guest
October 28th, 1999, 12:34 PM
This is the editorial published 27 OCT 99 by the Fresno Bee. It is followed by my reply letter to the editor:
Document #1: THE EDITORIAL
Poor judgment in Yosemite
Officials should have stood firm: BASE jumping is a bad idea.
(Published October 27, 1999)
Two clear conclusions proceed from the tragedy in Yosemite last Friday that took the life of Santa Barbara parachutist Jan Davis: The National Park Service erred badly in permitting the "protest" by the so-called BASE jumpers, and the daredevil activities of the thrill-seekers have no place in Yosemite.
It is hindsight, some will say, that sees the Park Service's action as a mistake. The question of poor official judgment wouldn't have arisen, obviously, except for the fact of Davis' death.
But the Park Service has long experience with these jumpers, and had a firm policy in place prohibiting such escapades. The soundness of that policy was only confirmed by last Friday's events. In the future, no such compromises should be contemplated, much less allowed. Having said that, the principal blame for the tragedy belongs on the shoulders of the jumpers themselves. No amount of rationalization or high-flown rhetoric about the First Amendment will change that.
There are places where such activities may reasonably be permitted, and that's fine, so long as the jumpers threaten no one else, and post sufficient bonds to pay for the public services needed to clean up behind them - mostly for medical helicopters and ambulances to cart away the injured and the dead. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for the damages that result from this free expression of - what? Courage? Death wish?
In Yosemite the danger is high that innocent people may be hurt. And the cost to taxpayers is high as well. That makes the park an inappropriate venue for the jumpers.
The First Amendment argument offered by jumpers is particularly galling. They would have us believe that their actions are carried out under the honored banner of civil disobedience. They would have us believe they are acting in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi's March to the Sea, or the protests launched by Martin Luther King and other civil rights advocates in the '60s, or the farmworkers Cesar Chavez led into sit-downs in the fields.
To equate the right to hurl oneself dangerously from a cliff with those earlier noble efforts is to trivialize true civil disobedience. Civil disobedience in this recent case might have led the jumpers to protest in front of the Federal Building in Fresno. But jumping from its roof would not be an act of civil disobedience; that would be an act of simple foolishness - with all its consequences.
True disciples of civil disobedience understand that their actions have consequences, and they accept that fact. In this case, sadly, the consequence was death. Enough.
Document #2: THE REPLY
28 OCT 99
Dear editor:
Your disapproving editorial about BASE jumping did not surprise me; sudden, violent death tends to raise raw emotion over reason in all of us. And as a long-time wilderness parachutist, I'm sorry that our protest jangled the
nerves of so many people.
But while your editorial raised some important issues, its raw emotional
edges overshadowed reason and fair play and resulted in "clear conclusions"
I'm sure you'll reconsider once you reflect upon it a little more and let
reason reassert itself.
Point by point:
1) It was unfair to criticize the National Park Service for its handling
of the protest jumps. The conflict between wilderness parachutists and the
NPS has been going on for 21 years and it is a very complex issue involving
access issues, historical park uses, competing interests, law enforcement
practices and national NPS policies. If you were to more closely examine
the history of this conflict, I think you would find that NPS managers and
law enforcement personnel handled the protest action itself with a good
deal of common sense, fairness and grace.
2) Your contention that "the daredevil activities of the thrill-seekers
have no place in Yosemite" is not only unfair to wilderness parachutists,
but just plain out to lunch. Climbing El Capitan's face, slack roping and
camping with bears around all qualify at some level as daredevil activities
pursued by thrill seekers. There are not many among your readers who would dare any of these devils, yet these activities occur every day in Yosemite -- with NPS blessing.
3) The principal blame for Jan's death does indeed lie squarely on her
60-year-old shoulders, just as Frank Gambalie's death June 9 lies squarely
on his 28-year-old shoulders (after jumping from EL Capitan, he chose to jump into a runoff-swollen Merced River to escape pursuing rangers and drowned). Both of them made choices that turned out badly -- but both of them also made those choices in the face of NPS policies and law enforcement practices wilderness parachutists consider to be rampantly unfair and discriminatory. And so while the principal blame does lie with the jumpers themselves, NPS policy -- but NOT its protest conduct -- certainly was a contributing factor.
4) There are indeed places where wilderness parachuting may reasonably be permitted. I think Yosemite is one of those places, but I know reasonable
people may disagree on that because Yosemite, perhaps alone of all
America's national parks, is so buried in competing interests and attention
and visitors that it sometimes cannot follow the same course other units
do. The problem is, NPS refuses to "reasonably permit" wilderness
parachuting anywhere in its system. It is a blanket prohibition -- and an
unspoken one: There is no written policy prohibiting it, but if a
superintendent was to allow it, say, in Zion or the Black Canyon, or
Dinosaur, or Canyonlands -- all parks and monuments without the overuse
issues faced by Yosemite -- that superintendent would probably be looking
for a new job. I will flatly say that if NPS allowed BASE jumping in all of
its other units (it does allow it in the New River Gorge National River, by
the way), you would not see the same level of conflict in Yosemite -- and
both Frank and Jan would probably still be alive.
5) Which brings me to your contention that wilderness parachutists should
be allowed to jump only if they "post sufficient bonds to pay for the
public services needed to clean up behind them ... Taxpayers
shouldn't have to foot the bill ..." Now, if you make this same
statement about the climbers and hikers and riverbank strollers who each
year require more rescues, more body recoveries and more taxpayer money
than all the BASE jumpers who have ever crashed and burned, then fine,
you're consistent with your point of view and I can respect that. If,
however, you demand this level of accountability only of the jumpers, then
you are inconsistent and unfair.
6) There is no danger of innocent people getting hurt in Yosemite by
wilderness parachutists unless they stand right under them -- in which case,
they will be bombarded with climber refuse and excrement long
before they get hit by a falling jumper. And the cost to taxpayers is not
high: Unlike climbers who get stuck on the walls, hikers who get lost in
the woods, or tourists who fall into the rivers, it doesn't cost a lot to
recover and injured or dead BASE jumper because they pretty much always end up at the bottom of the cliffs, where it's easy, cheap and safe to rescue
or recover them.
7) That you find our "First Amendment argument... particularly galling"
reminds me of people who defend the First Amendment as absolute but think
it's okay to destroy the Second, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments.
Constitutional rights are reserved for all of us, and all of us are
entitled to exercise them in pursuit of our particular brand of Happiness.
8) That you would sneer at the thought that the protest parachutists acted
in the tradition of Gandhi, King and Chavez shows how deeply jangled you
were by Jan's death. Martin Luther King himself said, "any person who isn't
willing to die for something doesn't deserve to live." Now, I know he
sounds like a BASE jumper there, but that's what he said, and while you sat
safely in your editorial offices, Frank Gambalie and Jan Davis were out
there dying for what they believed. Perhaps when your reason
reasserts itself, you might reflect on what you might learn from their
example.
9) Your understanding of civil disobedience is flawed: Protesting NPS
wilderness parachuting polices in front of the Federal Building in Fresno
is NOT civil disobedience; it's a legal and permitted demonstration. Civil
disobedience is when you do something AGAINST CURRENT LAW -- you know, like when Rosa Parks wouldn't move to the back of the bus when a white man wanted her front row seat. In so doing, she committed the same kind of misdemeanor NPS cites wilderness parachutists for. In so doing, she earned the scorn of Bull Connor and others who considered her to just be an
"uppity nigger" -- which, basically, is exactly what you are saying to us.
I would like to end by saying that everyone interested in this issue should
ponder just why Frank and Jan were willing to die rather than submit to the
NPS policy which holds wilderness parachutists to be less than full
citizens of this country, and undeserving of the chance enjoy the parks
which they support with their tax dollars just like everybody else. And as
you ponder, I hope you'll remember some other words Martin Luther King
said, words he spoke when people criticized him for denouncing the Vietnam
War: "There can be no justice everywhere if there is injustice anywhere."
If you do, it will certainly be enough.
Robin Heid
Crawford, Colorado
Robin Heid base been a wilderness parachutist for 20 years. He is a former
official of the U.S. Parachute Association, and was a Republican
candidate for Congress and governor in the state of Colorado. He currently
writes for the world's largest parachuting magazine, SKYDIVING. Heid jumped El Capitan illegally in 1979, and legally in 1980, and was in Arizona on a legal BASE jumping trip when his good friend Jan Davis died at
the base of El Capitan.
Document #1: THE EDITORIAL
Poor judgment in Yosemite
Officials should have stood firm: BASE jumping is a bad idea.
(Published October 27, 1999)
Two clear conclusions proceed from the tragedy in Yosemite last Friday that took the life of Santa Barbara parachutist Jan Davis: The National Park Service erred badly in permitting the "protest" by the so-called BASE jumpers, and the daredevil activities of the thrill-seekers have no place in Yosemite.
It is hindsight, some will say, that sees the Park Service's action as a mistake. The question of poor official judgment wouldn't have arisen, obviously, except for the fact of Davis' death.
But the Park Service has long experience with these jumpers, and had a firm policy in place prohibiting such escapades. The soundness of that policy was only confirmed by last Friday's events. In the future, no such compromises should be contemplated, much less allowed. Having said that, the principal blame for the tragedy belongs on the shoulders of the jumpers themselves. No amount of rationalization or high-flown rhetoric about the First Amendment will change that.
There are places where such activities may reasonably be permitted, and that's fine, so long as the jumpers threaten no one else, and post sufficient bonds to pay for the public services needed to clean up behind them - mostly for medical helicopters and ambulances to cart away the injured and the dead. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for the damages that result from this free expression of - what? Courage? Death wish?
In Yosemite the danger is high that innocent people may be hurt. And the cost to taxpayers is high as well. That makes the park an inappropriate venue for the jumpers.
The First Amendment argument offered by jumpers is particularly galling. They would have us believe that their actions are carried out under the honored banner of civil disobedience. They would have us believe they are acting in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi's March to the Sea, or the protests launched by Martin Luther King and other civil rights advocates in the '60s, or the farmworkers Cesar Chavez led into sit-downs in the fields.
To equate the right to hurl oneself dangerously from a cliff with those earlier noble efforts is to trivialize true civil disobedience. Civil disobedience in this recent case might have led the jumpers to protest in front of the Federal Building in Fresno. But jumping from its roof would not be an act of civil disobedience; that would be an act of simple foolishness - with all its consequences.
True disciples of civil disobedience understand that their actions have consequences, and they accept that fact. In this case, sadly, the consequence was death. Enough.
Document #2: THE REPLY
28 OCT 99
Dear editor:
Your disapproving editorial about BASE jumping did not surprise me; sudden, violent death tends to raise raw emotion over reason in all of us. And as a long-time wilderness parachutist, I'm sorry that our protest jangled the
nerves of so many people.
But while your editorial raised some important issues, its raw emotional
edges overshadowed reason and fair play and resulted in "clear conclusions"
I'm sure you'll reconsider once you reflect upon it a little more and let
reason reassert itself.
Point by point:
1) It was unfair to criticize the National Park Service for its handling
of the protest jumps. The conflict between wilderness parachutists and the
NPS has been going on for 21 years and it is a very complex issue involving
access issues, historical park uses, competing interests, law enforcement
practices and national NPS policies. If you were to more closely examine
the history of this conflict, I think you would find that NPS managers and
law enforcement personnel handled the protest action itself with a good
deal of common sense, fairness and grace.
2) Your contention that "the daredevil activities of the thrill-seekers
have no place in Yosemite" is not only unfair to wilderness parachutists,
but just plain out to lunch. Climbing El Capitan's face, slack roping and
camping with bears around all qualify at some level as daredevil activities
pursued by thrill seekers. There are not many among your readers who would dare any of these devils, yet these activities occur every day in Yosemite -- with NPS blessing.
3) The principal blame for Jan's death does indeed lie squarely on her
60-year-old shoulders, just as Frank Gambalie's death June 9 lies squarely
on his 28-year-old shoulders (after jumping from EL Capitan, he chose to jump into a runoff-swollen Merced River to escape pursuing rangers and drowned). Both of them made choices that turned out badly -- but both of them also made those choices in the face of NPS policies and law enforcement practices wilderness parachutists consider to be rampantly unfair and discriminatory. And so while the principal blame does lie with the jumpers themselves, NPS policy -- but NOT its protest conduct -- certainly was a contributing factor.
4) There are indeed places where wilderness parachuting may reasonably be permitted. I think Yosemite is one of those places, but I know reasonable
people may disagree on that because Yosemite, perhaps alone of all
America's national parks, is so buried in competing interests and attention
and visitors that it sometimes cannot follow the same course other units
do. The problem is, NPS refuses to "reasonably permit" wilderness
parachuting anywhere in its system. It is a blanket prohibition -- and an
unspoken one: There is no written policy prohibiting it, but if a
superintendent was to allow it, say, in Zion or the Black Canyon, or
Dinosaur, or Canyonlands -- all parks and monuments without the overuse
issues faced by Yosemite -- that superintendent would probably be looking
for a new job. I will flatly say that if NPS allowed BASE jumping in all of
its other units (it does allow it in the New River Gorge National River, by
the way), you would not see the same level of conflict in Yosemite -- and
both Frank and Jan would probably still be alive.
5) Which brings me to your contention that wilderness parachutists should
be allowed to jump only if they "post sufficient bonds to pay for the
public services needed to clean up behind them ... Taxpayers
shouldn't have to foot the bill ..." Now, if you make this same
statement about the climbers and hikers and riverbank strollers who each
year require more rescues, more body recoveries and more taxpayer money
than all the BASE jumpers who have ever crashed and burned, then fine,
you're consistent with your point of view and I can respect that. If,
however, you demand this level of accountability only of the jumpers, then
you are inconsistent and unfair.
6) There is no danger of innocent people getting hurt in Yosemite by
wilderness parachutists unless they stand right under them -- in which case,
they will be bombarded with climber refuse and excrement long
before they get hit by a falling jumper. And the cost to taxpayers is not
high: Unlike climbers who get stuck on the walls, hikers who get lost in
the woods, or tourists who fall into the rivers, it doesn't cost a lot to
recover and injured or dead BASE jumper because they pretty much always end up at the bottom of the cliffs, where it's easy, cheap and safe to rescue
or recover them.
7) That you find our "First Amendment argument... particularly galling"
reminds me of people who defend the First Amendment as absolute but think
it's okay to destroy the Second, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments.
Constitutional rights are reserved for all of us, and all of us are
entitled to exercise them in pursuit of our particular brand of Happiness.
8) That you would sneer at the thought that the protest parachutists acted
in the tradition of Gandhi, King and Chavez shows how deeply jangled you
were by Jan's death. Martin Luther King himself said, "any person who isn't
willing to die for something doesn't deserve to live." Now, I know he
sounds like a BASE jumper there, but that's what he said, and while you sat
safely in your editorial offices, Frank Gambalie and Jan Davis were out
there dying for what they believed. Perhaps when your reason
reasserts itself, you might reflect on what you might learn from their
example.
9) Your understanding of civil disobedience is flawed: Protesting NPS
wilderness parachuting polices in front of the Federal Building in Fresno
is NOT civil disobedience; it's a legal and permitted demonstration. Civil
disobedience is when you do something AGAINST CURRENT LAW -- you know, like when Rosa Parks wouldn't move to the back of the bus when a white man wanted her front row seat. In so doing, she committed the same kind of misdemeanor NPS cites wilderness parachutists for. In so doing, she earned the scorn of Bull Connor and others who considered her to just be an
"uppity nigger" -- which, basically, is exactly what you are saying to us.
I would like to end by saying that everyone interested in this issue should
ponder just why Frank and Jan were willing to die rather than submit to the
NPS policy which holds wilderness parachutists to be less than full
citizens of this country, and undeserving of the chance enjoy the parks
which they support with their tax dollars just like everybody else. And as
you ponder, I hope you'll remember some other words Martin Luther King
said, words he spoke when people criticized him for denouncing the Vietnam
War: "There can be no justice everywhere if there is injustice anywhere."
If you do, it will certainly be enough.
Robin Heid
Crawford, Colorado
Robin Heid base been a wilderness parachutist for 20 years. He is a former
official of the U.S. Parachute Association, and was a Republican
candidate for Congress and governor in the state of Colorado. He currently
writes for the world's largest parachuting magazine, SKYDIVING. Heid jumped El Capitan illegally in 1979, and legally in 1980, and was in Arizona on a legal BASE jumping trip when his good friend Jan Davis died at
the base of El Capitan.