Yosemite National Park Statement: "Drones are Illegal"

[sar104]

I can't believe we have so many nature lovers, that's a great thing because that love of nature will instill a desire to protect it.

But what if you take your drone to say Grand Canyon, you get your bird in the air, take her to the rim for some awesome footage! Everything is going great, so you check your first person view, the drone hits a thermal, you panic, you take a step forward and fall 300 feet, hit a rock, break your back, and roll a mile into the canyon. This happens at sunset, your body can't be recovered til the next day. Your friends weep all night wondering if you're dead or alive, till they see the helicopter rise from the canyon the next morning with a black bag attached.

I gave you such detail because that's what I saw, I saw a girl fall to her death weeks before we were due to leave the park. People die in the parks every year because of a little mistake, because they lose awareness around them, because they lack respect of the untamed wild that is all around them.

Think about it....

Undoubtedly a sad story, and very true that a lack of appreciation of wilderness hazards can lead to disastrous consequences. I deal with such events regularly. I'm missing the real significance of that to drone use though. Are you suggesting that drone use around the GC rim will lead to increased fatalities? Your scenario is not inconceivable but is rather contrived and, as a "what if" analysis, it seems far more applicable to general photography around the rim, which really has led to such accidents.

From the perspective of taking photographs it could be argued that using a drone is actually much safer than clambering around in precarious places looking for good vantage points.

 

[CarlJ]

I can't believe we have so many nature lovers, that's a great thing because that love of nature will instill a desire to protect it.

But what if you take your drone to say Grand Canyon, you get your bird in the air, take her to the rim for some awesome footage! Everything is going great, so you check your first person view, the drone hits a thermal, you panic, you take a step forward and fall 300 feet, hit a rock, break your back, and roll a mile into the canyon. This happens at sunset, your body can't be recovered til the next day. Your friends weep all night wondering if you're dead or alive, till they see the helicopter rise from the canyon the next morning with a black bag attached.

I gave you such detail because that's what I saw, I saw a girl fall to her death weeks before we were due to leave the park. People die in the parks every year because of a little mistake, because they lose awareness around them, because they lack respect of the untamed wild that is all around them.

Think about it....

Undoubtedly a sad story, and very true that a lack of appreciation of wilderness hazards can lead to disastrous consequences. I deal with such events regularly. I'm missing the real significance of that to drone use though. Are you suggesting that drone use around the GC rim will lead to increased fatalities? Your scenario is not inconceivable but is rather contrived and, as a "what if" analysis, it seems far more applicable to general photography around the rim, which really has led to such accidents.

From the perspective of taking photographs it could be argued that using a drone is actually much safer than clambering around in precarious places looking for good vantage points.

In fact the day I arrived at the canyon a tourist was dragged over the edge leaning over the rim wall (which isn't much of a wall) to take a picture of a squirrel. I would hardly call the scenario contrived, while it's true this young lady lady didn't have a drone 40 some odd years ago, it's also true she didn't have that distraction...she still fell, and the story wasn't sad for me, it was tragic having been involved romantically with her all that summer.

I think the larger issue here is the competitive nature to get that extreme shot, and that over riding some people's ability to access risk. It's not really if it will happen, but when and to whom.

I don't know, maybe you're right and we shouldn't worry so much about it. Maybe it's just natural selection screaming for their blood, and we're better off without them in the gene pool.

 

[CarlJ]

Also another quick question, who's gonna pluck the phantoms out of the trees, on the mountains, inside the grand canyon? They're a little hard to reach. There are some places there no human foot has ever touched.

There are SO many reasons this is a bad idea...

 

[sar104]

I can't believe we have so many nature lovers, that's a great thing because that love of nature will instill a desire to protect it.

But what if you take your drone to say Grand Canyon, you get your bird in the air, take her to the rim for some awesome footage! Everything is going great, so you check your first person view, the drone hits a thermal, you panic, you take a step forward and fall 300 feet, hit a rock, break your back, and roll a mile into the canyon. This happens at sunset, your body can't be recovered til the next day. Your friends weep all night wondering if you're dead or alive, till they see the helicopter rise from the canyon the next morning with a black bag attached.

I gave you such detail because that's what I saw, I saw a girl fall to her death weeks before we were due to leave the park. People die in the parks every year because of a little mistake, because they lose awareness around them, because they lack respect of the untamed wild that is all around them.

Think about it....

Undoubtedly a sad story, and very true that a lack of appreciation of wilderness hazards can lead to disastrous consequences. I deal with such events regularly. I'm missing the real significance of that to drone use though. Are you suggesting that drone use around the GC rim will lead to increased fatalities? Your scenario is not inconceivable but is rather contrived and, as a "what if" analysis, it seems far more applicable to general photography around the rim, which really has led to such accidents.

From the perspective of taking photographs it could be argued that using a drone is actually much safer than clambering around in precarious places looking for good vantage points.

In fact the day I arrived at the canyon a tourist was dragged over the edge leaning over the rim wall (which isn't much of a wall) to take a picture of a squirrel. I would hardly call the scenario contrived, while it's true this young lady lady didn't have a drone 40 some odd years ago, it's also true she didn't have that distraction...she still fell, and the story wasn't sad for me, it was tragic having been involved romantically with her all that summer.

I think the larger issue here is the competitive nature to get that extreme shot, and that over riding some people's ability to access risk. It's not really if it will happen, but when and to whom.

I don't know, maybe you're right and we shouldn't worry so much about it. Maybe it's just natural selection screaming for their blood, and we're better off without them in the gene pool.

Sorry to hear that it was that personal - and apologies if I seemed unsympathetic, which was not my intent. In a sense that event does make the point though - aerial photography permits the operator to maintain a much safer position.

 

[sar104]

Also another quick question, who's gonna pluck the phantoms out of the trees, on the mountains, inside the grand canyon? They're a little hard to reach. There are some places there no human foot has ever touched.

There are SO many reasons this is a bad idea...

I think that's a valid concern, especially in wilderness or NP if their use became widespread to the point that there are significant losses. Personally I think that they should be restricted to permitted use in such places that already restrict other kinds of powered equipment and vehicles.

 

[CarlJ]

No offense taken, I just wanted everyone to know just how personal an event like that could be. We were young, we were stupid, some of us were drunk, some high.

I agree it could be safer to use a drone, but can you assure us that everyone that takes a drone into the park is going to behave in that manner, or are some going to get drunk, or high, and end up with a pain that lasts 40 plus years?

You're a smart guy, you're aware I'm not exaggerating the deaths we have every year in our parks...even a little, and you know the sound of truth when you hear it.

I can only hope that god holds you, and keeps you safe.

 

[sar104]

No offense taken, I just wanted everyone to know just how personal an event like that could be. We were young, we were stupid, some of us were drunk, some high.

I agree it could be safer to use a drone, but can you assure us that everyone that takes a drone into the park is going to behave in that manner, or are some going to get drunk, or high, and end up with a pain that lasts 40 plus years?

You're a smart guy, you're aware I'm not exaggerating the deaths we have every year in our parks...even a little, and you know the sound of truth when you hear it.

I can only hope that god holds you, and keeps you safe.

In support of your position, did you see this other topic? viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14285

 

[CarlJ]

No offense taken, I just wanted everyone to know just how personal an event like that could be. We were young, we were stupid, some of us were drunk, some high.

I agree it could be safer to use a drone, but can you assure us that everyone that takes a drone into the park is going to behave in that manner, or are some going to get drunk, or high, and end up with a pain that lasts 40 plus years?

You're a smart guy, you're aware I'm not exaggerating the deaths we have every year in our parks...even a little, and you know the sound of truth when you hear it.

I can only hope that god holds you, and keeps you safe.

In support of your position, did you see this other topic? http://phantompilots.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14285

Thanks for posting, I think you just won the internet, and ended the debate for all time in one post. And yes, he's a *******, and we got a whole world full of em. And for the record I vote NO on allowing him another chance on doing something even more dangerous or stupid. He might make a video I like one day so I say we keep him around.

Thanks again

 

[panhygrous pantler]

In support of your position, did you see this other topic? http://phantompilots.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14285

That ties nicely into the discussion around Yosemite NP's recent ban.

Even with regulations in place, people are still going to fly. RC aircraft have been banned in the Grand Canyon for over two years now...http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload ... endium.pdf

 

[CarlJ]

In support of your position, did you see this other topic? http://phantompilots.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14285

That ties nicely into the discussion around Yosemite NP's recent ban.

Even with regulations in place, people are still going to fly. RC aircraft have been banned in the Grand Canyon for over two years now...http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload ... endium.pdf

I'm not surprised, you gotta wonder about the first park ranger that was walking down the Bright Angle Trail (Super Hwy of the Grand Canyon!) when a drone came whizzing by the mules, who then proceed to buck their riders into the canyon.

That would be an epic calamity.

 

[Visioneer]

So it´s legal and ok to fly US drones all over the world and KILL people but for recreational, art, rescue och creative use it is a No-Fly. :-(
I am a swede with huge love for America, people and things from there, but it seems that americans need to stop accepting random state regulation and abuse of power ASAP. USA, land of freedom?

First off, military use of "drones" in a war zone is irrelevant to discussions of their domestic use.

And here's the deal with freedom ... one individual's freedom ends where it impinges on another individual's freedom - they both have a right to act freely, but that sometimes leads to conflicts. If there are just two individuals, they might work out where to draw the line between their respective exercise of freedom, but in a country of 310+ million, there's no way for individuals to work out in advance all potential conflicts. So we form governments, elect representatives, and charge them with working out societal norms for the exercise of freedom.

In this case one's freedom to fly a drone and take pictures impinges too far on other individuals' freedom to enjoy a park in it's natural state. Many, if not most, national parks are set aside specifically for the preservation of the natural state, and means are devised for the public's enjoyment thereof with minimal impact. The natural state does not include the noise or ecological impact of man made devices, so banning them, given the purpose of the park, is hardly an abuse of power. The justification that one just wants to take aerial pictures doesn't mitigate the impact of the transport device. No doubt someone has a marvelous, motor driven, 3D, panoramic, time lapse camera of unimaginable resolution, but it and it's support equipment weigh 200 pounds so it'll need to be ATV mounted and driven through the forest to the best vantage point. Not gonna happen lawfully (unless the NPS sponsors it for scientific or PR purposes - in which case they'll probably use mules).

It's unfortunate that the NPS has cited an existing regulation which (as others have posted) doesn't really seem to apply - because it just muddies the water by redirecting all the discussion to whether or not it applies. There are any number of other regulations in CFR 36 that could be cited .... regulations which seem directly applicable. For example CFR 36, Part 2, Article 2.12:
(a) The following are prohibited:
(1) Operating motorized equipment or machinery such as an electric generating plant, motor vehicle, motorized toy, or an audio device, such as a radio, television set, tape deck or musical instrument, in a manner: (i) That exceeds a noise level of 60 decibels measured on the A-weighted scale at 50 feet; or, if below that level, nevertheless; (ii) makes noise which is unreasonable, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, purpose for which the area was established, impact on park users, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
Or the catchall rule of Part 1, Article 1.5 which lets the NPS close off or limit park areas or activities for pretty much anything:
(a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities, the superintendent may:
(1) Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity.

Use of the latter regulation (absent an emergency) does require that the NPS rule be published in the Federal Register. I imagine that will happen someday if folks don't heed their current warnings. It probably hasn't happened as yet because they want to make sure that when they do so, they get the wording just right to cover all the mutations of related activities that will arise.

 

[CarlJ]

So it´s legal and ok to fly US drones all over the world and KILL people but for recreational, art, rescue och creative use it is a No-Fly. :-(
I am a swede with huge love for America, people and things from there, but it seems that americans need to stop accepting random state regulation and abuse of power ASAP. USA, land of freedom?

- in which case they'll probably use mules).

I heard while I was there that the "wranglers" had never lost a mule due to falling, they slip and slide, but don't fall down. On the negative side they stink up to high heaven...

 

[gfredrone]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05 ... nal-parks/

“There are various regulations and statutes, such as the Bald Eagle Protection Act, that may apply to conduct that disturbs protected wildlife species,” Warren said. “Drone operators may inadvertently run afoul of those laws even if they were not written to apply to any specific technology.”

WTF

 

[BenDronePilot]

When I was a kid I worked at Grand Canyon for a summer, and the parks have naturalist Rangers, and combat Rangers, one is like Ranger Smith, the other is not. They know how to deal with people who don't follow the rules, and a violation there can be a federal offense...I wouldn't push it.

The parks are so beautiful, it's hard not to want to film them, but they're protected for a good reason. It's not the place for drones.

Drones or quad copters are no danger to the parks in my opinion and why you feel a park is not a place for one kind of boggles the mind. They are excellent open areas to fly with very little risk of injuring person or property should something go amiss. Any banning of them from parks national or not is completely wrong and people should stand up for "Drones" and our right to fly where we wish.

 

[Boozshey]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcne ... 5000-fine/

 

[Boozshey]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcne ... heir-side/

 

[Jayson Hanes]

Drones or quad copters are no danger to the parks in my opinion and why you feel a park is not a place for one kind of boggles the mind. They are excellent open areas to fly with very little risk of injuring person or property should something go amiss. Any banning of them from parks national or not is completely wrong and people should stand up for "Drones" and our right to fly where we wish.

Agreed.

 

[panhygrous pantler]

feel a park is not a place for one kind of boggles the mind.

Many folks claim to visit national parks for a "true nature experience" and expect opportunities to "peacefully enjoy nature without the intrusion of the modern world."

These folks have used those arguments for years to limit recreational opportunities in National parks and now they are using the same arguments to limit UAV use, mostly due to the noise.

 

[CarlJ]

feel a park is not a place for one kind of boggles the mind.

Many folks claim to visit national parks for a "true nature experience" and expect opportunities to "peacefully enjoy nature without the intrusion of the modern world."

These folks have used those arguments for years to limit recreational opportunities in National parks and now they are using the same arguments to limit UAV use, mostly due to the noise.

It's not only noise, but the impact on the animal life, and hundreds of other things. And one groups right can't be allowed to superseded others or you end up with: me me me me me me, okay enough about me, what do you think about me.

 

[CarlJ]

When I was a kid I worked at Grand Canyon for a summer, and the parks have naturalist Rangers, and combat Rangers, one is like Ranger Smith, the other is not. They know how to deal with people who don't follow the rules, and a violation there can be a federal offense...I wouldn't push it.

The parks are so beautiful, it's hard not to want to film them, but they're protected for a good reason. It's not the place for drones.

Drones or quad copters are no danger to the parks in my opinion and why you feel a park is not a place for one kind of boggles the mind. They are excellent open areas to fly with very little risk of injuring person or property should something go amiss. Any banning of them from parks national or not is completely wrong and people should stand up for "Drones" and our right to fly where we wish.

I wouldn't be apposed to designated areas within the parks, but can't really see how that would work. You'd always have people bending the rules. And people are a danger to the parks, so come on...drones aren't?

Edit: Reading over your post again...your mind is not the only one boggled. It sounds to me like you really don't care who or what is harmed as long as you get what you want. Me me me me me me, enough about me, what do you think about me...