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 some
thing 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.