[JoeF]

Start of study of just what is GGNRA.
Start, but not finish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ga ... ation_Area
What is it?
Does it own land or just manage land?
Does it have superiors or is it a kind of end game?
How does one work with and communicate with GGNRA?
What are its mandates?
What is its mission?
What has been the details of its interface with the individual recreation person?
Is it part of the US government or not?
Can Congress have a say over GGNRA? If so, what is the record of such, if any?
???
I am guessing in the study it will be important to know well what a NRA is or is not. Start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recreation_Area

At first glance, a rough path:
Congress NPS National Recreation Areas GGNRA Fort Funston to be verified. And what does such path mean? So far, this seems familiar to me.
To be verified (wiki editors did some work, but maybe more is needed: "The fort was inactivated in 1963 and eventually transferred to the National Park Service to be administered as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. " It sure feels like the people of the United States still own the subject Fort Funston. Help me know what I am missing here, please; thanks for the tutorial.

[DaveSchy]

I think that Joe is on the perfect track to take USHPA to task on a national level (as he seems to be).

Funston Flyers respond to Joe's thoughts with a ban, not a very adult response in my eyes. Having been banned from local forums in the past for my opinion that USHPA has gone off the rails, these little forum dictators only hurt their own credibility and the group capacity to change.
Joe correctly approached the local club first and was rebuffed, it is no wonder to any one that his effort would continue without the locals.
Some may view that as "going behind their backs" but that is not the case when all the locals can respond with is a ban on a valid criticism.
USHPA is not a hang gliding club, and our rights under FAR 103 have never changed.

These ill advised site tactics are about money, there is no other reason for such vehemence.

It is past time for all site negotiators (public and private) to rethink their offer of "insurance" in the guise of the RRRG. (USHPA's RRRG is not insurance and the personal liability of the RRRG is unacceptable since I no longer live in my van.)

FAR 103, and the outdoor recreation laws in every state, are all any land owner needs to be protected for liability. USHPA continually whines about losing sites and needing more money, well, DUH!
The efforts that started with the Hawks and LA are going viral, I am glad to see it.
In this matter, the old ways were the right ways, we are self regulated, and USHPA is dying fast, by their own hand.

[JoeF]

Revised authority line to:

People Congress U. S. Department of the Interior National Park Service National Recreation Areas GGNRA Visitors and SUPs FFFF People

==================================
FFFF forum erases topics and posts when a challenge arrives about GGNRA SUPs. FFFF thus has a kind of false informing going; GGNRA might look to that forum for clues to how FFFF is managing the SUP and hang gliding at FF.

Well, if the forum erases core discussions on matters about the management of hang gliding at FF, then is not that kind of a giving of false information to the GGNRA? The SUP requires that FFFF give no false information. Though the false information may be just aside of the SUP application process, there might be some keen wondering by the GGNRA should they realize how FFFF deletes appropriate discussions by interested and participating pilots and public visitors. If I were GGNRA, I'd be concerned about the censoring of pilot-input discussion posts. At any time GGNRA may cancel the SUP. Annual renewal is coming up for the SUP. But note: the SUP may be modified or even fully stopped by the GGNRA at any time for the giving of false information to the GGNRA.