XL-Studios said:
So it´s legal and ok to fly US drones all over the world and KILL people but for recreational, art, rescue och creative use it is a No-Fly. :-(
I am a swede with huge love for America, people and things from there, but it seems that americans need to stop accepting random state regulation and abuse of power ASAP. USA, land of freedom?
First off, military use of "drones" in a war zone is irrelevant to discussions of their domestic use.
And here's the deal with freedom ... one individual's freedom ends where it impinges on another individual's freedom - they both have a right to act freely, but that sometimes leads to conflicts. If there are just two individuals, they might work out where to draw the line between their respective exercise of freedom, but in a country of 310+ million, there's no way for individuals to work out in advance all potential conflicts. So we form governments, elect representatives, and charge them with working out societal norms for the exercise of freedom.
In this case one's freedom to fly a drone and take pictures impinges too far on other individuals' freedom to enjoy a park in it's natural state. Many, if not most, national parks are set aside specifically for the preservation of the natural state, and means are devised for the public's enjoyment thereof with minimal impact. The natural state does not include the noise or ecological impact of man made devices, so banning them, given the purpose of the park, is hardly an abuse of power. The justification that one just wants to take aerial pictures doesn't mitigate the impact of the transport device. No doubt someone has a marvelous, motor driven, 3D, panoramic, time lapse camera of unimaginable resolution, but it and it's support equipment weigh 200 pounds so it'll need to be ATV mounted and driven through the forest to the best vantage point. Not gonna happen lawfully (unless the NPS sponsors it for scientific or PR purposes - in which case they'll probably use mules).
It's unfortunate that the NPS has cited an existing regulation which (as others have posted) doesn't really seem to apply - because it just muddies the water by redirecting all the discussion to whether or not it applies. There are any number of other regulations in CFR 36 that could be cited .... regulations which seem directly applicable. For example CFR 36, Part 2, Article 2.12:
(a) The following are prohibited:
(1) Operating motorized equipment or machinery such as an electric generating plant, motor vehicle, motorized toy, or an audio device, such as a radio, television set, tape deck or musical instrument, in a manner: (i) That exceeds a noise level of 60 decibels measured on the A-weighted scale at 50 feet; or, if below that level, nevertheless; (ii) makes noise which is unreasonable, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, purpose for which the area was established, impact on park users, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
Or the catchall rule of Part 1, Article 1.5 which lets the NPS close off or limit park areas or activities for pretty much anything:
(a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities, the superintendent may:
(1) Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity.
Use of the latter regulation (absent an emergency) does require that the NPS rule be published in the Federal Register. I imagine that will happen someday if folks don't heed their current warnings. It probably hasn't happened as yet because they want to make sure that when they do so, they get the wording just right to cover all the mutations of related activities that will arise.