TomAiello 26 #26 May 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteDo you think this also applies to jumps made from the park, but landed outside the park boundary? I know of one case where jumpers were busted like that, and they plea bargained, so it never saw court. Are you suggetsing a WS jump? I actually know an exit that meets this criteria. It was shown to me by a friend of mine, who wears a green shirt to work in the back country.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #27 May 3, 2005 QuoteRick H. (now head of the United States BASE Association and occasional reader of these forums) was able to beat the rap for Aerial Delivery some time in the way back, on behalf of himself and another jumper (Rick's a real lawyer, so he wasn't just some yahoo trying to defend himself in court). At the time the regulation was worded differently and didn't specifically mention parachutes, so he was able to present stautory/regulatory construction arguments that got the charges dismissed. I think soon after that case the DoI changed the regulation to specifically mention parachutes. Rick was also saying that he couldn't beat that same rap now with the currently worded regs. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #28 May 3, 2005 QuoteThere are several reasons why a good attorney would not be able to get this thing dismissed. The first is the regulation. It references "delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute..." Just because you are in the park doesn't mean that a retrieval or a delivery does not happen. Try sending an e-mail to yourself. It is sent, delivered and retrieved to and from the same source. As written, the rule indicates that delivery (regardless of from where it was delivered) and retrievel (regardless of from where it was retrieved) is against the rule. It's that simple. actually this is misusing the definition of delivery.. in your email example the email actually leaves your (virtual) location, goes somewhere else (the mail server) and returns.. a jumper never leaves the park.. unless the courts are using a different dictionary than the rest of the english speaking world this shouldnt apply... the only way you could stretch it is if you consider the 'delivery' the act of jumping itself (as in a pitcher 'delivers' a pitch) but then you would also have to prosecute anyone who tosses gear to another person during any activity in the park... the real problem is the goverment's (and the judge's) inability to admit they might have been mistaken in past rulings and act to correct it... "stop making sense, you work for the goverment and we dont pay you for that....."____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #29 May 3, 2005 I have heard of Rick H. It is my understanding that due to his employment he has particular insight into the workings of federal regulations and the federal courts. But, I digress. A guy like him WILL be able to beat raps like that. It doesn't cost nearly as much when you are doing the research to defend yourself. Especially someone with his talent and experience and intimate knowledge of the process. Cheers to him. QuoteDo you think this also applies to jumps made from the park, but landed outside the park boundary My ejumacaded guess is that you'd have to duke it out in court whether or not it would apply. Hopefully, you'll be outside the park (which may affect the jurisdiction of the rangers to pinch you). Still, it'll be delivery "from" the park, won't it? Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Final point - "dismissal." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't that what the trial court decided in Oxx, though? Yep. And the trial court got reversed. Sure, the trial courts can do it, but you can probably be sure that Judge Wunderlich (I think Judge Best isn't there anymore) knows about this. He can dismiss it, which can lead to more costs on appeal for the jumper. Sometimes, you are more ruined by winning a case than by losing one... My wife is hotter than your wife. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #30 May 3, 2005 Quoteactually this is misusing the definition of delivery Welcome to my world, where terms are used and misused. Do legal arguments come down to semantics? You're damned straight. That's how rules get overturned - semantics. My wife is hotter than your wife. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #31 May 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteactually this is misusing the definition of delivery Welcome to my world, where terms are used and misused. Do legal arguments come down to semantics? You're damned straight. That's how rules get overturned - semantics. yea that was the reason i could never be a lawyer ( although i do LOVE a good argument) you have to agree on definitions BEFORE you can even begin negotiations... seems like the legal world has that completely backwards... lawyers and judges should have to write 'design decision and specification' documents (ala software development) that way there would be reference to exactly what the intent was behind every definition and how those defintions affected the verdict.. then we wouldnt have to rehash arguements over terms like 'well regulated' ...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #32 May 3, 2005 Quote...unless the courts are using a different dictionary than the rest of the english speaking world this shouldnt apply... I'm pretty sure they're using the "legalese" dictionary. That means we need an interpreter (like Lawrocket, for example) to tell us what it means in our language. Quotethe only way you could stretch it is if you consider the 'delivery' the act of jumping itself (as in a pitcher 'delivers' a pitch) but then you would also have to prosecute anyone who tosses gear to another person during any activity in the park... The NPS has busted climbers in the near past for tossing bags of gear off rocks.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base311 0 #33 May 4, 2005 Quote The NPS has busted climbers in the near past for tossing bags of gear off rocks. It was my understanding that those busts also included a tarp intended to act as an aerodynamic decelerator. Were they charged with aerial delivery? or is there another reg about chucking gear from the wall? Gardner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
veter_ 0 #34 May 4, 2005 I figure landing wingsuit without a parachute in Yosemite would be perfectly legal. Just put tubes with small holes in Merced river and pump compressed air through them to make water very soft. Who needs a parachute these days??? Right, Jeb? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites badenhop 0 #35 May 4, 2005 Hello, Yes isn't it ironic. Very closely related to the roots of the aerial delivery law. The irony being that............. We've heard for years from the NPS that the reason the climbers seem to be able to do whatever they want is because of their long historical presence. The aerial delivery law was first implemented in other areas to reduce "squatting". The law was twisted to be used against us for putting into freefall our bodies from backcountry cliffs, and then using a parachute for safe access back into the park. Now the climbers use our technology in their sport, and get busted with that rascally old aerial delivery law. A search of morning reports should reveal the exact details, it was in the last year or so. I guess being able to huck piles of crap off the cliff makes it easier to "squatt" there a bit longer. Are some of the climbers overstaying their historical welcome? Our sport definitely has less of an environmental impact in the park than so many of its' other abusers.================================== I've got all I need, Jesus and gravity. Dolly Parton http://www.AveryBadenhop.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #36 May 4, 2005 QuoteIt was my understanding that those busts also included a tarp intended to act as an aerodynamic decelerator. Were they charged with aerial delivery? Yes, and yes. Climbers generally use rain flies (from tents or portaledges) or similar pieces of adapted equipment. No one wants to carry a tarp up a wall just to toss with the bags. Besides, if you had a tarp, you'd need to schlare the dongles.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #37 May 4, 2005 QuoteAre some of the climbers overstaying their historical welcome? I'm sure the NPS would love to toss climbers out, too. But climbers have enough people (and money) to have political influence. Do you know the story about the bolting ban and Senator Gorton?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JaapSuter 0 #38 May 4, 2005 Quoteyou'd need to schlare the dongles. Jonkels... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lifewithoutanet 0 #39 May 4, 2005 Quote ***you'd need to schlare the dongles. Jonkels... And for you non Dutch Canadians, that's pronounced "Yonkles". -C. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites base311 0 #40 May 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteAre some of the climbers overstaying their historical welcome? I'm sure the NPS would love to toss climbers out, too. But climbers have enough people (and money) to have political influence. Do you know the story about the bolting ban and Senator Gorton? Avery: I share the same frustration (yeah... I'm a master of understatement, huh?), but I certainly have no desire to chart a course for our own access by underscoring the damage done - or mistakes made -by the climbing community. I think they (as a user group) realize the nature of the thin ice on which they tread, and have taken strides to change their ethic in order to reduce their impacts. Many of OUR forebears came from the climbing community (and many still do), and I think we would all do better to remain allies than become enemies. Please understand this is not a chastisement; I'm merely trying to point out that we can make our case without pointing to their problems. It's simple, really: backcountry parachuting is a non-powered, non-polluting, non-damaging, and minimally intrusive activity... and that's basically all that needs to be said. Tom: Haven't heard the story re: the bolting ban and Sen. Gorton. Please tell. Gardner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #41 May 4, 2005 QuoteTom: Haven't heard the story re: the bolting ban and Sen. Gorton. Please tell. Short version: NPS wanted to ban replacement of fixed anchors on park service land. Climbers obviously were against this. President of REI calls his senator (Slade Gorton, R-WA). Senator Gorton calls the director of the NPS. Mentions that the park service budget is up for review soon. Also mentions that he is chairman of the senate appropriations committee, which will do that review. Also mentions that a major employer in his home state, Recreational Equipment Incorporated, is concerned that a ban on fixed anchor replacement might hurt their bottom line, cause them to hire less voters, and contribute less to the Gorton campaign fund. NPS decides that banning replacement of fixed anchors is not such a good idea.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nicrussell 0 #42 May 4, 2005 Its funny how all things come 'down' to the bottom line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #43 May 4, 2005 Q:whats the guiding principle in american politics? money talks ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites leroydb 0 #44 May 4, 2005 "in god we trust" nevermind, they are trying to get that off US currency... Leroy ..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites klapaucius 0 #45 May 4, 2005 QuoteQuote...unless the courts are using a different dictionary than the rest of the english speaking world this shouldnt apply... I'm pretty sure they're using the "legalese" dictionary. That means we need an interpreter (like Lawrocket, for example) to tell us what it means in our language. Paragliders are regulated under FAR 103 (Federal Aviation Regulations), regulations are very loose on the technical side (essentially anything that flies and weighs less than 155 pounds if unpowered). Could a defence of parachute being an aircraft (for purpose of beating Lake Powell rap) make a parachute into an FAR 103 regulated unpowered ultralight? Imagine ;-> jumper - "This is Mojo Bravo Alpha Sierra Echo niner niner niner with information Romeo". tower - "City Tower niner niner niner" jumper - "Requesting permission to enter City ATC. Altitude 260ft squawk 1200 niner niner niner" tower - "City Tower. Identify your locataion" jumper -"Erghh I am on top of the Best Eastern Bank tower downtown.eh..niner niner niner" tower - "Altimeter setting two niner seven five, ......"" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites base311 0 #46 May 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote...unless the courts are using a different dictionary than the rest of the english speaking world this shouldnt apply... I'm pretty sure they're using the "legalese" dictionary. That means we need an interpreter (like Lawrocket, for example) to tell us what it means in our language. Paragliders are regulated under FAR 103 (Federal Aviation Regulations), regulations are very loose on the technical side (essentially anything that flies and weighs less than 155 pounds if unpowered). Could a defence of parachute being an aircraft (for purpose of beating Lake Powell rap) make a parachute into an FAR 103 regulated unpowered ultralight? Imagine ;-> jumper - "This is Mojo Bravo Alpha Sierra Echo niner niner niner with information Romeo". tower - "City Tower niner niner niner" jumper - "Requesting permission to enter City ATC. Altitude 260ft squawk 1200 niner niner niner" tower - "City Tower. Identify your locataion" jumper -"Erghh I am on top of the Best Eastern Bank tower downtown.eh..niner niner niner" tower - "Altimeter setting two niner seven five, ......"" I think that defense has already been tried in one form or another. By that, I mean it was argued in one case that a parachute was an aircraft, and in another case I believe it was argued that a parachute WAS NOT an aircraft. Further, we have it straight from the FAA that backcountry parachuting is not regulated by them because we do not depart from an aircraft; let's hope they maintain that stance. Some of our problem (or maybe it is the ultimate solution) may, in fact, be that we do not exist under any regulatory structure... bear in mind I think things should remain that way. I would prefer no regulation... but to achieve access reasonable regulation may be something we'll have to consider. -Gardner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites base311 0 #47 May 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteTom: Haven't heard the story re: the bolting ban and Sen. Gorton. Please tell. Short version: NPS wanted to ban replacement of fixed anchors on park service land. Climbers obviously were against this. President of REI calls his senator (Slade Gorton, R-WA). Senator Gorton calls the director of the NPS. Mentions that the park service budget is up for review soon. Also mentions that he is chairman of the senate appropriations committee, which will do that review. Also mentions that a major employer in his home state, Recreational Equipment Incorporated, is concerned that a ban on fixed anchor replacement might hurt their bottom line, cause them to hire less voters, and contribute less to the Gorton campaign fund. NPS decides that banning replacement of fixed anchors is not such a good idea. I thought I posted this last night, but apparently I never hit the post button before shutting down. Some more of the politics behind this: REI and Subaru are/were major contributors to the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Education organization, which says it reaches approx. 10 million users per year with its message of leave no trace ethic. See this link for more info. In light of what you said, and considering REI's involvement with LNT.org, I'd say there was a considerable amount of crow eaten by the aforementioned NPS Dir. Gardner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LouYoung 0 #48 May 4, 2005 Quote REI and Subaru are/were major contributors to the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Education organization, And they were for the drilling of rocks and placement of bolts there? Not to bag on climbers, because I think we all do what we do for fun and that's okay, but I always wondered how climbers felt about the "Leave No Trace" ethic when they toss their trash off of walls and drill into rocks to place permanent bolts. I feel guilty about just leaving a tailgate rubberband on each jump. Lou Share this post Link to post Share on other sites base311 0 #49 May 4, 2005 QuoteQuote REI and Subaru are/were major contributors to the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Education organization, And they were for the drilling of rocks and placement of bolts there? Not to bag on climbers, because I think we all do what we do for fun and that's okay, but I always wondered how climbers felt about the "Leave No Trace" ethic when they toss their trash off of walls and drill into rocks to place permanent bolts. I feel guilty about just leaving a tailgate rubberband on each jump. Lou Please see my response to Avery, above, post #40. Let us do the best WE can do to minimize our impacts wherever we are. The rest will sort itself out in time. Gardner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LouYoung 0 #50 May 4, 2005 Point taken. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 0
badenhop 0 #35 May 4, 2005 Hello, Yes isn't it ironic. Very closely related to the roots of the aerial delivery law. The irony being that............. We've heard for years from the NPS that the reason the climbers seem to be able to do whatever they want is because of their long historical presence. The aerial delivery law was first implemented in other areas to reduce "squatting". The law was twisted to be used against us for putting into freefall our bodies from backcountry cliffs, and then using a parachute for safe access back into the park. Now the climbers use our technology in their sport, and get busted with that rascally old aerial delivery law. A search of morning reports should reveal the exact details, it was in the last year or so. I guess being able to huck piles of crap off the cliff makes it easier to "squatt" there a bit longer. Are some of the climbers overstaying their historical welcome? Our sport definitely has less of an environmental impact in the park than so many of its' other abusers.================================== I've got all I need, Jesus and gravity. Dolly Parton http://www.AveryBadenhop.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #36 May 4, 2005 QuoteIt was my understanding that those busts also included a tarp intended to act as an aerodynamic decelerator. Were they charged with aerial delivery? Yes, and yes. Climbers generally use rain flies (from tents or portaledges) or similar pieces of adapted equipment. No one wants to carry a tarp up a wall just to toss with the bags. Besides, if you had a tarp, you'd need to schlare the dongles.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #37 May 4, 2005 QuoteAre some of the climbers overstaying their historical welcome? I'm sure the NPS would love to toss climbers out, too. But climbers have enough people (and money) to have political influence. Do you know the story about the bolting ban and Senator Gorton?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JaapSuter 0 #38 May 4, 2005 Quoteyou'd need to schlare the dongles. Jonkels... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lifewithoutanet 0 #39 May 4, 2005 Quote ***you'd need to schlare the dongles. Jonkels... And for you non Dutch Canadians, that's pronounced "Yonkles". -C. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base311 0 #40 May 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteAre some of the climbers overstaying their historical welcome? I'm sure the NPS would love to toss climbers out, too. But climbers have enough people (and money) to have political influence. Do you know the story about the bolting ban and Senator Gorton? Avery: I share the same frustration (yeah... I'm a master of understatement, huh?), but I certainly have no desire to chart a course for our own access by underscoring the damage done - or mistakes made -by the climbing community. I think they (as a user group) realize the nature of the thin ice on which they tread, and have taken strides to change their ethic in order to reduce their impacts. Many of OUR forebears came from the climbing community (and many still do), and I think we would all do better to remain allies than become enemies. Please understand this is not a chastisement; I'm merely trying to point out that we can make our case without pointing to their problems. It's simple, really: backcountry parachuting is a non-powered, non-polluting, non-damaging, and minimally intrusive activity... and that's basically all that needs to be said. Tom: Haven't heard the story re: the bolting ban and Sen. Gorton. Please tell. Gardner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #41 May 4, 2005 QuoteTom: Haven't heard the story re: the bolting ban and Sen. Gorton. Please tell. Short version: NPS wanted to ban replacement of fixed anchors on park service land. Climbers obviously were against this. President of REI calls his senator (Slade Gorton, R-WA). Senator Gorton calls the director of the NPS. Mentions that the park service budget is up for review soon. Also mentions that he is chairman of the senate appropriations committee, which will do that review. Also mentions that a major employer in his home state, Recreational Equipment Incorporated, is concerned that a ban on fixed anchor replacement might hurt their bottom line, cause them to hire less voters, and contribute less to the Gorton campaign fund. NPS decides that banning replacement of fixed anchors is not such a good idea.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nicrussell 0 #42 May 4, 2005 Its funny how all things come 'down' to the bottom line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #43 May 4, 2005 Q:whats the guiding principle in american politics? money talks ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leroydb 0 #44 May 4, 2005 "in god we trust" nevermind, they are trying to get that off US currency... Leroy ..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
klapaucius 0 #45 May 4, 2005 QuoteQuote...unless the courts are using a different dictionary than the rest of the english speaking world this shouldnt apply... I'm pretty sure they're using the "legalese" dictionary. That means we need an interpreter (like Lawrocket, for example) to tell us what it means in our language. Paragliders are regulated under FAR 103 (Federal Aviation Regulations), regulations are very loose on the technical side (essentially anything that flies and weighs less than 155 pounds if unpowered). Could a defence of parachute being an aircraft (for purpose of beating Lake Powell rap) make a parachute into an FAR 103 regulated unpowered ultralight? Imagine ;-> jumper - "This is Mojo Bravo Alpha Sierra Echo niner niner niner with information Romeo". tower - "City Tower niner niner niner" jumper - "Requesting permission to enter City ATC. Altitude 260ft squawk 1200 niner niner niner" tower - "City Tower. Identify your locataion" jumper -"Erghh I am on top of the Best Eastern Bank tower downtown.eh..niner niner niner" tower - "Altimeter setting two niner seven five, ......"" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base311 0 #46 May 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote...unless the courts are using a different dictionary than the rest of the english speaking world this shouldnt apply... I'm pretty sure they're using the "legalese" dictionary. That means we need an interpreter (like Lawrocket, for example) to tell us what it means in our language. Paragliders are regulated under FAR 103 (Federal Aviation Regulations), regulations are very loose on the technical side (essentially anything that flies and weighs less than 155 pounds if unpowered). Could a defence of parachute being an aircraft (for purpose of beating Lake Powell rap) make a parachute into an FAR 103 regulated unpowered ultralight? Imagine ;-> jumper - "This is Mojo Bravo Alpha Sierra Echo niner niner niner with information Romeo". tower - "City Tower niner niner niner" jumper - "Requesting permission to enter City ATC. Altitude 260ft squawk 1200 niner niner niner" tower - "City Tower. Identify your locataion" jumper -"Erghh I am on top of the Best Eastern Bank tower downtown.eh..niner niner niner" tower - "Altimeter setting two niner seven five, ......"" I think that defense has already been tried in one form or another. By that, I mean it was argued in one case that a parachute was an aircraft, and in another case I believe it was argued that a parachute WAS NOT an aircraft. Further, we have it straight from the FAA that backcountry parachuting is not regulated by them because we do not depart from an aircraft; let's hope they maintain that stance. Some of our problem (or maybe it is the ultimate solution) may, in fact, be that we do not exist under any regulatory structure... bear in mind I think things should remain that way. I would prefer no regulation... but to achieve access reasonable regulation may be something we'll have to consider. -Gardner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base311 0 #47 May 4, 2005 QuoteQuoteTom: Haven't heard the story re: the bolting ban and Sen. Gorton. Please tell. Short version: NPS wanted to ban replacement of fixed anchors on park service land. Climbers obviously were against this. President of REI calls his senator (Slade Gorton, R-WA). Senator Gorton calls the director of the NPS. Mentions that the park service budget is up for review soon. Also mentions that he is chairman of the senate appropriations committee, which will do that review. Also mentions that a major employer in his home state, Recreational Equipment Incorporated, is concerned that a ban on fixed anchor replacement might hurt their bottom line, cause them to hire less voters, and contribute less to the Gorton campaign fund. NPS decides that banning replacement of fixed anchors is not such a good idea. I thought I posted this last night, but apparently I never hit the post button before shutting down. Some more of the politics behind this: REI and Subaru are/were major contributors to the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Education organization, which says it reaches approx. 10 million users per year with its message of leave no trace ethic. See this link for more info. In light of what you said, and considering REI's involvement with LNT.org, I'd say there was a considerable amount of crow eaten by the aforementioned NPS Dir. Gardner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouYoung 0 #48 May 4, 2005 Quote REI and Subaru are/were major contributors to the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Education organization, And they were for the drilling of rocks and placement of bolts there? Not to bag on climbers, because I think we all do what we do for fun and that's okay, but I always wondered how climbers felt about the "Leave No Trace" ethic when they toss their trash off of walls and drill into rocks to place permanent bolts. I feel guilty about just leaving a tailgate rubberband on each jump. Lou Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base311 0 #49 May 4, 2005 QuoteQuote REI and Subaru are/were major contributors to the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Education organization, And they were for the drilling of rocks and placement of bolts there? Not to bag on climbers, because I think we all do what we do for fun and that's okay, but I always wondered how climbers felt about the "Leave No Trace" ethic when they toss their trash off of walls and drill into rocks to place permanent bolts. I feel guilty about just leaving a tailgate rubberband on each jump. Lou Please see my response to Avery, above, post #40. Let us do the best WE can do to minimize our impacts wherever we are. The rest will sort itself out in time. Gardner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
