United States National Park Ban

[sar104]

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.

36 CFR 1.5 codifies public law, so yes, on NPS land they can promulgate regulations regarding allowed activities, temporary or permanent.

 

[ac0j]

Link to NPS 2014 UAV Policy Memorandum:

To:

I was referring to a posted sign on the property.

 

[UAVNV]

follow up with a video of the history of how this legislation became law.

 

[ColinF]

36 CFR 1.5 codifies public law, so yes, on NPS land they can promulgate regulations regarding allowed activities, temporary or permanent.

True, but, it also states “c) Except in emergency situations, prior to implementing or terminating a restriction, condition, public use limit or closure, the superintendent shall prepare a written determination justifying the action. “

That was never done. The memorandum states the intent to “study the new use” it is placing an “interim” restriction. The study was never done. They never provided a written determination. They only stated they intended to do that. Four years later, still an “interim” ban. At a minimum, the NPS should follow the law, which they stated they would do in the memorandum. They have not done what 36 CFR 1.5 requires to restrict access.

 

[sar104]

True, but, it also states “c) Except in emergency situations, prior to implementing or terminating a restriction, condition, public use limit or closure, the superintendent shall prepare a written determination justifying the action. “

That was never done. The memorandum states the intent to “study the new use” it is placing an “interim” restriction. The study was never done. They never provided a written determination. They only stated they intended to do that. Four years later, still an “interim” ban. At a minimum, the NPS should follow the law, which they stated they would do in the memorandum. They have not done what 36 CFR 1.5 requires to restrict access.

NPS will argue that the memorandum was the written determination for the interim order. 36 CFR 1.5 doesn't put a time limit on an interim restriction and the memorandum placed no time limit on the study, so they are arguably in compliance with 36 CFR 1.5.

 

[ColinF]

NPS will argue that the memorandum was the written determination for the interim order. 36 CFR 1.5 doesn't put a time limit on an interim restriction and the memorandum placed no time limit on the study, so they are arguably in compliance with 36 CFR 1.5.

Perhaps, however the argument could be made they are not complying with the intent of the legislature in crafting the CFR and that particular clause, and further because they stated they would do a study in the memorandum, it would then be argued that by any reasonable standard, fours years was more than enough time for them to meet the commitment they made to the public. I would wager heavily if ever challenged, they would be forced to perform the study and craft specific use regulation for drones. Then end result certainly could be exactly the same as now, or it could allow for some reasonable exceptions in some NPS managed lands.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I also favor the ban. Keep your drone out of our national treasures. There are plenty more places to fly...

No, there are NOT plenty more places to fly. In some areas, such as states like mine virtually ALL public lands are now off limits, and private lands are also. We are talking about over 50 million (EDIT: 84.6 million) acres here, one shouldn't take this loss lightly.

 

[sar104]

Perhaps, however the argument could be made they are not complying with the intent of the legislature in crafting the CFR and that particular clause, and further because they stated they would do a study in the memorandum, it would then be argued that by any reasonable standard, fours years was more than enough time for them to meet the commitment they made to the public. I would wager heavily if ever challenged, they would be forced to perform the study and craft specific use regulation for drones. Then end result certainly could be exactly the same as now, or it could allow for some reasonable exceptions in some NPS managed lands.

If it's based on arguing interpretation of what is a reasonable duration for an interim order then I think you would lose your wager.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Colin, I agree, and have argued against the ban since day one. For the following reasons, an outright ban is neither necessary, warranted, or even logical.

It was a knee jerk government reaction to a problem which didn't exist. It was supposed to be a temporary policy until integration could be studied and implemented. Five years later, crickets. Welcome to the pace of government. These kinds of no-participation-by-the public, bureaucratic bans, should trouble everyone IMO.

We are talking about 52 million acres of land, not huge when measured against the total landmass but not insignificant either. And that is 52 million acres of pristine, non private, (I.E. PUBLIC) unspoiled landscape which is perfect for uncluttered imagery, without risk of private property trespass. The vast majority of that land is sparsely, if ever visited by humans.

Where I live, are the Great Smoky Mountains, Appalachian Trail, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, EDIT: Blue Ridge Parkway, and 36 State Parks. It is now technically illegal to fly anywhere in this state, except National Forest and your own property, without risk of breaking the law. I have been to every one of those places and many times never saw another human being. So the argument that a Mavic, 200 feet in the air might "disturb" something is almost laughable, at most times and many places. And those times and places could fairly easily be identified and permitted, with a bit of effort.

I have debated extensively, that many of the "reasons" against their use, simply do not hold water, as the NPS already allows activities much more disruptive and dangerous. To many here on this forum (to my surprise) they simply don't care. They don't want them there, under any circumstances, and that's all that matters.

I am actually surprised that more on this forum, aren't concerned about the increasing loss of places to pursue their hobby. Places where no harm or impact would be felt, from an increasingly smaller and quieter form of photography.

I have also had extensive conversations with rangers and officials of the NPS who agree that the ban is overkill, and flight from outside the boundaries is both legal, and the only (imperfect) solution to the gridlock which is government bureaucracy.

I'm under no illusions that anything will change anytime soon. What has become clear from these postings, is that once folks have a notion against something that they dislike, or fear, they don't give it up, regardless of the evidence.

Some here regularly say that this subject has been "debated to death" and should be put to rest. I disagree. The reason that is is being brought up, over and over, indicates that it is a situation which warrants continued debate.

 

[ac0j]

In what world does everyone get everything they want? Even if it came down to a public vote, drones in parks would LOSE. WITHOUT QUESTION.
If park photos are that important to you, fly in there and go get them. If its worth all the time discussing, complaining and debating, its worth a couple hundred bucks in fines to get them. (if you even get caught) If not, lets drop the discussion.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

In what world does everyone get everything they want? Even if it came down to a public vote, drones in parks would LOSE. WITHOUT QUESTION.
If park photos are that important to you, fly in there and go get them. If its worth all the time discussing, complaining and debating, its worth a couple hundred bucks in fines to get them. (if you even get caught) If not, lets drop the discussion.

Get your point, but It'd be much better to not have a bad rule than depend on not getting caught breaking it. And yep, many do just that.

 

[ac0j]

I dont get all the worry from people willing to bend the FAA rules on VLOS to get a shot at the risk of thousands of dollars in fines from the FAA, Yet they feel violated because of an NPS ban that a citation might cost $100.

 

[Chip]

36 CFR 1.5 codifies public law, so yes, on NPS land they can promulgate regulations regarding allowed activities, temporary or permanent.

NPS will argue that the memorandum was the written determination for the interim order. 36 CFR 1.5 doesn't put a time limit on an interim restriction and the memorandum placed no time limit on the study, so they are arguably in compliance with 36 CFR 1.5.

Okay, I can see that. It still seems like a long time for an interim measure to remain effective especially when NPS acknowledges public right to participate in its policy making:

"May the public participate in policy-making?

The travel and tourism industry, recreational equipment manufacturers, environmental organizations, the visiting public and many others have a strong interest in the way the national parks are managed. They also have a strongly held belief in their right to participate in the decision-making process. This belief is supported by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies to give the public an opportunity to comment on major policy decisions that will affect them.

Prudence and Departmental policy dictate that the NPS seek and consider public comment through Federal Register notices and other selective means as we adopt our Director’s Orders and update NPS Management Policies, just as we routinely do with NPS regulations. However, we do not generally seek public comment on operational matters that are likely to be of no, or limited, interest to the public."

Excerpt from NPS informational materials

 

[tcope]

No, there are NOT plenty more places to fly. In some areas, such as states like mine virtually ALL public lands are now off limits, and private lands are also. We are talking about over 50 million acres here, one shouldn't take this loss lightly.

It is more close to being above 84 million acres, not 50. BLM runs 247 million acres and the USFS runs 193 million acres. That is 84 million acres you cannot fly in and 331 million that you can. This leaves out everything else. That is 247 million acres to fly in... just using 2 federal services. So I'm sorry.. not plenty of more places to fly? BTW, that is more than twice the size of Alaska.

All public lands are not off limits. Where are you getting this from? Truth is, your post is 99.9% BS.

So your statement of most public lands being off limits... not even close. Not even close.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

It is more close to being above 84 million acres, not 50. BLM runs 247 million acres and the USFS runs 193 million acres. That is 84 million acres you cannot fly in and 331 million that you can. This leaves out everything else. That is 247 million acres to fly in... just using 2 federal services. So I'm sorry.. not plenty of more places to fly? BTW, that is more than twice the size of Alaska.

All public lands are not off limits. Where are you getting this from? Truth is, your post is 99.9% BS.

So your statement of most public lands being off limits... not even close. Not even close.

At that point I was referring to the NPS lands in my state, not the entire nation. That combined with off limits state, and private lands, it is almost the entire state.
Yeah go ahead and support these ridiculous and increasing bans, but don’t complain when there is nowhere left to fly from.

 

[tcope]

Yeah go ahead and support these ridiculous and increasing bans, but don’t complain when there is nowhere left to fly from.

I think I've show that this is just not the case. You can fly over private property and a _vast_ majority of the US allows drone flying. Facts are facts.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I think I've show that this is just not the case. You can fly over private property and a _vast_ majority of the US allows drone flying. Facts are facts.

No, you are the one who seems not to know the facts.

First of all, I said "in states like mine", that is NC. and yes, other than National Forest, all other State and NPS land is off limits. Launching from any private land is also, without express permission.

Do your research on the state of NC, then come back and admit that pretty much the entire state is technically off limits.

Be glad you live where this is not the case and quit giving others incorrect “facts”.

 

[tcope]

No, you are the one who seems not to know the facts.

Do your research on the state of NC, then come back and admit that pretty much the entire state is technically off limits.

Be glad you live where this is not the case and quit giving others incorrect “facts”.

makes perfect sense.... you stated most public and private lands in NC are off limits... I show were this is incorrect with facts and you then just say I don't know the facts and ask _me_ to do the research. Again, I'd done the research and provided you the facts. How about providing some kind of information to back up your claims. Obviously you won't... as your statements were incorrect.

You _claim_ the NPS runs 50 million acres in NC (BTW, this far exceeds 50% of the land in the US that they actually do manage... and you put about 70% of their land in the state of NC... but if that is not enough...), your numbers are _clearly_ WAY off. The amount of Federal land in NC (not just NPS land but _all_ Federal land) is 2 million acres out of NC's 31 million acres. So to be clear, you put only NPS land at 50 million acres in NC and _all_ Federal land is only 2 million acres. Ok... so far are were WAY, WAY off. Not even close. On top of that, NPS land in NC amounts to 7.7% of the land in NC. I live in UT and the Feds have 66.5% of the land. So who should be complaining if it were an issue. UT is in the #2 spot as the state with the most Fed land. NC.... 19th.. and believe me... that percentage drops _real_ quick.

Let's take your second statement... that most public land is off limits. Again, simply no information to support this as being correct. Just looking at National Forest land in NC, there a _MILLIONS_ of acres of public land you can fly on. If you'd like to even attempt to support your statement, please feel free to supply _any_ facts to back it up.

I've focused my facts on NPS land as this is the topic of this thread.

As you have requested, I've done (your) research as asked and presented the _facts_ to support my statements. Feel free to provide _any_ facts that back up your claims.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

makes perfect sense.... you stated most public and private lands in NC are off limits... I show were this is incorrect with facts and you then just say I don't know the facts and ask _me_ to do the research. Again, I'd done the research and provided you the facts. How about providing some kind of information to back up your claims. Obviously you won't... as your statements were incorrect.

You _claim_ the NPS runs 50 million acres in NC (BTW, this far exceeds 50% of the land in the US that they actually do manage... and you put about 70% of their land in the state of NC... but if that is not enough...), your numbers are _clearly_ WAY off. The amount of Federal land in NC (not just NPS land but _all_ Federal land) is 2 million acres out of NC's 31 million acres. So to be clear, you put only NPS land at 50 million acres in NC and _all_ Federal land is only 2 million acres. Ok... so far are were WAY, WAY off. Not even close. On top of that, NPS land in NC amounts to 7.7% of the land in NC. I live in UT and the Feds have 66.5% of the land. So who should be complaining if it were an issue. UT is in the #2 spot as the state with the most Fed land. NC.... 19th.. and believe me... that percentage drops _real_ quick.

Let's take your second statement... that most public land is off limits. Again, simply no information to support this as being correct. Just looking at National Forest land in NC, there a _MILLIONS_ of acres of public land you can fly on. If you'd like to even attempt to support your statement, please feel free to supply _any_ facts to back it up.

I've focused my facts on NPS land as this is the topic of this thread.

As you have requested, I've done (your) research as asked and presented the _facts_ to support my statements. Feel free to provide _any_ facts that back up your claims.

Once again, I'll try to make this simple, since you seem to want a pissing match.

I was referring to 52 million acres (You say 82, fine, even worse) as the total U.S. NPS lands.

I stated that pretty much the entire NPS LANDS IN MY STATE are off limits, which they are.

I also stated that private lands, State Park lands, and State property are off limits, which they are.

Yes, national forest lands are still permitted, but with folks like you, perfectly okay with arbitrary bans, that might not be the case much longer. And yes, if I lived in Utah, I’d be complaining even louder.

The NPS lands are some of the most pristine and photographically uncluttered, and my argument remains. The unjustified denial of millions of acres of public property should not be taken lightly.

You can use all the "facts" you want to make the case that this is OK, but I am not on board.

 

[tcope]

Once again, I'll try to make this simple, since you seem to want a pissing match.

You asked for me to get my facts straight. I'm simply doing this. Sorry if you see my facts vs your made up information as a "pissing match".

I was referring to 52 million acres (You say 82, fine, even worse) as the total U.S. NPS lands.

No and no. First, it started as 50 and 80. Second, where is your quote in response to me pointing out that the NPS ran 80 million acres in the entire US; "At that point I was referring to the NPS lands in my state, not the entire nation." . So in your prior statement you clearified that your 50 million NPSA acres were referring just to NC, not the entire US. Now you are stating your 50/52 million acres was referring to NC only and not the entire US.

I stated that pretty much the entire NPS LANDS IN MY STATE are off limits, which they are.

Again... no. Here is your post; "In some areas, such as states like mine virtually ALL public lands are now off limits, and private lands are also." So you stated that virtually _all_ public and private lands were off limits. Not just NPS land. Of course all NPS land is off limits. That what this entire thread has been about. If you are now just saying that NPS lands are off limits. Great. No one disagrees with that. But again, these are _very_ limited areas. In NC is it is 7.7% of the land.

I also stated that private lands, State Park lands, and State property are off limits, which they are.

You only stated private lands. Feel free to provide _ANY_ support for this statement. It is simply not true. There are PLENTY of public and private lands to fly on. I _just_ got done pointing out the _millions_ of national forest as just one example. This is just public land. I don't really feel the need to point out that saying all private lands are off limits is simply ludicrous.

Yes, national forest lands are still permitted, but with folks like you, perfectly okay with arbitrary bans, that might not be the case much longer.

Well, now we are getting somewhere. You now appear to agree that there are millions of acres in NC where you can fly. Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I was okay with "arbitrary bans" now and in the future. I only stated that I was okay with the ban in National Parks.

The NPS lands are some of the most pristine and photographically uncluttered, and my argument remains. The unjustified denial of millions of acres of public property should not be taken lightly.

Was this ban on everyone looking at these scenes? Was the ban on taking photos of these locations? I thought it was simply on one, very limited, use of drones. Feel free to visit all of the NPS lands any time you want and take as many photos as you want... just feel free to take them from a land camera and not from a drone.

There is clearly no ban on using NPS land as you mention. Again, you are simply stretching the truth and even making things up in an attempt to support your position. You can use and photo these lands all you want. Simply not using a drone. It's not the end of the world as you make it out to be. I too would love to use a drone in a NPS. I also respect the rights of everyone else to enjoy these areas and my wanting to use a drone should not ruin the enjoyment of hundreds of other people. Not when I can still enjoy the national park myself.

[QUOTE="Robert Mitchell, post: 612108, member: 1489"You can use all the "facts" you want to make the case that this is OK, but I am not on board.[/QUOTE]That is certainly your right and I respect that.