# Aerial Drones and wilderness rivers



## 90Duck

I've seen a couple of very cool whitewater videos recently posted on YouTube that were shot from aerial drones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNJomt6Ipho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5wsOCux1vc&index=8&list=LLvuV5rNdgEFwlGHSlLrpu6g

While I think these videos are really cool to watch, I can't help but wonder what the surprised looking people in some of the boats were thinking as they were being buzzed by a drone on a multi-day wilderness trip. I think I would be surprised by the novelty of it now, but as these things start to proliferate and everyone wants to film and post video of their epic lines through Rainey Falls, it's going to get annoying really quickly.

There has already been some discussion of the legality of using drones in wilderness areas over on the "changes to blossom bar" thread, I but thought the drone topic was worthy of it's own thread.

Personally, while I appreciate the videos, I don't think motorized vehicles of any type should be in a wilderness area, which is kind of the point of wilderness areas, right? Then again, I even get annoyed at my rafting buddies using noisy battery powered pumps to inflate their air mattresses on "wilderness" trips, and airplanes fly over wilderness areas all the time. 

Thoughts?


----------



## climbdenali

90Duck said:


> I don't think motorized vehicles of any type should be in a wilderness area, which is kind of the point of wilderness areas, right?
> Thoughts?


I tend to agree with you, but it's just not how it works. Getting wilderness declared is a tricky political dance of compromise. Look at the Middle Fork: biggest wilderness area in the country and there are how many airstrips? I can think of no fewer than 8 off the top of my head, at least two of which are on Federal land in the wilderness! OK, so allow private inholdings to maintain historic access, but use federal dollars to maintain an airstrip inside a wilderness area? come on.

I guess it's just a matter of degrees. You don't like the noisy motors for air pumps? What if they were quiet? What about the a-holes who don't grease their raft pumps that sound like dying seals every morning?

Most cameras have small motors. How long before the FS tells us we can't take photos in the wilderness?

I guess the line the USFS tries to walk re: motors and machines in the wilderness just kinda pisses me off. It's OK to drag a damn sled up and down the hill at Indian Creek, but NOT a wheel barrow since it has a wheel? Give me a break. I'm pretty sure they had wheel barrows in that area long before it was declared wilderness.

Drones would piss me off. Planes flying in and out of the MFS every day detract from the wilderness feeling for me. Wheel barrows seem pretty primitive and wildernessy to me. Speakers are allowed, so far as I can tell. Cameras allowed. No water pumps, like a Zodi shower.

Anyway, I guess everything is like that. When you start trying to decide what's allowed where, things get muddled. "Share the road" is another one that drives me nuts. We have traffic laws for public safety. Some vehicles aren't allowed on public roads: atvs, dirt bikes (unless they have the required equipment and registration), Segways, etc. Why aren't they allowed? They're a danger to themselves and others. So, how's a road bike much different? They travel at vastly different speeds than highway traffic, and can cause hazardous situations to other drivers, yet somehow they're allowed. Anyway, sorry to digress. 

That's my rant.


----------



## upshitscreek

I would hope people have the common sense to only fly them when no other parties are around.

I have no issues with them though so long as they are used with the proper respect to other folks and groups. 

That said, if some total stranger started buzzing my raft at close range in a difficult rapid then I wouldn't think twice about having a passenger swat it down like a fly with a spare paddle.


----------



## carvedog

I thought the vid was pretty cool but I give you this. Pretty sure guns are ok in all wilderness areas except certain National Parks....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIXwQVFt8Ho


----------



## Andy H.

I never believed shotguns had a place in river running. The prospect of encountering aerial drones while floating makes me rethink that position...


----------



## 90Duck

Andy H. said:


> I never believed shotguns had a place in river running. The prospect of encountering aerial drones while floating makes me rethink that position...


Funny video. I don't think the pepper spray I bring along for late night bear encounters on the Rogue would have the same effect on drones.


----------



## caverdan

If it's my drone.....it's OK. If it's your drone and bothering me......then blast away.


----------



## swiftwater15

*Drone distance*



Andy H. said:


> I never believed shotguns had a place in river running. The prospect of encountering aerial drones while floating makes me rethink that position...


Yep. I think drones are fine, so long as they stay 60 yards or so away from me in a wilderness area. That's about the range for a 12 gauge with buckshot. Non-wilderness is a tougher question.


----------



## restrac2000

Since they weren't grandfathered in I would love to see them banned myself. 

Unlike the culture and historical use of remote controlled airplanes (RACs) the quadcopter/drone culture has the ability to affect privacy and solitude in the wilderness in an immense manner. When you look back at RACs they were largely used in municipal areas and had relatively short ranges. Now you have a much more advanced piece of equipment that is using video and still photography technology that is rather sophisticated. 

I know folks are using these tools for some pretty amazing projects but I also value having places that are off limits to the intrusion they seem to inherently create. 

Will be interesting to see where agencies and users land on the issue. Really would hate to see them become as common as stereos that can be heard 1/2-1 mile away while I am on the river.


----------



## tmacc

Cool Video. I want one of those suppressors for my 870. 

We were just walking the dogs tonight and one of our neighbors had a drone he was flying around. When he saw us he went in the house till we passed. We were puzzled what that was about.


----------



## lmyers

AHRA and Colorado Parks and Wildlife are in the process of creating regulations prohibiting drones from the Upper Arkansas....and I'm cool with that.


----------



## Shitouta

I've always dreamed about shooting down GoPro drones with a shotgun, but Johnny Dronehunter beat me to it. Strong work.


----------



## Schutzie

I'm pretty sure this debate will go like most discussions prompted by technology advances.

One minor note; it's still illegal to operate drones capable of operating out of line of sight of the operator per FAA rules. I had done research on the topic at one point, and the FAA basically said that yes, while one can launch an uncontrolled "model" rocket capable of reaching 5,000 feet near any airport, it is illegal to launch a remote controlled aircraft capable of reaching 500'. Anywhere. Like, you know, in the middle of a rancher's field miles from any airport.

Anyway, the overiding point has to be that using drones is like using motors or radios or whatever while on the river. If you invade another's space with your technology you risk their wrath, and ultimately the well meaning but all invasive REGULATION or worse, LAW.

That said, if anyone has drone video of hot springs use, or really any voyeur video on the river, well share that s^*t!


----------



## zercon

*Ice Drones*

someone told me the Hualapai tribe is working on a GC drone business plan. You call them on a sat phone, give them your GPS location and a cc number, they fly you up some ice. I heard it from a guide, so it must be true,


----------



## carvedog

Schutzie said:


> That said, if anyone has drone video of hot springs use, or really any voyeur video on the river, well share that s^*t!


Never thought of that.

The creep factor runs strong in this one.


----------



## panicman

just think the benefit they could provide if you were on a steep walled wilderness run and pop out your drone and scout for wood or other potential hazzards down river.


----------



## shoenfeld13

I think the concern over intrusion by drones is vastly overstated. They have a maximum fly time of 20 minutes and they do very poorly in winds. Most people would probably be using them to videotape their own group or general scenery, unless you think your worth stalking. On most permitted rivers I rarely see other groups for more that a few minutes each day so the likelyhood of it becoming an actual nuisance is pretty remote. 

Let's get back to worrying about Ebola and IS!


----------



## carvedog

shoenfeld13 said:


> Let's get back to worrying about Ebola and IS!


While I think they are fine in some places, if I see one on of the wilderness rivers I float I will likely go all Dronehunter......and yes I will go pick up the pieces and pack it out. And I am not worried about Ebola and IS???? which I assume you mean to indicate the Islamic Radicals.


----------



## Schutzie

carvedog said:


> Never thought of that.
> 
> The creep factor runs strong in this one.


----------



## shoenfeld13

Yes Carvedog, I meant Islamic State. It is a joke, just like the Dronehunter video. Both of which don't appear to be the risk/threat they are hyped up to be. Glad to hear you will pack it out. Thanks.


----------



## Caleb125

Drones make the coolest whitewater porn ever. I say, as long as you aren't disturbing anyone then go ahead and make an epic film!


----------



## MT4Runner

climbdenali said:


> I guess the line the USFS tries to walk re: motors and machines in the wilderness just kinda pisses me off. It's OK to drag a damn sled up and down the hill at Indian Creek, but NOT a wheel barrow since it has a wheel? Give me a break. I'm pretty sure they had wheel barrows in that area long before it was declared wilderness.
> 
> Drones would piss me off. Planes flying in and out of the MFS every day detract from the wilderness feeling for me. Wheel barrows seem pretty primitive and wildernessy to me. Speakers are allowed, so far as I can tell. Cameras allowed. No water pumps, like a Zodi shower.
> 
> Anyway, I guess everything is like that. When you start trying to decide what's allowed where, things get muddled. "Share the road" is another one that drives me nuts. We have traffic laws for public safety. Some vehicles aren't allowed on public roads: atvs, dirt bikes (unless they have the required equipment and registration), Segways, etc. Why aren't they allowed? They're a danger to themselves and others. So, how's a road bike much different? They travel at vastly different speeds than highway traffic, and can cause hazardous situations to other drivers, yet somehow they're allowed. Anyway, sorry to digress.


 Agree on all counts.

The regulation and (what is regulated) seems very arbitrary.



Caleb125 said:


> Drones make the coolest whitewater porn ever. I say, as long as you aren't disturbing anyone then go ahead and make an epic film!


They're only OK if I'm in the video doing something cool!


----------



## heavyswimmer

Well... it might not matter, but someone should mention that Raine Falls isn't located in a designated wilderness area. The National Forest Rouge River Wilderness Area is from Mule Creek Canyon to just above Agness, and the majority know what boats are grandfathered to run through that section of the river. 

On that note, I still find remote controlled quad-copters(drones are autonomous) more offensive then a 1000 horsepower jet boat.


----------



## restrac2000

Its an interesting study. The implications of a lack of change in behavior but a physiological response is troubling for the use of drones for research, a concern in biology. We often rely upon the more obtuse cues (I can say that having been hawked and chased for hours by Goshawks and Red Tails) but this shows us that wildlife is affected at a more acute level. 

At a minimum, assuming this is supported by future research, I would expect to see seasonal limitations for species of concern. They specifically studied animals in areas significantly impacted by humans so it does beg the question when is enough enough? We have fragmented wildlife habitat, sprawling human populations, there are relatively few islands of protection in the lower 48, we have drastically altered the food web (look into the cascade of effects on loss or reduction of salmon runs on flora and fauna), climate change, little to no tolerance for predators, and invasive species are already stressing our wildlife. And sadly most of these issues are cumulative.

While black bear populations themselves are relatively stable I would imagine these sort of stressors don't bode well for human-wildlife interactions, especially in desperate years. 

And generically speaking, if these devices aren't regulated, we have fundamentally compressed the size of roadless areas by anywhere from 1/2 to 6 miles (only the lightest with automated flight patterns) along each road and access point. That may not mean much for our larger wild lands but is definitely another stressor for our smaller and more pressured places. 

Add in studies like this with the exponential increase in UAV and manned aircraft encounters, FAA reported 238 encounters in all of 2014 while there are already 650 so far this year, and I think quadcopter enthusiasts have an uphill battle to justify the status quo in regards to policy. Could get real interesting.

Phillip


----------



## carvedog

There is a local photog who has been shooting any public event with a drone lately. Makes my blood pressure go up and I didn't even know I didn't like them. The idea of them sounded cool, but when the damn thing is over your head it's hard to have any reaction but threatened.


----------



## k2andcannoli

I love quad-copters, they make excellent targets for my wrist rocket. Shoot it down and take the memory card.


----------



## spencerhenry

any drone used for commercial purposes is required to be flown by someone with a pilot's license.

as far as use in a true wilderness area, i would think that the rules are pretty clear on that, no way.

i think they could be fun to play with, but just as annoying as the group blasting some shitty music so the entire river can hear it with at least a couple of overly drunk losers screaming at each other.
why does everyone think they need to video every damn thing they do. can't you just go out and enjoy it without having to prove to everyone that you did enjoy it?


----------



## Andy H.

*Wildlife fight back*

Apparently eagles and geese don't like them either.

Australian Eagle Takes Out Drone in Midair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr-xBtVU4lg


----------



## Andy H.

The multi-species consensus continues to develop. Here's a chimp expressing his distaste for drones. The soundtrack's pretty groovy too.


----------



## KSC

I saw this when I was going for a mtb ride the other day. Not clear how I'm supposed to show my friends all the rad things I did.


----------



## fishycharacter

Will river maps be videos in the future that you view on your phone as you go?
Could someone who is disabled take a hike or float a river this way?


----------



## Roguelawyer

I think the last thing we need are more regulations. The bears will be OK and is it really that big of a deal? How often do you actually run into a drone on the lower Rogue. In three trips this summer I never saw or heard one.

. . . and they provide awesome videos.


----------



## Randaddy

Roguelawyer said:


> I think the last thing we need are more regulations. The bears will be OK and is it really that big of a deal? How often do you actually run into a drone on the lower Rogue. In three trips this summer I never saw or heard one.
> 
> . . . and they provide awesome videos.


Spoken like a true part of the problem...


----------



## mattoak

Are drones that are flying above a wilderness area actually in the wilderness area? When you float a river through private property you're not trespassing, so does flying a drone over someone's private property count as trespassing? How much space above the ground (or below for that matter) do you own when you own property?


----------



## Roguelawyer

I guess it depends on what you think is the problem. It isn't like I'm suggesting we remove any of the regs already in place.

I certainly don't see drones as any problem. I live here, spend most every spring and summer weekend on the Rogue River. I saw a drone once this summer at Galice. I have a hard time understanding how or why it would bother anyone. I could not hear it over the river noise. Yes, I could see it but that's about it.

It would bother me if someone buzzed one through my camp or over my head but other than that, it's kind of up to others what they do.

Loud, drunken camps do way more to break the peace on the lower Rogue but I wouldn't suggest banning beer.

. . . and who hasn't taken an unannounced shot to the face from a water gun. Should we ban those as well. Do plastic water guns have a place on our scenic waterways?

Personally I think people are just way too uptight.


----------



## Roguelawyer

BTW I don't fly drones and if it is any consolation, I don't stack rocks either.


----------



## johnsnow420

if you get beatered and no one to sees it, are you really Wallace?


----------



## WolfgangStCroix

I doubt this is a DC only thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if a number of the more visited public lands get the same treatment in the coming years. Not so much for security but for preventing nuisance and accidents. 

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/28/dji...ble-camera-drones-washington-dcs-no-fly-zone/




Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## richp

Hi,

I was up in the Porcupine Mountains wilderness area (atate-managed land in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan) last week and saw several of them -- some very large with elaborate camera setups. At a distance, they were only mildly distracting, but as they came in to their controller, they sure did put up a buzz.

Interestingly, a park ranger came up the ridge while I was there and asked them for their permit. When they said they didn't have one, he simply told them to get one the next time, and went back on down. I'm betting something like this happening on Federally managed land might not be resolved quite so mildly (or cheaply).

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Randaddy

Roguelawyer, sorry. That was rude. What I should have said is "the stress on wildlife is too important to brush off that quickly and the encroachment of this technology in wild places makes me physically Ill and a little bit angry. I hope we take our time, before allowing too much backcountry use, to consider the impact on the bears and on me." I assumed, because of your User ID that you were a douche, so I was curt. You might not be, so sorry.


----------



## bucketboater

Randaddy said:


> Roguelawyer, sorry. That was rude. What I should have said is "the stress on wildlife is too important to brush off that quickly and the encroachment of this technology in wild places makes me physically Ill and a little bit angry. I hope we take our time, before allowing too much backcountry use, to consider the impact on the bears and on me." I assumed, because of your User ID that you were a douche, so I was curt. You might not be, so sorry.


 Black Bears have adapted to jet boats,music, electric fences and barking dogs on the rogue. I don't think they care about r.c toys. The issue is more for us humans. Unfortunately I think drones will be the least of our concerns in the future. In a few years wilderness runs will most likely be filled with cell towers and people updating their Facebook. Love it while you can.


----------



## sarahkonamojo

As if humans have no impact on wildlife, wild lands or each other?

In wilderness areas they should be banned. They are machines and have the same (or similar) impact as any other non-human powered machine in wilderness areas. Similar to mountain bikes, it took a very short time for them to be banned from many areas, wilderness or not. Cool technology, but common courtesy should have prevailed before regulations had to be written.

In other areas, they are just f'n annoying. We have given up so much of our privacy in this age of free information. We just keep giving it away. No one should be able receive payment (money or goods) from footage without the consent of all individuals.

I don't read much science fiction, but Neal Stephenson predicted invasive use of drones in Diamond Age. The drones were much smaller...

The bears on the Rogue River behave more like nuisance animals (i.e. raccoons) than wildlife. Just an example of what human presence/actions can do to wildlife.


----------



## bucketboater

sarahkonamojo said:


> As if humans have no impact on wildlife, wild lands or each other?
> 
> In wilderness areas they should be banned. They are machines and have the same (or similar) impact as any other non-human powered machine in wilderness areas. Similar to mountain bikes, it took a very short time for them to be banned from many areas, wilderness or not. Cool technology, but common courtesy should have prevailed before regulations had to be written.
> 
> In other areas, they are just f'n annoying. We have given up so much of our privacy in this age of free information. We just keep giving it away. No one should be able receive payment (money or goods) from footage without the consent of all individuals.
> 
> I don't read much science fiction, but Neal Stephenson predicted invasive use of drones in Diamond Age. The drones were much smaller...
> 
> The bears on the Rogue River behave more like nuisance animals (i.e. raccoons) than wildlife. Just an example of what human presence/actions can do to wildlife.


Mountain bikes are banned on many trails because they damage paths and collisions with hikers. If you have ever been skiing in CO. half you dorks are wearing go pro's. You lost your privacy years ago. Bears are always the highlight of my trip. 11 rogue trips in the last 3 years and they have been nothing but respectful and courteous.Definitely not a nuisance. Realistically you guys are getting worked up over nothing. These things cost more then half the rafts I see you guys running. I don't think they'll be flooding the river anytime soon.


----------



## restrac2000

Except, they are getting cheaper by the year and the number of low end models is flooding the market. One of the most popular brands is very much in the price range of an average video/photog dork. I mean Americans have no problem dropping $500-750 for a smart phone so $600-1k for a UAV isn't too crazy:

DJI Quad

The newer price pointing is considered the main reason we have seen so many more in the field and so many more negative interactions. Hence the new registration mandate.

Phillip


----------



## sarahkonamojo

bucketboater said:


> Mountain bikes are banned on many trails because they damage paths and collisions with hikers. If you have ever been skiing in CO. half you dorks are wearing go pro's. You lost your privacy years ago. Bears are always the highlight of my trip. 11 rogue trips in the last 3 years and they have been nothing but respectful and courteous.Definitely not a nuisance. Realistically you guys are getting worked up over nothing. These things cost more then half the rafts I see you guys running. I don't think they'll be flooding the river anytime soon.


You, you, you, and they. Guess it is you against... someone. Or all of those that don't agree with you.

Respectful and courteous bears? Bears don't have manners, good or bad. Or maybe you are referring to droners. 

Whatever. Keep up the good work. And keep running the Rogue.


----------



## Phil U.

sarahkonamojo said:


> You, you, you, and they. Guess it is you against... someone. Or all of those that don't agree with you.


Yuh


----------



## wheretheriverflows

And I'll never get the time back that it took me to read this thread.


----------



## Wiggins

On my last Hells Canyon trip we saw a drone. The operator flagged us diwn and asked if he could film us with it before he launched the thing. I was ok with it, but I doubt most will be so reapectful if others. 

I think there is room for them, but there is going to have to be some regulation. The one that is being developed to follow the "operator" automatically actually sounds pretty cool. 

Kyle


----------



## duct tape

lmyers said:


> AHRA and Colorado Parks and Wildlife are in the process of creating regulations prohibiting drones from the Upper Arkansas....and I'm cool with that.


+1.


----------



## lhowemt

Ban em. And on wild and scenic rivers too.


----------



## villagelightsmith

The great good Government has declared them to be "aircraft," hence under the auspices of the FAA ... yeah, the same outfit that controls passenger airlines. As "aircraft," shooting at the things now brings the full weight of Governments down around one's ears. Until that came about there was a growing sport of competitive shotgun games competing between the quick-thinking flyers of tough-built, extremely agile RC aerobatic planes and the shotgunners who tried (usually in vain!) to bring them to earth. But, the Powers That Be decided that one rule could bind them all. I believe it is stil a legal game in other countries. Check the UK.
As for drones, they don't bother me. Really. Their batteries die and they go away. Mosquitoes are another story.


----------



## villagelightsmith

I'd be interested to know whether these drones were giving the bears any "social distancing." 
Given motivation, any of us might have an elevated heart rate. Being teased and tormented by a drone is not the same as having the things keep a respectful distance. Bu-u-u-ut, photogs must have their close-in shots, eh?


Andy H. said:


> *Drone impact to wildlife*
> 
> Having known some rafters that were kind of like big ol' bears...
> 
> But seriously, I saw this article recently in the Ars Technica science section. Drones have been used in wildlife research lately, and it was thought they had little impact on the subjects due because the animals didn't show much reaction to the drones studying them. Then some researchers equipped bears with heart monitors to test that and found the bears' heart rate highly elevated, indicating lots of stress from the drones.
> 
> The results described the heaviest impact to one of the bears, but the research shows drones are a significant stressor:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the graphic from the article showing what happened when the flew the drone over the bear. The gray bars are the 5-minute overflights:


----------



## flumphboy

Years ago I was on a bikepacking trip in the middle of nowhere (Bitterroot Divide/Montana/Idaho), and we had dropped down to a remote alpine lake to grab some water. Had not seen anyone, or, evidence of anyone, the entire glorious morning. While I was eating a snack as the lake heard a buzzing. Thought it obviously a crazy bee. Couldn't find the bee. Buzzing got insane. Still couldn't find the source. Finally look up and there's the drone. Freaked me the F out. Complete, pun intended, buzz-kill. Seriously went from the most incredible/wilderness-y morning to I'm-in-the-f'ing-matrix. Still never saw anyone. Have no clue where it came from. And there were not many ways to get into the area.


----------



## SpudCat

Backpacking deep in the Sawtooth Wilderness a month ago we skipped camping at a lower lake because there were already three parties on its shores. A mile and a half up the neighboring pass we set up camp at a little un-named lake 1/4 mi off the trail. It was a glorious solitude filled evening and morning. While enjoying morning coffee, we heard the approaching zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ of a quadcopter from the lower lake. It zipped up and down the trail/stream for 10-15 minutes and eventually disappeared. Was it the end of the world? No. Were we probably louder in our own talking and laughing? Sure. But they're banned in the wilderness and there's no lack of signage. 

The thing that I think about a lot is selfishness and that anymore, quite a few people don't care about rules/regulations/ideas if they conflict with their own wants. Not to stereotype (I will anyway), but the suspected quadcopter fliers totally fit the mid-20s 'social media bro/broette' profile. Is it really that important to share every single experience on social media? At what point does that motivation change your behavior and actions? I think about this a lot raising two children and trying to teach them about being present in the moment and finding balance between digital life and real life. Increasingly, people are less in the moment with the people they're physically present with and just looking to capture a version of that experience to project an image on social media. I went to Iceland for 11 days two summers ago and it was incredible how much of that went on at every waterfall or scenic stop. The same goes for our national parks.

All this being said, I appreciate the many excellent videos people share of rivers, trips, places.. I learn a lot from YouTube. But there's a way to do this without intruding on the experiences of others. Your raft-mounted GoPro typically isn't going to bother most people, nor is having someone film a run from the bank. 

Anyway, just some Sunday morning musing. I guess the biggest thing is to be respectful of others with your actions and realize not everyone shares the same values (esp. if you're violating social norms or actual regulations).


----------



## Andy H.

villagelightsmith said:


> I'd be interested to know whether these drones were giving the bears any "social distancing."
> Given motivation, any of us might have an elevated heart rate. Being teased and tormented by a drone is not the same as having the things keep a respectful distance. Bu-u-u-ut, photogs must have their close-in shots, eh?


The second paragraph of the article states:



> ...So they put biologger collars on four adult bears and two cubs, then flew drones an average of 21 meters above their heads (and an average of 215 meters absolute distance) for five-minute spans.


So the researchers were an average of ~65 feet above the bears. That seems like a "respectful" distance on the face of it. Of note is how the bear's heart rate remained elevated for about an hour after the overflight and didn't seem to be coming back down. This indicates that a brief overflight has lasting impact for well beyond the time the bear's being watched.

A drone that harassed my camp once was flying about 30 feet over us and it was pretty annoying. Especially when it kept coming back after we clearly showed it wasn't welcome, threw rocks and sticks at it, etc. And my understanding is that even though the drone was being flown in a wilderness area and the ranger informed, the offender was only given a warning, rather than bringing "the full weight of Governments down around one's ears."

-AH


----------



## villagelightsmith

Yeah, up in Canada I was _totally bummed_ by the crowd ... 6 miles away was another canoe party. We had expected to have the 28 mile lake, possibly the whole 110 mile lake chain, all to ourselves. If there hadn't been that party of 4 people, 6 miles away, we would have seen nobody and could have fantasized about the white-man's history of the continent. We had been listening to the loons, watching the aurora borealis, and howling with the wolves. We had shifted our planned campsite because of some fresh grizzly tracks (momma & a cub) and a moose kill. We had briefly left a world where elevators kept people stuffed in moving boxes, and we were unhappy because there was another camp in our imagined fantasy of endless untouched wilderness. 

Then a small red float plane came humming across our skies. We waved until he wagged his wings.

We were drinking Labrador Tea, eating salt pork, smoking our fish (ever try to keep a smoldering fish alight?) and wearing teepee-creepers ... smoked moosehide moccasins ... for the novelty. We were chewing tobacco for the juice, using it to keep the skeeters and blackflys away. (We had forgotten the Cutters.) We were wearing red one-piece long-johns with the trap-door ass just to keep the dream alive. [We had woolies in our Duluth packs (which had plastic liners), but one-piece wooly longs really do itch like fury unless it's _really_ cold.]

Then I returned to Earth and spent another 30 years working (and playing) in our forests, deserts and rivers. 
Yes, we need our "wild places," but let's be honest. They are wild only in our minds. We just have to go to more inhospitable places to find our imagined state of solitude. Maybe ... Antarctica? Or the Negev?


----------



## villagelightsmith

Any objection to RC powered gliders? Or ... PPG ... powered paragliders? I think it's the noise and proximity that serve as triggers. Some folks just have to be a nuisance, and some on the ground are just spoiling for a fight.


----------



## MT4Runner

For me, it's the noise.

I'd say proximity, too...but even if I were on the river and someone were shooting my pic from the shore, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy or solitude. So I'd have to say it's just the noise.

If someone had a camera on a kite or a hot air balloon, I'd think it was cool.


----------



## Andy H.

MT4Runner said:


> I have no reasonable expectation of privacy or solitude.


A little more about when my group was harassed - the drone was flying over our campsite and hovering over peoples' individual tentsites as they were changing out of their river gear into their camp clothes. In camp I, and most others, expect the option of privacy when we're changing. It seems like a reasonable expectation that we can choose whether we want to strip down in front of folks we know or in front of complete strangers from another camp via the drone's video feed. And if we make it known that we don't want to be watched in our own secluded tentsite, then someone standing and watching, or flying a drone over us, is harassing us.

So there's one privacy aspect of it.

-AH


----------



## MT4Runner

that's just shitty behavior.


----------



## richp

Andy H. said:


> A little more about when my group was harassed - the drone was flying over our campsite and hovering over peoples' individual tentsites as they were changing out of their river gear into their camp clothes. In camp I, and most others, expect the option of privacy when we're changing. It seems like a reasonable expectation that we can choose whether we want to strip down in front of folks we know or in front of complete strangers from another camp via the drone's video feed. And if we make it known that we don't want to be watched in our own secluded tentsite, then someone standing and watching, or flying a drone over us, is harassing us.
> 
> So there's one privacy aspect of it.
> 
> -AH


Andy,

I'm thinking a slingshot ought to accompany every trip these days, to deal in a quiet, non-firearms kind of way with an invasion of privacy like this. 

"Must have been a passing bird that clipped it and knocked it down..."

Rich Phillips


----------



## 2tomcat2

This may have been addressed before....drones and fire fighting operations, older article but still relevant:









Drones Are a Big Problem for Firefighters Battling Massive Blazes


They're forcing air crews to land to avoid collisions




time.com


----------



## MT4Runner

richp said:


> I'm thinking a slingshot ought to accompany every trip these days, to deal in a quiet, non-firearms kind of way with an invasion of privacy like this.


Make some bola rounds for your slingshot.


----------



## raymo

2tomcat2 said:


> This may have been addressed before....drones and fire fighting operations, older article but still relevant:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drones Are a Big Problem for Firefighters Battling Massive Blazes
> 
> 
> They're forcing air crews to land to avoid collisions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> time.com


Yes, they can make for a bad day for an air crew in a critical part of flight that's for sure. We use to receive NOTAM'S(warning's) with our papper work, if the airport we were dispatched to had, high incidences of drone activity or laser acitivity. Approaching Boston Logan airport for landing one night at about 4,000 ft the cock-pit lit-up bright green, we fly with a dark cock-pit at night for our eyes to focus on gauges and better depth perception on landing, it definitely mess'es with your vision and concentration for an instant. I ask my FO what that was, he said we just got lasered. I told him to advise Approach Control so they can warn aircraft landing Boston. I think drones and laser's are pretty cool when used properly, if not they can be very hazardous and a real pain in the ass(intrusive).


----------

