Yosemite Area Reality Check? [Archive]

guest

October 27th, 1999, 01:05 PM

Just wanted to pass along a pointer to an
editorial that appeared today in the Fresno Bee.
Without disecting the content of the article for
accuracy, it might provide everyone here some
insight into the reaction of the locals to this
incident.

Rand

==============

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/0,1733,111223,00.html

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.

(see url for the rest of the story)

guest

October 27th, 1999, 04:05 PM

Rand's url for the fresno bee is right, but if you only use the underlined section it won't get you anywhere. Here's the URL again, in two pieces so you can select the whole thing.

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/
story/0,1733,111223,00.html

Orrrr, just read the whole editorial below. If you respond, be nice, and be patient. these people are whuffos who don't get it yet, after all...

THE EDITORIAL in todays Fresno BEe:

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.