Bridge Day News Article

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

That might have been possible back when the USPA was helping us out. Those who were causing the problems could have been punished then and legal jumping could have resumed at El Cap.

I believe the USPA suspended (from the USPA) everyone who was involved in the flatbed incident, in an effort to show the NPS that they were serious about enforcing the rules. I don't think it made much difference to the NPS, or to many of the jumpers involved.

Quote

I also read/heard somewhere that as some of the older rangers are retiring, new rangers who are not firm on their dislike of our sport may be more willing work with us. Any thoughts on this?

Rangers don't make policy. They just enforce it.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[dmcoco84 4]

Good Point!

[avenfoto 0]

I remember someone suggesting donation barrels earlier this year placed near the entrances to the bridge im sure those funds could help somewhere, or if they were signinfigant, give them to the city.. as a "token of appreciation" of somesort, perhaps make them a gaudy color (like bright pink) and pass out literature(referncing the pink barrels) to the crowd explaining our current plight, and that there might not be jumpers next year if nothing changes...

Personally tho, i like the nps "workaround" plan involving the private landowner and permission from the state to land in the river..

And the whole thing really is a shame, because a 1$ admission fee (jumpers and staff included)per person could raise a-quarter-million-dollars for the city..

but the pamphlets should definatley be made, ill print them for free... we just need some quality narration... (tom,nick,jason..)..
we've got three weeks to make something happen..

[base311 0]

Quote

(stuff snipped)

I am a newbie to the BASE community, I’m only 21 so I am not up on a lot of the History. Where did the problems between NPS and jumpers really start?

(more stuff snipped)

Some true history of parachuting on public lands controlled by the National Park Service:

Two years after Carl Boenish filmed backcountry parachutists jumping from El Capitan in 1978, and two years after the National Park Service instituted a policy of prohibition and prosecution against backcountry jumpers, the NPS decided to create a “legal” program of jumping from El Capitan modeled on its successful hang glider permitting and regulation system. A three-month test program began in early August 1980. This program failed because the NPS, the U.S. Parachute Association, and the jumpers themselves had no idea how to integrate jumping with other backcountry activities.

NPS reacted initially with prohibition because it didn’t know how to integrate the activity into its backcountry management model; instead of approaching its management the way it would climbers, hikers and other backcountry users, it looked at jumping as part of the special use/aviation model, and it was from this initial misperception and miscategorization of the sport that all of our current problems arise.

However, NPS was not alone in embracing the aviation model: jumpers themselves and the U.S. Parachute Association in particular, tried to apply the aviation regulatory model to the activity with no reference to, or understanding of, backcountry management and ethics.

Witness the July 1980 Parachutist Magazine headline: “El Capitan Opens For Skydiving” – as if it were just another airplane or ride at the local amusement park. Moreover, the USPA requirements – USPA membership, D license, hard helmet and square main – failed to in any way address the need for jumpers to act responsibly in the backcountry.

And therein began the next set of problems – wilderness-ignorant jumpers running around the backcountry like hooligans who showed no respect for the park, its wildlife, or other visitors.

To top it all off, El Capitan is the only major cliff in the entire U.S. park system with a paved highway running past its base, and Yosemite Valley in summer is its most congested venue outside of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Bottom line: Yes, there were individual jumpers who made everything worse with their actions, but the real problem stemmed first from a fundamental misperception of the nature of the activity, which resulted in an administratively untenable test program that was conducted at the worst place in the system (El Capitan) at the worst possible time (the height of summer) using the worst possible model (aviation/special use instead of backcountry).

Fast forward to 1999, when Jan Davis died during a protest jump against the discrimination NPS had practiced for 21 years. NPS used Jan’s death to validate its prohibition of wilderness jumping by deflecting the discussion from access discrimination to safety and, about a year later, NPS finally put in writing the 23-year-old policy prohibition it had previously denied existed: Section 8.2.2.7 of its 2001 Management Policies manual prohibited parachuting from cliffs in all national park areas as a matter of policy, and was not a discretionary matter for individual superintendents.

Since then, The Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists, Inc. has worked with Congressman Tom Tancredo and reasonable members of the NPS management family to establish a dialogue based on fair access and responsible use based on the backcountry management model rather than the aviation/special use model. That process has borne some fruit already, with the most problematic of the policy ban language having already been deleted from the proposed new manual.

There are three specific reasons for adopting the backcountry regulatory model for parachuting on public lands – and as a USE model for its practitioners:

1. Backcountry parachuting is what it is – parachuting in the backcountry, in the wilderness, away from people, and streets and wires and cars (and hospitals and paramedics), up close and personal with trees and rocks and lions and tigers and bears (oh my). Consequently, “E” jumpers need to have exceptional parachuting skills and backcountry-specific knowledge, equipment, and ethics.



2. “Backcountry” has a specific bureaucratic meaning in public lands management that aids the access process. The administrative, managerial, bureaucratic problem with “BASE jumping” is: “Where do we put it? How do we classify it? We don’t know, so… NO.” With backcountry parachuting, on the other hand, the very name describes the activity, its venue, and its classification. And as the ABP demonstrated in Utah on July 8 http://www.backcountryparachutists.org/utah.php, public lands managers “get” backcountry parachuting and thus were able to take informed action to include it in their access process.



3. It’s important for technical and political clarity to separate backcountry parachuting on public lands from BASE jumping, which often occurs illegally from private property. “BASE jumping” conjures up images of buildings, antennas, bridges – and people running from the cops, thus muddling the issue of parachuting access on public lands. This was demonstrated recently on television in Australia, where the jumpers argued for legal access to Oz national parks. The problem was, they called it BASE jumping instead of backcountry parachuting and so the reporters flashed pix of building and tower jumps and then said, “this is what they want to make legal!”

The situation at New River is unique in that the issue revolves not around managing parachuting as a recurring recreational activity in the backcountry but administering a one-day special use event governed by a local agency that starts on state property and ends on NPS-controlled land. Accordingly, much of the financial and operational burden faced by Bridge Day organizers does not originate with the NPS.

Consequently, the ABP takes no position on the current situation, other than to remind readers of this thread that in 2002 New River superintendent Calvin Hite and chief ranger Gary Hartley put their careers on the line by initiating a waiver request of the 8.2.2.7 policy prohibition so that jumping could continue at New River, and then followed it through to a successful conclusion. In so doing, they completely demolished the legitimacy of the policy prohibition, and for that they deserve our continuing thanks, even if they do add a few more rangers to the festivities than may be necessary.

K. Gardner Sapp
Executive Director
Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists, Inc.
http://www.backcountryparachutists.org

[NickDG 23]

The USPA suspended the "Flat Bed Ten" as everyone at headquarters, like Joe Svec and Bill Ottley had already made their jump during the 90-day legal season, and it was deemed better to distance themselves as the general membership is leaning toward anti-BASE. This was a period when BASE fatalities prompted local reporters to visit the local DZ for a comment. I remember quite a few DZO's who proclaimed, "Oh, those guys are freaking knuckleheads . . ."

In the late 80s I begged the USPA to include, "How to Get Ready for Bridge Day," but they said we can't use the "BASE" word, and my argument that most of the first timers at Bridge Day are USPA members and PARACHUTIST is the best way to get out the word falls on deaf ears.

And it still does . . .

NickD BASE 194

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

...Bill Ottley...

"It's more akin to a circus act."

- Bill Ottley, when asked if BASE was a form of skydiving.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[dmcoco84 4]

Very Interesting!!!

[base428 1]

Bridge Day sets a major precedent for BASE jumping in National Parks, as Gardner has noted. What happens at Bridge Day, including the details of a Special Use Permit, is very critical to any future access to other National Parks. Unfortunately, the only way we are currently permitted to jump is through a Special Use Permit.

With that being said, I feel it is my duty to keep the Special Use Permit requirements, conditions, and fees to a minimum.

1) If the NPS requires five rangers here at New River, what will they require at other parks?
2) If the NPS is able to import rangers from Yosemite just for Bridge Day, and then bill us thousands of dollars for travel expenses after the event, then what will they do at other parks?
3) If the NPS is able to impose $1,000,000 liability policies on us, which have been waived for decades, then what will they require of us at other parks where crowds cannot be controlled as easily?

Is it possible that the increased permit fees, travel expense reimbursements, and costly liability insurance could also be used against us if any parks were opened for jumping? The NPS could say "yes" to jumping in certain parks, but it would be too costly for anyone but the rich. It's easier to do a triple gainer from a 180' bridge than to obtain a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy for BASE jumping...

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

[NickDG 23]

I had a meeting with Bill Ottley in his office in Alexandria in 1991 and the biggest photo (16' by 20') on the wall is him launching off El Cap . . .

I think I mentioned, "What's up with that?" Like a few times . . .

NickD BASE 194

[nicrussell 0]

Quote

but they said we can't use the "BASE" word

In fact the don't even suggest that BASE happens. Its like a bad step child in their eyes. Do you see any BASE in the rag they call parachutist besides PAID advertisements. The only reason I even pay the fucking dues is because i like to skydive at a boogie now and then. fuck. I LOATHE THE STANCE OF THE USPA THAT base 'ISNT' PARACHUTING. FUCKEM!!! does this mean i lose my precious member number

[base428 1]

Quote

...and for that they [NPS] deserve our continuing thanks, even if they do add a few more rangers to the festivities than may be necessary.

Hmm.....it was only five weeks ago that the ABP was offering to help fight the fee increase. Reference your August 17th Post.

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

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Quote

but they said we can't use the "BASE" word

In fact the don't even suggest that BASE happens. Its like a bad step child in their eyes. Do you see any BASE in the rag they call parachutist besides PAID advertisements. The only reason I even pay the fucking dues is because i like to skydive at a boogie now and then. fuck. I LOATHE THE STANCE OF THE USPA THAT base 'ISNT' PARACHUTING. FUCKEM!!! does this mean i lose my precious member number

Well...there's theory, and then there's practice:

BASE no longer censored from Parachutist


But back then, even getting an ad in Parachutist was a big deal:

Base Ad in Parachutist

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[base428 1]

In reading recent newspaper articles, Superintendent Calvin Hite is now acting like he's making a special exception in waiving the insurance requirement. Insurance has NEVER been required and even the NPS failed in the past to find an insurer - facts that Mr. Hite is conveniently forgetting.

Here is a copy of my letter to Congressman Rahall's Project Director, Kelly Dyke:

------

Ms. Dyke,

Thank you for your assistance with Bridge Day 2005.

I am in the process of developing a detailed report on what transpired recently between the NPS and Bridge Day 2005 BASE Jumping Organizers. This report will be available online by Friday afternoon. I will forward the URL to you at that time.

However, I wanted to address several NPS inaccuracies:

1) Bridge Day jumping began in 1980, but the NPS didn't purchase the jumper landing zone until the mid-1980's. Since that time, the NPS has required a Special Use Permit for jumpers to land. But the NPS requirement for liability insurance has been waived every year for the last two decades (except for 2002 when energy drink giant Go Fast Sports didn't request a waiver and their standard company insurance policy was used). Past and current Bridge Day BASE Jumping Organizers have attempted to obtain liability insurance to protect spectators in the landing zone. With no one willing to insure the event, it was deemed uninsurable. According to Chief Ranger Gary Hartley, the NPS doubted the fact that liability insurance was unobtainable and they spent 30 days trying to find their own policy. They failed as well.

I was offended by Calvin Hite's letter dated 22 September 2005 in which he wrote, "Even though we believed your past claims that insurance was not available, our own research has found that other BASE jumping organizations and events are requiring and acquiring liability insurance". Calvin Hite believed our claims because, in the past, the NPS failed as well to find liability insurance coverage. It was only through recent (September 2005) research that the NPS apparently found someone willing to insure the event. When I contacted Sarah Fuller with Bloss & Dilliard, whom the NPS reports as an entity willing to insure the Bridge Day landing zone, I was informed that Bloss & Dilliard does not provide insurance coverage to individuals or companies. They are merely a broker.

At this time, we are still investigating NPS claims that insurance for Bridge Day is actually obtainable. The Royal Gorge event, cited in Calvin Hite's September 15th letter as an insurable BASE jumping event, is different because it does not occur inside a national park and no spectators are present in the landing zone. Insurability of one parachuting event does not guarantee insurability of another parachuting event. In my experience, insurance companies typically require permit details, contracts, jumper waivers, landing zone diagrams, and other details of an event before they can truthfully determine whether insurance is available. I'm curious if Mr. Hite provided this information to Bloss & Dilliard prior to making the statement that Bridge Day is insurable.

2) In the same letter, Calvin Hite wrote, "This is your third year as the Bridge Day BASE organizer, and this is your third request for an insurance waiver". My response to this is that every organizer, past and present, has routinely waived the insurance requirement (with the exception of Go Fast Sports in 2002). In 2003 and 2004, the NPS did not hesitate to ask me if I would like to request an insurance waiver. Liability insurance was never discussed or required because the event was uninsurable at that time.

Our reasons for not obtaining liability insurance may not satisfy the NPS this year. But the following items do offer a considerable amount of liability protection that has proven to suffice in past years:
-Jumpers are waivered against causing property damage or spectator injury in the landing zone
-Jumpers are also video waivered (they speak into a video camera) against causing property damage or spectator injury in the landing zone
-NPS and Vertical Visions post "Enter at your own risk" type signs near landing zone.
-Spectator viewing areas are roped off and located away from the landing zone.
-My exit staff of 75 people help to remove jumpers, spectators, and media from the landing zone.
-We are only concerned with spectator injury or property damage. Jumper injuries are not an issue with the three levels of waivers that are required (written, video, badge).

As I stated at the Bridge Day Commission meeting yesterday:

-I am not against having liability insurance for the landing zone if it is obtainable and at a reasonable cost.
-However, I am against the 11th hour NPS requirement for liability insurance when it has not been required in the past and my May 2005 requests for NPS permit costs/requirements were delayed for four months.

Perhaps in the future, the best course of action would be for the Bridge Day Commission to handle landing zone permits and insurance. After all, it is their event. If jumpers must absorb the high costs of liability insurance, I am concerned that many will opt to skip Bridge Day and instead jump at other events. The 3-day long "Go Fast Games" at the Royal Gorge Bridge or the legal-everyday Perrine Bridge in Twin Falls, Idaho are more attractive than the small six-hour window granted at Bridge Day.

I'll forward more information to you shortly. Thank you.

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

[Treejumps 0]

Nice letter Jason,

Keep up the great work. Also, let me know if you need me to visit any congressional offices in DC on your behalf. They are all a 45 minute drive, and a personal visit may go a long way. The NPS headquarters is in DC also.

[RhondaLea 3]

Bridge Day Jumpers Insurance Waived


Posted 9/22/2005 08:07 PM

The company in charge of BASE jumping is not required to have liability insurance

[...]

But while the Park Service decided to waive the insurance this year, it says it's requiring the insurance next year.

Cal Hite with the Park Service says this is the third time he's asked the group to get the insurance.

[...]

Copyright 2005 West Virginia Media.

NPS is just determined to make things difficult.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[TomAiello 25]

I wonder what they'll do when no jumpers can afford to come, and no organizer can afford to try to convince jumpers to come?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

I wonder what they'll do when no jumpers can afford to come, and no organizer can afford to try to convince jumpers to come?

Which is something we also should be concerned about. If we miss a year, we could open it up to another group to swoop in and take our spotlight. Given the historical significance of jumping, I know any other group won't be the same, but they might find the NPS waiting for them with open arms and then make it harder for us to get back in. Assuming, of course, that we don't just say 'Fuck it' and take our rigs elsewhere.

-C.

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

If we miss a year, we could open it up to another group to swoop in and take our spotlight.

What other group?

What can someone do on that bridge that will take the place of a 20+ year tradition?

Bungee jumping?

That'd be a laugh. I can't imagine what would draw tourists the way base does, but maybe I'm prejudiced.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Could be. And face it...that's something the spectators could probably participate in.

I'm not saying it would be an even replacement, but if we found ourselves dethroned, it might take a few years to get back in.

-C.

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Could be. And face it...that's something the spectators could probably participate in.

The spectators are spectators. They come to watch, not to participate.

Bungee jumping isn't very exciting to watch--especially for kids--and who are the participants going to be? Are 400 bungee jumpers going to come to BD, fill up the Holiday Inn, and put on an exhibition? How many people in the crowd do you think will pay $50 for a bungee jump?

Speaking of which...perhaps someone who was there might post about the year when bungee jumping was part of the festivities.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[lifewithoutanet 0]

I agree with you, and I'm more playing devil's advocate than anything else. And you're right, the spectators are spectators, but given the chance, how many would bungee if they could? How many bungee jumpers are out there who may want this bridge opened up to them? And if I owned a bungee company and saw an opportunity to get in and have some fun of my own... Clever marketing is all it takes and if the right person/company gets in front of the BDC and sells them on the idea... Get my point?
Again, just playing devil's advocate here. Have nothing better to do.
-C.

[TomAiello 25]

What if the event just failed for a year? Just the rappellers showed up, for example? What do you think would happen?

And while we're at it, have there been any new requirements or restrictions on the rappellers?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

What if the event just failed for a year? Just the rappellers showed up, for example? What do you think would happen?

What happened after 9/11?

Edited to add:

Quote

And while we're at it, have there been any new requirements or restrictions on the rappellers?

Why would there be? NRGB doesn't belong to NPS, no matter how much they try to act like the whole damn shootin' match is theirs.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[MikePelkey 0]

*************************
Problems started back in 1966 when the first known BASE jump was made in a National Park. It's been painful ever since.....maybe someone else can elaborate.
*************************

I can elaborate on that. The rangers confiscated our gear and camera/film and didn't allow us to leave the park for several days so they could research their laws. Back then they were not able to turn up any regulations that prohibited jumping from their mountaintops.

They reluctantly returned our gear and camera after the hearing and allowed us to leave. The park commissioner told the press that "A check failed to turn up any regulations prohibiting jumping, but there will be --- and soon" They also falsly quoted me as actually having said: "I hope no one ever tries it again - - I know I won't". Those words definitely did NOT come from me.

In theory, there is no difference bretween theory and practice. In practice, however, there is. -

"RIP Forever Brian Schubert. Always remembered, Never forgotten" - Leroy DB
http://www.johnny

[K763 0]

Hi Jason-

Good work, man! You are definitely fighting the good fight here.

I remember about a year ago discussion about buying some acreage beneath the NRGB...what is the status of that? I'd love to be able to jump the bridge any time and land on property OWNED BY US, NOT THE NPS.

But wait, we are citizens of the United States, and since that land is National Park, I guess by definition we already own it???? Yeah, in a perfect world the children would have enough food and education, welfare mothers would lose 50% of their benefits with each baby they popped out, and our leaders would be helping prepare for disasters at home instead of creating disasters abroad... (oops sorry wrong forum...)

What the Bleep do I know? Oh, I can't help but dream.
Peace,
K