The United States National Park Service has decided to ban drones entirely from all national parks. This follows recent bans in several parks including world-famous Yosemite.
"We embrace many activities in national parks because they enhance visitor experiences with the iconic natural, historic and cultural landscapes in our care," Jonathan Jarvis director of the National Park Service said in a statement released Friday. "However, we have serious concerns about the negative impact that flying unmanned aircraft is having in parks, so we are prohibiting their use until we can determine the most appropriate policy that will protect park resources and provide all visitors with a rich experience."
The new rules are only temporary and will prohibit drone use until the agency can figure out a policy that serves the park as well as the visitors.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2014, @09:58PM
I agree on their position. When I go to a national park I want breathtaking views, clean air and some relative peace and quiet. Having some retard buzz around a drone above my head is the last sight I want to see. (Obvious: Yeah before it crashes into me!)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Sunday June 22 2014, @03:47AM
I cannot go to the Grand Canyon right now but would love to watch a quadrocopter flyover on Youtube.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by lx on Sunday June 22 2014, @04:28AM
Seconded. Nothing captures the majesty of nature better than a video overlaid with smilies and played on a smartphone.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday June 22 2014, @04:43AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday June 22 2014, @05:46AM
You're not though in many cases. That would actually be an improvement.
What about the truly unmanned drones that have been tested, or just programmed to hit waypoints and record footage on the way? There is all sorts of use cases that don't involve a human being on the other end.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday June 22 2014, @06:25AM
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Sunday June 22 2014, @11:46AM
even as a noobie drone retard, i agree...
the little micro-quad i have is not really very loud (almost like an angry hummingbird, really); but i still would not like to have that annoying background noise when i'm trying to engage in an all-senses, all-natural immersion into the natural environment... not to mention the annoyance of them buzzing about in 'our' personal air spaces, the inevitability (if not danger) of them dropping like rocks when they lose power, crash and burn, etc...
as it is, that is why i am against a lot of the places they allow off-road vehicles, dirt bikes, atv's, etc: FORGET about what damage their tracks do to the ground/critters, THE NOISE simply destroys the natural ambiance and quietude, which is a LARGE part of why most nekkid apes like to go there...
no doubt, i would LOVE to take my little drone and make some videos of various natural features, etc... but unless NOBODY else was around, within view or earshot, i wouldn't do such a thing...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 21 2014, @10:46PM
BTW: did you study the impact of flying kites while inside the park?
What about the use of domesticated flying pigs? No seriously, just think of it: they'd be capable of unmanned flying!
I say: better include them in the impact study and come back with a comprehensive and well articulated policy to preserve the rich experience the visitors enjoy
My point: I have no beef with the impact study, nor do I have anything to say about the ban.
It's only my bullshit bingo card triggered at the combination of "we ban activities" + "visitors' rich experience" ('cause I bet on the park administration didn't have in mind the privacy of those tourists with a "sex in wilderness" alt.lifestyle).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 21 2014, @11:38PM
I see this going the way of snowmobiles and ATVs - specific use ORV parks where you can do that (in podunk who cares nowhere) and a ban everywhere else.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday June 22 2014, @05:42AM
I appreciate this. The last thing I want to do is get caught on an episode of Finding Bigfoot.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rancid on Sunday June 22 2014, @01:08AM
Hi, submitter here. Why did the editors add the last sentence to the story? I didn't write that. It's redundant as the quote I included in the summary says the same thing.
More on topic, good fuckin' riddance. I was at a state park a few weeks ago and someone was flying a drone around a popular scenic waterfall. Besides the obvious safety issues of remote control aircraft around people, I just flat out don't want to be part of the drone video experience.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 22 2014, @01:32AM
I think there's a time and place for it - professional or amateur, if you want to take remote controlled aerial photography of a public place, you should be allowed to. On alternate third Wednesdays, with proper prior permitting and sufficient bonding. If you've proven yourself to be a responsible photographer and not caused any trouble for your past 100 permitted shoots, we might even let you come back the following day if the weather isn't cooperating.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by islisis on Sunday June 22 2014, @03:07AM
I assumed hinderance of scenery is one of the topical issues here. It shares the same concerns as bans on tripods in some popular areas. Does make you think what the scape of the future will look like as aircraft become ubiquitous.
(Score: 1) by zizban on Monday June 23 2014, @01:13AM
Well, here are two answers. Pick which one works for you: 1) I'm an idiot who shouldn't edit whiole on cold meds 2) I wanted to stress the temporary nature of the ban since the wording the summary didn't make this obvious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23 2014, @01:27PM
The title is a lie.
You also know law enforcement, thinking of the children, and fightin' terrorism are part of that singular(!) exception.
There you go. They're assholes for lying, the media are assholes for being so irresponsible, and the editor(s) didn't do his/her job by even reading the fucking article, thereby propagating the lie.
The real title is something like "park service bans some drones temporarily, allows others.". Much less of a headline, huh?