Endangering wildlife

[dranders]

Usually those "Charted Altitudes" are well above the "Normal Operating Alts" of our aircraft. Unfortunately this will have to be taken to court the first time someone is cited with sUAS over sensitive areas.

No doubt the courts will sort it out. The FAA was quick to define UAS’s as aircraft and operators as pilots. Shouldn’t be much of an argument when someone’s accused of violating something. Charted altitudes can begin at the surface as I’m sure you know. Also, the FAA emphasis is on education when possible, but expect more if our UAS activity is dangerous or reckless. Hate to nitpick, but it’s unlikely that the FAA would enforce NOAA or other agencies’ regulations.

It may seem like a regularitory minefield, but it’s not really. Just keep learning the airspace, safe operation practices, and sift through the wealth of information on forums such as this.

 

[ABTOCMEPTb]

I guess whale watchers should stop chasing whales
List can go on........

 

[BigAl07]

I guess whale watchers should stop chasing whales
List can go on........

If they harass the whales or cause them to change their behavior in any way then YES absolutely they should. Why would any sensible and rational person not support the ban of harassing wild life?

 

[ABTOCMEPTb]

If they harass the whales or cause them to change their behavior in any way then YES absolutely they should. Why would any sensible and rational person not support the ban of harassing wild life?

It opens doors to all kind of cooks to promote their idea of harassment. Building infrastructure can be viewed as harassment. New roads. Hunting anyone? I mean why we cry over two spooked bears while people slaughtering dolphins with knifes?
I think people getting offended easily these days. All because internet made possible to “hear” their opinion.

I mean this overly dramatic tone of what happened.....I honestly don’t give two [Moderator Edited]. Let’s take care of hungry kids first. Sell our thousands dollars drones and feed them all

 

[BigAl07]

It opens doors to all kind of cooks to promote their idea of harassment. Building infrastructure can be viewed as harassment. New roads. Hunting anyone? I mean why we cry over two spooked bears while people slaughtering dolphins with knifes?
I think people getting offended easily these days. All because internet made possible to “hear” their opinion.

I mean this overly dramatic tone of what happened.....I honestly don’t give two [Moderator Edited]. Let’s take care of hungry kids first. Sell our thousands dollars drones and feed them all

This is a FORUM where we DISCUSS ideas and things. There's no sense in being all bent out of shape and going to the level you just went. If you don't want any type of input on your posts then maybe skip the heated topics all the way around.

fo·rum
/ˈfôrəm/
noun

1. 1.
   a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

If you can't discus nicely then just don't post at all. People are going to not agree with your point of view but that doesn't warrant you getting bent out of shape over it.

 

[Dennis Frantz]

If they harass the whales or cause them to change their behavior in any way then YES absolutely they should. Why would any sensible and rational person not support the ban of harassing wild life?

It always amazes me the see the number of experts that are so sure that they can determine so much by viewing a video posted online. It is extremely difficult to judge the distance from which this video was shot. How does one know that the bears were disturbed in any way? It is very easy to logon and boast unsubstantiated and dubious facts about a video clip viewed online. Of course, we should always respect wildlife. But the person who shot this video should also be given respect until there is proof that he did something wrong. One need only pay attention to the news these days to witness the number of times someone is accused and convicted by social media. Lighten up. It’s just a video

 

[BigAl07]

How does one know that the bears were disturbed in any way?

Did you even watch the video or did you just go by the screen grabs in the article that was fed to you?

Here's the video so you don't have to go tracking it down:

Surely any logical person can watch it and discern that the sUAS caused stress (and anger BTW) to the mama bear and most likely (this is my assumption) added to the frustration of the baby bear trying to ascend the snow pack. Believe it or not this could have been Life or Death for the bear cub.

Don't take my word for it (I did just Log On BTW ), watch the video for yourself. Be sure to pay attention around the 1:14 portion where the sUAS suddenly moves in much closer (in what would be considered an aggressive fashion to a wild animal). Pay attention to the mama bear's body language.Look closely when she obviously looks directly at the approaching sUAS, takes a protective stance, and locks her body in for some degree of protective behavior while swatting to possibly get her cub out of harms way.

Can you honestly say with any truth that the sUAS did not cause that reaction?

Lighten up. It’s just a video

Lighten up? Just a video? SMH you just don't get it.

It's a video of an irresponsible sUAS operator harassing wildlife and it's "only" posted on Social Media and the WWW. Every single one of the REST OF US are going to get judged by that operators horrible actions. You see, some of us take this seriously and some of us put food on the table with our sUAS. So forgive me for not taking this type of action lightly and for not defending this type of horrible behavior. It's not just a hobby and it's a lot more than "just a video" when it's show to the world as evidence against all of us.

This is so much bigger than "just a video" my friend... so very much more.

 

[Geoff G]

It always amazes me the see the number of experts that are so sure that they can determine so much by viewing a video posted online

Perhaps that's why they are experts! But there are a few things that are clear even if you are not an expert.

Take a look at the footage either side of the cut at 1.22. Look at the skid marks where the bear falls before and after the edit. The bear is in a different position, much further to the right. There are extra skid marks on the right. Look at the angle the camera has on the bear between the two shots - totally different.

The video does not tell the whole story by any means. There are more falls than the video shows. How many times did the pilot disturb the adult bear, I wonder. I don't think that the cub cares at all!

As for the distance from the camera to the bear, it's clear that it's close enough to upset the parent. You only have to look at the perspective to see that it is not a long lens shot (who has long focus lenses on a drone anyway)?

 

[DigitalSkyPilot]

It is amazing footage. No tissue needed.

 

[Dennis Frantz]

Perhaps that's why they are experts! But there are a few things that are clear even if you are not an expert.

Take a look at the footage either side of the cut at 1.22. Look at the skid marks where the bear falls before and after the edit. The bear is in a different position, much further to the right. There are extra skid marks on the right. Look at the angle the camera has on the bear between the two shots - totally different.

The video does not tell the whole story by any means. There are more falls than the video shows. How many times did the pilot disturb the adult bear, I wonder. I don't think that the cub cares at all!

As for the distance from the camera to the bear, it's clear that it's close enough to upset the parent. You only have to look at the perspective to see that it is not a long lens shot (who has long focus lenses on a drone anyway)?

As I said before, where is your proof. Just because you say that a drone upset the bears, does not make it so. Perspective is everything. Unless you were there when the video was made, you do not know how far away the camera was from the animals. You do not know if the camera was down-wind, which would make it inaudible to the bears. You do not know if the drone was white and the mountain that framed it was also white, which would make it all but invisible to the bears. Any drone pilot who has experience making videos in different wind and light conditions, knows that sometimes the drone can be both unseen and unheard. If you have never lost sight of your white drone in a background of white clouds, then you have not been a drone pilot for very long. Unless one knows all of the conditions when and where this video was taken, one cannot make unsubstantiated assertions. Just remember, neither “I think” nor “I feel” makes it a fact.

 

[BigAl07]

As I said before, where is your proof. Just because you say that a drone upset the bears, does not make it so. Perspective is everything. Unless you were there when the video was made, you do not know how far away the camera was from the animals. You do not know if the camera was down-wind, which would make it inaudible to the bears. You do not know if the drone was white and the mountain that framed it was also white, which would make it all but invisible to the bears. Any drone pilot who has experience making videos in different wind and light conditions, knows that sometimes the drone can be both unseen and unheard. If you have never lost sight of your white drone in a background of white clouds, then you have not been a drone pilot for very long. Unless one knows all of the conditions when and where this video was taken, one cannot make unsubstantiated assertions. Just remember, neither “I think” nor “I feel” makes it a fact.

Did you view the view where the bear squared up and was ready to attack the drone? Are you watching the same video the rest of us are? I left the link in my post just in case... go give it a look.