United States National Park Ban

[ColinF]

Yes sir, the x number
For one, they could do it by a lottery system much like they do for hunting permits on National Park land...just a thought...be safe, fly smart

Another great idea. That is how they do it for Elk in my state.

 

[ac0j]

Thank you for sharing your opinion. You make relevant points and express reasonable concerns..

And THANK YOU for being receptive to differing opinions. It’s refreshing to encounter a discussion without childish one word replies.
You sir, are a class act, and that is rare here.

 

[ColinF]

How about everyone can use a drone all the want in National Parks and they won't disturb anyone? That would work.

Bottom line.. hypertheticals can be debated here until the cows come home. It won't change one single thing. Not one. After this thread runs its course and dies out nothing will have changed.

For anyone who does not like the current rules, I'd recommend sending an email or letter to the NPS.

While it’s fine to send emails and letters, and perhaps one may slip through to someone of importance, and then be thrown away, most will be completely ineffectual. They will be seen only by low level NPS staff, likely contract resources in-place for these types of administrative purposes. The place to start is to apply higher level pressure to challenge that an interim memorandum is being left in perpetuity in lieu of following the formal regulatory process, which usurps the regulatory mandate granted them by Congress, and that it must be replaced with formal regulation. Then the lobbying effort starts.

 

[Classic flyer]

I see time and again that people say this topic has been talked to death and we should just move on...I believe that is what the "REGULATORS" would like to see happen, but as long as we keep the conversation going we have a better chance of getting change, again this is just my opinion...be safe, fly smart

 

[tcope]

I know full well that this subject has been discussed many times in the past. I have participated in many of those discussions. Since it looks like you have already identified many examples on YouTube of wildlife and people being disturbed in national parks, please post the links here so we are all looking at the same thing and can discuss. Maybe minds will be changed.

I can't post them all.. here is the one that I linked to in the prior post:

Here is another from my search, a few videos down:

As I stated, there are hundreds of videos on YT. If you want to see them, simply search. You can debate if these people are harassing the animals all you want. The fact is, it does happen and it is well documented.

Here is _my_ video of a person flying his drone right around Delicate Arch in Arches National Park:

This is right around the most famous arch within the park. I did not start filming until later in his flight. There were many people sitting around the arch (as always) enjoying the views. The person launch and flew his drone up to the area around the arch. At one point he started to fly toward the people and got about 20' away from some before he released the sticks. It appeared to me that he was confused about the direction of flight based on the direction the drone was facing. He then flew it right around the arch before taking off.

Drone flights take place at NP all of the time. This is with a 100% ban. That is, there is no confusion on the use of drones... they are 100% not allowed. If they were allowed even on a limited basis, the problem of illegal flights would grow. The NPS has _very_ limited man power. Not even close enough for the traffic they are currently getting. Allowing the use of drones would take up more time then the rangers have and pull them away from more important responsibilities. This, weighed against the fact that people can still take all of the photos they want while preserving enjoyment for everyone, is one reason why they keep the ban in place.

 

[ColinF]

And THANK YOU for being receptive to differing opinions. It’s refreshing to encounter a discussion without childish one word replies.
You sir, are a class act, and that is rare here.

The feeling is mutual sir!

 

[tcope]

I see time and again that people say this topic has been talked to death and we should just move on...I believe that is what the "REGULATORS" would like to see happen, but as long as we keep the conversation going we have a better chance of getting change, again this is just my opinion...be safe, fly smart

I've stated it has been discussed in the past. I've never said people should move on. Reason why I mention this is to let people know that they can see the many prior discussions on this that have been made in the past. Some people start new threads thinking they are the first to bring something up. In many cases, they are right. In this case, no (same as asking about video editors).

But certainly discussing it here over and over _won't_ change the ban. Not one bit. Might as well go into a car forum and complain about the speed limit thinking it would change that as well. I see it as a vent and someone's right to express their opinion. Nothing more. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all.

 

[Classic flyer]

I can't post them all.. here is the one that I linked to in the prior post:

Here is another from my search, a few videos down:

As I stated, there are hundreds of videos on YT. If you want to see them, simply search. You can debate if these people are harassing the animals all you want. The fact is, it does happen and it is well documented.

Here is _my_ video of a person flying his drone right around Delicate Arch in Arches National Park:

This is right around the most famous arch within the park. I did not start filming until later in his flight. There were many people sitting around the arch (as always) enjoying the views. The person launch and flew his drone up to the area around the arch. At one point he started to fly toward the people and got about 20' away from some before he released the sticks. It appeared to me that he was confused about the direction of flight based on the direction the drone was facing. He then flew it right around the arch before taking off.

Drone flights take place at NP all of the time. This is with a 100% ban. That is, there is no confusion on the use of drones... they are 100% not allowed. If they were allowed even on a limited basis, the problem of illegal flights would grow. The NPS has _very_ limited man power. Not even close enough for the traffic they are currently getting. Allowing the use of drones would take up more time then the rangers have and pull them away from more important responsibilities. This, weighed against the fact that people can still take all of the photos they want while preserving enjoyment for everyone, is one reason why they keep the ban in place.

So you're ok with restricting all because of bad actions of a few

 

[tcope]

So you're ok with restricting all because of bad actions of a few

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); 2) the ban does not remove the ability of everyone to enjoy National Parks and 3) there is no other good way to incorporate drone use into National Parks.

I also have great respect and confidence in the NPS. I think that they do an _excellent_ job and respect that they make good decisions. So I have no issue leaving these decision up to them.

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? After all, only a few people speed right? What? Removing all the speed limits would mean _more_ people would speed? We'd then have more accidents? See where this is going? So yes, if there is a 100% ban and we know that this _still_ does not stop people, we also know removing the ban would simply increase the problem. We also know that the NPS does not have the resources to control this and we also know that NPs can easily be enjoyed without the use of drones. If the NPS were to completely stop people from seeing the park areas because of drone us, then I'd have an issue.

Just don't fly a drone in a NP... fly in one of the other million places where they are allowed. Let the millions of people that visit parks each year enjoy the beauty without a weed wacker buzzing around their heads.

I would love to fly my drone in a NP... but I have no issue with the ban.

 

[Classic flyer]

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); 2) the ban does not remove the ability of everyone to enjoy National Parks and 3) there is no other good way to incorporate drone use into National Parks.

I also have great respect and confidence in the NPS. I think that they do an _excellent_ job and respect that they make good decisions. So I have no issue leaving these decision up to them.

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? After all, only a few people speed right? What? Removing all the speed limits would mean _more_ people would speed? We'd then have more accidents? See where this is going? So yes, if there is a 100% ban and we know that this _still_ does not stop people, we also know removing the ban would simply increase the problem. We also know that the NPS does not have the resources to control this and we also know that NPs can easily be enjoyed without the use of drones. If the NPS were to completely stop people from seeing the park areas because of drone us, then I'd have an issue.

Just don't fly a drone in a NP... fly in one of the other million places where they are allowed. Let the millions of people that visit parks each year enjoy the beauty without a weed wacker buzzing around their heads.

I would love to fly my drone in a NP... but I have no issue with the ban.

I hear what you are saying and agree with most of it... if the "DOG HAD TEETH", meaning if they(NPS) would prosecute violators to the "FULL EXTENT" of the law, I think things might be different

 

[tcope]

I hear what you are saying and agree with most of it... if the "DOG HAD TEETH", meaning if they(NPS) would prosecute violators to the "FULL EXTENT" of the law, I think things might be different

That is not how things work though. Look at Hite Airport, Utah on the map. I flew there... not knowing that the NPS controlled the area just because the NPS controls the Colorado River. This is not near any National Park and it is probably 50 miles away from _anything_. I simply did not know that this was NPS area. Should I be fined $5,000 for this... same as someone who crashes a drone into a geyser at Yellowstone?

Also, I'm not sure the NPS actually prosecutes people. I think they are the same as a police officer. They issue the citation and then a judge carries out the sentencing.

 

[Classic flyer]

That is not how things work though. Look at Hite Airport, Utah on the map. I flew there... not knowing that the NPS controlled the area just because the NPS controls the Colorado River. This is not near any National Park and it is probably 50 miles away from _anything_. I simply did not know that this was NPS area. Should I be fined $5,000 for this... same as someone who crashes a drone into a geyser at Yellowstone?

Also, I'm not sure the NPS actually prosecutes people. I think they are the same as a police officer. They issue the citation and then a judge carries out the sentencing.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, it's up to you to research such things...as for the fine, it should be reflected according to the violation...flying in an area as you described, maybe a warning 1st offense $50 second...crashing into a giser then yes max fine...just my opinion...be safe, fly smart

 

[tcope]

....meaning if they(NPS) would prosecute violators to the "FULL EXTENT" of the law, I think things might be different

as for the fine, it should be reflected according to the violation...flying in an area as you described, maybe a warning 1st offense $50 second...crashing into a giser then yes max fine..

So, they should pursue someone to the "full extent of the law"... but don't pursue them to the full extent of the law... just a lesser extent?

 

[Classic flyer]

So, they should pursue someone to the "full extent of the law"... but don't pursue them to the full extent of the law... just a lesser extent?

I guess what I'm trying to say there is that the fine should be consistent with the magnitude of the offense...but enforced non the less...until we're held accountable for our aggressions it's just "SMOKE IN THE WIND"...again it's just my opinion

 

[gottahavit]

I agree completely we should ban anything that distracts others from enjoying national parks or might impact wild life or lead to potential damage. here would be my ban list in ascending order of annoyance and distraction to others.

drones (5 out of 10)
any other manned aircraft under 500ft (6 out of 10)
cell phones (7 out of 10)
children under the age of 16 (10 out of 10)

kidding... not kidding.

 

[Classic flyer]

I agree completely we should ban anything that distracts others from enjoying national parks or might impact wild life or lead to potential damage. here would be my ban list in ascending order of annoyance and distraction to others.

drones (5 out of 10)
any other manned aircraft under 500ft (6 out of 10)
cell phones (7 out of 10)
children under the age of 16 (10 out of 10)

kidding... not kidding.

We should just close all NPs to everybody and be done with it

 

[rmb]

As a licensed 107 pilot that loves the outdoors, has worked for natgeo and would love to have National park level scenery on my Reel, I have to be honest. I for one am happy that there are still beautiful places on earth that I go and be assured that I will not see or hear a friggin drone.

My 2 cents and probably all it’s worth.

 

[ColinF]

As a licensed 107 pilot that loves the outdoors, has worked for natgeo and would love to have National park level scenery on my Reel, I have to be honest. I for one am happy that there are still beautiful places on earth that I go and be assured that I will not see or hear a friggin drone.

My 2 cents and probably all it’s worth.

A fair, respectful and honest opinion. Thanks for sharing.

Do have any vids you can share? Would love to see your work.

 

[Imtnbike]

Here's my copied reply to your Facebook post and many others have far better arguments for the ban.

The fatal flaw in this argument is the presumed assumption that ONLY “responsible” drone operators would be allowed to fly in NPs.

Who’s going to define responsible? Oh, yes...rules and regulations. That will prevent irresponsible behavior. Until it doesn’t.

And how often will irresponsible behavior take place? 1%...15%....45%....93%...who knows? But once it reaches an unacceptable level or a disastrous event happens then we’ll be right back to where we are now - a complete ban. BUT..THEN it will be a complete ban because a high ratio of irresponsible drone pilots showed up and now the whole lot of us look bad.

I’ll be happy to fully enjoy the NPs without my drone and the potential of hearing about an irresponsible pilot in the news (or seeing one personally).

Just to clarify, two of the most scenic areas in my backyard are NPs. It’s hard that they are off limits but in the long run it’s worth giving up the right to fly there but I still enjoy them to the fullest.

 

[rmb]

Unfortunately these days I have been doing lest nature and more commercial work, and like a lot of us my Reel is way out of date. That said you are more than welcome to watch what I have.