National Geographic Photog Arrested

dukeblue219

dukeblue219

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
811
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Display Name
Display name:
Ted
http://hutchnews.com/Todaystop/Nat--Geographic-photog-arrested-in-GC

Some interesting points to chew on. First, it seems they *were* trespassing by driving onto and launching from public property, though I suspect an arrest would never have been made if the farmers hadn't really been trying to keep them from photographing the cows. However, what I know some folks will find interesting are the following snippets:

After all, hundreds of thousands of cattle are fattening in a 100-mile radius around Garden City and such incidents could turn into a food security issue - especially in an era where agri-terrorism is a threat.​

Sigh -- we're so paranoid and afraid of our own damn shadows. Somebody is flying around some cows in a 600 square mile area and our first concern is terrorism.

Steinmetz was circling around the feedlot and taking photographs - not flying straight across it, Popelka said. Criminal statute, however, Popelka said, doesn't define how far land goes - in this case, how far up. Moreover, while Congress has authorized flights and air travel, the photographer wasn't engaging in air travel to pass through on a public air highway.

"This was a low-level entry with intent to remain in that space," he said.​

So, congress "allows" us to fly, for travel purposes, but if you're not on a public air highway look out, because you must be up to no good and need to be investigated.
 
He got in the way of the government drones taking photos apparently. LOL!

Seriously though... Let 'em say it's trespass and then watch the sparks fly when they take a photo from above.

FAA should be beating this one into submission with a sledgehammer. Airspace is theirs. The unintended consequences of claiming trespass from the air are enormous for them.
 
Don't underestimate the power of "feedlot executives" :rolleyes:
 
We are a third world ****hole without justice now. Was a good run.
 
I doubt they could make the "fly over" argument stick but since he launched from posted private property, he's in trouble.

The FOOD SAFETY argument is laughable. What we have is BIGTIME AGRIBUSINESS PROFIT SAFETY. The threat to public health is the crap that goes on in the commercial beef production and slaughtering and not what some alleged terrorist flying over some cattle could do. The stuff that goes on there would turn your stomach which is why they don't want people photographing it.
 
"Moreover, while Congress has authorized flights and air travel, the photographer wasn't engaging in air travel to pass through on a public air highway."

Anyone ever seen a Paraglider on a "public air highway"???? :)
 
This is an example of the ranch owner not wanting his practices to be documented on film. He used the local police to enforce his wishes. You got to wonder what he is hiding...though it is probably pretty obvious.

As for the terrorism aspect, doubt even the terrorists would do something so obvious.

In any case, my guess this will end up being one of those times where the best publicity ends up being free publicity.
 
Hey, if some dude wanted to fly over the family ranch for less than great reasons, I'd be happy to see him arrested, too - especially if he trespassed to get the pictures. I'm all for being able to fly around, but the golden rule should still apply, and if the rancher doesn't want a magazine to include photos of his ranch that might possibly be negative, then he should be OK. Now of course he should realize that he'll probably get some negative publicity one way or the other as a result, but that's his choice.

Ryan
 
You guys are dumb. Going to let this one slide because it was a powered paraglider photographer and not one of us in a spam can. It will be you next time.
 
Catch pond? What catch pond?

RyanShort1 said:
Hey, if some dude wanted to fly over the family ranch for less than great reasons, I'd be happy to see him arrested, too - especially if he trespassed to get the pictures. I'm all for being able to fly around, but the golden rule should still apply, and if the rancher doesn't want a magazine to include photos of his ranch that might possibly be negative, then he should be OK. Now of course he should realize that he'll probably get some negative publicity one way or the other as a result, but that's his choice.

Ryan
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
You guys are dumb. Going to let this one slide because it was a powered paraglider photographer and not one of us in a spam can. It will be you next time.
Click to expand...

"First they came after the PPGs, but I didn't fly a PPG so I didn't care. Then they came after the......"
 
DavidWhite said:
"First they came after the PPGs, but I didn't fly a PPG so I didn't care. Then they came after the......"
Click to expand...
I hate to point this out, but they are already after us. Nearly every airport has some type of noise abatement going on. Long Island communities are working to restrict helicopters from overflight. DISNEY has a flight restriction in place. And let us not forget the stadium flight restrictions which forces US to know when they are in use. We are getting beaten up from all sides INCLUDING the smucks hired to protect OUR rights.
I can see the trespassing charge sticking but not the overflight. There is NOTHING in the FARs tht restrict us from maneuvering in any given PUBLIC area. There is nothing that says we need to move on by.
 
He took off from private property. Should get busted for that, and I think it is a trivial charge.

However, can you imagine what flight plans would look like if we had to, say, fly over roads and expressways?
 
After reading the article, it was reported that he trespassed on posted property, and it was for that act that he was arrested. That seems pretty clear cut to me.

As for photography of someone's property, legalities aside, how would you feel if someone circled your property at a low level from air for the purpose of taking photos without your permission? And what if that person was a "journalist" who could potentially gather "evidence" to convict you in the court of public opinion regarding something that "journalist" knows very little about? At a minimum, I think that I'd be doing some investigation of my own to ensure the safety and security of my property and livelihood.


JKG
 
He's lucky he didn't get shot.

The terrorism angle was overblown - seems that everything is a terror threat these days. :mad2:
 
Hard cheese. I can fly over your house and film it. If you want to stop me from being able to, you'll have a lot of company. But think for a second how that plays out.
JGoodish said:
As for photography of someone's property, legalities aside, how would you feel if someone circled your property at a low level from air for the purpose of taking photos without your permission? And what if that person was a "journalist" who could potentially gather "evidence" to convict you in the court of public opinion regarding something that "journalist" knows very little about? At a minimum, I think that I'd be doing some investigation of my own to ensure the safety and security of my property and livelihood.


JKG
Click to expand...
 
I am sure there are exceptions but it was my understanding that when I purchase property I purchase the land and that is it. TFR's, controlled airspace, and prohibited areas aside I can fly my plane where I want, usually. I do not purchase the airspace above my property, and so unless I am someone insanely important or know someone insanely important I have no say over the use of the airspace above my property. Furthermore, I know of no law that prevents me from taking pictures from the air. Now if he violated airspace rules which I guess would be 1000 ft AGL in this area then he is guilty of violated an FAR, but that would be an FAA enforcement issue, and not a local cop issue. Trespassing on the other hand is what they may be guilty of, but that is a local nonflying issue.
 
1000 AGL would apply only if you consider cattle to constitute a "congested area"
 
douglas393 said:
I am sure there are exceptions but it was my understanding that when I purchase property I purchase the land and that is it. TFR's, controlled airspace, and prohibited areas aside I can fly my plane where I want, usually. I do not purchase the airspace above my property, and so unless I am someone insanely important or know someone insanely important I have no say over the use of the airspace above my property. Furthermore, I know of no law that prevents me from taking pictures from the air. Now if he violated airspace rules which I guess would be 1000 ft AGL in this area then he is guilty of violated an FAR, but that would be an FAA enforcement issue, and not a local cop issue. Trespassing on the other hand is what they may be guilty of, but that is a local nonflying issue.
Click to expand...

tonycondon said:
1000 AGL would apply only if you consider cattle to constitute a "congested area"
Click to expand...

If the paraglider was an ultralight then the 1000 AGL reg does not apply since that is in Part 91, not Part 103 operations. Part 103.15 "Operations over congested areas" and 103.9 "Hazardous operations" would seem to be the relevant regulations.

No FAA regs appear to be busted.
 
since apparently 2 people were on board i highly doubt the flight fell under 103.
 
diregard. re-read article. "instructor" was on the ground
 
tonycondon said:
1000 AGL would apply only if you consider cattle to constitute a "congested area"
Click to expand...
Not being familiar with the area or ranch I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, may a lot of ranch hands, who knows. I guess it could be 500 ft AGL if not congested, or lower depending on the type of flying contraption he was using.
 
ClimbnSink said:
http://www.georgesteinmetz.com/about/flying
http://www.georgesteinmetz.com/about/bio
Photographers webpage. Not some crazy hack.
Click to expand...
Not sure anyone thought he was a crazy hack, and from the article and NG's response it sounds like he was doing something sanctioned by NG, which to me suggests he is not a hack. Whether or not he is crazy, well that is a psychological issue, and I am not capable of answering that, though some may say he qualifies (as do most of us) as being crazy for our choice in leaving the confines of the ear on a flying machine!
 
You could make a case for harassing livestock if he was low enough to bother them.

Montana code- 81-7-506. Prohibition against harassing livestock. While engaged in flying an aircraft, no person, whether or not lawfully authorized to aerially hunt, may knowingly harass, injure, or attempt to injure any livestock except with the express permission of the owner of that livestock
 
I'd like to here a psychologist on the stand in a court room explaining how he can prove that a cow admitted to him it was harassed by the flying thingy :)


Sent from my iPhone using An APP that doesn't pay me to advertise for them.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Hard cheese. I can fly over your house and film it. If you want to stop me from being able to, you'll have a lot of company. But think for a second how that plays out.
Click to expand...

I'm really having a hard time finding a point with merit in your reply. Since I live next to an airport, lots of people fly over my house, but they aren't circling at low altitude and taking pictures. If they were, I'm sure that the state trooper who lives next door would find a way to rectify the situation.

You might be able to legally open carry a firearm in many places, too, but it wouldn't necessarily be in your best interest to do so. Pilots are a minority, we will lose against the general public if we draw unnecessary attention to ourselves.


JKG
 
Ah the old we must preserve our privileges by not exercising them argument.
 
Jthamilton said:
Cows are afraid of airplanes and flying things...except in Aeroshell posters. Its harrassment!:D
Click to expand...

Cows aren't bothered by airplanes to much. I landed at a strip that ran between two fields of cows. Several just watched as I passed by. Some had their heads over the fence eating runway grass. Now antelope on the other hand, they run if you fly in the same county with them. :)

Barb
 
flyingron said:
I doubt they could make the "fly over" argument stick but since he launched from posted private property, he's in trouble.

The FOOD SAFETY argument is laughable. What we have is BIGTIME AGRIBUSINESS PROFIT SAFETY. The threat to public health is the crap that goes on in the commercial beef production and slaughtering and not what some alleged terrorist flying over some cattle could do. The stuff that goes on there would turn your stomach which is why they don't want people photographing it.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I don’t think you know what you are talking about on this issue or the potential implications. We are talking about feedlots (where they feed cattle, cattle do like to eat) here, not slaughter houses. And yes it is a food safety and potential security/terrorist issue, with huge economic consequences. The “mad cow” case in December 2003 (one cow from Canada to the state of Washington) cost the US economy ~$11 billion due to concern from Japan etc. regarding our beef exports. That cow had nothing to do with where the Japanese were getting their beef. USDA tested “more than 795,000 animals” found only 2 other cases and they weren’t B.S.E. associated with feed.

The current livestock in the Garden City area we are talking about here could easily be valued, at current prices, at $230 million +. Is $230 million or $11 billion not a concern if someone is flying over loitering in the area? How does this compare to a single nuclear plant? Or are you suggesting, just because you don’t like beef then no one should have concern about potential terrorism to this industry, its owners and employees, consumers and our national economy? So if I don’t like nuclear energy then there should be no concern about terrorism of nuclear facilities because it’s a “bad” industry.

IMO, the real terrorism threat is the economic one where someone can say/suggest they did something, but really didn’t, we then spend millions to try to prove they didn’t infect anything while also incurring another $10 to $50 + billion economic loss.

Most of us in aviation believe we really have way too many permanent and temporary TFRs and most of these have simply be reactionary, not protecting us from real threats. Do we really want to see more of these popping up at every location where someone might be loitering around a potential $billion+ economic impact area and documenting the statement that someone could’ve done something?

The legal issue of course, as noted by others, is that he took off from private property (trespassed) without permission. It’s also not, as some others seemed to have suggested, that they could’ve just taken off from another field or “ranch,” it’s all private property, they need permission.
 
douglas393 said:
I am sure there are exceptions but it was my understanding that when I purchase property I purchase the land and that is it. TFR's, controlled airspace, and prohibited areas aside I can fly my plane where I want, usually. I do not purchase the airspace above my property, and so unless I am someone insanely important or know someone insanely important I have no say over the use of the airspace above my property. Furthermore, I know of no law that prevents me from taking pictures from the air. Now if he violated airspace rules which I guess would be 1000 ft AGL in this area then he is guilty of violated an FAR, but that would be an FAA enforcement issue, and not a local cop issue. Trespassing on the other hand is what they may be guilty of, but that is a local nonflying issue.
Click to expand...

You have to buy a Congress member to get a TFR. Ask Disney. ;)
 
ionel said:
We are talking about feedlots (where they feed cattle, cattle do like to eat) here, not slaughter houses. And yes it is a food safety and potential security/terrorist issue, with huge economic consequences.
Click to expand...

Not to trivialize the impact of so-called "animal rights" activists, with whom I've personally tangled at some expense... but the idea that mad cow or any other infectious disease would ever be spread by ultralights flying over feedlots is absurd.
 
m_t_d said:
Not to trivialize the impact of so-called "animal rights" activists, with whom I've personally tangled at some expense... but the idea that mad cow or any other infectious disease would ever be spread by ultralights flying over feedlots is absurd.
Click to expand...

Did anyone say it could be? But you do know where BSE comes from correct? The point was there are plenty of other things one could do or say they did that can cause economic or health damage.

Can an ultra or 172 take out a nuclear plant?
 
ionel said:
... there are plenty of other things one could do or say they did that can cause economic or health damage.
Click to expand...

I take from this (the four words I've bolded) that you're proposing that the hazard is not that of someone actually doing something that is in reality harmful. Instead, you propose that the hazard is that, if certain actions like flying over private property are permitted, someone might say they did something harmful, perhaps completely fictional, in the presence of a brain-dead press reporting to an increasingly uneducated and gullible public, and thus cause economic harm. Under that ridiculous standard, few if any of us would be flying at all; for that matter, most economic activity would come to a complete halt.
 
m_t_d said:
I take from this (the four words I've bolded) that you're proposing that the hazard is not that of someone actually doing something that is in reality harmful. Instead, you propose that the hazard is that, if certain actions like flying over private property are permitted, someone might say they did something harmful, perhaps completely fictional, in the presence of a brain-dead press reporting to an increasingly uneducated and gullible public, and thus cause economic harm. Under that ridiculous standard, few if any of us would be flying at all; for that matter, most economic activity would come to a complete halt.
Click to expand...

Kind of hard to have a logical discussion with someone who deletes all but a select portion of a sentence, takes it out of context, then puts only part in bold while trying to suggest this is the only point the author is making. Read my original post, 2 main hazards, the potential for the second demonstrated from the event in 2003, no health risk but huge economic loss.

The hazard for both industries (aviation and agriculture) is if many have your view that they should loiter over, for example 1/4 billion dollars of someone else's assets or business, just because they have the legal "right" to do so, instead of thinking about perception and how it might affect others in both industries as well as the general public along with state and national economies. I see nothing wrong with using aviation for transportation which may often mean flying over sensitive property.

I, for one, prefer to avoid additional future TFRs.
 
nothing will ever meet your standard. and if feedlots get protection the line of industries that want the same deal would stretch to Maryland. we get it you are in beef and want special treatment well hard cheese. what if natl geo got damming pictures by hiring a french spy satellite? no possible terrorist angle, bet you still wouldn't like that eh
ionel said:
With all due respect, I don’t think you know what you are talking about on this issue or the potential implications. We are talking about feedlots (where they feed cattle, cattle do like to eat) here, not slaughter houses. And yes it is a food safety and potential security/terrorist issue, with huge economic consequences. The “mad cow” case in December 2003 (one cow from Canada to the state of Washington) cost the US economy ~$11 billion due to concern from Japan etc. regarding our beef exports. That cow had nothing to do with where the Japanese were getting their beef. USDA tested “more than 795,000 animals” found only 2 other cases and they weren’t B.S.E. associated with feed.

The current livestock in the Garden City area we are talking about here could easily be valued, at current prices, at $230 million +. Is $230 million or $11 billion not a concern if someone is flying over loitering in the area? How does this compare to a single nuclear plant? Or are you suggesting, just because you don’t like beef then no one should have concern about potential terrorism to this industry, its owners and employees, consumers and our national economy? So if I don’t like nuclear energy then there should be no concern about terrorism of nuclear facilities because it’s a “bad” industry.

IMO, the real terrorism threat is the economic one where someone can say/suggest they did something, but really didn’t, we then spend millions to try to prove they didn’t infect anything while also incurring another $10 to $50 + billion economic loss.

Most of us in aviation believe we really have way too many permanent and temporary TFRs and most of these have simply be reactionary, not protecting us from real threats. Do we really want to see more of these popping up at every location where someone might be loitering around a potential $billion+ economic impact area and documenting the statement that someone could’ve done something?

The legal issue of course, as noted by others, is that he took off from private property (trespassed) without permission. It’s also not, as some others seemed to have suggested, that they could’ve just taken off from another field or “ranch,” it’s all private property, they need permission.
Click to expand...
 
These feedlot operators don't give a crap about contaminating their livestock.. They do NOT want pics of any inhuman treatment of cows.. And you can bet your a$$ it happens 24/7...:yesnod::sad::nono:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top