Basejumper.com - archive

Saw this article and it made me think that BASE in the US could probably use an organization to lobby for them, much like the Access Fund does for the climbing world. Maybe not, either way, this is nothing that hasn't been beat to death on here 100s of times before. Just wanted to share.
http://www.accessfund.org/...13134839&notoc=1

I'm currently working on something of the sort to find out how you can help send me an email at mitch.potter.skis@gmail.com or check out BASE jump Zion on facebook.

Right now, it is a soft and logical discussion that will progress towards the fall season. If things start to move too slowly, it will be time to unleash the hounds and show them how serious of a lobby we can get.

Fixed anchors in many of the areas the article sites have been tolerated for decades. I don't understand the hype.

I think the old ones have been tolerated, but never authorized to be replaced...maybe I don't understand the hype either. The way I read it was that the NPS is now authorizing for routes to be bolted and/or chained.

The fixed anchors that are being discussed are rappel and belay anchors, i.e. anchors that are necessary for retreating off a (sometimes very large) wall. There had been national parks that claimed that fixed anchors were not allowed, even to the extent that some slings left around a chockstone were unacceptable. Each national park has a different policy towards the placement of protection bolts which is separate and distinct from the discussion of fixed anchors.

And the conclusion that allowing fixed anchors is logically inconsistent with not allowing BASE is just absurd.

Okay. Guess that sums it up.

Don't miss the point I was trying (not very hard) to make though; which is simply that having a not for profit organization like the access fund is good for climbing in the US, so why not BASE?