Yellowstone investigates drone photo of Grand Prismatic

[Serge12]

Yellowstone Profiles LR 7.3 ACR 10.3
goo.gl/bYTJTQ

and sale
goo.gl/CmSLnM

 

[nomad33fw]

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.

They can investigate all they want, it’s a rule not a law. The parks system is not empowered to “make laws” if it actually goes to court a judge will throw it out.

 

[wco81]

Only one shot for all the trouble he went through?

Why not video footage too?

 

[john07989]

Sounds like you're in need of a VPN!

Here's the image:

View attachment 53735

Well done Mr Salty. Too many sheep in this world.

 

[jsh102]

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.

You're a "professional" photographer, yet don't know about
a) The ban on drones in national parks.
b)The seasonal closure of a national park.
I would think that you would do a little more research into your subject being a "professional" and all.

 

[lukasz74nj]

Citing noise for banning drones is silly and pure nonsense, you almost cannot hear them in the sky. They should also ban helicopters, cars, radios and people talking for the same reason. National and state parks should be places to go for flying drones because there is a lot of open space and much safer than flying near or in the populated areas. These rules are all about the money, nothing else.

 

[sar104]

They can investigate all they want, it’s a rule not a law. The parks system is not empowered to “make laws” if it actually goes to court a judge will throw it out.

No - that's completely incorrect. This is Federal Law, 36CFR 1 1.5., and is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months jail and/or a $5k fine.

 

[JDawg]

Citing noise for banning drones is silly and pure nonsense, you almost cannot hear them in the sky. They should also ban helicopters, cars, radios and people talking for the same reason. National and state parks should be places to go for flying drones because there is a lot of open space and much safer than flying near or in the populated areas. These rules are all about the money, nothing else.

How much money is being collected from these bans? Please site your source.

 

[sar104]

Citing noise for banning drones is silly and pure nonsense, you almost cannot hear them in the sky. They should also ban helicopters, cars, radios and people talking for the same reason. National and state parks should be places to go for flying drones because there is a lot of open space and much safer than flying near or in the populated areas. These rules are all about the money, nothing else.

Who is making money from this?

 

[BerndM]

How is it even possible that a supposed professional photographer, or any semi serious "drone" operator, is unaware of the flying restrictions in National Parks. It has never exactly been a secret, having been posted on every online drone site since 2014 when the rules went into effect.
I think his story of being ignorant of the flying restriction is simply a matter of his not caring in the least about the health of our hobby in the selfish pursuit of furthering his own agenda.

 

[wco81]

Before they instituted the ban at national parks, there were several incidents of people losing drones and rangers having to try to retrieve them.

Sad thing is, there are bans in national parks in other countries too, so a lot of very photogenic places are off limits to drone.

 

[Marko9219]

As a long time (45+ years) and frequent (usually 2 to 3 times per year) visitor to Yellowstone and as a nature/wildlife photographer and drone pilot, I hope they drop what ever size hammer on him that they legally can. Also, I've got some wonderful images of Grand Prismatic from an aerial perspective. There is a marvelous vantage point well above it if you are willing to climb and carry your gear up a steep incline. No drone needed. I've shot it many times with much, much better equipment than any drone is capable of. He wasn't interested in a unique image. He was interested in bragging rights because he knew danged well he was violating both laws and rules in his little egotistical adventure. On an interesting side note, I was at GP Spring one winter when I heard a jet approaching. Looking up, I saw a USAF F-111 (sweep-wing fighter bomber) approaching. Not that low, well above minimums. Suddenly he slowed, his wings extended and he did a slow banking 360 circle all the way around GP Spring. He was obviously enjoying a magnificent view from 2,000 feet up. I've often imaged what it must have looked like to those two crewmen that time.

 

[f2000ez]

Just another narcissistic photographer. Time in jail will do more justice than money out of his pocket. Maybe he can contemplate while he is behind bars what other reckless and foolish laws he can break.

 

[tcope]

Citing noise for banning drones is silly and pure nonsense, you almost cannot hear them in the sky.

Really? It is difficult to take you for more than a troll when you say something like this.

They should also ban helicopters, cars, radios and people talking for the same reason.

The ban is from the NPS. The NPS has not authority over airspace.. so they have no say about who flies over the property.

National and state parks should be places to go for flying drones because there is a lot of open space and much safer than flying near or in the populated areas. These rules are all about the money, nothing else.

These comments get dummer and dummer. In 2015 fees at the National Parks earned about 186 million dollars. You seriously think the money from a few citations for drone flying is something that are concerned with?

 

[tcope]

Who is making money from this?

It is help offsetting the 12 BILLION DOLLAR backlog in expenses. Just a few more citations and they will have everything balanced out.

 

[erkme73]

Since most Americans go their entire lives without ever being prosecuted for a felony, let alone convicted of one, that control mechanism doesn't seem to be working very well.

Just because you haven't felt the hand of government pushing you around doesn't it isn't happening, or won't happen. Having any number of violations that are unprosecuted isn't the point. It's ammo that can be used to change your behavior if an agent of the government wants to do so. It's the illusion of freedom. You think you have it until one day you realize every turn you make, every option you have, ends with some .gov agent telling you NO.

 

[sar104]

Just because you haven't felt the hand of government pushing you around doesn't it isn't happening, or won't happen. Having any number of violations that are unprosecuted isn't the point. It's ammo that can be used to change your behavior if an agent of the government wants to do so. It's the illusion of freedom. You think you have it until one day you realize every turn you make, every option you have, ends with some .gov agent telling you NO.

Any examples you would care to share?

 

[erkme73]

Any examples you would care to share?

This isn't a tangible thing. It's a chilling effect. A cop with a grudge can find 5 things that are not proper on any vehicle, or the way you drive. Thus, most people, whether conscious of it or not, feel a degree of intimidation from law enforcement. When filing taxes, even knowing that everything is "compliant", most will avoid taking additional tax-avoidance credits for fear of triggering an audit. Many will pay 'professionals' to provide a degree of protection against such actions. Choosing the name of a non-profit organization to sound less patriotic, liberty-oriented, of freedom-loving to avoid extra scrutiny by IRS bureaucrats... Second guessing your right to dig a pond on your own property. Letting complete strangers see you naked in a scanner, or letting someone fondle your junk for the perceived safety that is nothing more than theater... These are all things that society has now accept as normal. And every year, the tentacles of government get longer, and our liberties get shorter... Things I believe, are making our founding fathers spin in their graves.

All of the above are just small examples of how people don't want to rock the boat. They fall in line and try their best not to attract attention of their .gov overseers... Because if they somehow do manage to fall into their sights, there are plenty of unprosecuted felonies that can be used.

This is an interesting read, if you are genuinely interested in my perspective.

But, that's too much politics, and too off-topic for this thread. So, having said my piece, I bow out.

 

[sar104]

This isn't a tangible thing. It's a chilling effect. A cop with a grudge can find 5 things that are not proper on any vehicle, or the way you drive. Thus, most people, whether conscious of it or not, feel a degree of intimidation from law enforcement. When filing taxes, even knowing that everything is "compliant", most will avoid taking additional tax-avoidance credits for fear of triggering an audit. Many will pay 'professionals' to provide a degree of protection against such actions. Choosing the name of a non-profit organization to sound less patriotic, liberty-oriented, of freedom-loving to avoid extra scrutiny by IRS bureaucrats... Second guessing your right to dig a pond on your own property. Letting complete strangers see you naked in a scanner, or letting someone fondle your junk for the perceived safety that is nothing more than theater... These are all things that society has now accept as normal. And every year, the tentacles of government get longer, and our liberties get shorter... Things I believe, are making our founding fathers spin in their graves.

All of the above are just small examples of how people don't want to rock the boat. They fall in line and try their best not to attract attention of their .gov overseers... Because if they somehow do manage to fall into their sights, there are plenty of unprosecuted felonies that can be used.

This is an interesting read, if you are genuinely interested in my perspective.

But, that's too much politics, and too off-topic for this thread. So, having said my piece, I bow out.

Thanks for the link - I'd already found it after your first comment. Over-regulation is clearly an issue - everywhere. But the assertion that it amounts to some kind of plan to control the public in the manner suggested seems to me to fall squarely into the realm of unsupported conspiracy theory. Hence my request for examples. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will. Just consider all the dire warnings over the last 30 years about the government imminently taking away your rights - have any of them happened?

 

[JSKCKNIT]

Being a professional photographer means he should know his limitations (drone or not). You don't need to be FAA Part 107. You just need common sense.

Being a professional photographer and using his drone in furtherance of a business, he should have his Part 107. There's no doubt in my mind that he is or was planning on selling that photo.