United States National Park Ban

[Jackcutrone]

FWIW - here is what NPS says:
Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the NPS restrict unmanned aircraft?
The National Park Service embraces many activities in national parks because they enhance visitor experiences with the iconic natural, historic and cultural landscapes in our care. However, due to serious concerns about the negative impact that flying unmanned aircraft can have for safety of visitors, staff, and wildlife, they have been restricted in all but a few parks.

If I am flying my unmanned aircraft in the national airspace and do not take off, land, or operate from NPS lands and waters, is there anything the park could do to stop me?
Unless an unmanned aircraft pilot obtains special permission through the FAA, use of unmanned aircraft must remain line of sight. In addition, although they do not directly address unmanned aircraft, the following existing 36 CFR sections may apply under certain circumstances.

• If the unmanned aircraft pursuits or harasses wildlife or creates an intentional disturbance of wildlife nesting, breeding, or other activities, the user could be cited for a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.2.
• If the user of the unmanned aircraft knowingly or recklessly creates a risk of public alarm or nuisance by causing noise that was unreasonable under the circumstances or by creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition, the user could be cited for disorderly conduct under 36 C.F.R. § 2.34.
• 36 C.F.R. § 2.12(a)(3) prohibits, in non-developed areas, operating a device powered by a portable motor or engine, except pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

Can I launch and land my unmanned aircraft outside the park boundary?
The NPS has no authority outside park boundaries; the unmanned aircraft operator would have to get the permission of the landowner.

 

[tcope]

V A little access is better than a complete ban.

Is a little bit of hitting someone better then hitting them a lot more? What about hitting one person and not hitting ten people. Both are just as offensive. Same thing. But there are still other issues with your proposal that would not allow it to work.

 

[ac0j]

Frankly I find it hilarious that you guys have to pay good money to enter what is, after all, public land. Maybe when the fossil fuel companies move in they should be required to subsidize that.

Where are you? Every nice place free to enter where you are? Must be one of those places where the government decides when you need medical care.
As Americans, we dont HAVE to pay anything, we CHOOSE to pay a fee as it only is to support the system. That way when your government pays for you to fly here and see it, the park can accommodate you with a nice restroom, maybe a free guide, and plenty of people employed to be there picking up the trash that European and Asian guests throw all over the place like they do at home.

 

[ColinF]

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.

I appreciate your comment, but no I was not. I suppose at altitude with camera angles, it can be deceiving. Would be interestingly for you to attempt the physics equation to determine the location of the people, the size of their top down profile, compared to the length of the drone, at the specific altitude I was at, with the pitch of the camera and the focal length of the camera. Let me know if you’re up for the challenge!

 

[tcope]

Frankly I find it hilarious that you guys have to pay good money to enter what is, after all, public land.

Look at it how you want. How I see it, I'm paying so that the area can be preserved and can be enjoyed.

 

[sar104]

Where are you? Every nice place free to enter where you are? Must be one of those places where the government decides when you need medical care.
As Americans, we dont HAVE to pay anything, we CHOOSE to pay a fee as it only is to support the system. That way when your government pays for you to fly here and see it, the park can accommodate you with a nice restroom, maybe a free guide, and plenty of people employed to be there picking up the trash that European and Asian guests throw all over the place like they do at home.

That's several unnecessary and inaccurate slurs in one short post - you really ought to stop doing that. Addressing just one issue: having lived here and in Europe I can assure you that Americans are by no means the tidiest tourists. Littering and dumping in general is a much bigger problem in the US.

 

[ac0j]

I appreciate your comment, but no I was not. I suppose at altitude with camera angles, it can be deceiving. Would be interestingly for you to attempt the physics equation to determine the location of the people, the size of their top down profile, compared to the length of the drone, at the specific altitude I was at, with the pitch of the camera and the focal length of the camera. Let me know if you’re up for the challenge!

I know a guy that enjoys a challenge like this, @sar104 I bet could do some calculations and get close enough to prosecute results!

 

[sar104]

I know a guy that enjoys a challenge like this, @sar104 I bet could do some calculations and get close enough to prosecute results!

You know me too well.

 

[Marlow007]

I made a video in protest of the US drone ban in national parks. Take a look and pass it on.

We also must remember to protect the wildlife from this type of unknown airborne intrusion. In a way it sucks but necessary, these parks are most of the last places in this country where wildlife has some minimal protection.

 

[ColinF]

Is a little bit of hitting someone better then hitting them a lot more? What about hitting one person and not hitting ten people. Both are just as offensive. Same thing. But there are still other issues with your proposal that would not allow it to work.

Interesting analogy, but the premise is faulty. I don’t believe allowing controlled access is “hitting” anyone in any way. Your premise supports your position, that any access is bad. I, respectfully, disagree.

 

[Pauxier]

The parks are for all of us not just the people who enjoy peace and quiet. Why should any one group get preference? Harassing wildlife is a seperate issue. Banning things is kind of a lazy way to try to fix things but it seems to happen a lot these days. Solutions and compromise is hard.

 

[ColinF]

The parks are for all of us not just the people who enjoy peace and quiet. Why should any one group get preference? Harassing wildlife is a seperate issue. Banning things is kind of a lazy way to try to fix things but it seems to happen a lot these days. Solutions and compromise is hard.

That is exactly correct on all points, and to the point of banning, that is a disturbing cultural trend we are seeing in many areas. It is easy though. Compromise takes hard word and empathy to other positions. Not something that we see much of these days.

 

[sar104]

That is exactly correct on all points, and to the point of banning, that is a disturbing cultural trend we are seeing in many areas. It is easy though. Compromise takes hard word and empathy to other positions. Not something that we see much of these days.

Compromise also requires planning and implementation, and so extra funding. That hasn't shown up yet for the NPS, and in now their budget is under threat of reduction.

 

[ColinF]

Compromise also requires planning and implementation, and so extra funding. That hasn't shown up yet for the NPS, and in now their budget is under threat of reduction.

Yes, true, but there have been suggestions such as fees for prospective flyers, and public-private ventures. All of this takes planning, but before it can even be contemplated, there has to be a willingness to entertain compromise.

 

[gottahavit]

I greatly dislike people who think that the laws don't apply to them. The laws, rules and regulations are written for EVERYONE and if you don't like them then please go to another country. I am an outdoorsman kind of guy. I once spent 10 days cross-country skiing in Yellowstone. It was beautiful. It was pristine. I was loving watching the bison capture warmth around the geysers. It was silent UNTIL a group of snowmobilers ran through the area spooking the bison and almost causing them to trample a skier. Snowmobiles were allowed in Yellowstone at that time. We could hear them coming in the distance and heard them for nearly a minute after they had disrupted the peace. As much as I would love to have some aerial photos from Yellowstone I realize that millions of people go there to enjoy nature and it isn't right that my buzzing drone should disturb their peace.

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

 

[sar104]

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

You might need to elaborate on that. Damage caused by backcountry skiing?

 

[ac0j]

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

I Know, Right? God help the park if he had to relieve himself while he was there. Talk about disrespecting a place!

 

[sar104]

Yes, true, but there have been suggestions such as fees for prospective flyers, and public-private ventures. All of this takes planning, but before it can even be contemplated, there has to be a willingness to entertain compromise.

Yes, but fees don't collect themselves, and checking that those fees have been paid takes manpower. Commercial and other non-recreational flying is already possible by arrangement with Park superintendents. And if the NPS were to poll public opinion on recreational drones in parks, I doubt that we would win the vote.

 

[rmb]

Interesting analogy, but the premise is faulty. I don’t believe allowing controlled access is “hitting” anyone in any way. Your premise supports your position, that any access is bad. I, respectfully, disagree.

If I could chime in again. I think the over arching point is that we would all love to use the public land as we see fit assuming there is respect for the wildlife, tourists, etc. The problem is that these lands have been set aside just as much for the nature and wildlife as people. The purpose of these lands is to let people visit and experience part of what is now gone because of tyrannical tourism and self-entitled overreach.

You all know as well as I do that at the end of the day no matter how controlled, what would happen. The people granted access to fly however few would fall into one of three categories.
The ones that respect the rules don’t harass animals and are respectful of the tourist.
Total morons that won’t do any of that just because they want the great shot to post on YouTube for “likes”
And otherwise great people that suffer from nothing other than gross ignorance regarding how fragile their surroundings are. I.e. many do not know that if you come to close to an Eagle’s nest more than twice it will abandon its nest leaving the chics or eggs to die. And who doesn’t wanna great aerial shot of an Eagle’s nest right? Coming too close to a mother bear and cubs or herd of deer forcing them to run could burn very valuable calories that will leave them in a bad way in the bitter cold and or might not have the necessary calories left to out run legitimate predators.
These reasons and many more are why if you go to places like yellow stone you’ll notice that they very tightly controlled the crowds and keep you on walkways and paths so as to keep the masses at a great distance so as not to intrude too far into the park. The drones would have no such control short of a pilot being accompanied by a park ranger.
The reality is that no matter how much we would like to be able to think that a few of us could qualify for getting the privilege (and that’s what it would be) to fly in these great parks to create our own films and postcards, the park and the animals itself must come first. As I stated in my last post, as much as I too would love the privilege I am equally fond of the notion that there are still some places that I can go where I feel the need to whisper so as to not intrude. And to leave with the feeling that I was a guest, lucky to be there at all, and that I came and went unnoticed by the natural world.

That cure my friend is better than any video or photo.

Respectfully, rmb

 

[ColinF]

If I could chime in again. I think the over arching point is that we would all love to use the public land as we see fit assuming there is respect for the wildlife, tourists, etc. The problem is that these lands have been set aside just as much for the nature and wildlife as people. The purpose of these lands is to let people visit and experience part of what is now gone because of tyrannical tourism and self-entitled overreach.

You all know as well as I do that at the end of the day no matter how controlled, what would happen. The people granted access to fly however few would fall into one of three categories.
The ones that respect the rules don’t harass animals and are respectful of the tourist.
Total morons that won’t do any of that just because they want the great shot to post on YouTube for “likes”
And otherwise great people that suffer from nothing other than gross ignorance regarding how fragile their surroundings are. I.e. many do not know that if you come to close to an Eagle’s nest more than twice it will abandon its nest leaving the chics or eggs to die. And who doesn’t wanna great aerial shot of an Eagle’s nest right? Coming too close to a mother bear and cubs or herd of deer forcing them to run could burn very valuable calories that will leave them in a bad way in the bitter cold and or might not have the necessary calories left to out run legitimate predators.
These reasons and many more are why if you go to places like yellow stone you’ll notice that they very tightly controlled the crowds and keep you on walkways and paths so as to keep the masses at a great distance so as not to intrude too far into the park. The drones would have no such control short of a pilot being accompanied by a park ranger.
The reality is that no matter how much we would like to be able to think that a few of us could qualify for getting the privilege (and that’s what it would be) to fly in these great parks to create our own films and postcards, the park and the animals itself must come first. As I stated in my last post, as much as I too would love the privilege I am equally fond of the notion that there are still some places that I can go where I feel the need to whisper so as to not intrude. And to leave with the feeling that I was a guest, lucky to be there at all, and that I came and went unnoticed by the natural world.

That cure my friend is better than any video or photo.

Respectfully, rmb

You make the strongest case yet to keeping the status quo....