Please note and report anyone who does this.
The Problem Behind a Viral Video of a Persistent Baby Bear
The Problem Behind a Viral Video of a Persistent Baby Bear
It’s time we have a continuing discussion about wildlife. In the U.S. wildlife sensitive areas are surrounded by a series of blue or magenta dots on the VFR charts. Flight over those areas below charted altitudes can result in hefty fines. A local helicopter pilot got zapped for $70,000 for flying over a sea otter sensitive area. Lucky him, he got it reduced to $35,000.
Geoff: There are, of course, two broad categories of (genuine) professionals: wildlife specialists and general news gatherers. Wildlife photographers and cinematographers would be unlikely to push an animal or animals too far for one basic reason. The resulting footage or image would reflect the unwanted intrusion; it wouldn't look natural (and therefore would never be accepted/used by any respected editor). Long lenses help maintain distance - and remote cameras when wider lenses are needed. Plus hides are frequently used to minimise risk of disturbance. And the amount of time taken to get that special footage or image is often measured in at least days or weeks - sometimes months - hours, only if you are lucky. Standards are extremely high and there's always someone younger wanting to progress in his/her career, willing to put in even more extraordinary effort. Messing up a potential opportunity is simply unproductive and with wildlife you rarely get a second chance without double the wait. Working in a wild environment is rarely comfortable, with long stretches away from family.My experience (25 years) says that "professionals" are just as bad, sometimes much worse, than amateurs in this respect - especially if they are in it for the money, and, nowadays, most of them are, with deadlines and producers to satisfy.
Usually those "Charted Altitudes" are well above the "Normal Operating Alts" of our aircraft. Unfortunately this will have to be taken to court the first time someone is cited with sUAS over sensitive areas.
So out of curiosity, you are saying that (to the best of your knowledge) a case involving an sUAS flying over a wildelife area designated by FAA hasn't been adjudicated???
Hmm.... I live out by the Golden Gate Bridge and it is all national park and wildlife preserves out here. Lots of areas with a NOAA 1,000 ft AGL limit (thank you, SkyVector, for the online sectional charts). Some of the guys from the local FAA office should hang out here as they would probably cite an awful lot of RPIC on any clear day.
All I'm saying is if they have I've not seen anything about it.
Keep in mind that the FAA is about EDUCATION first and foremost. Here is a break down from an article that was recently written on this subject:
The FAA has several enforcement tools at their disposal. FAA Inspectors are required to consider several criteria before making a judgment about how to proceed, as follows:
The kinds of cases that the FAA believes will warrant legal enforcement are those involving an unacceptable risk of endangering the operation of another aircraft or endangering persons or property on the ground. It also considers repeated or intentional violations to generally warrant legal enforcement action.
- For a first-time, inadvertent violation with a low actual or potential safety impact that can be addressed through education, you should expect that the FAA inspector will informally counsel you and that will end the matter.
- If the inspector determines that a first-time, inadvertent violation poses a low actual or potential risk to safety but doesn’t feel education is sufficient, the inspector will issue a warning notice or letter of correction if additional training has been taken, or needs to be taken, and satisfactorily completed.
- If the Inspector believes that a violation poses a medium or high actual or potential risk to safety, the inspector will forward evidence of the violation to the FAA’s legal office to initiate an enforcement action against the drone operator.
Legal enforcement action will take the form of a civil penalty or a certificate suspension or revocation, or both. The amount of the civil penalty and the length of the suspension or the revocation of any airman certificate will depend on the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the conduct. If the drone violation is committed by someone who already holds an FAA certificate, the FAA considers this an aggravating factor because the FAA maintains that a certificate holder should appreciate the potential for endangerment that operating a UAS contrary to the FAA’s safety regulations may cause.
Civil penalties against individuals can range from $500 to $1,100 per violation and against entities can range from $1,100 to $25,000 per violation.
So odds are any that have been caught flying in such a manner are being "educated" first and foremost and we wouldn't know/hear about those usually.
Where is the proof that this was shot with a recreational drone? Notice at the end the remarkably good zoom. What recreational drone has that? Of course we should respect wildlife. But perhaps this was a helicopter that shot the video from miles away. Where's the proof?I hate to be the one to break the bad news to people but we have these things called ZOO's : These animals are taken, shackled, caged and than tormented for the rest of there life , with people talking, pointing and throwing things at the Animals and its relentless it never stops.
The heart rate of the animals has never been taken into consideration.
We go camping : Generators are loud, motorcycles are really loud, and the bears are not effected , they move slowly as do Deer .
Speaking of deer we have them almost everyday they are in the river less then 20 ft behind my house where I Fly my Drone from, they have never been affected by the drone in an adverse way nor do the hundreds of geese.
However we have noticed that a mother deer and her babies are slightly much more prone to panic. When we walk the path and come upon the mother deer , there is a new level of threat , just the mother deer seeing you starts to cause them Anxiety and soon panic..
These bears are clearly walking dangerously on the side of the mountain to begin with as is clearly shown in this video, they are not on the side of that mountain because of the drone and as they walk they come to the the snowy covered steep as hell cliff.
The drone is not harrassing the bears in any way, the distance from the drone is more than safe , the operator of the drone states that the video was zoomed in,, and showing the quality of the video it is apparent that is the case.
The article was written by the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC - A huge reason why Wild Life Photographers exist in the first place, , talk about calling the kettle black.
Wild Life Photographers are known for getting close and taking dramatic pictures, sometimes sitting like a rock and letting the animal smell them for hours until they can snap better , closer photos.
If we truly want to believe that this is considered Harassment , anxiety and stress , than we need to Rethink taking any picture of Wild life and put the National Geographic out of Business.
This very well could have been YOU OR ME taking a picture with our Iphone Camera and the same exact articale could have been written about us in the most negative way. Your name would have been smeared all over the internet with Disgust for panicking the Bears .
WHEN YOU WATCH THE VIDEO - Notice the overhang at beginning where the bears are at and how they come to an opening and they only have one choice but to go up.
Just be glad that it was not you that got crucified , and I think the national Geographic is just angry that they do not have rights to the VIDEO.
Viral bear video shows dark side of filming animals with drones
This is a Horrible Attack on anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Geoff: There are, of course, two broad categories of (genuine) professionals: wildlife specialists and general news gatherers. Wildlife photographers and cinematographers would be unlikely to push an animal or animals too far for one basic reason.
Where is the proof that this was shot with a recreational drone? Notice at the end the remarkably good zoom. What recreational drone has that? Of course we should respect wildlife. But perhaps this was a helicopter that shot the video from miles away. Where's the proof?
It is all very well being self righteous about disturbing animals, but in Russia, (and the US I believe) it is acceptable and legal to kill these brown (and polar) bears for fun.
A disturbance is preferable to a high velocity bullet.