Basejumper.com - archive

Bridge Day BASE jumping in jeopardy

Nice job, Jason.

Hopefully they'll do another article after today's meeting. This has been the most stressful Bridge Day yet and October 15th hasn't even arrived.

Keep up the fight Jason!

Jason, everything you have done these past few years has been so appreciated by the jumpers. You have done a great job and should be proud of your accomplishments. Sometimes the bureacrats won't stop until they win, even though so many others lose!

Well, Tom you want to start working on the Potato Bridge for next year? I'm sure that the town of Twin Falls would love that kind of revenue.

This is all a shame and the only ones that will suffer are the locals, the people that count on this event and all the revenue. I was there in 2001 when only 12,000 people attended their event and pretty much broke the community. I remember going into places where the heat wasn't hardly on because they couldn't afford it that early in the season.

Thanks again, Jason. I hope the community gets the NPS under control quickly.

Kaye

F'IN REDICULOUS!!! BD Twin falls 2006 Sounds good to me.


Thats some major BS


What would an insurance policy do for us? Why do we need one?


Edited to Add: Yes, just as KAYE said thanks Jason for all your hard work! Last year was my first BD and without hard work from people like you none of it would have been possible. We all thank you!!!

I read what the Ranger said twice and boy, there's a bunch of stuff going on between the lines. He says, "We aren't picking on BASE jumpers," and then he manages to slip in, "Bridge Day wasn't started for BASE jumpers."

Bridge Day "is" advertised by West Virginia as "The World's Largest Extreme Sport's Event." The bridge is completed in 1977 and the Governor throws a small party that later becomes an annual event. The first jump from the NRGB is done by Burton Ervin in August of 1979. In 1980 Brad Smith and two others did it, also in August.

Bridge Day 1981 is the first one with legal jumps, or at least the first time jumpers are invited to come jump during an actual Bridge Day event. There are five jumpers that year, the locals go wild, and the jumps are the talk of the day. The next year 1982 saw 30 jumpers and for the first time people are coming to see BASE and the attendance at Bridge Day begins to climb.

By 1983 there are 100 jumpers and the next year 350. By 1985 the people who come to Bridge Day aren't "attendees" anymore, they are now called "spectators" and there are 250,000 of them and they leak money. In terms of economic impact, the popularity of a successful event, and in deference to the other sports occurring there, I'm sorry, Mr. Ranger, but Bridge Day "is" all about BASE jumping.

This Ranger, is either ignorant, or fibbing a bit when he says they aren't "picking" on BASE jumpers. The NPS is institutionalized in its hatred for BASE jumpers. It's so ingrained there are both young BASE jumpers and young Rangers who know they hate each other but don't really know why. The NPS will seize every opportunity to "win one" and just watch the career trajectory of the Ranger who rids Bridge Day of BASE jumping. I hate to be so blunt, but I've been seeing light and dark for so long now I can't believe anything they say . . .

NickD
BASE 194

I'm pretty worn out from my full day in Fayetteville today, so perhaps I'll elaborate in a later post.

-Today's Bridge Day Commission meeting had the largest attendance out of any meeting I've been to in the last four years. Three TV stations, 1 radio station, several newspaper reporters, and approximately 10-15 local business owners showed up TO SUPPORT US.

-NPS refused to lower Special Use Permit fees and refused to remove clause allowing them to charge us for all travel expenses if they decide to import some rangers from Yosemite to handle the event.

-If you haven't already heard, NPS requested $1,000,000 liability insurance from us last week - a mere 3.5 weeks before the event. This was based on the fact that Royal Gorge was somehow able to obtain insurance for the Go Fast Games. Preliminary verbal quotes are between $10,000-25,000. Possibly due to media pressure, NPS agreed to waive insurance requirement over the phone to me yesterday. However, they offered no official position on this at today's meeting. More than likely, insurance will be a requirement next year and it could force jump ticket prices to skyrocket. We have multiple plans in place to prevent this from occuring.

The bottom line is that WE WILL JUMP no matter what. NPS will have blood on their hands if they do not work with us on these discriminatory, last minute tactics to price BASE out of Bridge Day. Word on the street is that the insurance requirement will be waived this year.

I'm actively working with a private landowner to have a new, larger, safer LZ for Bridge Day 2006.

No worries folks. Controversy sometimes makes things exciting. Cya in 3 weeks.

PS. NPS rangers need to UNDERSTAND that Jon Dragan owned the BD landing zone until the mid-1980's. We didn't have to put up with the NPS until they essentially forced Jon Dragan to sell it to them.

Letters to/from NPS and Vertical Visions

Jason,
Why do they need to import Rangers all the way from Yosemite? Surely, there are other closer National Parks.

Also, don't the waivers we sign and videotape during registration mean anything when it comes to the insurance they want to implement?

 

I'll chip in too!



Hey now, finger off the trigger.

 

 

I just got word that WV Congressman Rahall got involved and issued the order to the NPS to drop the insurance requirement this year. So all is well again.

I'm guessing that I won't be getting a Christmas card from the NPS this year.....

Today's Newspaper Story

How much more support do you foresee us receiving from the federal level. Do they seam pretty apt to help us or are they more hesitant to get involved?

I definately see support from the federal level, at least at Bridge Day. This is evidenced by Congressman Rahall ordering the NPS to stop their 4th quarter tactics to disrupt BASE jumping at Bridge Day. There was some discussion at the BDC meeting yesterday about approaching the state and/or federal gov't for support on issues that may reappear next year (insurance, increased fees, bus problems, etc).

I also wanted to say that I'm not totally against the insurance requirement in the LZ. Normal NPS Special Use Permits, according to the rangers, are required to have insurance. But I am against throwing the requirement in our laps with only a few weeks left. I'm also against JUMPERS having to absorb the costs of this event. After all, the Bridge Day Commission and local Chamber of Commerce host the event and maybe they should also assume the responsibility to provide us with a landing area. The people at the Chamber are absolutely wonderful to work with, but it shouldn't be OUR responsibility to find a place to host their event and we shouldn't have to fight the NPS each year. And what if the Dept of Highways wanted $10,000 from us to put up our exit point next year? That stuff should not be our responsibility.

Gotta go....the AP just called and they are doing a story.

Thanks for the Info! Eager to hear more!

So if we secured a LZ of our own we would have nothing to do with the NPS anymore right?

Not exactly. NPS has still threatened to arrest us if we land in the river. They say they share jurisdiction with the State of WV. If you ended up a bit short and missed the private property, NPS would pull you from the river and cuff you. I basically told the NPS that they would be very STUPID to enforce this. Can you imagine the safety hazard this would put on the event? Talk about having blood on your hands.

I would also attempt to get authorization to land in the river from the State of WV so that NPS couldn't touch us.

On another note, NPS has always threatened our water rescue crew with arrest if they help pull any bandit jumpers from the river. If someone jumped 10 seconds past the 3pm limit and our water rescue saved their lives, NPS would arrest all of them. When this was brought up at the BDC meeting yesterday, Gary Hartley denied my claims. BUT THEN, Tom Dragan, who operates the water rescue, emerged from the back of the crowd and told Hartley that he has personally heard this numerous times from the rangers own mouths. Hartley still danced around the main subject at hand, which is the SAFETY of any and all jumpers, regardless of whether it's a bandit jump. Hartley admitted no fault and offered no explanation for the threats of arrest.

It's very disturbing to know that the NPS would risk the safety of a jumper by threatening our water rescue personnel. This closely resembles their actions with Frank Gambalie.

I'll send you one !


Keep up the kick ass job U doing man !

Wow! They are really pathetic!

Now let me ask you this. I am a newbie to the BASE community, I’m only 21 so I am not up on a lot of the History. Where did the problems between NPS and jumpers really start? I can see why BASE jumpers hate NPS because they obviously are bastards. (Arrests, harsh discriminatory policy, and a major example of what we are dealing with right now) But what did BASE jumpers ever do to the NPS to receive such harsh prejudice? Why do they hate us so much?

D

There is some history here.

In defense of the NPS, we (meaning jumpers generally, I doubt many of those actual individuals are still actively jumping) pretty much hosed ourselves. Driving motor vehicles onto wilderness trails, cutting down trees, and generally being a nuisance is not good community relations.

Ahhhh ok. Everyone I have come in contact with in BASE has always said don't break anything and leave it as you found it. I guess the attitude has changed from older times. Are people still causing those types of problems or are jumpers more considerate to the objects today in the hopes of gaining access to currently illegal objects?

A fair bit. There were some low-impact jumpers then, too. But this specific incident was definitely a major event in the developing BASE culture.



Both. I think that the number of incidents like that per jumper has probably dropped, but the overall number of jumpers has gone way up. On balance, I'd say we're probably doing better at that kind of thing now than we did then.

Yep.


Problems started back in 1966 when the first known BASE jump was made in a National Park. It's been painful ever since.....maybe someone else can elaborate.

EDIT: Tom, that link you provided about 4 posts up is somewhat slanted towards the NPS and it contains a few inaccuracies. Several months ago, the webmaster agreed to update it with a better representation of our sport. I have yet to provide the update to him. If anyone is interested in helping me clean it up, please contact me.

Thanks for the link Tom. I think this explains it fully.

.

And I do now remember someone telling me about this and the fact that they had legal jumps from El Cap but people took advantage of them and got them taken away. It’s a Shame!

You don't know what your missing till its gone! But I guess its gonna be like when you f'up on the DZ. Everyone remembers it and it takeS a long time and a lot of positive actions to show you have changed and won't f'up any longer. Hopefully that time will be soon for BASE and we can start progressing the sport even more.

An important difference is that when you screw up at the DZ, people form opinions about _you_. In the case of BASE in Yosemite, a handful of people screwed up, and the NPS decided to treat BASE jumpers, collectively, as responsible. I, personally, don't think that's very fair. But, I can see how it's a lot easier for the land managers to do that.

I'm hopeful that we'll get back into the park system at some point in the future. I do think that we need to be clear from the outset that no one can control all the jumpers, and that if the NPS wants to regulate the system, they need to actually punish individual offenders, rather than treating us all as a whole. I'd love to see all jumpers take some general community responsibility, and consider the impact their actions will have on other jumpers. But I really don't think that's a realistic possibility.

Totally Agree!



That would be nice but I agree also that it may not be realistic. That might have been possible back when the USPA was helping us out. Those who were causing the problems could have been punished then and legal jumping could have resumed at El Cap. Today it will definitely be tougher to get back.

In my opinion I think we would have a better chance of getting NR opened before than El Cap. We already have a major event that has been occurring annually with great success. If we can get an extension as Jason was going for, and Federal Support we may be able to gradually have more jump time and show we as a community are responsible. Then if we prove ourselves there maybe we will have the possibility of opening up other doors. Just gonna take time…..

I also read/heard somewhere that as some of the older rangers are retiring, new rangers who are not firm on their dislike of our sport may be more willing work with us. Any thoughts on this?

I believe the USPA suspended (from the USPA) everyone who was involved in the flatbed incident, in an effort to show the NPS that they were serious about enforcing the rules. I don't think it made much difference to the NPS, or to many of the jumpers involved.



Rangers don't make policy. They just enforce it.

Good Point!

 I remember someone suggesting donation barrels earlier this year placed near the entrances to the bridge im sure those funds could help somewhere, or if they were signinfigant, give them to the city.. as a "token of appreciation" of somesort, perhaps make them a gaudy color (like bright pink) and pass out literature(referncing the pink barrels) to the crowd explaining our current plight, and that there might not be jumpers next year if nothing changes...

Personally tho, i like the nps "workaround" plan involving the private landowner and permission from the state to land in the river..

And the whole thing really is a shame, because a 1$ admission fee (jumpers and staff included)per person could raise a-quarter-million-dollars for the city..

but the pamphlets should definatley be made, ill print them for free... we just need some quality narration... (tom,nick,jason..)..
we've got three weeks to make something happen..

Some true history of parachuting on public lands controlled by the National Park Service:

Two years after Carl Boenish filmed backcountry parachutists jumping from El Capitan in 1978, and two years after the National Park Service instituted a policy of prohibition and prosecution against backcountry jumpers, the NPS decided to create a “legal” program of jumping from El Capitan modeled on its successful hang glider permitting and regulation system. A three-month test program began in early August 1980. This program failed because the NPS, the U.S. Parachute Association, and the jumpers themselves had no idea how to integrate jumping with other backcountry activities.

NPS reacted initially with prohibition because it didn’t know how to integrate the activity into its backcountry management model; instead of approaching its management the way it would climbers, hikers and other backcountry users, it looked at jumping as part of the special use/aviation model, and it was from this initial misperception and miscategorization of the sport that all of our current problems arise.

However, NPS was not alone in embracing the aviation model: jumpers themselves and the U.S. Parachute Association in particular, tried to apply the aviation regulatory model to the activity with no reference to, or understanding of, backcountry management and ethics.

Witness the July 1980 Parachutist Magazine headline: “El Capitan Opens For Skydiving” – as if it were just another airplane or ride at the local amusement park. Moreover, the USPA requirements – USPA membership, D license, hard helmet and square main – failed to in any way address the need for jumpers to act responsibly in the backcountry.

And therein began the next set of problems – wilderness-ignorant jumpers running around the backcountry like hooligans who showed no respect for the park, its wildlife, or other visitors.

To top it all off, El Capitan is the only major cliff in the entire U.S. park system with a paved highway running past its base, and Yosemite Valley in summer is its most congested venue outside of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Bottom line: Yes, there were individual jumpers who made everything worse with their actions, but the real problem stemmed first from a fundamental misperception of the nature of the activity, which resulted in an administratively untenable test program that was conducted at the worst place in the system (El Capitan) at the worst possible time (the height of summer) using the worst possible model (aviation/special use instead of backcountry).

Fast forward to 1999, when Jan Davis died during a protest jump against the discrimination NPS had practiced for 21 years. NPS used Jan’s death to validate its prohibition of wilderness jumping by deflecting the discussion from access discrimination to safety and, about a year later, NPS finally put in writing the 23-year-old policy prohibition it had previously denied existed: Section 8.2.2.7 of its 2001 Management Policies manual prohibited parachuting from cliffs in all national park areas as a matter of policy, and was not a discretionary matter for individual superintendents.

Since then, The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists, Inc. has worked with Congressman Tom Tancredo and reasonable members of the NPS management family to establish a dialogue based on fair access and responsible use based on the backcountry management model rather than the aviation/special use model. That process has borne some fruit already, with the most problematic of the policy ban language having already been deleted from the proposed new manual.

There are three specific reasons for adopting the backcountry regulatory model for parachuting on public lands – and as a USE model for its practitioners:

1. Backcountry parachuting is what it is – parachuting in the backcountry, in the wilderness, away from people, and streets and wires and cars (and hospitals and paramedics), up close and personal with trees and rocks and lions and tigers and bears (oh my). Consequently, “E” jumpers need to have exceptional parachuting skills and backcountry-specific knowledge, equipment, and ethics.



2. “Backcountry” has a specific bureaucratic meaning in public lands management that aids the access process. The administrative, managerial, bureaucratic problem with “BASE jumping” is: “Where do we put it? How do we classify it? We don’t know, so… NO.” With backcountry parachuting, on the other hand, the very name describes the activity, its venue, and its classification. And as the ABP demonstrated in Utah on July 8 http://www.backcountryparachutists.org/utah.php, public lands managers “get” backcountry parachuting and thus were able to take informed action to include it in their access process.



3. It’s important for technical and political clarity to separate backcountry parachuting on public lands from BASE jumping, which often occurs illegally from private property. “BASE jumping” conjures up images of buildings, antennas, bridges – and people running from the cops, thus muddling the issue of parachuting access on public lands. This was demonstrated recently on television in Australia, where the jumpers argued for legal access to Oz national parks. The problem was, they called it BASE jumping instead of backcountry parachuting and so the reporters flashed pix of building and tower jumps and then said, “this is what they want to make legal!”

The situation at New River is unique in that the issue revolves not around managing parachuting as a recurring recreational activity in the backcountry but administering a one-day special use event governed by a local agency that starts on state property and ends on NPS-controlled land. Accordingly, much of the financial and operational burden faced by Bridge Day organizers does not originate with the NPS.

Consequently, the ABP takes no position on the current situation, other than to remind readers of this thread that in 2002 New River superintendent Calvin Hite and chief ranger Gary Hartley put their careers on the line by initiating a waiver request of the 8.2.2.7 policy prohibition so that jumping could continue at New River, and then followed it through to a successful conclusion. In so doing, they completely demolished the legitimacy of the policy prohibition, and for that they deserve our continuing thanks, even if they do add a few more rangers to the festivities than may be necessary.

K. Gardner Sapp
Executive Director
Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists, Inc.
http://www.backcountryparachutists.org

The USPA suspended the "Flat Bed Ten" as everyone at headquarters, like Joe Svec and Bill Ottley had already made their jump during the 90-day legal season, and it was deemed better to distance themselves as the general membership is leaning toward anti-BASE. This was a period when BASE fatalities prompted local reporters to visit the local DZ for a comment. I remember quite a few DZO's who proclaimed, "Oh, those guys are freaking knuckleheads . . ."

In the late 80s I begged the USPA to include, "How to Get Ready for Bridge Day," but they said we can't use the "BASE" word, and my argument that most of the first timers at Bridge Day are USPA members and PARACHUTIST is the best way to get out the word falls on deaf ears.

And it still does . . .

NickD
BASE 194

"It's more akin to a circus act."

- Bill Ottley, when asked if BASE was a form of skydiving.

Very Interesting!!!

Bridge Day sets a major precedent for BASE jumping in National Parks, as Gardner has noted. What happens at Bridge Day, including the details of a Special Use Permit, is very critical to any future access to other National Parks. Unfortunately, the only way we are currently permitted to jump is through a Special Use Permit.

With that being said, I feel it is my duty to keep the Special Use Permit requirements, conditions, and fees to a minimum.

1) If the NPS requires five rangers here at New River, what will they require at other parks?
2) If the NPS is able to import rangers from Yosemite just for Bridge Day, and then bill us thousands of dollars for travel expenses after the event, then what will they do at other parks?
3) If the NPS is able to impose $1,000,000 liability policies on us, which have been waived for decades, then what will they require of us at other parks where crowds cannot be controlled as easily?

Is it possible that the increased permit fees, travel expense reimbursements, and costly liability insurance could also be used against us if any parks were opened for jumping? The NPS could say "yes" to jumping in certain parks, but it would be too costly for anyone but the rich. It's easier to do a triple gainer from a 180' bridge than to obtain a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy for BASE jumping...

I had a meeting with Bill Ottley in his office in Alexandria in 1991 and the biggest photo (16' by 20') on the wall is him launching off El Cap . . .

I think I mentioned, "What's up with that?" Like a few times . . .

NickD
BASE 194

In fact the don't even suggest that BASE happens. Its like a bad step child in their eyes. Do you see any BASE in the rag they call parachutist besides PAID advertisements. The only reason I even pay the fucking dues is because i like to skydive at a boogie now and then. fuck. I LOATHE THE STANCE OF THE USPA THAT base 'ISNT' PARACHUTING. FUCKEM!!! does this mean i lose my precious member number

Hmm.....it was only five weeks ago that the ABP was offering to help fight the fee increase. Reference your August 17th Post.

Well...there's theory, and then there's practice:

BASE no longer censored from Parachutist


But back then, even getting an ad in Parachutist was a big deal:

Base Ad in Parachutist

In reading recent newspaper articles, Superintendent Calvin Hite is now acting like he's making a special exception in waiving the insurance requirement. Insurance has NEVER been required and even the NPS failed in the past to find an insurer - facts that Mr. Hite is conveniently forgetting.

Here is a copy of my letter to Congressman Rahall's Project Director, Kelly Dyke:

------

Ms. Dyke,

Thank you for your assistance with Bridge Day 2005.

I am in the process of developing a detailed report on what transpired recently between the NPS and Bridge Day 2005 BASE Jumping Organizers. This report will be available online by Friday afternoon. I will forward the URL to you at that time.

However, I wanted to address several NPS inaccuracies:

1) Bridge Day jumping began in 1980, but the NPS didn't purchase the jumper landing zone until the mid-1980's. Since that time, the NPS has required a Special Use Permit for jumpers to land. But the NPS requirement for liability insurance has been waived every year for the last two decades (except for 2002 when energy drink giant Go Fast Sports didn't request a waiver and their standard company insurance policy was used). Past and current Bridge Day BASE Jumping Organizers have attempted to obtain liability insurance to protect spectators in the landing zone. With no one willing to insure the event, it was deemed uninsurable. According to Chief Ranger Gary Hartley, the NPS doubted the fact that liability insurance was unobtainable and they spent 30 days trying to find their own policy. They failed as well.

I was offended by Calvin Hite's letter dated 22 September 2005 in which he wrote, "Even though we believed your past claims that insurance was not available, our own research has found that other BASE jumping organizations and events are requiring and acquiring liability insurance". Calvin Hite believed our claims because, in the past, the NPS failed as well to find liability insurance coverage. It was only through recent (September 2005) research that the NPS apparently found someone willing to insure the event. When I contacted Sarah Fuller with Bloss & Dilliard, whom the NPS reports as an entity willing to insure the Bridge Day landing zone, I was informed that Bloss & Dilliard does not provide insurance coverage to individuals or companies. They are merely a broker.

At this time, we are still investigating NPS claims that insurance for Bridge Day is actually obtainable. The Royal Gorge event, cited in Calvin Hite's September 15th letter as an insurable BASE jumping event, is different because it does not occur inside a national park and no spectators are present in the landing zone. Insurability of one parachuting event does not guarantee insurability of another parachuting event. In my experience, insurance companies typically require permit details, contracts, jumper waivers, landing zone diagrams, and other details of an event before they can truthfully determine whether insurance is available. I'm curious if Mr. Hite provided this information to Bloss & Dilliard prior to making the statement that Bridge Day is insurable.

2) In the same letter, Calvin Hite wrote, "This is your third year as the Bridge Day BASE organizer, and this is your third request for an insurance waiver". My response to this is that every organizer, past and present, has routinely waived the insurance requirement (with the exception of Go Fast Sports in 2002). In 2003 and 2004, the NPS did not hesitate to ask me if I would like to request an insurance waiver. Liability insurance was never discussed or required because the event was uninsurable at that time.

Our reasons for not obtaining liability insurance may not satisfy the NPS this year. But the following items do offer a considerable amount of liability protection that has proven to suffice in past years:
-Jumpers are waivered against causing property damage or spectator injury in the landing zone
-Jumpers are also video waivered (they speak into a video camera) against causing property damage or spectator injury in the landing zone
-NPS and Vertical Visions post "Enter at your own risk" type signs near landing zone.
-Spectator viewing areas are roped off and located away from the landing zone.
-My exit staff of 75 people help to remove jumpers, spectators, and media from the landing zone.
-We are only concerned with spectator injury or property damage. Jumper injuries are not an issue with the three levels of waivers that are required (written, video, badge).

As I stated at the Bridge Day Commission meeting yesterday:

-I am not against having liability insurance for the landing zone if it is obtainable and at a reasonable cost.
-However, I am against the 11th hour NPS requirement for liability insurance when it has not been required in the past and my May 2005 requests for NPS permit costs/requirements were delayed for four months.

Perhaps in the future, the best course of action would be for the Bridge Day Commission to handle landing zone permits and insurance. After all, it is their event. If jumpers must absorb the high costs of liability insurance, I am concerned that many will opt to skip Bridge Day and instead jump at other events. The 3-day long "Go Fast Games" at the Royal Gorge Bridge or the legal-everyday Perrine Bridge in Twin Falls, Idaho are more attractive than the small six-hour window granted at Bridge Day.

I'll forward more information to you shortly. Thank you.

Bridge Day Jumpers Insurance Waived


Posted 9/22/2005 08:07 PM

The company in charge of BASE jumping is not required to have liability insurance

[..]

But while the Park Service decided to waive the insurance this year, it says it's requiring the insurance next year.

Cal Hite with the Park Service says this is the third time he's asked the group to get the insurance.

[..]

Copyright 2005 West Virginia Media.

NPS is just determined to make things difficult.

rl

I wonder what they'll do when no jumpers can afford to come, and no organizer can afford to try to convince jumpers to come?

 

What other group?

What can someone do on that bridge that will take the place of a 20+ year tradition?

Bungee jumping?

That'd be a laugh. I can't imagine what would draw tourists the way base does, but maybe I'm prejudiced.

rl

 

The spectators are spectators. They come to watch, not to participate.

Bungee jumping isn't very exciting to watch--especially for kids--and who are the participants going to be? Are 400 bungee jumpers going to come to BD, fill up the Holiday Inn, and put on an exhibition? How many people in the crowd do you think will pay $50 for a bungee jump?

Speaking of which...perhaps someone who was there might post about the year when bungee jumping was part of the festivities.

rl

What if the event just failed for a year? Just the rappellers showed up, for example? What do you think would happen?

And while we're at it, have there been any new requirements or restrictions on the rappellers?

What happened after 9/11?

Edited to add:


Why would there be? NRGB doesn't belong to NPS, no matter how much they try to act like the whole damn shootin' match is theirs.

rl

*************************
Problems started back in 1966 when the first known BASE jump was made in a National Park. It's been painful ever since.....maybe someone else can elaborate.
*************************

I can elaborate on that. The rangers confiscated our gear and camera/film and didn't allow us to leave the park for several days so they could research their laws. Back then they were not able to turn up any regulations that prohibited jumping from their mountaintops.

They reluctantly returned our gear and camera after the hearing and allowed us to leave. The park commissioner told the press that "A check failed to turn up any regulations prohibiting jumping, but there will be --- and soon" They also falsly quoted me as actually having said: "I hope no one ever tries it again - - I know I won't". Those words definitely did NOT come from me.

Hi Jason-

Good work, man! You are definitely fighting the good fight here.

I remember about a year ago discussion about buying some acreage beneath the NRGB...what is the status of that? I'd love to be able to jump the bridge any time and land on property OWNED BY US, NOT THE NPS.

But wait, we are citizens of the United States, and since that land is National Park, I guess by definition we already own it???? Yeah, in a perfect world the children would have enough food and education, welfare mothers would lose 50% of their benefits with each baby they popped out, and our leaders would be helping prepare for disasters at home instead of creating disasters abroad... (oops sorry wrong forum...)

What the Bleep do I know? Oh, I can't help but dream.
Peace,
K

Both Jeb and I put in separate bids at different times for a portion of the 90 acres. Both were not accepted. I feel we were pawns used to sell the entire 90 acres. They wanted people to bid on it to develop a price for the entire tract. They eventually sold all 90 acres for $250,000. I am now negotiating with the new landowner and things are looking pretty good for next year.


This is the biggest line of BS that I have ever heard. The NPS routinely waives the insurance and they even remind me to submit my waiver request each year. We have ALWAYS waived the insurance. This is Calvin's way of attacking us. Also, Calvin likes to say that he "went to bat for us back in 2002 with the 10-year policy waiver." If he didn't get the policy waiver, the locals would have showed up with pitchforks and torches.


The year was 1993 and I waited all day to jump. The bungee guys were dropping 7 people in a homemade steel basket and their preparation halted jumping for over an hour. Jumpers were very upset. One bungee jumper injured his spleen when the basket shifted prior to release. You could hear his screams for about 100 yds at least. Needless to say, bungee at Bridge Day probably won't ever happen again.


Yes. Just this year, rappellers were forced to pay the same $10 per participant fee that jumpers pay. This payment goes to the local Chamber of Commerce. I heard through the grapevine that they were thinking of raising it to $20, but the rappelling organizer and I both agreed to quit if that happens.

I heard yesterday that the local businesses are very worried about the NPS shakedown. I think my people have opened their eyes to what is really going on and also to the fact that they need us to be there every year.

Here in WV, the NPS insurance requirement has been major front page news. It was in all the newspapers, TV, radio, etc. I think we got their attention.....

I was staff the year of the bungee bucket thing. They asked for twenty minutes and it took them three times as long. And when they did get it together and dropped, it was a big yawner . . .

I don't remember the bungee fellow's name, but I asked him, "Gee, what's for next year, eight in the bucket?" We were livid, the jumpers in line are beside themselves, and the spectators are hating the delay in the action. Andy had something to do with the bungee thing and we gave him an earful about it later. From now on nothing stops jumping except the normal reasons, and walking out of Andy's room someone added, "And no more freaking weddings, either!"

NickD
BASE 194

here is a shot from BD 04. I am guessing those funny-hat-wearing people are the rangers.

there's 5 of them standing around in that shot. And the same 5 are standing around in all the pics I snapped in 30 minutes...

just some factual evidence of what the rangers do and why NPS needs to have 5 of them present.

Please by all means correct me if I got anything wrong.

Hey Jason,

Would it be possible (and/or any help) to show these types of pictures to the BDC (or whoever has the most pull, federal level also?…) to show that the NPS already have that many rangers in the landing area and that they are full of s**t in the facts that they say that have to bring in more rangers and that it will cost them that much more to do so. Maybe if we can get pics of not only 2004 but earlier years also it will show that they have been doing it all along and have never felt the need to impose extra bs costs on us BASE jumpers.

D

All they do is infiltrate and gather intelligence.

And they want us to pay for it . . . !

NickD
BASE 194

BTW, I took that photo at BD something or other and that's John Hoover in the black overcoat looking at his toes and wondering, "what the F is going on here . . ."

NickD
BASE 194

__________________________________________________

with that ugly weather and the unhapy faces, that must have been the year we refused the permit to jump due to the high river water conditions.

kleggo

and those fucking hats.....

Yes, I think this photo is taken just prior to the "mutiny" when about 40 people jumped anyway. The wind is howling, the river's high and running fast, there's no sand bar and no shoreline. Jean's main concern is keeping the hundred or so first timers out of the air and there's no way to do that had she accepted the permit. Jean took a lot of heat that year, but she did good. Had jumping commenced in earnest it would have been the year of the "carnage" at Bridge Day . . .

NickD
BASE 194

 

On a serious note, since so many of us jump video, and probably have stills - I say lets keep on videoing/taking pics of what rangers are doing throughout the event - I bet most of the film will show them doing NOTHING. I woudl venture to guess having that on film can be worth something when they claim how much extra staff they need ...

just a thought

Here is what I have to say about the NPS and their new expenses..
Them, Them..... you guys know the rest! Perrine ROCKS, 24-7-365, and NO FEES. Enough said!
321CYA
Sitflybaseboy