Forums: BASE Jumping: General BASE:
Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access
Premier Sponsor:

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

leroydb

Dec 12, 2007, 4:56 PM
Post #26 of 42 (4553 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Treejumps] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

Is this not the ultimate goal? To legally jump El cap and more? Does it matter who or what organization reaches this goal as long as it is reached?

Treejumps wrote:
The funny thing is that your efforts with Uhuck may actually be helping real access efforts. For that I say thank you.

Cya

Then again maybe this is a big campaign to drive Tree Crazy? Tongue


(This post was edited by leroydb on Dec 12, 2007, 6:08 PM)

yuri_base

Dec 12, 2007, 5:31 PM
Post #27 of 42 (4534 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Base719] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

Base719 wrote:
The Chief Ranger even showed me how he checks the BASE sites.

So, how?

Base719

Dec 12, 2007, 6:02 PM
Post #28 of 42 (4515 views)
Shortcut
Re: [yuri_base] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

The same as we do. He has the web sites in his favorites. I don't know what name he uses however.

yuri_base

Dec 12, 2007, 7:28 PM
Post #29 of 42 (4482 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Base719] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

Oh. BASE web-site. Doh! I thought you would share with us some counterintelligence on how NPS checks BASE jump-sites. Doh! Doh! Doh!

stevenm

Dec 12, 2007, 9:30 PM
Post #30 of 42 (4435 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Base719] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

Base719 wrote:
The same as we do. He has the web sites in his favorites. I don't know what name he uses however.

I don't suppose the basejumper.com admins are willing to cross-check the access logs against a list of known government/NPS IP address ranges? If it is possible, it would be interesting to see what kind of things they look at.

Edit:
A quick search reveals some possible IP ranges here:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/...nal%20Park%20Service

There is probably a better list out there in a more computer-friendly format though.


(This post was edited by stevenm on Dec 13, 2007, 8:27 AM)

base695

Dec 12, 2007, 9:40 PM
Post #31 of 42 (4429 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Base719] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

can you advise the argument they used to reject the application? was it structured and logical? is there anything we can revisit to compile reasonable counterarguments against?

Base719

Dec 13, 2007, 6:48 PM
Post #32 of 42 (4285 views)
Shortcut
Re: [base695] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

They merely quoted the NPS rules against our activity.
I informed them that I was a former paratrooper and a twice wounded Infantry Combat Vet but they did not care.
They had their rules and they stuck by them.
They were friendly and cordial but intractable.

leroydb

Dec 13, 2007, 9:09 PM
Post #33 of 42 (4250 views)
Shortcut
Re: [uhuck] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

I wonder how the NPS is reacting to this... Probably shitting their pants... It is interesting how there is nothing being posted on their public or otherwise site about this future event... Interesting Chess move..Shocked


(This post was edited by leroydb on Dec 13, 2007, 9:09 PM)

stevenm

Dec 13, 2007, 10:37 PM
Post #34 of 42 (4223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [leroydb] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

leroydb wrote:
I wonder how the NPS is reacting to this... Probably shitting their pants... It is interesting how there is nothing being posted on their public or otherwise site about this future event... Interesting Chess move..Shocked

They are probably preparing for a bust. I am going to guess that they view this jump less as a protest and more as a criminal act. It will be interesting to see what happens, though I am (naturally) a bit nervous about what they will do to the jumpers.

I apologize if this has been said before, but again I have the thought- is this maybe happening too soon? Should we antagonize NPS while other efforts (such as what ABP is doing) are going on? Though such campaigns interact not with just NPS but with congresspeople as well, it is ultimately NPS that needs to be convinced to change its policies (correct me if I am wrong). We need to be seriously sure that going ahead with a protest jump is absolutely the best choice right now.

wzettler

Dec 14, 2007, 6:38 AM
Post #35 of 42 (4173 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Donk] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

Excellent post Donk.
I just have a few things to say to anyone who cares to read...

The idea of donating any donated money to the park for conservation (furthering the mission of the NPS) and general park rescue efforts is a good one (perhaps a 50/50 split). Thats the direction I would choose.

I read the goals listed on uhuck's website and I feel they're a little off. The goals are a little too "grand" in my opinion for now. I think uhuck (or anyone wanting to jump in NPS lands) needs to set goals more in the short term. NPS is not going to simply rescind their regulations without an act of Congress. Thats NOT happening.

There is already a vehicle in place to jump in national parks: a permit. I believe that should be the goal; that would be a victory (for now). One person getting a permit for ONE jump. Its a start. And maybe not off El Cap. Maybe HD or some other cliff thats out of the way and off the beaten path. I've never been to the park so someone familiar with it would have to come up with the where, when, and why (see next paragraph on these details). Someone very familiar with the park and its conditions should do the jump (IMO). (Side note - this person should NEVER guarantee that they or any other jumper won't die. NEVER.)

This person is going to have to have multiple meetings with Yosemite rangers hammering out details of the jumpers plan to jump with minimal impact to the area. They are going to have to convince (prove to) NPS WHY that object, time of day, delay, PC size, clothing they're using, etc, etc (EVERY detail) is the way it is (preferably with a team of industry experts and experienced jumpers; have a safety officer and a reason why the chosen jumper is the one making the jump). They need to educate FULLY the rangers. (As a side note I realize this could be bad for bandit jumpers so if someone does this they must be willing to take the heat.) Not just for a successful jump but also in terms of impact to the area, and the area not just in terms of wildlife but also in terms of a rescue effort if any unfortunate accident should occur. Anything the NPS wants an answer for you're going to have to appease them. They're job is the NPS mission and the park. Period. When you don't have an answer, thats what the next meeting is for, more hammering out.

Permits are not going to be granted without the NPS knowing every logistical aspect and detail about how a technical jump happens, what risks there are, whats being done to diminish those risks as much as possible, etc and how the gear works (IMO), and especially how rescue and cleanup (when someone goes in) efforts will be handled. Legal jumps aren't going to happen without a permit and the process to get one. This whole process is going to take a LONG time and many hoops are going to have to be jumped through. There will be a team of NPS lawyers to scrutinize every aspect. Sorry, thats just the way it is with the govt.

I know its frustrating and its tough to be patient. The person who will get this permit will likely not be you (the avg jumper). You're going to have to be patient (for a long time). BUT after one person gets a permit to jump in Yosemite, the door is open. After that, maybe that jumper or another can get another permit for one jump. And so on. Short term goals. Its going to be a ssslllllllloooooooowwwwww, LOOOOOOONG process of establishing a record of following some procedure (so that certain safety and other precautions (in line with the park mission) are met) before permits are issued more regularly. If you can come up with why jumping furthers the park mission then that will be great.

This is all of course predicated on getting a meeting with Yosemite rangers to discuss obtaining a permit to jump. I really don't know how open they are to that. I think Jason has the best chance of getting a meeting at this point since he gets a permit in another park. I don't really follow efforts of the ABP (they seem to have dropped off the map) so maybe they could too.

One last thing, the (jumping) team I mentioned above needs to be people that are really in this for everyone and very carefully picked. No egos, no utube glory hounds. Professionals. People you rarely hear about with tons of knowledge all there for one purpose. Donk is definitely one who's got my vote.

Anyway, this is all just my opinion on the best way to procede, take what you want from it.
Holy crap I wrote a book. Sorry. Long posts suck...

-Will

Ghetto

Dec 14, 2007, 7:15 AM
Post #36 of 42 (4157 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wzettler] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

IMO we should be focusing on a more realistic short-term goal. Everyone's dream is to legally huck the Captain, but in all honesty, aren't there better cliffs in the national park system to go after first? Let's face it, legal daytime jumps every day will be noticed by other park users, and some might see it as an annoyance. I'm sure that's one of the NPS' concerns. Now I don't know the park very well myself but from what I've heard, it could be jumped in a manner in which other visitors wouldn't notice (certain times of day etc). But as far as "getting the door open", why don't we concentrate on a more remote cliff, possibly in a different park?

Another thing.. I've seen articles in the past year or so that have indicated that the NPS is becoming increasingly financially strained.. if that's the case (or even if they have plenty of money but they just 'percieve' that to be the case) how do we expect their accountants to approve this:

In reply to:
There will be a team of NPS lawyers to scrutinize every aspect.

or this:

In reply to:
...multiple meetings with Yosemite rangers hammering out details of the jumpers plan...

I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem like they are likely to go for that. As people have brought up previously, maybe we should look at the processes in which other user groups gained access, and look for trends. I doubt that any group of sportsment gained access to the parks by requiring the NPS to pay for a panel of lawyers and spend their people's time learning about pilot chute sizes and bridle length.

Just my $.02...

lifewithoutanet

Dec 14, 2007, 9:06 AM
Post #37 of 42 (4113 views)
Shortcut
Post deleted by lifewithoutanet [In reply to]

 

ForrestJump

Dec 15, 2007, 8:27 AM
Post #38 of 42 (3944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lifewithoutanet] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

Great POST mr. Donk!

Everybody who obsesses with El Cap and/or Yosemite is truly showing us their amature status in BASE.


Yosemite is one of the busiest parks in North America. And El Cap is like grand central at the park.


There are cliffs in just about every western states like Colorado. That place there has at the most 20% of the visitor rate as Yosemite at it's busiest! So why not start there?

And if your really exited about getting an a big Earth jump? Look around there are nice ones comparible to El Cap, maybe not exactly the same but LEGAL or not as populated as YOsemite with lower bust factors and in western states. All you need to do is you homework.


Bottom line is, should Yosemite be legal, duh YEA! bUT IT'S not a place to start the Battle. Washington, UTAH, cOLorado and other states have smaller populated places to start, with baby steps and show the MAN how we are mature MeN AND not immature children who litter and party and do drugs and are luid etc.

And when we prove we're not YOU TUBE influenced "look at me i'm rad" types but we are Mature sportsmen who are non intrusive low-key and hardly noticed then and only then we'll get what we want.

Stop posting and distributing Jackass style stuff in public. Because everytime someone type's in BASE On any search engine whatever is out there will come up. I cant tell how many times somebody say's "hey did you see that one BASE jump video on YouTube where the guy"......... So think before you do , before you do anything.

Just my two cents.

good day and good luck to all and think before you do anything , because it will always reflect on all of us.


(This post was edited by ForrestJump on Dec 15, 2007, 7:11 PM)

SLAMBO

Dec 16, 2007, 7:28 PM
Post #39 of 42 (3603 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Treejumps] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

Treejumps wrote:
Hi John,

Why all of the "secrets will be revealed" stuff? You are not exactly sneaking up on anyone with this thing. A major part of the total lack of credibility is the ananomity and secretive nature of your otherwise completely public program. There is nothing that you could be withholding that could be used against you. Its all out in the public eye just like you wanted. The only thing missing is a plan which any right thinking person could surmise simply does not actually exist.



The funny thing is that your efforts with Uhuck may actually be helping real access efforts. For that I say thank you.

Cya


you seem closed minded. Sometimes having this sort of thing in the public eye does work better, you should look into history and be able to see that.

dmcoco84

Apr 1, 2018, 2:21 AM
Post #40 of 42 (2856 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Donk] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I applaud Uhucks passion and motivation and do think it is time for less talk and more action but the issue is to define what action. Is a protest jump appropriate, absolutely yes if all other avenues have been exhausted... but it is my understanding that nobody has actually reached out to the Yosemite NPS or Parks Superintendent in recent years and requested a formal meeting to review existing policy and present a case/proposal to allow BASE jumping fair access in Yosemite. And to my knowledge only a handful of Special Use Permits have ever been submitted over the last decade+. So once again we have a case of lots of talk in these forums over the past decade but limited action. Protest jumping, as the most aggressive and potentially detrimental action, should be a step of last resort… not an opening act.

A formal meeting with the NPS (or the request for one) is the first step. If the door is slammed shut, then more aggressive pursuits should be considered.

Like I said...

But to compliment your statements, Tom... just like Bill Wendt (Chief Ranger) said in Sunshine Superman, (without quoting his full statement, ending with): "You don't have to dislike someone to, take away their freedom."

We do however have an interesting situation currently. Because the Deputy Director, and acting Director until recently, is now the Yosemite Superintendent; who grew up in the park according to the article I posted above.

So ... What does Mr. Reynolds think?

Because if you can't convince him, you're not going to convince anyone (of means), and I don't have time to wait another 20 years; or wait for "slow, thorough and responsible progression" with individuals who I don't believe have any desire to see our dreams come to fruition.

Happy to be wrong... and we've got plenty of time.


In reply to:
Have you spoken to the new Superintendent yet/before?
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article196403664.html

I'll give him "an exemption" until further notice.
.

dmcoco84

Apr 4, 2018, 11:09 PM
Post #41 of 42 (2683 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Base719] Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

Base719 wrote:
Five years ago I met with the Chief Ranger and the Superintendent of Yosemite. I was armed with letters of support from Sens. Byrd, Helmes and Dole. I carried response letters from the Washington NPS and from a minion in the Interior Dept. After a two hour meeting the answer to me was, " No you may not have permission to jump from El Cap". It was a "stacked deck". Since I had established the meeting a month before they had much time to rehearse their dialogue. The Chief Ranger even showed me how he checks the BASE sites.
BASE 719

"I carried response letters from the Washington NPS"

Saying, what...?

.
.

dmcoco84

Apr 4, 2018, 11:22 PM
Post #42 of 42 (2678 views)
Shortcut
Re: Some thoughts On Uhuck - General Approach to Fair Access [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.basejumper.com/...post=2881895#2881895

jtholmes wrote:
if you have ever been busted in Zion, you would know that your statement about Zion being more likely to become legal before yosemite is totally wrong. absolutely 100 percent wrong and without any evidence to support such blasphemy. Zion might be more likely to follow Yosemite's lead as they did in enforcing a maximum, utmost and more even than yosemite type sentence. The federal magistrate and the head ranger and the prosecuting attorney for the U.S. of A. all sighted Yosemite in ereference to policy and sentence imposement.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : BASE Jumping : General BASE

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?

D4DR Media