I hope you don't mind, but I updated my video and leveraged some of your post. Your points were so very well made I thought it added significant value. If you are uncomfortable with me doing that, I will remove it.
United States National Park Ban
- Thread starter ColinF
- Start date
I hope you don't mind, but I updated my video and leveraged some of your post. Your points were so very well made I thought it added significant value. If you are uncomfortable with me doing that, I will remove it.
Keep them out of National Parks. Reason: For every responsible drone pilot there are 50 morons that will violate whatever rules are in place under date/time/other restrictions. It is much easier to just ban them entirely and then arrest/cite/fine ANYONE that is flying a drone in the park.
The problem isn't the drone, it's the morons.
Mark
The problem isn't the drone, it's the morons.
Mark
I have spoken with a state park representative who issues waivers to fly in this state' park system. She recognizes that people are going to violate the rules. Even non drone pilots visiting the parks violate rules. They litter. They tread where they are not supposed to. They start campfires. They used motorized vehicles where they are not supposed to. The list goes on. I suspect they would be issued citations, if they were caught. I suspect most are not caught, and yet no one has a cow about their violations. No one cries foul over their dis-respect toward the quiet enjoyment of others, or at least they rarely help police them; likely for fear of retribution.
She's also aware that we can launch and land outside of the parks and fly over; thereby diluting the intended goal of the state park ban. Diluted by the rules of one of their own. i.e. the FAA
I reasoned with her. She seemed genuinely open to the idea of working toward a compromise. I think she realizes the futility of applying limited resources toward enforcement. I suspect one day soon though, they will be 'armed' with the technology to effectively identify violators without chasing the rabbit. Still, if we are allowed to fly over, then is there grounds for citation?
Some state's are passing laws to issue citations for disturbing the peace, and flying over crowds as a means around the FAA's 'authorization'. And, I'm glad they are. However, I don't think this discussion is around flying in parks at low altitudes over crowds. I can't speak for anyone but myself. My interest is to capture good lighting on landscapes without people in the frame. I'll gladly accept the back 40.
In a thread discussing the state park ban, I tried to rally the troops on this forum to work together toward reasonable unified representation. I got no traction, and abandoned the effort. I did not start the thread. Seems like people have interests that they don't want to work for.
I have no desire to violate the rules. Video from a drone is simply not worth it.
At the same time, I do believe rules should be under regular review. How many antiquated laws are still on the books? Did you see the recent news story about a boy in Denver Co. who successfully 'argued' for the legislature to lift the ban on snow ball fights? I think the ban/law (whatever) was approximately 100 years old. The law may have made sense at one time. We don't have the context necessary to evaluate the law's benefit to society. Interestingly, the young lad now has designs on a career in politics, so he can help change laws. I think he's about 10 years old, now.
If it were not for the insurmountable logistic challenges of drone delivery, the skies would be a buzz with drone invasion; all for the purpose of more efficiently delivering somebody' f'ing pizza. What would we debate then?
I simply want my own quiet enjoyment, and the right to peacefully and respectfully accept a negotiated provision.
BTW...Have you ever heard of street photography? With a regular camera, anyone can get up in someones face and take a picture. It's perfectly legal. The legal argument is that if people venture out of doors into a public venue, then they have effectively given up their right to privacy. The photographer cannot commercialize the image without a model release, but they can take all the pictures they want. Right up in your face. Instagram is loaded with these images, and Youtube has many how to videos on street photography. Check it out. It's actually much more interesting then drone imagery.
I think that this thread has become a bit of an echo chamber. As both sides are making very good points, but we do not seem to be making progress and perhaps there is no answer and only opinion. If I could, could I pose a larger question to the group that might not only help clear up the debate, but could more-importantly, reveal the attitudes and general belief systems held by this crowd?
Ok here we go:
Putting all safety issues aside ie. flying over crowds, sporting events, etc. do we believe that there should be anywhere on this earth that is reserved exclusively for the soul to have peace where it is safe from the intrusion of technology, motorized vehicles and the throngs of the great unwashed public? Does everywhere truly need to be accessible to everyone? And if the answer is no, then where would these places exist?
As for me I am fortunate enough to have a beautiful camp in the heart of the Adirondack State Park in the Silver Lake Wilderness. Nothing motorized is allowed, not even a silent electric motor, so walking, snowshoeing, kayaking and canoeing is it. Now I know that’s not for everyone, but it is for me so I go there when I can to recharge and decompress. And as I am that blessed, I do not need to rely on the National Parks. But what of the simple tax-paying citizen who is not that fortunate, but also craves the same for he and his family? Should he not have the same opportunity as I? And again if we believe that to be reasonable, then where would this place exist if not in some of our wild National Parks?
Ok here we go:
Putting all safety issues aside ie. flying over crowds, sporting events, etc. do we believe that there should be anywhere on this earth that is reserved exclusively for the soul to have peace where it is safe from the intrusion of technology, motorized vehicles and the throngs of the great unwashed public? Does everywhere truly need to be accessible to everyone? And if the answer is no, then where would these places exist?
As for me I am fortunate enough to have a beautiful camp in the heart of the Adirondack State Park in the Silver Lake Wilderness. Nothing motorized is allowed, not even a silent electric motor, so walking, snowshoeing, kayaking and canoeing is it. Now I know that’s not for everyone, but it is for me so I go there when I can to recharge and decompress. And as I am that blessed, I do not need to rely on the National Parks. But what of the simple tax-paying citizen who is not that fortunate, but also craves the same for he and his family? Should he not have the same opportunity as I? And again if we believe that to be reasonable, then where would this place exist if not in some of our wild National Parks?
Last edited:
But not that many as beautiful - kind of why they were designated as NPs. IMHO, very unfair to drone pilots just because a very small percentage are ---holes.
I think this was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' on prohibiting drones in NPs.
A crashed drone could destroy Yellowstone’s Grand Prismatic Spring
How in the world were NPs not "designed or intended" for drones? What could they have done back in the 1800's to better "design" a park for drones? What did they 'leave out' back then?? How could they better design a NP now for drones? Just curious about your thoughts...
The last time we were in Yellowstone we were at West Thumb near Grant Village. We were hiking to Riddle Lake when we heard a group of motorcyclists on Harleys (of course) come over the ridge just barely within sight to our NW. They came thru and headed for the South Entrance. Their noisy motorcycles could be heard from five (5) miles away at the top of the ridge (I looked at it on Google Earth) & I know they could be heard for at least another five miles as they went South past West Thumb. My point is why don't they ban Harleys if we want to keep the serenity of the parks? They are much, much noisier than drones! I also agree snowmobiles & jet skis should be banned. Think about the jet skis zooming around Yellowstone in the winter - how is that OK with the peace & quiet??? Just sayin' !!!
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 14,458
- Reactions
- 19,471
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
- Site
- www.mavicpilots.com
I'm not sure how to answer that - they are obviously not comparable situations. Roads are specifically intended for vehicles, and so it would make no sense to ban vehicles. National Parks were not specifically intended for drone use. While that doesn't rule out the use of drones, it means that, along with many other activities not previously envisaged, it is quite possible that their use might be deemed undesirable, and there is nothing logically problematic with that.
Guys and Gals, I hate that put too fine a point on it, but if anyone has fooled themselves into believing that this has anything to do with flying drones in a national park you are not paying attention. This thread has clearly evolved or devolved depending on how you see it, into a debate between concerned naturalist that feel like some things should remain unspoiled and (I apologize ahead of time) and the “I don’t care it’s all there for me to use.” What I think is also being unnoticed by the “pro-fly in the parks” folks is that there’s not a drone operator on either side of this debate that doesn’t share your enthusiasm and would give their right arm to fly in the parks and get the shots of a lifetime and fill their reels with the beautiful images. But some of us are happy even if we can’t have it all so as to assure that no one’s experience is diminished, and others simply don’t like to hear the word no. But, let’s put that aside as I have no need to anger anyone. Let’s say that a magic wand could be waved and we could all, thousands of us, fly invisible, silent cameras that don’t bother people or disrupt the natural setting. To what end? So that we could now all have the same shots of the same waterfalls and canyons until they are no longer precious or unique cause any idiot with no other qualifications other than owning a drone already has and has posted the same footage on YouTube? Imagine a world where every once-amazing and wide-eyed experience of watching a National Geographic show, became a yawnfest because you and everyone else on your couch could say “yea been there shot that”. It’s like everything thing else in this fading Republic of jaded citizens. We once got chills or a thrill of something simple. Those magical moments are just gone and we are not better for it. Everything that was once amazing and special like having enough food or being the first one on your block to get color tv becomes so commonplace and expected that if we can’t all have what everyone else has, our fragile sense of entitlement gets offended and we get indignant. And I am no better. I loved my iPhone 6 until the 8 came out. I got the 8 then the 10 came out. How sick is that when you get right down to it? But alas regretfully it is human nature and it is disappointing. I am embarrassed to admit that I too have lost the magic and wonder of many things over the years that I wish that I could get back. I would very much NOT like to add the Parks to that list.
Remember that many of the people that come to these parks might have had to save up for years to make this one week experience possible and they perhaps will never be able to come back. I can not imagine the prospect of possibly changing their experience to take a photo that will be no better than the one that I can buy in the gift shop.
I will close with the way I opened. This is not a debate over flying drones. It is about 2 conflicting ideologies regarding the sanctity of nature, the possible infringement on someone else’s experience, and how much is too much. It’s as simple as that.
As you can tell this is something that I am very passionate about so if I have come off too strongly or offended anyone, I apologize it was not my intention.
Remember that many of the people that come to these parks might have had to save up for years to make this one week experience possible and they perhaps will never be able to come back. I can not imagine the prospect of possibly changing their experience to take a photo that will be no better than the one that I can buy in the gift shop.
I will close with the way I opened. This is not a debate over flying drones. It is about 2 conflicting ideologies regarding the sanctity of nature, the possible infringement on someone else’s experience, and how much is too much. It’s as simple as that.
As you can tell this is something that I am very passionate about so if I have come off too strongly or offended anyone, I apologize it was not my intention.
Last edited:
Hi RMB, first, really respect all your posts, but I am not sure I agree that it is about the two conflciting idealogies as you define them. I truly beleive I respect that sanctity of nature. If I fly my drone, create some spectacular cinematography, don't bother anyone, don't harrass or bother any wildlife, perhaps even do it in a remote section of a park where it is me by myself or me with my family, the video and pictures give me the opportunity to reflect back on that time that I spent with myself and my family for the rest of my maybe 30 years left on earth... and perhaps my children and grandchildren will be able to better recall and they will learn ferom my record about how beautiful the parks are from a perspective their father or grandfather was able to capture.
Fair enough ColinF. To be honest, the likes of you doing what you describe does not bother me. I just believe folks like you are in very short supply and separating the wheat from the chaff would be difficult or impossible by a faceless bureaucrat in some office somewhere. My dad always told me 2 things that have proven right for me over my 56 years. 1) "the majority is generally wrong" and 2) don't ever underestimate the ignorance of the general public however well-intentioned. And, being as though one of my personal observations over these many years has led me to ask "name me 3 things that the government manages well?" you can see where I get my opinion. Now I would certainly not expect everyone to subscribe to that relatively uncharitable view. But, as I do I guess that I tend to perhaps unfairly, go with ban the masses rather than trust them and, in the absence of that will never trust a bureaucrat to sort it out.
Anyway I wish you luck and hope that your media archives and memories will continue to grow over the many years!
Best, rmb.
ScubaBob
Well-Known Member
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,717
- Reactions
- 2,334
I would like to reframe the issue as whether the federal government has the right to promulgate temporary emergency administrative regulations which become defacto permanent law throughout the country with no proper public comment, fact finding or hearing.
The drone ban is specific to things that fly... quote from the memorandum..... “Unmanned aircraft” is defined as a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the device. This term includes all types of devices that meet this definition (e.g., model airplanes, quadcopters, drones) that are used for any purpose, including for recreation or commerce.”
Not sure about things that don’t fly.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,717
- Reactions
- 2,334
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
-
WTB the cable for the frontal vision sensors. Mini four pro- Started by Sticcckkko
- Replies: 0
-
-
