sUAS. I will go a step further and say they should absolutely be able to ride a motorcycle in the National Parks... because they are legal and the NPS should not place an unnecessary restriction on them because I don't like that they are noisy.

You are simply saying things that were not said in order to support your view. A drone is not an accepted means of transportation to and from the parks. There is a _slight_ difference. Ever try to get to your house to a National Park on a drone? How about a vehicle?.

What is it that I wrote that was not inferred or written? You made an analogy and I used it.

I could give a rip about how someone else gets to the park it doesn't matter to me one bit. I'm annoyed by the motorcycles and would prefer that they weren't there. Someone said the drones were dangerous.. LOL - more dangerous than a motorcycle? Someone said drones were noisy and they didn't want to be bothered by them. Motorcycles are far more annoying to me than a guy flying at Mavic at 100 feet AGL.. I am not a hypocrite though. The National Park Service should not in anyway restrict Motorcycles in the National Park. Not at All. There is no appreciable reason to ban motorcycles other than it annoys people like me. If they were riding off the trails destroying the park that's a different story. They aren't though.. Why... because the NPS has rules governing where they can ride them. They could do the same with sUAS. Saying absolutely no... is unreasonable and should be questioned and challenged when the opportunity arises.

Are you going to pay the fee to hire more park rangers so that these rules can be enforced? The NPS is already spread _way_ to thin.

They can use the same guys they have now they don't need a cadre of drone police.

 

[Classic flyer]

Nobody said they don't make noise. What I am arguing is.. what is annoying to one person may not be annoying to another. I am far more annoyed by a pack of Harley's than I am a drone. I am also irritated by children crying in movie theatres but I understand that I am not the only person in the theatre. I don't demand that the parents leave the theatre. I don't throw rocks at the Harley riders.. I'm a grown up. I understand that my perspective isn't the only one in the theatre or park.


That makes no difference to me at all and is not the point of my comment. Motorcycles are annoying to me. Far more than annoying than a quad 100 feet off the ground. One of the arguments in this thread was "noise." I'm stating that a Harley is far more noisy than any small sUAS. I will go a step further and say they should absolutely be able to ride a motorcycle in the National Parks... because they are legal and the NPS should not place an unnecessary restriction on them because I don't like that they are noisy.


What is it that I wrote that was not inferred or written? You made an analogy and I used it.

I could give a rip about how someone else gets to the park it doesn't matter to me one bit. I'm annoyed by the motorcycles and would prefer that they weren't there. Someone said the drones were dangerous.. LOL - more dangerous than a motorcycle? Someone said drones were noisy and they didn't want to be bothered by them. Motorcycles are far more annoying to me than a guy flying at Mavic at 100 feet AGL.. I am not a hypocrite though. The National Park Service should not in anyway restrict Motorcycles in the National Park. Not at All. There is no appreciable reason to ban motorcycles other than it annoys people like me. If they were riding off the trails destroying the park that's a different story. They aren't though.. Why... because the NPS has rules governing where they can ride them. They could do the same with sUAS. Saying absolutely no... is unreasonable and should be questioned and challenged when the opportunity arises.

They can use the same guys they have now they don't need a cadre of drone police.

All very valid points sir...be safe, fly smart

 

[rmb]

But but but..... Our national parks are so peaceful and serene and quiet. We can’t subject visitors or the wildlife to the “buzzing” of our evil drones! :-O

...To those on the “ban them all” side of this debate, the disturbing the peace justification is the least credible part of your argument and shows your true motives.

Just remember how it got that way.
First you walked in, then horses, then cars were allowed in, then busses and RVs, motorcycles, snowmobiles, plains, helicopters and now drones. that's how it happens. One relaxed law at a time.

 

[MotorPsycho]

I'm with you Colin - I think it's properly outrageous that we are banned by default from these places, when the remit of these services is to make the parks available to everyone. But I also can see how a park full of multirotors could be annoying to everyone else, and don't have much in the way of viable solutions to that problem. But I don't see why there couldn't be 3 days a month when multirotors are allowed, for example, or why they can't issue limited permits to keep the numbers down and allow it all the time - 5 multirotors flying for half an hour each in a space as big as Yosemite is hardly a massive disturbance to anybody I wouldn't have thought... after all planes fly overhead, there are even helicopter tours - why isn't the (vastly louder) noise of those a problem for example ?

I’d ban RVs before drones. I will never go back to Yellowstone, an endless line of RVs on a winding 2 lane road. The ambiance was lost in the traffic jam.

 

[tcope]

Nobody said they don't make noise. What I am arguing is.. what is annoying to one person may not be annoying to another. I am far more annoyed by a pack of Harley's than I am a drone. I am also irritated by children crying in movie theatres but I understand that I am not the only person in the theatre. I don't demand that the parents leave the theatre. I don't throw rocks at the Harley riders.. I'm a grown up. I understand that my perspective isn't the only one in the theatre or park.

What you are failing to do is consider what the NPS charge is and more than one variable. The question not _only_, "is it annoying"... the _question_ is, "how can we keep this thing enjoyable as it was intended. Are people expected to drive into National Parks? I think that is a given. Are people expected that they will need to fly a drone in order to enjoy a National Park? Nope. Okay... now, how will drone use affect the overall use of the park. Simply comparing a drone to something that annoys you is _not_ the correct equation.

I could give a rip about how someone else gets to the park it doesn't matter to me one bit.

The only way you can support your point.. by changing it to only what matters to you and ignoring everything I mentioned above... which is the _REAL_ consideration.

I'm annoyed by the motorcycles and would prefer that they weren't there. Someone said the drones were dangerous.. LOL - more dangerous than a motorcycle?

Not if you take everything out of context... which is the only way you'd have a point. You are also, yet again, ignoring that a motorcycle is an accepted means of transportation to and in a park. Something that you'd need to completely ignore to support your comment.

Let me just sum up the clear argument against your "point".... can people with a motorcycle get to and an enjoy the National Parks if you ban motorcycles? Nope. Can a person with a drone get to and enjoy the National Parks? Yup, 100%. So it's perfectly ripe apples to spoiled oranges.

 

[Classic flyer]

I’d ban RVs before drones. I will never go back to Yellowstone, an endless line of RVs on a winding 2 lane road. The ambiance was lost in the traffic jam.

Might as well camp on the interstate