Devil's Advocate

[JaapSuter 0]

Let me preface this post by stating I'm a strong proponent of evolution theory and freedom. The right to risk everything in pursuing a man's dream should be among the most principled of rights, even if that means risking life and limb.

However, no right comes without duties. It is man's duty to minimize the burden on society on whatever path he follows. That means we strive to not hurt our friends and family, not rely on dangerous rescue operations and not put undue stress on the healthcare institution.

These beliefs have me wondering about our quest for legal BASE in the national parks and force me to put on my Devil's Advocate hat and pose some difficult questions. I would like to see an ABP representative and other people to come up with their thoughts on these issues.

First of all, I am quite convinced that less people have died in BASE because it is illegal in the US national parks. If it had been legal, more people would have been exposed, public enthusiasm would have been higher, more people would consider to get into base, more people would have made a base jump and inevitably more people would have gotten into accidents.

From that point of view, the NPS is taking the right approach to BASE. I would even go as far as to argue that the amount of money they now spend on catching and prosecuting BASE jumpers is less than the amount of money society would otherwise have spend on rescue operations and resulting injury and recovery aftermatch. Admittedly, I can't substantiate this line of reasoning with any kind of numbers.

One argument against this point of view is that the NPS does allow climbing, hanggliding and simple backcountry hiking; activities that every year cause a number of incidents that also require rescues and recoveries. While I think the public perception on the risks of BASE is exaggerated and biased, I also belief that BASE is substantially more dangerous than any of the above mentioned activities. This leads me to the next point.

Imagine the hypotethical situation in which BASE jumping becomes legal the same way that climbing is legal. Suddenly we have a highly accessible terminal wall in what is currently the hotbed of BASE growth; California. No other location has more people getting into BASE with minimal preparation. I'm almost considering to move there; I'd be a perfect fit.

One major advantage of Kjerag is its remote location. Getting back from the landing area requires a boat. This and the strenuous hike has led to a controlling body (the Stavanger BASE club) which as far as I know does an excellent job at maintaining safety at Kjerag.

Without such a governing body near Yosemite, I will garantuee it will only be a matter of time before somebody with ten skydives does a jump from El Capitan, and hits the wall in front of several unsuspecting park visitors.

The majority of people entering BASE jumping are still coming from a skydiving background. And let's be honest with ourselves, skydiving can be a sport for lazy people. I know plenty of skydivers that spend their days drinking beer and playing video games. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it can be quite enjoyable. However, you put any of these people in the remote backcountry without a compass and they'd be dead in two days. Similarly, you let some of them jump off El Capitan and problems will ensue.

There is a big difference between climbing and BASE in this regard. If an unprepared climber starts climbing a 5.12c route, he gets up three holds and then steps off. He just can't do it, and realizes he needs to put in time and effort. If an unprepared base jumper starts jumping a terminal wall, there is no way back. He won't realize it actually takes time and effort until he collides with the wall.

So before any of us attempt a protest jump or any fight for legalization at all, we need to come clean and ask ourselves what is that we want from the NPS. We need to ask ourselves what kind of burden different degrees of control may put on society. And most importantly, we need a debate on what the BASE community is promising to the NPS and the public.

How are we going to make sure that legal jumping in the national parks doesn't create an increase in the number of incidents? It is easy to bring up that Kjerag, Bridge Day and the Potato bridge are run without major incidents. However, it is also easy to forget that Bridgy Day and the Potato bridge are much safer sites compared to El Cap, and that Kjerag has a governing body that is largely responsible for the safety record in Norway.

Let me reiterate that I am strong proponent of fully legalized jumping anywhere in the world. I know that BASE itself is worth the risks. However, we need to realize that the public might see things differently once their tax-money is spend on rescue and recovery and their park experience ruined by traumatic accidents. We need to understand where they come from and realize they have a point.

Please prove me wrong and show that the BASE community and the world as a whole can responsibly handle legal jumping. Until then, I'll take off my Devil's Advocate hat, and go do some more jumps from the Potato this weekend.

Three, two, one, see ya!

Jaap Suter

[NickDG 23]

Hi Jaap

You look good with horns!

Good points all but rather that get in deep I'll just say I don't believe using danger level as a yardstick for doing anything in the park works. If someone with ten jumps or none launches himself off El Cap it's like someone who gets in over their heads doing anything else in the park. We as a society will never solve that problem. It would mean banning everything.

We also have to make it clear (when it already is) we BASE jumpers don't have total control over all who practice this sport, and therefore we can't be held responsible for what someone else may or may not do. The NPS must deal with us as individuals and not as a group. I mean they can't say if someone breaks the rules we are all stopped from jumping. That's not fair and a trap we fell into the first time there was a legal program.

Have fun in Potato Land . . .

NickD BASE 194

[tfelber 0]

I don't think anyone says or believes unrestricted jumping in NP's is reasonable or possible. Regulation in that jumping environment will improve conditions for everyone involved. A permit application should be mandated, but application shouldn't be summarily dismissed. If I'm a tax paying citizen and I have the experience/training to make a jump in a NP then there is no reason I should be denied that opportunity other than possible scheduling conflicts; like holiday weekends or mating season, etc.

The money spent on hiking or climbing related incidents are probably heavy weighted towards people who didn't have the experience to be doing what they were doing however there are no restrictions on these people's activities. I think most of us would be OK with the regulations, but a ban is another item entirely.

I think that Americans, not knocking anybody that is not an American, have a certain indelible right to equal access to public commodities such as the NP's. We pay the bills that keep these things in existance. Imagine what would happen if because I ride a motorcycle I wasn't allowed to enter Washington DC or they would impound my bike and charge me with two-wheeled delivery.

[vid666 0]

Quote

Imagine what would happen if because I ride a motorcycle I wasn't allowed to enter Washington DC or they would impound my bike and charge me with two-wheeled delivery.

Now that you mention it, I am vaguely remembering ...

in downtown Chicago bikers were being LOUD ( you know, loud pipes save lives crowd ) - so the city stepped in and prohibited motorcycles on that street ( lakefront, perhaps Lake Shore DR ??? ). I believe a higher goverment body stepped in shortly after AMA ( motorcyclist equiv. of BASE's ABP ) contacted them and the vibe was "if you are using public funds you cannot prohibit ANY public transportation on this road" ....

not sure if this helps our cause at all, but interesting ...

[crwper 7]

How about the popular Swiss valley? Very little regulation, no restrictions on access. Unlike the Norwegian walls, where a boat ride is mandatory and therefore they have some control over who jumps, the Swiss walls are relatively uncontrolled. I think they would make a better model for American terminal walls.

Michael

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

How about the popular Swiss valley? Very little regulation, no restrictions on access. Unlike the Norwegian walls, where a boat ride is mandatory and therefore they have some control over who jumps, the Swiss walls are relatively uncontrolled. I think they would make a better model for American terminal walls.

Michael

If someone dies jumping a Swiss wall, can their family sue the Swiss government and have the same chance of a court seriously considering their case, as can happen in the United States?

The United States has had some freaky-scary liability/tort lawsuit runaway that other countries have avoided. I can't say this is the main issue behind the NPS's behavior but it shouldn't be ignored.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[TomAiello 25]

Can you elaborate on the singular "healthcare institution" you mention? In the US, healthcare is provided largely through the private sector, resulting in a multiplicity of different providers, with most funding provided by private insurance--not public tax money.


Your argument appears to be based on the idea that the government has a duty to protect us from ourselves.

While this is a common thread in much European jurisprudence, it is _not_ (at this point) an accepted ethic in American law.

If I want to go out and ride a motorcycle, or go whitewater rafting, or jump out of an airplaine, I have a perfect right to do so.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[edge01 1]

If you give up Freedom for security then you don't deserve freedom.E

[jalisco 0]

Quote

If I want to go out and ride a motorcycle, or go whitewater rafting, or jump out of an airplaine, I have a perfect right to do so.

Absolutely...
and rescuers should demand your credit-card/bank-account number and leave you lying/hanging there if your balance is insufficient.

[JaapSuter 0]

Quote

If you give up Freedom for security then you don't deserve freedom

Very true. But that doesn't mean the goverment should fully legalize hard-drugs so innocent tax-payers end up seeing their money spend on the problems that drug-addicts cause.

Likewise for BASE; I can imagine that the public's perception of BASE is one of a sport that, when fully legalized, will end up costing them money. Money that could also be spend on people that need it much harder.

Definitely freedom over security, but those that enjoy freedom should also realize they have a duty to minimize impact on others.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

If I want to go out and ride a motorcycle, or go whitewater rafting, or jump out of an airplaine, I have a perfect right to do so.

Absolutely...
and rescuers should demand your credit-card/bank-account number and leave you lying/hanging there if your balance is insufficient.

Fortunately, my insurance will cover BASE rescues up to a million dollars.

Most insurance policies will only pay out for legal jumps, though. So by making the jumps illegal, the NPS is shooting itself in the foot as far as recovering costs. If they were legal, the rescue would be covered. If they're banned, that might create problems. Why not make it legal and let people get insurance to cover the rescue?


Note that this is somewhat hypothetical, as my insurance in real life actually does cover rescues from illegal jumps. But I do know that there are some policies that won't cover in those situations.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[base736 0]

Quote

Fortunately, my insurance will cover BASE rescues up to a million dollars.

... Which changes nothing. Suppose you and I have two identical, hypothetical accidents off of a legal object. Your insurance company distributes the cost of your rescue/treatment over its policy holders. My universal healthcare distributes the cost of my rescue/treatment over its policy holders.

Either way, it is ultimately a large number of non-jumpers who foot the bill.

I'm not saying that makes it wrong to jump. Half of all policy holders put a higher-than-average burden on their insurance/healthcare. I'm just saying that you haven't really managed to sidestep Jaap's original point regarding one's duties to minimize impact on others.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

Fortunately, my insurance will cover BASE rescues up to a million dollars.

... Which changes nothing.

I disagree. I have paid for my insurance, and the costs of my accident will be distributed amongs folks who carry similar insurance. The cost is born by me (through my premiums), spread across other people who also pay premiums. It's not born by society at large, as no tax dollars are used to effect my rescue.

edit to add: it seems like you are arguing that insurance is not an effective way of managing risk, because all costs are ultimately born by society at large. I disagree, and I point to the existence of a thriving insurance industry, which exists to manage risk, as support for my contention.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

Fortunately, my insurance will cover BASE rescues up to a million dollars.

... Which changes nothing. Suppose you and I have two identical, hypothetical accidents off of a legal object. Your insurance company distributes the cost of your rescue/treatment over its policy holders. My universal healthcare distributes the cost of my rescue/treatment over its policy holders.

Either way, it is ultimately a large number of non-jumpers who foot the bill.

In your case, assuming you don't have insurance, or your "insurance" is a government mandated program, the "large number of non-jumpers" have not made an affirmative choice to shoulder that burden. They are forced to pay by the government.

In my case, the only people who pay are those who have chosen to be part of the insured pool, presumably because of their desire to have coverage.

I'm seeing a huge difference between private and public costs, here.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[base736 0]

Quote

it seems like you are arguing that insurance is not an effective way of managing risk [...]

That's not what I'm arguing at all. Though, depending on what you mean by "managing risk", I might like to

Quote

In my case, the only people who pay are those who have chosen to be part of the insured pool, presumably because of their desire to have coverage.

Fair enough.

[freakydiver 0]

"We as a society will never solve that problem." But, it can and has been proven to be an issue that is manageable by other nations' jumpers, no?

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Very true. But that doesn't mean the goverment should fully legalize hard-drugs so innocent tax-payers end up seeing their money spend on the problems that drug-addicts cause.

Seems to me that the criminalization of drugs created a black market that causes a lot of problems, just like alcohol prohibition did (bringing about stuff like the Mafia and Al Capone for alcohol, and the drug runners and gangs for illegal drugs), and arresting drug users for non-violent offenses just makes the taxpayers pay to keep them in jail. There is no point in making something illegal when it's only harming the individual, but making drugs legal would free up so much money because we would no longer be paying to keep non-violent offenders in jail, or for their trials and probably their defenses as well. Six out of ten inmates in federal prison are there for non-violent drug offenses.

Using the same argument above with regards to base jumping, there's no point in wasting time and resources prosecuting people who are only risking their own lives jumping on land that is supposed to belong to the people (private property and trespassing is another matter). The National Park Service exists to protect the environment, not to protect people who want to do (in some people's minds) stupid things. As long as the jumpers aren't harming the natural environment the park service is supposed to protect, the NPS should stay out of it.

The purpose of government is not to protect citizens from their own stupidity or risky choices. It's to protect the lives, rights, and property of its citizens from the interference of others. The government is not supposed to be a parent and tell its citizens how to live their lives. The whole point of living in a free country is to have the freedom to make our own choices, and along with that comes the responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

[dmcoco84 4]

Very well said! I totally agree!

[nicknitro71 0]

Quote

The purpose of government is not to protect citizens from their own stupidity or risky choices.

While I agree with you there are still states where attempted suicide is a crime...

Memento Audere Semper

903

[greeny 0]

Quote

If you give up Freedom for security then you don't deserve freedom.E

I think this still might need pointing out to half the UK and US at the moment (sorry to turn it political)

I should also thank Mr Blair and Mr Bush for making my job secure for life.................

Greeny

[Nightingale 0]

Lots of states have laws on the books that restrict the freedom of citizens to do as they wish with their body, businesses, career, relationships, personal lives, and money.

I think that by attempting to control behavior through legislation like that, the government is discouraging citizens from taking responsibility for their own actions, citizens can then claim that there should be a law or warning label or something removing the need to think for themselves. Hell, my curling iron has a warning "do not insert into any bodily oriface." What's pathetic is that for that warning to be there, someone probably actually did that and then sued the manufacturer.

Sigh. I don't need a curling iron company to tell me where not to stick a curling iron, and I don't need the government telling me not to try to kill myself, or not to parachute off a bridge. It should be my right to make up my mind about both, and my responsibility to deal with the consequences.