Yellowstone NP cracking down on Illegal drone use....

[dronegod1971]

You won't be in a position to sugar-coat anything if you keep responding like that to forum moderators.

I was going to leave that alone after my correction but that sounded an awful lot like a threat. I'm sorry, is my first amendment right in jeopardy because I called out a "moderator"? I didn't threaten anyone (like you did) or post any slanderous or liable comments. I merely stated that the rules governing the right to fly drones in state parks is (in my opinion) ridiculous and unwarranted. Go ahead and ban me or whatever you feel you need to do. Ill sign up under another name. You need to stop threatening people. You live in fear of a guy that has no real authority.

 

[dronegod1971]

I like riding a dirt bike and an ATV, so that's cool too right? Everyone on this forum loves to fly and all but a few are A-OK with leaving the parks drone free so that should tell you that it's reasonable.

because BigAl07 says so....

 

[dronegod1971]

You won't be in a position to sugar-coat anything if you keep responding like that to forum moderators.

come and get me

 

[dirkclod]

come and get me

Just did .

 

[sar104]

Just did .
View attachment 110967

What a strange fellow.

 

[dirkclod]

What a strange fellow.

Ya think

 

[BigAl07]

Wow I spend some time in my workshop and it gets "interesting" up in here

 

[Doninoz]

I’m intrigued by all the comments. I’m an Australian Lawyer and I’ve been drafting laws for national parks and other government assets to stop photographers (including drones) photographing those assets. The primary reason for these regulations is so governments (at least in Australia) can make money contracting asset photography to individuals who are prepared to pay for the commercial rights! I suspect it is the same in the USA as well!

 

[sar104]

Ya think

Well of course I can't be certain. You intervened before the unambiguous indicator - going all-caps in addition to bold-face, underlined, large red font.

 

[BigAl07]

I’m intrigued by all the comments. I’m an Australian Lawyer and I’ve been drafting laws for national parks and other government assets to stop photographers (including drones) photographing those assets. The primary reason for these regulations is so governments (at least in Australia) can make money contracting asset photography to individuals who are prepared to pay for the commercial rights! I suspect it is the same in the USA as well!

No sir it's to protect the natural assets.... not to exploit them.

 

[bhartwell]

Its good to see a lively discussion on this topic. Let’s not fall into who flames who, that’s pointless.

As a group though, we need to decide, or not, that general bans of drones in certain areas are ok. I personally don’t think so and have advocated this position for some time. General bans are easy, they are not the solution.

I agree with many that restrictions are appropriate and should be thought out and enacted. I don’t want my peaceful hike interrupted by a noisy drone any more then I want it intercepted by an ATV zipping by. Does that mean we should ban ATVs from all natural areas? Of course not. It means, rules around how close to people or populated areas we can fly should be considered. The real vs imagined impacts on wildlife should be considered. Areas that could be adversely impacted should be made off limits. All good, and likely all appropriate.

Where the line has to be drawn is these blanket bans over vast areas. It makes no sense and absolutely takes away our ability to enjoy these natural treasures, which is no more appropriate then banning cameras, because we might want to take pictures.

People, hobbyists, and the industry should and need to speak out to support appropriate use vs. blanket bans. If we do not, then we will simply get more bans established by people who don’t care and don’t want to spend the time to come up with something better.

Just my 2-cents on this topic.

 

[bhartwell]

There was also the incident where a drone crash to one of the most beautiful geyser pools in Yellowstone. I cannot even imagine the damage that did.

Honestly, and I don’t mean to be quirky, but likely little or none. The drone probably didn’t do so well, and pulling a bit of melted plastic from the area would certainly be an annoyance, but damage? Likely none.

Stupid thing to do I agree.

 

[Meta4]

I’ve been drafting laws for national parks and other government assets to stop photographers (including drones) photographing those assets. The primary reason for these regulations is so governments (at least in Australia) can make money contracting asset photography to individuals who are prepared to pay for the commercial rights!

I remember the good old days when national parks were for everyone and managing the national park estate for everyone was the core responsibility of the park service rather than making money contracting asset photography to individuals who are prepared to pay for the commercial rights.

 

[furthertofly]

My wife and I do a lot of camping during the summer. We pay attention to and follow whatever the rules are for a particular campground. If we feel the rules are too stringent we avoid that campground but we do expect that if the campground has rules they will strictly enforce the rules. We appreciate our quiet time. If there are kids making noise during regular daylight hours we accept that as part of what goes with camping in a particular place BUT when quiet hours come we expect everyone to honor those hours.

Again, my issues is the TOTAL ban on flying drones in national parks. In my opinion there should be some accommodation for those that are willing to abide by rules of time, place and manner to enjoy this pastime in the parks. Will there be those that try to stretch the rules? Of course, just as there are those that ignore the ban. Everyone shouldn't be penalized for the benefit or penalization of a few.

Well yeah, I'm familiar with state parks that permit drone operation on certain days and seasons, and that seems reasonable -- particularly if they can publicize those policies so that everybody knows what to expect. A polite letter to to your representatives might get some attention.

 

[furthertofly]

I’m intrigued by all the comments. I’m an Australian Lawyer and I’ve been drafting laws for national parks and other government assets to stop photographers (including drones) photographing those assets. The primary reason for these regulations is so governments (at least in Australia) can make money contracting asset photography to individuals who are prepared to pay for the commercial rights! I suspect it is the same in the USA as well!

Asset photography for revenue is not really a concern of governments in the USA. There is both custom and legislation discouraging agencies from from profiting on services the private sector can reasonably do. For instance, reservations, fees, maintenance etc. for virtually all camgrounds in public recreation areas is contracted out to businesses that try to make it profitable. I think any government park manager will tell you the two major concerns in drone regulation are safety of the visitors and resources (some of these parks are very crowded at times), and aesthetics (there's a strong desire, mostly mythical, to get away from civilization). That said, there are a lot of commercial film and documentary makers producing programs for broadcast who have a need for drone photography in parks, and there are permit processes for modest fees that allow this to happen. Most of these producers see the wisdom of sharing their images with park managers for park uses.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

What's next? Are we going to have new laws banning overflight of wilderness areas by manned aircraft at any altitude because seeing a high flying airliner interferes with hikers' illusions that they are totally separate from civilization? For that matter, why not totally ban from national parks all cameras of any kind because some people are annoyed by them?

 

[sar104]

What's next? Are we going to have new laws banning overflight of wilderness areas by manned aircraft at any altitude because seeing a high flying airliner interferes with hikers' illusions that they are totally separate from civilization? For that matter, why not totally ban from national parks all cameras of any kind because some people are annoyed by them?

How many logical fallacies can you cram into one short post?

 

[bhartwell]

How many logical fallacies can you cram into one short post?

I don’t see the need to completely disregard these statements. Let’s take a real life example:

Take a camera with a tripod and professional zoom lens on it and start taking pictures in Zion National park. Last year a ban was placed on tripod cameras in the Park as the Park began to put restrictions on “professional” photographers.

After an uproar over this became public, the Park backed off sightly and limited the use of tripod cameras in various areas, like trails, but allowed them from certain road pullouts, etc. Other Parks have followed this trend.

So, this is not just fear mongering.

 

[sar104]

I don’t see the need to completely disregard these statements.

I didn't disregard them - I pointed out that they were logical fallacies.

Let’s take a real life example:

Take a camera with a tripod and professional zoom lens on it and start taking pictures in Zion National park. Last year a ban was placed on tripod cameras in the park began to put restrictions on “professional” photographers. After an uproar over this became public, the Park backed off sightly and limited the use of tripod cameras in various areas, like trails, but allowed them from certain road pullouts, etc.

So, this is not just fear mongering.

Agreed - it's not fear-mongering. It's rampant, unsupported slippery-slope speculation. Worse than that it's obviously absurd. And your example has no relationship to the post that I was responding to, because the motivation was completely different.

 

[bhartwell]

I didn't disregard them - I pointed out that they were logical fallacies.



Agreed - it's not fear-mongering. It's rampant, unsupported slippery-slope speculation. Worse than that it's obviously absurd. And your example has no relationship to the post that I was responding to, because the motivation was completely different.

“Obviously absurd”? How so..... the topic is using tools, such as camera drones, and restrictions of these by Park Services. The debate is over fair access and use of public lands. These bans exist today and continue to expand. It’s not slippery slope, it’s current state.