Basejumper.com - archive

I am writing an essay on "Civil Disobedience" ( Yosemite 1999,)and I found this article while seeking backing for my argument.
I found so many of the comments made by climbers, and explanations detailing the risks of climbing similar to BASE that I had to post it.
~There has to be a way to change the law which BASE is prosecuted under in Yosemite, Mike and Brian (rip) did it in '66 legally.We should be able to in '06.
RIP. Jan Davis, who died today, seven years ago, protesting the unjust law prohibiting BASE in National Parks.
"If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison...the State will not hesitate which to choose." -Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
http://www.yosemite.org/...004/april/040804.htm
~J
~Just a side thought:
The statements detailed in the law which BASE is prosecuted under, and the management policy (8.2.2.7.) which states that BASE is not an appropriate public use activity seem to make conflicting statements. If it is inappropriate use of National(OUR!) park land, then why is it allowed with a permit? Does the aerial delivery law show how BASE is inappropriate use of land? if the answer is no then why are we prosecuted under such a harsh, and unfair law? Maybe (save the flames for "the man") BASE deserves at -the very least-it's own law of which the punishment suits the "crime."Possibly a small fine. Baby steps. Maybe this has been tried, i don't know. I'm just attempting to think critically...and stir shit up!
Knowledge is power.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/...tion_use/chap3-1.htm

That's the catch-22 - it's okay if you get a permit, you just can't get a permit because it's not "an appropriate use" as determined by the bureacrats. However, even hang gliders have made great inroads there.


No. The aerial delivery law says nothing about BASE. IT doesn't care what is delivered. In that sense it is broad. The inappropriate use portion is just guidance by the NPS - their policy. You can't get charged with anything by it, it just tells park managers not to permit BASE.



To paraphrase Geore Mallory, "Because the law is there." Honestly, that's all there is to it.


There are lengthy discussions about this already on here. Nobody agrees on what BASE "needs." Each person has his or her own reason for doing it. Some like the unregulated and stealth approach while others would appreciate freer access in exchange for regulation.

From what I know about Jan Thomas's incident, it was a protest that went horribly wrong. Like anything, the Rangers weren't going to stop them from jumping, just arrest them and confiscate their gear after they jumped.

The other alternative is to sneak out and huck yourself in private. To each his or her own.

<<stir shit up
>>The other alternative is to sneak out and huck yourself in private. To each his or her own.

Which is said by every person punished for something or by every victim.

Drunk drivers get nailed too hard most of the time. Speeders can expect it to cost them a few hundred bucks. And unauthorized air delivery can cause someone to expect to get fined a couple of thousand dollars, lose their gear and spent a night in the can.

I agree that the law is ludicrous - as I wrote, jumpers get charged with unauthorized air delivery because it's there. When the first jumpers got pinched for jumping, the rangers figured, "They must have done something wrong." The closest thing they could find was "unauthorized air delivery." Since they were successful using it, there ain't no need to write another law.

Really, it's all there is to it.

Really, it's all there is to it.

What I've said here has been said before. Look here for some thoughts on how to do it. [urlhttp://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1728921#1728921 Of note in this thread is how many people have different thoughts and different ways to do it.

Oh, and here's another idea of mine:http://www.dropzone.com/...post=1474456#1474456

Note the lengthy discussions on this topic. My points are not all mine, but I have distilled what others have written.

By reading those threads you'll see that different people have different thoughts and ideas because each has a different priority and a different level of experience with different entitities. Jason's ideas and experiences will be different than Tom's will be different than Avery's will be different from Nick's.

 > Note the lengthy discussions on this topic. My points are not all mine, but I have distilled what others have written.

I think your points are valid, but they are points that work for you. That's all. Nothing wrong or negative about that, just people do things differently.

Trust me - I developed my bitterness long before I moved to Fre-Yes. I just fit in better here.

I was busted for a night jump off El Cap, I think 1983, with four other Arizona jumpers. We were the first busted for a night jump. During the court hearing, the Honorable Judge Pitts himself questioned whether an "unlawful aerial delivery" was the proper charge. The prosecuter, a dickhead who's name escapes me now, wanted additional charges for "interfering with an emergency medical evacuation" added to the bill. A sunset jumper had been injured and long since evacuated when we jumped at midnight.
Final disposition was $300 and 6 mos. unsupervised probation, $50 dollars more than the going rate of &250 for previous day jumpers nailed at Yosemite, and we got our gear back ... Ahhhhhhhhh, the good old days.

I understand Judge Pitts lives abotu 5 miles from the valley now. He's retired now, having been in the Los Angeles Superior Court..

I remember when he retired. A bunch of us El Cap convicts sent him cards of congratulation when he ended his career as a federal judge. Got a nice note back from him thanking me for the card.
He was a smokejumper for a year or two until he injured his back on a jump. Had a photo of him in smokejumper gear coming down to land in his courtroom/office.
After our "case" was tried, he told us that he was actually present in the El Cap meadow showing some relatives from back east the cliff face by moolight when we jumped and got arrested.
He said, "I'd just finished telling them that we had these crazy skydivers sneaking into the park and jumping off the mountain. They said they'd love to see that and I explained to them that it was illegal and not likely to happen when we heard someone scream "blue sky or something," and here came the parachutes."
I kind of liked Judge Pitts.

Interesting that you picked up on the 'conflicting statements' between the regulation (36 CFR 2.17(a)(3)) and the 2001 Management Policies. When NPS wrote the conflicting section 8.2.2.7 of the Management Policies, it put into writing its long-standing management policy which it had denied existed: that - regardless of the permit provisions of 36 CFR 2.17(a)(3) - NPS was not going to issue a permit.

You will also be interested to know that the 2001 Management Policies are now outdated. Through the support of its membership, the Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists successfully argued for change of Section 8.2.2.7 during the NPS' re-write of its 2006 Management Policies. The new controlling version of the Management Policies reads as follows:

Section 8.2.2.7 - Parachuting

Parachuting (or BASE jumping), whether from an aircraft, structure, or natural feature, is generally prohibited by 36 CFR 2.17(a)(3). However, if determined through a park planning process to be an appropriate activity, it may be allowed pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

The ABP accomplished several key changes in this re-write. First, it removes the outright prohibition from the management policies and places the decision-making authority BACK into the hands of the superintendents, whom we feel are best-suited to make management decisions affecting their parks, not NPS headquarters. Next, the ABP argued that the, "not an appropriate public use activity," language in the 2001 version (and a couple of the 2006 draft versions) automatically stigmatized the activity from the outset of any planning negotiations; this was subsequently changed in the final draft, as you can see. Finally, the Management Policies re-write afforded the ABP an opportunity to forge new relationships with policymakers from the top down and the bottom up. There is no doubt (to me, at least) that we are now significantly farther along the path toward gaining access than ever before.

I invite you to check out our Archives section on the ABP website: The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists

There you will find many documents related to the fight for access and the history of access in context.

Hope this helps your essay. Contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Gardner Sapp
executive director
The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists, Inc.
gardner@backcountryparachutists.org

there have been lengthy discussions in this forum discussing many of your points. did you attempt to research them? where they not clear?

[sigh]

>Hope this helps your essay...
~ Heh, yeah, thanks a pants full, now I have to go back and change everything
But seriously, good shit.
Thanks for the info.
~J

What if you are about to visit a NP in the off season? Should jumpers just start flooding the specific parks with permit applications and requests to begin "appropriate use trials"?

What is the next step now that the wording on aerial delivery has changed?