Federal aviation law prohibits drone-flying over most national parks and wildlife refuges.  But there are separate state laws and guidelines that govern drone flights in and over state parks; these may vary considerably, depending on the state, but also on the type of park.

States like California are especially concerned to prohibit drone-flying near their coastal sanctuaries for endangered species.  Birds, especially during their nesting seasons, are extremely sensitive to drone intrusions, even at a distance.  For this reason, drone-flying anywhere near bird sanctuaries in California is strictly prohibited; violators can receive stiff fines and even jail time.

But when it comes to attractive scenic settings, like waterfalls, that make for dazzling drone footage, debate rages whether drones can and should be prevented from filming these natural wonders, and if so, under what conditions.

One state that has attracted considerable debate in recent years is Idaho, known to many outsiders as a source of the nation’s potatoes.  But the state is also home to Shoshone Falls, which rivals Niagara Falls as a source of annual tourism.  Shoshone Falls is actually considerably higher than Niagara Falls, and for a number of years, the landmark attracted the attention of a handful of intrepid drone fliers, largely without complaint.

But that was in the early days of the drone industry.  More recently, as the number of drone hobbyists has mushroomed, and drone camera technology has become increasingly sophisticated, scenic filming of waterfalls like Shoshone has become increasingly popular, and for some, a growing source of business income.  But for others, it seems, a nuisance.

Last year, in response to citizen complaints,  the Shoshone County Commission decided to step in.  Not to ban drone filming outright, but to regulate it.  Under new rules, drones would no longer be permitted to fly directly over the falls.  In addition, all drones would be required to remain at least 300 feet away from canyon walls, meaning close-in drone filming of the falls was also no longer permitted, either.

Finally, drones were instructed to stay at least 400 feet away from any nearby structures, such as buildings or power lines.  Violations of any of these rules and guidelines could result in a fine, and in egregious cases, even imprisonment, the Commission ruled.

But that’s not all.  In May of this year, the city of Shoshone imposed its own strict rules, designating the entire area around the Falls as a “no fly” zone.  That means drone fliers now need express permission fly a drone, and must formally petition the city and pay an application fee.  In effect, the days of care-free recreational drone flying at Shoshone are all but over.

Naturally, not everyone is happy.  Local companies that depend on drone flying feel threatened, and want to see some of the restrictions lifted.  They believe the risk to the physical integrity of the falls or to human safety from drone flying is grossly exaggerated.  And the number of drones, they say, isn’t so large that they constitute a genuine intrusion on the site’s “natural” beauty, any more than increased numbers of tour companies and noisy tourists do.

Mark Johnson, who owns and operates a local business that primarily utilizes drones to capture aerial footage of the Falls, feels especially threatened.  “The regulations have put a lot of limits on where I can fly my drones and what I can do with them,” he says. “I understand why they are necessary, but it has made it much more difficult to do my job.”

John Smith, who owns a local tour company, says the strict regulations are also hurting his business.  “The regulations prevent us from flying drones within a certain distance of the falls. It’s a shame, because the aerial views of the falls are really spectacular, and our customers really enjoy them.”

Shoshone’s local drone flyers – an informal club that melds hobbyists and entrepreneurs–   –  say it’s possible to work around some of the new restrictions on their operations.  Those with expensive high -powered zoom cameras can film the falls from various angles at a distance and can even capture fly-over views without actually hovering directly over the Falls, as they might have done previously.

But they still bristle at the notion that their operations in any way hinder appreciation of the Falls. Thanks, in part, to their dazzling drone footage, the area has become a fast-growing tourist mecca, which has enhanced the state’s image and boosted its revenues, they note.

County and city officials are certainly aware of lingering opposition to the new rules. But they’re hoping that increased education and outreach will win most drone fliers over and make a harsh crackdown on potential violators unnecessary.

Other states with majestic scenic waterfalls, including Oregon, have faced the same need to balance the safety and integrity of their landmarks with the rights of drone flyers and the need to generate tourism revenues.

Oregon has tried to strike a healthy compromise, fully acknowledging the rights of drone fliers and mainly limiting its strict regulations to areas where wildlife might be in danger.

In fact, there isn’t much real evidence that unbridled – or at least, self-regulating – drone flying threatens the safety of tourists, much less discourages their willingness to visit scenic landmarks.  But balancing the needs and concerns of different stakeholders – preemptively, to head off real or imagined problems down the road – could still prove prescient.

In the end, though, if tourism is discouraged and revenues decline, areas like Shoshone may be forced to reconsider their decision.