Well, there he goes- pilot flying in a National Park (US)

[JoelP]

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.

People cite the annoying noise of a drone, but I have yet to see motorcycles banned.

 

[Torque]

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?

Dogs or cats (even on leash) in National Parks.
Sales of Single use plastic bottles (all single use plastic items will be banned from NPs over the next 10 years).
Lashing of inner tubes or water vessels together.
Diving from trees or rope swings.
Glass on vessels prone to capsizing.
Hammocks lashed to trees.
Camping outside of developed campgrounds.
Camping for longer than 14 days.
ATV's.
Etc.

 

[finity]

Dogs or cats (even on leash) in National Parks.
Sales of Single use plastic bottles (all single use plastic items will be banned from NPs over the next 10 years).
Lashing of inner tubes or water vessels together.
Diving from trees or rope swings.
Glass on vessels prone to capsizing.
Hammocks lashed to trees.
Camping outside of developed campgrounds.
Camping for longer than 14 days.
ATV's.
Etc.

Pretty much everyone of of those activities have demonstrated negative historical impacts, and definitely more impact, on their surroundings than a drone at 200 ft AGL.

And again you can point to the harms that can be shown with evidence and the laws are specific and are narrowly tailored to address those harms. Just because there are damages to the environment from campers, rope swings, bottles, etc we don't just have a blanket ban on those things in every public space available.

That's pretty distinctly different than what the trend and reality is with drones now.

 

[finity]

the annoying noise of a drone,

I know. Those bee noises that my mini 3 pro makes are just horrible.

I say "ban the bees!" instead. There are way more of them and they are are way more dangerous to humans and other animals than drones have a track record of being.

 

[mavic3usa]

Pretty much everyone of of those activities have demonstrated negative historical impacts, and definitely more impact, on their surroundings than a drone at 200 ft AGL.

And again you can point to the harms that can be shown with evidence and the laws are specific and are narrowly tailored to address those harms. Just because there are damages to the environment from campers, rope swings, bottles, etc we don't just have a blanket ban on those things in every public space available.

That's pretty distinctly different than what the trend and reality is with drones now.

Wish someone would make a similar video on drones with the rationale and the facts:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[AMann]

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.

See my post #48 above of the abandoned tern hatchery? One drone is all it took.

I’m all for flying drones in public lands where they are allowed… I do a lot of activities besides flying my drones on open public BLM and Forest Service lands including rock hounding and gold prospecting, camping remotely, off-roading and hiking in some beautiful remote places there, open public lands which cover about 15% of the entire country. But I also know that the National Parks, which cover less than 4% of the country, along with state and other protected sensitive areas, shouldn’t be places for all that for some good and very legitimate reasons.

 

[mobilehomer]

Check all the videos of the not-too-bright folks getting out of their vehicles and taking selfies with bison, bears, elk and other animals that can KILL!!!

 

[finity]

Check all the videos of the not-too-bright folks getting out of their vehicles and taking selfies with bison, bears, elk and other animals that can KILL!!!

When we were at Custer State Park in SD there was a woman who we saw there walking out to "greet" the Bison as we were leaving the area.

After we left a while later we heard a medical helicopter coming in. Apparently she got too close and when the Bison got a bit aggressive she threw a drink in it's face. It didn't end well after she got gored and thrown a few feet into the air.

Nobody is talking about banning people from those parks tho.

 

[BigAl07]

When we were at Custer State Park in SD there was a woman who we saw there walking out to "greet" the Bison as we were leaving the area.

After we left a while later we heard a medical helicopter coming in. Apparently she got too close and when the Bison got a bit aggressive she threw a drink in it's face. It didn't end well after she got gored and thrown a few feet into the air.

Nobody is talking about banning people from those parks tho.

Harassing Wildlife is already banned but you can't ban stupid.

Some of us want to keep the NPS Drone Free because we go there to get AWAY from society. Fly anywhere else that's allowed but leave your UAS home and enjoy the NPS as it's intended.... Naturally. . . .

 

[finity]

we go there to get AWAY from society.

I'm not sure if you noticed or not but "society" is already still there.

Thousands of other people, vehicles, RV's, phones, cameras etc. are all "society" and it's unlikely you will ever get away from it. At least anywhere in a NP where many tourists go.

And if you are going where many tourists don't go then by just you being there is altering the natural environment so aren't you contributing to the exact problem you are saying you want to avoid for yourself?

Do you want to ban manned aircraft over NP as well? Don't those also spoil the natural beauty and ruin the sense of "getting away from society".

I'm not saying that there should be blanket approval for anything that anyone would want to do with their drones. But like I've said many times in my short time in these forums shouldn't there be reasonable regulations and compromises so that everyone can get the most amount of enjoyment while acknowledging that others have the right to do things that you would rather they didn't just like they might feel the same about you?

What would be so bad about having reasonable restrictions about size and or noise limits? keeping drones out of camping areas especially during quiet hours? obviously banning flights over people?

It wouldn't get rid of all but it would dampen the complaints of drone pilots if there was at least some sort of way to fly even if they needed to own a quiet mini drone in order to do it. At least it would be a step in the direction of compromise.

 

[AMann]

I'm not sure if you noticed or not but "society" is already still there.

Thousands of other people, vehicles, RV's, phones, cameras etc. are all "society" and it's unlikely you will ever get away from it. At least anywhere in a NP where many tourists go.

And if you are going where many tourists don't go then by just you being there is altering the natural environment so aren't you contributing to the exact problem you are saying you want to avoid for yourself?

Do you want to ban manned aircraft over NP as well? Don't those also spoil the natural beauty and ruin the sense of "getting away from society".

I'm not saying that there should be blanket approval for anything that anyone would want to do with their drones. But like I've said many times in my short time in these forums shouldn't there be reasonable regulations and compromises so that everyone can get the most amount of enjoyment while acknowledging that others have the right to do things that you would rather they didn't just like they might feel the same about you?

What would be so bad about having reasonable restrictions about size and or noise limits? keeping drones out of camping areas especially during quiet hours? obviously banning flights over people?

It wouldn't get rid of all but it would dampen the complaints of drone pilots if there was at least some sort of way to fly even if they needed to own a quiet mini drone in order to do it. At least it would be a step in the direction of compromise.

The National Parks were the “compromise” granted by Congress, they were created to protect just a small percent of the best places owned by the US government for their natural grandeur and wildlife for the benefit of all people, not for the benefit of a few with special interests. It’s true that certain negative impacts and uses have been allowed, but adding more to that adds to the cumulative negative impacts. The National Park Service recognizes this and has been trying to rein in some of it and start reversing the impacts by using management such as lottery systems to limit visitation as there are so many people at some sites, to start permit system for special uses (there are many other larger numbers of special users besides a minority of hobby drone pilots who also want access to the parks), and better habitat management techniques such as using prescribed fire.

 

[landmark orbiter]

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.

This. Brilliant. I’m with you with with this logic.

 

[landmark orbiter]

Harassing Wildlife is already banned but you can't ban stupid.

Some of us want to keep the NPS Drone Free because we go there to get AWAY from society. Fly anywhere else that's allowed but leave your UAS home and enjoy the NPS as it's intended.... Naturally. . . .

Banning stupid people from everywhere would be a good idea in general

 

[landmark orbiter]

I'm not sure if you noticed or not but "society" is already still there.

Thousands of other people, vehicles, RV's, phones, cameras etc. are all "society" and it's unlikely you will ever get away from it. At least anywhere in a NP where many tourists go.

And if you are going where many tourists don't go then by just you being there is altering the natural environment so aren't you contributing to the exact problem you are saying you want to avoid for yourself?

Do you want to ban manned aircraft over NP as well? Don't those also spoil the natural beauty and ruin the sense of "getting away from society".

I'm not saying that there should be blanket approval for anything that anyone would want to do with their drones. But like I've said many times in my short time in these forums shouldn't there be reasonable regulations and compromises so that everyone can get the most amount of enjoyment while acknowledging that others have the right to do things that you would rather they didn't just like they might feel the same about you?

What would be so bad about having reasonable restrictions about size and or noise limits? keeping drones out of camping areas especially during quiet hours? obviously banning flights over people?

It wouldn't get rid of all but it would dampen the complaints of drone pilots if there was at least some sort of way to fly even if they needed to own a quiet mini drone in order to do it. At least it would be a step in the direction of compromise.

IMO the reasonable regulations are already there in the Drone Code (I presume you have an equivalent in the US) but agree there is a compromise to be had with these blanket bans wherever they are. If I had NPs like the Grand Canyon or Monument Valley on my doorstep I’d be seriously annoyed.

 

[Torque]

Just because there are damages to the environment from campers, rope swings, bottles, etc we don't just have a blanket ban on those things in every public space available.

Good Analogy. We don't have a blanket ban on drones in every public space either.

 

[BigAl07]

The National Parks were the “compromise” granted by Congress, they were created to protect just a small percent of the best places owned by the US government for their natural grandeur and wildlife for the benefit of all people, not for the benefit of a few with special interests. It’s true that certain negative impacts and uses have been allowed, but adding more to that adds to the cumulative negative impacts. The National Park Service recognizes this and has been trying to rein in some of it and start reversing the impacts by using management such as lottery systems to limit visitation as there are so many people at some sites, to start permit system for special uses (there are many other larger numbers of special users besides a minority of hobby drone pilots who also want access to the parks), and better habitat management techniques such as using prescribed fire.

Very well stated. NAILED IT!!

 

[NEWorldPhoto]

One drone in, one drone out. If you don't bring it out then you pay to have it retrieved. This should take care of ht the majority of crashes. There are already a ton of illegal drone flights in NP, where are the battery fires? The only fires in the NP that we need to worry about comes from cars. I would agree with a NP restriction on sensitive areas where you couldn't afford to have a crash but open up the other areas please.

Exactly! I agree that there're "sensitive" wildlife areas that are even dangerous for people to get into. But most of the areas that are simply classified as "NP" zones are not wildlife sensitive, take for example those very extensive terrains like Grand Canyon or similar that just have extensive lands of rocks, dry ground, not even forest or protected vegetation, no wildlife roaming there, nothing there that could catch fire or be jeopardized by drone flights or any other human activity, or the areas around the Golden Gate Bridge in CA that are just water and rocky shores, nothing that a drone flight could endanger; and THOSE are the areas that SHOULD be opened to drone flights and other activities that clearly DON'T pose any danger!
Of all drone regulations here in the US, the one that bothers me the most and find the most unreasonable and restrictive, is that "general prohibition" over any extensive area that simply because it's classified as "NP", it's automatically closed to drone flights, no matter if they don't actually pose any danger!
I firmly believe something must be done to eliminate that unreasonable "blanket ban" on NP's which doesn't consider all the facts regarding whether a drone flight poses a danger or not! If certain zone is sensitive because of wildlife, vegetation, crowds of people, etc that drone flights poses some danger, then go ahead a make that specific area a "no drone zone", but don't classify an entire extensive thousand acre area as "no drone zone" simply because it falls inside a "NP"!!
That generalized restriction lacks common sense, and only does more harm than good, as most of these zones have the best scenery for drone imagery. The drone community must do something about this unreasonable restrictions, somehow exert pressure on the respective authorities, I don't know how it could be done, but there should be a way to do something to cause a change!!!
Also, modern drones have gone a long way to make safer flights, unlike the first clunky heavy machines that were more prone to crashing and causing accidents, they now have a myriad of safety features, and also take into account the lightweight 249g ones, at least allow those please!!!

 

[mobilehomer]

Then, there is the Scout "leader" who pushed over the balanced rock formation and his "co-leader" who filmed it. People on the ground are FAR more destructive than any drone would ever be, even crashing into things!! Not to mention, modern grafitti and garbage!

 

[mavic3usa]

Exactly! I agree that there're "sensitive" wildlife areas that are even dangerous for people to get into. But most of the areas that are simply classified as "NP" zones are not wildlife sensitive, take for example those very extensive terrains like Grand Canyon or similar that just have extensive lands of rocks, dry ground, not even forest or protected vegetation, no wildlife roaming there, nothing there that could catch fire or be jeopardized by drone flights or any other human activity, or the areas around the Golden Gate Bridge in CA that are just water and rocky shores, nothing that a drone flight could endanger; and THOSE are the areas that SHOULD be opened to drone flights and other activities that clearly DON'T pose any danger!
Of all drone regulations here in the US, the one that bothers me the most and find the most unreasonable and restrictive, is that "general prohibition" over any extensive area that simply because it's classified as "NP", it's automatically closed to drone flights, no matter if they don't actually pose any danger!
I firmly believe something must be done to eliminate that unreasonable "blanket ban" on NP's which doesn't consider all the facts regarding whether a drone flight poses a danger or not! If certain zone is sensitive because of wildlife, vegetation, crowds of people, etc that drone flights poses some danger, then go ahead a make that specific area a "no drone zone", but don't classify an entire extensive thousand acre area as "no drone zone" simply because it falls inside a "NP"!!
That generalized restriction lacks common sense, and only does more harm than good, as most of these zones have the best scenery for drone imagery. The drone community must do something about this unreasonable restrictions, somehow exert pressure on the respective authorities, I don't know how it could be done, but there should be a way to do something to cause a change!!!
Also, modern drones have gone a long way to make safer flights, unlike the first clunky heavy machines that were more prone to crashing and causing accidents, they now have a myriad of safety features, and also take into account the lightweight 249g ones, at least allow those please!!!

We are being singled out because we are not cohesive as a community and we are easy victims because our hobby is stereotyped. This will change....soon.

 

[landmark orbiter]

Exactly! I agree that there're "sensitive" wildlife areas that are even dangerous for people to get into. But most of the areas that are simply classified as "NP" zones are not wildlife sensitive, take for example those very extensive terrains like Grand Canyon or similar that just have extensive lands of rocks, dry ground, not even forest or protected vegetation, no wildlife roaming there, nothing there that could catch fire or be jeopardized by drone flights or any other human activity, or the areas around the Golden Gate Bridge in CA that are just water and rocky shores, nothing that a drone flight could endanger; and THOSE are the areas that SHOULD be opened to drone flights and other activities that clearly DON'T pose any danger!
Of all drone regulations here in the US, the one that bothers me the most and find the most unreasonable and restrictive, is that "general prohibition" over any extensive area that simply because it's classified as "NP", it's automatically closed to drone flights, no matter if they don't actually pose any danger!
I firmly believe something must be done to eliminate that unreasonable "blanket ban" on NP's which doesn't consider all the facts regarding whether a drone flight poses a danger or not! If certain zone is sensitive because of wildlife, vegetation, crowds of people, etc that drone flights poses some danger, then go ahead a make that specific area a "no drone zone", but don't classify an entire extensive thousand acre area as "no drone zone" simply because it falls inside a "NP"!!
That generalized restriction lacks common sense, and only does more harm than good, as most of these zones have the best scenery for drone imagery. The drone community must do something about this unreasonable restrictions, somehow exert pressure on the respective authorities, I don't know how it could be done, but there should be a way to do something to cause a change!!!
Also, modern drones have gone a long way to make safer flights, unlike the first clunky heavy machines that were more prone to crashing and causing accidents, they now have a myriad of safety features, and also take into account the lightweight 249g ones, at least allow those please!!!

We need to do the same in the UK