Re: Wilderness/Park Drone Footage
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:29 pm
Having a motor is not the sole criteria. Most drones have electric motors. Banning them on that basis means an analog wristwatch is contrary to the Wilderness Act -- clearly not the intent of the Act (which says mechanized, not motorized -- a distinction that has never been legally defined. Court rulings tap dance all around it without any definitive solution.)AlmostThere wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:11 am The drone has a motor, so it is illegal to operate in designated wilderness. And it is dangerous to operate anywhere there are operations that include deployment of helicopters, which crisscross the range daily on SAR efforts.
Too strict an interpretation opens a huge can of worms. What about oarlocks on rowboats? Those create a mechanical advantage that facilitates human transportation. Not banned. Mountain bikes are banned as creating a mechanical advantage facilitating human transportation -- same as the aforementioned oarlocks. Then what about collapsible trekking poles with internal shock absorbers and springs? Mine are definitely mechanical and facilitate human transportation. Fortunately, the ADA settled any conflict between the Wilderness Act and prosthetics. Prosthetics are legally part of the person's body, just like a natural arm or leg (which is why vandalizing or stealing a person's prosthetic is assault or battery, not theft or vandalism).
Drones do not make it easier to access designated Wilderness. The NPS enacted their regulations not off the Wilderness Act. That is too vague. They approached it from the harm to Park resources angle, and specifically defined drones.
I recently saw an article about a small ion propulsion engine under development. Battery operated with no moving parts. I shudder about how to legally regulate that inside a Wilderness.