Return to Joshua Tree w/ epic drone footage

[Matstock4]

I just finished Part 2 as we take on the rest of Berdoo Canyon trail. We manage to get the trailer stuck and spend hours recovering it from a high center and the land rover's traction tech. Good times! Even though it was after dark we found a great campsite on a ridge.

We earned these campfire drinks!
And here's the Part 2 of the series:

 

[Lrowe]

Unfortunately, it's illegal right now to shoot any video (professional, youtube, TikTok, etc.) inside National Parks without a permit after a court ruling a couple of months ago. Hopefully, it changes with the next appeal.

To be more exact, this ruling applies to Commercial filming. If you are simply shooting video for your own use, or to share with friends, you are not profiting from it, and it does not require props or models, a permit is not required. It is indeed illegal to launch, control, or land a drone (UAS) in a national park- and the UAS will be confiscated in most cases, though Rangers may give a verbal warning. Park Rangers are federal law enforcement officers, and they are armed, though it would be unusual to see one carrying an M4 or AR-15 during normal circumstances (except on the southern border, where the cartels are active).

 

[Steven_B]

To be more exact, this ruling applies to Commercial filming. If you are simply shooting video for your own use, or to share with friends, you are not profiting from it, and it does not require props or models, a permit is not required. It is indeed illegal to launch, control, or land a drone (UAS) in a national park- and the UAS will be confiscated in most cases, though Rangers may give a verbal warning. Park Rangers are federal law enforcement officers, and they are armed, though it would be unusual to see one carrying an M4 or AR-15 during normal circumstances (except on the southern border, where the cartels are active).

I see you list your occupation as working for the park service and I trust your input. This has been a hot topic lately with YouTubers, with some already getting citations for posting videos to platforms like YouTube. A former federal prosecutor even did a Q&A with a photographer about the situation and he even said based on the verbiage (below) and permit process, that a person such as myself who has less than 1000 YouTube subscribers can be fined.

Even though I don't have enough subscribers to qualify for compensation, advertisers can still target my videos and YouTube still makes money which counts as "generating revenue." The whole thing is confusing and hopefully, the wording and descriptions will be updated and all will be good again.

 

[BrandonDIS]

Do you feel afraid of camping

 

[SightsOfIron]

JCR rack with a special tonneau cover that fits perfectly. I love it, but as my boys get bigger I might need to go with a topper to haul all our stuff.

what is the tonneau cover?

 

[Matstock4]

what is the tonneau cover?

Access Rollup covers is the only one that I know that fits in the rack.
https://www.accesscover.com

 

[BourbonRunner]

You are 100% correct. In fact the closer you are to the main paved road the sketchier it is. Covered in glass and a lot of trash.

I ran through Berdoo from the park side down to Dillon Road Friday and concur. It was a shit show of the first order. We were in a loaded down Mojave, our friends in a diesel JLU and zero issues. Couple narrow spots but nothing we couldn't easily handle.

Once we got to the bottom it was full of trash and trashy people being very unsafe. I'm as pro-2A as they come but even that scene skeeved me out. Even with knowledge of a couple camping spots up the ridge we chose instead to push on and spend the night at the BLM campground south of the Cottonwood entrance. Less risk of shrapnel and ricochet. Seriously people, clean up your mess.

What was crazy was the line of Subaru Outbacks and Foresters we encountered heading up when we were around halfway through. I figure they made it but it was neat to see stock Wilderness specs doing it. They certainly could not have followed us up Old Dale but they were crushing it in Berdoo.

 

[chorky]

To be more exact, this ruling applies to Commercial filming. If you are simply shooting video for your own use, or to share with friends, you are not profiting from it, and it does not require props or models, a permit is not required. It is indeed illegal to launch, control, or land a drone (UAS) in a national park- and the UAS will be confiscated in most cases, though Rangers may give a verbal warning. Park Rangers are federal law enforcement officers, and they are armed, though it would be unusual to see one carrying an M4 or AR-15 during normal circumstances (except on the southern border, where the cartels are active).

Considering you work for the NPS, please provide legal verbiage to back up your claim. Not to sound combative and pointed, but I also am a federal employee and what I found contradicts directly what you have said and specifically outlines that use of UAS is explicitly prohibited unless there is a special use permit. I did not see any discussion pertaining specifically to commercial use only requiring a permit, but rather any and all uses, including internal administrative use, requiring a memorandum of record or a permit if not outlined in a official service contract.


Here is a link to the general discussion on NPS website:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/uas.htm

"exceptions where use is allowed subject to NPS approval:

• The use of model aircraft for hobby and recreational use is allowed if authorized in writing prior to the date of the June 2014 NPS policy memorandum.....
• ....that conduct unmanned aircraft operations for the NPS pursuant to a written agreement...
• Activities conducted under a Scientific Research and Collecting Permit...
• Activities conducted under a special use permit are allowed where the permit authorizes launching, landing, or operating an unmanned aircraft and is approved in writing..."

Further, her is a link to policy memorandum 14-05:
https://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/PM_14-05.htm

"The required compendium closures (closure to use of UAS) do not apply to the following activities

• The use, authorized in writing prior to the date of this Policy Memorandum, of model aircraft....
• Administrative use of unmanned aircraft as approved in writing by the ADVRP for such purposes as scientific study, search and rescue operations, fire operations, and law enforcement....
• Activities conducted under a Scientific Research and Collecting Permit that specifically authorizes...
• Activities conducted under a special use permit that specifically authorizes...

Exhibit B (in part)
Will the activity:

· Violate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations for commercial use of unmanned aircraft.
· Cause injury or damage to park resources.
· Be contrary to the purposes for which the park was established, or unacceptably impact the atmosphere of peace and tranquility maintained in wilderness, natural, historic, or commemorative locations within the park.
· Unreasonably interfere with the interpretive, visitor service, or other program activities, or with the administrative activities of the NPS.
· Substantially impair the operation of public facilities or services of NPS concessioners or contractors.
· Present a clear and present danger to public health and safety.
· Result in significant conflict with other existing uses.

And finally.....
If the superintendent determines the requested activity is appropriate and compatible with the values and resources of the park, he or she may seek the approval of the ADVRP to issue an SUP that authorizes launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft in the park. Requests for approval should be submitted through the regional director to the ADVRP and contain the following materials:

• Memorandum of request....."

Although I think this is all total garbage, but that borders on a political discussion that doesn't need to happen here.

Now the Forest Service (different than the BLM, different than the NPS, different than state lands, etc...) also restricts UAV, or ANY motorized equipment/item of any kind, in wilderness areas. IRA (inventoried roadless) areas I believe they are allowed but only along the roadway as there are existing roads in IRA areas but you cannot go off of them - legally that is.


So to recap - I am 99.9% confident that in any and all cases not associated with official administrative use (and even within those uses) a memorandum and letter in writing (or permit) must be obtained to fly a UAS within NPS lands.

If this is incorrect, I think it would be critical to have a PAO (public affairs officer) list specific and legal verbiage - because everything I just read in the last 15 minutes says drones are a no-go. I also didn't read the whole thing though because I deal with enough of this garbage at work as it is.

 

[Lrowe]

Hello Chorky:
There were two topics discussed in my note, one was filming (and commercial filming permits) and the other topic was UAS use. The filming part I mentioned was/is correct. The UAS issue is separate, and I should have made a hard stop between the two topics to ensure clarity.

I have previously been in the ADVRP position you cite in the policy. I and the VRP (Visitor and Resource Protection) team wrote the NPS policy you have attached regarding UAS' at the direction of the NPS Director. You are absolutely correct- a member of the public can only launch, land or operate a UAS in a National Park or NPS site under a written permit issued by the ADVRP in Washington DC, or in special emergency circumstances, by the local Park Supt. I hope that my previous explanation of the UAS issue did not confuse other readers and I appreciate the time you put in researching those documents.

As you stated, politics aside, we have approximately 320+ million visitors a year to the NPS units. At the Grand Canyon, where I am currently at, we expect about 5.4M visitors this year. There were many instances across the NPS where UAS' were operated unsafely in Parks above other visitors, or were used for poaching, hazing bison and bears, chasing condors, or trying to get footage of wildland fire operations, medevacs and helicopter short haul (patients), body recoveries, or helicopter sling load operations, where the UAS created aviation hazards. After much deliberation, the Director made a decision to regulate this use through permits to control the activity.

And to ensure our forum readers don't think the feds make rules that they themselves don't have to abide by, as an agency administrator, I also have to get permission from Dept of Interior in Washington DC to operate UAS' in the Grand Canyon for administrative activities (per DOI Secretarial Order).

Anyway, thanks for providing additional clarity, and let me know when you are coming down to the Grand Canyon, I will buy you a beer.
Louis

 

[chorky]

Hello Chorky:
There were two topics discussed in my note, one was filming (and commercial filming permits) and the other topic was UAS use. The filming part I mentioned was/is correct. The UAS issue is separate, and I should have made a hard stop between the two topics to ensure clarity.

I have previously been in the ADVRP position you cite in the policy. I and the VRP (Visitor and Resource Protection) team wrote the NPS policy you have attached regarding UAS' at the direction of the NPS Director. You are absolutely correct- a member of the public can only launch, land or operate a UAS in a National Park or NPS site under a written permit issued by the ADVRP in Washington DC, or in special emergency circumstances, by the local Park Supt. I hope that my previous explanation of the UAS issue did not confuse other readers and I appreciate the time you put in researching those documents.

As you stated, politics aside, we have approximately 320+ million visitors a year to the NPS units. At the Grand Canyon, where I am currently at, we expect about 5.4M visitors this year. There were many instances across the NPS where UAS' were operated unsafely in Parks above other visitors, or were used for poaching, hazing bison and bears, chasing condors, or trying to get footage of wildland fire operations, medevacs and helicopter short haul (patients), body recoveries, or helicopter sling load operations, where the UAS created aviation hazards. After much deliberation, the Director made a decision to regulate this use through permits to control the activity.

And to ensure our forum readers don't think the feds make rules that they themselves don't have to abide by, as an agency administrator, I also have to get permission from Dept of Interior in Washington DC to operate UAS' in the Grand Canyon for administrative activities (per DOI Secretarial Order).

Anyway, thanks for providing additional clarity, and let me know when you are coming down to the Grand Canyon, I will buy you a beer.
Louis

Hey Louis,

Thank you for the response. So it looks like maybe I misinterpreted your previous post then so I went back and re-read it and just to clarify - commercial use of course needs the 'OK", drones require the 'OK', but ground based (say your phone camera) pics and videos don't require anything special. That's probably what crossed me up thinking you were talking about drone filming since that was sort the topic.

So I appreciate the clarification. And I totally get all the craziness. We have a bunch of issues here in Montana too and I'm 3 hours away from Glacier even. But, it doesn't stop people. We still have a whole lot of stuff going on and it is only increasing.

I also will reiterate that we have to abide by most laws the public has to. Obviously going behind locked gates is a freebie because it's all for administrative use but there are plenty of gates that even we can't go past unless under certain circumstances.

Grand Canyon is certainly a bucket list item for me! I'd love to spend a month or two there and explore the whole area. If you're still there when I get a trip in for sure lunch would be cool!

Sponsored