Yosemite National Park issued a warning Friday, and it didn't have to do with bears or hazardous park conditions. The new concern: Unmanned drone aircraft. There are numerous videos on YouTube in which drones are used to take in the scenic beauty. Rangers said enough is enough.

"The park has experienced an increase in visitors using drones within park boundaries over the last few years," officials said in a statement. "Drones have been witnessed filming climbers ascending climbing routes, filming views above tree-tops, and filming aerial footage of the park." The park said drones pose a safety threat as well as ruin the aesthetics of the wilderness. "Drones can be extremely noisy, and can impact the natural soundscape," officials said. "Drones can also impact the wilderness experience for other visitors, creating an environment that is not conducive to wilderness travel."

The park said the use of drones there is illegal, but it's unclear if anyone has been caught in the act.

Source: Illegal drones ruining Yosemite's natural beauty, rangers say - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-illegal-drones-ruining-yosemites-nature-beauty-rangers-say-20140502,0,3645936.story#axzz30gNJXYYg)

Rangers said enough is enough.

I'll second that.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but would say I agree with the Park's stance.

Just curious if they quantified the safety threat, as compared to say climbing, or vehicle accidents

Although I want one, they are very annoying to listen to. Especially if you go to a park to get away from sound pollution.

Just curious if they quantified the safety threat, as compared to say climbing, or vehicle accidents

What does it matter? It adds to whatever is already present so when is enough enough? Safety is one of several negatives and not the main one.

I must say, while I operate a small R/C and would like to be able to do so wherever I want... what gives me the right? I do think the default should be to respect the rights of the wider public and the natural realm.

Like the FAA had no authority to ban commercial multirotor imaging as found by the appellate courts, the park service rangers have no jurisdiction to regulate the airways, this is FAA jurisdiction.

Mission creep.

The NPS does have the authority to regulate how the property they manage is used. The court ruling you mentioned has nothing to do with administration of federal park lands. Park agencies (NPS, COE, BLM, USFS) have long had the authority to regulate particular uses of the resource through CFR 36. The FAA even has long-standing flight rules over some parks that considers safety and quiet.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title36/36tab_02.tpl

http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload/Appendix_A_through_C.pdf

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-93/subpart-U

http://www2.mvn.usace.army.mil/recreation/rec_rulesnregs.asp

The ranger at the Grand Canyon National Park information desk said that you would need special permission to fly a drone there. Irresponsible people have used drones to chase the giant condors in the air.
It may be possible to fly in private areas like the Grand Canyon West, home of the Hualapai Indian Nation, where helicopter tours are available.
The Grand Canyon is an amazing sight!

Yosemite National Park issued a warning Friday, and it didn't have to do with bears or hazardous park conditions. The new concern: Unmanned drone aircraft. There are numerous videos on YouTube in which drones are used to take in the scenic beauty. Rangers said enough is enough.

"The park has experienced an increase in visitors using drones within park boundaries over the last few years," officials said in a statement. "Drones have been witnessed filming climbers ascending climbing routes, filming views above tree-tops, and filming aerial footage of the park." The park said drones pose a safety threat as well as ruin the aesthetics of the wilderness. "Drones can be extremely noisy, and can impact the natural soundscape," officials said. "Drones can also impact the wilderness experience for other visitors, creating an environment that is not conducive to wilderness travel."

The park said the use of drones there is illegal, but it's unclear if anyone has been caught in the act.

Source: Illegal drones ruining Yosemite's natural beauty, rangers say - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-illegal-drones-ruining-yosemites-nature-beauty-rangers-say-20140502,0,3645936.story#axzz30gNJXYYg)

What a load of CRAP!

Here's a great example of a wonderful video that if bureaucrats had their way would never have been made: EROSION on Vimeo

They ban MR's because of an increase of videos on YouTube. You can free climb Half Dome, base jump, balance on ropes suspended hundreds of feet in the air, they have a field where hang gliders can land, thousands of cars drive through every day and they think drones are ruining Yosemite's natural beauty. What total BS.

As long as "they" get to use the park the way "they" think it should be enjoyed, "they" will decide how to restrict access to to everyone else.

The hypocrisy is palpable.

What a load of CRAP!

As long as "they" get to use the park the way "they" think it should be enjoyed, "they" will decide how to restrict access to to everyone else.

I agree.

I don't have a problem with regulating drones. But a ban is nonsense; it kills the use of a fantastic new photo and video tool in the Park. I'm appalled at how many photographers and videographers nod their heads and agree with the ban. I must be getting old, but I think many people give up their rights too easily.

Here is what I would do about drones.
1. License drone operators; they would pass a test on the regulations and how to operate a drone safely, and they would demonstrate they can fly safely and responsibly.
2. Limit the size of drones operated in the Park. Possibly limit the db.
3. A permit would be required to fly in the Park. This could limit the days and hours of operation.

This would control drone nuisance, but it would allow this new photo and video tool do develop responsibly, and let us experience the Park in this new and astonishing way.

Unfortunately I don't think most people see this as an infringement of their civil liberties. When we regulate things under the guise of safety or security that seems to make it OK. Its not. We spent billions of dollars making everyone remove their shoes and scanning them because some insane psychopath was going to blow up a plane. Talk about catering to the lowest common denominator of society.

I'm reluctant to make it necessary that you have a permit to shoot in the park. It puts bureaucrats in the position of picking winners and loser's, some will be able to shoot there and other will have to wait like 15 years.

But this is how ridiculous this is, this guy is a guest speaker who is being recognized for his contributions to aerial video. Congratulations, I wish I had the opportunity to do AP the way he does. They closed Yosemite to drones so I can’t shoot there but he can shoot in State and National Parks? Why? He works for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Talk about hypocrisy. While the rest of us were being restricted from flying commercial AP this government employee was being paid to shoot AP.

Sacramento Video Industry Professional's, The Sacramento VIP's (http://www.sacramentovips.com/index.htm)

Did you ever see the judge Judy episode where an rc aircraft landed in some bodies garden and they refused to return it, having warned the local club that they considered unauthorised entry to their property as trespass. She ruled that they had the right to not be disturbed by the aircraft, that the potential damage should they come down was high. She said they couldn't keep the wreckage, but said they were entitled to damages.

If the park is owned by somebody, I'm assuming they can set whatever rules they want, and that noise is very very annoying!

I think the ban is about the noise ordinance. You can't use motorized toys in the park.

Did you ever see the judge Judy episode where an rc aircraft landed in some bodies garden and they refused to return it, having warned the local club that they considered unauthorised entry to their property as trespass. She ruled that they had the right to not be disturbed by the aircraft, that the potential damage should they come down was high. She said they couldn't keep the wreckage, but said they were entitled to damages.

If the park is owned by somebody, I'm assuming they can set whatever rules they want, and that noise is very very annoying!

The park is owned by the tax payers of the US. Its a public park. Legislation by Judge Judy?

Once someone loses control of their RC then they should be held responsible for whatever injury or damage that might occur, but that's equally true of a car.

I think the ban is about the noise ordinance. You can't use motorized toys in the park.

I guess it depends on your definition of toy and what problem they are trying to solve with the ban. They certainly allow other motorized vehicles in the park that are much louder, more obtrusive and equally dangerous to others in the park.

There's no doubt that there was an increase in drone usage in the park but I'd be willing to bet that despite the hyperbole that most rangers had never actually seen any MR's in the park. Yosemite is a huge park even if there were 50 or 100 MR's flying at the same time the odds of seeing or hearing them are remote and even if you did see or hear one why is it considered more obtrusive than a Harley riding through the valley?

I guess it depends on your definition of toy and what problem they are trying to solve with the ban.

More specifically, 36 CFR 2.12 - Audio disturbances. | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/2.12)

although some have noted 36 CFR 2.17 - Aircraft and air delivery. | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/2.17)

"motorized equipment or machinery" seems sufficiently broad to include the thing that appears to defy definition and it should be apparent the problem being solved is noise pollution. Although I suspect your audio level would be below the 60 dB threshold at 50', looks like the ii) par. exclusion would be used to stop the activity in any case, for instance if others in the park complained about the noise.

Yosemite is a huge park even if there were 50 or 100 MR's flying at the same time the odds of seeing or hearing them are remote and even if you did see or hear one why is it considered more obtrusive than a Harley riding through the valley?
I suspect the answer would firstly be that being high up the noise is audible over a much wider radius than a comparable noise at ground level, and secondly that they are unlikely to be randomly spread over the park - far more likely to be grouped at sites of special interest, as with visitors in general?

The other factor is that absolute noise level is not the only factor - the noise from drones may be considered more objectionable than general traffic noise, say?

Now expanding to all national parks and other assets:

U.S. Moves to Ban Drones in National Parks - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/travel/u-s-moves-ban-drones-national-parks-n136906)

Too bad they didn't ban Ansel Adams and all the other great nature photographers from hiking around making lots of noise, scaring the wildlife with bright flashes with their new fangled large format camera's..

God forbid that they distributed awesome images that inspired people World wide to visit these incredible areas and enabled them share their experience with those that couldn't.

In all likelihood if Ansel Adams was starting today he would not be able to do what he did to create such wonderful images of Yosemite and the World would be a lessor place for it. But at least that would have made some polite yuppie backpackers and wannabe environmentalist happy.

Drones = Ansel Adams?

I think not. If you want to plead a contrary case it might be best to start with a valid comparison & point.

Not wanting one of these things buzzing around waiting for it to run out of juice or range only to fall on one's head has nothing to do with political affiliation or social status.

so you want drones in national parkts... OK

what size?

what about full size helicopters flying tours around national parks?

How many?

Population increases, more tourism, increased interest in rock climbing, red bull sponsors extreme speed climbs on el capitan... 50 drones vying for the best shot akin to the mass of gopros you now see stuck onto rally cars. etc... etc... yea unlikely extreme examples, but anything is possible when you allow first, regulate later, if ever.

Those of you adamantly for the allowance of drones in places like national parks: do you really think you should be allowed to do something before some sort of oversight can determine just what type of regulation is appropriate? Yes this blanket sweep ban is a hard line, but that's exactly where it needs to start. It's not like it's a clear cut safe and unobtrusive activity, in fact it's highly in question and agencies are certainly not caught up in figuring out what to do about it. And until they do, how is banning it anything but appropriate?

From my point of view, people saying that the ban is ridiculous is like saying that you should be allowed to drive a car before passing drivers ed. which leads to a relation: you didn't need a license to drive a car when they first came out, but in many cases you needed express permission from the government to use the then new invention.

Drones = Ansel Adams?

I think not. If you want to plead a contrary case it might be best to start with a valid comparison & point.

My thoughts as well - Ansel Adams may well have "distributed awesome images that inspired people World wide to visit these incredible areas" - but the vast majority of drone video is mediocre at best and I agree that to compare it with Ansel Adams is a poor comparison.

That's not to say the best drone photography won't indeed produce awesome images of the areas - but that's easily dealt with by an official exception by the authorities to the "Ansel Adams of the day". (With the resources to do it professionally.) It isn't a reason for the majority of park users to have to endure the noise etc a free for all that allowing everyone who wishes to fly their drone there would inevitably bring.

Adams was 17 when he first went into Yosemite, in 1916. Photography was still relatively new and the vast majority of the photography at that time was crap. It took Adams almost fifteen years to develop his photographic technique, it wasn't until almost 1930 that his photography got much recognition in a limited edition book about Kings Canyon for the Sierra Club Bulletin.

If Ansel Adams wanted to pack a mule and camp on the valley floor to take pictures today he would have to first wait for about five to ten years to get the permit, he could only stay for the allotted time of the permit so if the weather was bad - too bad and he often stayed for a month or more, and there's no way he could pack in a portable darkroom.

With the over regulation of the Notational Parks Ansel Adams could not do today what he did starting in 1927. None of you know what kind of aerial photography will be possible fifteen years from now but many of you seem to want to pull the rug out from under a potential future aerial Ansel Adams before they even have the opportunity to get started.

Regarding Ansel Adams, like is not being compared to like. There were relatively few people wandering in the national parks with large format cameras in his day, probably there's not that many doing the same thing today. However, there are quite a few flying aerial vehicles (of various sizes) with cameras being used in general compared to those using large format cameras in general.

Forest fires could also be a possible cause for concern: Warning for agriculture pilots - crash caused fire - DIY Drones (http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/warning-for-agriculture-pilots-crash-caused-fire)

Forest fires could also be a possible cause for concern: Warning for agriculture pilots - crash caused fire - DIY Drones (http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/warning-for-agriculture-pilots-crash-caused-fire)

If your gonna play the Forest Fire card, then we might as well go all the way, and ban ALL people from National Forest. Humans are the leading cause of forest fires

Not me playing it, just one thing that decision makers may throw in as a minor factor, other things would be more important. Unfortunately, lithium batteries do sometimes catch ignite, especially poorly manufactured ones. Drones are brought there by humans.

Not me playing it, just one thing that decision makers may throw in as a minor factor, other things would be more important. Unfortunately, lithium batteries do sometimes catch ignite, especially poorly manufactured ones. Drones are brought there by humans.

My point exactly. Cameras have lithium batteries, ergo, cameras should be banned from the National Forest

With the over regulation of the Notational Parks Ansel Adams could not do today what he did starting in 1927. None of you know what kind of aerial photography will be possible fifteen years from now but many of you seem to want to pull the rug out from under a potential future aerial Ansel Adams before they even have the opportunity to get started.

Chuck, I don't know if I can buy your argument or complete reasoning to oppose this situation is solely for the betterment of mankind through photography/video. Really? Future Ansel Adams are being repressed by the evil tree huggers...

I would think that a permit issuance situation will emerge and wonderful images will once again have the opportunity to be made for larger scale productions.

What most want to avoid is the parks becoming "toy land" for every kid on vacation wizzing their new copters around wherever they go. That's the reality.

My point exactly. Cameras have lithium batteries, ergo, cameras should be banned from the National Forest

Cameras tend not to go overflying areas of woodland without their operators. It's only a slight risk and other factors like noise and disturbing wildlife are more important. The wolf has a better case than drones.

There is a chance, no matter how small, that a camera could catch on fire, and the owner/operator would drop it into the tinder-dry grass and start a wild-fire. This is just one thing that decision makers may throw in as a minor factor, other things would be more important

One might accidentally step on a flint based stone while hiking, that could possibly cause a spark as it struck another rock. This spark could start a fire, which could spread through Yosemite. If the winds were high enough, it could carry an ember outside the park, and start fires elsewhere. This could spread nationwide. The Chinese could perceive this as a giant diversionary smokescreen, and fear its a cover for a nuclear first strike. As a result of fears by the Chinese authorities, they could launch a preventative first nuclear strike, which could cause the U.S. to fire back, resulting in global nuclear winter, at which point all life could cease on the planet all because of the risks of hiking on foot on the ground with flint based rocks.

The moral of the story is, since you can never be too safe and you can never have too many government regulations saving us from ourselves, don't do anything, just enjoy your risk free life.

We used to have an Irish comedian over here called Dave Allen. He was my favourite, but sadly he died a few years ago. Your scenario sounds so much like the sort of sketches he used to do in his TV shows, I am almost tempted to ask if you are him reincarnated (chuckle).

I have reservations about the widespread use of drones and appreciate that legislation will not stop the unscrupulous getting and using them illegally. However, some sort of licensing system will at least give give the authorities power to act in cases of misuse. Compulsory training and a test before licensing will ensure everyone knows how to fly them safely and compulsory insurance will help in the case of any accidents.

Just my two penn'orth!

Dave

Errr, hold on. Let's go back to the first post in this thread, and the quote from the original statement:

"The park said drones pose a safety threat as well as ruin the aesthetics of the wilderness. "Drones can be extremely noisy, and can impact the natural soundscape," officials said. "Drones can also impact the wilderness experience for other visitors, creating an environment that is not conducive to wilderness travel."

It's my understanding that the PRIMARY reasons for the ban are nothing to do with safety? That the whole point of the parks is to keep areas of wilderness, and if increasing numbers of drones start to be used, the wilderness is diminished?

I gather the ban is currently temporary, this article does seem to give some background for it being put in place:

National Park Service Moves to Ban Drones - WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-government-moves-to-ban-drones-in-national-parks-1403286430)

We used to have an Irish comedian over here called Dave Allen. He was my favourite, but sadly he died a few years ago. Your scenario sounds so much like the sort of sketches he used to do in his TV shows, I am almost tempted to ask if you are him reincarnated (chuckle).

Dave

Nah, I am just clowning around using domino theory drama sarcasm to make a point to those who become turgid when they have a chance to give up both their liberties and others without consent to Big Government.

I probably would have enjoyed the irish comedian.....in his honor I shall look for his skits on youtube.

Dave Allen would have endless fun with drones. Dog fighting pizza delivery drones, unwanted mailing drones, drones carrying you to your funeral (Death, religion, sex, lifts (elevators) and corporate life were open season). He also loved eccentrics.

I so enjoyed Dave Allen. We watched on PBS every week.