Drones banned from Yosemite National Park

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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.

Originally Posted by Jim Michael

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?

[Jim Michael]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

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

although some have noted 36 CFR 2.17 - Aircraft and air delivery. | LII / Legal Information Institute

"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.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

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?

[Jim Michael]

Now expanding to all national parks and other assets:

U.S. Moves to Ban Drones in National Parks - NBC News

[Chuck Spaulding]

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.

[Tim Polster]

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.

[Darren Levine]

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.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Tim Polster

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.

[Chuck Spaulding]

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Vince Pachiano]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Forest fires could also be a possible cause for concern: Warning for agriculture pilots - crash caused fire - DIY Drones

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Vince Pachiano]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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

[Tim Polster]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

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.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Vince Pachiano

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.