by Press • 4 October 2014
Three cases regarding the use of unmanned aircraft in Yellowstone National Park have resulted in three convictions.
Donald Criswell of Molalla, Oregon, had been charged with violating the ban after he flew his unmanned aircraft over the crowded Midway Geyser Basin and close to bison on August 19. On Thursday afternoon, October 2, he pled guilty to the charge of violating a closure and was fined $1,000 plus court costs.
In late September, Theodorus Van Vliet of the Netherlands entered a guilty plea in connection with an August 2 incident where his unmanned aircraft crashed into Grand Prismatic Spring. He was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay over $2,200 in restitution.
Earlier in September, Andreas Meissner of Germany pled guilty to charges arising from operating an unmanned aircraft which crashed into Yellowstone Lake near the West Thumb Marina back on July 18. Meissner was sentenced to a one year ban from the park, was placed on one year of unsupervised probation, and was ordered to pay over $1,600 in fines and restitution.
All three successfully prosecuted cases arose from well documented violations of the prohibition of the operation of unmanned aircraft along with other violations of park regulations or impacts to park resources.
Full article here: Yellowstone Hobby UAS Incidents
Comments
Well, if their beaurocracy functions anything like the one I work in, someday something will happen, and some bright young man or woman will say "Hey, that would be a perfect low-risk solution to our problem," and their boss will say "No, that's against the rules." And then they will say "But, sir..." and their boss will say "Nope." And then someone will die of exposure because no one would let the drone fly. So they won't ever have to worry about a conflict of interest.
If it hasn't happened yet, it is just a matter of time till the National Parks will want to use drones for search and rescue or patrol for poachers etc. Would that be in conflict with their own regulations?
also the supposed NPS "regulations" interfere with legitmate 1st amendment protected activities such as both ENG by drone as well as photography by drone.
Perhaps some news organization or religeous org(church group using a photo drone to take pictures of a church outing in the NPS system) should consider a lawsuit against the NPS to protect their first amendment rights?
ie we as US citizens DONT EVER lose our rights by virtue of what some bureaucrat has said but we do have to both exercise and bring offending parties such as the NPS to court on occasion to keep those rights from being infringed.
US citizens DONT lose 1st amendment rights at the entrance to a taxpayer owned NPS facility and the NPS needs clearly to be taught that(not to mention the usurping of the FAAs regulatory authority over the airspace).
hzl
uh where was the required public input on these new "regulations" prior to putting them into effect.. and the constitutional authority ceding authority for airspace jurisdiction from the FAA to the NPS, LOTS of very unanswered legal questions here for the devoted courts follower. ie theses cases should DEFINITELY be appealed , lots of holes in the NPS position.. and regs..
hzl
Yawn.
I am really surprised there is such broad acceptance of the rule against flying in national parks over there, and I would be really interested to understand how you guys are rationalising this.
Just like you guys, I cringe when I see a video of an idiot terrorising a nest or taunting a bird in flight or when I read about some idiot dropping his drone into a hot spring, but it is important to keep things in perspective. Lets not forget that there are other special interest groups who have an exponentially larger impact on our sensitive biosphere. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the need to prohibit people from flying above a sensitive natural treasure or protected a wildlife sanctuary (there are many parks and places in Australia that you can't fly an RC aircraft), but the idea of a blanket ban on flying in all national parks seems like a great injustice to me.
This one rule would appear to put much of America's unterritorialised (might not be a word, but you know what I mean) land out of bounds to the RC hobbyist, and all but eliminates one's ability to get above so many of your most wonderfully spectacular and scenic landscapes.
I imagine how epic it would/will be to experience the Grose Valley, which lies with the Blue Mountains National Park, from the air.
Or soar above the magnificent cliffs of the Great Australian Bight in the Nullarbor National Park (and perhaps catch a glimpse of a Southern Right).
@Andrew Agreed, the headline should have been "guilty plea" not "guilty verdict." These new regulations have not been tested by a judge or jury yet.
If should be noted that, if they did plead guilty in all cases as the article seems to read, then it demonstrates the power of the State in a playground bully kind of way, rather than any robustness of the law in a legal sense...
There are lots of things you can't do in parks.
You wouldn't ride a motorbike through a herd of bison so why should we think we would have the right to potentially cause a stampede with a drone.
Long term it would be good if you could do it with a permit. Then it's controlled.
If you ask me, they all got off rather lightly. At the pay rate of our Government bureaucrats, fishing a Quad out of a steaming hot spring could add up to some enormous bucks.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next