USFS Drone Possession Illegal

[sar104]

However... remember that the minimum altitude for any aircraft over a designated U.S. wilderness area is 2000’ AGL. This effectively prevents routine flying of drones over these areas.

That's AIM 7-4-6, but it's only a request - not a regulation.

7−4−6. Flights Over Charted U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas​

​

a. The landing of aircraft is prohibited on lands or waters administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Forest Service without authorization from the respective agency. Exceptions include:​

​

1. When forced to land due to an emergency beyond the control of the operator;​

2. At officially designated landing sites; or​

3. An approved official business of the Federal Government.​

​

b. Pilots are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface of the following: National Parks, Monuments, Seashores,​

Lakeshores, Recreation Areas and Scenic Riverways administered by the National Park Service, National Wildlife Refuges, Big Game Refuges, Game Ranges and Wildlife Ranges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wilderness and Primitive areas administered by the U.S. Forest Service.​

 

[Thomas B]

That's AIM 7-4-6, but it's only a request - not a regulation.

7−4−6. Flights Over Charted U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas​

​

a. The landing of aircraft is prohibited on lands or waters administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Forest Service without authorization from the respective agency. Exceptions include:​

​

1. When forced to land due to an emergency beyond the control of the operator;​

2. At officially designated landing sites; or​

3. An approved official business of the Federal Government.​

​

b. Pilots are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface of the following: National Parks, Monuments, Seashores,​

Lakeshores, Recreation Areas and Scenic Riverways administered by the National Park Service, National Wildlife Refuges, Big Game Refuges, Game Ranges and Wildlife Ranges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wilderness and Primitive areas administered by the U.S. Forest Service.​

I stand corrected, but also feel it is a policy most rangers will try to enforce as law and that failure to comply with their request is likely a violation in and of itself.

 

[sar104]

I stand corrected, but also feel it is a policy most rangers will try to enforce as law and that failure to comply with their request is likely a violation in and of itself.

Maybe - but actually I suspect that most USFS LE won't connect the 2000 ft aircraft rule, even if they know it, with sUAS operations.

 

[NetDep]

"§ 261.18 National Forest Wilderness.
The following are prohibited in a National Forest Wilderness:
(a) Possessing or using a motor vehicle, motorboat or motorized equipment except as authorized by Federal Law or regulation.
(b) Possessing or using a hang glider or bicycle.
(c) Landing of aircraft, or dropping or picking up of any material, supplies, or person by means of aircraft, including a helicopter.
[42 FR 2957, Jan. 14, 1977, as amended at 42 FR 35959, July 13, 1977; 50 FR 16231, Apr. 25, 1985. Redesignated at 70 FR 68291, Nov. 9, 2005]"

It appears as though the makers of those signs (they do not appear to be USFS form signs - no form number can be seen) has interrupted "drone" to be "motorized equipment." This is one of the myriad of problems with exclusionary law - that is prohibiting all things but the things that are allowed. It seems the burden is on you to show that a drone IS authorized by Federal Law or regulation, which it no doubt is not, and therefore the drafter of the sign can include just about anything. Mere possession of a drone, it seems to me, and not the illegal launching/flying on USFS prohibited land would not be, per se, illegal. If I was transiting said land and had no intent to fly my drone but take it home from an afternoon at the lake and was stopped by Ranger Rick then I am subject to penalty? I'd hate to be the test case but this is a definite case of overreach but as many of us know - 'You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride." It might be an expensive way to prove a point but it does show how much drones are hated, misunderstood and subject to unfair regulation.

 

[sar104]

"§ 261.18 National Forest Wilderness.
The following are prohibited in a National Forest Wilderness:
(a) Possessing or using a motor vehicle, motorboat or motorized equipment except as authorized by Federal Law or regulation.
(b) Possessing or using a hang glider or bicycle.
(c) Landing of aircraft, or dropping or picking up of any material, supplies, or person by means of aircraft, including a helicopter.
[42 FR 2957, Jan. 14, 1977, as amended at 42 FR 35959, July 13, 1977; 50 FR 16231, Apr. 25, 1985. Redesignated at 70 FR 68291, Nov. 9, 2005]"

It appears as though the makers of those signs (they do not appear to be USFS form signs - no form number can be seen) has interrupted "drone" to be "motorized equipment." This is one of the myriad of problems with exclusionary law - that is prohibiting all things but the things that are allowed. It seems the burden is on you to show that a drone IS authorized by Federal Law or regulation, which it no doubt is not, and therefore the drafter of the sign can include just about anything. Mere possession of a drone, it seems to me, and not the illegal launching/flying on USFS prohibited land would not be, per se, illegal. If I was transiting said land and had no intent to fly my drone but take it home from an afternoon at the lake and was stopped by Ranger Rick then I am subject to penalty? I'd hate to be the test case but this is a definite case of overreach but as many of us know - 'You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride." It might be an expensive way to prove a point but it does show how much drones are hated, misunderstood and subject to unfair regulation.

Are you arguing that a drone is not clearly motorized equipment? It's a flying vehicle with four electric motors.

 

[MtnScout]

The Wilderness Act has been around since 1964. As a SAR team authorized and administrated by our Sheriff, we have a strictly enforced MOU with the USFS that allows us to use motorized and mechanized equipment (including sUAS) on a SAR mission only ( no training ) and we have to send a debrief report to the USFS upon completion of the SAR, in the Wilderness area. .
The USFS takes the Wilderness Act seriously and yes, even possession of motorized or mechanized is prohibited, as SAR 104 has stated. You might not run into a by the book ranger, that would confiscate a stowed drone but then again...

 

[GCMM2P]

...Denver Waterboard trucks...

Dang! Denver is HARDCORE! Around here, waterboarding is now illegal. In Denver, they have WATERBOARD trucks! I want one!

 

[GadgetGuy]

The Denver Water Board threatened to arrest me for trespass if I rode my e-bike in Waterton Canyon, 50 kM SW of Denver, citing a USFS internal memo prohibiting motorized vehicles on USFS land. I left the battery in my truck, thus making it JUST A BICYCLE. They still threatened arrest for trespass, even though it had no battery, and was JUST A BICYCLE. Note, they ALLOW BICYCLES, but won't allow an e-bike "Without The E." I have it on video!

eBikes were just recently approved for riding in all National Parks anywhere regular bicycles were previously allowed. Yeah!

Electric Bicycles (e-bikes) in National Parks - Biking (U.S. National Park Service)

Learn more about e-bikes in the national parks.

www.nps.gov

 

[Maviac]

The rules relating to legal interpretation are based on the principle of sui generis - in other words, an item can only be inferred as included in a list if it is of the same nature as the specified items. A drone does not fit within a definition of “small battery-powered handheld devices”; this legal position would be backed up by the ban on and definition provided of “motorized equipment”.

Correct, although I believe the principle of construction is “ejusdem generis;” sui generis is something else. The principle “nocitur a sociis“ (sometimes called the “birds of a feather” doctrine) would also apply. Anyway, a drone is not “handheld,“ at least for the majority of its intended use, so there’s really no statutory interpretation necessary under the relevant definition in the CFR.

 

[BigAl07]

The Wilderness Act has been around since 1964. As a SAR team authorized and administrated by our Sheriff, we have a strictly enforced MOU with the USFS that allows us to use motorized and mechanized equipment (including sUAS) on a SAR mission only ( no training ) and we have to send a debrief report to the USFS upon completion of the SAR, in the Wilderness area. .
The USFS takes the Wilderness Act seriously and yes, even possession of motorized or mechanized is prohibited, as SAR 104 has stated. You might not run into a by the book ranger, that would confiscate a stowed drone but then again...

Very well stated and that's exactly how it is here in the Smoky Mountains of WNC. It's frustrating we can't "Train" but we have the go-ahead to deploy for a live mission. It is what it is