Unmanned Aircraft to be Prohibited in America’s National Parks

Dave

Dave

Adventurist
Founder
Senior Staff
Editor
I'm torn on this.

Obviously, noise and such is a concern. But I've also seen some EPIC footage of areas, and perspectives, that were previously impossible.

Visitor safety and park resources concerns prompt policy directive

WASHINGTON – National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis today signed a policy memorandum that directs superintendents nationwide to prohibit launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service.

“We embrace many activities in national parks because they enhance visitor experiences with the iconic natural, historic and cultural landscapes in our care,” Jarvis said. “However, we have serious concerns about the negative impact that flying unmanned aircraft is having in parks, so we are prohibiting their use until we can determine the most appropriate policy that will protect park resources and provide all visitors with a rich experience.”

Unmanned aircraft have already been prohibited at several national parks. These parks initiated bans after noise and nuisance complaints from park visitors, an incident in which park wildlife were harassed, and park visitor safety concerns.
Click to expand...

http://www.nps.gov/news/release.htm?id=1601
 
Dave said:
I'm torn on this.
Click to expand...

I think we're in the same boat. Those who can be responsible and considerate with the technology can produce some awesome stuff, but those deficient in the "common sense" gene will be bound to screw it up epically!
 
Seems to me that it would be better to require a permit for use rather than just an outright ban. It would generate some income for the parks, and be no harder to enforce than this new policy. I've seen some spectacular video and photography from these, and would like to see more.
 
Problem is idiots have money too.... they are also dangerous with the larger ones and stiff blades.

Trump said:
Seems to me that it would be better to require a permit for use rather than just an outright ban. It would generate some income for the parks, and be no harder to enforce than this new policy. I've seen some spectacular video and photography from these, and would like to see more.
Click to expand...
 
I don't see this being much of a problem for people who use these with a permit / in a responsible way that doesn't piss off visitors and wildlife.

We will see...
 
I think it can be a privacy issue. I wouldn't be thrilled to have drones flying around my camp site regardless of the operators skill or good intentions. Permits are hardly worth the paper they are written on...just claim you were too stupid to understand what you were signing. If they put an arbitrary number on how many feet etc they can be flown from designated camp areas would also be difficult at best to enforce. Equip rangers with laser range finders?
 
bob91yj said:
I think it can be a privacy issue. I wouldn't be thrilled to have drones flying around my camp site regardless of the operators skill or good intentions. Permits are hardly worth the paper they are written on...just claim you were too stupid to understand what you were signing. If they put an arbitrary number on how many feet etc they can be flown from designated camp areas would also be difficult at best to enforce. Equip rangers with laser range finders?
Click to expand...

As much as I wouldn't like someone flying their helicopter through my camp and rolling video, it doesn't change the fact that it is completely legal. We are in public places, not in our homes. I am however comforted by the fact that anyone rolling video in my camp would probably die of boredom while watching anything they captured. What I'm trying to point out here, is there's a big difference between the mind set of a college kid playing with his new toy with a GoPro attached, and say Brent Haywood with about $15k aloft. Do we stop the creative work of a good photographer, because we can't tell the difference?
 
Case on the news semi-related to this topic. Lady saw a drone outside here 20 something floor condo supposedly 'peeping' in on her. She snapped a pic. Drone completely outfitted with cameras pointed right at her.
 
Last edited:
brentbba said:
Case on the news semi-related to this topic. Lady saw a drone outside here 20 something floor condo supposedly 'peeping' in on her. She snapped a pic. Drone completely outfitted with cameras pointed right at her.
Click to expand...

Wrong will always be wrong, and pervs will embrace technology as fast as it develops. Look what they did with the advent of the internet...
 
Trump said:
As much as I wouldn't like someone flying their helicopter through my camp and rolling video, it doesn't change the fact that it is completely legal. We are in public places, not in our homes. I am however comforted by the fact that anyone rolling video in my camp would probably die of boredom while watching anything they captured. What I'm trying to point out here, is there's a big difference between the mind set of a college kid playing with his new toy with a GoPro attached, and say Brent Haywood with about $15k aloft. Do we stop the creative work of a good photographer, because we can't tell the difference?
Click to expand...

Great point.
 
brentbba said:
Case on the news semi-related to this topic. Lady saw a drone outside here 20 something floor condo supposedly 'peeping' in on her. She snapped a pic. Drone completely outfitted with cameras pointed right at her.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that... will bring up interesting debate, and I see legislation in the future. Get ready to get licensed if you want aerial video/photos.
 
Except there are already laws against peeping. We don't need a specific law against 'drone peeping'. Just another encroachment on freedoms. More to come.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/drone-crashes-famed-hot-spring-yellowstone-national-park-224336681.html

(Reuters) - A tourist seeking to take pictures of Yellowstone National Park crashed a camera-equipped drone into its largest hot spring, possibly damaging the prized geothermal feature, a park official said on Wednesday.
The incident follows the crash earlier this summer of a drone into a marina at Yellowstone Lake and a string of radio-controlled aircraft violations at Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming.
The National Park Service in June announced a ban on so-called unmanned aerial vehicles, but officials say premier national parks in the U.S. West are reporting a sharp rise in the number of drones buzzing bison and boaters.
It was not clear if the drone that crashed Grand Prismatic Spring on Saturday and sank into its depths would damage the geothermal feature, park spokesman Al Nash said, and officials were still trying to decide whether to remove it.
"What we have to determine is whether the presence of this radio-controlled recreational aircraft poses a threat to that unique resource," Nash said of the Grand Prismatic, the third-largest hot spring in the world and a top attraction for the roughly 3 million visitors who flock to Yellowstone each year.
The park is puzzling over how to find the drone and extract it without damaging the hot spring, which is 370 feet in diameter, more than 121 feet deep and known for its brilliant colors caused by bacteria and minerals in the water.
The desire by some visitors to capture and post online footage of wildlife and scenic views must be weighed against public safety, protection of natural resources and complaints by an increasing number of visitors who say low-flying drones have marred their experience at Yellowstone, Nash said.
Drones are not the first challenge affecting natural resources at a park that spans parts of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. Visitors in decades past threw coins in water features.
Fishing Cone Geyser on the edge of Yellowstone Lake was a popular catch-and-cook site for anglers.
“People would stand on it with a fishing pole, catch a fish and then drop that fish into the thermal feature where it would cook,” said Nash.
He added: “Once it was determined there was arsenic in the geyser water, that practice stopped.”
 
450px-MagnumS4E04_02.jpg

Do you guys remember the episode of Magnum PI, where Higgins is flying his model plane on the beach, and Thomas is hung over and trying to sleep? He comes out and shoots it mid-air with a skeet gun, freaking awesome!

Bring back the 80s. A guy on prime time could, drive fast, drink beer, shoot bad guys, and bed the ladies. Nobody cared and the kids were allowed to watch!
 
More on the photo permit saga on Forest Service land...


(Reuters) - The U.S. Forest Service has been forced to clarify its position on photography rules for the nation's wild places after a proposed rule change for picture permits prompted fears that visitors could be fined $1,000 for taking snapshots of nature.



The agency asked for public feedback this month on a proposal to set criteria for how to vet requests for commercial filming in wilderness areas, as part of what it called a "good faith effort" to ensure they receive the fullest protection.
The proposal would make permanent a temporary "directive" that has been in place for four years and covers requirements for commercial shoots, such a movies or television commercials.
But it drew criticism that the wording was so vague it could end up being applied to amateurs and bloggers, and even that the proposal infringed on Constitutional liberties.
U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said late on Thursday he wanted to clear up that the provisions in the draft directive do not apply to media reporters or vacationers.
"If you're there to gather news or take recreational photographs, no permit would be required. We take your First Amendment rights very seriously," Tidwell said in a statement.
"We're looking forward to talking with journalists and concerned citizens to help allay some of the concerns we've been hearing and clarify what's covered by this proposed directive."
Given the high level of interest in the case, Tidwell added, the Forest Service has decided to extend the period allowed for public comments by a month, until Dec. 3.
Congressionally-designated wilderness areas are protected by the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the agency is responsible for ensuring they remain in their natural condition.
It said that professional and amateur photographers do not generally need a permit unless they use models, actors or props, work in areas that are normally off-limits to the public, or incur additional administrative costs.
The Forest Service said the cost of commercial permits currently range from about $30 a day for a small three-person team, up to as much as $800 for a large Hollywood production involving a crew of 70 or more. It said the price of $1,500 for a commercial permit cited in some reports was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom