ABP: Draft NPS Management Policies Document Unveiled - WE'VE BEEN BLESSED!

[base311 0]

The Draft Proposed NPS Management Policies Document has been released for public comment.

You can view it here:

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?projectId=13746&documentID=12825

As the Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists had hoped and had consistently requested, the BASE jumping prohibition originally set forth in the 2001 edition of the Management Policies has been completely removed from the new draft document.

As the ABP clearly pointed out to the NPS, there is plenty of authority to regulate backcountry parachutists within Section 8.2.2.4 - Backcountry Use.

It appears that the NPS has heard our rather boisterous appeals to strike the old Section 8.2.2.7 in its entirety. IT IS GONE!

Well, not completely... 8.2.2.7 now deals with equine use and is re-titled: Recreational Pack and Saddle Stock Use.

The ABP will be reviewing the current draft in greater detail today to verify that nothing sneaky has been done, but on an initial quick review we're unable to find anything specifically related to parachutes or jumping.

The ABP will also be monitoring the draft as it moves forward through the public comment period to make certain that nothing slips past us. For now, though... score one win for BASE jumpers and the Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists.

All I can say is wow... politicking really does work.

Stay tuned for more from the ABP.

To our members: Thank You for your continued and unwavering support!

Yay!

[Treejumps 0]

Congrats Gardner,

Way to fight the good fight!

[dmcoco84 4]

So does this mean that after careful review and confirmation that there is nothing “sneaky” and if the document is accepted, if I go to El Cap and make a jump there is nothing they can detain me on? Or do the laws of aerial delivery and what not still apply regardless to the fact that the previous statements prohibiting parachuting or jumping in nation parks has been eliminated from the NPS Management Policies?

What are the main charges that BASE jumpers are held on for BCP in a national park?

What gives the NPS the ability to fine BASE jumpers the large dollar amount and confiscation of gear? Was that all under the previously expunged 8.2.2.4 policy?

Edited for spelling

[leroydb 0]

great to hear this, and all the way from tukey.... awesome stuff... keep up the good work...

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

So does this mean that after careful review and confirmation that there is nothing “sneaky” and if the document is accepted, if I go to El Cap and make a jump there is nothing they can detain me on?

Nothing except violation of 36CFR2.17.

Quote

Or do the laws of aerial delivery and what not still apply regardless to the fact that the previous statements prohibiting parachuting or jumping in nation parks has been eliminated from the NPS Management Policies?

The regulation prohibiting aerial delivery remains in full force and effect. Only the policy specifically prohibiting base jumping has been elided.

Edited to add: What Gardner seems to be counting on is this:

(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.

The question is, will NPS issue a base permit to anyone, ever?

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[base428 1]

We're basically back to the way it was prior to 2001. I think a rewrite of 36CFR2.17 is the next step - otherwise, we'll be applying for permits (and getting denied) everytime we want to jump and that's not the final goal.

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

[base311 0]

Quote

So does this mean that after careful review and confirmation that there is nothing “sneaky” and if the document is accepted, if I go to El Cap and make a jump there is nothing they can detain me on? Or do the laws of aerial delivery and what not still apply regardless to the fact that the previous statements prohibiting parachuting or jumping in nation parks has been eliminated from the NPS Management Policies?

What are the main charges that BASE jumpers are held on for BCP in a national park?

What gives the NPS the ability to fine BASE jumpers the large dollar amount and confiscation of gear? Was that all under the previously expunged 8.2.2.4 policy?

Edited for spelling

What it means is the new edition of Management Policies:

a) rescinds/deletes/axes the system-wide prohibition of backcountryparachuting and its declaration as inappropriate

b) restores the ability of superintendents to make a unit by unit choice to allow jumping (or not) without getting permission - or waivers - from national headquarters

c) eliminates the institutionalized discrimination of backcountry parachuting by NPS; and, most importantly,

d) signals to every superintendent in the NPS that when Director Fran Mainella says she expects them to give backcountry parachuting a fair hearing, she means it.

This is indeed a good day everyone, and we all owe a big thanks to Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo and the ABP's founder Robin Heid for getting this ball rolling - and MOST ESPECIALLY to all ABP members and other jumpers who stepped up to the plate by supporting our efforts - and who amplified our message through the hundreds of letters they sent through the ABP letter system.

This doesn't mean there still isn't a LOT of work to be done in presenting our case to individual park managers (yes, you will still be arrested and have your gear taken in Yosemite if you jump there today) but THE major hurdle to progress has been removed, thanks to your friends at the ABP and all the jumpers who joined our efforts.

Well done and now it's time to move on to the next step, so we hope more of you will join the ABP and send in donations so we can further amplify our message and improve our effectiveness even more.

Thanks,

[460 0]

WAY TO GO ABP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like a death sandwich without the bread - Steve Deadman Morrell, BASE 174

[dmcoco84 4]

Ahhh yes. I remember now. Good old 36CFR2.17. .

So the 2k+ fine and confiscation of gear. Is that under 36CFR2.17. Or was that under the NPS Management Policy that is now gone.

Edit to add:

Quote

This doesn't mean there still isn't a LOT of work to be done in presenting our case to individual park managers (yes, you will still be arrested and have your gear taken in Yosemite if you jump there today) but THE major hurdle to progress has been removed, thanks to your friends at the ABP and all the jumpers who joined our efforts.

Answered that question as I was writting it. Thanks

[wwarped 0]

is this the same as the "leaked" rewrite previously posted & discussed?

is anything different?

is there a place for the public to send comments?

it's great to see something happen. this time it's on the political front. one day, I hope it's in a courtroom!

thanks!

(sorry for the questions, but reading govt regulations can prove tricky for us laymen.)

DON'T PANIC
The lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
sloppy habits -> sloppy jumps -> injury or worse

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

is this the same as the "leaked" rewrite previously posted & discussed?

is anything different?

No. It's not the same. The provision was rewritten before, now it simply doesn't exist.

Quote

it's great to see something happen. this time it's on the political front. one day, I hope it's in a courtroom!

If we don't get the reg "adjusted," base in national parks is just as screwed as it was before.

There are so many reasons not to issue the permit, it defies the imagination. I can't see that anyone is ever going to be able to come up with a compelling reason to persuade NPS to issue a permit.

Worse yet, the policy, as previously written, was a very good reason for a lawsuit. It would've been easy to attack the policy on the basis of its absolute nature, but it will be much harder to attack the reg.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[riggerrob 558]

Keep up the good work ABP!

[dploi 0]

Excellent work, guys!

[base311 0]

Quote

Edited to add: What Gardner seems to be counting on is this:

(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.

The question is, will NPS issue a base permit to anyone, ever?

rl

What the ABP is counting on is the already-stated and published word of Interior Department assistant secretary P. Lynn Scarlett and NPS director Fran Mainella, who have made clear assurances in a July 1, 2004 correspondence to Congressman Tom Tancredo that backcountry parachuting will in fact be given a fair hearing and a place at the table in the backcountry management planning process. Moreover, NPS Intermountain Region director Steve Martin (whose territory includes most jumpable NPS units other than Yosemite and Kings Canyon/Sequoia) stated in an email sent last year to all of his superintendents that, “It has come to our attention that some of you have recently received letters from the Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists requesting that they be involved in any existing or future planning efforts with a stated goal of ultimately permitting their activity in your respective parks. In addition to their letter, you should have received a copy of a July 1, 2004 letter to Representative Thomas Tancredo (R. Co.) from assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget P. Lynn Scarlett which addresses this issue on behalf of the National Park Service. I agree that it is appropriate for parks to encourage all citizens who have an interest to participate in our planning processes. Responding to this group, and inviting their participation in any current or upcoming planning exercises is appropriate and encouraged.” (See the ABP chronology section for details and links to the letters archive at: http://www.backcountryparachutists.org/chronology.php).

Thus are we not ‘back to the way it was prior to 2001’ as was blankly stated above... we are far, far beyond the pre-2001 hostility that stalled progress for so many years. In the course of fighting for access, the ABP has nurtured relationships within the NPS: from unit-level managers right to the very top, and even within NPS’s mother agency DOI. And we’re beyond the need to rewrite 36 CFR 2.17, which does in fact allow parachuting pursuant to the terms of a permit which can be issued routinely on a pro forma basis without an application process of any kind. NOTE: Many jumpers may not be aware of the fact that overnight hiking in the Yosemite backcountry (and most other NPS units where wilderness is a concern) is also PROHIBITED EXCEPT PURSUANT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A WILDERNESS PERMIT - it's just that you get your permit by walking up to a window and asking for it (or reserving it online). The permitting process is used as a management tool so NPS knows:

a) how many people are in the backcountry at any given moment;
b) who they are;
c) where they generally are and where they are going;
d) when they plan to return, and;
e) to provide an avenue for the NPS to dispense basic backcountry information and last-minute advisories to backcountry users.

Consequently, there is now nothing within the current regulations that we cannot live with nor work through; it is now up to the ABP to work with individual NPS units to establish a means by which backcountry parachuting can be integrated into a given unit's overall backcountry management plan. The details of this integration will vary from unit to unit but the path is now open - policy-wise and regulation-wise - for us to work with (instead of fight with) NPS to gain and maintain the fair access we have sought since Carl Boenish first filmed backcountry parachuting from El Capitan.

And while the ABP moves ahead with its ongoing initiatives already underway within several jumpable NPS units, jumpers motivated to do some writing can do two things right now:

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 (please note that when it comes to national parks and other areas, it's ‘backcountry’ jumping we're talking about, NOT "BASE" jumping – backcountry has a very specific bureaucratic and management connotation – so it is important to remember that we are backcountry parachutists when we are talking to backcountry managers); and

b) send a note to Congressman Tom Tancredo thanking him for his efforts on our behalf - and perhaps make some showing of support for his re-election campaign (even $5 is a nice gesture).

If you want to get more involved, please go to the ABP website (www.backcountryparachutists.org) and either join the organization as a bronze, silver or gold member, or become a RAM (research action member) and help us as we move on to the next step - dealing with individual units to gain fair access in exchange for responsible use of jumpable cliffs in U.S.national parks, monuments and national recreation areas.

More from the ABP soon.

[MB38 0]

I'm thinking that the NPS protest jump should be reconsidered a little bit...

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[dmcoco84 4]

Yea I agree, the ABP is making a lot of progress, that wouldn't hurt thier efforts.

Coco

[base428 1]

From my limited research, climbers don't need a permit to climb or camp on most big walls. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. If we're using climbing as a model for backcountry parachuting, then obtaining a permit shouldn't be required. Does the ABP want a permit-free process like climbing, or one that requires permits and possible fees?

As far as policies and laws are concerned, we are back to pre-2001. Obviously, relationships and communication have improved since then.

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