That is actually a good start to a good plan of action for allowing responsible drone flights in the parks.
Well, there he goes- pilot flying in a National Park (US)
- Thread starter Duke_Mulligan
- Start date
This is correct. I have purchased a permit for $5 (looks like it may have gone up to $10), which is available from November through February, and have done the same at Goosenecks and Goblin Valley. Each time the rangers ask to avoid certain areas, such as the housing quarters at Goblin or the parking/observations areas at Dead Horse Point, but that's no big deal with so many other areas to fly.
I've always wondered how a drone at altitude (400 feet AGL) would bother wildlife more than a human walking around on the ground. Seems to me they would see it as just another bird.
I stood and watched a roughly 16 year old kid chase elk in Cataloochee Valley in the Great Smoky Mountains, NP. For every responsible drone operator there are easily 10 idiots who would no doubt do the stupid things if the National Parks suddenly allowed drone flights.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 814
- Reactions
- 984
- Age
- 65
An important distinction is that Dead Horse Point, Goblin Valley, And Goosenecks are all STATE parks, not National Parks.This is correct. I have purchased a permit for $5 (looks like it may have gone up to $10), which is available from November through February, and have done the same at Goosenecks and Goblin Valley. Each time the rangers ask to avoid certain areas, such as the housing quarters at Goblin or the parking/observations areas at Dead Horse Point, but that's no big deal with so many other areas to fly.
In order to fly your drone in a national park, you will need a Special Use Permit. This permit can be issued only for uses such as search and rescue, research and fire safety. However, it is nearly impossible to procure this permit. As there was a recent supreme court cases that stated NPS cannot charge visitors for Photography and/or special use permits. To clarify, special use permits are still in affect, they simply do not charge fees for them anymore.
What Are the Rules for Flying Your Drone in National Parks and National Forests?
Wondering what the rules for flying your drone in a national park are? Look no further than this updated run-down of drone rules in the parks
www.thedroneu.com
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 814
- Reactions
- 984
- Age
- 65
Another reason Drones should not be allowed in NPs
www.idahostatejournal.com
A crashed drone could destroy Yellowstone’s Grand Prismatic Spring
Anybody who has ever seen the stunning coloration of Yellowstone’s Grand Prismatic Spring could easily argue that the hot spring is one of the most beautiful natural sites on Earth.
I'd love to get to a point where I read this forum (and others) and don't come across the term, "Karen" any more.
No doubt but my answer would be fine the drone pilots. There are a million kids in the park, there won't be a million drone flyers. I think people believe if they opened it up, suddenly the sky would be full of drone. That just isn't true, I love the hobby but I can assure you there just aren't that many people who love it that much. The number of drones pilots will never come close to the number of people who bring their cameras into the park. In the event the numbers becomes overwhelming, reasonable limits on time, place, and manner are acceptable. 50 permits a day at a time is more than plenty for Glacier NP.
So do we ban kids from the parking lot when elk are present? If a kid is caught in the parking lot at the same time there are elk, there's a $5,000 fine? Or do we sanction the act but allow continue access as long as you don't break the rules. We continue to let people have access to their parks and do our best to keep it safe and enjoyable. They know where the elk are, create a LAANC-NP that keeps the honest drone flyers legal. No matter what you do, the dishonest drone flyers will harass the elk.
Well, certainly some great talking points here!
@mavic3usa and @DoomMeister you guys are right on, our presence is not distracting or destructive, as long as done responsibly, and I think it would be easy to find a good compromise to allow us to fly in the parks (or at least some of them). While I was bummed to see someone not following regulations, it was mostly for the sake of both bad image for the hobby, and his own risk of fines and trouble - I’m not morally opposed to the act of flying itself - there are tons of more problematic activities going on the parks every day. We had flyovers from USAF fighters every hour in Yosemite and Sequoia, and even at thousands of feet they’re loud as heck.
My thought - take advantage of some out of the way places and turn them into UAV operation areas. For example, in Yosemite, we hiked up from the Tunnel View lot (popular roadside view of the valley), the trail had excellent views but not many people used it, maybe a dozen over the couple hours we were up there. Half of them were photographers who probably would’ve had a drone out if they could, too. A little over a mile in we came to what appeared to be an old camping area - large clearing, looked like vehicles used to circle around, but otherwise unremarkable, and in that particular spot the view from the ground was nothing to write home about due to surrounding trees. No one was there, no one wanted to be there. But, 75+ feet AGL, I bet it would be spectacular.
Now, if you asked me about taking off right from Tunnel View, or flying right up to popular landmarks and buzzing around them where it’s a distraction to the masses - I’m not into that. Safety factor of many cars and people, and I do believe we have a responsibility to preserve the integrity of those areas where people are trying to enjoy the natural grandeur of the park from the ground, regardless of what other obnoxious activities may be sanctioned there - doesn’t make it right for us. But, I’d bet most parks have some areas where the view from the ground is unremarkable and no great consequence would come from allowing an operational zone, and we could score some excellent perspectives.
I also think it would reduce the amount of drone related problems - anyone who wants to disregard the rules is gonna do it, period, even now - but having a sanctioned, well marked activity area will not only draw many pilots into those safe areas, but also raise the awareness for those who might carelessly assume they can fly anywhere.
A little food for thought… I have actually seen video testimonials from drone pilots who have been issued warnings or citation/fines by both the FAA and the NPS via review of YouTube footage. There was a guy that went thousands of feet AGL and labeled his video as such - that one was low hanging fruit for the FAA. But I also saw a video where someone clearly flew BVLOS, but didn’t say anything about it, and was still contacted. And, just ran across one last night where a guy flew in Yellowstone and posted it, and was contacted by the NPS and had to appear before a judge (by phone) with a couple other pilots who did the same, all were fined. I’d say they’re serious about it, and we all know what’s coming this fall - how much easier is it going to be for them to cite pilots when all their Remote ID info pops up on a screen the second they power on their drone?
@mavic3usa and @DoomMeister you guys are right on, our presence is not distracting or destructive, as long as done responsibly, and I think it would be easy to find a good compromise to allow us to fly in the parks (or at least some of them). While I was bummed to see someone not following regulations, it was mostly for the sake of both bad image for the hobby, and his own risk of fines and trouble - I’m not morally opposed to the act of flying itself - there are tons of more problematic activities going on the parks every day. We had flyovers from USAF fighters every hour in Yosemite and Sequoia, and even at thousands of feet they’re loud as heck.
My thought - take advantage of some out of the way places and turn them into UAV operation areas. For example, in Yosemite, we hiked up from the Tunnel View lot (popular roadside view of the valley), the trail had excellent views but not many people used it, maybe a dozen over the couple hours we were up there. Half of them were photographers who probably would’ve had a drone out if they could, too. A little over a mile in we came to what appeared to be an old camping area - large clearing, looked like vehicles used to circle around, but otherwise unremarkable, and in that particular spot the view from the ground was nothing to write home about due to surrounding trees. No one was there, no one wanted to be there. But, 75+ feet AGL, I bet it would be spectacular.
Now, if you asked me about taking off right from Tunnel View, or flying right up to popular landmarks and buzzing around them where it’s a distraction to the masses - I’m not into that. Safety factor of many cars and people, and I do believe we have a responsibility to preserve the integrity of those areas where people are trying to enjoy the natural grandeur of the park from the ground, regardless of what other obnoxious activities may be sanctioned there - doesn’t make it right for us. But, I’d bet most parks have some areas where the view from the ground is unremarkable and no great consequence would come from allowing an operational zone, and we could score some excellent perspectives.
I also think it would reduce the amount of drone related problems - anyone who wants to disregard the rules is gonna do it, period, even now - but having a sanctioned, well marked activity area will not only draw many pilots into those safe areas, but also raise the awareness for those who might carelessly assume they can fly anywhere.
A little food for thought… I have actually seen video testimonials from drone pilots who have been issued warnings or citation/fines by both the FAA and the NPS via review of YouTube footage. There was a guy that went thousands of feet AGL and labeled his video as such - that one was low hanging fruit for the FAA. But I also saw a video where someone clearly flew BVLOS, but didn’t say anything about it, and was still contacted. And, just ran across one last night where a guy flew in Yellowstone and posted it, and was contacted by the NPS and had to appear before a judge (by phone) with a couple other pilots who did the same, all were fined. I’d say they’re serious about it, and we all know what’s coming this fall - how much easier is it going to be for them to cite pilots when all their Remote ID info pops up on a screen the second they power on their drone?
Last edited:
It almost certainly would not. But that's not the problem that the NPS has to deal with. It's the goofballs flying drones low and close to people, points of interest, and wildlife.
My understanding is that the restrictions on drones stemmed from a few people doing absolutely awful things in crowded scenic areas, like the Old Faithful geyser.
Creating special zones, permit systems, seasonal regulations, and other measures to accommodate honorable drone flyers would require personnel and funds to create them and to administer them. The National Park Service budgets have been reduced and reduced again in recent years. My ranger friends have told me some grim stories about what activities they've had to slash, including basic enforcement and safety operations.
Last edited:
GregS
Well-Known Member
Did they consider that lightning causes more forest fires than man?
All I know is the same things was said about guns in the national park. You let guns in and animals in the parking lot would be shot, stray bullets would be going thru their tents at night, people standing around enjoying the peaceful serenity would have to listen to gunshots, and get this....more road rage, cabin robberies, and people claiming self defense shooting from animal attacks. Then they let us in with our weapons and none of that happened. It's the same argument we can use for drones: the wilderness areas and the national forests and the state parks don't seem to have these pesky catastrophic drone issues.
Don't have money to control it, no problem. We'll pay the fees to fund it. Add 50 cents to the NP entry ticket goes to the drone fund; everybody pays. If you want a drone annual pass, $50 I would pay for it. Then open it up widely, in about a year prove me wrong and shut it down.
I think we need to not forget this isn't some private government playground, this is OUR national park, it belongs to everyone. These parks make accommodations for everyone from off road vehicles to hunting to excavation to research to wilderness seekers to snowmobiles to horseback riding to snorkeling...everybody get their carveout except us; the demon drone has the only blanket ban. Do I want to see a kayak coming down the river while I'm enjoying the view? Do I want to see criss-crossing snowmobile tracks while I'm looking at the pristine mountainside? I'm practicing my bird calling and I get interrupted by a bunch of 4-wheelers tearing thru the trails. Is it fair the stargazers come out a night with their telescopes setting up equipment filling up the parking lot while I'm trying to quietly see the stars? See how exaggeration works?
First of all, I'd love to have been able to fly my drone responsibly in the National Parks I visited in Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado last year. I got by with flying in one state park with a $10 permit fee. (I had one encounter with a obnoxious fellow flying a drone among and above a group of us shooting photos of a rock arch with our handheld cameras. Two people calmly and politely told him it wasn't permitted. There was no "Karen" reaction despite the fact that he knew he wasn't supposed to be flying there and knew it was annoying a lot of people.)
I really wish it was that simple.
I suspect there would be more than a few complaints from non-drone owners about a paying a special fee for drones.
You may have worked the numbers, but I can't imagine that a $50 fee from drone users could support a drone accommodation program for the National Park system. What would a single NPS drone czar employee cost, with overhead, per year? $100,000 is low, but adding one person would require two thousand $50 permit sales per year. And how many people would be required to handle sales, monitoring, and enforcement in all the parks open to drones?
What exaggeration are you countering? My comment about NPS funding? I didn't mention specifics, but here's one item I was thinking of. The Mississippi portion of the Gulf Islands National Seashore includes five barrier islands stretching across 45 miles of the Gulf of Mexico. The ranger station on the largest island is no longer manned and there is a single person assigned part time to patrol that entire area. That wasn't the case in the past.
Firearms have a long history in our society and an enormous and vocal and powerful support group. Drones definitely do not. Both are potential problems. Drones were easy to ban.
I really wish it was that simple.
I suspect there would be more than a few complaints from non-drone owners about a paying a special fee for drones.
You may have worked the numbers, but I can't imagine that a $50 fee from drone users could support a drone accommodation program for the National Park system. What would a single NPS drone czar employee cost, with overhead, per year? $100,000 is low, but adding one person would require two thousand $50 permit sales per year. And how many people would be required to handle sales, monitoring, and enforcement in all the parks open to drones?
I think we need to not forget this isn't some private government playground, this is OUR national park, it belongs to everyone. These parks make accommodations for everyone from off road vehicles to hunting to excavation to research to wilderness seekers to snowmobiles to horseback riding to snorkeling...everybody get their carveout except us; the demon drone has the only blanket ban. Do I want to see a kayak coming down the river while I'm enjoying the view? Do I want to see criss-crossing snowmobile tracks while I'm looking at the pristine mountainside? I'm practicing my bird calling and I get interrupted by a bunch of 4-wheelers tearing thru the trails. Is it fair the stargazers come out a night with their telescopes setting up equipment filling up the parking lot while I'm trying to quietly see the stars? See how exaggeration works?
What exaggeration are you countering? My comment about NPS funding? I didn't mention specifics, but here's one item I was thinking of. The Mississippi portion of the Gulf Islands National Seashore includes five barrier islands stretching across 45 miles of the Gulf of Mexico. The ranger station on the largest island is no longer manned and there is a single person assigned part time to patrol that entire area. That wasn't the case in the past.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 814
- Reactions
- 984
- Age
- 65
Yes. Unfortunately the unpermitted lightening strikes within National Parks continue with impunity. ;-)
Good points.
The exaggeration would be me claiming the impact to my enjoyment of the park if you allow a specific activity. The point being any new activity allowed in the NP will adversely affect the next person, it's just a matter of how much. Allow snow machines, not everyone will be happy. Allow hunting, not everyone will be happy. Allow drones, not everyone will be happy. Yet they allowed those activities despite the impact. My guess is when you allow drones, the impact will be tiny, too.
The numbers I calculated don't include anything new because you could simply add drones to the long list of activities already allowed. No special treatment necessary but I'm sure you can find a NP Drone Czar for free, I'll do it!
This will ultimately cause more damage to the park than drones will in our entire lifetime:
bmwbob
Well-Known Member
The FAA still isn't cruising YT looking for drone videos. The video you posted is about commercial photography in the NP which is an ongoing saga and even though it is a real issue, many YT posted clickbait videos to get in on the action. Hey, at least they are fighting their battles in court but the issue has probably been discussed elsewhere in another thread. Drone pilots don't need to worry about FAA finding their videos on YT, they need to be worried about snitches who turn them in and the FAA won't ignore that.
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
-
-
Air 3 Loch Kinardochy - Spring Highland Sunshine- Started by AlbionDrones
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
