RhondaLea 3 #26 September 7, 2005 Quotehttp://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2005/0906/local/stories/07local.htm Proposal: Parks need an update Officials warn against national park development at the expense of natural-resource protection By PARIS ACHEN Mail Tribune A set of proposed revisions to national park policy could open Crater Lake and other national parks to cell-phone towers, snowmobiles and private water craft. National Park Service employees warn the changes, proposed by the Department of the Interior, would alter the main mission of the agency by rolling back protections for wildlife and natural resources and ushering in development. The changes "would allow uses that could impair parks permanently and change the entire purpose for why national parks were established," said George Buckingham, former chief ranger at Crater Lake National Park. Park Service officials in Washington, D.C., say the proposal is only one of several sets of revisions they are considering to help bring national parks up to date. Specifically, it was intended to provoke dialogue about management policies, said David Barna, a Park Service spokesman. The changes are the creation of Paul Hoffman, who oversees the park service as deputy assistant secretary of the interior. Hoffman was appointed to the position in January 2002 after serving as executive director of the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce in Cody, Wyo., and state director for then-U.S. Rep. Dick Cheney from 1985 to 1989. Crater Lake National Park officials declined to surmise how the proposed revisions would affect Oregon’s only national park, located on 183,224 acres in Klamath County. "Until you actually take the regulation and put it in practice, you don’t really know how it will affect Crater Lake," said spokesman Michael Justin. But former Park Service employees say the changes would conflict with much of the work happening at Crater Lake, including a project to relocate parking away from the rim to improve the view of the lake. If Hoffman’s proposal is adopted, "you could put ski boats on the lake," Buckingham said. "There are already people who object to concession boats on the lake. "Snowmobiles could potentially go on every paved road in the park." Park Service management policies are based on congressional intent, case law and the 1916 Organic Act and have given parks the most natural resource protection of any federally managed land. Since 1916, the Park Service has been charged with maintaining parks "unimpaired" for future generations. Park officials have the authority to ban an activity they determine may lead to impairment. Under Hoffman’s proposal, the definition of impairment would change from "an impact to any park resource or value (that) may constitute an impairment" to one that can be proved to "irreversibly harm" resources. The Tucson, Ariz.-based Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, headed by Bill Wade, former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, is opposing the potential changes, which were leaked last week. The coalition has about 400 members. The move to revise the policies was prompted by a congressional request in 2002 and increasing public demand for modern comforts and activities in parks, such as cell phone reception, base jumping and geocaching, Barna said. A group of 16 Park Service employees are working to come up with recommendations for policy changes. Hoffman’s proposal is not the basis for the recommendations, Barna said. Park Service Director Fran Mainella will have final say on what draft is published in the Federal Register for public comment. Barna said the draft could be out as soon as the end of September. Mainella, the Department of the Interior and Congress could ultimately all play a part in which version is adopted. "Regardless of what happens in redrafting, the Department of (the) Interior is going to do what it can to get (the Hoffman proposal) in there," Wade said. "It can only be public outcry and influence from Congress that can be brought to bear on this and make the effort to turn it back." Reach reporter Paris Achen at 776-4496 or e-mail [email protected].If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #27 September 7, 2005 I'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of cell phone towers in a national park... being that the idea is to preserve the natural beauty of the land, but opening them up to broader recreational use is definitely a step in the right direction. As a side note, I remember when I was up in Big Sky Montana and there was a lot of discussion about the NPS restricting snowmobiles in Yellowstone. Area folks weren't too happy with the possibility (which never materialized). - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #28 September 7, 2005 QuoteI'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of cell phone towers in a national park... There is already good cell service in many areas of national parks. I get service in both Zion and Yosemite.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #29 September 7, 2005 QuoteI'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of cell phone towers in a national park They aren't cell phone towers. They're osprey nests. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base311 0 #30 September 10, 2005 QuoteQuotehttp://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2005/0906/local/stories/07local.htm Proposal: Parks need an update Officials warn against national park development at the expense of natural-resource protection By PARIS ACHEN Mail Tribune (elements of this news article not particularly pertinent to the purpose of this post were snipped by BASE311) The move to revise the policies was prompted by a congressional request in 2002 and increasing public demand for modern comforts and activities in parks, such as cell phone reception, base jumping and geocaching, Barna said. (more text snipped by 311) Park Service Director Fran Mainella will have final say on what draft is published in the Federal Register for public comment. Barna said the draft could be out as soon as the end of September. Hello jumpers: Want to know how all this came to be? “The move to revise the policies was prompted by a congressional request in 2002 and increasing public demand for modern comforts and activities in parks, such as cell phone reception, base jumping and geocaching, " Barna said. The above is quoted from “Parks need an update,” Medford, Oregon, Mail Tribune, September 6, 2005, by Paris Achen Here's how: http://www.backcountryparachutists.org/chronology.php K. Gardner Sapp Executive Director The Alliance of Backcountry Parachuting, Inc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #31 September 10, 2005 QuoteThe letter writing campaign proved to be decisive. Now NPS was faced not with one Congressman challenging its unfair access practices, but with several congressmen and senators who made inquiries into the situation - and the dozens more who now knew what was going on (whether they responded to a constituent letter or not). By August, when the draft changes to the new Management Policies manual were leaked, backcountry parachuting - while still singled out for unfair regulatory scrutiny compared to other non-powered, non-polluting, recurring recreational activities - was no longer considered an inappropriate public use activity within national park areas, nor was it entirely prohibited by 36 CFR 2.17(3). Since the leaked proposal was made public, the ABP has written to NPS director Mainella (ABP to Director Mainella, September 1, 2005) and to a number of selected superintendents (ABP to selected superintendents, September 2, 2005) of the units in which backcountry parachuting is possible, urging them to take the final step in ending 26 years of access discrimination against backcountry parachutists: Delete Section 8.2.2.7 entirely from both the draft and final versions of the revised Management Policies document. Very Interesting! Thats is what we really need! Federal govt. support! Glad to hear there is progress being made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wwarped 0 #32 September 10, 2005 Quote The move to revise the policies was prompted by a congressional request in 2002 and increasing public demand for modern comforts and activities in parks, such as cell phone reception, base jumping and geocaching, Barna said. is BASE the reason? or just the excuse? can't "increasing public demand for modern comforts" be read as development opportunities? we'll know by governmental action. if new construction quickly begins, while BASE is lost in a quagmire of safety certificates and user fees, we'll know we were only used as a pawn. they needed a poster child and we were it. if jumping begins shortly after they implement these rules, we'll know the lobbying efforts paid off. we'll know that government personel listened. we might want to suggest that they begin implementation of these rules with BASE. we require virtually NO capitol expense, NO infrastructure improvements, and thus NO budget hits. the opponents to the new rules doubtfully object to BASE jumping. we can also be used to show immediate progress. every bureaucrat likes to show progress... DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jasonwhack 0 #33 September 11, 2005 QuoteQuote we might want to suggest that they begin implementation of these rules with BASE. we require virtually NO capitol expense, NO infrastructure improvements, and thus NO budget hits. the opponents to the new rules doubtfully object to BASE jumping. we can also be used to show immediate progress. every bureaucrat likes to show progress... That is exactly what the ABP seeks. Below is a section of the brief proposed to the Utah State Parks Board regarding the ease of which the sport can be introduced into their regulatory system. Right along your lines; "virtually" takes nothing away or add any burden to the system. The legacy is the biggest hurdle. =) ------------ What we Seek We propose that backcountry parachuting in relevant state parks be patterned after the climbing regulations that currently exist in those units. This will lessen the new load on the overall administrative system by creating a sub-system whose basic structure is familiar and already-designed, fine-tuned and implemented. . We feel confident backcountry parachuting has a place in the park systems management plan. ------------Jason Darrow Said "You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wwarped 0 #34 September 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote we might want to suggest that they begin implementation of these rules with BASE. we require virtually NO capitol expense, NO infrastructure improvements, and thus NO budget hits. the opponents to the new rules doubtfully object to BASE jumping. we can also be used to show immediate progress. every bureaucrat likes to show progress... That is exactly what the ABP seeks. Below is a section of the brief proposed to the Utah State Parks Board regarding the ease of which the sport can be introduced into their regulatory system. the original post appeared like someone taking credit for a fait accompli. I meant to convey that much work remains until we congratulate anyone. I'm aware of the efforts in Utah, the dismissal of at least one presenter, etc. but this thread involves the US FEDERAL government. as federal policy has many deep pocketed interests, it can require much more effort than at the state level. it IS obvious that the ABP (and others) has put BASE on a radar screen. with all the other proposed changes, it doesn't appear as we are the driving force. hopefully your organization continues it's efforts to affect change. I'll celebrate once we see appropriate changes. Edited to add: thanks go to Jason for making the community aware of these proposed changes! DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Share this post Link to post Share on other sites base311 0 #35 September 14, 2005 QuoteQuote That is exactly what the ABP seeks. Below is a section of the brief proposed to the Utah State Parks Board regarding the ease of which the sport can be introduced into their regulatory system. the original post appeared like someone taking credit for a fait accompli. Certainly none of us at the ABP consider it a fait au compli; to the contrary, as clearly stated in the first paragraph - beginning with the third sentence - of the Chronology, "There remains much work to be done because additional language proposed in the rewrite is still cumbersome for unit superintendents as well as backcountry parachutists, and is still NOT what the ABP has been asking for all along: a complete rescission of Section 8.2.2.7. Such action on behalf of the NPS would end a quarter-century of institutionalized access discrimination and level the playing field at the unit-level planning table so individual backcountry parachutists would not have to jump the additional hurdle of seeking a waiver to the 2001 Management Policies each time he or she wanted to jump in a national park." I don't see where anyone was taking credit for a task accomplished; rather, we were merely drawing parallels to the date of the congressional request cited in Ms. Achen's Oregon Mail Tribune article quoting David Barna, spokesperson for the NPS. Quote I meant to convey that much work remains until we congratulate anyone. I don't think any of us disagree. Complete rescission of 8.2.2.7 is only one battle. There are many more battles and multiple fronts we face before anyone can claim victory, but you have to count your battles and - while I am still a bit pessimistic about the language we'll see in the rewrite when it is released for public comment - I must admit that I'm grateful that they've gone as far as they have in the leaked rewrite: it means they're hearing us at least to some extent. The NPS and DOI are under no obligation to change a damn thing if they so choose. Nevertheless, the overall task of access is - and will be - one long hard row to hoe. Quote I'm aware of the efforts in Utah, the dismissal of at least one presenter, etc. but this thread involves the US FEDERAL government. as federal policy has many deep pocketed interests, it can require much more effort than at the state level. I am pretty sure Jason only pointed to the Utah document because that is what he had immediately available to show as an example of the access model that the ABP is pursuing, and how easily it would be integrated with the NPS administrative system. When you explain it to people you can see the lightbulb turn on when they get it - and they get it quickly. Regulating and managing backcountry parachutists the same way individual park units manage rock climbers and hikers is administratively neutral and allows superintendents and park users to plan for the activity in ways that are already administratively and legally proven, and allows it to go forth as a routine and recurring recreational activity integrated into the overall backcountry community and management plan. The aviation model, on the other hand, depends on special use rules and regulations that must be developed and promulgated, then tested and imposed on an administrative system not designed to deal with them – and which forces park managers to treat the activity as special, not routine, and segregated from rather than integrated into the general backcountry community. That is why the Yosemite trial program failed so miserably in 1980. Long story short: It took more rangers more time to deal with ten jumpers per day than it did per day to deal with every climber, hiker and day tripper in the whole park! Quoteit IS obvious that the ABP (and others) has put BASE on a radar screen. with all the other proposed changes, it doesn't appear as we are the driving force. hopefully your organization continues it's efforts to affect change. I'll celebrate once we see appropriate changes. No I think the driving force, overall, is the current administration coupled with thirty years of NPS' policy of saying 'NO,' and the bad taste that it leaves in everyone's mouth. All of those other proposed changes??? ...the NPS had it coming to it. We have internal NPS memos essentially (to paraphrase) saying, "We need to make it look like we are more willing to say 'yes' more often than we do... in essence telling folks we'll take a look at something... but even if we give an initial maybe, we can still say no." I can most assuredly inform you that the ABP will continue to assert itself and its ability to effect change within the NPS/DOI system and elsewhere. Many times you hear folks in the BASE community make statements like, "we've tried everything... we're out of options... blah blah." That is simply not the case. No organization has spent the time, energy and focused enough effort to truly effect change. In fact most of them fell apart internally before they ever got any momentum going. The ABP will succeed. We would appreciate your support, but even if you don't wish to support the ABP, we'll be happy to have you come celebrate with us when we do, "...see [the] appropriate changes," you mentioned. Sincerely, K. Gardner Sapp Executive Director The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists, Inc. http://www.backcountryparachutists.org Edited to add: thanks go to Jason for making the community aware of these proposed changes! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wwarped 0 #36 September 14, 2005 QuoteMany times you hear folks in the BASE community make statements like, "we've tried everything... we're out of options... blah blah." That is simply not the case. No organization has spent the time, energy and focused enough effort to truly effect change. glad to hear I misunderstood. much work remains and it appears you are committed. good stuff. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 0 Go To Topic Listing
wwarped 0 #34 September 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote we might want to suggest that they begin implementation of these rules with BASE. we require virtually NO capitol expense, NO infrastructure improvements, and thus NO budget hits. the opponents to the new rules doubtfully object to BASE jumping. we can also be used to show immediate progress. every bureaucrat likes to show progress... That is exactly what the ABP seeks. Below is a section of the brief proposed to the Utah State Parks Board regarding the ease of which the sport can be introduced into their regulatory system. the original post appeared like someone taking credit for a fait accompli. I meant to convey that much work remains until we congratulate anyone. I'm aware of the efforts in Utah, the dismissal of at least one presenter, etc. but this thread involves the US FEDERAL government. as federal policy has many deep pocketed interests, it can require much more effort than at the state level. it IS obvious that the ABP (and others) has put BASE on a radar screen. with all the other proposed changes, it doesn't appear as we are the driving force. hopefully your organization continues it's efforts to affect change. I'll celebrate once we see appropriate changes. Edited to add: thanks go to Jason for making the community aware of these proposed changes! DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Share this post Link to post Share on other sites base311 0 #35 September 14, 2005 QuoteQuote That is exactly what the ABP seeks. Below is a section of the brief proposed to the Utah State Parks Board regarding the ease of which the sport can be introduced into their regulatory system. the original post appeared like someone taking credit for a fait accompli. Certainly none of us at the ABP consider it a fait au compli; to the contrary, as clearly stated in the first paragraph - beginning with the third sentence - of the Chronology, "There remains much work to be done because additional language proposed in the rewrite is still cumbersome for unit superintendents as well as backcountry parachutists, and is still NOT what the ABP has been asking for all along: a complete rescission of Section 8.2.2.7. Such action on behalf of the NPS would end a quarter-century of institutionalized access discrimination and level the playing field at the unit-level planning table so individual backcountry parachutists would not have to jump the additional hurdle of seeking a waiver to the 2001 Management Policies each time he or she wanted to jump in a national park." I don't see where anyone was taking credit for a task accomplished; rather, we were merely drawing parallels to the date of the congressional request cited in Ms. Achen's Oregon Mail Tribune article quoting David Barna, spokesperson for the NPS. Quote I meant to convey that much work remains until we congratulate anyone. I don't think any of us disagree. Complete rescission of 8.2.2.7 is only one battle. There are many more battles and multiple fronts we face before anyone can claim victory, but you have to count your battles and - while I am still a bit pessimistic about the language we'll see in the rewrite when it is released for public comment - I must admit that I'm grateful that they've gone as far as they have in the leaked rewrite: it means they're hearing us at least to some extent. The NPS and DOI are under no obligation to change a damn thing if they so choose. Nevertheless, the overall task of access is - and will be - one long hard row to hoe. Quote I'm aware of the efforts in Utah, the dismissal of at least one presenter, etc. but this thread involves the US FEDERAL government. as federal policy has many deep pocketed interests, it can require much more effort than at the state level. I am pretty sure Jason only pointed to the Utah document because that is what he had immediately available to show as an example of the access model that the ABP is pursuing, and how easily it would be integrated with the NPS administrative system. When you explain it to people you can see the lightbulb turn on when they get it - and they get it quickly. Regulating and managing backcountry parachutists the same way individual park units manage rock climbers and hikers is administratively neutral and allows superintendents and park users to plan for the activity in ways that are already administratively and legally proven, and allows it to go forth as a routine and recurring recreational activity integrated into the overall backcountry community and management plan. The aviation model, on the other hand, depends on special use rules and regulations that must be developed and promulgated, then tested and imposed on an administrative system not designed to deal with them – and which forces park managers to treat the activity as special, not routine, and segregated from rather than integrated into the general backcountry community. That is why the Yosemite trial program failed so miserably in 1980. Long story short: It took more rangers more time to deal with ten jumpers per day than it did per day to deal with every climber, hiker and day tripper in the whole park! Quoteit IS obvious that the ABP (and others) has put BASE on a radar screen. with all the other proposed changes, it doesn't appear as we are the driving force. hopefully your organization continues it's efforts to affect change. I'll celebrate once we see appropriate changes. No I think the driving force, overall, is the current administration coupled with thirty years of NPS' policy of saying 'NO,' and the bad taste that it leaves in everyone's mouth. All of those other proposed changes??? ...the NPS had it coming to it. We have internal NPS memos essentially (to paraphrase) saying, "We need to make it look like we are more willing to say 'yes' more often than we do... in essence telling folks we'll take a look at something... but even if we give an initial maybe, we can still say no." I can most assuredly inform you that the ABP will continue to assert itself and its ability to effect change within the NPS/DOI system and elsewhere. Many times you hear folks in the BASE community make statements like, "we've tried everything... we're out of options... blah blah." That is simply not the case. No organization has spent the time, energy and focused enough effort to truly effect change. In fact most of them fell apart internally before they ever got any momentum going. The ABP will succeed. We would appreciate your support, but even if you don't wish to support the ABP, we'll be happy to have you come celebrate with us when we do, "...see [the] appropriate changes," you mentioned. Sincerely, K. Gardner Sapp Executive Director The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists, Inc. http://www.backcountryparachutists.org Edited to add: thanks go to Jason for making the community aware of these proposed changes! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wwarped 0 #36 September 14, 2005 QuoteMany times you hear folks in the BASE community make statements like, "we've tried everything... we're out of options... blah blah." That is simply not the case. No organization has spent the time, energy and focused enough effort to truly effect change. glad to hear I misunderstood. much work remains and it appears you are committed. good stuff. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 0
base311 0 #35 September 14, 2005 QuoteQuote That is exactly what the ABP seeks. Below is a section of the brief proposed to the Utah State Parks Board regarding the ease of which the sport can be introduced into their regulatory system. the original post appeared like someone taking credit for a fait accompli. Certainly none of us at the ABP consider it a fait au compli; to the contrary, as clearly stated in the first paragraph - beginning with the third sentence - of the Chronology, "There remains much work to be done because additional language proposed in the rewrite is still cumbersome for unit superintendents as well as backcountry parachutists, and is still NOT what the ABP has been asking for all along: a complete rescission of Section 8.2.2.7. Such action on behalf of the NPS would end a quarter-century of institutionalized access discrimination and level the playing field at the unit-level planning table so individual backcountry parachutists would not have to jump the additional hurdle of seeking a waiver to the 2001 Management Policies each time he or she wanted to jump in a national park." I don't see where anyone was taking credit for a task accomplished; rather, we were merely drawing parallels to the date of the congressional request cited in Ms. Achen's Oregon Mail Tribune article quoting David Barna, spokesperson for the NPS. Quote I meant to convey that much work remains until we congratulate anyone. I don't think any of us disagree. Complete rescission of 8.2.2.7 is only one battle. There are many more battles and multiple fronts we face before anyone can claim victory, but you have to count your battles and - while I am still a bit pessimistic about the language we'll see in the rewrite when it is released for public comment - I must admit that I'm grateful that they've gone as far as they have in the leaked rewrite: it means they're hearing us at least to some extent. The NPS and DOI are under no obligation to change a damn thing if they so choose. Nevertheless, the overall task of access is - and will be - one long hard row to hoe. Quote I'm aware of the efforts in Utah, the dismissal of at least one presenter, etc. but this thread involves the US FEDERAL government. as federal policy has many deep pocketed interests, it can require much more effort than at the state level. I am pretty sure Jason only pointed to the Utah document because that is what he had immediately available to show as an example of the access model that the ABP is pursuing, and how easily it would be integrated with the NPS administrative system. When you explain it to people you can see the lightbulb turn on when they get it - and they get it quickly. Regulating and managing backcountry parachutists the same way individual park units manage rock climbers and hikers is administratively neutral and allows superintendents and park users to plan for the activity in ways that are already administratively and legally proven, and allows it to go forth as a routine and recurring recreational activity integrated into the overall backcountry community and management plan. The aviation model, on the other hand, depends on special use rules and regulations that must be developed and promulgated, then tested and imposed on an administrative system not designed to deal with them – and which forces park managers to treat the activity as special, not routine, and segregated from rather than integrated into the general backcountry community. That is why the Yosemite trial program failed so miserably in 1980. Long story short: It took more rangers more time to deal with ten jumpers per day than it did per day to deal with every climber, hiker and day tripper in the whole park! Quoteit IS obvious that the ABP (and others) has put BASE on a radar screen. with all the other proposed changes, it doesn't appear as we are the driving force. hopefully your organization continues it's efforts to affect change. I'll celebrate once we see appropriate changes. No I think the driving force, overall, is the current administration coupled with thirty years of NPS' policy of saying 'NO,' and the bad taste that it leaves in everyone's mouth. All of those other proposed changes??? ...the NPS had it coming to it. We have internal NPS memos essentially (to paraphrase) saying, "We need to make it look like we are more willing to say 'yes' more often than we do... in essence telling folks we'll take a look at something... but even if we give an initial maybe, we can still say no." I can most assuredly inform you that the ABP will continue to assert itself and its ability to effect change within the NPS/DOI system and elsewhere. Many times you hear folks in the BASE community make statements like, "we've tried everything... we're out of options... blah blah." That is simply not the case. No organization has spent the time, energy and focused enough effort to truly effect change. In fact most of them fell apart internally before they ever got any momentum going. The ABP will succeed. We would appreciate your support, but even if you don't wish to support the ABP, we'll be happy to have you come celebrate with us when we do, "...see [the] appropriate changes," you mentioned. Sincerely, K. Gardner Sapp Executive Director The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists, Inc. http://www.backcountryparachutists.org Edited to add: thanks go to Jason for making the community aware of these proposed changes! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wwarped 0 #36 September 14, 2005 QuoteMany times you hear folks in the BASE community make statements like, "we've tried everything... we're out of options... blah blah." That is simply not the case. No organization has spent the time, energy and focused enough effort to truly effect change. glad to hear I misunderstood. much work remains and it appears you are committed. good stuff. DON'T PANIC The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
