This is a long one. You were warned.
There areat least for the momenttwo prominent and different approaches for opening US National Parks to BASE jumping. Im going to use this post to state what I hope will come across as unbiasedbut personalopinions on the options we have in securing our right to jump in our National Parks. On the subjects of the ABP and UHuck, I will be forthcoming in saying that I was a longtime financial supporter of the ABP when I had a discretionary income and would generally lean towards a diplomatic approach. That is not to say, however, that I dont think UHuck has its place in the game. I think this thread will invariably become polarized, so I state those positions up front. For the record, I have jumped El Cap, but only once. No injuries, no arrest, no chase.
Diplomacy vs. Publicity
Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between disparate groups, commonly on different sides of an issue. Real world diplomatic negotiations are very different from intellectual debates where an issue is decided on the merit of the arguments and where negotiators ultimately make deals by compromising. In the situation in which we find ourselves with the NPS, we commonly take interest and form an opinion from an emotional and intellectual position, rather than with a willingness to compromise or understand their inner-workings. The disadvantages of diplomacy are that they most often take a significant amount of time and effort. After all, if it were easy and the two sides were willing to negotiate and compromise, diplomacy would have little necessary role. Of course, if the other side is perceived to be unwilling to negotiate or compromiseas is the general consensus of the NPS among BASE jumpersthe emotional and intellectual position is a natural response. Unfortunately, those responses bring few results where changing policy is concerned.
Publicity is the deliberate attempt to manage the publics perception of a subject or issue. The advantages of publicity are low cost (relatively speaking), and credibilityparticularly if the publicity is aired as or in between news stories on evening TV news casts or in print or Internet media. Effective publicity can serve to garner substantial public support for a given cause. The disadvantages are lack of control over how your releases will be used (of which were well aware), frustration over the low percentage of releases that are taken up by the media, and in the case of dealing with a government entity such as the NPS, typically have very little impact on changes in policy.
So, the question is, how do you change policy in a government organization?
First, you must be a part of that organization. Im talking about the actual change, not influencing it&well get to influences in a moment. To create change within an organization, you must garner internal support. This counts even if you are all the way at the top. Unless youre a micro-manager, youre going to need support within the organization to implement and support those changes.
Now, why are you making that change? This is where influences come into play. These influences can be internal, such as personal or political agendas; or a perceived or growing need for change stemming from a new development, occurrence, event or decision under said organizations purview. They can also be external, such as public pressure or political agendas. The latter of which is generally a result of the former. Furthermore, influences can be judicial, as court cases of discrimination are often tossed about.
As BASE jumpers, we are an external influence on the NPS. The public support we may garnerhowever we choose to raise supportare, likewise, external influences. That is, until we realize and capture the support of policymakers, their staff, subordinates or superiors. At that point, we are still an external influence, but we have the internal support we need to influence those internal changes.
Beyond the path of influencing those changes through internal support, there is the previously-mentioned judicial influence. That is generally a very costly approach. And if it comes to that&thats where publicity becomes significant. Still, neither diplomacy nor publicity can stand alone.
How to bring them together?
A protest is a publicity stunt. If not supported by the proper foundation, it is worthless. What happens the day after? Diplomacy takes too long and the players change. NPS officials get promoted or retire. BASE jumpers lose steam and face more internal criticism than external.
Whats needed is a hybrid approacha mix of actions that form a planbut no one has proposed this. Here is what I would suggest.
Gather the funds and public support. Apart from the name, I think the Bail Party Tour is in some ways a good way to raise money. Personally, Id prefer Legal Defense Fund or something that doesnt play to the media stereotype of us dunderheaded adrenaline junkies , but thats just my opinion. Publicity needs to be used to garner recognition and support outside of the BASE community. Were not large enough to fund this on our own.
Use recognizable names. I posted this recently. Journalists thrive on maybe you know him from& montages. Familiarity is critical.
Focus on the message. Think about yourself from the non-jumpers perspective&the ****-scared general public. Dont show them the illegal or questionably legal jumps, shrouded in secrecy and darkness. Show them the legal events in KL, Royal Gorge, Fayetteville. Show them the wilderness of Norway, Switzerland, Italy. Thats what were after in the National Parks. Show them how beautiful BASE is. Make it awe-inspiring. But dont play to the stereotype. The stereotype may work to draw partiers to events and get their wallets and purses into the game, but they dont have an impact on policy-making. The image needs to be one that the people who can make change will want to make change for.
Start building relationships. Anybody whos in sales knows that relationships are key to getting someone to buy. Whether in protest or diplomacy, were trying to sell BASE to the NPS. The ABP has been working on this. But who else has really ever reached out to someone on a personal level to try and bridge some gaps?
Work the system. The ABP worked extensively on the rewrite of the NPS management policy. They provided the actual wording to those rewriting the document. While they didnt sneak in Let my BASE jumpers jump, they did have an impact. Where Uhuck is concerned, Ive talked to Lee quite a bit over the past week and one thing that seems to be lost on many people is that this isnt just a show-up and jump event. Uhuck was willing to use the funds they raised to apply for permits for the first 100 jumpers. Thats $5000 in working within the NPS 2006 management policy. Some might argue thats throwing $5000 of good money after every bad dollar spent on denied permits thus far, but how many people have actually applied in the past and paid their $50? I know of less than a dozen. If it came to a protest, legal defense and countersuit, this shows intent to work within the current system and policy.
Ignore the distractions and focus on the plan. That includes distractions some might want to exploit, such as the records of previous park rangers or the memories of fallen jumpers. Neither can work in our favor. This isnt the American political system or a popularity contest. Mudslinging takes the focus off of what were trying to accomplish and can be just as easily used against us.
Leave emotion at the door. It clouds your judgment and wont enable you to see and exploit the weaknesses in the other sides defenses.
So, if there is a protest, what happens next?
This depends on planning. People have asked about maximum sentences that could be imposed. What they havent asked is how Uhuck plans to handle this. At the risk of speaking for Lee, he has a plan for that. Its part of the preparations to be laid by their counsel BEFORE the jump occursin negotiations with the NPSto gauge the feasibility of the protest (will they arrest anyone w/ a rig prior to a jump?) and the penalties (what will they be?). I believe similar negotiations occurred prior to the jump in 99.
Beyond the immediate concerns of those who may participate are those who dont. This could backfire. It could shut the door on BASE in NPS and set other efforts back. And not just if someone goes in. All I have here are questions& How does anyone working towards access to the parks mitigate the risk they pose to other groups?
So, what if we do get access?
The Stavanger BASE Klubb model seems like a good approach, but its not the place to start for Yosemite. Its offering up far too much in the beginning. On top of that, its not necessarily appropriate. It works in part for Kjerag because its geographically enforceable. Dont sign up or meet the requirements? No ride to the trailhead and no ride back on the boat. Have fun w/ the slider-down cliff over the campground, thats about all youll get. El Cap doesnt work that way. Its too accessible.
The other risk of a governing or regulatory body is one of liability. Ski resorts in many states have laws on the books protecting them from litigation in the event of injury or death. West Virginia has a law protecting the organizers of Bridge Day from the same. Do we expect the NPS to draft similar legislation? Also, with liability could come the requirement for insurance. This was a requirement of the NPS in 2005, though it was waivered for a year because of the late notice. There was a policy in 2006 and 2007. It would be prohibitively expensive on the scale of Yosemite. If the NPS is risk and liability averse enough to require it for 6 hours, imagine for even a season of jumping.
Perhaps the biggest risk of a governing body is one of consensus among BASE jumpers. Who would be appointed or elected to head this group and what of those jumpers who dont support it at all? A regulating body would give us just enough rope to hang ourselves the first time someone pulls a bandit jump in The Valley. Its unlikely that the NPS would single-out that jumper. They would have envisioned this governing body to handle the regulations of jumping in The Valley for them and any such illegal jump would be a failure by that group to self-regulate.
The model we need to follow is one similar to The Access Fund (climbing group) and other backcountry users, regardless of how we bring the change to NPS policy about. We are routine users, not special events.
Again, these are just one guys opinions. Im curious to know what other people think SHOULD be done, beyond what everyone else is doing wrong.
-C.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by hamsandwich
Bookmarks