It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Government To Ban Drones In National Parks

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:07 PM
I'm trying to figure out what the motivation is for this?

So, you bought a drone. What are you going to do with it first? Snap some real estate photos of your house? Take a dronie? Crash it into a tree then try to convince the manufacturer it came like that?

If your answer is “Take it to a national park”, you might want to reconsider. That’s not allowed anymore.

The US Government’s National Park Service has just issued an order banning unmanned aircrafts from being launched, landed, or operated in any of the 58 US national parks. Grand Canyon? More like… Grand… Cantdrone.

The NPS cites safety concerns for park visitors and wildlife, and myriad “noise and nuisance complaints” — in other words, no one wants to hear a drone buzzing around after climbing 5,000 feet up Half Dome.

This order is considered temporary (albeit with no set expiration date) until the NPS gets a chance to figure out exactly what they’re banning (“model aircrafts”, for example, are still okay if the park approves), what use cases are okay, and until the public has had a chance to comment on the matter. But for now, consider’em banned.

Meanwhile, the NPS can still grant case-by-case exceptions for drones being used for research, search and rescue, and fighting fires.

Why would the feds ban drones in national parks? Are they really doing it for the sake of the wildlife? Does it mean they won't fly any or does it apply only to everyone else?

At least now we know where to go to get away from drones when the time comes.
edit on 20-6-2014 by LogicalGraphitti because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:13 PM
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Interesting...while I can understand not wanting to be buzzed by a drone while on a nature hike, I can't help feeling rather ATSish about this. When you combine this ban with the way that the National Parks are refusing to release information about missing people (see the David Paulides threads) it makes me wonder even more just what they're hiding.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:29 PM
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

It says they want to ban drones... Whose? Ours or theirs? Somehow I think it is just ours they want to stop.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:54 PM

originally posted by: graceunderpressure

Interesting...while I can understand not wanting to be buzzed by a drone while on a nature hike, I can't help feeling rather ATSish about this. When you combine this ban with the way that the National Parks are refusing to release information about missing people (see the David Paulides threads) it makes me wonder even more just what they're hiding.

Exactly. I don't want to be buzzed anywhere but I can't think of what makes a national park special except that they're federal property. What's going on there that we aren't supposed to see? I'll have a read through the thread you linked.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:01 PM
I heard that the crash rate of the u.s. drone program has been view as not safe and this may be a factor in this decision and other that may come in regards to the increased use of drones all around.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:03 PM
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Really? It's not bigfoot. People set up camaras all the time. They can leave these things out and they'll automatically take a picture of anything moving. If bigfoot was out there, somebody would have a picture.

All I see are hazy images of shadows and/or bears and lots of imagination.

Sigh. I know that''s what this site is for. To conspiralize. Some say it's about eliminating ignorance, but that's all wishful thinking.
edit on 20-6-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:12 PM
The reasons for this seem obvious to me. To try and find a conspiracy in this, seems like and exercise in futility to me.

I'd say good idea, ban those puppies from ruining peoples visits to parks.

For recreational uses of these things, there are plenty of other places to go. BLM land, state land and private property.

I also DO NOT want them flying over peoples property, invading privacy. It's a no brainier these need to be controlled.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:20 PM

edit on 6/20.2014 by graceunderpressure because: Self-edited a valid, yet snarky post

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:36 PM
"The NPS cites safety concerns for park visitors and wildlife"

I have a feeling I know why

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:45 PM
Recently more and more people have been using drones with cameras attached to look for bigfoot. True story. Now I will not go so far as to claim their reasoning took this into account...But I guess I did anyway. I just mention it because bigfoot is the subject I am most knowledgeable about, and it immediately occurred to me that such search efforts have been taking off ever since a supposed bigfoot was filmed with an RC drone of some kind.

In my research on the subject I have concluded that it is impossible for certain aspects of the government to be ignorant regarding such animals. If you look at it from my point of view, having seen one of these animals, I know they are out there. So I may not be coming from the same place as others, those who have not seen what I have seen. Anyway, the reason they must know about such things is because law enforcement or forest officials, at some point in the past, must have come into some form of contact with them, in whatever manner. And who would someone like that go to? I would think they would go to those in the government who deal with wildlife. So if this is all true, then there is a conspiracy occurring.

I'm just kind of laying out my reasoning here by the way, not really trying to prove anything. So if one accepts that bigfoot could be out there, and that it would be unlikely that the government was ignorant of them, then would it not make sense that the drone issue could have something to do with bigfoot? And if they knew about them, they aren't telling us, meaning they are hiding something. IF that is the case, then the drone thing makes more sense. Remember however that people have stepped up their hunting efforts with drones. I do not know any of this for a fact, except that the animal exists of course, so I am just putting it out there.

But if one thinks about it, they will not stop the military from flying over...They said they would allow search and rescue, firefighting, and other drones, so basically I hear them saying no civilians are allowed to fly drones. Maybe this has something to do with wildlife other than bigfoot, and I can understand this. I do not discount rational explanations other than bigfoot by any means.
edit on 6/20/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 08:06 PM
Its obvious, they are trying to conceal bigfoot, waiting for the release of the new planet of the apes movie then effin BLAM they going to have sasquatch footage from drones even when they said they wasn't there. Genius marketing. =D

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 08:21 PM
a reply to: jonnywhite

Or if you simply don't pay attention or do your own real honest and unbiased research (like real science used to encourage in Universities), You certainly won't ever see any clear photos using your method of just blanket statements of "nothing is ever there".
There are lots of clear images showing plenty of unknown things, and on first glance, they might be easy to dismiss, but when they are studied very carefully and looked at more than just 20 seconds, people can discover details that reveal things that no one expected.

Eliminating ignorance is actually done by casting off the shackles of BIAS and AGENDAS, and telling the driver of the bandwagon that the huge crowd rides on, to stop and let you off so you can see the real picture, and not the one that society tries to force upon you.

Real knowledge comes from your own research and study and does not depend on any confirmations from anyone other than yourself.

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:27 PM
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Not that I want to defend their action it makes sense if you look at the picture long term.

There is going to come a time when every other person has some type of drone and the places where people like to visit will become hotspots for their use in order to get than million dollar picture.

Drones can have a negative impact on parks should one crash and catch fire etc. If the NPS allows drone use without some type of guideline then they can get dragged into lawsuits should one persons drone malfunction and injure another person / private property of others.

Also I don't think the FAA has released its official guidelines for use of drones in certain airspace / altitudes. If we remember we had the guy in California several years ago tie a crap ton of balloons to a lawn chair, sat it in and dropped the rope, where he started to rise into the air. He used a BB gun to pop balloons in order to descend. HIs height / location caused some issues with air traffic in the area.

As for drone use by the general public compared to the NPS.

The NPS may have 15 drones for its use. If something were to happen they can deploy one or 2 of those drones to check the areas they need. Now, add into the mix the thousands of people who go to National Parks. How enjoyable would the visit be if it looks like a radio controlled airshow?

This is something to definitely keep track of and for the time being I can kind of understand the mindset. To be honest if I am going to visit a National Park I really don't want to hear / see drones everyone. Its difficult to enjoy nature and the beauty of it when drones are zooming around. It would be like going to the movies and having a person playing with their drone inside the theatre. It kind of kills the purpose / viewing experience.

just my 2 cents.

posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 12:31 AM
Here, I cannot blame the government for this action, and actually I think it is quite appropriate. There are no real certifications for the safety of drones, and not only does this represent all sorts of liability problems, they can cause harm to the environments and the animals that live there.

A drone out of control, can slice into a crowd and cut people very badly. Most consumer bought/built drones have no prop shields to prevent the end of the blade from hitting something. Additionally, most drones use Lithium Polymer batteries. These are relatively safe unless they get a dead short, then they will catch fire and probably explode. They need to be doubly fused so they can be tripped on command (from the autopilot CPU) , as well as if they indeed encounter a dead short, like in a crash.

As consumer drones advance in technology, these features, and many more will make them safer and some day they will probably lift this ban, but not yet. I love these machines, and fly them myself, but I realize that there will indeed be a certification program for them, most likely in the works presently.

One only has to review the major forest fires of the past few years in the west and mid-west. We do not need another method for them to get started at this juncture. The hardware and software that operate them has the ability to take evasive action in case the machine senses that it is having trouble staying airborne. The better one's will return home if they lose radio contact, or know that they have only enough power left to make it back. If they are free-falling, they can shut down the propellers, and some can even deploy an emergency parachute as well.

These advances will be considered mandatory in the future, and there will be a certification program that will permit them to fly in many environments as long as they are met. This is the only way they will be allowed to fly anywhere, soon.

posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 12:40 AM
What have they got to hide out there?

posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 01:23 AM
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Sounds like they don't want ANYONE to get any better clue what the mysterious disappearances in the National Parks are all about.

Traitorous bureaucrats.


Though it could be mostly the massively increased

!!!!CONTROL!!!! FREAKISM so rampant from the Federal oligarchy in recent years.

posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 01:28 AM
Obviously lots of top secret stuff in those regions. :-)

posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 01:51 AM
These are the early days of what civilian drones can and cannot do...

When I went back country hiking part of the experience was that you were away from society and all it's entanglements...

Unless the Park Service is on a search and rescue,... I personally don't want my nature bonding interrupted with technology...

Unless they are searching for Bigfoot... LOL

edit on 21-6-2014 by coastlinekid because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 06:13 AM
Xcathdra, Charltv - great responses and I agree completely but all the reasons you give for not flying drones over the parks goes for anywhere else too. I don't want one over my house, at a shopping center, at work or in a local city park. What is curious to me is that the first such laws have to do with federal land. Seems to me there ought to be a consistent, cohesive stand on the topic so we don't end up with contradicting laws. Lets see what the FAA comes up with.

Is there a conspiracy behind this? I don't know but I tend to think there's something self-serving behind this. If its just about the environment then it's another indication that laws are made on behalf of the loudest special interest groups.

I'm in favor of no drones at all outside city limits. I live in the country... leave me alone.

posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 10:19 AM
a reply to: coastlinekid

I do like the absence of motorized equipment in the back country.

I just no longer trust government to do much for truly honorable reasons.

Oh, I realize there's a more than significant probability that it is for honorable reasons. I just wonder about the David Paulides research and such issues.

edit on 21/6/2014 by BO XIAN because: added.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in