Basejumper.com - archive

Got this e-mail today and thought it should be displayed publicly (I hope I'm not repeating it, if so.....sorry).


Dear ABP Action Alert subscribers:

It has come ot our attention that many of you are submitting comments to the draft 2006 NPS Management Policies during the public comment period which ends February 18, 2006.

This message is to caution you against submitting comments to the draft management policies document: there is no need to do so because NPS Headquarters HAS REMOVED the BASE jumping prohibition language at 8.2.2.7, and any comments submitted may cause NPS to REPLACE section 8.2.2.7 in the final document.

With your help, the ABP was successful in convincing the NPS to remove the section on BASE jumping from its management policies on the premise that it was:

1. discriminatory because no other recreational user group had to jump the additional hurdle of seeking a Director\'s waiver to the management policies for access.
2. not necessary because NPS already had enough authority to regulate backcountry parachuting under section 8.2.2.4, Backcountry Use, and 36 CFR 2.17.
3. removed from superintendents the discretion to allow an activity in their individual units, where such decision could be more thoughtfully made.

The ABP realizes that all of you are anxious to gain access to public lands for backcountry parachuting, and we appreciate your efforts in commenting on the proposed 2006 draft, but this is not the appropriate time or venue to submit comments related to backcountry parachuting. Please refrain from submitting comments as doing so may jeopardize the work you and the ABP have accomplished thus far. We will keep you abrest of any news when it truly is a news item; right now we must be patient and wait until the final 2006 Management Policies comes out - minus the old 8.2.2.7 section on BASE jumping.

The ABP is already in consultation with various target units of the NPS; as soon as the final 2006 NPS Management Policies is released without the language on BASE jumping at 8.2.2.7, it will enter the next phase of access to public lands for backcountry parachutists: unit-level recreation use planning. At that time we will notify you and ask that you submit comments to those efforts. THAT IS WHERE YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE BEST FOCUSED AND HEARD.

We appreciate your enthusiasm and look forward to delivering good news in the near future. Until then, please sit tight!

Sincerely,
K. Gardner Sapp
Executive Director
The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists, Inc.
P.O. Box 38202
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
gardner@backcountryparachutists.org


Jason Dawson
Colorado Director
The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists Colorado, Inc.
jason@backcountryparachutists.org

Right.

As long as this is going to turn into a forum debate:


I find it incredibly ironic that the ABP is now sending out messages asking people not to give comments to the NPS.

The irony is stunning because:

a) The ABP has stated that they have no desire or need to interact with the greater BASE community;

and

b) The ABP did pretty much exactly that (i.e. started a letter writing and comment campaign) against the wishes of the "man on the ground" (Jason Bell) to directly lobby the NPS about Bridge Day.


Why wouldn't the ABP want other BASE jumpers to voice their opinions to the NPS?

It sounds to me like somebody has control issues.

!"any comments
submitted may cause NPS to REPLACE section 8.2.2.7 in the final document."
Sounds like a threats and intimidation to me. Exactly what I would expect from those chicken siht NPS pricks

I'll call your quote hearsay. if either gentlemen had wished to restrain the BASE community, they could have posted their comments themselves.

the quote does raise a point...
if you wish to comment, please make relevant comments.

for example:
don't insist they remove language that no longer exists.

do thank them for removing the language. i.e. show support for changes you like.

why not use this comment period as an opportunity to give positive feedback?

but please, ensure your comments relate to the document first!

i got the same e-mail, would you like me to forward it to you.

got the same email also

no.

if they WANTED widespread distribution of their thoughts, they know how to post. I'll respect and honor their decision.

it appears they choose NOT wish to engage the greater community. as Tom mention, it looks like a control thing. it's their party, they can invite whoever they want...

The ABP is now contradicting themselves again, since they suggested we send in our comments in an October 19, 2005 Forum post:

a) send in comments supporting the deletion of the policy prohibiting backcountry parachuting AND THANKING NPS for ending its institutionalized access discrimination against backcountry parachutists....

The ABP's recent attack against NickDG and I in Skydiving Magazine clearly shows their true colors. Every BASE jumper is at risk of becoming their next victim in their attempt to become the saviours of our sport.

AFAIK, they sent it to everyone who has signed up for their mailing list.

There was nothing on the copy I received to indicate it's top secret, eyes only, delete and reformat your hard-drive after reading.

Adding to what Jason said, I have faith in Gardner, but I'm truly disturbed by the company he's keeping at the present time, and I don't think it bodes well for anyone who cares about base.

rl

What a joke. Its almost illegal its so funny.

ok, can someone give us non base jumpers a brief background here? from my outsider viewpoint, it appears that you have abp and the general base community fighting for the same thing. there also appears to be tension between the two entities. it seems to me that the base community as a whole is small enough that and infighting could be detrimental to the cause that everyone is fighting for. the first priority should be to get everyone on the same page and present a united front. like i said, this is and outsider's point of view and i could be way off base. if that is the case, please ducate me.

There is a long thread about some of these issues in the forum here.

If you want more info than the thread has, feel free to drop me a PM. I ended up typing out a bunch of this stuff the other day, and kept a copy, but I don't really want to flood this thread with it.

I definitely, and very strongly, agree with you. When I suggested this to the ABP, they were very clear that this is not one of their objectives.

 

sounds like what is needed is someone with a long standing reputation for honesty and integrity to stand up and lead the charge. if abp doesn't want to work with another organization or the base community as a whole, hopefully they could at least agree not to undermine or work against anyone else that share the same goals.

I nominate ELCAP #1 and #2

Colin,

When Tom Aiello, myself, and a few others were "removed" from the ABP in July 2005, I pretty much told the ABP that they can do their thing and I'll do mine. I simply asked that they stay out of my way and I'll stay out of theirs. Over the last six months, I even sent them information that was helpful in our fight to open up our parks.

But, they obviously can't refrain from unprovoked attacks on other jumpers in order to build themselves up. Robin Heid is the leader in that group, and his history is well known to anyone who's been around awhile.

For several months now, I've remained quiet about the Skydiving Mag attacks. I wasn't even going to bring it up. However, since it's been brought up by others, should I just sit back and let the misinformed ABP attempt to smear the names of NickDG and I so they can get noticed and attract unsuspecting members? I bust my ass organizing Bridge Day and fighting for jumper rights. I do what is right for JUMPERS in support of maintaining and expanding access. It's hard to believe that the ABP complained about my NPS LZ fee increase protest when the ABP themselves attempted to help me with a customized letter writing system! And the ABP knows absolutely nothing about what really happened regarding the last minute NPS million dollar liability policy, yet they found time to complain about it in Skydiving Mag. Does the ABP even know that Congressman Rahall got involved due to all the media hype, which resulted from a public BDC meeting. No, the ABP doesn't know the facts because I never told anyone every detail.

We all have the same goals of gaining more access to our National Parks. Heck, as a member of the ABP Board of Directors from 2004-2005, I put hundreds of hours of my free time into developing their website and even that fancy letter writing system that has been so helpful. I fully support the efforts of the ABP to open up our parks, but if they are going to attack other jumpers in the process, then there will be problems.

I know a guy who is (a) a BASE elder, (b) trusted by BASE jumpers all over the world with confidential, and potentially sensitive personal information, (c) very familiar with government regulations from a career working in and out of government, and (d) the only lawyer who has ever beaten the NPS on an aerial delivery charge. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for him), he's also way too smart to get sucked into this morass.

I nominate Tom Aiello!!!!!!

He usually has answers within 15-20 minutes of a question getting posted...

I am still having issues even acknowledging the NPS and their rules.

Who the f- are these jokers anyways?

BASE, a truly victimless crime...

Hello --

This has been a long standing problem in the BASE community and I'm not sure it will go away.

I was initially excited when the ABP came out. There were many people involved that I know and trust, except for one -- and that was Robin Heid. Pretty much every endeavor that Robin has been involved with (and there are several) has ended up in controversy and drama. I can't (and won't) judge him personally, but I'm simply stating what I have observed over the last 10 years. So when the ABP came out, I had my reservations. Unfortunately, my reservations were confirmed when virtually every board member was kicked out of the ABP by Robin Heid. As soon as this happenned, I knew it would become a lame duck. And I'm fairly certain that it will travel the same path as the rest of Robin Heid's endeavors. It's a shame too, because I think it was the best effort yet.

With that being said, I wish the ABP as a whole the best of luck, and I hope they succeed. Gardner Sapp is still with them, and I have a lot of respect for him. Gardner has fought many a battle for the BASE community and is a very good guy. I have known Gardner for awhile and stand by him as a friend.

Simply put, I will not put a dime, or a moment of my time, into something that Robin Heid is being involved with until I'm proven wrong by the results of his actions. I have had no personal interaction with him -- I'm simply basing my opinion on what I have seen.

Again, this is not a personal attack -- just an opinion.

Bryan

Which will continue to be the problem.

I don't know Robin, but Bryan's observations are similar to many others in BASE that have been around for a while. We need a "leader" or point man, maybe an attorney, that the majority of the BASE community believes in, and supports completely. Otherwise, all of this mistrust and internal bickering will defeat us forever.

The ABP is a great idea, and a lot of people were very excited on its creation. Seems like now it is a rogue group that has minimal support.

This NPS silliness needs to end ASAP. I am just about ready to buy a velcro rig and a Raven, jump ElCap in a stars and stripes jumpsuit, with an American flag hanging off my ankle, and let a couple of attorneys use it to demonstrate this injustice.

Tom, any realistic ideas for an attorney that would be willing to take this cause?

if the community was believed in the cause enough to support someone with such a long standing bad reputation, imagine how much support someone who is trusted and respected will get. is this something that the aclu would get involved with? i doubt it, but has anybody at least contacted them? also, why does the nps have a hard-on for base jumpers?

the aclu scares me. don't know if thats the kinda publicity we want but i am curious to know if any one has approached them in the past...

they are a scary organization, but this is the exact kind of thing that they claim to be about, so why not call them on it?

 

You can send a case of beer to this address.

It is fortunate that not every one knows the backroom politics that go on in D.C.

In fact the challenge to NPS based on Congressional funding and the intent of 36 CFR has nothing to do with efforts by the ABP or any other "big name" BASE folks presiously mentioned in this thread. The NPS is responding to threats of funding oversight and committee inquiries. If you think otherwise you are mistaken.

Even when Dept of Interior approves the final NPS "use" policy there will be a battle to be fought.


----begin----
That is an awful lot to take credit for, but I do think some credit is due to the ABP. I know of no other individual or group that has put forth the effort to lobby congressmen or the NPS to ultimately remove (though still only from the draft document) section 8.2.2.7. If this is not the case and others can claim responsibility or credit, well, my pat on the back and an awful lot of beer will go to them, as well.
----end----

 

this has been discussed previously. IIRC, the Bush administration is trying to change how the NPS operates. they wish to gain access to more commercial interests, as well as activities like snowmobiling. the NPS has prevented cell towers, mining, etc. the re-write of the code would force the NPS to open up.

'course environmentalists shudder at these thoughts.

I expect neither group is really fighting for BASE, but the most objectionable paragraph disappeared. that doesn't mean the way is clear for jumping. no one knows what they'll require before issuing a permit...

maybe the ABP deserves credit, they certainly wish to claim it. so? until we can jump without risk of arrest, there isn't much to get excited about.

trophyhusband: ..."is this something that the aclu would get involved with?"
----
Quote littlestranger ..."the aclu scares me.:
-
Dude that is the truest understatement of the year. I don't think that BASE jumpers are the kind of Suppressed Minority. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) likes to defend against a simple trampling of Constitutional Rights.
You might get the ACLU to file a Federal law suit for American BASE jumpers. If you were a BASE jumping,Gay/Lesbian same sex Marriage trying to adopt a Black Crack baby. Or a slight chance of representation. If you were a Native American, Deaf & Mute BASE jumping, NAMBLA member. Who was practicing child molestation before he exited out the 25th floor window of high-rise Daycare Center.
The ACLU fighting for a simple & low profile & strait forward issue of BASE jumpers being denied access & being prosecuted for BASE jumping in Federal Park Lands. Land that is basically public property owned by all US citizens. That submitted issue will never get past the secretary in the front office of there corporate headquarters.
.

either pick me or leave me meaning im into BASE becourse of its freedome the only leader im following is ME,this is a PERSONAL sport.. trying to make a leader or group can kill the way of BASE,im not into beeing regulated,i can do so in skyworld if i like..

Nah Ill leave my trust in the NSP cases to the locals,if i can help so i can jump at some point later ill support,but im against leaders or "headgroups".

Of course you´ll need an orginicer at places as BD and i think(even as i might some times dont sound like so)that Jason does a good job there.
I think that thouse who has contact in TF makes a good job aswell..

just my oppinion..

Only the policy has been elided (in draft, but we don't know what the final document will say). The regulation remains: "No aerial delivery."

Unless a policy is implemented that makes an exception to the reg for base jumping, what exactly is the gain here?

After all, just because NPS can no longer point to the policy doesn't mean that it can't continue to prosecute under the reg.

As for the ACLU, what has been implied above by Ray is accurate: base is not controversial enough for it to become involved. That doesn't mean that the base community can't decide to band together and hire counsel to bring a lawsuit on its own behalf.

rl