What is really the best course of action against the NPS (or other such authorities)?

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Okay, so this is probably a tired topic, but I'd like to know what other jumpers think. It was inspired by this post:

Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1647553#1647553
I can think of at least one BASE jumper with enough capital to afford a seriously bad-ass attorney who could tear up the park services' case against jumpers... it'd be nice if someone who could afford it would. If I wasn't poor and living in France...

It's a two-part question. Question 1's options are 1-3. Question 2's options are 4-7. I just didn't feel like splitting it into two separate polls/threads. The poll is set to allow multiple answers.

Question 1 (options 1-3):
How do we, as a community, best attack the NPS' stance on jumping in the Parks?

Personally, my vote goes for option 2 and here's why I think so...

A counter-suit against the Park Service, stemming from the arrest and gear-siezure of a jumper who violated a standing (if unfair, unconstitutional, etc.) policy--in my opinion--already starts in defecit. A judge will see that the defendant knew beforehand that the act they committed was illegal, yet chose to do it anyway. Judges don't typically smile upon this kind of situation and there's a history with their stance on BASE jumpers that doesn't sit in our favor. Furthermore, despite the jumper's best efforts to act only on their own behalf and not speak for the community as a whole, the NPS and judge are likely to take said jumper and stereotype the rest of us based on that one case (or multiple cases over history).
Grass-roots efforts such as letter-writing campaigns, the ABP (Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists) will show a more proactive stance on legalization of jumping than a reactive court battle to eliminate the charges, reclaim gear, etc.

Which leads into Question 2 (options 4-7):
If a jumper is caught and arrested, whether in a National Park or private land, how viciously should they fight the charges or is there a point at which it's better to take your punishment and walk quietly away?

For this, I lean to 5 first, but depending on the charges...I'd have to go with 6. The problem here is once again, the jumper's actions could have far reaching implications on other jumpers, beyond simple stereotyping. The bigger the fight, the more likely a city (or county or whatever) is to enact legislation to ban fixed-object jumping and not simply rely on trespassing charges. I know this has been done before and I don't question or point at any jumpers involved. I don't know the full specifics of their case(s) and will not pass judgement. I just point this out as one of those "far reaching implications on other jumpers".


I personally don't think there are right or wrong answers to this. If I did, I'd have an agenda, a soap-box and I'd have posted this in the Speaker's Forum and have pre-written flames at the ready for anyone who disagrees with me. Not the case. I want to know what other jumpers think about this, how they'd react and why they'd react in that way.

-C.

Edit to modify the subject line.

[JaapSuter 0]

And while we're at it, does anybody have the knowledge and time to write down the full story of what happened with Dennis McGlynn? As far as I know he is one of the few (only?) that didn't plead guilty and took it to court all the way.

I have only seen the posts on Blinc about how there was going to be a day of protest. I'm curious how many people actually showed up, and what happened in the follow-up of that case. I believe there was jail-time, right?

Thanks,

Jaap

Edited to clarify; I am not referring to the day of protest involving fatality number 53 on Nick's list. I am referring to the letter Dennis wrote, where he asks fellow jumpers to show up during his trial to make a statement. I'm really curious how many people ended up being there.

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

And while we're at it, does anybody have the knowledge and time to write down the full story of what happened with Dennis McGlynn?

Maybe you can do it. :)

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_q=Dennis+McGlynn&num=100&scoring=d&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=rec.skydiving&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=16&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2005&safe=off

Not all of these links are related, but many are, and they tell the tale in real time.

I know it's hard to believe, but The BASE Board and dropzone.com did not always exist, and in those days, rec.skydiving (the ftp archives of which go back to 1988) was a much different kind of ng. For people who have questions about what was going on way back when, a Google Groups advanced search or a read of www.afn.org/skydive is at least the start of an answer. See here: http://www.afn.org/skydive/usenet/

rl

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

I personally don't think there are right or wrong answers to this.

There aren't. It's just a matter of considering consequences--which are not local, but global. Every time a bandit jump is made, it endangers legal sites. Everytime a new site becomes legal, the choice of how to jump that site becomes subject to someone else's rules. And eventually (perhaps sooner than you think) comes the quid pro quo, at which point you will all be turning on each other because the threat of losing those legal sites will make you believe you have no other choice but to turn in your brother.

I thought at first that year-round legal jumping at NRGB would be a plus. I no longer believe that, for reasons I don't feel like elucidating right now, although I will say that "sleeping with the enemy" is not high on my list of moral acts.

And about that, I will say this: I have always believed that a certain incident that occurred at a certain national park that resulted in the untimely death of a certain really nice guy is not, in fact, attributable to his own illegal actions, but rather to the rabid overzealousness of a certain law enforcement entity. For that reason alone, I think negotiation with that entity is unconscionable.

Nonetheless, my ethical position is my ethical position, not yours, and in the end, what you all will have to consider are the consequences awaiting you at the end of the road you choose.

rl

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

And eventually (perhaps sooner than you think) comes the quid pro quo, at which point you will all be turning on each other because the threat of losing those legal sites will make you believe you have no other choice but to turn in your brother.

The day I turn on another jumper, even one I detest, will never come. I know that seems like one hell of an absolute to live up to, but I just can't see myself turning another jumper in, regardless of the circumstances. I might not like someone (and in turn, may not be liked), but that's the time I just walk away and keep whatever personal emotions I have to myself. Or, maybe, in keeping with traditions, handle it inside the community. Bringing in an outside entity to handle our squabbles, however large or insignificant, is asking for the kind of trouble and regulation I hope does not come to BASE.

One of the things I was expecting to hear a little more of (but damn, this has been a quiet thread) is your implied sentiment (forgive me if I'm wrong) that maybe jumping should remain illegal in some respects for a couple of reasons, none of which I care to--or have the time to--go into now.

Quote

Nonetheless, my ethical position is my ethical position, not yours, and in the end, what you all will have to consider are the consequences awaiting you at the end of the road you choose.

Very well put.
-C.

[jimsterdone 0]

I think the grass roots direction is prefect. I went to backcountryparachutists.org and sent a letter to congress =). Thanks for the direction...

Jim

Quote

Okay, so this is probably a tired topic, but I'd like to know what other jumpers think. It was inspired by this post:

Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1647553#1647553
I can think of at least one BASE jumper with enough capital to afford a seriously bad-ass attorney who could tear up the park services' case against jumpers... it'd be nice if someone who could afford it would. If I wasn't poor and living in France...

It's a two-part question. Question 1's options are 1-3. Question 2's options are 4-7. I just didn't feel like splitting it into two separate polls/threads. The poll is set to allow multiple answers.

Question 1 (options 1-3):
How do we, as a community, best attack the NPS' stance on jumping in the Parks?

Personally, my vote goes for option 2 and here's why I think so...

A counter-suit against the Park Service, stemming from the arrest and gear-siezure of a jumper who violated a standing (if unfair, unconstitutional, etc.) policy--in my opinion--already starts in defecit. A judge will see that the defendant knew beforehand that the act they committed was illegal, yet chose to do it anyway. Judges don't typically smile upon this kind of situation and there's a history with their stance on BASE jumpers that doesn't sit in our favor. Furthermore, despite the jumper's best efforts to act only on their own behalf and not speak for the community as a whole, the NPS and judge are likely to take said jumper and stereotype the rest of us based on that one case (or multiple cases over history).
Grass-roots efforts such as letter-writing campaigns, the ABP (Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists) will show a more proactive stance on legalization of jumping than a reactive court battle to eliminate the charges, reclaim gear, etc.

Which leads into Question 2 (options 4-7):
If a jumper is caught and arrested, whether in a National Park or private land, how viciously should they fight the charges or is there a point at which it's better to take your punishment and walk quietly away?

For this, I lean to 5 first, but depending on the charges...I'd have to go with 6. The problem here is once again, the jumper's actions could have far reaching implications on other jumpers, beyond simple stereotyping. The bigger the fight, the more likely a city (or county or whatever) is to enact legislation to ban fixed-object jumping and not simply rely on trespassing charges. I know this has been done before and I don't question or point at any jumpers involved. I don't know the full specifics of their case(s) and will not pass judgement. I just point this out as one of those "far reaching implications on other jumpers".


I personally don't think there are right or wrong answers to this. If I did, I'd have an agenda, a soap-box and I'd have posted this in the Speaker's Forum and have pre-written flames at the ready for anyone who disagrees with me. Not the case. I want to know what other jumpers think about this, how they'd react and why they'd react in that way.

-C.

Edit to modify the subject line.

[riggerrob 643]

Sometimes the only way to change rigid, entrenched bureaucracies is to wait for the oldest and most stubborn bureaucrats to retire.
You will often meet junior bureaucrats who say "I don't care, but my boss would never permit that." It may take a decade - or more - but eventually those sympathetic junior bureaucrats move into senior management.
For example, the chief air traffic controller at Vancouver Center used to say that "skydivers will land on Pitt Meadows Airport over my dead body!"
Transport Canada eventually fired him and skydivers have been landing safely on Pitt Meadows Airport for the last decade or so.
So, when you are dealing with an entrenched bureaucracy (i.e. National Park Service) sometimes the best policy is patience, while maintaining a steady "noise level" through a grass-roots movement.

[base311 0]

Afterwhile the noise level will become deafening to the point someone will ask that it be turned off somehow.

Patience, Creativity, Action and Steadfastness
fair access. responsible use. worldwide.

Gardner