United States National Park Ban

[m0j0]

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.

Nope I am considering that in my response. Considering I am one of the people that goes to the National Park, what is enjoyable to me (and others who feel like I do) should be considered in their analysis of what is enjoyable... For me that would be banning the noisemaking motorcycles and allow people to fly at the National Park in designated areas. To be honest, if they changed the rule it wouldn't change where I fly at all because the National Park near me is 100% in a No Fly Zone - it's a military bombing range. Like I said before they don't need to ban drones there you couldn't fly there legally regardless of the NPS policy.

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

Not the correct equation? Who are you the argument qualifier?

Can I drive an commercial truck and trailer into the National Park? How about my Banchi which is street legal.. How about my CanAm Maverick 4 seater.. with lights DOT approved tires, turn signals 100% street legal. Polaris Turbo Razor - also 100% street legal.... The answer is absolutely not. I can drive all of those around town to the grocery store to Starbucks wherever I want but not at the National Park. I'm not bent by it, it makes sense. So what is your point about getting there. It carries no weight in this argument. There are legal means of transportation that are not allowed in National Parks. Should I be upset that I can't drive my vehicles there? Should the 70 year old dude be mad that he can't drive his golf cart?

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.

What you have just said proves my point. Thank You.
It doesn't matter what I think or the fact that I feel (fill in the blank) is annoying or reduces the enjoyment of the park. Is it possible to provide an opportunity for people to fly their drones in the national park without creating an undue risk to the public or substantially reducing the experience. I think the answer to that is yes. Set rules and restrictions. FCOL set a designated area 1 day of every month during the low volume or off-peak portion of the season. (That idea took me 30 seconds to come up with - people much smarter than I am should be able to come up with a compromise)

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..

Who cares. So is my Maverick, Razor, Quads, Dirt Bike.. all acceptable modes of transportation where I live and 100% allowed just like cars on the streets if they are insured and have lights - None are allowed in the National Park. The NPS, just like they have prohibited drones, could prohibit motorcycles. They don't because there is no reason to do it and the impact on the park is negligible aside from an occasional noise complaint.

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.

So let me derail your argument … again. Can they ride all motorcycles in the park? I'll answer it for you. NO!

This is my last comment with you on this. We do not agree - nothing you have said has swayed me. That's my opinion, I'm sure you feel the same about my point of view. No need to continue in this circular debate.

Happy flying - new topics to discuss

 

[tcope]

Who cares. So is my Maverick, Razor, Quads, Dirt Bike.. all acceptable modes of transportation where I live and 100% allowed just like cars on the streets if they are insured and have lights - None are allowed in the National Park. The NPS, just like they have prohibited drones, could prohibit motorcycles. They don't because there is no reason to do it and the impact on the park is negligible aside from an occasional noise complaint.

You are ignoring that this was an example and not a debate about vehicles. The NPS has actually addressed the use of these types of vehicles and why most are not allowed (it is because their primary design is off road and, while legal for use on the road, the NPS does not have the resources to prevent (an off-road designed vehicle) from being used... off road. But again I was only showing why drones are different then vehicles.

 

[badaxed]

you do realize you and your skis make as much noise as some drones and does far more damage to the pristine environment.

"Leave no trace" which does it better a drone for 15 minutes or thousands of hiking boots?

 

[sar104]

"Leave no trace" which does it better a drone for 15 minutes or thousands of hiking boots?

There you go - how did everyone miss such an obvious solution to the problem? The NPS needs to allow just one drone into the parks. Hang on - would that be your drone?

 

[badaxed]

Sounds like where you want to fly there is a lot of people........

you would have to have a lot of people to fill 10 1/2 million acres. I do not believe flying over people is the issue.

 

[sar104]

you would have to have a lot of people to fill 10 1/2 million acres. I do not believe flying over people is the issue.

The NPS is definitely concerned that there would be a significant density of drone flights at the most popular tourist locations; flying over people is an issue in that situation. Out in the backcountry it's not going to be a problem though.

 

[badaxed]

There you go - how did everyone miss such an obvious solution to the problem? The NPS needs to allow just one drone into the parks. Hang on - would that be your drone?

well maybe no one should be allowed in the park to disturb the peacefullness. Hang on Maybee one person should be allowed in. Would that be you?

 

[badaxed]

The NPS is definitely concerned that there would be a significant density of drone flights at the most popular tourist locations; flying over people is an issue in that situation. Out in the backcountry it's not going to be a problem though,
so you agree that drone flights would not be a problem in the back country of national parks. (As you stated above) .

 

[sar104]

well maybe no one should be allowed in the park to disturb the peacefullness. Hang on Maybee one person should be allowed in. Would that be you?

You could argue that, but it would be against the stated purpose of the parks. And that purpose has never been taken to mean that the public can indulge in any activity that they feel like, so it's neither a right, nor an inevitability, that flying drones would be permitted.

so you agree that drone flights would not be a problem in the back country of national parks. (As you stated above) .

That's a non sequitur. I said that flying over people would not be a problem in the backcountry. How did you interpret that to mean that there would be no other problem involved?

 

[ColinF]

I filed a Freedom of Information Act with the US National Park Service today. It can take 45 days for them to provide the information, and they could try to charge me an exorbitant fee to deter me. I'll let all know the responses I get from the NPS. Here is my filing for your reference:

On June 19, 2014, the National Park Service Director issued Policy Memorandum 14-05 titled, Unmanned Aircraft Interim Policy. This policy prohibited all use of all unmanned aircraft to American citizens in all lands and waters managed by the NPS. The prohibition was to be an "interim measure until the NPS considers how to address this new use on a long-term basis...." Further, the memorandum stated the objective of the NPS was to "determine whether specific uses of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS are appropriate and will not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values."

This Freedom of Information Act requests the NPS provide all studies, evaluations, use-case proposals, determinations, policy statements, and analysis done by the NPS to determine the appropriateness and impact of citizen use of unmanned aircraft across all lands and waters managed by the NPS.

The use of drones in lands and waters administered by the NPS is of significant public interest to both those for and against, particularity since drone ownership and use is growing exponentially in the United States. sUAS, commonly referred to as drones, and defined as unmanned aircraft by the NPS, are owned and operated by millions of Americans. In January 2018 the FAA reported that 878,000 hobbyists and 122,000 commercial, public and other drones, registered with the FAA. The number of drones in the United States is projected to grow to more than 2.2 million by 2022. It is of public interest and benefit to release the information requested in this filing so the American People can understand NPS findings relevant to drone use in the National Park System.

I heard back from the NPS FOIA officer today. She is a very nice lady based in Colorado. We spoke for a bit and she agreed the normal process is to craft regulations that then get posted to the registrar for public comment before they are official. She is not sure what the status is but she is going research getting me the information on any studies and any work done in their regulations department. So even the NPS recognizes that an interim memorandum is not normal. As soon as I get more info I will share.

 

[badaxed]

You could argue that, but it would be against the stated purpose of the parks. And that purpose has never been taken to mean that the public can indulge in any activity that they feel like, so it's neither a right, nor an inevitability, that flying drones would be permitted.


That's a non sequitur. I said that flying over people would not be a problem in the backcountry. How did you interpret that to mean that there would be no other problem involved?

"I said that flying over people would not be a problem in the backcountry"

So you think flying over people in backcountryis" logical "but flying "over a wilderness (backcountry)with no people in it is not?

 

[sar104]

"I said that flying over people would not be a problem in the backcountry"

So you think flying over people in backcountryis" logical "but flying "over a wilderness (backcountry)with no people in it is not?

You are being deliberately obtuse. I pointed out that the concern about "flying over people" is not going to be an issue when flying in the backcountry due to the very low density of people. It does not follow from that observation that there will not be other problems with flying in the backcountry.

 

[AMann]

And now the link to the video....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Simply put, the reason for developing the National Parks in the first place was to preserve and protect them for the natural places they are, and to protect them from the very types of encouragements from the manmade world that drones also represent. In enacting his executive powers to form the Grand Canyon National Monument, Roosevelt hoped that people would just leave it as is, no buildings, or any other mannade things to ruin its natural state. We’ve built trails and roads to it, allow cars and even built a hotel and visitor center there. Now drones? No, I think not. People with new technologies will want to encroach into these places all the time, it has to stop for the reason why the National Parks were developed in the first place.

 

[badaxed]

Simply put, the reason for developing the National Parks in the first place was to preserve and protect them for the natural places they are, and to protect them from the very types of encouragements from the manmade world that drones also represent. In enacting his executive powers to form the Grand Canyon National Monument, Roosevelt hoped that people would just leave it as is, no buildings, or any other mannade things to ruin its natural state. We’ve built trails and roads to it, allow cars and even built a hotel and visitor center there. Now drones? No, I think not. People with new technologies will want to encroach into these places all the time, it has to stop for the reason why the National Parks were developed in the first place.

OUR NATIONAL PARKS HISTORY
The preservation of our most magnificent and meaningful places for the purpose of public appreciation and recreation is a uniquely American idea. The Yosemite Grant was signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864. And with it, for the first time, the federal government set aside parkland for preservation and public use.( The National Park Foundation)

 

[badaxed]

You are being deliberately obtuse. I pointed out that the concern about "flying over people" is not going to be an issue when flying in the backcountry due to the very low density of people. It does not follow from that observation that there will not be other problems with flying in the backcountry.

I suppose people are " Not obtuse" as long as they agree with everything you purport.

 

[sar104]

I suppose people are " Not obtuse" as long as they agree with everything you purport.

No - people are "not obtuse" when they don't deliberately misrepresent what I said.

 

[badaxed]

The NPS is definitely concerned that there would be a significant density of drone flights at the most popular tourist locations; flying over people is an issue in that situation. Out in the backcountry it's not going to be a problem though.

where here in your above statement does it say there are other problems? You specifically state "out in the back country "it's" not going to be a problem though".
Rationally this to me would be infering to your previous sentence referring to flying over people. I guess I am supposed to read your mind not to be "obtuse".

 

[AMann]

OUR NATIONAL PARKS HISTORY
The preservation of our most magnificent and meaningful places for the purpose of public appreciation and recreation is a uniquely American idea. The Yosemite Grant was signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864. And with it, for the first time, the federal government set aside parkland for preservation and public use.( The National Park Foundation)

NPS's mission is to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
(from a few lines down from that first quote in the National Park Foundation’s website).

 

[badaxed]

NPS's mission is to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

It is the "" manner and the means" that bother me the most. When bureaucracies can change their policy at a whim without proper procedures and public input then I object.

 

[sar104]

where here in your above statement does it say there are other problems? You specifically state "out in the back country "it's" not going to be a problem though".
Rationally this to me would be infering to your previous sentence referring to flying over people. I guess I am supposed to read your mind not to be "obtuse".

You have it backwards. I commented that in the backcountry that "flying over people" would not be a problem. I was only addressing that particular problem. I did not say that there would not be any other problems - you chose, without any basis, to read that opinion into my post. So no - you are neither supposed to read my mind nor to put words in my mouth.