I want your opinion on the NPS & BASE

[MWGemini 0]

First off, let me say that I am not currently a BASE jumper, but I am planning on jumping when my skills and knowledge will allow it (another year or two at least).

I am writing a paper for one of my english courses arguing why BASE should be legalized in national parks. My understanding of the issue (and if I am wrong, please correct me) is that it is not illegal, *IF* you have a permit, but the NPS will not issue permits (unofficial policy prohibits it, but officially, it is not necessarily illegal).

Some of the reasons I'm using to support the argument include safety (for jumpers and everyone else) and fairness (I can climb or hike in the park, but I can't jump), but I'd like to get your opinions on the matter as well.

Basically, I have two questions for you:
1) Should the NPS completely legalize BASE?
2) Why or why not?

If you would prefer to PM me, that is fine. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the issue as a whole.

Thanks,

Mike

[leroydb 0]

also check out http://blincmagazine.com. I think there is a whole "legal" archive there.

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[lawrocket 3]

You know, I think the BASE forum is my favorite forum to read, although I am not a BASE jumper and have no real intentions of ever doing BASE.

Quote

1) Should the NPS completely legalize BASE?
2) Why or why not?

I do not think that BASE will be "completely" legalized. I'm not even sure it should be. Reasons? Because I think:

1) The reasonable NPS fear that legalized jumping will be abused again. NickDG explained how it happened before;
2) Fatalities and injuries will skyrocket because untrained and/or inexperienced people will want to do it;
3) Increased traffic to exit points and landing areas are contrary to the parks' goals of maintaining a somewhat pristine condition; and
4) BASE will never be the same if it is.

Back in 1997, 36 CFR 2.17 read:

Quote

Sec. 2.17 Aircraft and air delivery.

(a) The following are prohibited:
(1) Operating or using aircraft on lands or waters other than at locations designated pursuant to special regulations.
(2) Where a water surface is designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, operating or using aircraft under power on the water within 500 feet of locations designated as swimming beaches, boat docks, piers, or ramps, except as otherwise designated.
(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

In 1998, it was renumbered to 36 CFR 1002.17 and changed the language to read:

Quote

Sec. 1002.17 Aircraft and air delivery.

(a) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit, is prohibited.

Note: if you go looking for 36 CFR 2.17 in the current regs, you may have problems finding it. Instead, look to 1002.17.

Why did the NPS change that reg? It did the same thing as before, only it seemed to indicate some change in priorities. According to Tom, back during that same time frame, the NPS was looking at tightening restrictions on rope climbing, some rather sophisticated people used the political process via Slade Gordon. Note that this reg changed about the same time.

Fortunately, BASE jumpers have become more politically and legally savvy. They had to, as a matter of survival.

The NPS got these policies and came down hard when BASE jumpers weren't showing proper respect for the park, even when given a good opportunity. They are there with the mission of preserving the park, and trucks heading up old logging roads is not compatible with that mission. The government never forgets where it buries the hatchet.

The next reason is a fear that fatalities will increase. While it sucks to say it, the tragic death of Jan Davis probably set back BASE legalization many, many years. Unfortunately, it also got public opinion working against it due to the inordinately high publicity of that event. It's bad for NPS image and policy to have people dying in their parks. And they've got news video of that happening.

They are also sophisticated to know that, if legal, traffic will increase, unqualified people will try it, and other paying patrons may be turned off by it. Unlike other places, the NPS doesn't want to draw an unpaying crowd, and Yosemite is crowded enough as it is. It, from a policy standpoint, does not make sense for the NPS to make air delivery legal.

This leads in to the third point of increased traffic. Sure, there are plenty of trails in Yosemite, but BASE jumpers look for new exit points. The NPS doesn't want a bunch of folks creating new trails, new exits and high traffic.

All of this means is sucks to be a BASE jumper. BASE desires are not consistent with the NPS policy. NPS has proven that by changing the regs in 1998 (a process that likely started 5 years prior).

Interestingly, a side effect of this has been the development of the BASE ethics. Would BASE ethics be what they are now without NPS rules? Without the problems of trespassing and/or burning objects?

I actually think that BASE would become something entirely different that the "long timers" (cheers to NickDG) would not like. Legalization means a destruction of your culture, folks. Many of the BASE ethics would be shot to hell because of a lack of necessity and a probable influx of new blood who don't need to follow the rules. In a sense, that would be tragic.

Note again, I am not a BASE jumper. It's only my perspective from a couple of years of following the sport. I hope you all tell me I'm wrong about everything...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[base428 1]

Lawrocket made some interesting and valid points, but let me give you a BASE jumper's perspective on things

(1) Yes, the NPS probably has a fear of BASE jumpers and what the sport would become if legalized. However, when is the last time you've heard of a legal site being closed down due to overcrowding or unruliness? Jumper attitudes have changed over the years, and we are now a pretty responsible group of people who'll respect the rights we're given. Unfortunately, the NPS is still living in the early 1980's and they cannot see that we are a new generation. The LEGAL sites are usually the best sites - simply because we can't afford to misbehave. Of course, there are exceptions. I believe the main issues with legalizing jumping are the rescues, which can be solved with rescue insurance.

I, for one, am going to say right here and now that if I were afforded the opportunity to jump legally in other National Parks, that I would be respectful of the land, the rules, and the rangers. I would act as an invited guest and I would leave the place better off than I found it. And I also believe there are many, many jumpers out there who feel the same way I do! I also believe there are rangers out there who KNOW THIS. There are rangers who know that our system would work, but they are the minority.

(2) Fatalities and injuries will NOT skyrocket upon the legalization of jumping in National Parks. Sure, we'll see more incidents simply because there will be more jumping. But incidents in National Parks would probably remain consistent with the incident rates at other sites. And I truly believe there will be NO inexperienced people just leaping off any old cliff. Look at Kjerag for example......they have a system in place to train the newbies. The NPS would be insane to just "open it up" to anyone. Rather, a system run by jumpers themselves should be put in place to make sure one has the proper experience and, if not, they are trained. Look at Bridge Day for example - 50 skydives minimum and first jump and packing courses for the newbies - and this is a very simple, minimal requirement. Rescue insurance is also a good idea, because that is a major complaint from the NPS (although THAT IS THEIR JOB paid for by my hard earned tax dollars). The bottom line is that we can easily make jumping successful in National Parks because we're already running similar systems around the world with much success.

(3) Increased traffic to the exit point is a moot issue. There are already a large number of established trails to many, many exit areas within the National Park system. Plus, we're talking about ROCKS and rocks aren't easily damaged by an increase in foot traffic. In addition, it's not like there are a ton of BASE jumpers out there. You could even go to some of the most jumped cliffs in Utah and I bet you could never find the trails.

(4) I think there is a big misconception about BASE jumpers and the rush they get from making illegal jumps. Perhaps early in a jumper's career you will see them get more of a rush from jumping an illegal site rather than a legal one. But it doesn't take long for jumpers to realize that we don't BASE jump because we get to sneak around, but we do it for the jump itself. Skydivers surely don't skydive for the plane ride, so why would BASE jumpers enjoy hopping a fence and climbing a tower more than the jump itself.

Perhaps one day (hopefully before I'm too old) the NPS will extend their hand to BASE jumpers and allow them the freedom to participate in their valued sport from the tallest and safest cliffs in the good old US of A. However, if in 20 years we're still banned, I'm going to organize a 400 person train BASE jump from El Cap that will snuff out the last remaining bit of sunlight in the valley!!! Mark my words...

(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only

[DexterBase 0]

A agree with what Jason said.

Jason, 20 years, I'm there.

[dynastar81 0]

Quote

"1) The reasonable NPS fear that legalized jumping will be abused again."

I disagree that this is a reasonable fear. We lost these big walls before and I would hope that jumpers would do whatever they could to keep them legal. It is simple BASE ethics, don't put heat on any objects. Remember that jumping isn't allowed in all national parks so yosemite isn't the only place affected. And if people were to abuse it, I think I know where to find some tar and feathers.

Quote

"2) Fatalities and injuries will skyrocket because untrained and/or inexperienced people will want to do it"

Darwinism. On a serious note though. Look at our European friends. They have a lot of nice beautiful objects that they are allowed to jump. I might be wrong but I don't think that a bunch of fatalities of inexperienced jumpers occured due to legalization. BASE is growing and there are some inexperienced jumpers refining their skills in areas much more difficult than some of these big walls. Our legal bridge is an awesome place for people to learn some skills before heading to the cliffs.

As an aside. If I just picked up a hangglider and decided to throw myself off some of these walls without experience I would probably die pretty quickly. I am not a hangglider but I haven't heard of this being a problem and certainly not one worthy of keeping everyone from playing. Most people don't have a death wish.

Quote

"3) Increased traffic to exit points and landing areas are contrary to the parks' goals of maintaining a somewhat pristine condition"

This might be somewhat true but this is where regulation is involved. You can't drive a truck everyone on national park land. I don't think you can even climb everywhere. But that still is not good enough to ban us from jumping anything especially since there are some trails that already lead to beautiful exit points. And if the park wants a somewhat pristine condition I hope they have removed the piles of cement boulders I have heard about. To me I think day hikers pose more of a problem than base jumpers would in this aspect.

Quote

"4) BASE will never be the same if it is"

That is very true. We will have Europeans seeing how great our walls can be as well. I would love to be able to show some friends a stressfree time at the edge of some big walls at home. There is not much better than legal big cliffs with grass fields to land in. Much nicer than landing in the talus rock off things 1/3 the height.

Quote

"Interestingly, a side effect of this has been the development of the BASE ethics. Would BASE ethics be what they are now without NPS rules? Without the problems of trespassing and/or burning objects?

I actually think that BASE would become something entirely different that the "long timers" (cheers to NickDG) would not like. Legalization means a destruction of your culture, folks. Many of the BASE ethics would be shot to hell because of a lack of necessity and a probable influx of new blood who don't need to follow the rules. In a sense, that would be tragic."

Freeing our cliffs from persecution wouldn't change BASE ethics. There have been people that burned legal objects and there will always be a plethora of new illegal ones rising up. Legalization would prevent a lot of people from using substandard gear jumping in substandard conditions to be able to play on our own big walls. I think most jumpers would agree that they would prefer nice relaxed legal day jumps from our walls.

Quote

Note again, I am not a BASE jumper. It's only my perspective from a couple of years of following the sport. I hope you all tell me I'm wrong about everything..."

I hope that I did just that.

Pat

[jimmyh 0]

20 years? 20 years? I'll be ready in 20 minutes. just gotta switch my slider.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Has anyone considered going to the NPS with a package to see if there’s a way the BASE community could possibly work with the NPS in getting permits issued?

The concept I have in mind is somewhat similar to how skydiving legislation works. The NPS would grant a permit to anyone who holds a BASE “A license”…. Now who grants these licenses is a matter for the community to consider – you’d have to set up some kind of national body similar to the USPA or simply just administer it yourselves.

Now I realize that’s one hell of a step and probably not something everyone’s gonna like the idea of. At the end of the day though you wouldn’t need to have anything to do with such a body if you didn’t want to jump in the park.

That body then says to the NPS “we have the knowledge to certify these people, you just issue the permits”. That keeps the newbies out – no one gets certified until they’d undertaken an FJC style camp or demonstrated their ability, the BASE community is the judge of that. The NPS is just there to grant the permit and should hopefully feel shielded from legal liability because they have delegated any duty re the jumpers suitability to the BASE community / national body (whatever).

If the permit holder screws around the NPS can always revoke their permit… thus BASE ethics aren’t lost as there’s still the threat of having your park taken away from you.

The NPS would also be able to put whatever restrictions on you they required – such as no trail blazing or whatever they deemed necessary to preserve the parks as they are.

I’m guessing most of this is not exactly ideal – but the point is you’d be in the park jumping whatever you like legally and they way would be open to further extend your jumping rights with the NPS in the future.

Perhaps then this would be a way forward? Not further underground, not breaking the system… coming out of the closet as it were and working with the system?

I’m guessing I’m about to be shouted at that this gives way too much power to the NPS which is probably a valid concern… but it’s only an idea. That or a simple “they’d never go for it”… but has anyone ever asked?

At the end of the day I guess I'm just thinking out loud.

[DexterBase 0]

Quote

20 years? 20 years? I'll be ready in 20 minutes. just gotta switch my slider.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd love to flick it again. BUT I've already been busted there and I'm not sure how they'll treat me if I got busted again. Does anyone know of a case where a person was busted a second time in the Valley?

I'd sure hate to spend 90 days in jail if I got tagged again.

[dynastar81 0]

It seems as though a lot individuals have put effort into trying to legalize our NPs. What will be necessary is a large ongoing community effort. Our parks won't be freed overnight and I think we keep getting discouraged from continuing our attempts. How many people are writing their senators? How many people are applying for permits even though they know that they will be rejected. They can keep rejecting us as long as they want but I am sure the courts would find 1000 rejections without any granted to be a little unfair. There is most likely some people going through these efforts but many of us don't know how to help even if we could. Perhaps keeping a sticky of what actions we as a community can do will encourage us to stick with it. It may take 10 years of these efforts but it would be more than worthwhile if something works out. Our community is growing and with that our potential power is growing as well. The least we could do is give the NPS some more paperwork to fill out.

Then again it is easier to just wait and hope someone else is fighting for us.

Pat

[base428 1]

Great idea. Why don't we just post our "rejected" letters here? I'll start. Here's MINE

I agree, just sitting around waiting for someone else to do something about it is NOT a solution. Unfortunately, even the BASE organizations that are reportedly working on NP legalization are also a victim of the waiting game.

(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

...However, when is the last time you've heard of a legal site being closed down due to overcrowding or unruliness?

Temporarily? The waterfall in the Swiss Valley. It's happened more than once.

Permanently? Last year--that big hole in Mexico.

Quote

I believe the main issues with legalizing jumping are the rescues, which can be solved with rescue insurance.

I believe the NPS has us in a catch-22 on that. For actual rescue insurance, most insurers require that the jump be made legally. With the NPS saying "if you don't have insurance, we'll keep it illegal" and the insurers saying "unless they make it legal, we won't give you insurance", it's a bit of a tough spot. My personal solution is to get umbrella insurance (which would cover cost of rescue, once the NPS tried to recover those costs from me). But real rescue insurance (which would be cheaper, and available with group rates) will likely have to wait until jumping is legal.

Quote

I, for one, am going to say right here and now that if I were afforded the opportunity to jump legally in other National Parks, that I would be respectful of the land, the rules, and the rangers.

Me too. The problem is no one can speak for everyone.

Quote

And I truly believe there will be NO inexperienced people just leaping off any old cliff.

One of the closest jumpers to the famous valley in California regularly brings untrained (i.e. zero skydives) people up to Twin for "Death Camp," and puts them off the bridge. Do you really believe we wouldn't see "Death Camp in Yosemite"? For a hundred bucks a pop, you'd see plenty of Norcal jumpers willing to death camp your daughter off the Big Stone.

Quote

Increased traffic to the exit point is a moot issue.

I'm with you here. The vast majority of jumps in Yosemite are made in places that already have well established hiking trails, and tens of thousands of yearly (non-jumping) visitors.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Does anyone know of a case where a person was busted a second time in the Valley?

I strongly recommend waiting until after your probation expires before even entering the Valley again.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Has anyone considered going to the NPS with a package to see if there’s a way the BASE community could possibly work with the NPS in getting permits issued?

It's been attempting on several occasions. Back in the day, Jean Boenish came relatively close to working it out. As I recall, the killer issue turned out to be exit points (she wanted a safer exit, and the NPS was only willing to offer her a significantly more technical one).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Some of this is response to dynastar81, and some to LawRocket.

Quote

...We lost these big walls before and I would hope that jumpers would do whatever they could to keep them legal.

The vast majority of jumpers in the US today have no knowledge (let alone appreciation) of that history. I'd guess we've got just as many potential flat bed drivers (as a percentage of jumpers--meaning far more total people) amongst us today as there were in 1980.

Quote

As an aside. If I just picked up a hangglider and decided to throw myself off some of these walls without experience I would probably die pretty quickly.

The NPS regulation of hanggliding in the Valley is pretty strict. You couldn't just pick up a hang glider and go throw yourself off those walls.

Quote

"4) BASE will never be the same if it is"

I actually am not convinced of this. No matter how many legal jumps are made, there is a pretty consistent sub-culture of BASE that will keep flying the jolly roger. And getting connected in that part of our world will always take some knowledge of how things work in the culture--no matter how many legal jumps are being made elsewhere.

Quote

Would BASE ethics be what they are now without NPS rules? Without the problems of trespassing and/or burning objects?

No, but I think there would still be BASE ethics. The physical risk element would still be present, and that's one of the prime movers behind our ethical development. Ethics aren't just about not getting busted--they're also very much about not getting busted up.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[base428 1]

I thought the waterfall was voluntarily closed due to some accidents (not due to overcrowding or rowdiness)?

The big hole was closed by the eco-freaks and jumpers supposedly killing birds.

Two different things.

Quote

Temporarily? The waterfall in the Swiss Valley. It's happened more than once.

Permanently? Last year--that big hole in Mexico.

(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only

[dynastar81 0]

Quote

The NPS regulation of hanggliding in the Valley is pretty strict. You couldn't just pick up a hang glider and go throw yourself off those walls.

That is even better than the point I was trying to make. If they can regulate hanggliders and keep inexperienced people from flying why can't we do the same.

Pat

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I thought the waterfall was voluntarily closed due to some accidents (not due to overcrowding or rowdiness)?

The big hole was closed by the eco-freaks and jumpers supposedly killing birds.

Two different things.

Sure. But the other things wouldn't have happened without a fair bit of jumper traffic.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[tfelber 0]

Quote

I believe the main issues with legalizing jumping are the rescues, which can be solved with rescue insurance.

Hikers and climbers and rope jumpers are rescued often by the NPS, yet they are still legal activities. I've heard the rescued person is billed, so let them bill me...When I went to the hospital in an ambulance after crashing my MC on a racetrack I was billed...and my HEALTH insurance covered it!

When a friend was hit by a boat water skiing and had to be choppered out, they billed her. She didn't have health insurance, but it would have covered it if she did. As it is she's making payments.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Hikers and climbers and rope jumpers are rescued often by the NPS...

Interestingly, the vast majority of NPS SAR dollars that get spent on actual rescues are for lost hikers. The "it's too expensive to rescue you guys" argument doesn't hold water for climbers, jumpers, or anyone else, really.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[MWGemini 0]

Do you feel that it is because "we" are generally fit and knowledgeable enough to rescue ourselves, or is it because of something else (like fear of prosecution, perhaps)?

Mike

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Do you feel that it is because "we" are generally fit and knowledgeable enough to rescue ourselves, or is it because of something else (like fear of prosecution, perhaps)?

Honestly, I think it's because climbers, jumpers and the like are more aware of the risks they are taking.

When Aunt Ethel wanders off into the woods by Mirror Lake, she doesn't think "now, I've got to be careful here, or they'll need to rescue me."

On the other hand, when you gear up for a big wall (climb, or whatever), you are almost certainly aware of the risks you are taking, and consciously working to control those risks.

Folks who are engaged in riskier forms of outdoor recreation are generally going to be more committed to reducing and managing the risks they take. Random tourists probably aren't even aware of their risks.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[MWGemini 0]

To help me better understand (and fight) the issue, what are the reasons why the NPS doesn't want BASE jumping in their parks, when they don't seem to mind climbers or hikers. Only reasons I can come up with are:

1) Ignorance of what the sport is and the dangers involved
2) Fear of bad publicity from injuries/deaths
3) Fear of damage to the park (trailblazing, etc)

Can anyone think of others that I have missed? These three points can all be argued against pretty easily, educating the NPS is probably the most important and the most likely to be successful, however.

Mike

[tfelber 0]

I have a theory that I am open to discussion about... Something happened some time ago between NPS and BASE jumpers. The people involved in this happening on both sides became very hostile over the situation and the people with the most power made an example of this happening.

Now what happened is long forgotten by most but someone in the NPS still remembers and ther not going to let their actions be negated. When these people are no longer involved the reason for the action will be gone and other possibilities will arise.

[rant]After all, as tax paying US citizens, this land is protected, supported, and maintained by us. The government is a tool to facilitate our requests. And every now and then that fact is forgotten. If it wasn't for us they wouldn't have a job![\rant]

We have the ability to change the laws so let's get together and change them!

[MWGemini 0]

Quote

We have the ability to change the laws so let's get together and change them!

I'd like to do just that. While I am not opposed to breaking small laws to pursue the sport, I would prefer to avoid it if possible. The best way to do that is to help legalize it. I/we can't make a persuasive argument of why it should be changed if we don't fully understand why things are the way they are and why the NPS opposes legalizing it. If we can find out exactly why they don't want us there, and then show them those reasons are not good enough, we may be able to change policy.

However, from stories I have heard and read (the thread about the kiting at Touleme is an excellent example), it seems there is a deep resentment of jumpers and any parachute related sport enthusiast which may not be rational, and is more than likely a grudge/feud.

Mike