The Ethics of Using Recreational Drones in Nature

Okay let's get my bias on the table right away… generally speaking, I do not like to see or hear mechanized toys that make annoying noises when I am in the natural world. So, before I had my first real life experience with a smaller scale camera-mounted drone a few weeks ago, I was of the opinion that these recreational unmanned aerial vehicles (UVAs) were more hassle than helpful.

Then I saw the aerial footage my new friend Michael Altenhenne had taken of the El Dorado Nature Reserve in the Santa Marta mountains of northern Colombia. I had already been living at the reserve for a week, and so I knew of its beauty from eye level. However, seeing the landscape from above definitely had an eye-opening affect on me, and strengthened my perception of how big, and beautiful, and intact, the reserve is.

Drone captured photo of the lodge at El Dorado Nature Reserve

photo courtesy of Michael Altenhenne

Michael's images reminded of my long-standing support of the conservation organization Lighthawk, which – as America's environmental air force – enlists volunteer pilots to show decision makers, policy makers, and the media conservation values and threats from the air. Now, Michael's smaller, quieter, and less expensive technology – a UVA – had given me my first personal experience with the value of using recreational drones in the service of conservation.

Photo from Lighthawk's website

Shortly thereafter, I saw an article about an organization called Air Shepherd, which is using drones, along with high tech infrared cameras, to locate, track and stop poachers, by aerially patrolling the “porous, poacher friendly borders of Africa's national parks.” This was yet, I thought, another good use of drone technology. And when I started poking around online to learn more about drones for conservation, I found that they are being used – almost literally – around the world: in Suriname, Borneo and Sumatra, in Belize and Brazil, from Florida to the Arctic, and likely other locations as well.

Photo from article about Air Shepard in www.gizmag.com

And as if I had opened up a new window to the world, drone-induced aerial videography for conservation purposes was not the only examples popping up around me. On Facebook and Twitter, I started seeing what was obviously drone-captured footage for promoting recreational activities as well: surfing, kayaking, and other outdoor pursuits.

Given the less immediately obvious societal benefit of using drones to capture recreational activities, my first response was to say, “That's where I draw the line. Do we really need to bring this fairly noisy technology into nature just so we can record our every recreation pursuit?” Isn’t a Go-Pro camera mounted on your helmet or surfboard good enough?

“Larger societal value”

Here is where my view of the recreational drone world started getting a little fuzzy, because even here I can see the potential “larger societal value” of capturing drone footage of surfing or kayaking. It comes from my having learned, early on, about the progression of change that comes from natural history interpretation: from awareness comes understanding, from understanding comes appreciation, from appreciation comes concern, and from concern comes action. As a conservation activist, I want to move more and more people to that place of taking action. As I thought about it, I came to see how people could be so inspired by drone footage of waves or whitewater, that they become moved to want to protect the seas or rivers that are their playgrounds. Appreciating nature is how I got into the conservation business, after all.

It was much easier for me to draw my ethical line when I stumbled upon an article about how drones are being used by hunters to locate wildlife before the hunt. This use of UVAs seems entirely antithetical to the concept of fair chase in the hunting community. If I ran the world, this sort of use of drones would be forbidden…. which is why I am grateful that the national organization Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is pushing state wildlife agencies to ban hunters from using drones to look for and track wildlife.

In the recent past, many technological advances have "come on line" so fast that we – as a people – are forced to deal with their consequences before we have had time - as a society - to thoroughly debate and decide what is appropriate. Witness doctor assisted suicide, organ transplants for profit, fracking, the recreational drone's larger cousin, military drones…. and…. well, the use of recreational drones in a natural setting.

And while the use of smaller, recreational drones in the natural world may not be as politically or culturally-charged an issue as some of the others we face today because of new technologies, for me, as a conservationist, smaller scale drones in nature pose a vexing internal debate. What is appropriate and what is not; what is acceptable and what is not? I love the fact that poachers in Africa may be stopped because of the use of drones. However, at the same time, I am certain that some of the close-up aerial footage I have seen of wildebeests and giraffes running across the African plains is not because those critters decided they needed the exercise.

I am not sure what the answer is, but I think certainly one litmus test is whether the drones are being used for a greater good, or a selfish pleasure. And as I have done for years, I would favor uses that are for the greater good, where the pleasure of a few doesn’t affect the experience of most. What are your thoughts on the subject?