Yosemite prohibits drones

So, what about kites and tethered balloons?

I would love to have a job sniping those out of the sky.

Your link includes the phrase "except in emergencies involving public safety" which one would think would include SAR. While drones are noisy and intrusive, helicopters are more so.

There is at least one instance of the NPS using drones to map paleontological trackways. I, for one, am a fan of their use for archaeological and paleontological purposes, subject to reasonable controls, of course. They have vast potential.

Your link includes the phrase "except in emergencies involving public safety" which one would think would include SAR.

I think this is where NPS wants to have their cake and eat it too. It's OK if NPS uses drones for SAR, but not OK for anyone else, like a volunteer SAR group.

I think drones have vast potential, but they need regulation so we don't have every hiker and climber followed by their personal drone.

Time for FAA, NPS, and others to move beyond blanket prohibitions.

— Rex

Shooting from the hip, I'd think it might be resolved as within FAA jurisdiction above, say, 10,000 feet MSL (IFR flights tracked by ATC) and/or 500 feet from any person or structure consistent with existing regulations. While the NPS would have jurisdiction below those elevations.

I've flown directly over Half Dome in a 737 at about 23,000 feet while on approach towards OAK and SFO. I've also flown directly over Half Dome in a Cessna 172 at about 10,000 feet while flight seeing in a private plane (then, one week later, everyone who'd been on the flight hiked up Half Dome).

Drones are coming for things beyond your sheriff's department looking in your backyard for pot plants and nude sunbathers. Rutan had a design for a plane serving as an a antenna, basically, flying for 12-24 hours at a time at 50,000 feet to provide wifi for a metropolitan area. You can't have a ground-based agency interfering with continental flights for the sake of some snail darter. On the other hand, local agencies have reasonable authority and obligations to regulate near-surface use of any aircraft. Yosemite has long banned hang gliders and parachuting activities (mostly BASE jumping) that would be legal in any other setting.

It's hard to imagine an outside SAR group operating at all within Yosemite, with or without drones, without very close coordination, and probably under the direct control of an NPS incident commander.

I also hope that the current situation will be clarified and that reasonable regulation will allow productive drone use. Gotta come up with a better term than "drone," baby – just not good marketing….

Both Warren and McNeal said that the National Park Service has the power to ban drones. The agency, however, cannot just cite an agency regulation willy-nilly to make that happen. Instead, they argue it must first hold hearings and consider public comments.

More here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/drone-ban-at-yosemite-appears-legally-questionable/

— Rex

Yet one more example of the engineering mentality ruining a good thing (peace and quiet). There should be absolutely no question that drones do not belong in NP's or wilderness areas or in the backcountry. I just hope the wilderness areas here in the Southeast clamp down hard on drone use being that "overflights" are considered illegal in wilderness areas.

Now if we could get rid of the noise pollution of 87,000 daily jet flights over the mountains of VA, NC, Georgia and TN. It's a terrible problem for those living outdoors and sandwiched in between the Atlanta, Chattanooga, Knoxville and Asheville airports. Every backpacking destination becomes like a reststop on the Eisenhower Interstate System—the sky traffic interstates are terrible and loud.

Drones? Just more of the same—the bonobo fascination with noise and trinkets. Of course clever lawyers will parse it out ad nauseam and ad infinitum and make it a personal crusade to get drones into the backcountry like Yellowstone because Progress is Holy or Engineers are Always Right or if you build it they will come, etc and bonobo humans eat it up like candy. Now it becomes "their god-given right" to use drones wherever they want. Just my opinion. You can tell I hate human noise pollution when I'm out on a backpacking trip.

The USFS "discourages" all flights under 2000' above wilderness areas in coordination with the FAA (2326 – USE OF MOTORIZED EQUIPMENT OR MECHANICAL TRANSPORT IN WILDERNESS).

Plus, I would imagine the individual states would have additional restrictions if drones were spotted interfering with wildlife, especially game animals (which typically are the responsibility of states even on federal land). We think about hiking but the resources angle (i.e. hunting permits) may provide additional protection.

The NPS could also claim that they disturb the natural surroundings that they are trying to preserve.

10 years from now, a personal drone in the wilderness will be mandatory.
you will need to own or rent one to get a back country permit, for safety of course.
the camera will watch your every move to make sure you are ok.
those back home will not have to worry.
and they will bring you ice cream and lattes as you hike.

BTW. they say you can get a permit to do this. I imagine at off times of the year and under a certain volume and if you're a professional – then you will be ok.

The issue I think they have is people being idiots about it…

Drones are 'cheap' now. You can get a decent one for $800.. and they're loud and obnoxious.

If any of you follow Tony Hobbs on Youtube, usually videoing his camping with many MLD's equipment, he now has videos of his drone. Noisey, intrusive and boring. There is a place for this technology, but as it goes mainstream, it becomes another toy and everything that follows with it. In the wrong hands, lots of problems.

I agree with Donna—Lots of problems. And to Kevin Burton—

"BTW. they say you can get a permit to do this. I imagine at off times of the year and under a certain volume and if you're a professional – then you will be ok.

The issue I think they have is people being idiots about it…

Drones are 'cheap' now. You can get a decent one for $800.. and they're loud and obnoxious."

You say that if "you're a professional then you will be ok" (to use drones) but then say, weirdly, that drones are "loud and obnoxious".

Why can't humans be satisfied with nature uninterrupted? Why must we constantly want to add our own fixations, hubris, gadgets, hobbies, past times, and irritants to the outdoor experience?? Is going into nature on foot not enough?

"Why can't humans be satisfied with nature uninterrupted? Why must we constantly want to add our own fixations, hubris, gadgets, hobbies, past times, and irritants to the outdoor experience?? Is going into nature on foot not enough?"

In a rare instance of clarity, I agree with Tipi.

"I think drones have vast potential, but they need regulation so we don't have every hiker and climber followed by their personal drone."

I find the fact that the use of drones in national parks for anything other than SAR to be profoundly disturbing. You've got company on this one, Brother Tipi.

Clever little monkeys, we. Tinker, tinker, tinker with the natural world until one of these days Mother Nature is going to slough us off like so much dead skin.

It makes sense to ban recreational use of drones. Like other motorized vehicles, they aren't compatible with wilderness. But I do think they should be permitted for certain uses that could provide great benefit.

SAR: Drones can efficiently cover a much larger area than ground searches, and they are much cheaper, and probably less intrusive, than helicopters.

Scientific Research: Most research is carried out with limited funds, so drones might allow data collection in remote areas or rough terrain that would be otherwise impractical. They might be used to study the effects of air pollution on wilderness, to track damage from pine beetles or recovery after fire.

Law Enforcement: Drones could be helpful for things like detection of illegal marijuana farming in national forests, allowing wider observation with limited personnel.

Of course these uses would need to be regulated in order to minimize disruption, but we shouldn't prevent them without careful consideration.

"Law Enforcement: Drones could be helpful for things like detection of illegal marijuana farming in national forests, allowing wider observation with limited personnel."

Plus, the big ones like the CIA uses can be equipped with a Hellfire Missile, just in case things get ugly.

–B.G.–

What a great way to pack your toilet paper out of the wilderness. Airlift it.

…unless you're a rabbit.

http://www.epictv.com/content/flying-eagle-point-view-buzzing-skiers-aiguille-du-midi

a lot of drones are for photography, with a camera attached to a quadcopter for instance.

Obviously this isn’t related to Yosemite, but here’s a good example of drones being put to use in wild areas for public benefit.

Article in Scientific American

In case anyone missed it, NPS is moving forward with banning drones across the board.

"Last September, an unmanned aircraft flew above evening visitors seated in the Mount Rushmore National Memorial Amphitheater. Park rangers concerned for visitors’ safety confiscated the unmanned aircraft."

I wonder why they don't just shoot it down with surface-to-air missiles. That would really give the visitors something to watch.

–B.G.–

"Park rangers concerned for visitors’ safety confiscated the unmanned aircraft."

Did the rangers catch it with a butterfly net?