Yellowstone investigates drone photo of Grand Prismatic

[tcope]

Want to know why the ban will continue? We, again, have the answer,

He took all of that time, effort and money and did not bother to see if the park was even open? He had no idea the park was closed? I guess he forgot out the Internet to look this up. I guess the lack of anyone at a National Park was not a clue. He knew. He did not know about the 3 year ban at a National Park? Even if that were true, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

What really gets me is his reaction after getting caught.

I'd have no problem with him getting a $3000 fine.

 

[djscoe]

At one point the NPS was issuing waivers to fly in national parks but it took about 6 months to get one. You also had to detail your flight and safety precautions you were going to take. If they still are willing to issue them it would be worth the effort to pursue one and get some marketable shots.

 

[Nickalo]

Whether it is about to blow is not the question: the question is, the NYC dude is a violator and should be prosecuted, end of discussion.

 

[sar104]

Whether it is about to blow is not the question: the question is, the NYC dude is a violator and should be prosecuted, end of discussion.

That's not a question.

 

[Jackcutrone]

“If I had offered NPS $5000 to fly they would have found a way ...”

What arrogance and wrong to boot

“somehow” found a way to get into a closed national park. And he thinks anyone is going to believe anything he says?

Ignorance of the law is not a defense Mr. McGurr. And purposeful ignorance regarding a matter isn’t going to fly either.

 

[kupua]

Appears that he also neglected to adhere to the 400' foot height ceiling restriction. But if he chose to blow by the others (NPS closure, NPS drone ban) , what is 1 more right?

All in all, this is why we can't fly in many locations worldwide. And in this case, flying in the NP

 

[theDRONEranger]

Makes it that much more difficult for a legit flyer to fly legit.
A responsible flyer would have checked beforehand to determine legalities.
He just wanted to increase his audience, that's the bottom line.

 

[Mr. Salty]

That is their best estimation, however, similarly trained people also said that about Mt St Helens. and were actually standing on/near it when it blew.

I notice you never cite any sources when you post things like this; you just seem to rely on a faulty memory.

Mount St. Helens has frequent smaller eruptions over the years and was known to be an active and dangerous volcano. The only questions were when and how big the eruptions would be.

Here's some history: https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/mount-st-helens

The relevant bit:

"Modern-day scientists and geologists were concerned about Mount St. Helens years before 1980. Some felt it was the most likely volcano to become active before the end of the twentieth century. They were right."

 

[Nickalo]

I notice you never cite any sources when you post things like this; you just seem to rely on a faulty memory.

Mount St. Helens has frequent smaller eruptions over the years and was known to be an active and dangerous volcano. The only questions were when and how big the eruptions would be.

Here's some history: https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/mount-st-helens

The relevant bit:

"Modern-day scientists and geologists were concerned about Mount St. Helens years before 1980. Some felt it was the most likely volcano to become active before the end of the twentieth century. They were right."

I was there, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had contracted with me to fly my highly modified aircraft(of which they did and paid for) with equipment inside and a long probe on the nose to sample air. My request was lets not do this, sample the air and ash, until it settles down. Without my permission they had my pilots take off and fly again through the ash and then after I discovered their deed, they then landed. The aircraft was on the ground when it erupted and my pilots scrambled furiously to take off. By doing so the windshields where pitted, both engines ruined and the leading edges pitted. But NOAA would not pay for the damages, my insurance company did so. Beware of certain agencies you deal with. They will lie to you.

 

[ac0j]

I notice you never cite any sources when you post things like this; you just seem to rely on a faulty memory.

Mount St. Helens has frequent smaller eruptions over the years and was known to be an active and dangerous volcano. The only questions were when and how big the eruptions would be.

Here's some history: https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/mount-st-helens

The relevant bit:

"Modern-day scientists and geologists were concerned about Mount St. Helens years before 1980. Some felt it was the most likely volcano to become active before the end of the twentieth century. They were right."

I am sure of the documentary I watched and what the experts said. And what I repeated. It may not align with the article that you posted but did you read that article to the very end? It did not discount the possibility of an eruption at Yellowstone sometime in the future. It also stated they were pretty sure it would not be a life ending event like the last one thousands of years ago and would possibly be more in line with what happened in Washington. It also mentioned that it may take 6000 years or so to happen and it might not happen at all. So how does that support your “ it’s never going to happen “ theory?

 

[Nickalo]

Why do you guys support and defend people who break the rules and regualtions of government agenices and the FAA, you defend their actions, don't you understand that is one of the reasons the FEDS are going to come down hard on this hobby if it is not cleaned up.

 

[Montana John]

I wouldn't want to be Timothy McGurr:

Y’stone investigates drone photo of Grand Prismatic

A New York photographer is under fire after sharing an aerial image of Yellowstone National Park’s Grand Prismatic Spring on his Instagram page, where he has 717,000 followers.
Photographer Timothy McGurr, who’s better known by the online persona 13thWitness, told followers that he didn’t know drones were illegal in national parks.

“Unless I see specific signage or am told I can’t fly you better believe I will or I’ll certainly try to,” McGurr replied on Instagram to a critic. “I removed the post, something I’ve never done in my life.”

The photo, posted Nov. 6, included a long caption about the hours leading up to its capture and is now the subject of a federal investigation.

Timothy McGurr, a New York photographer known as 13thwitness, posted this aerial photo of Grand Prismatic Spring to his more than 700,000 Instagram followers. He removed it after public condemnation. Below the photo he shared an account of finding his way out of the park when returning to a locked entrance at West Yellowstone. Drones were banned from most national parks in 2014.


“I landed at the Billings, Montana, airport around midnight,” McGurr wrote in the now-deleted post. “I opted to drive straight to Yellowstone National Park through the night for four hours to catch PRISMATIC at sunrise.”
In the caption McGurr told followers he arrived at the West Entrance at 6:45 a.m. and “somehow managed to drive right into the park despite the seasonal winter closure” that he said he didn’t know about.

“Once inside I essentially had the entire YNP to myself,” McGurr said. “When exiting the park from the same entrance I entered I was greeted with a padlock and essentially locked in. I eventually found a way out.”
After receiving online criticism for ignoring National Park Service rules, McGurr removed the photo.

“I’ve never had to remove a post over some bulls--t before,” McGurr wrote. “I’m one part livid, two parts amazed by the hate people can project towards me for putting up a photo I basically traveled 24 hours straight for and that I’d been wanting to get for a few weeks.”
Drones were banned from national parks in 2014, according to the National Park Service.

“Drones are not allowed in the park,” a Yellowstone spokesperson told the News&Guide in a brief email. “We are aware of this, and rangers are looking into it.”
Other aerial photos of Grand Prismatic have been taken from airplanes, but critics of McGurr said he admitted to using a drone when he told his over 700,000 followers that he had the park to himself.

“Ignorance of the law is not a defense,” said Deby Dixon, a Gardiner, Montana, resident and wildlife photographer.

Dixon said she is in the park photographing almost daily, and she has noticed laws being ignored more often lately with the rise of visual-driven social media.

“There are really good people who love the park and come here and try to do the right thing, and they’re getting trampled by people who think they can do whatever they want,” Dixon said. “It ruins it for everyone else.”
The Park Service cites a variety of reasons for banning drones.

“Their use has resulted in noise and nuisance complaints from park visitors,” the Park Service states on its website.

Before the ban, park officials said drones were harassing wildlife, and some small drones even crashed into geysers in Yellowstone.
In 2014 Dutch tourist Theodorus Van Vliet crashed his drone into Grand Prismatic and was fined more than $3,000.

Drones have been lost in the Grand Canyon and have attempted to land on Mount Rushmore, the Park Service reports.

“Due to serious concerns about the negative impact that flying unmanned aircraft can have for safety of visitors, staff and wildlife, they have been restricted in all but a few parks,” the Park Service said.
Violation of the ban is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.

“NPS just wants money,” McGurr told a follower. “If I would have offered them 5K to fly for a photo, they would have certainly found a way to make it happen for me.”

McGurr said he’s responsible when flying and doesn’t believe what he did was wrong.

“I assume any and all risk/responsibility for my actions when trying to get photos should anything unfortunate happen as a result of it,” he wrote. “That’s what real photographers do.
“I’ve made foolish decisions, and this probably wasn’t one I’m particularly proud of but it happened and it’s over,” he wrote. “Lesson learned.”

Yellowstone officials did not provide any additional information about the investigation.

This man is clearly a scoff-law. I hope he gets nailed.

 

[PWildey_fine_art]

Shouldn't he at least ask permission? He is a professional photographer, right? Shouldn't he know the rules already?

Guess he should've done a tad more research before traveling 24 hours. I know I would have!

 

[macfawlty]

Anyone who's owned a drone for more than a day knows that flying in National Parks is illegal. It's a frustrating policy for a photographer/pilot, but it's important to respect the Park Service rules & regulations on all activities. Remember that all of your flight info is recorded, so if authorities investigate, you'll be held to account. I have this issue with the entire Maryland side of the Potomac River from DC to Cumberland, MD (185 miles +/-) designated as C&O Canal National Park. I've gotten around the restrictions by paddling my kayak out to the middle of the river or walking out to some of the rock islands that jut out from the shoreline.

It is possible to get a waiver from the NPS I believe. Don't know what's required though.

 

[Duke846]

“Changes in Yellowstone's hydrothermal features are common occurrences and do not reflect changes in activity of the Yellowstone volcano. Shifts in hydrothermal systems occur only the upper few hundred feet of the Earth's crust and are not directly related to movement of magma several kilometers deep. There are no signs of impending volcanic activity. There has been no significant increase in seismicity nor broad-scale variations in ground movement.”

USGS Yellowstone Volcano Observatory

The fact is they just don’t know for sure. Its a best guess!
Kinda like Nebraska weather.

 

[ac0j]

The fact is they just don’t know for sure. Its a best guess!
Kinda like Nebraska weather.

Scientists are wrong almost as often as they are right. A couple tibits from history would include; some of them saying it was impossible for a rocket to leave earths atmosphere and return without burning up.
Man will Never Fly
If you detonate that atomic weapon , it could cause a chain reaction causing certain global destruction.
The Earth is flat.
I could go on for days........

 

[sar104]

Scientists are wrong almost as often as they are right. A couple tibits from history would include; some of them saying it was impossible for a rocket to leave earths atmosphere and return without burning up.
Man will Never Fly
If you detonate that atomic weapon , it could cause a chain reaction causing certain global destruction.
The Earth is flat.

I'm pretty sure that it was you who said those things. That's what people are saying, anyway...

But seriously - please stop posting nonsense about science - it's definitely not your strong suit. Random quotes, or actually mostly misquotes, from individual scientists does not represent the scientific method or science in general, and certainly doesn't support any conclusion about its success rate.

I could go on for days........

You already have.

 

[ac0j]

I'm pretty sure that it was you who said those things. That's what people are saying, anyway...

But seriously - please stop posting nonsense about science - it's definitely not your strong suit. Random quotes, or actually mostly misquotes, from individual scientists does not represent the scientific method or science in general, and certainly doesn't support any conclusion about its success rate.



You already have.

OK, Here is an article that says scientists are not always right, the author is also copied for your review;


"What are some theories in physics that were accepted but later proven to be wrong? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Inna Vishik, P.h.D. Applied Physics & Physics, Stanford University, on Quora:

What are some theories in physics that were accepted but later proven to be wrong? This is an important question, because all too often, science is presented as trafficking in absolute truths. On the contrary, science is a framework for interpreting, systematizing, and predicting nature based on empirical observations. That is to say, a well accepted ‘theory’ (framework for understanding/predicting nature) can always be upended with sufficiently compelling contrary evidence."

Here is the link, if you wish to read deeper,
These Scientific Theories Were Accepted Once, But Were Later Proven Wrong

 

[Nickalo]

What are you referring to? My statement was to the likes of you and the others who want to prolong this discussion is: The question is why did he do it and why doesn't the NPS prosecute him. That's the question, did I get it right that time?

 

[sar104]

OK, Here is an article that says scientists are not always right, the author is also copied for your review;


"What are some theories in physics that were accepted but later proven to be wrong? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Inna Vishik, P.h.D. Applied Physics & Physics, Stanford University, on Quora:

What are some theories in physics that were accepted but later proven to be wrong? This is an important question, because all too often, science is presented as trafficking in absolute truths. On the contrary, science is a framework for interpreting, systematizing, and predicting nature based on empirical observations. That is to say, a well accepted ‘theory’ (framework for understanding/predicting nature) can always be upended with sufficiently compelling contrary evidence."

Here is the link, if you wish to read deeper,
These Scientific Theories Were Accepted Once, But Were Later Proven Wrong

I completely agree with that article. Where does it say that "Scientists are wrong almost as often as they are right"? Where does it say that any of the statements you made above were scientific consensus at any time?

Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and testing. If a hypothesis survives testing and seems to be robust, based on available data, it is often referred to as a theory. It works by peer review and consensus, not the random opinions of individual scientists.

And some of what you quoted was not even that:

The nuclear weapon thing was a question raised by Teller, who did some back of the envelope calculations that suggested there was a chance that a fission chain reaction might create enough pressure and temperature to start a fusion chain reaction in the atmosphere. It was a reasonable and prudent question to raise. Fermi and others showed with further calculation that it would not happen.

That the earth is a sphere has been understood since the time of Aristotle, several hundred years BC. There has never been scientific consensus, or even scientific dissent, that the earth is flat.