Basejumper.com - archive

First off, let me say that I am not currently a BASE jumper, but I am planning on jumping when my skills and knowledge will allow it (another year or two at least).

I am writing a paper for one of my english courses arguing why BASE should be legalized in national parks. My understanding of the issue (and if I am wrong, please correct me) is that it is not illegal, *IF* you have a permit, but the NPS will not issue permits (unofficial policy prohibits it, but officially, it is not necessarily illegal).

Some of the reasons I'm using to support the argument include safety (for jumpers and everyone else) and fairness (I can climb or hike in the park, but I can't jump), but I'd like to get your opinions on the matter as well.

Basically, I have two questions for you:
1) Should the NPS completely legalize BASE?
2) Why or why not?

If you would prefer to PM me, that is fine. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the issue as a whole.

Thanks,

Mike

also check out http://blincmagazine.com. I think there is a whole "legal" archive there.

You know, I think the BASE forum is my favorite forum to read, although I am not a BASE jumper and have no real intentions of ever doing BASE.

I do not think that BASE will be "completely" legalized. I'm not even sure it should be. Reasons? Because I think:

1) The reasonable NPS fear that legalized jumping will be abused again. NickDG explained how it happened before;
2) Fatalities and injuries will skyrocket because untrained and/or inexperienced people will want to do it;
3) Increased traffic to exit points and landing areas are contrary to the parks' goals of maintaining a somewhat pristine condition; and
4) BASE will never be the same if it is.

Back in 1997, 36 CFR 2.17 read:

In 1998, it was renumbered to 36 CFR 1002.17 and changed the language to read:

Note: if you go looking for 36 CFR 2.17 in the current regs, you may have problems finding it. Instead, look to 1002.17.

Why did the NPS change that reg? It did the same thing as before, only it seemed to indicate some change in priorities. According to Tom, back during that same time frame, the NPS was looking at tightening restrictions on rope climbing, some rather sophisticated people used the political process via Slade Gordon. Note that this reg changed about the same time.

Fortunately, BASE jumpers have become more politically and legally savvy. They had to, as a matter of survival.

The NPS got these policies and came down hard when BASE jumpers weren't showing proper respect for the park, even when given a good opportunity. They are there with the mission of preserving the park, and trucks heading up old logging roads is not compatible with that mission. The government never forgets where it buries the hatchet.

The next reason is a fear that fatalities will increase. While it sucks to say it, the tragic death of Jan Davis probably set back BASE legalization many, many years. Unfortunately, it also got public opinion working against it due to the inordinately high publicity of that event. It's bad for NPS image and policy to have people dying in their parks. And they've got news video of that happening.

They are also sophisticated to know that, if legal, traffic will increase, unqualified people will try it, and other paying patrons may be turned off by it. Unlike other places, the NPS doesn't want to draw an unpaying crowd, and Yosemite is crowded enough as it is. It, from a policy standpoint, does not make sense for the NPS to make air delivery legal.

This leads in to the third point of increased traffic. Sure, there are plenty of trails in Yosemite, but BASE jumpers look for new exit points. The NPS doesn't want a bunch of folks creating new trails, new exits and high traffic.

All of this means is sucks to be a BASE jumper. BASE desires are not consistent with the NPS policy. NPS has proven that by changing the regs in 1998 (a process that likely started 5 years prior).

Interestingly, a side effect of this has been the development of the BASE ethics. Would BASE ethics be what they are now without NPS rules? Without the problems of trespassing and/or burning objects?

I actually think that BASE would become something entirely different that the "long timers" (cheers to NickDG) would not like. Legalization means a destruction of your culture, folks. Many of the BASE ethics would be shot to hell because of a lack of necessity and a probable influx of new blood who don't need to follow the rules. In a sense, that would be tragic.

Note again, I am not a BASE jumper. It's only my perspective from a couple of years of following the sport. I hope you all tell me I'm wrong about everything...

Lawrocket made some interesting and valid points, but let me give you a BASE jumper's perspective on things

(1) Yes, the NPS probably has a fear of BASE jumpers and what the sport would become if legalized. However, when is the last time you've heard of a legal site being closed down due to overcrowding or unruliness? Jumper attitudes have changed over the years, and we are now a pretty responsible group of people who'll respect the rights we're given. Unfortunately, the NPS is still living in the early 1980's and they cannot see that we are a new generation. The LEGAL sites are usually the best sites - simply because we can't afford to misbehave. Of course, there are exceptions. I believe the main issues with legalizing jumping are the rescues, which can be solved with rescue insurance.

I, for one, am going to say right here and now that if I were afforded the opportunity to jump legally in other National Parks, that I would be respectful of the land, the rules, and the rangers. I would act as an invited guest and I would leave the place better off than I found it. And I also believe there are many, many jumpers out there who feel the same way I do! I also believe there are rangers out there who KNOW THIS. There are rangers who know that our system would work, but they are the minority.

(2) Fatalities and injuries will NOT skyrocket upon the legalization of jumping in National Parks. Sure, we'll see more incidents simply because there will be more jumping. But incidents in National Parks would probably remain consistent with the incident rates at other sites. And I truly believe there will be NO inexperienced people just leaping off any old cliff. Look at Kjerag for example......they have a system in place to train the newbies. The NPS would be insane to just "open it up" to anyone. Rather, a system run by jumpers themselves should be put in place to make sure one has the proper experience and, if not, they are trained. Look at Bridge Day for example - 50 skydives minimum and first jump and packing courses for the newbies - and this is a very simple, minimal requirement. Rescue insurance is also a good idea, because that is a major complaint from the NPS (although THAT IS THEIR JOB paid for by my hard earned tax dollars). The bottom line is that we can easily make jumping successful in National Parks because we're already running similar systems around the world with much success.

(3) Increased traffic to the exit point is a moot issue. There are already a large number of established trails to many, many exit areas within the National Park system. Plus, we're talking about ROCKS and rocks aren't easily damaged by an increase in foot traffic. In addition, it's not like there are a ton of BASE jumpers out there. You could even go to some of the most jumped cliffs in Utah and I bet you could never find the trails.

(4) I think there is a big misconception about BASE jumpers and the rush they get from making illegal jumps. Perhaps early in a jumper's career you will see them get more of a rush from jumping an illegal site rather than a legal one. But it doesn't take long for jumpers to realize that we don't BASE jump because we get to sneak around, but we do it for the jump itself. Skydivers surely don't skydive for the plane ride, so why would BASE jumpers enjoy hopping a fence and climbing a tower more than the jump itself.

Perhaps one day (hopefully before I'm too old) the NPS will extend their hand to BASE jumpers and allow them the freedom to participate in their valued sport from the tallest and safest cliffs in the good old US of A. However, if in 20 years we're still banned, I'm going to organize a 400 person train BASE jump from El Cap that will snuff out the last remaining bit of sunlight in the valley!!! Mark my words...

A agree with what Jason said.

Jason, 20 years, I'm there.

I disagree that this is a reasonable fear. We lost these big walls before and I would hope that jumpers would do whatever they could to keep them legal. It is simple BASE ethics, don't put heat on any objects. Remember that jumping isn't allowed in all national parks so yosemite isn't the only place affected. And if people were to abuse it, I think I know where to find some tar and feathers.


Darwinism. On a serious note though. Look at our European friends. They have a lot of nice beautiful objects that they are allowed to jump. I might be wrong but I don't think that a bunch of fatalities of inexperienced jumpers occured due to legalization. BASE is growing and there are some inexperienced jumpers refining their skills in areas much more difficult than some of these big walls. Our legal bridge is an awesome place for people to learn some skills before heading to the cliffs.

As an aside. If I just picked up a hangglider and decided to throw myself off some of these walls without experience I would probably die pretty quickly. I am not a hangglider but I haven't heard of this being a problem and certainly not one worthy of keeping everyone from playing. Most people don't have a death wish.


This might be somewhat true but this is where regulation is involved. You can't drive a truck everyone on national park land. I don't think you can even climb everywhere. But that still is not good enough to ban us from jumping anything especially since there are some trails that already lead to beautiful exit points. And if the park wants a somewhat pristine condition I hope they have removed the piles of cement boulders I have heard about. To me I think day hikers pose more of a problem than base jumpers would in this aspect.


That is very true. We will have Europeans seeing how great our walls can be as well. I would love to be able to show some friends a stressfree time at the edge of some big walls at home. There is not much better than legal big cliffs with grass fields to land in. Much nicer than landing in the talus rock off things 1/3 the height.



Freeing our cliffs from persecution wouldn't change BASE ethics. There have been people that burned legal objects and there will always be a plethora of new illegal ones rising up. Legalization would prevent a lot of people from using substandard gear jumping in substandard conditions to be able to play on our own big walls. I think most jumpers would agree that they would prefer nice relaxed legal day jumps from our walls.


I hope that I did just that.

Pat

20 years? 20 years? I'll be ready in 20 minutes. just gotta switch my slider.

Has anyone considered going to the NPS with a package to see if there’s a way the BASE community could possibly work with the NPS in getting permits issued?

The concept I have in mind is somewhat similar to how skydiving legislation works. The NPS would grant a permit to anyone who holds a BASE “A license”…. Now who grants these licenses is a matter for the community to consider – you’d have to set up some kind of national body similar to the USPA or simply just administer it yourselves.

Now I realize that’s one hell of a step and probably not something everyone’s gonna like the idea of. At the end of the day though you wouldn’t need to have anything to do with such a body if you didn’t want to jump in the park.

That body then says to the NPS “we have the knowledge to certify these people, you just issue the permits”. That keeps the newbies out – no one gets certified until they’d undertaken an FJC style camp or demonstrated their ability, the BASE community is the judge of that. The NPS is just there to grant the permit and should hopefully feel shielded from legal liability because they have delegated any duty re the jumpers suitability to the BASE community / national body (whatever).

If the permit holder screws around the NPS can always revoke their permit… thus BASE ethics aren’t lost as there’s still the threat of having your park taken away from you.

The NPS would also be able to put whatever restrictions on you they required – such as no trail blazing or whatever they deemed necessary to preserve the parks as they are.

I’m guessing most of this is not exactly ideal – but the point is you’d be in the park jumping whatever you like legally and they way would be open to further extend your jumping rights with the NPS in the future.

Perhaps then this would be a way forward? Not further underground, not breaking the system… coming out of the closet as it were and working with the system?

I’m guessing I’m about to be shouted at that this gives way too much power to the NPS which is probably a valid concern… but it’s only an idea. That or a simple “they’d never go for it”… but has anyone ever asked?

At the end of the day I guess I'm just thinking out loud.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd love to flick it again. BUT I've already been busted there and I'm not sure how they'll treat me if I got busted again. Does anyone know of a case where a person was busted a second time in the Valley?

I'd sure hate to spend 90 days in jail if I got tagged again.

It seems as though a lot individuals have put effort into trying to legalize our NPs. What will be necessary is a large ongoing community effort. Our parks won't be freed overnight and I think we keep getting discouraged from continuing our attempts. How many people are writing their senators? How many people are applying for permits even though they know that they will be rejected. They can keep rejecting us as long as they want but I am sure the courts would find 1000 rejections without any granted to be a little unfair. There is most likely some people going through these efforts but many of us don't know how to help even if we could. Perhaps keeping a sticky of what actions we as a community can do will encourage us to stick with it. It may take 10 years of these efforts but it would be more than worthwhile if something works out. Our community is growing and with that our potential power is growing as well. The least we could do is give the NPS some more paperwork to fill out.

Then again it is easier to just wait and hope someone else is fighting for us.

Pat

Great idea. Why don't we just post our "rejected" letters here? I'll start. Here's MINE

I agree, just sitting around waiting for someone else to do something about it is NOT a solution. Unfortunately, even the BASE organizations that are reportedly working on NP legalization are also a victim of the waiting game.

Temporarily? The waterfall in the Swiss Valley. It's happened more than once.

Permanently? Last year--that big hole in Mexico.


I believe the NPS has us in a catch-22 on that. For actual rescue insurance, most insurers require that the jump be made legally. With the NPS saying "if you don't have insurance, we'll keep it illegal" and the insurers saying "unless they make it legal, we won't give you insurance", it's a bit of a tough spot. My personal solution is to get umbrella insurance (which would cover cost of rescue, once the NPS tried to recover those costs from me). But real rescue insurance (which would be cheaper, and available with group rates) will likely have to wait until jumping is legal.



Me too. The problem is no one can speak for everyone.


One of the closest jumpers to the famous valley in California regularly brings untrained (i.e. zero skydives) people up to Twin for "Death Camp," and puts them off the bridge. Do you really believe we wouldn't see "Death Camp in Yosemite"? For a hundred bucks a pop, you'd see plenty of Norcal jumpers willing to death camp your daughter off the Big Stone.


I'm with you here. The vast majority of jumps in Yosemite are made in places that already have well established hiking trails, and tens of thousands of yearly (non-jumping) visitors.

I strongly recommend waiting until after your probation expires before even entering the Valley again.

It's been attempting on several occasions. Back in the day, Jean Boenish came relatively close to working it out. As I recall, the killer issue turned out to be exit points (she wanted a safer exit, and the NPS was only willing to offer her a significantly more technical one).

Some of this is response to dynastar81, and some to LawRocket.



The vast majority of jumpers in the US today have no knowledge (let alone appreciation) of that history. I'd guess we've got just as many potential flat bed drivers (as a percentage of jumpers--meaning far more total people) amongst us today as there were in 1980.


The NPS regulation of hanggliding in the Valley is pretty strict. You couldn't just pick up a hang glider and go throw yourself off those walls.




I actually am not convinced of this. No matter how many legal jumps are made, there is a pretty consistent sub-culture of BASE that will keep flying the jolly roger. And getting connected in that part of our world will always take some knowledge of how things work in the culture--no matter how many legal jumps are being made elsewhere.



No, but I think there would still be BASE ethics. The physical risk element would still be present, and that's one of the prime movers behind our ethical development. Ethics aren't just about not getting busted--they're also very much about not getting busted up.

I thought the waterfall was voluntarily closed due to some accidents (not due to overcrowding or rowdiness)?

The big hole was closed by the eco-freaks and jumpers supposedly killing birds.

Two different things.

That is even better than the point I was trying to make. If they can regulate hanggliders and keep inexperienced people from flying why can't we do the same.

Pat

Sure. But the other things wouldn't have happened without a fair bit of jumper traffic.

Hikers and climbers and rope jumpers are rescued often by the NPS, yet they are still legal activities. I've heard the rescued person is billed, so let them bill me...When I went to the hospital in an ambulance after crashing my MC on a racetrack I was billed...and my HEALTH insurance covered it!

When a friend was hit by a boat water skiing and had to be choppered out, they billed her. She didn't have health insurance, but it would have covered it if she did. As it is she's making payments.

Interestingly, the vast majority of NPS SAR dollars that get spent on actual rescues are for lost hikers. The "it's too expensive to rescue you guys" argument doesn't hold water for climbers, jumpers, or anyone else, really.

Do you feel that it is because "we" are generally fit and knowledgeable enough to rescue ourselves, or is it because of something else (like fear of prosecution, perhaps)?

Mike

Honestly, I think it's because climbers, jumpers and the like are more aware of the risks they are taking.

When Aunt Ethel wanders off into the woods by Mirror Lake, she doesn't think "now, I've got to be careful here, or they'll need to rescue me."

On the other hand, when you gear up for a big wall (climb, or whatever), you are almost certainly aware of the risks you are taking, and consciously working to control those risks.

Folks who are engaged in riskier forms of outdoor recreation are generally going to be more committed to reducing and managing the risks they take. Random tourists probably aren't even aware of their risks.

To help me better understand (and fight) the issue, what are the reasons why the NPS doesn't want BASE jumping in their parks, when they don't seem to mind climbers or hikers. Only reasons I can come up with are:

1) Ignorance of what the sport is and the dangers involved
2) Fear of bad publicity from injuries/deaths
3) Fear of damage to the park (trailblazing, etc)

Can anyone think of others that I have missed? These three points can all be argued against pretty easily, educating the NPS is probably the most important and the most likely to be successful, however.

Mike

I have a theory that I am open to discussion about... Something happened some time ago between NPS and BASE jumpers. The people involved in this happening on both sides became very hostile over the situation and the people with the most power made an example of this happening.

Now what happened is long forgotten by most but someone in the NPS still remembers and ther not going to let their actions be negated. When these people are no longer involved the reason for the action will be gone and other possibilities will arise.

[rant]After all, as tax paying US citizens, this land is protected, supported, and maintained by us. The government is a tool to facilitate our requests. And every now and then that fact is forgotten. If it wasn't for us they wouldn't have a job![\rant]

We have the ability to change the laws so let's get together and change them!

I'd like to do just that. While I am not opposed to breaking small laws to pursue the sport, I would prefer to avoid it if possible. The best way to do that is to help legalize it. I/we can't make a persuasive argument of why it should be changed if we don't fully understand why things are the way they are and why the NPS opposes legalizing it. If we can find out exactly why they don't want us there, and then show them those reasons are not good enough, we may be able to change policy.

However, from stories I have heard and read (the thread about the kiting at Touleme is an excellent example), it seems there is a deep resentment of jumpers and any parachute related sport enthusiast which may not be rational, and is more than likely a grudge/feud.

Mike

i say that all us BASE jumpers unite... build a big boat and sail off to unchartered territories, inhabit a new continent and start new lives in what would become a FREE country...

ok well, i'll shut up now.

Add to each of those "historical record of same", and I think that about sums it up.

I'd just like to add that I've now received an abusive, and anonymous PM, essentially telling me that the sender will deathcamp whenever and whoever they want.


I rest my case.

 
>>What did you expect? You pretty much just slammed every jumper in Northern California.

Not true. I slammed every person who thinks it's ok to take a hundred bucks and put someone with no experience (of any kind) off for a BASE jump.

I'll stand by that.

I agree that this is all BS. However, with all the time spent on whining and complaining on dz.com about the NPS, how many others took 20-30 minutes out of your day to write a polite, well-worded letter to the NPS to request a permit to jump at your favorite National Park?

>>Fair enough.

<Raises hand>

I've actually written more than one. I think I'm approaching 50 (but I tend to send them in batches, one to each park that has a jumpable exit I know about). I'd say I get up the motivation to send off my letter about once or twice a year.

do you have any prewritten modifiable ones?

Hmmm. Let me dig them out. Most of mine are of the "Dear NPS, I'd like to apply for a permit" rather than the "Dear Congressman, I want the rules changed," variety.

Would it be a good idea to start a grassroots effort and get all(a lot) of base jumpers to send in letters all at the same time?

Probably.

a. We'd need to get the word out.

b. Tom Has some examples that are modifiable.

c. Lets all agree on a date that letters would need to arrive. (ie: estimate arrival date based on your location vs where it is being sent.

D. addresses?

Are there any other places/events where the NPS HAS issued permits (other than Bridge Day)? Maybe one tactic for getting better access is finding precedents that we want to see become policy.

Mike

Another argument that the NPS has is that bright parachutes opening in the valley may ruin the serenity of the valley.

--People driving in the valley look up see parachutes, get distracted and wrap them selves around a sequoia.

--Plus canopies opening can be loud and precieved as gunfire.

Maybe a complete ban on NPS property is unrealistic for the time being. However maybe a few times a year during tourism lulls, (early spring, late fall) during the week, a probationary permitted jumping day(s) could be well regulated by NPS and backed financially, in part by jumpers in attendance and NPS.

Just a thought.

nic

The NPS has already established a precedent of allowing some activities at "low season" times that they don't allow during peak season. The primary activity regulated seasonally like this is the driving of private automobiles in some National Parks.

privste automobilies, i.e... snowmobiles/ATV's. if this is what the NPS approves then noise (decibles) wouldn't (shouldn't) be considered in declining a permit. These vehicles are far more annoying and enviromently destuctive than parachutes.

Honestly we need a HUGE name activist to help the movement. The congressman from Colorado is a benifit from within, but we need more. A spokesperson from the media that can convey the desire of jumpers, and the legality of which we are speaking. What if we (BASE jumpers) could get on a positive source of information on a prime time cable TV. What if one of us (i.e. J. Bell, T. Aiello, A. Badenhop, Hookit, or another articulate point of view could get on a show like Larry King, The O'Reiley (sic) Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, or whatever. some primetime perspective (with the honorable congressman from Colorado), showing the true desires of us, tax payers, desiring to do what we want...

I dont want to step out of BASE ethics, unless I can stretch what is reasonable. I pay my taxes, I love this counrty, and I love freefall. I think none of these is a crime. my .02

nic

You don't have to be a BASE jumper to apply for a permit. There's a lot of people outside of BASE who would support you it was easy enough... even people overseas too.

Expand your catchement and there's the potential to change the few dozen applicants into a couple of thousand.

A production company we're working with is currently attempting to sell a one hour documentary that will definately allow us to tell our side of the jumper vs. NPS issue. They're negotiating with National Geographic and others.

But you are correct - it would be nice to have another Donahue type program about BASE. For those who weren't around then, a bunch of experienced jumpers were on the talk show Donahue in the early/mid 1990's. I think it was a small step forward for BASE at that time....

I'm going to develop a webpage that contains form letters to mail to various National Parks and Congressman. If other people can email me THEIR form letters, I'll add them to the choices. I'll post the info soon.

PS. Yes, I took 30 minutes and wrote my Congressman yesterday!!!!

Burying them in permit requests all at once might be irritating, and, if you happen to think that some of their concerns might be allayed by instituting an "expert review" permitting process, might just highlight how much of a hassle such a permiting process could be if a whole bunch of BASE jumpers started doing that on a regular basis.

If you think lots of us requesting permits might gain us something, maybe a steady stream would be better. But I'm wondering whether those inside the NPS who already think we're a pain in the ass wouldn't just dig in their heels even more.

I'm thinking that a steady stream of polite, informative letters to decision makers might be preferable.

I talked about this the other day in a thread about the Australian NPS... under UK and most likely OZ legal systems, a public body given a discretionary power to grant a license can get itself into one hell of a lot of hot water if they adopt a blanket policy, (depending on the exact wording of the discretionary power of course).

Basically the govt. gave them a discretionary power for a reason... if they'd have wanted a blanket policy the govt. would have simply made one. Thus the public body is essentially breaking the rules the govt. has made for them.

Can anyone confirm if such a concept exists in the States? Can anyone confirm if the wording of the BASE legislation places the NPS in such a position?

If it does, a steady stream of permit applications may well be a very good thing indeed. If the NPS has any idea what it's doing they will start to get quite edgy about continually applying a blanket policy in violation of the legislation.

Perhaps such a blanket ban only exists at moment because they feel comfortable in the fact that hardly anyone's forcing them to use it… thus there’s no chance they’ll get caught doing it.

A constant stream of applications would therefore force the NPS to repeatedly apply the blanket policy and have them build up a history of essentially breaking the legislation under which they're operating. That could either draw their own attention to the risks they're running or, if the worst comes to worst, be used to twist their arm into acting in line with the legislation.

That’s if this all works in the States and actually applies in this situation. Anyone?

You hit the nail on the head with the idea of a steady stream of letters to the decision makers. Here are some places you can start:

(1) Write Your Congressman

(2) If you feel like requesting a permit to jump in Yosemite:

Wilderness Permits
P.O. Box 545
Yosemite, CA 95389
(209) 372-0740

(3) Use the following form letter to write to the appropriate National Park of your choice. I'll try to get more NP addresses and other information soon. The following form letter is tailored for Yosemite, so please change any applicable information...

Today's Date

Your Name
Your Address
Your City, State, Zipcode, Country
Your Phone Number(s)

National Park Service
Wilderness Permits
P.O. Box 545
Yosemite, CA 95389


Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing you in an effort to obtain a permit to make a legal parachute jump (BASE jump) from either of your magnificent granite cliffs, El Capitan or Half Dome, in Yosemite National Park. As it is well known in our sport that jumps made from either of these cliffs are unfortunately against park rules, I can only hope that my request be carefully analyzed and accepted by the proper governing authority. With all the hang gliding and rock climbing that is permitted in the Park, hopefully someday BASE jumpers will also be afforded the opportunity to equally enjoy what Yosemite has to offer and be able to make safe, organized, legal jumps at these locations.

As with all my BASE jumps, safety for myself and any observers is of the utmost importance. If provided with a permit, I can assure you that all proper safety measures will be followed in conjunction with the usage of new, BASE jumping specific gear. Helmets, knee pads, and elbow pads will be utilized. All Park and permit rules and regulations will be followed as prescribed.

I would like the opportunity to prove that safe, legal BASE jumps can be made from your wonderful cliffs. Together, we can work out a process to make everyone happy. Please allow me the opportunity to prove it to the National Park Service and perhaps even assist you in our efforts to create a structured system where we can safely make jumps in Yosemite.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at XXX-XXX-XXXX.




Sincerely,



Your Name



.

So, assuming the law is the same, we ought to attach all of our denied applications to the letters to Congressmen?

If such a principal exists over there it probably couldn’t hurt to point out to your Congressman that they’ve adopted a blanket policy, together with a little paragraph noting why such a decision is unlawful. As for the content of that paragraph though I’m afraid I can’t help you. I wouldn’t even know where to start looking for such a principal in the US jurisdiction – as I said I don’t even know if the concept exists over there.

Putting it in a letter to your Congressman probably isn’t the “correct” manner in which you’re supposed to challenge such action… but the NPS might just get a little concerned if they started getting phone calls from disgruntled Congressmen.

Just note that one rejection letter doesn’t show a blanket policy – just that they’ve rejected yours. Many or dozens of rejections could though… especially if no one ever gets a permit except for bridge day. Do I remember hearing about someone having an internal policy statement about not granting permits?

I wonder how many issued permits they would have to show to successfully argue that it wasn't a blanket policy? Is the one for Bridge Day (yearly) enough? I recently heard about some demo jumps (from aircraft) that landed on NPS property (with permission). That particular demo team gets to do all kinds of things that aren't normally allowed, though (they're military), so I wonder if allowing them to land could still be in keeping with a "blanket" rejection.


Yes.

Here's a lawyer talking...

There's plenty of good advice here, but I'd like to help make it a little better. Read the links that I provided in detail and use the information in them to make your applications.

First, this jumping requires a "special use permit." When the superintendent reviews the application for a special use permit, he/she must use the requirements of 36 CFR 2.50. This provides you, therefore, with what your request for a permit should say. Run through factors (a)(1)-(a)(6) and state how and why BASE does none of the following.

Also note that special events— such as sports, pageants, regattas, public spectator attractions, entertainment, ceremonies, and encampments— may be permitted by the superintendent when (1) there is a meaningful association between the park area and the event, and (2) the event will contribute to visitor understanding of the significance of the park area. This is important because inherent in the policy is discretion by the superintendent to deny a permit that meets those two criteria.

It would possibly be helpful to include the names of ground crew and other support staff to show that you have a well organized and thought out sporting event. Look here for guidance on this. While past the sunset date, this shows the NPS way of thinking. In your application, you should not only explain why BASE jumping is not consistent with the "prohibited uses" but also why there is a meaningful association and visitors can get a better understanding of the park, i.e., "BASE jumping can give a visual representation of the magnitude of the glacial events that carved out this valley. Park visitors, already in awe at the majesty of the cliff can also enjoy the spectacle of seeing a canopy gracefully emerge and float another person to safety in the beauty of the meadow."

Also note that they aren't worried about Congress. At the end of the third paragraph of the introduction a concern is stated regarding judicial intervention. If you can show that the NPS denied the permit request for reasons that are not founded in sound logic or as a result of personal motivation, then a Court can order re-consideration of the permit application. A court cannot order an administrative agency to issue a permit. Rather, it can only order an agency to reconsider the application consistent with the court's criteria.

For the NPS to withstand this challenge, they must have carefully documented all reasons for the denial. For this, they must show that each application for a permit is given its own consideration. This is why a form application is a bad idea. Every jumper out there should submit his/her own application identifying their own facts that support why the permit should be granted. These facts should all be linked to the established criteria in the rules I've provided for you.

When the NPS starts receiving logically sound applications stating good reasons why a permit should be issued, or showing no good reason why it should not be issued - based on their own guidelines - the tide may start to change.

Here is an example of a sample application format. Also, contact the local NPS rep to find out what the application fees are. Wouldn't it suck to have an application denied because you didn't pay a processing fee? Letters ain't no good unless accompanied by payment. This also makes an arbitrary and capricious denial tougher for the NPS to do, since you've made a bona fide payment.

You also need to be aware that the superintendent has in its power the discretion to require insurance, bonds, etc. As Tom pointed out, this may be a Catch-22. However, if you can get the appropriate permit with time to get the insurance, this may be a way around, assuming there is an insurer available to cover it.

The way to make an impact is to start showing the NPS that you've properly and adequately researched their requirements and shown how BASE jumping should be permitted according to the application of their own rules! Be knowledgeable and use the system as it already is. Congressional involvement should be set up, but do so after establishing a record of denials that shows the arbitrary nature of the denials.

Hi lawrocket --

Thank you so much for your informative and well thought out posts. You've raised a string of valid points and in my opinion, you are spot-on with your advice.

If I ever make it out to Central California, or if you make it out to Idaho, let me know and a steak and a beer is on me!

Cheers,

Bryan

For special use permits in Yosemite: http://www.nps.gov/yose/trip/sup.pdf

Park Management website: http://www.nps.gov/yose/manage/

and a geological virtual tour of the park: http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/ghayes/roadside.htm

Pat

Sample Application:

Applicant Name: Joe Snuffy
Organization Name: None
Social Security: 123-45-6789
Tax ID: None
Street/Address: 123 Big Wall Drive
City/State/Zip Code: 00000

Telephone #: 559-559-5599

Description of Proposed Activity (attach diagram):

A parachute jump from El Capitan. Unauthorized air delivery is prohitied by 36 CFR 1002.17. However, 36 CFR 2.50 provides that the superintendent may authorize air delivery pursuant to a special use permit. 16 USC 1-4 provides the superintendent with authority to issue this permit. This use is consistent with the purpose of this park to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." (16 USC 1). This is for the enjoyment of the park without having negative repurcussions on the scenery and historical objects and wild life therein pursuant to the Code.

It is understood that permit may be construed as a benefit to an individual, group or organization, rather than the public at large. However, public benefits exist as stated below.

This will be a sporting event pursuant to 36 CFR 2.50(a). it will not cause damage or injury to park resources. It will also not be contrary to recreational enjoyment of the park or interfere with the atmosphere of peace or tranquility of the wilderness. No interference with public use or administrative activities will occur, nor will public safety be endangered. This activity does not conflict with other uses of the park.

Furthermore, this event has a meaningful association with the park. In no other location can such an activity be performed. This park is meant to be enjoyed for all of its natural resources. Unlike rock climbing, there will be no alterations or environmental damage to the face of the rock. Like hang gliding, the natural beauty of the park can be accentuated by the color of the canopies flying gracefully to a precision landing in an area of the meadow designated for public use or right of way, to be approved by the superintendent.

I understand that other requirements may be necessary for the issuance of this permit pursuant to 36 CFR 2.50(c) but request that such requirements take into account the low risk of liability and/or damage to the park. I am prepared to post a bond of $5,000 to cover the potential costs for rescue and recovery. I also would encourage the park to issue requirements of having my equipment checked prior to this event with a certification from a rigger that it is airworthy.

I also propose conditions of the permit to include limitations on wind speed, wind direction and other weather phenomena. I propose that this jump only be permitted in winds under 12 miles per hour, blowing from the southwesterly to southeaterly direction, to be approved by ranger staff. Also, no more than an 8 second delay prior to deployment.

I also request permission to have photographers present, up to and including freefall photographers with helmet-mounted camera.

Requested Location: El Capitan, exit point located on diagram (selected because it is the least technical exit point, and therefore safest). Landing area _______ of the meadow, as indicated on the attached map, requested due to its designated use as a public right of way.

Date (s): April 18-21, 2005

Event set up will begin April 18, 2005 and end April 21, 2005, when removal will be done.

Maximum Number of Participants: 12
Maximum Number of Vehicles: 4, to park in lot ____.

Support Equipment (list all equipment): Parachute rigs, altimeters, helmets, cameras, first aid kits, tents, van (for emergency evacuation), food and drink items, portable kitchen and trash receptacles.

Support Personnel: Ground crews (1 EMT qualified), event organizer to act as NPS liaison.

Individual in charge of the event on-site (include address, telephone and cell numbers): Joe Snuffy

Is this an exercise of First Amendment Rights? No.

Are you familiar with/have you visited the requested area Yes.

Do you plan to advertise or issue a press release? No.

Will you distribute printed material? No.

Is there any reason to believe there will be attempts to disrupt, protest or prevent your event? (if yes explain on separate sheet) No.

The applicant by his or her signature certifies that all the information given is complete and correct, and that no false or misleading information or false statements have been given.

Signature: Joe Snuffy Date: February 10, 2005.

No, here's a lawyer who doesn't have any clients coming in the door.

Just funnin' ya.

Good post. My personal opinion is that dealing with bureaucrats, you're much more likely to have a favorable response, if they like you. Sort of the "you get more flies with honey ..." concept. There's no implication that BASE jumpers aren't likeable, but some decision-makers at NPS (Yosemite) obviously have sand in their vagina (the thread about the Paragliders said it all). I said this in another thread, the locals at Yosemite need to work on developing relationships with the NPS. If you go the legal route, just remember the Feds have more money that all jumpers put together. You can fight city hall, but it's really expensive.

Hey. I'm home with my kid this morning. I'll be swamped this afternoon.

No idea - that depends on your local legal system.

Your first steps though should be to make full use of the permit system that's supposed to be in place. Working with the other side is always going to produce far better results than trying to force them into letting you do what you want.

Only if the NPS proves themselves to be entirely unwilling to ever consider BASE permits should you even think about how you can prod them into thinking out the legality of their policies.

With any luck even if they do have an arbitary rejection policy, a stedy stream of sensible and well worded applications as detailed by lawrocket might make them re-think the issue.

This thread is getting to be rather interesting.

If we were to submit this application and it was denied, what would be the next step?

(Please don't submit an application with an 8 second delay from that exit point!!! You can take a much healthier delay. In fact, a longer delay is safer there. A wingsuit jumper will be quite bothered to be dumping at 8 seconds there. I'm kidding, I realize the application sample is just for an example.)

I'm personally not a big fan of allowing much more than hiking in national parks to be honest with you. They are meant to be kept as "original" as possible in terms of environment - the more usage, the more impact, the more impact, the less the park is like its original environment.

What about the fact that you can buy a pizza in Yosemite valley? What about all the stores and gift shops? The paved streets and parking lots? You know they have a jail in Yosemite national park?

What devastation to the park are you going to see with a couple hundred BASE jumpers waling around in comparison to the tens of thousands of hikers and tourists?

Hey. I found a couple of other valuable resources. However, I don't know how to unzip things.

http://www.nps.gov/...ers/RM53contents.doc - this is the table of contents for Reference Manual 53.

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM53.zip - the actual reference manual. Note that Chapter 8 explains exactly how they go about issuing permits. This is basically the long-form (tha is, much more detailed) version of the Director's Order 53. If someone can unzip some key provisions and post it, it would certainly be helpful!

I would guess that you can ask for a memorandum of explanation regarding the reasons why the permit was denied. Then you can send another correspondence explaining the issues for which they denied it. Of course, they may not want to send an explanation.

The other thing you can do is challenge it by filing a suit in a federal court alleging that the government used improper standards to deny the permit. (I'm admitted to practice in Yosemite's courthouse, by the way). Then get the judge to order reconsideration consistent with the judge's instructions.

Using the lawsuit, you may be able to get any internal memos indicating a blanket policy against BASE via subpoena (which is expensive, though, like the lawsuit would be).


edited to add: http://www.nps.gov/...mp/chapter8.htm#BASE

It appears that Congressional or Regulatory intervention may be necessary given this rather short and decisive declaration.

Let's wrack our brains to think of some back-up positions...

edited again to add look at this. http://www.nps.gov/renew/10-114.doc. It's an actual fillable special use permit. On the last page (Code 2173) it indicates that Parachuting may be allowable for a short-term designation. I am forced to conclude that NPS policy towards parachuting and BASE jumping on park lands is ambiguous, at best.

But it looks like parachuting is actually included as an activity for which a permit may be given. Why not fill out that permit and submit with the request? It will, after all, make it easier on the superintendent.

I'm assuming that freakydiver would rather not have those things, either. It's not my position, but I do understand.

Freakydiver, what do you think of the idea of seasonal restrictions, to keep the outdoor recreation in the low season?

See that is a really tough call, but as I do work in the environmental science field, I tend to really lean towards a very conservative view in terms of national park usage based on what I've learned over the past few years. Although - I think everyone should have access to all National Parks at all times as long as it is ON trail and as long as they bought a park pass.

You have to understand the basis for designating an area a National Park - the whole basis is to keep the area as close to its original state as can be. There are tons of outside forces that drive that though. I think this is one of the reasons you see what you see in Yosemite as well as other very popular Parks such as Yellowstone. Look at all of the man made stuff in Yellowstone. That stuff really irritates me, but at the same time, if those shops aren't there, you don't get the visitor numbers and you dont get the income you need to keep a park like that running....

Dex - I fully understand what you are saying about Yosemite and disagree with alot of that stuff as well. I want my National Parks to all be like Canyonlands in Utah which has very little "additions" to it - but obviously, that isn't the "perfect" world we live in.

I thought Parks were supposed to be for the recreation of the people?

Aren't Conservation Areas and Wilderness Areas supposed to be the ones that stay pristine?

You are correct, I just tend to lump them all together when it comes to usage since they all are federally funded accessible lands...

My point is, I want my parks to stay as close to their original state as possible which is really only attainable by keeping traffic as limited as possible. Just my opinion...

National Park Service

A federal agency whose mission is "...to promote and regulate the use of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

Letter to Congressman, DONE!

The form for Yosemite asks for trailhead info, could someone please supply that? Also, there is a $5 reservation fee. Is this billed whether your permit is approved or not?

I have several family members and friends involved in local and state governments in several states, how can they offer the most assistance since this is really a federal matter?

Where did you say you wanted to jump?

You're either going to want to list Happy Isles trail head, Glacier Point trail head, Yosemite Creek Campground trail head or Yosemite Falls trail head.

Send me a PM if you want specific info about which trailheads for which exits.

>>My point is, I want my parks to stay as close to their original state as possible which is really only attainable by keeping traffic as limited as possible. Just my opinion...<<

I agree with the above. But, the problem is this. As it stands now there is a legal mechanism in place that allows you to:

-Kill fish and animals.
-Hang glide.
-Climb
-Hike
-Swim
-Camp
And so on . . .

If the NPS ended all that tomorrow they wouldn't hear another peep out of me about jumping. (Unless they caught me .)

Another issue is people can do the above things almost anywhere else in the country. For us, El Cap and Half Dome are the only accessible cliffs of their type in the lower 48 states. Compared to Yosemite, the rest of the country might as well be a billiard table.

It's way past the time for a legal "BASE Week" in Yosemite. Something the NPS can gear up for. They can warn visitors, ahead of time, not to drive into the sequoia trees when they see a parachute. We could (at El Cap) land on the road (with experienced BASE jumpers acting as road guards in conjunction with Rangers) instead of in the meadow, or even shave a few seconds off the bottom end, and land over on the sand bar.

We, of all Yosemite users, have a legitimate claim to it's "there" or nowhere. And how many more jumpers have to bust their humps jumping that silly little hill in So Cal just because they needed an "E."

We are being excluded . . .

It must change and it must change right now as us elder ones, the ones who have waited the longest, are soon going to be flat lining just from the hike up.

Aerial Delivery is a Birthright . . .

NickD
BASE 194

I fully agree with you Nick - my statements would be in the perfect world... We dont live in the perfect world. As much as I'd like to see parks stay really locked down, I must admit, I'd also like to see alot of my friends get accesss...

My question is - if Bridge Day is approved by the NPS (not sure if this is the case) and events like Colorado's Royal Gorge can occur, I think its high time BASERs UNITE and get the NPS to do exactly what you say - approve a week long BASE week for these parks. If you were to control the week and the access, then you could lay down a good set of ground rules on lzs and access points. Most of the basers I know respect nature quite heavily and I wouldn't see them breaking the rules...

The "parachuting" that they apparently occasionally allow is from aircraft, and the policy declaration you site discusses "BASE jumping" in particular.

I think this is pretty clearly irrational, since somewhat more destructive use of the cliffs is allowed (climbing), and parachuting is also occasionally allowed. One can only assume that the policy, given the declaration is not accompanied by any justification, in fact has no justification.

Nick, that line about the old guys "flatlining from the hike up" is priceless. Anyway, in case anyone needs to see the last four Bridge Day Permits in PDF format, you now have the link.

Gosh, I love the snowball effect. We're getting some real momentum here!

I'll join in on the effort after make it through the next 48 hours at work. Tom, I'll be in touch this weekend...

Bryan

From the research that I've been doing (for my paper and in general), it seems that there is a long standing feud between the NPS and BASE jumpers. Some examples:

1980- The NPS, in cooperation with the USPA, legalizes jumping for a period of about three months, but changes their policy to prevent jumping after several jumpers are injured, as well as the damage the jumpers were doing to the park (apparently they were leaving too much trash behind).

November 23, 1998- Dan Osman dies on rope freefall jump from the Leaning Tower in Yosemite.

June 9, 1999- Frank Gambalie drowns in the Merced river (again in Yosemite) after completing a successful jump from El Cap, while being chased by park rangers. Some sources say this jump was a memorial to Dan Osman.

October 22, 1999- Jan Davis dies when her (borrowed) BASE rig has a total malfunction. According to NickD's site, Jan was jumping with a leg throw out system and did not react in time to the change in equipment (she was used to jumping a BOC system). This jump was a planned protest jump to protest the NPS' policy on BASE, and stemmed in part from Gambalie's death.

This is just a brief (and probably not entirely accurate) list of a few links in the chain of why the NPS and BASE jumpers do not get along. From what I can tell, the only time the NPS issues permits is Bridge Day, which is obviously an exception to the rule.
From BlincMagazine.com, article 36 CFR 2.17:

From the 2001 NPS Management Policy:

So officially, it is only illegal if you don't have a permit. It seems they refuse to issue permits, however, with the exception of Bridge Day (if anyone knows of any other permits that have been issued, please let me know), based in part on past incidents/transgressions.

Perhaps if a regulatory body, such as the USBA, could convince the NPS that we would all be better off with regulated, legalized jumping, even on a trial basis, we could get somewhere. I think the sport has become big enough that "we" stand a reasonable chance of effecting a change in NPS policy, but it may mean making sacrifices as a community. Part of it won't be such a big deal (clean up after yourself, don't leave trash at exit points, etc), but some things may be a problem (the "death camps" that Tom A. has mentioned are a serious threat to the general image of BASE jumpers and can do nothing but harm the prospects of getting it legalized).

From a legal perspective, I think that we need to find established precedents where legal jumping has been beneficial (and I plan on speaking with the Fayetteville, WV chamber of commerce about this), in addition to showing that the policy as it currently stands is actually making it more dangerous for the jumpers involved (the deaths of Jan Davis and Frank Gambalie are evident of this- if anyone knows of more, please let me know).

There are other incidences (with climbing, as well) where the NPS and the community they are regulating have been opposing each other for a long time, and it is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. They make it illegal, but we do it anyway, so they get the impression we are a bunch of criminals and refuse to legalize it. Education is probably our strongest weapon, but how do you educate someone (the NPS) who doesn't want to listen?

Mike

Edit: typo

LOL, if thats it I think you need to do better research. You never found the whole part about the Flatbed group taking the truck up roads they should have been on just to save the hike? Trash is a detractor, but taking a large flatbed truck full of people up closed roads is a major offence.

I would bet you Hang Gliding would be banned too in a heartbeat if groups of hang gliders started taking trucks off road to make it easier to get to exit points.

I apologize for making an innaccurate post. I did state in the offending post that the information was probably not complete or accurate, however.

There is a lot of information out there, and a great deal of it comes from sources that cannot be trusted to give the truth, let alone the complete story. I'm new to this part of the sport and as such, I do not have the knowledge many of you may take for granted. I am trying to learn as much as I can, however. Please be patient while I research things.

Having learned something new now, this in and of itself does not seem like grounds for the policies as they are now. 25 years ago, the BASE community was probably just getting started, and probably did not have the "BASE ethics" that are more commonplace in today's community. In addition, the park and the governing body have changed as well. I don't see how the NPS can realistically exclude jumpers from the parks based on (what seems relatively minor) events that occurred 25 years ago, which is before I was even born.

Another thing that I've found is several stories of jumpers who have been harassed by NPS officials for possessing (although not using) BASE rigs in a park. I can see how it could be argued that the people in question had the intent to use them, but really, how can the NPS know for sure? And even if it is proven the intent was there, I don't think that is a crime, just the act of jumping itself. Or am I mistaken?

Thanks,

Mike

You might call Skydive Moab for more on that. I believe the DZO might be able to give you some information about the "intent to jump" business.

Thanks, I'll add that to my list of resources to look into. Do you (or anyone else) know of any locations somewhat local to North Carolina that I can apply for a permit to jump (I understand you can't name sites). I'd like to start applying for permits and begin keeping records of when/why/how the applications were denied. That might help later on down the line.

Thanks,

Mike

I'd recommend contacting your locals, for that kind of info. If you're not sure who they are, drop me a PM, and I'll point you at the right folks.

Mike,

Some other tidbits . . .

The first contact (I know of) between jumpers and Rangers is in 1966 when two (possibly three) skydivers jumped from El Cap. I have the newspaper clippings, but not where I am right now, but you should be able to find them.

Two of the jumpers were injured (they were jumping rounds) and the Rangers expressed shock and anger over the jumps. This the first time, I believe, the aerial delivery rule was imposed on jumpers. Prior the rule was only used to keep backcountry hunters from re-supplying themselves (cargo drops of ammo & grub) in order to extend their time on the hunt.

In 1975 Carl Boenish (and still three years away from the first modern El Cap jumps he organised) was harassed in the park while filming two jumpers who jumped from a hang glider over the valley. The encounter was very heated and charges were filed, aerial delivery and also filming without a permit

As for the legal season in the early 80s, it wasn't four months long. As I recall it was a matter of weeks. From memory (again, I don't have all my notes here) the Rangers were under pressure from jumpers and the USPA to allow legal jumping. They finally allowed it, even though they didn't want to, but they had an ulterior motive. Basically, they knew we wouldn't follow the rules, so the legal season was just a way to gather enough infractions to shut jumping down forever. And their plan worked brilliantly.

I was personally at the meeting held at Perris Valley that summer to hammer out the rules for legal El Cap jumps and they seemed innocuous enough. All jumps were to be by permit, no jumps after a certain time in the morning, no night jumps, and hard helmets and boots must be worn. (The boots rule didn't go down well at the meeting as by this time all experienced jumpers are wearing tennis shoes, sandals, or no footwear at all.) All jumps were to be single exits, with no RW allowed. Parachute gear, reflecting the wisdom of the day, was to be square mains and round reserves. And you had to have a "D" license.

In the short time the legal season lasted every one of those rules were broken. People jumped without permits. People jumped at night. People did RW. One jumper spray painted a rock with the message, "Man Small, Why Fall, Skies Call, That's All." And, of course, there was the Flatbed Ten.

Now, it helps to understand what stage BASE jumping was in at this time. There is a small band of hardcore BASE jumpers led by Carl Boenish operating, but for the most part these are skydivers out on a lark. Most considered El Cap something you did once and that was it. There was no feeling among the majority of these skydivers that BASE was a stand alone sport. To them, and understandably so, it was all a big hoot. Even I felt that way about it at the time.

When we turned to USPA for help after the program was shut down our pleas fell on deaf ears. Everyone at USPA headquarters had already made "their" jump. That's when Carl and Jean stepped back into the picture and began the long fight that leaves us were we are today. I gave up on my own hopes of jumping El Cap over the next few years, my attention centered on something new and exciting on the drop zone, it was called AFF.

There's a lot more of course, but you'll have to wait for my book . . .

As an aside, Mike, it's good when anyone gets into this issue with a fresh set of eyes like you are doing, but please be mindful about making comments about things like Jan's death. To those who were involved it's not abstract, it was very real and very emotional. And it was all done with the best of intentions. Saying it set things back is making the same mistake the Rangers make. They don't understand the sport. When people BASE jump, people will die, that's just the way of it.

One of Carl Boenish's best quotes goes, "Cliff jumping is first allowed because it's unknown, then it's regulated because it is feared, then it's banned because it is misunderstood." (Not exact, but close.)

NickD
BASE 194

MWG,

I am relatively new BASE jumper (just under 100 jumps) and I feel very strongly about the topic along with everyone else. Here is a paper that I recently did for my own English class. It will save you some time researching the numbers involved in rescues and budgets as well as the huge number of visitors every year. If you use it, don't forget to cite it. Good luck, and be safe.

Travis

P.S.
If anyone else has an opinion on the paper, please feel free to voice it.

Excellent paper! This is a good paper to send along with your permit requests or letters to the decision makers in your state. Keep in mind that the rangers usually don't end up paying for Yosemite rescues or deaths. They bill us.

Also, there has been only one fatality in the Moab area and that place has been jumped far more than Yosemite (and the cliffs are not as safe). Many Yosemite fatalities were the result of less than ideal conditions in order to evade the NPS.

Think about the fact that we've watched the NPS walk all over us for more than TWO DECADES. Two decades of discrimination. The longer we wait to do something about it, the better off the NPS will be. Kudos to Avery and the four others who had the guts to stand up for what they believe in 1999.

---

Nice,

What grade did you get on it?

I am about to write to my crongressman for what it's worth and will write to NPS as well.

I might write a proposal for a small grant to investigate the problem. The more air and fuel the bigger the fire...

I got an "A" for the paper and I also did a 20 min presentation w/ a two-min BASE video of mine own stuff. My professor loved it ,as well as the rest of the class. I normally don't like the "Hey look at me, I'm a BASE jumper..." attitude, but I figure the more people that are aware of how unfair the situation is, the better off we will all be.

Thanks for the positive input.

Travis

So, as I understand it, an application for a permit is pretty much useless unless it contains

a Experience level of jumper making application
b Dates for proposed jumps
c Reasons
d processing fee? and offer to post bond
e perhaps some indication of other people included with names and addresses and experiences, or at least a statement of minimum experience required to participate?

Maybe we should cut and paste some of this info into a summary and make it into a sticky, or is politics an accepted use of dz.com?

The paper is due tomorrow, and I've got it done (I hope). The professor has made me re-write it more times than I can count, and I think I have lost my ability to look at it objectively. I'll send it to anyone who is interested.

Mike

shoot it over...

I guess this is where it pays off to be a Military Desk Jockey...

seriously though, send it over!



now that is funny, I dont care who you are...

I'd love to see it.

Yes please. I'd like to read it.

'All of this means is sucks to be a BASE jumper. "

-well now, i wouldnt say that

Does anyone have any idea or experience working with the ACLU?