Basejumper.com - archive

I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet, but it appears that the NPS may be revising their 2001 Management Policies regarding BASE jumping. It appears to benefit us somewhat, but other areas are questionable.

UPDATED VERSION (proposed additions are in red)

8.2.2.7 BASE Jumping
BASE (Buildings, Antennae, Spans, Earth forms) jumping - also known as fixed object jumping - involves an individual wearing a parachute jumping from buildings, antennae, spans (bridges), and earth forms (cliffs). This is not an appropriate public use activity within national park areas, and is prohibited by 36 CFR 2. This public use activity may only be permitted when it has been determined to be consistent with park purposes and to not pose an excessive risk to health and safety of visitors, especially visitors who are not participating in the activity, within national park areas. This activity, if permitted, shall be managed to minimize risks to participants and bystanders, may require a permit and safety certification for each individual participant in the activity, and may have an associated recreation fee, but is otherwise prohibited by 36 CFR 2. 17(3)..

Links:
Yahoo News
The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees

 

This is pretty cool news.... i would be currious to see Nick G's take on this as it seems he has a pretty good pulse on this... So Nick...... whats your take?

chris

 

This is indeed an interesting development. I wonder though if it's primary purpose is to remove the policy conflict that so many people have noted with respect to the Bridge Day permits.

If he had somehow survived, NPS probably would have charged him with illegal aerial delivery....



POSTED: 11:11 am PDT August 25, 2005
UPDATED: 11:29 am PDT August 25, 2005
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif. -- Separate water-related accidents have led to the deaths of two people in Yosemite National Park last week.

In the most recent incident, Shane Kinsela, 21, of Dublin, Ireland, was killed Monday when he fell from the top of Upper Yosemite Fall. Kinsela was posing for pictures when he slipped and fell down the 1,400 foot high waterfall. His body was recovered Tuesday morning.

What did that have to do with anything in this post lol?

Now they're just being cute.

BASE is no longer prohibited, but given the language of the policy, NPS will never have to issue a permit. It's all a lot of weasel words:

"consistent with park purposes"
"not pose an excessive risk"
"if permitted"
"safety certification" (I especially like this one--as others have noted, who does the certifying?)
"associated recreation fee" (How much, do you think?)

It also looks like they've given themselves the means to routinely press reckless endangerment charges (in addition to the usual charges) and make them stick.

rl

A mechanism to issue permits for BASE jumping, or most anything else, has always been in place in National Parks. However, the NPS may start looking at their problems with BASE jumpers as the good old days. They are now in a full fledged battle with corporate and religious interests. Whatever side of these issues you support could be less important than figuring out how we, as BASE jumpers, take advantage of the confusion.

NickD
BASE 194

http://www.dailykos.com/...2005/8/27/21332/0479

Hoffman wants to upgrade grazing and mining to "park purposes," allow cellphone towers and low-flying airplanes within national parks, and allow snowmobiles on all paved roads in every park. In addition, he wants to take away the park managers' abilities to use laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act to protect the parks from development. Finally, he wants to deemphasize dark skies and quiet even though they are conditions needed by wildlife.

Hoffman came to the Park Service after serving as director of the Chamber of Commerce in Cody, Wyo. Before that he had served as Wyoming state director for then-U.S. Rep. Dick Cheney from 1985 to 1989.

By the way, this is the same guy who overruled the park superintendent at the Grand Canyon National Park and made the staff leave up religious plaques on display at the South Rim and also made them sell a book that said creationism created the canyon.

In reaction, a group of 400 retired Park Service employees scheduled a news conference to announce a campaign to block the changes from taking effect. Also, the seven regional directors who saw Hoffman's recommendations sent a "searing memo" to Park Service Director Fran Mainella "criticizing the revisions."

I guess it was only a matter of time before the Bush Administration tried to weaken the mission of the parks. I'm sure Cheney and crew see them as just another collection of lands that are waiting to be exploited by industry.

And here:
http://www.latimes.com/...0,1127124,full.story

Controversy Over Plans for Changes in U.S. Parks
By Julie Cart, Times Staff Writer

A series of proposed revisions of National Park policy has created a furor among present and former park officials who believe the changes would weaken protections of natural resources and wildlife while allowing an increase in commercial activity, snowmobiles and off-road vehicles.

National Park Service employees warn that the changes, which were proposed by the Department of the Interior and are undergoing a Park Service review, would fundamentally alter the agency's primary mission.

"They are changing the whole nature of who we are and what we have been," said J.T. Reynolds, superintendent of Death Valley National Park. "I hope the public understands that this is a threat to their heritage. It threatens the past, the present and the future. It's painful to see this."

The potential changes would allow cellphone towers and low-flying tour planes and would liberalize rules that prohibited mining, according to Bill Wade, former superintendent at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia.

Larry Whalon, chief of resource management at Mojave National Preserve, said the changes would take away managers' ability to use laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act to oppose new developments in parks.

Although Interior and the Park Service are free to change the service's management polices at any time, they have been amended only twice. The last time was in 2001.

Officials at the Park Service's Washington headquarters downplayed the significance of the proposed revisions, saying they were less a reflection of policy than an attempt to start a dialogue.

The changes are the brainchild of Paul Hoffman, who oversees the Park Service and was appointed deputy assistant secretary of the Interior in January 2002.

Hoffman came to the Park Service after serving as director of the Chamber of Commerce in Cody, Wyo. He had previously served as Wyoming state director for then-U.S. Rep. Dick Cheney from 1985 to 1989.

"Paul Hoffman had some initial suggestions and prompted us," said David Barna, a Park Service spokesman. "Paul Hoffman was playing devil's advocate. He was saying, 'Show us, the political appointees who make policy, why do you do things the way you do?' It was a starting point. We're a long way from that now. They have drafted a new raw draft."

The proposed changes, which have been in the drafting stage for two years, were leaked this week. About the same time, a group of 400 retired Park Service employees scheduled a news conference for today to announce a campaign to block the changes from taking effect.

Members of the group said they were particularly concerned about policy changes that would allow snowmobiles to travel over any paved road in any national park in the winter; elevate certain activities already occurring in some parks, such as grazing and mining, to "park purposes" — which would ensure their continuation; and change the acceptable level of air quality from "natural background" to air that has been altered by human presence.

Park Service management policies are based on congressional intent, case law and the 1916 Organic Act, and have afforded parks the highest level of natural resource protection of any federally managed land. The policies instruct Park Service officials to balance visitor use with wildlife needs, resource protection and historic preservation, generally holding protection and preservation as their highest goals.

The Interior Department's proposed changes hinge on what Park Service employees say is a revision of what they have been taught is one of the highest priorities: to do no harm to the park.

Since its inception in 1916, the Park Service has been charged with maintaining parks "unimpaired" for future generations to enjoy. According to current policies, when park officials determine an activity may lead to impairment, officials are authorized to ban the activity.

The proposed changes would alter the definition of impairment from "an impact to any park resource or value [that] may constitute an impairment" to one that can be proved to "permanently and irreversibly adversely [affect] a resource or value." Critics say the new definition would set a standard that is impossibly high.

The policy changes were presented to Park Service officials in July. The Department of Interior sent a copy of the revisions to Park Service headquarters in Washington, which forwarded it to its seven regional directors. The directors responded by sending a searing memo to Park Service Director Fran Mainella, criticizing the revisions.

The agency convened a working group of 16 longtime employees Aug. 3 in Santa Fe, N.M.. The group met for three days to try to settle on a compromise version of Hoffman's proposal.

"I was profoundly shocked at how far it went," said a participant in the workshop. He said the group continued to work on the rewrite but was not sure if its watered-down version would be acceptable to Interior officials.

A Park Service supervisor participating in redrafting the policy said a new version was not ready. He rejected the assertion that Hoffman's version was intended only as a provocative idea-generator.

"The Hoffman document is what the Department of Interior would publish, absent input from the Park Service," said the Park Service veteran, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Craig Obey, vice president for governmental affairs with the National Parks Conservation Assn., a nonprofit group that seeks to protect parks, also dismissed the claim that Hoffman's document didn't reflect policy.

"I would find it surprising that someone would put something like this together as a think piece," Obey said. "Documents like this are put together with a purpose."

But according to Interior spokesman John Wright, the Hoffman document "is no longer in play" and the Park Service is free to produce its own changes without adopting any of Hoffman's suggestions.

Despite his brief tenure with the Interior Department, Hoffman is familiar with controversy. He has weighed in on issues at Mojave National Preserve, opposing the park staff and siding with ranchers and others on grazing and water issues.

Last year, he overruled the decision of the superintendent at Grand Canyon National Park to remove religious plaques on display near the South Rim. And he instructed the park to allow a book that espoused a creationist view of the canyon's formation, which runs counter to the park's own scientific-based approach and had been criticized by the park's scientific staff.

While working in Wyoming, Hoffman took the side of ranchers in opposing the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park. According to Chuck Neal, a biologist based in Cody, Hoffman gave a speech in 1996 calling the Park Service decision "the equivalent of detonating a nuclear bomb in the West."

Hoffman was not available for comment.

His latest effort has won the praise of at least one longtime adversary of traditional park policy.

"The Park Service has been arrogant for a very, very long time. They are a cloistered, almost cult-like society," said Chuck Cushman, executive director of the American Land Rights Assn., which frequently clashes with the agency over private property rights.

"The Park Service doesn't believe it needs to listen to what Congress is telling them. They think, 'We know better how to define the law.' They have a whole history of using parks as a tool to lock up land."

But to those loyal to the Park Service's traditions, the management policies are inviolable.

"It's a disaster," said Denis Galvin, who was deputy director of the Park Service from 1998 to 2002 and is an expert on the management policies.

He noted that seemingly obscure issues such as the requirement for maintaining a dark night sky and preserving quiet would no longer be emphasized.

"We know how important these things are for animals," Galvin said. "Birds use the night sky to navigate and animals need to hear each other. This version, as I understand it, doesn't recognize the biological values of those things and it eliminates them as visitor amenities."

We need to get that provision rewritten. The first step is to find out who proposed the specific language.

rl

When I read the article on Friday in the LA Times (I was sipping a beer at a bar in downtown LA and it was the first time I'd read the LA Times in two years) I was taken aback by it. Especially the language striking the total prohibition of BASE in the park.

I view this as a pretty damned important shift in policy. Outlined in the policy 8.2.2.7 are guidelines for the issuance, which is a fucking GIANT step from a short, simple and totally unambiguous banning of it.

The new blood in the administration is likely re-evaluatiing these policies. I met with a friend from Los Angeles - a retired attorney who is now a hermit traveling across the country in his fifth wheel to fish and hike parks all over this country. He gave his opinion on this change.

He believes that there is now a backlash against the policies of the 70's, 80's and 90's, wherein park management seemed to attempt to block every human activity in the park. The act of preserving the use of the park as "unimpaired for future generations" has led to total impairment of many of the uses for the present generation. If there is a scintilla of a possible human effect, the activity is banned. This meant that trails were closed, etc. These policies have been forwarded as the internal NPS culture.

He coupled his statement with this statement - "BASE jumpers are not alone." Honestly, folks, I hadn't put any thought into how other activities were being basically prohibited. Dixon said that this may be a welcome change because the enjoyment of all generations is being impaired to protect the use of future generations, who won't be able to enjoy it. either because it needs to be preserved for future use.

I personally find this to be an amazing shift. Bear in mind, however, that the changes that add provisions and requirements are necessary. There's no way a free-for-all can be allowed.

I will be watching these developments in the coming months and years, to be sure.

In case you didn't know...

My guess is that NPS reg writers wrote it under the direction of what the policy makers wanted. Normally when govt regulations are written they are first proposed in the FR (Federal Register) and there is an open period in which the public can comment about the proposed language. When the comment period ends the agency then reviews all comments (which are public record) and takes into consideration all comments before finalizing the language and releasing its final rule (also published in the FR). I don't know if NPS policy falls under the regulatory process (although I would think so).

When there is an open comment period and one wishes to comment, you simply go to http://www.regulations.gov/, select the agency (Dept of Interior, in this instance), and scroll through their regulations that are currently open for comment. After finding and reading the rule you want to comment on click on "submit a comment for this regulation" and procede as instructed. Of course, you have to do all this before the closing date of the "open for comment" period ends.

And that is my govt lesson to you all for the day...

First, I thank you for the very helpful information. My only experience related to the drafting of legislation is as follows:

Nevada SB 179: Mike Hawkes "assisted" with the drafting of the proposed bill, the passing of which would have made him the only dzo in business in the state; and, a New Jersey bill regarding billboard advertising drafted by an attorney for whom I worked with the assistance of one of the largest billboard lessors in the state.

My concern is that someone who has knowledge of base jumping and very likely, base culture, had a hand in the drafting of the language. It would be interesting to know who that is.

To me, the whole thing looks like a trap. I hope I'm dead wrong.

rl

I agree this could be an important policy shift, but I am not so sure the shift is in favor of BASE. I think an absolute prohibition would probably be more vulnerable to attack and easier to have set aside than a policy such as the one proposed which, on its face, purports to permit BASE, provided certain seemingly reasonable safety requirements are met and an appropriate use fee has been paid. That sounds very positive, but because the NPS will likely still control the determination as to whether all of these seemingly reasonable requirements have been met, it will still allow them to effectively ban BASE but without appearing as unreasonable as an absolute ban makes them appear. This new policy may simply allow them to appear much more reasonable while at the same time reaching the same result--no BASE in the parks. If that is the case, I would view this as a step backward.

I honestly hope that's not the case, but my fear is that it is the case.

This could easily be them circling the wagons by eliminating contradictory language from their policies, giving the impression of flexibility, but leaving the final decision still entirely to themselves.

Historically, if you attempted to get a permit, you wound up chasing your tail as head ranger at the park passes the decisionmaking buck to Washington who passed the buck back to the ranger, who then passed the buck back to Washington...

Nothing in the policy specifies WHO makes that final call. So I fear the current practice will continue unabated.

From my mind, I would find it easier to show that the NPS is "arbitrary and capricious" in denying permits based on more specific requirements than on a general statement that BASE is not appropriate.

But, then again, I often do run into issues of thinkign legally instead of pragmatically...

You guys are confusing me.

I thought each park had to come up with its own "visitor use management plan" that (you'd think) has to address that list of concerns for any activity proposed for the park. I wouldn't think that we were hoping (realistically, anyway) that BASE would somehow get a special exemption from that planning process -- just that BASE be treated like any other possible visitor use of the park.

The "may require" and "may have" language that replaces it just clarifies that the individual park "visitor use management plan" can do those things, if it in fact it decides to allow BASE at that particular park.

To me, it just looks like they're proposing to strike a blanket statement that effectively removes BASE from any consideration as a possible activity in any park's management plan.

This has been bothering me for several days. I'm not sure I've got it entirely worked out in my own mind, but I'm going to post anyway.

They can remove the policy conflict and impose even more restrictions on Bridge Day all in one fell swoop.

Nick, you'll need to correct me here if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that jumping at Bridge Day continued after NPS acquired the landing area in large measure because of local pressure, i.e., base jumping is the big draw to the Bridge Day event.

It seems to me, however, that the requirements have grown ever more onerous over the years, even without the impact of 9/11.

Now NPS is on the verge of putting into effect a policy that will allow them to exert additional pressure on the organizer, and if anyone complains, NPS no longer has to justify an arbitrary stepping up of their requirements. They can point to the language of the policy as reason enough.

Please tell me how everyone who jumps at Bridge Day is going to obtain a safety certification? And that's only one of the issues.

I haven't quite thought all this through (and I know it's not very clear the way I've written it), but the more I look at it, the worse it looks.

rl

don't you just love legal jargon, I read this and I suddenly feeling yea, but really alls they did was reword the stipulation.


pretty much sounds like. Well "YEA,,, BUT "NO"

Good luck you guys keep chippin away.

The NPS probably feels somewhat under siege as the government pushes to okay such practices as mining, oil drilling, grazing, and development on otherwise "protected" lands. A recent blurb in the NPS Morning Report concerning the retirement of one long time Park employee carried the message that, "The next few years may be extremely challenging for everyone in the NPS, and will require that you keep the faith and make the best of the situations that you encounter."

One would think even before recent events the NPS would've had too much on their plates to mount a concerted campaign against BASE jumpers. But the otherwise is true and anyone who looks back years from now will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Anyone who has dealt with the Park Service as a BASE jumper knows the NPS will lie, threaten, deprive you of your liberty, and steal your stuff. To many jumpers this alone makes it a battle worth fighting. History has always shown the biggest threat to any democracy is the tyrannical oppression of the people by their own government.

The number of horror stories are too long to chronicle here, but a few stand out in my mind. These events would seem ordinary had the crimes involved murder and other forms of mayhem, but seem absolutely ludicrous when it's all about parachuting without a permit.

Long time BASE jumper Keith Jones, who right now is serving in Iraq, spends three days without being charged in the Yosemite dungeon because he won't name fellow jumpers after the accident that killed Susan Oatly. He is threatened with the permanent lose of his personal vehicle, told the commanding officer of his National Guard Unit was on the phone and is ordering him to talk, and that, at best, he was looking at murder charges. He is told by a Ranger that, "We have a file and we know who all your key people are." He is berated by Rangers who call BASE jumpers, "scumbags," who always leave their injured and dead behind in order to save their own hides.

Then there is what happened to Dennis and his crew at the Lake. The list of over reactions by the NPS is long and this is not to mention who knows how many quietly paid their fines and did their time while suffering confiscation of their property. I mean what are we, legitimate sportsman in an illegitimate world, or the Mafia?

When the NPS took over the LZ at Bridge Day they certainly saw it as an intelligence gathering gold mine. In addition to videoing everyone, "And make sure you get the ones in the Yellow Shirts," they made getting their hands on the registration list, which contained everything down to our blood types, a priority. I remember working the launch point and we were allowing spectators to move through and video for a few minutes before moving them out for the next ones. It didn’t take long to realize they were using Rangers in plain clothes as I kept seeing the same video camera over and over again.

Andy, who was now organizing and power drunk, played right into the Ranger's hands. His lack of character showed and they played him like a fiddle. They gave him a Junior Ranger Badge, the same ones they hand out to children in the Parks, and I swear he was flashing that badge around with pride. Some even say Andy was offered a NPS courtesy card, a get out of jail card, he could use in any National Park.

You can look at Jason Bell's Bridge Day web site and see the lies in black and white. There are two pieces of correspondence there. One is an internal NPS directive encouraging the active gathering of personal information on BASE jumpers. The other is a flat denial they are doing it.

Right now the NPS knows they are reaching the tipping point as far as BASE jumping is concerned. Where once the war between the NPS and BASE jumpers was a quiet one, one of the advantages of BASE coming out into the open is more of the public, if asked would say, "What's the big deal?" Bridge Day especially blows two of their arguments right out of the water. One is that BASE jumping is too dangerous, okay; there's been a single Bridge Day fatality in 25 years, next? That BASE jumping is not an appropriate use. Again, we point to Bridge Day and the fact that on a technical level Yosemite and other places in the NPS system are very appropriate for what we do. What they really mean is BASE jumping is not appropriate to their view of what's appropriate.

Government bureaucracies fear only two things. Loss of power and loss of budget monies. The NPS is starting to realize they are now dealing with a government that wouldn't blink before installing Halliburton run information kiosks right in Yosemite Valley. When I said up-board that we need to take advantage of the confusion, I meant the NPS is going to start circling the wagons. And if they stopped to think rationally they would find, in a fight against development on public lands, most BASE jumpers, climbers, and other Park users, the same ones they have been persecuting all these years, are all in their camp. War makes strange bedfellows and they are going to need all the friends they can get.

And maybe someday I can get me one of those Junior Ranger Badges . . .

NickD
BASE 194

During the last four years that I've been involved with organizing Bridge Day, I tried to be as nice as possible to the NPS. I went out of my way to meet as many rangers as possible at Bridge Day and introduce myself. If the NPS asked for information on what's going on the the BASE world, I gave it to them (filtered, if needed). I let them know about some of our new events at the Royal Gorge and how I wanted to expand Bridge Day. I even loaned the NPS one of my rigs so that they could have our Governor wear it at a BD2002 press conference. I went out of my way to be polite, courteous, and friendly.

What did we get for all this?

1) Additional rules in our Special Use Permit
2) Rangers dressed as fisherman hiding under another local 700' bridge the day before Bridge Day - and then arresting four jumpers after they landed.
3) Rangers arresting jumpers off-season on the catwalk BEFORE they jumped and charging them with aerial delivery.
4) Raising our Special Use Permit fees
5) This one is my favorite: Rangers responsible for handing out frequency lists at BD last year forgot to give the live TV broadcast frequencies to the FBI, resulting in at least 3 wireless cameras failing due to overlapping channels. The more I think about this one, the more I believe it wasn't an accident.

And would you believe that I was even hassled this past weekend by a ranger in the Bridge Day LZ. I had a "BASE Jumping Is Not a Crime" sticker on my car and was parked on private property - only a few feet from the NPS LZ. The ranger chased us off, thinking we were in the park, and stated that the area was for commercial traffic only until 6pm.

...and the list continues to grow.

So, I've tried being nice for years. Heck, many of us have tried being nice for decades. The rangers have kept us down too long. Maybe it's time we get back on our feet and take off the gloves?

>>Nick, you'll need to correct me here if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that jumping at Bridge Day continued after NPS acquired the landing area in large measure because of local pressure, i.e., base jumping is the big draw to the Bridge Day event.<<

We have always realized that and so does the NPS. The symbiotic relationship between BASE jumping and the success of Bridge Day is not in doubt. However, like it's been mentioned I don’t think any of us want to use that power to the detriment of the people of West Virginia as they have been nothing but good to us.

However, on the other hand, it is the very reason the NPS didn’t kick us out of the LZ the first year they had the chance. They knew the townies would show up with torches and pitchforks and run them out of town on a rail. West Virginia is an area with a long history of not putting up with a lot of crap from, "guv'ment men."

NickD
BASE 194

Thats Senior badge for you, I figure anyone who knows as much and has worked that hard at this thing we call fun, not that I know how much fun it is yet, deserves the best treatment, and that goes for all you high profilers, Hope yer feeling better these days.

kines brother KINES
e

I finally had a chance to sit down and discuss this with my boss.

Leaving out the legalese, it comes down to this: litigating a complete ban (as it was written) was not only feasible but very likely winnable.

The new language nips that right in the bud.

His assessment of the new language is almost exactly as I have already stated, except that he's even more pessimistic about it. Essentially, now that they've opened the door, they're standing behind it with a 12-gauge, waiting. The conditions are impossible.

As for Bridge Day, I'm not going to get much help from him because he would be quite happy to see it cancelled this year--I'm blowing off his biggest event of the year to go, and he's not happy about it. But when I mentioned the demand NPS has made for the background check information, and my take on the fact that they do not require this of anyone else in the landing area, he started to nod, stopped himself and looked at me deadpan. The corner of his mouth, however, was twitching. So, Jason, I know it's not your biggest problem, but now that I know there's something that can be done, I will see if I can get one of the other guys to give me some direction on what that "something" is.

I also briefly mentioned the permit increase, but I'll need to talk to him about that again when we have more time, after he's over being annoyed with me.

rl

Proposal: Parks need an update
Officials warn against national park development at the expense of natural-resource protection

By PARIS ACHEN
Mail Tribune

A set of proposed revisions to national park policy could open Crater Lake and other national parks to cell-phone towers, snowmobiles and private water craft.

National Park Service employees warn the changes, proposed by the Department of the Interior, would alter the main mission of the agency by rolling back protections for wildlife and natural resources and ushering in development.

The changes "would allow uses that could impair parks permanently and change the entire purpose for why national parks were established," said George Buckingham, former chief ranger at Crater Lake National Park.

Park Service officials in Washington, D.C., say the proposal is only one of several sets of revisions they are considering to help bring national parks up to date. Specifically, it was intended to provoke dialogue about management policies, said David Barna, a Park Service spokesman.

The changes are the creation of Paul Hoffman, who oversees the park service as deputy assistant secretary of the interior.

Hoffman was appointed to the position in January 2002 after serving as executive director of the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce in Cody, Wyo., and state director for then-U.S. Rep. Dick Cheney from 1985 to 1989.

Crater Lake National Park officials declined to surmise how the proposed revisions would affect Oregon’s only national park, located on 183,224 acres in Klamath County.

"Until you actually take the regulation and put it in practice, you don’t really know how it will affect Crater Lake," said spokesman Michael Justin.

But former Park Service employees say the changes would conflict with much of the work happening at Crater Lake, including a project to relocate parking away from the rim to improve the view of the lake.

If Hoffman’s proposal is adopted, "you could put ski boats on the lake," Buckingham said. "There are already people who object to concession boats on the lake.

"Snowmobiles could potentially go on every paved road in the park."

Park Service management policies are based on congressional intent, case law and the 1916 Organic Act and have given parks the most natural resource protection of any federally managed land.

Since 1916, the Park Service has been charged with maintaining parks "unimpaired" for future generations. Park officials have the authority to ban an activity they determine may lead to impairment.

Under Hoffman’s proposal, the definition of impairment would change from "an impact to any park resource or value (that) may constitute an impairment" to one that can be proved to "irreversibly harm" resources.

The Tucson, Ariz.-based Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, headed by Bill Wade, former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, is opposing the potential changes, which were leaked last week. The coalition has about 400 members.

The move to revise the policies was prompted by a congressional request in 2002 and increasing public demand for modern comforts and activities in parks, such as cell phone reception, base jumping and geocaching, Barna said.

A group of 16 Park Service employees are working to come up with recommendations for policy changes. Hoffman’s proposal is not the basis for the recommendations, Barna said.

Park Service Director Fran Mainella will have final say on what draft is published in the Federal Register for public comment. Barna said the draft could be out as soon as the end of September.

Mainella, the Department of the Interior and Congress could ultimately all play a part in which version is adopted.

"Regardless of what happens in redrafting, the Department of (the) Interior is going to do what it can to get (the Hoffman proposal) in there," Wade said. "It can only be public outcry and influence from Congress that can be brought to bear on this and make the effort to turn it back."

Reach reporter Paris Achen at 776-4496 or e-mail pachen@mailtribune.com.

I'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of cell phone towers in a national park... being that the idea is to preserve the natural beauty of the land, but opening them up to broader recreational use is definitely a step in the right direction.

As a side note, I remember when I was up in Big Sky Montana and there was a lot of discussion about the NPS restricting snowmobiles in Yellowstone. Area folks weren't too happy with the possibility (which never materialized).

There is already good cell service in many areas of national parks. I get service in both Zion and Yosemite.

They aren't cell phone towers. They're osprey nests.

rl

Hello jumpers:

Want to know how all this came to be?

“The move to revise the policies was prompted by a congressional request in 2002 and increasing public demand for modern comforts and activities in parks, such as cell phone reception, base jumping and geocaching, " Barna said.

The above is quoted from “Parks need an update,” Medford, Oregon, Mail Tribune, September 6, 2005, by Paris Achen

Here's how:

http://www.backcountryparachutists.org/chronology.php

K. Gardner Sapp
Executive Director
The Alliance of Backcountry Parachuting, Inc.

Very Interesting! Thats is what we really need! Federal govt. support! Glad to hear there is progress being made.

is BASE the reason?
or just the excuse?

can't "increasing public demand for modern comforts" be read as development opportunities?

we'll know by governmental action. if new construction quickly begins, while BASE is lost in a quagmire of safety certificates and user fees, we'll know we were only used as a pawn. they needed a poster child and we were it.

if jumping begins shortly after they implement these rules, we'll know the lobbying efforts paid off. we'll know that government personel listened.

we might want to suggest that they begin implementation of these rules with BASE. we require virtually NO capitol expense, NO infrastructure improvements, and thus NO budget hits. the opponents to the new rules doubtfully object to BASE jumping.

we can also be used to show immediate progress. every bureaucrat likes to show progress...

Certainly none of us at the ABP consider it a fait au compli; to the contrary, as clearly stated in the first paragraph - beginning with the third sentence - of the Chronology, "There remains much work to be done because additional language proposed in the rewrite is still cumbersome for unit superintendents as well as backcountry parachutists, and is still NOT what the ABP has been asking for all along: a complete rescission of Section 8.2.2.7. Such action on behalf of the NPS would end a quarter-century of institutionalized access discrimination and level the playing field at the unit-level planning table so individual backcountry parachutists would not have to jump the additional hurdle of seeking a waiver to the 2001 Management Policies each time he or she wanted to jump in a national park."

I don't see where anyone was taking credit for a task accomplished; rather, we were merely drawing parallels to the date of the congressional request cited in Ms. Achen's Oregon Mail Tribune article quoting David Barna, spokesperson for the NPS.


I don't think any of us disagree. Complete rescission of 8.2.2.7 is only one battle. There are many more battles and multiple fronts we face before anyone can claim victory, but you have to count your battles and - while I am still a bit pessimistic about the language we'll see in the rewrite when it is released for public comment - I must admit that I'm grateful that they've gone as far as they have in the leaked rewrite: it means they're hearing us at least to some extent. The NPS and DOI are under no obligation to change a damn thing if they so choose. Nevertheless, the overall task of access is - and will be - one long hard row to hoe.


I am pretty sure Jason only pointed to the Utah document because that is what he had immediately available to show as an example of the access model that the ABP is pursuing, and how easily it would be integrated with the NPS administrative system. When you explain it to people you can see the lightbulb turn on when they get it - and they get it quickly. Regulating and managing backcountry parachutists the same way individual park units manage rock climbers and hikers is administratively neutral and allows superintendents and park users to plan for the activity in ways that are already administratively and legally proven, and allows it to go forth as a routine and recurring recreational activity integrated into the overall backcountry community and management plan. The aviation model, on the other hand, depends on special use rules and regulations that must be developed and promulgated, then tested and imposed on an administrative system not designed to deal with them – and which forces park managers to treat the activity as special, not routine, and segregated from rather than integrated into the general backcountry community.

That is why the Yosemite trial program failed so miserably in 1980. Long story short: It took more rangers more time to deal with ten jumpers per day than it did per day to deal with every climber, hiker and day tripper in the whole park!


No I think the driving force, overall, is the current administration coupled with thirty years of NPS' policy of saying 'NO,' and the bad taste that it leaves in everyone's mouth. All of those other proposed changes??? ...the NPS had it coming to it. We have internal NPS memos essentially (to paraphrase) saying, "We need to make it look like we are more willing to say 'yes' more often than we do... in essence telling folks we'll take a look at something... but even if we give an initial maybe, we can still say no."

I can most assuredly inform you that the ABP will continue to assert itself and its ability to effect change within the NPS/DOI system and elsewhere. Many times you hear folks in the BASE community make statements like, "we've tried everything... we're out of options... blah blah." That is simply not the case. No organization has spent the time, energy and focused enough effort to truly effect change. In fact most of them fell apart internally before they ever got any momentum going. The ABP will succeed. We would appreciate your support, but even if you don't wish to support the ABP, we'll be happy to have you come celebrate with us when we do, "...see [the] appropriate changes," you mentioned.

Sincerely,
K. Gardner Sapp
Executive Director
The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists, Inc.

http://www.backcountryparachutists.org

Edited to add:
thanks go to Jason for making the community aware of these proposed changes!

glad to hear I misunderstood. much work remains and it appears you are committed.

good stuff.