As the sky gets fuller, it will be less and less likely that users will be able to get away with acting like they are the only ones flying.
Civilians have no place operating drones anywhere near a nature preserve.
'Getting the right shot' kills a lot of tourists (I wish I knew exactly how many), if they were using drones to position the camera into that potentially dangerous position they might not die.
As for risks of mechanical or operator failure, that's obviously a valid concern, but there are ways to handle that risk without a total ban.
> How often does your tripod wander in front of other picture takers during use?
It's pretty common for humans to wander in front of other picture takers in parks. I wager that happens a lot more per day than drones flying in from of picture takers (even before the ban).
How frustrating would it be if you couldn't get that nice photo without someone elses drone in it from your flying drone?
I live near the Banff National Park in Canada, and it's a continuous game of tug-of-war for the wardens trying to decide what activities to allow in the park. With no restrictions, the place would quickly be overrun. When the point is to experience the wilderness, you have to be very aware that some activities can very quickly, and with very few people, destroy that experience for everyone.
The park service allows automobiles, needlessly loud motorcycles, generators for RVs (within limits), and any number of greater nuisances. (Including the other 20,000 people who came the the Grand Canyon south rim on the day I did.)
And they restrict where all those things can go, too. If they restricted drones the same way, they might as well ban them outright.
Plenty of other things interrupt views, like tripods or even other human standing nearby. A general ban on deliberate or extreme interruption is reasonable, but a total ban on remote controlled aircraft is not.
The problem with things in the sky is that they visible (and often audible) from long distances. A single noisy drone might affect several square miles, covering hundreds or thousands of people (depending on the location). A guy hiding behind a tree with a tripod will likely affect a few square yards, and a tiny handful of people.
Look, you're right. Used tactfully, by reasonable people, they would absolutely make a fantastic photography platform, and probably not be too intrusive.
However, I have insight to the daily lives of park wardens in popular national parks.
There aren't many of them, they have to cover huge areas, and they spend their days stopping people lighting things on fire, breaking things and taking them away, writing their names on things and trying to put their kids on the backs of the wildlife for photos (I kid you not, it happens once or twice every summer).
I guarantee that if drones were permitted, some people would be buzzing them around the wildlife from a safe distance. This kind of added stress on the animals can and does lead to failure to breed, which has very bad effects on the viability of species, particularly for the less populous apex predators (bears, wolves, big cats).
From the parks point of view, they have to come with policy based on gross population behaviour. They can't supervise or train everyone using the park, so they have to come up with simple policies that can be blanket applied. Unfortunately, the potential for abuse with drones is probably pretty high, thus the ban.
Also consider that there are wild animals nearby who are not used to drones. Areas of Yosemite are closed to climbing annually for raptor nesting, for instance.
[1] Yes I recognize that Yosemite Valley might not be the best example of this...
I know that lifting a camera and battery requires a sufficient amount of thrust, but if flight was limited to one minute then it could probably be very small. Wind might be an issue, but flying insects have been around for a while. Engineers will figure it out.
Hopefully the long term regulations would permit such small personal drones with a very limited flight time.
I guess if people really can't stand not having such shots the thing to do would be to license some people to use the drones and make sure they avoid doing the most horribly dangerous things (maybe they could use tethers or something).
Definitely. In Yosemite both Half Dome and El Cap have hiking trails to the top and are very popular for climbing.
There's an old joke in climbing when you top out among the hikers: "Wait, you mean there's another way up this thing??"
Edit to add: even though a falling drone would probably not actually hit a climber, I don't think anyone wants the base of El Cap littered with smashed little drones.
On the other hand, I don't think there needs to be special rules for every potential type of litter.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/rock...
They might not die, but I'd offer that they stand a good chance of losing said buzzing, flying drone to a rock throw that went a little off course. No, seriously, I was aiming for that tree.
I don't see anything in the memo that suggests that only annoying usage of drones is banned. I see an absolute ban on remote controlled aircraft.