I want your opinion on the NPS & BASE

[lawrocket 3]

Here's a lawyer talking...

There's plenty of good advice here, but I'd like to help make it a little better. Read the links that I provided in detail and use the information in them to make your applications.

First, this jumping requires a "special use permit." When the superintendent reviews the application for a special use permit, he/she must use the requirements of 36 CFR 2.50. This provides you, therefore, with what your request for a permit should say. Run through factors (a)(1)-(a)(6) and state how and why BASE does none of the following.

Also note that special events— such as sports, pageants, regattas, public spectator attractions, entertainment, ceremonies, and encampments— may be permitted by the superintendent when (1) there is a meaningful association between the park area and the event, and (2) the event will contribute to visitor understanding of the significance of the park area. This is important because inherent in the policy is discretion by the superintendent to deny a permit that meets those two criteria.

It would possibly be helpful to include the names of ground crew and other support staff to show that you have a well organized and thought out sporting event. Look here for guidance on this. While past the sunset date, this shows the NPS way of thinking. In your application, you should not only explain why BASE jumping is not consistent with the "prohibited uses" but also why there is a meaningful association and visitors can get a better understanding of the park, i.e., "BASE jumping can give a visual representation of the magnitude of the glacial events that carved out this valley. Park visitors, already in awe at the majesty of the cliff can also enjoy the spectacle of seeing a canopy gracefully emerge and float another person to safety in the beauty of the meadow."

Also note that they aren't worried about Congress. At the end of the third paragraph of the introduction a concern is stated regarding judicial intervention. If you can show that the NPS denied the permit request for reasons that are not founded in sound logic or as a result of personal motivation, then a Court can order re-consideration of the permit application. A court cannot order an administrative agency to issue a permit. Rather, it can only order an agency to reconsider the application consistent with the court's criteria.

For the NPS to withstand this challenge, they must have carefully documented all reasons for the denial. For this, they must show that each application for a permit is given its own consideration. This is why a form application is a bad idea. Every jumper out there should submit his/her own application identifying their own facts that support why the permit should be granted. These facts should all be linked to the established criteria in the rules I've provided for you.

When the NPS starts receiving logically sound applications stating good reasons why a permit should be issued, or showing no good reason why it should not be issued - based on their own guidelines - the tide may start to change.

Here is an example of a sample application format. Also, contact the local NPS rep to find out what the application fees are. Wouldn't it suck to have an application denied because you didn't pay a processing fee? Letters ain't no good unless accompanied by payment. This also makes an arbitrary and capricious denial tougher for the NPS to do, since you've made a bona fide payment.

You also need to be aware that the superintendent has in its power the discretion to require insurance, bonds, etc. As Tom pointed out, this may be a Catch-22. However, if you can get the appropriate permit with time to get the insurance, this may be a way around, assuming there is an insurer available to cover it.

The way to make an impact is to start showing the NPS that you've properly and adequately researched their requirements and shown how BASE jumping should be permitted according to the application of their own rules! Be knowledgeable and use the system as it already is. Congressional involvement should be set up, but do so after establishing a record of denials that shows the arbitrary nature of the denials.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[bps 0]

Hi lawrocket --

Thank you so much for your informative and well thought out posts. You've raised a string of valid points and in my opinion, you are spot-on with your advice.

If I ever make it out to Central California, or if you make it out to Idaho, let me know and a steak and a beer is on me!

Cheers,

Bryan

[dynastar81 0]

For special use permits in Yosemite: http://www.nps.gov/yose/trip/sup.pdf

Park Management website: http://www.nps.gov/yose/manage/

and a geological virtual tour of the park: http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/ghayes/roadside.htm

Pat

[lawrocket 3]

Sample Application:

Applicant Name: Joe Snuffy
Organization Name: None
Social Security: 123-45-6789
Tax ID: None
Street/Address: 123 Big Wall Drive
City/State/Zip Code: 00000

Telephone #: 559-559-5599

Description of Proposed Activity (attach diagram):

A parachute jump from El Capitan. Unauthorized air delivery is prohitied by 36 CFR 1002.17. However, 36 CFR 2.50 provides that the superintendent may authorize air delivery pursuant to a special use permit. 16 USC 1-4 provides the superintendent with authority to issue this permit. This use is consistent with the purpose of this park to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." (16 USC 1). This is for the enjoyment of the park without having negative repurcussions on the scenery and historical objects and wild life therein pursuant to the Code.

It is understood that permit may be construed as a benefit to an individual, group or organization, rather than the public at large. However, public benefits exist as stated below.

This will be a sporting event pursuant to 36 CFR 2.50(a). it will not cause damage or injury to park resources. It will also not be contrary to recreational enjoyment of the park or interfere with the atmosphere of peace or tranquility of the wilderness. No interference with public use or administrative activities will occur, nor will public safety be endangered. This activity does not conflict with other uses of the park.

Furthermore, this event has a meaningful association with the park. In no other location can such an activity be performed. This park is meant to be enjoyed for all of its natural resources. Unlike rock climbing, there will be no alterations or environmental damage to the face of the rock. Like hang gliding, the natural beauty of the park can be accentuated by the color of the canopies flying gracefully to a precision landing in an area of the meadow designated for public use or right of way, to be approved by the superintendent.

I understand that other requirements may be necessary for the issuance of this permit pursuant to 36 CFR 2.50(c) but request that such requirements take into account the low risk of liability and/or damage to the park. I am prepared to post a bond of $5,000 to cover the potential costs for rescue and recovery. I also would encourage the park to issue requirements of having my equipment checked prior to this event with a certification from a rigger that it is airworthy.

I also propose conditions of the permit to include limitations on wind speed, wind direction and other weather phenomena. I propose that this jump only be permitted in winds under 12 miles per hour, blowing from the southwesterly to southeaterly direction, to be approved by ranger staff. Also, no more than an 8 second delay prior to deployment.

I also request permission to have photographers present, up to and including freefall photographers with helmet-mounted camera.

Requested Location: El Capitan, exit point located on diagram (selected because it is the least technical exit point, and therefore safest). Landing area _______ of the meadow, as indicated on the attached map, requested due to its designated use as a public right of way.

Date (s): April 18-21, 2005

Event set up will begin April 18, 2005 and end April 21, 2005, when removal will be done.

Maximum Number of Participants: 12
Maximum Number of Vehicles: 4, to park in lot ____.

Support Equipment (list all equipment): Parachute rigs, altimeters, helmets, cameras, first aid kits, tents, van (for emergency evacuation), food and drink items, portable kitchen and trash receptacles.

Support Personnel: Ground crews (1 EMT qualified), event organizer to act as NPS liaison.

Individual in charge of the event on-site (include address, telephone and cell numbers): Joe Snuffy

Is this an exercise of First Amendment Rights? No.

Are you familiar with/have you visited the requested area Yes.

Do you plan to advertise or issue a press release? No.

Will you distribute printed material? No.

Is there any reason to believe there will be attempts to disrupt, protest or prevent your event? (if yes explain on separate sheet) No.

The applicant by his or her signature certifies that all the information given is complete and correct, and that no false or misleading information or false statements have been given.

Signature: Joe Snuffy Date: February 10, 2005.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Here's a lawyer talking...

No, here's a lawyer who doesn't have any clients coming in the door.

Just funnin' ya.
Good post. My personal opinion is that dealing with bureaucrats, you're much more likely to have a favorable response, if they like you. Sort of the "you get more flies with honey ..." concept. There's no implication that BASE jumpers aren't likeable, but some decision-makers at NPS (Yosemite) obviously have sand in their vagina (the thread about the Paragliders said it all). I said this in another thread, the locals at Yosemite need to work on developing relationships with the NPS. If you go the legal route, just remember the Feds have more money that all jumpers put together. You can fight city hall, but it's really expensive.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

No, here's a lawyer who doesn't have any clients coming in the door.

Hey. I'm home with my kid this morning. I'll be swamped this afternoon.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I wonder how many issued permits they would have to show to successfully argue that it wasn't a blanket policy?

No idea - that depends on your local legal system.

Your first steps though should be to make full use of the permit system that's supposed to be in place. Working with the other side is always going to produce far better results than trying to force them into letting you do what you want.

Only if the NPS proves themselves to be entirely unwilling to ever consider BASE permits should you even think about how you can prod them into thinking out the legality of their policies.

With any luck even if they do have an arbitary rejection policy, a stedy stream of sensible and well worded applications as detailed by lawrocket might make them re-think the issue.

[DexterBase 0]

This thread is getting to be rather interesting.

If we were to submit this application and it was denied, what would be the next step?

(Please don't submit an application with an 8 second delay from that exit point!!! You can take a much healthier delay. In fact, a longer delay is safer there. A wingsuit jumper will be quite bothered to be dumping at 8 seconds there. I'm kidding, I realize the application sample is just for an example.)

[freakydiver 0]

I'm personally not a big fan of allowing much more than hiking in national parks to be honest with you. They are meant to be kept as "original" as possible in terms of environment - the more usage, the more impact, the more impact, the less the park is like its original environment.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[DexterBase 0]

What about the fact that you can buy a pizza in Yosemite valley? What about all the stores and gift shops? The paved streets and parking lots? You know they have a jail in Yosemite national park?

What devastation to the park are you going to see with a couple hundred BASE jumpers waling around in comparison to the tens of thousands of hikers and tourists?

[lawrocket 3]

Hey. I found a couple of other valuable resources. However, I don't know how to unzip things.

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM53contents.doc - this is the table of contents for Reference Manual 53.

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM53.zip - the actual reference manual. Note that Chapter 8 explains exactly how they go about issuing permits. This is basically the long-form (tha is, much more detailed) version of the Director's Order 53. If someone can unzip some key provisions and post it, it would certainly be helpful!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If we were to submit this application and it was denied, what would be the next step?

I would guess that you can ask for a memorandum of explanation regarding the reasons why the permit was denied. Then you can send another correspondence explaining the issues for which they denied it. Of course, they may not want to send an explanation.

The other thing you can do is challenge it by filing a suit in a federal court alleging that the government used improper standards to deny the permit. (I'm admitted to practice in Yosemite's courthouse, by the way). Then get the judge to order reconsideration consistent with the judge's instructions.

Using the lawsuit, you may be able to get any internal memos indicating a blanket policy against BASE via subpoena (which is expensive, though, like the lawsuit would be).


edited to add: http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp/chapter8.htm#BASE

It appears that Congressional or Regulatory intervention may be necessary given this rather short and decisive declaration.

Let's wrack our brains to think of some back-up positions...

edited again to add look at this. http://www.nps.gov/renew/10-114.doc. It's an actual fillable special use permit. On the last page (Code 2173) it indicates that Parachuting may be allowable for a short-term designation. I am forced to conclude that NPS policy towards parachuting and BASE jumping on park lands is ambiguous, at best.

But it looks like parachuting is actually included as an activity for which a permit may be given. Why not fill out that permit and submit with the request? It will, after all, make it easier on the superintendent.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

What about the fact that you can buy a pizza in Yosemite valley? What about all the stores and gift shops? The paved streets and parking lots? You know they have a jail in Yosemite national park?

I'm assuming that freakydiver would rather not have those things, either. It's not my position, but I do understand.

Freakydiver, what do you think of the idea of seasonal restrictions, to keep the outdoor recreation in the low season?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[freakydiver 0]

See that is a really tough call, but as I do work in the environmental science field, I tend to really lean towards a very conservative view in terms of national park usage based on what I've learned over the past few years. Although - I think everyone should have access to all National Parks at all times as long as it is ON trail and as long as they bought a park pass.

You have to understand the basis for designating an area a National Park - the whole basis is to keep the area as close to its original state as can be. There are tons of outside forces that drive that though. I think this is one of the reasons you see what you see in Yosemite as well as other very popular Parks such as Yellowstone. Look at all of the man made stuff in Yellowstone. That stuff really irritates me, but at the same time, if those shops aren't there, you don't get the visitor numbers and you dont get the income you need to keep a park like that running....

Dex - I fully understand what you are saying about Yosemite and disagree with alot of that stuff as well. I want my National Parks to all be like Canyonlands in Utah which has very little "additions" to it - but obviously, that isn't the "perfect" world we live in.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

You have to understand the basis for designating an area a National Park - the whole basis is to keep the area as close to its original state as can be.

I thought Parks were supposed to be for the recreation of the people?

Aren't Conservation Areas and Wilderness Areas supposed to be the ones that stay pristine?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[freakydiver 0]

You are correct, I just tend to lump them all together when it comes to usage since they all are federally funded accessible lands...

My point is, I want my parks to stay as close to their original state as possible which is really only attainable by keeping traffic as limited as possible. Just my opinion...

National Park Service

A federal agency whose mission is "...to promote and regulate the use of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[tfelber 0]

Letter to Congressman, DONE!

The form for Yosemite asks for trailhead info, could someone please supply that? Also, there is a $5 reservation fee. Is this billed whether your permit is approved or not?

I have several family members and friends involved in local and state governments in several states, how can they offer the most assistance since this is really a federal matter?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

The form for Yosemite asks for trailhead info, could someone please supply that?

Where did you say you wanted to jump?

You're either going to want to list Happy Isles trail head, Glacier Point trail head, Yosemite Creek Campground trail head or Yosemite Falls trail head.

Send me a PM if you want specific info about which trailheads for which exits.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[NickDG 23]

>>My point is, I want my parks to stay as close to their original state as possible which is really only attainable by keeping traffic as limited as possible. Just my opinion...<<

I agree with the above. But, the problem is this. As it stands now there is a legal mechanism in place that allows you to:

-Kill fish and animals.
-Hang glide.
-Climb
-Hike
-Swim
-Camp
And so on . . .

If the NPS ended all that tomorrow they wouldn't hear another peep out of me about jumping. (Unless they caught me .)

Another issue is people can do the above things almost anywhere else in the country. For us, El Cap and Half Dome are the only accessible cliffs of their type in the lower 48 states. Compared to Yosemite, the rest of the country might as well be a billiard table.

It's way past the time for a legal "BASE Week" in Yosemite. Something the NPS can gear up for. They can warn visitors, ahead of time, not to drive into the sequoia trees when they see a parachute. We could (at El Cap) land on the road (with experienced BASE jumpers acting as road guards in conjunction with Rangers) instead of in the meadow, or even shave a few seconds off the bottom end, and land over on the sand bar.

We, of all Yosemite users, have a legitimate claim to it's "there" or nowhere. And how many more jumpers have to bust their humps jumping that silly little hill in So Cal just because they needed an "E."

We are being excluded . . .

It must change and it must change right now as us elder ones, the ones who have waited the longest, are soon going to be flat lining just from the hike up.

Aerial Delivery is a Birthright . . .

NickD BASE 194

[freakydiver 0]

I fully agree with you Nick - my statements would be in the perfect world... We dont live in the perfect world. As much as I'd like to see parks stay really locked down, I must admit, I'd also like to see alot of my friends get accesss...

My question is - if Bridge Day is approved by the NPS (not sure if this is the case) and events like Colorado's Royal Gorge can occur, I think its high time BASERs UNITE and get the NPS to do exactly what you say - approve a week long BASE week for these parks. If you were to control the week and the access, then you could lay down a good set of ground rules on lzs and access points. Most of the basers I know respect nature quite heavily and I wouldn't see them breaking the rules...

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[jalisco 0]

Quote

edited to add: http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp/chapter8.htm#BASE

It appears that Congressional or Regulatory intervention may be necessary given this rather short and decisive declaration.

Let's wrack our brains to think of some back-up positions...

edited again to add look at this. http://www.nps.gov/renew/10-114.doc. It's an actual fillable special use permit. On the last page (Code 2173) it indicates that Parachuting may be allowable for a short-term designation. I am forced to conclude that NPS policy towards parachuting and BASE jumping on park lands is ambiguous, at best.

The "parachuting" that they apparently occasionally allow is from aircraft, and the policy declaration you site discusses "BASE jumping" in particular.

I think this is pretty clearly irrational, since somewhat more destructive use of the cliffs is allowed (climbing), and parachuting is also occasionally allowed. One can only assume that the policy, given the declaration is not accompanied by any justification, in fact has no justification.

[base428 1]

Nick, that line about the old guys "flatlining from the hike up" is priceless. Anyway, in case anyone needs to see the last four Bridge Day Permits in PDF format, you now have the link.

Quote

It must change and it must change right now as us elder ones, the ones who have waited the longest, are soon going to be flat lining just from the hike up.

(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only

[bps 0]

Gosh, I love the snowball effect. We're getting some real momentum here!

I'll join in on the effort after make it through the next 48 hours at work. Tom, I'll be in touch this weekend...

Bryan

[MWGemini 0]

From the research that I've been doing (for my paper and in general), it seems that there is a long standing feud between the NPS and BASE jumpers. Some examples:

1980- The NPS, in cooperation with the USPA, legalizes jumping for a period of about three months, but changes their policy to prevent jumping after several jumpers are injured, as well as the damage the jumpers were doing to the park (apparently they were leaving too much trash behind).

November 23, 1998- Dan Osman dies on rope freefall jump from the Leaning Tower in Yosemite.

June 9, 1999- Frank Gambalie drowns in the Merced river (again in Yosemite) after completing a successful jump from El Cap, while being chased by park rangers. Some sources say this jump was a memorial to Dan Osman.

October 22, 1999- Jan Davis dies when her (borrowed) BASE rig has a total malfunction. According to NickD's site, Jan was jumping with a leg throw out system and did not react in time to the change in equipment (she was used to jumping a BOC system). This jump was a planned protest jump to protest the NPS' policy on BASE, and stemmed in part from Gambalie's death.

This is just a brief (and probably not entirely accurate) list of a few links in the chain of why the NPS and BASE jumpers do not get along. From what I can tell, the only time the NPS issues permits is Bridge Day, which is obviously an exception to the rule.
From BlincMagazine.com, article 36 CFR 2.17:

Quote

(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

From the 2001 NPS Management Policy:

Quote

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. 17( 3)

So officially, it is only illegal if you don't have a permit. It seems they refuse to issue permits, however, with the exception of Bridge Day (if anyone knows of any other permits that have been issued, please let me know), based in part on past incidents/transgressions.

Perhaps if a regulatory body, such as the USBA, could convince the NPS that we would all be better off with regulated, legalized jumping, even on a trial basis, we could get somewhere. I think the sport has become big enough that "we" stand a reasonable chance of effecting a change in NPS policy, but it may mean making sacrifices as a community. Part of it won't be such a big deal (clean up after yourself, don't leave trash at exit points, etc), but some things may be a problem (the "death camps" that Tom A. has mentioned are a serious threat to the general image of BASE jumpers and can do nothing but harm the prospects of getting it legalized).

From a legal perspective, I think that we need to find established precedents where legal jumping has been beneficial (and I plan on speaking with the Fayetteville, WV chamber of commerce about this), in addition to showing that the policy as it currently stands is actually making it more dangerous for the jumpers involved (the deaths of Jan Davis and Frank Gambalie are evident of this- if anyone knows of more, please let me know).

There are other incidences (with climbing, as well) where the NPS and the community they are regulating have been opposing each other for a long time, and it is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. They make it illegal, but we do it anyway, so they get the impression we are a bunch of criminals and refuse to legalize it. Education is probably our strongest weapon, but how do you educate someone (the NPS) who doesn't want to listen?

Mike

Edit: typo

[PhreeZone 15]

Quote

(apparently they were leaving too much trash behind).

LOL, if thats it I think you need to do better research. You never found the whole part about the Flatbed group taking the truck up roads they should have been on just to save the hike? Trash is a detractor, but taking a large flatbed truck full of people up closed roads is a major offence.

I would bet you Hang Gliding would be banned too in a heartbeat if groups of hang gliders started taking trucks off road to make it easier to get to exit points.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com