Well, there he goes- pilot flying in a National Park (US)
- Thread starter Duke_Mulligan
- Start date
AMann
Well-Known Member
It’s a terrible plan- as much as I like taking aerial photographs and flying, there are many places people can go to fly their little planes, the National Parks are refuges intended to be free of all that.
AMann
Well-Known Member
Some…. There are many started by cars off-road in grass, accidental car fires, illegal campfires, legal campfires, guns, mowers and equipment, electric lines, fireworks…
Wildfire Causes and Evaluations (U.S. National Park Service)
Learn about the causes of wildland fires and how managers decide how to deal with wildland fires.
www.nps.gov
Do you have a link or a video that supports your assertion that the National Parks are supposed to be a refuge intended to be "free of all that?" You mean free of hunting, camping, bicycling, climbing, swimming, fishing, hiking, ballooning, cross-country skiing, dune buggies? Or, are you one of those that likes to decide what is allowed and what isn't allowed. It's the people's park, the Parks belong to everybody and everyone should have a say in what is allowed and what isn't allowed.
Drone pilots are not asking to be able to orbit around Mount Rushmore and hover next to El Capitan or fly over Old Faithful. We are asking for limited access or selective access in certain parks and/or certain regions of the some of the most remote parks. A place we pay for where we can peacefully enjoy our hobby without bothering anyone or anything. Even if there was a permit system that made sure to control access, that's better than a complete ban. Drone week for one week out of the year and it's limited access to some of the more popular sites. Obviously you've never been lost in the Tetons or buried in the Badlands or driven up to the entrance at Teddy Roosevelt where you were the only person in the entire park or hiking into the middle of nowhere in Denali. Think about Red Rock and see if it makes sense to change this policy.
National Parks are being destroyed and polluted and burned up and guess what? It's not because of drones. But do you see all kinds of new bans put into place trying to stop the polluting, burning, and destruction? Have they banned cars from Yosemite yet? Or all they ok with risking backfire and oil and gas leaks from time to time for the sake of convenience but they can't allow not even one drone in the park just in case it crashes and the battery cracks open and causes a fire. But they allow campfires?
But that's ok, we wait. Sooner or later, the ban will be lifted. Like any other government agency that doesn't want to compromise with a solid plan that make sense for everyone, we'll get the whole thing lifted and it will be wide open or the free-for-all that you didn't want in the first place. We had other "undesirable" bans lifted in the past.
I whole heartedly agree. I absolutely LOVE flying my UAS and getting those One-in-a-lifetime shots with my aircraft BUT . . . the National Parks are there to preserve the NATURAL settings of NATURE. I, and my family and friends, go into the NPS to enjoy nature, naturally. We go several times a year just to unplug and get away from modern society. Nothing screams "Modern Society" more than a UAS buzzing around here and there. Talk about spoiling the "nature of it" . . .
Here is the Mission Statement from the NPS:
“preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.”
Skydreamer
Well-Known Member
i had enough after seeing video of that nutcase (yellowstone) that took selfie with grizzly bear not even 400feet from her,now think of “idiot” that likes to use drone to make bears angry (
) and than you come down the path with your family……there is always one dude that will screw up everything for everyone else,if you open n.parks to drones lots of “idiots”will show up like flys to cow dung….this reminds me of steve irvin,
h,look,there is a lion sleeping,ill will go there and put my finger up his *** to see how he reacts!!”
) and than you come down the path with your family……there is always one dude that will screw up everything for everyone else,if you open n.parks to drones lots of “idiots”will show up like flys to cow dung….this reminds me of steve irvin,h,look,there is a lion sleeping,ill will go there and put my finger up his *** to see how he reacts!!”
AMann
Well-Known Member
Hunting and Dune Buggies in National Parks? I think you’re mistaking National Parks as National Recreation Areas along with Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Lands where you can do those things (outside of Wilderness Areas). Fishing is allowed in many National Parks because most fish people go for were introduced game fish like rainbow trout so the National Parks can allow people to do that, and the only kind of hunting you can do is subsistence hunting by permit- typically only given to native Americans.
The National Parks, as established by President Wilson, were for the enjoyment of the people, and also for the preservation of nature. Good luck on getting “the people” to be enjoyed by drones flying there, I certainly wouldn’t.
National Parks have to allow access for everyone, hence why cara are allowed in them, but there is also a mandate that they have to protect the wildlife, natural resources and the natural scenery as well, and that’s for the people.So there’s several things you can’t do because they can be damaging to those things. A drone can cause negative impacts to wildlife, and they are noisy which can take away the enjoyment of the solitude and natural world experiences of other visitors. If the argument is “one drone a year can’t hurt anybody”, well one drone can be all it takes…
I used to be a seasonal backcountry ranger at Olympic National Park, so yeah, I’ve experienced a lot of wilderness all by myself for 10-day stints at a time, often with no one around for days, especially whenever we had inclement weather. Most people who do go there love it for what it is; a natural place, away from the cities, human noises and their things they left behind. Drones, along with other things that are reminders of the civilized world, are one of those things that can take away that experience.
Last edited:
I would be surprised if it did. DJI geofences airports and heliports for safety reasons, but they don't geofence parks (at least, not in Canada).
You can check online if you're really curious.
Ok yeah I understand why there is no way you would want a drone to fly in the national park.
Here's your "no human noises and natural places away from the thing they left behind. " Don't want those pesky drones to interrupt this.
I believe the Badlands should closed to drones and TR National Park should be open to drones until and unless it becomes a problem. 100% guaranteed no one will complain.
i got permission to fly the USS Alabama a couple years ago, and keep the email authorization with me when i flew it. and it paid off, because security came to me very quickly wanting to know what i was doing, showed them the approval all was good after that.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 855
- Reactions
- 1,030
- Age
- 66
Owning a drone is not a ticket to entitlement.
I could never support allowing drones into our National Parks. What a nightmare that would be. The potential for damage is too great. Many of our parks are far too crowded as it is, we don't need to add aerial danger to that chaos.
LOL, I see the posts on Facebook that go something like this: "Help, I just bought a Mini 3 from BestBuy, and we leave in the morning for our road trip to Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks - I need to learn to fly this thing quick! Any suggestions? How many miles does this thing fly anyway?" <---- This is the type of pilot that would be endangering our National Gems.
I could never support allowing drones into our National Parks. What a nightmare that would be. The potential for damage is too great. Many of our parks are far too crowded as it is, we don't need to add aerial danger to that chaos.
LOL, I see the posts on Facebook that go something like this: "Help, I just bought a Mini 3 from BestBuy, and we leave in the morning for our road trip to Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks - I need to learn to fly this thing quick! Any suggestions? How many miles does this thing fly anyway?" <---- This is the type of pilot that would be endangering our National Gems.
AMann
Well-Known Member
Your point is exactly why several parks are going towards a limit on the number of private cars allowed in- and using busses to bring people in. The parks are getting hammered so anything they can do to still give people a quality experience while protecting the resources there is a good idea.
Is that what you think about the drone community and people who like to fly drones, we have a sense of entitlement just because we ask to share the public space with other hobbies? We are "entitled" because we want to capture the beauty of our parks from up high rather than from ground level?
And yet when the ban is lifted, you'll be the first one to fly your drone in the National Park. Everyone else will do the hard work of trying to get the ban lifted and you'll do your best to block them and pushback and after we win, will you continue to refuse to fly your drone in the National Parks?
I've already suggested opening only the empty parks to drones like Theodore Roosevelt National Park where often times, there's nobody in the park. Yet even after watching the video, you continue to falsely call them overcrowded. For the few parks that are overcrowded, do you support limiting the number of visitors to the park to prevent overcrowding and then carving out a small percentage of those reserved for drone flyers so share the limited resources among everyone and therefore, everyone gets a fair chance to enjoy their park with their harmless activities?
What is the "aerial danger" nonsense that you speak of? Is that code for dangerous drones that will ruin the National Parks like it has apparently done to Red Rock where drones are allowed?
Wow, you really do look down on your fellow drone pilots. No wonder the larger community has such disdain for anyone who wants to fly drones for a hobby. Recreational pilots who take the TRUST test don't make these statements and they know the rules. Do you support showing your TRUST certificate at the National Park entrance to get a day permit to fly your drone within the Park boundaries because the FAA has determined that you are aware of the rules and can demonstrate that you are capable of flying your drone safely and it doesn't matter what you post on Facebook because what people say on social media has no bearing on whether they can gain access to and use their own National Park. Or do you think the TRUST certificate is not worth the paper it is printed on? Do you have evidence these flyers are creating danger outside the Park and it's job #1 to keep them out? If a motorist is bragging on TelsaPilots.com that his car reaches 100mph in 3 seconds, should we deny him to drive into the National Park with his Telsa because he is the "type of [driver] that would be endangering our National Gems?"
Like I said, we're going to keep fighting to gain limited access to National Parks. We have to fight within and without, we already know there are fellow drone flyers working against us. I believe in my lifetime, we will make suitable gains despite the lack of support and at the same time, drone flyers will improve the conditions of our Parks as we take the place of the criminals and the riff-raff who are actually destroying the Parks today right under your nose.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 855
- Reactions
- 1,030
- Age
- 66
I expect to be able to post my opinions here without those thoughts being argued and challenged because they don't align with your opinions.
I expect to be able to express myself on this forum without you misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I post.
I expect to be able to post here without you putting words in my mouth, telling the forum what I think, or telling us how I will behave in the future.
My first post in a week, and you immediately pounce. Unfortunately it will this post that will be removed and I'll be labeled as hostile again.
I'm out of here.
No need to leave, my apologies. Didn't mean to make it seem like you cannot express your opinions. Passionate topic for me but agreed my response came off poorly; sorry about that.
AMann
Well-Known Member
I know how you feel, so I used the ignore button for the first time today. It’s a wonderful feature on this website.
BroomRider
Well-Known Member
I think that there are a few things discussed that are either overlooked or not considered.
It is the public that owns those areas like national & state parks, not any gov't. or agency, bureaucracy or dept.
“The Public” isn't a monobloc, faceless mass quantity, but is made of individuals.
Each of those individuals, whether they go to visit & enjoy those areas 1nce, or a thousand times, whether they go to areas that are free to enter or pay a fee, they all pay taxes to the gov't in 1 form or another.
Each of those individuals go for 1 or more reasons; regardless of the numbers enjoying 1 or more of those activities or interests, among them include those interested in the unique opportunities presented by aerial photography via UAVs, or even, simply flying FPVs.
I recognize & understand that there may be some UAV pilots flying particular types of UAVs that may disturb the wildlife, or even some individuals there for other activities.
Typically, camera UAVs are generally very quiet, & virtually inaudible from a 100 yards away; the same may not be said for FPVs, & even they tend to be far less damaging to the environment &/ disturbing to others & the wildlife than some other currently permitted activities.
I think that the potential danger of malfunctioning UAVs, particularly those presented by battery fires, are real, but so are many other activities yet with much greater likelihood & frequency.
The excuse of banning 1 or another activity based on the claim that it might be offensive to others is fallacious when one carries that argument to its logical conclusion, that being, no activity of any sort would be permitted, on the basis that it might be offending someone.
Perhaps a reasonable & equitable compromise can be reached, including but not limited to, only certain areas & times be open to flying UAVs, & those further divided according to the type, activity, sound volume, etc.
There are already posted fines & penalties for violating certain safety regulations, & if those which involve UAVs were also included as they already are for other currently permitted activities, that should address those concerns.
As with any activity, there will always be those few who violate laws & create problems for everyone, but if that is used as an excuse, again, the logical conclusion would lead to no activity of any sort being permitted.
There is no justice when laws are absolute, & there will always be those who violate them & all the more so when they are unreasonable in either intent or application, & unrealistic in consideration or expectation.
UAV pilots are people too, & they also pay taxes, & have just as much right to enjoy their interests & pursuits, as anyone else enjoying those things which they own & via activities on public lands, & that includes, those public lands.
It is the public that owns those areas like national & state parks, not any gov't. or agency, bureaucracy or dept.
“The Public” isn't a monobloc, faceless mass quantity, but is made of individuals.
Each of those individuals, whether they go to visit & enjoy those areas 1nce, or a thousand times, whether they go to areas that are free to enter or pay a fee, they all pay taxes to the gov't in 1 form or another.
Each of those individuals go for 1 or more reasons; regardless of the numbers enjoying 1 or more of those activities or interests, among them include those interested in the unique opportunities presented by aerial photography via UAVs, or even, simply flying FPVs.
I recognize & understand that there may be some UAV pilots flying particular types of UAVs that may disturb the wildlife, or even some individuals there for other activities.
Typically, camera UAVs are generally very quiet, & virtually inaudible from a 100 yards away; the same may not be said for FPVs, & even they tend to be far less damaging to the environment &/ disturbing to others & the wildlife than some other currently permitted activities.
I think that the potential danger of malfunctioning UAVs, particularly those presented by battery fires, are real, but so are many other activities yet with much greater likelihood & frequency.
The excuse of banning 1 or another activity based on the claim that it might be offensive to others is fallacious when one carries that argument to its logical conclusion, that being, no activity of any sort would be permitted, on the basis that it might be offending someone.
Perhaps a reasonable & equitable compromise can be reached, including but not limited to, only certain areas & times be open to flying UAVs, & those further divided according to the type, activity, sound volume, etc.
There are already posted fines & penalties for violating certain safety regulations, & if those which involve UAVs were also included as they already are for other currently permitted activities, that should address those concerns.
As with any activity, there will always be those few who violate laws & create problems for everyone, but if that is used as an excuse, again, the logical conclusion would lead to no activity of any sort being permitted.
There is no justice when laws are absolute, & there will always be those who violate them & all the more so when they are unreasonable in either intent or application, & unrealistic in consideration or expectation.
UAV pilots are people too, & they also pay taxes, & have just as much right to enjoy their interests & pursuits, as anyone else enjoying those things which they own & via activities on public lands, & that includes, those public lands.
I keep seeing people making claims of predicting sheer chaos and devastation by allowing drones in certain areas (NP, state parks, city parks, etc) and using those hyped-up claims to justify the banning of drones (think of the children!) in pretty much all areas of the public. I believe there are those even on this forum, surprisingly seeing as this should be the most pro-drone community around, who seem like they would support bans of drones flying anywhere except right over the pilots own land.
Can anyone show any evidence of this chaos and devastation that happens right now in the few places that drones are actually allowed? I'm not talking about one or two egregious stories by some idiot. You can find those things in literally every activity known to man. And I'd bet you'll find those types of stories tens or hundreds of times over in all those other legal activities more than you will with drones. And as mentioned if those idiots actually do something to cause damage then I'm sure we could find a law already in existence to hold them responsible.
I just got back from Colorado Springs and I was pretty disappointed to find out I couldn't fly my drone pretty much anywhere in the vicinity of the city. However, pretty much every park I went to allowed dogs ("clean up after your dog" - yeah right), horses (has anyone seen what horse hooves do to the "national gems" not to mention there's no rule to clean up after your horses), mountain bikes (same as horses in potential damages minus the deposits but a lot more of them), etc.
Do you think I enjoyed having to give dog owners who kept there dogs on a 15 ft leash (that is if they even followed the leash rules at all and there were a few that didn't) a wide birth because you have no idea if the dog is dangerous or not or having to watch where I walked so I didn't take part of the dog or horse home with me on my shoes or having to watch for cyclists who would come whizzing by on the trails who think (know?) they are "entitled" to ride their bikes there?
In the meantime my drone flying at 200 feet up not one person would likely notice and it has zero impact on the natural surroundings. Heck I'm fairly positive it even has way less impact than me and my wife and the thousands/millions of others hiking in those locations year after year.
Can anyone give another example of such an inconsequential activity that is just banned outright without needing to show an overwhelming need to do so for the public good? I thought laws were supposed to be tightly tailored to the obvious concern at hand and not overly broad. At least that's the way the vast majority of laws are written...except when it comes to drones.
I just don't get it.
Can anyone show any evidence of this chaos and devastation that happens right now in the few places that drones are actually allowed? I'm not talking about one or two egregious stories by some idiot. You can find those things in literally every activity known to man. And I'd bet you'll find those types of stories tens or hundreds of times over in all those other legal activities more than you will with drones. And as mentioned if those idiots actually do something to cause damage then I'm sure we could find a law already in existence to hold them responsible.
I just got back from Colorado Springs and I was pretty disappointed to find out I couldn't fly my drone pretty much anywhere in the vicinity of the city. However, pretty much every park I went to allowed dogs ("clean up after your dog" - yeah right), horses (has anyone seen what horse hooves do to the "national gems" not to mention there's no rule to clean up after your horses), mountain bikes (same as horses in potential damages minus the deposits but a lot more of them), etc.
Do you think I enjoyed having to give dog owners who kept there dogs on a 15 ft leash (that is if they even followed the leash rules at all and there were a few that didn't) a wide birth because you have no idea if the dog is dangerous or not or having to watch where I walked so I didn't take part of the dog or horse home with me on my shoes or having to watch for cyclists who would come whizzing by on the trails who think (know?) they are "entitled" to ride their bikes there?
In the meantime my drone flying at 200 feet up not one person would likely notice and it has zero impact on the natural surroundings. Heck I'm fairly positive it even has way less impact than me and my wife and the thousands/millions of others hiking in those locations year after year.
Can anyone give another example of such an inconsequential activity that is just banned outright without needing to show an overwhelming need to do so for the public good? I thought laws were supposed to be tightly tailored to the obvious concern at hand and not overly broad. At least that's the way the vast majority of laws are written...except when it comes to drones.
I just don't get it.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Is There a Mapping Workaround for Mavic 3 Classic or Mini 4 Pro?- Started by skycam509
- Replies: 1
-
OH BOY ! Low Profile flying is Critical Now- Started by Phantomrain.org
- Replies: 0
-
-
Air 3 Scotland : Ben Ledi/Loch Lubnaig area
- Started by Coconut Island Drones
- Replies: 4
Forum statistics
