Oystercatchers are waging war on NYC's beach drones
apnews.com
apnews.com
I also don’t get why there is no enforcement, although I am guessing it comes down to mundane things like the politics of funding. I recently saw someone flying a drone at a ferry terminal. There are several signs saying that flying drones in the area is illegal per federal law (which was news to me). But it doesn’t matter when there is no one to enforce these laws - they might as well not exist. And as a private citizen, I always find it awkward to call people out on anything - whether it is a drone, or an off-leash dog, or whatever. Forget the awkwardness, some people can be aggressive. I want to be able to rely on public officers to enforce the law.
And the drones aren't being flown by beachgoers, but by the city for public safety -- looking for sharks and swimmers that are too far out.
On the plus side, maybe the drones at the beach increase safety by discouraging people from going there.
They don't go into detail, but surely a fleet of drones with life raft deployment capability is a lot more expensive than just hiring more lifeguards?
I suspect if they put the drone budget into lifeguard pay, they'd find quickly they no longer have a problem recruiting.
Most of the people who have it live on the West coast or down south in Florida, where most of the training programs are. Why would they move up to NYC where the weather sucks, they can only work half the year, and the cost of living is through the roof?
The issues fall with the lifeguard union combined with absurd legal/safety requirements combined with rampant mismanagement. Frankly it is pretty upsetting to go to the beach in Far Rockaway, where you must be corralled into the one jetty that has all the lifeguards (spaced about 50 feet apart). The parks department of course has resources to deploys people with whistles to walk up the beach and yell at anyone getting too close to the water.
Hiring lots more lifeguards for an entire summer is seriously expensive.
I'm having a hard time imagining how a couple of drone operators plus the drones is more expensive than, say, 20 more lifeguards.
Not to mention the drones do things that lifeguards can't do, like search operations and shark detection.
Hiring life guards for a few months is a drop in the bucket that has proven more results than drones dropping a raft operated by an organization that doesn’t even teach CPR.
Where do you get that idea? Lifeguards aren't cheap. You don't just need two -- you need 20, 40, whatever. That's major money.
On the other hand, the drone operators are similarly only for the same few months.
Again, this idea that a couple of drone operators and equipment costs more than, say, 20 or more full-time lifeguards doesn't make any sense.
These are just drones. They're not missiles that cost $100K apiece or something where you go through several a week.
That was just for two drones one year ago. The NYPD has many more than 2 drones. That doesn’t include operator salaries, benefits, training, etc. Furthermore there is no reason why the NYPD needs to be the one budgeting and handling this at all. This is just another land grab by a very bloated and out of control crony organization.
[0] https://gothamist.com/news/the-nypd-is-using-drones-3-times-...
Well https://www.twz.com/air/rogue-1-is-one-of-the-marine-corps-n...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1colo0...
Meanwhile Ukrainians are DIYing similar drones (including thrmal vision and up to 40km range) for under $1K.
I would think it would be cheaper on an hourly basis than twenty lifeguards, or more. These are big beaches. That's what we're talking about.
So, is it really cheaper to "just get more effective life guards?"
The problem may be Management-Class people who think it is unethical to pay above the bottom quartile in pay or to accept less than the top quartile in talent.
I believe the Management-Class is the cause of most of our problems.
I define Management-Class as people who yell at and fire people whose jobs they could never do.
And then lifeguards have vehicles to get there as well. They're not limited to running on foot.
But there's always a limit in capabilities - providing better access to some help is clearly still of benefit, providing faster access to limited capabilities over a wider area may be a better end result than the same resources being used for higher capabilities, but more limited reach.
Really we need to wait and see what the data shows (if they review it), as the article states for now they haven't performed any rescues.
Maybe many years from now when drone rescues become commonplace. But it's not exactly something to worry about at the moment.
* Very good at soaring, expending little energy compared to ducks and other waterbirds.
* Can take off near vertically from water or land, without requiring a long runway like cormorants.
* Highly intelligent including tool use (https://susancunninghambooks.com/blog/2018/8/23/the-secret-l...)
* They will eat almost anything and will employ different techniques from hunting for live prey to opportunistic filching of dead fish and other animals' food.
* They have an enourmous range and are very adaptable. One South American species nests in a waterless desert and brings water and food from the ocean to its young, a distance of up to 100km. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc331083/)
* Lifespan of many decades
I saw a Kittiwake gull in Florida once and then the same year visited their nesting grounds in Iceland. I can’t believe such a tiny little bird can fly that far and survive. That being said the one in Florida was probably lost lol
https://apnews.com/article/new-york-drones-shorebirds-beach-...
and, nominative determinism fans, don't miss "said David Bird, a professor of wildlife biology at McGill University"
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Ring-billed_Gull/maps-ra...
> We have updated this post to reflect the fact that the birds in this story are not, in fact, seagulls. We regret the error, but also I am not an ornithologist, people.
Journalists are known to be gullible