Important e-mail on COMMENT SUBMISSION - Draft 2006 NPS Management Policies

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

With that being said, I wish the ABP as a whole the best of luck, and I hope they succeed. Gardner Sapp is still with them, and I have a lot of respect for him. Gardner has fought many a battle for the BASE community and is a very good guy. I have known Gardner for awhile and stand by him as a friend.

Simply put, I will not put a dime, or a moment of my time, into something that Robin Heid is being involved with until I'm proven wrong by the results of his actions. I have had no personal interaction with him -- I'm simply basing my opinion on what I have seen.

Bryan,
You've been around a lot longer than I have...and that can be said for many other jumpers both on and off this message board, but an observation I'd like to make and something I'd like to highlight (from Gardner's Email) is this:

Quote

With your help, the ABP was successful in convincing the NPS to remove the section on BASE jumping from its management policies on the premise that it was:

1. discriminatory because no other recreational user group had to jump the additional hurdle of seeking a Director\'s waiver to the management policies for access.
2. not necessary because NPS already had enough authority to regulate backcountry parachuting under section 8.2.2.4, Backcountry Use, and 36 CFR 2.17.
3. removed from superintendents the discretion to allow an activity in their individual units, where such decision could be more thoughtfully made.

That is an awful lot to take credit for, but I do think some credit is due to the ABP. I know of no other individual or group that has put forth the effort to lobby congressmen or the NPS to ultimately remove (though still only from the draft document) section 8.2.2.7. If this is not the case and others can claim responsibility or credit, well, my pat on the back and an awful lot of beer will go to them, as well.

Robin...that's an area I don't want to get into, either (and for what it's worth, I think you did a good job presenting the basis of your opinion without slamming him or bringing emotion into the mix). In spite of or because of Robin...whichever your position, the ABP has shown value and by this alone do seem to be making progress. After several long phone conversations with Gardner today, I've restored some of my faith in the ABP and will continue to support them and anyone else fighting for jumpers' rights so long as I don't feel they are compromising the spirit of BASE in order to simply gain access.

-C.

Edit: Typos.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I know of no other individual or group that has put forth the effort to lobby congressmen or the NPS to ultimately remove (though still only from the draft document) section 8.2.2.7. If this is not the case and others can claim responsibility or credit, well, my pat on the back and an awful lot of beer will go to them, as well.

You can send a case of beer to this address.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

You can send a case of beer to this address.

Shiiiiiiiiit, Tom... Everyone knows Bell prefers tequila.

But this is exactly my point (and partly my frustration). We're not going to get access simply on the efforts of one group or individual. It's going to take a lot of effort from a lot of different people. And what I've seen is no one group/individual has found the perfect way. Each contributes something positive, but doesn't have the whole picture.

-C.

[AreUcrazy 0]

It is fortunate that not every one knows the backroom politics that go on in D.C.

In fact the challenge to NPS based on Congressional funding and the intent of 36 CFR has nothing to do with efforts by the ABP or any other "big name" BASE folks presiously mentioned in this thread. The NPS is responding to threats of funding oversight and committee inquiries. If you think otherwise you are mistaken.

Even when Dept of Interior approves the final NPS "use" policy there will be a battle to be fought.


----begin----
That is an awful lot to take credit for, but I do think some credit is due to the ABP. I know of no other individual or group that has put forth the effort to lobby congressmen or the NPS to ultimately remove (though still only from the draft document) section 8.2.2.7. If this is not the case and others can claim responsibility or credit, well, my pat on the back and an awful lot of beer will go to them, as well.
----end----

"Whats the difference between shit and applebutter?" - Kim Fuller

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

Even when Dept of Interior approves the final NPS "use" policy there will be a battle to be fought.

You are so right. But I don't think anybody's saying the battle is over.

Quote

In fact the challenge to NPS based on Congressional funding and the intent of 36 CFR has nothing to do with efforts by the ABP or any other "big name" BASE folks presiously mentioned in this thread. The NPS is responding to threats of funding oversight and committee inquiries. If you think otherwise you are mistaken.

I'm curious as to what funding threats could apply towards 8.2.2.7 or 36 CFR. Got some inside info you wouldn't mind sharing?

-C.

[wwarped 0]

Quote

You are so right. But I don't think anybody's saying the battle is over.

Quote

In fact the challenge to NPS based on Congressional funding and the intent of 36 CFR has nothing to do with efforts by the ABP or any other "big name" BASE folks presiously mentioned in this thread. The NPS is responding to threats of funding oversight and committee inquiries. If you think otherwise you are mistaken.

I'm curious as to what funding threats could apply towards 8.2.2.7 or 36 CFR. Got some inside info you wouldn't mind sharing?

this has been discussed previously. IIRC, the Bush administration is trying to change how the NPS operates. they wish to gain access to more commercial interests, as well as activities like snowmobiling. the NPS has prevented cell towers, mining, etc. the re-write of the code would force the NPS to open up.

'course environmentalists shudder at these thoughts.

I expect neither group is really fighting for BASE, but the most objectionable paragraph disappeared. that doesn't mean the way is clear for jumping. no one knows what they'll require before issuing a permit...

maybe the ABP deserves credit, they certainly wish to claim it. so? until we can jump without risk of arrest, there isn't much to get excited about.

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

[RayLosli 11]

trophyhusband: ..."is this something that the aclu would get involved with?"
----
Quote littlestranger ..."the aclu scares me.:
-
Dude that is the truest understatement of the year. I don't think that BASE jumpers are the kind of Suppressed Minority. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) likes to defend against a simple trampling of Constitutional Rights.
You might get the ACLU to file a Federal law suit for American BASE jumpers. If you were a BASE jumping,Gay/Lesbian same sex Marriage trying to adopt a Black Crack baby. Or a slight chance of representation. If you were a Native American, Deaf & Mute BASE jumping, NAMBLA member. Who was practicing child molestation before he exited out the 25th floor window of high-rise Daycare Center.
The ACLU fighting for a simple & low profile & strait forward issue of BASE jumpers being denied access & being prosecuted for BASE jumping in Federal Park Lands. Land that is basically public property owned by all US citizens. That submitted issue will never get past the secretary in the front office of there corporate headquarters.
.

[Faber 0]

Quote

We need a "leader" or point man

either pick me or leave me meaning im into BASE becourse of its freedome the only leader im following is ME,this is a PERSONAL sport.. trying to make a leader or group can kill the way of BASE,im not into beeing regulated,i can do so in skyworld if i like..

Nah Ill leave my trust in the NSP cases to the locals,if i can help so i can jump at some point later ill support,but im against leaders or "headgroups".

Of course you´ll need an orginicer at places as BD and i think(even as i might some times dont sound like so)that Jason does a good job there.
I think that thouse who has contact in TF makes a good job aswell..

just my oppinion..

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

...but the most objectionable paragraph disappeared. that doesn't mean the way is clear for jumping. no one knows what they'll require before issuing a permit...

Only the policy has been elided (in draft, but we don't know what the final document will say). The regulation remains: "No aerial delivery."

Unless a policy is implemented that makes an exception to the reg for base jumping, what exactly is the gain here?

After all, just because NPS can no longer point to the policy doesn't mean that it can't continue to prosecute under the reg.

As for the ACLU, what has been implied above by Ray is accurate: base is not controversial enough for it to become involved. That doesn't mean that the base community can't decide to band together and hire counsel to bring a lawsuit on its own behalf.

rl

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