Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
US National Park Ban: No Drones! — Parallax Forums

US National Park Ban: No Drones!

ercoerco Posts: 20,256
edited 2014-07-09 01:34 in General Discussion
The US National Park system is completely out of control.

First, they ban running & cycling events in Death Valley, which ruined the ONLY bike race I ever won: http://www.adventurecorps.com/who/history.html#Anchor-Official-49575

And now they completely ban drones in National Parks: http://news.yahoo.com/drones-banned-us-national-parks-130432721.html

High time for a good cleansing.

Comments

  • RickBRickB Posts: 395
    edited 2014-07-07 14:25
    The area of land available to drone pilots is huge compared to the area of the national parks. Most people go to national parks for the scenery, serenity, solitude, etc. Why do you think you or anyone else should have the right to subject everyone else to an intrusive buzzing irritating drone?
  • mindrobotsmindrobots Posts: 6,506
    edited 2014-07-07 14:34
    This land is my land,
    This land is your land,
    From the NY Islands,
    to the Gulf Stream Waters.
    Except for some,
    public places,
    that the government,
    says we can not USE!

    This land was paid for by you and me!

    Edit: (I should add that I fully support the idea behind the National Park System and at times would like to ban all people, even me! - I just felt like singing a song!)
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2014-07-07 14:37
    Sorry, erco, but I'll have to add to the dog pile on this one and agree with RickB. People go to national parks to experience nature. The buzzing of mosquitos is bad enough, without being augmented by the whine of RC drones.

    -Phil
  • xanaduxanadu Posts: 3,347
    edited 2014-07-07 16:07
    I agree with both sides, the problem is (as Erco is referring to) there are areas of park land where it doesn't cause a problem.

    For instance: ultra-micro planes on the beach. The crashing waves makes it so you can't hear them. The laminar airflow makes it so you can fly indoor only aircraft in 20kt winds. People never seemed to mind, kids love it, parents ask questions. Old pilots tell you war stories. Some of the best aviation stories I've ever heard (and learned from) were from complete strangers on the beach who saw us flying and stopped to chat. Seagulls often follow the micros around out of curiosity. Lifeguards always smile and love to see that it draws positive attention.

    Oh well.. it was fun while it lasted. Now what are Gavin and I going to do on Sunday mornings? Go fly at some stupid AMA field full of people who are already in the hobby and don't have questions?

    This should not be illegal -

    [video=youtube_share;Mo7pMa3eEpM]

    I'm tired of these idiots screwing things up for everyone. Laws should be based on a more granular system.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2014-07-07 16:20
    My take from the article is that the ban is a -- possibly -- temporary moratorium to give NPS time to establish a policy. 'Seems like a sensible approach.

    BTW, this sentence from the article cannot be right:
    "The National Park Service (NPS), the government agency that manages the nation's national parks, monuments and other historical sites, has outlawed launching, landing or operating drones over all federally administered lands and waters."

    NPS, a division of the Dept. of the Interior, does not have jurisdiction over "all federally administerd lands and waters." For example, national forests and designated wilderness areas fall under the Forest Service, a division of the Dept. of Agriculture.

    -Phil
  • JonnyMacJonnyMac Posts: 9,105
    edited 2014-07-07 16:29
    No matter how you package it, this is more evidence of government gone wild.
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2014-07-07 17:54
    Time to prune the bureaucracy to keep it healthy. Unfortunately the pruning needs to be done at the top. Not likely to happen since that is where the pork is.
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2014-07-07 18:09
    I think bans are almost always unnecessary. People misuse an object, then the object gets banned. It only affects those that follow the law, those that wouldn't be causing the problem in the first place. Meanwhile, the ban does not stop the idiots - and there are already rules in place that cover bad behavior.
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2014-07-07 18:24
    Just call it a gun and you're good to go.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35484383/ns/us_news-life/t/new-law-allows-loaded-guns-national-parks/#.U7tH315N1Zg
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,256
    edited 2014-07-07 18:42
    ElectricAye wrote: »
    Just call it a gun and you're good to go.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35484383/ns/us_news-life/t/new-law-allows-loaded-guns-national-parks/#.U7tH315N1Zg

    Pure insanity. From bad to worse!
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2014-07-07 19:00
    I really don't see the problem with having a gun in a national park. It is legal outside the park, what magic happens when you cross to the inside of the park? Hiking in the wilderness is a somewhat common activity in national parks isn't it? Seems reasonable to carry some protection against predation, be it by wild animals or humans with bad intentions.

    It also seems reasonable to have a "drone" in your pack so that you can get some spectacular video footage.
  • TtailspinTtailspin Posts: 1,326
    edited 2014-07-07 19:00
    NPS, a division of the Dept. of the Interior, does not have jurisdiction over "all federally administerd lands and waters." For example, national forests and designated wilderness areas fall under the Forest Service, And one Ring to bind them all>> a division of the Dept. of Agriculture.



    -Tommy
  • NWCCTVNWCCTV Posts: 3,629
    edited 2014-07-07 19:24
    My biggest issue with the National Park system is that they charge us to get in to them.

    Edited for content.
  • prof_brainoprof_braino Posts: 4,313
    edited 2014-07-07 20:02
    Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) wrote: »
    Sorry, erco, but I'll have to add to the dog pile on this one and agree with RickB. People go to national parks to experience nature. The buzzing of mosquitos is bad enough, without being augmented by the whine of RC drones.

    Ban the damn mosquitos first then! And hurry too, we're leaving for vacation tomorrow morning.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2014-07-07 20:06
    As a moderator, it is my reluctant duty to remind folks that this is a thread about drones in national parks (a legitmate topic, since Parallax sells so-called "drones"), not about politics, bureaucracy, big government vs. small government, etc. So, please, try to keep the focus narrow, in accordance with forum guidelines. Locking the thread is an option I really do not want to exercise. (Actually, since I've already contributed to the thread, I could not, in good conscience, do so. Rather, I would ask another moderator to take that action, if necessary.)

    Thanks,
    -Phil
  • rod1963rod1963 Posts: 752
    edited 2014-07-07 20:22
    Good, people go to the parks to get away from stuff like drones and hi tech intrusions, not sit on their duff watching videos of people and trees. The last thing I need to hear or see when I'm out hiking is some nasty drone doing it's eves dropping routine.

    Droners have to learn to respect peoples privacy, otherwise they may find a whole new industry devoted to jamming them the same way cell phone users created the cell jammer industry via their inability to behave like civilized humans.
  • Ken GraceyKen Gracey Posts: 7,392
    edited 2014-07-07 21:51
    My opinion is that it's distasteful to fly UAVs in national parks simply because there are times we need to separate the use of technology from benefits of nature and environment that we receive being in a national park. Have you ever ridden an express train from Chicago to the suburbs? If you get on your cell phone you'll be treated like the baboon you are - it's simply culturally unacceptable. I wish we could handle the "drones in parks" issue the same way. While I realize nobody is going to get hurt using a cell phone on a train, we need a culture of respect more than force to cooperate. For example, the way the national parks have handled cars in Yosemite is not by outlawing them, but by making the alternative busses so darned appealing you don't even want to deal with a car in the park. Why couldn't we handle them 'drones' in the same way?

    I also find it unfortunate that the silliness of yet more government control to tell us this is the new rule. That's what I object to! I'd like to recover the taxpayer dollars spent creating, lobbying, and approving this law and see the effort be communicated first through the various documents they hand out when you enter a national park (don't feed the animals, keep your car moving, leave no trace, etc.). Laws don't get changed and we only get more of them as time passes by.

    As for spying on people with buzzing camera-loaded drones in parks, I'm sure it's not all that interesting to UAV pilots. But if people find it a privacy issue, it may as well be one. What's worse would be crashing a quadcopter into a climber scaling up the side of El Capitan.

    Ken Gracey
  • User NameUser Name Posts: 1,451
    edited 2014-07-07 21:58
    We steer far away from National Parks - too many people, too many rules, too inconvenient. Still, I'm sure the NPS does a great job of managing a difficult task.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2014-07-07 22:07
    User Name wrote:
    We steer far away from National Parks - too many people ...
    It depends upon how you get into the park. If you go through the drive-in ticket-booth entrance, yes, you might encounter the summer hoards. But there are other ways to enjoy the solitude of our national treasures. For example, on your nearby Olympic Peninsula, there are ways to hike into Olympic National Park via national forest lands and trailheads that completely skirt the blue-haired ladies in pink tights with yappy dogs. It requires more effort, but it's totally worth it!

    -Phil
  • Ken GraceyKen Gracey Posts: 7,392
    edited 2014-07-07 22:21
    Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) wrote: »
    It depends upon how you get into the park.
    -Phil

    That's why I often float through them! Hardly saw a soul in the Flathead River in Glacier National Park, a few parties on the Middle Fork Salmon in Frank Church Wilderness. Can't say the same for the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. By comparison that river is a freeway.

    Ken Gracey
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2014-07-07 22:21
    Remember, not all national parks are Yosemite's. Many are quite desolate. Check out this List_of_national_parks_of_the_United_States, there is over 50 million acres of National Parks.
  • User NameUser Name Posts: 1,451
    edited 2014-07-07 22:59
    W9GFO makes a good point. Gates of the Arctic and Saguaro were not the least bit crowded when I last visited each. And if there were rules, no one was around to enforce them.
  • xanaduxanadu Posts: 3,347
    edited 2014-07-09 01:34
    The last time I flew a copter in my backyard the birds in the trees hated it, and that was the last time I flew in my back yard.

    It really depends on the individual and their respect for what is around them. Considering how many people pollute the environment, not many are innocent. There's something about human mentality when things buzz around in the air that bothers them. Then they peacefully drive home in their SUVs complaining about it. Talking on their cell phones, driving like complete idiots, complaining about it. Perhaps nearly killing someone along the way.

    But those copters are bad I tell ya, real bad.
Sign In or Register to comment.