Basejumper.com - archive

sadly, we can NOT jump at the park where, Brian, Mike, and Carl started the sport. they use a rule against us that seems like a stretch (to be charitable).

we get emotional against the ranger's heavy handed tactics and draconian ways.
I bet the rangers dislike us because we refuse to comply with their authority.

I'd like to take the emotions out and ask a simply question, what compelling argument do we have to convince them we should be permitted to jump those lovely sites?

that park is a special place. it is like no other. unfortunately, I find myself coming up with better arguments AGAINST jumping there. (these arguments do NOT apply to other parks...) I'd rather avoid listing my negative arguments. it seems wrong to hand the opposition ammunition.

but... (an obvious one)
take the "economic impact." as one of the busiest parks in the system, is it not filled to near capacity daily? thus we would provide little extra income. our presence would merely displace other users. 'course the ranger's would argue that in an era of tight/declining budgets, they can NOT afford an additional activity.

so, what do we have in our favor?
am I wrong? (I'd sure like to be...)
are we just left with "unfair" and "discrimination?"

please point out something I'm missing...

I had always thought that "they" didn't want "us" there because of jumper's... uh.. personalities and parachutes might affect the "serenity" of the park.

It's such a beautiful landscape in the middle of the wilderness and to have parachutes and the BASE mentality there might ruin all that.

I happened to be in and around the park recently. My first visit. That's what I realized that the "serenity" has already been ruined.

There's multiple villages down there, big ugly campsites spewing out so much campfire smoke that your view across the valley is obscured. The personality of BASE jumpers is no worse than the hundreds of dirtbag climbers that practically live there. The hiking trails are so defined, traveled, and maintained that they might as well be paved sidewalks.

I've been to much more serene wilderness on BLM land where the rule isn't quite so draconian.

We deserve to be there as much as anyone else.

I was in Glacier park recently and asked one of the rangers there why she would have a problem with me jumping off the cliff that was near us. She replied "It's dangerous." I said "What if I live and don't get hurt?" She said "It's still dangerous and I shouldn't be doing dangerous things."

I think for the most part they don't know why it's just the way it is! Because it's written that way that's what they are going to do. So until the law is changed or BASE is excluded from the law by precedent or in writing, we are f@#$ed.

I don't believe the law was created by the NPS. It being federal jurisdiction, it must have been implemented through some congressional body or a majority vote on a ballot (which I doubt). Therefore, us appealing to the NPS doesn't get us very far. They are, as we call them, just a tool and they really don't see themselves as anything other than that.

Appealing to the congress/senate won't really get us anywhere either since it's similar to a woodpecker pecking on the side of tank. You can hear it but what difference does it make and besides it will go away in a bit.

So either way we're f@#$ed and nobody wants to play with us. The only two ways to change the situation is to make a big enough noise that people hear us and join in or get someone's ear that's in a position to make a difference. Both are constantly being tried but so far no movement.

I think the BD protest, the Yosemite packing protest, or even another Yosemite mass jump protest (not 4 or 5 people I'm talking 50 to 100 people) are all good ideas and need to be followed through on. Every year these same ideas come up, but then nobody follows through. Is this just another such year???

You mean other than the fact that the park is funded by taxpayer dollars, and is there for all to enjoy? Anyone who has ever hung out on a wall in the valley can tell you that BASE wouldn't have even CLOSE to the amount of negative impact on the park as do the tour buses and other traffic in the valley.

Even if it works on a permit-only basis (where they do in fact actually issue permits freely that is), that would be fine with me.

BASE in YNP would have way less impact than climbing does, but mentioning things like "dirtbag" climbers (although many of us are) does not help our cause. In fact, I think that getting the climbing community behind us is going to be a key to making this happen! How long do you think it would be (if in fact BASE was made legal there) before it was "those dirtbag BASE jumpers?

I think their only viable argument is that if some wingsuiter goes in 20 ft from a wide-eyed 6 year old in E.C. meadow, that brings the rare but grim reality right to the "tourist, instead of leaving it at the base of a cliff or high up on a wall when contrasted with climbing. Of course, we're talking about a place that has seen murder, child molestation, kidnapping, above and beyond your petty robbery, altercations, etc. that their rangers have to deal with or (in the child molester example) be dealt with).

I can also tell you that what's been going on in the LB valley helps us NONE. Circumstances do not matter. The comparisons will be made.

/rambling.

>> don't believe the law was created by the NPS. It being federal jurisdiction, it must have been implemented through some congressional body or a majority vote on a ballot (which I doubt). Therefore, us appealing to the NPS doesn't get us very far. They are, as we call them, just a tool and they really don't see themselves as anything other than that.<<

If you mean the "aerial delivery" law I don’t know when exactly it came into existence, but I always assumed it goes back to the 1950s. I do think Mike and Brian got tagged with it (I'll ask him this week) so that brings it back to at least 1966.

In any case this law, in its original intent, had nothing to do with personal (people) parachuting. This law was originally aimed at back country hunters. The NPS knew hunters could only stay out there for as long as they had supplies like food and ammunition. But then some crafty hunters arranged for airplanes to over fly their positions and drop, by parachute, more supplies thereby allowing them to extend his time on the hunt. And since there is no specific federal law banning BASE jumping in National Parks, they use this aerial delivery law against us.

On your second point, the NPS does have a mechanism in place that allows us to get around this federal law. It's called a permit. It's the same permit that allows us to land on NPS property at Bridge Day. When Jean Boenish was last working on the NPS to allow Yosemite jumps she had so exasperated the Rangers the Park Superintendent finally said he'd issue the permit if the Director of the NPS in Washington said it was all right. Jean flew to DC and the Director said it was all right with him if it was all right with the Park Superintendent. It was the classic "ping-pong" ploy and Jean was the ball going back and forth. In those days we laughed at Jean and weren't all that interested in really helping her. We were air pirates, loathed asking anyone's permission for anything, and if we wanted to jump El Cap we just did it.

Someone else mentioned another point I've often considered in the past. It involves the argument that BASE is not an appropriate use of the Park. What happens if the United States Tennis Association says they want to hold their "nationals" in El Cap meadow? Their argument that Yosemite is a beautiful venue for tennis wouldn't hold much sway as you can play tennis anywhere. But in our case there are damn few places in the U.S. you can do a decent "safe" delay on a cliff jump.

If there were a half dozen other 2200-ft shear walls in this country we wouldn’t be going on like this about Yosemite. But we aren’t there for the "serenity" we are there for the walls, and we have a better case than almost any other user of the park. Except for climbers who have no other "world class" walls in this country either, the fisherman, hunters, campers, and hikers, and hang glider pilots have thousands of places to choose from.

On another issue I said the people who screwed up El Cap back in the early 80s were skydivers and not BASE jumpers and someone challenged that. Well what happened was when the USPA got the so far one and only "legal" season at El Cap (that lasted only three weeks before the Rangers shut it down) none of those people were "BASE" jumpers. In fact very few people would have called themselves purely BASE jumpers in 1981. Carl hadn’t yet even named the sport "BASE" when this USPA program began. Those four jumpers off El Cap on the loads Carl organized (the ones you see in his movies) in 1978 had never made a BASE jump either before or since. The people who flocked to El Cap with permits in hand weren't BASE jumpers either; they were skydivers looking to make a fixed object jump. What I'm saying is BASE, as a stand alone sport, didn’t really exist in the world at that time. The "Flatbed Ten?" Skydivers! The people who jumped without permits? Skydivers! The people who launched RW Diamonds and jumped at night? Skydivers!

I was at the meeting in Perris where the "rules" for the legal El Cap program were hammered out in 1981. Not one of us in the room had even made a fixed object before. And it was comical (compared to what we know now) what we thought was important. The fact was we'd seen Carl's El Cap movie and we all wanted to do that too.

The NPS, in response to the USPA's requests, already knew they were on shaky legal ground. So they decided to let us jump after reviewing the rules and this is where they were so much smarter than we were. They knew we'd eventually bust every rule, would be able to shut the jumping down for cause, and then have the ammunition to say, "Look, we tried it, and doesn't work, these people just can't follow the program."

Now the question you have to ask yourself is this? What's different about fixed object jumping in 1981 compared to BASE jumping today? Everything!

It wasn't until the late 80s that BASE started to develop its own rules for survival. It wasn't until then BASE ethics began to develop, that special BASE gear started coming into its own, and that we started to realize SKYDIVING & BASE JUMPING WERE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!

So when I say those people were skydivers and not BASE jumpers that's what I mean. So now here we are all these year later. BASE jumping has matured into its own. With almost thirty Bridge Days behind us, with every thing that has happened, all the progress, and all we've learned the NPS still sees us like the knuckleheads they dealt with in 1981. It's kind of funny now, in a sad way, as the issues between BASE jumpers and Rangers is now inbred. BASE jumpers who have never even met a Ranger face to face hate them and the reverse is true too. This is the now probably the third or fourth generation of the Hatfield's and McCoy's.

BASE in Yosemite has always been, no matter what anyone says, just barley out of our grasp. All it would take is Yosemite's chief Ranger signing his name on a piece of paper. Just like he does for weddings and other special events. Except BASE in the Park is not that "special" in that it's an "obvious" use. It's the very reason Mike and Brian thought of first jumping there, it's the very reason Carl Boenish followed through after a day in the Valley when he looked up and thought, "Man, we can jump here!"

Our best chance now is to separate ourselves from the Flat Bed Ten. And it's not too hard because we really aren't those people anymore. Those people were skydivers and we are BASE jumpers . . . but I fear if even we are incapable of seeing that, we're doomed . . .

NickD
BASE 194

The problem with this thinking is that the "Flat Bed Ten" still exist (different people but same personalities) and history has shown that El Capitan will attract skydivers (making it harder to seperate B.A.S.E. jumpers).

Yes, however, don't we now see El Cap as an "advanced skills level" BASE jump?

Just as Bridge Day is okay for first timers surely El Cap is not. It's why I don't like the idea someone mentioned of making Bridge Day "invite" only like the Royal Gorge Games.

I'm just hoping if the they gave us a second chance, we'd have to be smart enough to say we can't control the actions of everyone. So let them contunue to arrest and charge the rulebreakers instead of just banning everyone.

NickD
BASE 194

While I know it looks like an insult on the surface, I used the term "dirt-bag climber" as a term of endearment describing those climbers that are in the parks for months and are so passionate about their climbing that they can't find an excuse to take a shower (the same way I heard the term used dozens of times while I was in the park).

I'm not implying that any of us are better than any others. If anything, I'm saying that "we" and "they" are on the same level. And "they" are allowed in the park.

well, not that argument. it IS flawed, or else it would have worked by now...

as I mentioned elsewhere, we PAY the rangers to manage the parks to accomodate as many as possible. that still let's them exclude activities, especially when the rangers perceive a conflict.

heck, when I camped in the valley, a bear came and scoped out the campsite. a girl slept out by the fire and the bear investigated her as well. I still don't want hunters wandering the campground!

atv'ers, snowmobilers, etc. still do NOT have free and unfettered access either.

I was looking for a different argument.