Here we go again, another idiot

And so there really is no excuse to not know the rules, and the real problem is people won't avail themselves of the rules because they are clearly posted in every visitor center in every National Park, and posted online. The real issue is that they're seeking forgiveness rather than permission.

And Park Service wouldn't bother pulling the Phantom out of the hot springs if it didn't pose a problem...so no, it is not alright if it just sits there. In fact I don't believe that future generations should have to endure shrines to the stupidity others in their National Parks.

Oh I'm sorry, that's right, this isn't about them, it's about a Youtube video....
 
how many drone pilots are familiar with the Federal Avaiation Regualtions (FAR's)? I suspect few with the exception of those of us who have Pilot Licenses. Every drone flight could be and probably is in violation of any number of FAR's My point here is that with the sport/hobby in it's infancy, it's impossible for most people to know all the rules that affect them. I suspect this guy did not know that flight is prohibited. (and that's another discussion) My point is that he did not seem to be operating in an irresponsible manner. I will admit that what he did was illegal and in violation of NPS rules. But for that, I don't think we can call him an idiot. Maybe we can say that he didn't do his homework.
Now as far as these new NPS rules are concerned... Why do we need to make a blanket prohibition of flying in our parks and rec areas? I know that in some parts of some parks, it might make sense. Flying drones over popular and crowded tourist areas could cause problems. What happens when one of our drones malfunctions and drops into a crowd of people? Like it or not, drones are with us to stay. I see no good reason why the park service should prohibit flight in sparsly inhabited areas of our parks. Drones are a legitimate platform for photography, sport flying and exploration. We all must be careful and responsible in the way we fly. For every square mile of densly populated areas there are probably 100 miles that are almost completely uninhabited. The NPS needs to get off it's high horse and get real and reasonable about regulations. Just my 2 cents
 
His Phantom is 200 feet under 160 degree acidic water of the world-renowned Grand Prismatic Spring, but you're right that idiot isn't the right word, because a fool and his Phantom are easily parted.
 
usaken said:
Why do we need to make a blanket prohibition of flying in our parks and rec areas?

For the gd protection of our National Parks, that's why! Yes, drones are here to stay... but that doesn't give drone pilots carte blanche to do whatever they want and ruin our natural resources.

Case and point... YOU say he was flying responsibly. If it was so responsible, why is his drone sitting at the bottom of the springs literally destroying the ecosystem of a natural landmark??

Again... ignorance of the law is NOT a defense.
 
Wow lucky I found this site, I was hoping to buy a phantom and fly it around some of Death Valley np, guess I won't be doing that now :(
 
OMG some of the comments to this thread just pluck my last nerve!

Its a National Park...not a wildlife sanctuary! The parks are there for the enjoyment of ALL. Some of us aren't particularly fond of people with their screaming brats running all over the place, but its still their right to visit the park. Most of these parks cover huge expanses of mostly uninhabited landscape. UAVs generally fly OVER the park. They normally don't leave so much as a footprint. How does this single incident..."OMG a drone crashed in the spring!"... compare to the damage caused to the park by MILLIONS of annual visitors on foot? How much trash do they leave behind? How much change and other trash do you think sits at the bottom of the spring? Do you really believe that MILLIONS of annual visitors have no affect on the "delicate ecosystem," or that they do not disrupt the wildlife within the park?

It is bad enough to listen to uninformed morons talk about how this single UAV "destroyed" the spring without having to listen to folks who DO understand them espouse the same garbage! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valkster
Making lots of friends, I see.

You can visit a National Park all you want, but you still have to follow all the rules. You don't get to dig up plants, you don't get to cut down trees, you don't get to hunt wildlife, and you don't get to fly drones.

If you've ever been to the springs at Yellowstone, you'd know that they've done a pretty incredible job trying to mitigate any damage to the ecosystem. They've built an incredible boardwalk along the springs to minimize damage of trampers. There really is no trash to speak of, though, admittedly, some idiots toss coins and other objects into the spring (something about good luck for some cultures). However, there ARE rules not to, and if you're caught you face a fine... just like flying a drone.

But, you're absolutely right, other parks are not fairing so well... even before drones were a thing.

Look, I love my hobby. Few things make me happier than flying my Phantoms. But I also love our National Parks. And if there's anything that I can do to help them last for my children and their children, including curtailing my flying, I'll certainly do it. This world is not all about me and what I want. If that's "garbage" to you, you're welcome to your opinion.
 
There is no way to mitigate the effects of MILLIONS of annual visitors. The very infrastructure built to support them in itself affects the park's ecosystem. How exactly does operating a UAV in the park "ruin the environment?" The complete banishment of UAVs throughout the entire National Park system was a kneejerk reaction by unelected bureaucrats. The same sort of unelected morons who arbitrarily decided 80 year olds would be forced to pay for reproductive coverage on their health care plans and defined carbon dioxide...that heinous gas we all exhale and all of .039% of the atmosphere...as a pollutant!

The National Park system already encompasses some 210,000 square miles of land, and that's before including Obama's latest massive land grab of an additional 785 square miles in New Mexico. (The latter is really just to open up an illegal immigrant freeway into the U.S.) That is nearly 211,000 square miles of mostly uninhabited land, containing some of the best scenery on earth, arbitrarily banned to UAVs. Why? Do you just go along with everything the government says because they do such a good job looking out for you? How much damage is a drone going to do were it to crash into the Grand Canyon, or bounce off George Washington's nose at Mt. Rushmore? It is arbitrary, and it is ridiculous. To simply roll over and accept it is even more ridiculous. If you don't want any human impact on the parks then just ban visitors outright. It will have a lot more of a beneficial effect than banning UAVs.
 
The way you weave insults and political vitriol into your posts, it's immediately obvious that no amount of discussion or arguing in going to change your opinion. Which is legitimate. So let's just agree to disagree. I think we can dispense with the insults, though, huh?
 
If you cared to read the NPS press release explaining the policy, they site 4 or 5 recent incidents at the bottom that represent at least that many ways that UAVs can "ruin the environment". The first, and the original incident that initially spawned the development of the policy, was a pilot who was harassing the wildlife. And you already sited a second... the drone that crashed into the hot springs in Yellowstone. In case you didn't know, the whole reason that spring is so popular is because of the stunning and surreal colors caused by the minerals and microbes in the water. A balance that can truly be upset by the heavy metals and toxins that could very well be leaking out of that drone.

On top of which, there's just general nuisance. Even though I'm an avid Phantom pilot, if I'm out in the Grand Canyon, trying to take in the scenery, that last thing I really want to see are some drones flying around... in the same way that, even though I'm a private pilot, I hate seeing the tourist helicipters and airplanes flying through there.

Let me ask you... we agree that people have the right to use and enjoy our National Parks. So did that give those Eagle Scouts the right a couple of months ago to knock over that rock formation that had stood for several million years, and deny anyone else ever the chance to see it?
 
That is a silly question. Why would I find it OK for someone to deliberately destroy a rock formation? I'm sure there have been at least 4 or 5 THOUSAND instances of people...on foot...who have engaged in actions that ruined the environment and harassed wildlife. Using your very same logic, we should ban people from the parks. Of course, there wouldn't be much reason to have a park would there?

I have been to the spring and the drone sitting at the bottom is going to have about as much impact on the spring as it would had it bounced off Washington's nose at Mt. Rushmore. The spring itself is already toxic, and it is constantly replenished with millions of gallons of water. The drone crash was an accident. What effect do you think millions of coins deliberately tossed into the spring have had as they react with the caustic waters?

Your comment about what YOU find to be a "general nuisance" is sheer arrogance. Many things in life are annoying and considered a nuisance by some. That doesn't give them, or you, the right to dictate what others can or can't do. 211,000 square miles is plenty of space to allow EVERYONE to enjoy the park system so long as they aren't harming the environment. As I stated before, UAV's generally don't touch the environment other than to take off and land. It isn't just there for your benefit alone, or only for the things YOU deem appropriate, Professor.

You should consider selling your Phantom. I'm sure someone finds it a nuisance and you wouldn't want that would you?
 
Dirty Bird said:
That is a silly question. Why would I find it OK for someone to deliberately destroy a rock formation?

Not a silly question at all. My point is that 60,000 people a year trample around Goblin Valley Park, stressing the formations there. The wind and rain are slowly eroding everything. In short, the "goblins" are going to fall over on their own, eventually anyway. But does that mean that any attempt to preserve them or mitigate damage, or the policy that enforces a fine on the idiots who went out and toppled one, is any less valid or important?? It's the same with drones. Is banning drones going to save the earth or prevent irreparable damage from other means? Of course not. But that doesn't mean the policy is any less valid.


Dirty Bird said:
I'm sure there have been at least 4 or 5 THOUSAND instances of people...on foot...who have engaged in actions that ruined the environment and harassed wildlife.

Very true. But there are policies against that, too. And you can be fined if you are caught. So, in that sense, the treatment is exactly the same. The big difference being that there are the vast majority of people on foot who are not affected by that policy. Whereas, even though the vast majority of drone pilots likely wouldn't harass the wildlife, every drone pilot is affected by the drone ban policy. But the NPS has even said "this is not final word... this is not the way we will ultimately enforce this". The proper thing to do is just site the people who are actually doing harm. But until they can figure out how best to do that - how to actually catch something as fleeting as a drone flight - with the resources they have or will have, this was really the only intermediate step that they could take.

Dirty Bird said:
I have been to the spring and the drone sitting at the bottom is going to have about as much impact on the spring as it would had it bounced off Washington's nose at Mt. Rushmore. The spring itself is already toxic, and it is constantly replenished with millions of gallons of water. The drone crash was an accident. What effect do you think millions of coins deliberately tossed into the spring have had as they react with the caustic waters?

So you're suddenly a scientific expert on the ecosystems of springs, are you? The fact is no one knows yet WHAT impact it will have. To say the spring is already toxic, so it should certainly be able to absorb radically different toxins is like saying everyone puts salt on their food, so we should be able to ingest straight chloride. If you don't think a minute change in chemistry can make a big difference, let's go ahead a replace just one marker in the DNA of your [next] child and see if they come out with three eyes or one arm. Or let's ask the bees, who have been decimated by the introduction of likely one new toxin. The chemical make-up of the Grand Prismatic Spring is incredibly unique. Otherwise every single hot spring would look exactly the same and have the exact same colors. But the fact is few do. Yet, it can only be a very minute difference between it and those other springs that creates those colors. A difference that could easily be reduced or erased by the introduction of some other chemical.

And as for coins... I said already... there are already policies to prohibit throwing coins into the spring to try to prevent damage. Again... treating drones the same.

Dirty Bird said:
Your comment about what YOU find to be a "general nuisance" is sheer arrogance. Many things in life are annoying and considered a nuisance by some. That doesn't give them, or you, the right to dictate what others can or can't do.

It's not sheer arrogance, it's an opinion. An opinion shared by a great number of people. No, that still does not give me the right to dictate anything. I never said it did. I just stated an opinion. Like I said, it's my opinion that the tourist planes and helicopters shouldn't fly through the Grand Canyon either... but I'm not trying to dictate my will on them, just saying "it sure would be nice". We went to Acadia National Park for a lengthy stay this summer. I was really jonesing to take my Phantom, imagining all the great shots and videos I would get of the spectacular wilderness. The NPS issued their policy just shortly before we left, but I was still going to pack up my bird, and even had in my mind that I'd still fly it in the park if we were in an out-of-the-way place where I was unlikely to get caught. My wife is fully aware and fully supportive of my passion with my drone, so she watched me buy my custom-fit backpack and extra batteries for my Phantom and generally get ready to take it with us. Then one night she just quietly said "you know, I'm kind of going up there to get away from stuff like that", and I thought "you know, she's right... I don't really have any right to take that away from anyone else just because *I* want to fly". So I ended up thinking about others, rather than myself, and didn't take my Phantom with us. And guess what, I had a great time. Then I came home and watched drone videos that others had made of the park (in 2012 and 2013) and realized that they were far better than anything I could've done anyway, and there really was no reason for me to shoot what already had been shot anyway.


Dirty Bird said:
211,000 square miles is plenty of space to allow EVERYONE to enjoy the park system so long as they aren't harming the environment. As I stated before, UAV's generally don't touch the environment other than to take off and land. It isn't just there for your benefit alone, or only for the things YOU deem appropriate, Professor.

You obviously have a very very narrow view of the term "environment". But in my world, "environment" means everything around me, not just the ground. My Phantom "touches" the environment even while it's in the sky. The sight of it, the noise of it, the wash off it's props affects someone or something else's environment all the time. In fact, if you want to get really technical, it "touches" the environment from the second it starts getting manufactured, as raw materials are consumed for the plastic, toxins are released in the creation of the circuit boards, and minerals are mined for the copper... but we won't go there because I know that's waaaay too "tree-hugger" for you.

Dirty Bird said:
You should consider selling your Phantom. I'm sure someone finds it a nuisance and you wouldn't want that would you?

How surprising that you have missed the entire point of what I have said.
 
Ya know, you guys are just bumping heads now....you both have valid points. If the tree huggers love the environment so much, why do they drive cars, use cans of spray paint, go to the auto car wash which uses energy most likely generated by burning coal rather than hand washing at home, throw the plastic, metal cans, etc all into one bag for someone else to deal with. Electric cars...how do you think the power to recharge them is generated. I see people get up in arms until it affects their life. What a bunch of hypocrites.
 
Monte55 said:
Ya know, you guys are just bumping heads now....you both have valid points.

Thought I said that 6 posts ago ;)

Monte55 said:
If the tree huggers love the environment so much, why do they drive cars, use cans of spray paint, go to the auto car wash which uses energy most likely generated by burning coal rather than hand washing at home, throw the plastic, metal cans, etc all into one bag for someone else to deal with. Electric cars...how do you think the power to recharge them is generated. I see people get up in arms until it affects their life. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I, myself, am pretty careful about my footprint, and I don't really even consider myself a tree-hugger or environmentalist. I ride the bus and bike as much as I can. But, yes, even the hypocrisy of some of my own actions bothers me a little.
 
Monte55 said:
What a bunch of hypocrites.

And you know this because?

No need for a reply, I think we all know the answer.
 
ProfessorStein said:
How surprising that you have missed the entire point of what I have said.

Isn't the true point that quads are banned from National Parks, like it or not, and it really doesn't matter what any of us think about it? It's a fact, a reality, and it wasn't done by your hand or my hand, we just happen to agree with it.

It just seems to me that Dirty and Monte should be addressing their concerns in a manor more productive to their goals since we can't really do anything about it anyway.

And all this with the understanding that you've already said a much 5 or 6 posts back... ;)
 
Personally, I think the real problem here is that this is another example of government and society punishing tools instead of people. It literally is an example of 'cutting the nose to spite the face' - you scare off the handful of bad apples, but you still have an entire barrel of responsible people who can now no longer fully enjoy the park in their way.

The guy harassing wildlife is a jackass and should be prosecuted for harassing wildlife (because it is indeed illegal in itself). The 'drone' (hey, can we stop using that word? Phantoms aren't drones.) really should have no bearing on anything.
 
Unfortunately, I think public policy is often a blunt instrument. It is much easier for policy to be to say, "no fishing" than to say, "you're only allowed to fish for x, y, z" because it's a lot easier to enforce a no fishing policy. I think the same goes for UAV's. That's why perhaps we should continue to educate the public and demonstrate responsible behavior (and EMPHASIZE how the vast majority of people are responsible) so that, when the politiicans sit down to respond to the nay-say constituents, they can do so with data and anecdote that support the idea that there other consituents that don't believe it necessary to be draconian and that, in fact, many of their constituents are actually UAV pilots, too!
 
Morgon said:
Personally, I think the real problem here is that this is another example of government and society punishing tools instead of people. It literally is an example of 'cutting the nose to spite the face' - you scare off the handful of bad apples, but you still have an entire barrel of responsible people who can now no longer fully enjoy the park in their way.

The guy harassing wildlife is a jackass and should be prosecuted for harassing wildlife (because it is indeed illegal in itself). The 'drone' (hey, can we stop using that word? Phantoms aren't drones.) really should have no bearing on anything.

AB-SO-LUTELY! That's how that particular case should be prosecuted. But... like has been mentioned... the NPS has already stated that they pretty much realize the policy is not a good one, and that it penalizes a lot of good pilots because of the actions of a few bad ones. But it's what they had to put in place in the interim until they've had time to figure out a long-term policy that's better and more thought-through. Of course, if you have any ideas of how they would be able to catch the bad apples, and still allow everyone else to fly, I'm sure they'd probably take them under consideration.

And... "drone" now means, among other definitions, "any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely"... which certainly applies to a Phantom. The word itself is not bad. And if you want to complain to someone, complain to the media for overusing the word in conjunction with bombings and war-time spying. But just because it has a bad connotation at the moment doesn't mean the Phantom isn't a drone.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,357
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31