3 ms·

> Part of the reason it's so dangerous is because it's illegal Part of the reason it's illegal is because it's so dangerous. The argument goes that park servi

by eunoia 11y ago

> Part of the reason it's so dangerous is because it's illegal Part of the reason it's illegal is because it's so dangerous. The argument goes that park services have limited resources for search and rescue. Engaging in such an inherently dangerous activity inevitably causes a lot of incidents draining those resources. I like BASE and fully support those who choose to participate. But maybe banning BASE in the parks isn't the worse idea. Some famous BASE spots in Europe have outlawed jumping after numerous deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_Wall#BASE_Jumping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_Wall#BASE_Jumping It's not like this is a sport that thrives on legality anyway.

cromulent 11y ago
BASE is legal through most of Norway. Those particular sites are closed not because of "numerous deaths", but because the wall has much unstable rock and rescues and body retrievals are too dangerous. There are thousands of legal jumps made every year at (for example) Gridset, very close to Trollveggen.
- eunoia 11y ago
  > The use of parachute equipment not adapted for cliff jumping, the need for jumpers to find exit points by trial and error and difficulties associated with retrieving injured jumpers led to a relatively high number of fatalities. This resulted in Norwegian authorities making BASE jumping from the Troll Wall illegal on July 25, 1986. From the Wikipedia article. It's not like BASE is illegal overall here in the US either, we still have Bridge Day and such. You hit the crux of the argument though, some parks don't want jumpers because they represent an inordinate drain on their resources and risk to their personnel.
  - cromulent 11y ago
    I didn't mean to hit that crux, but yeah :) What I was trying to say was: In Norway they say, don't jump here please, jump over there. The reasons in the wikipedia article are no longer valid apart from the instability of the wall and talus.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Sounds like a case where externalities are screwing with the decisions. If rescue costs are high but borne by the public then the jumpers are basically abusing it. But of course outlawing the activity doesn't actually stop it. It's a lot like illegal drugs. It's a fun activity that's bad for the participants and exposes external costs on society. Seems like the standard solution of "legalize, tax, and regulate" would also apply here. Rather than simply ban these activities, maybe they should be made to bear the costs of rescue, either by putting liability on to them after the fact, or charging a fee up front.
japhyr 11y ago
> Engaging in such an inherently dangerous activity inevitably causes a lot of incidents draining those resources. I've done rescue work in Alaska for most of the last ten years, and I've followed rescue-related issues fairly well for a long time. Elite athletes like Dean and Graham do not drain rescue resources. The bulk of rescue work centers around ordinary people who get into situations where they find themselves over their heads. By the time people like Dean and Graham need help, they've typically already helped a good number of people because they have the skills to do so. Their contribution to the pool of rescue resources is a net positive.
- eunoia 11y ago
  I like this a lot. Thanks for your insight. Edit for substance: I like it because it portrays them as constructive members of a resilient community instead of as drains on a public fund. People are more important than numbers and it wasn't my intention to argue otherwise.

by eunoia 11y ago

cromulent 11y ago

BASE is legal through most of Norway. Those particular sites are closed not because of "numerous deaths", but because the wall has much unstable rock and rescues and body retrievals are too dangerous. There are thousands of legal jumps made every year at (for example) Gridset, very close to Trollveggen.

eunoia 11y ago
> The use of parachute equipment not adapted for cliff jumping, the need for jumpers to find exit points by trial and error and difficulties associated with retrieving injured jumpers led to a relatively high number of fatalities. This resulted in Norwegian authorities making BASE jumping from the Troll Wall illegal on July 25, 1986. From the Wikipedia article. It's not like BASE is illegal overall here in the US either, we still have Bridge Day and such. You hit the crux of the argument though, some parks don't want jumpers because they represent an inordinate drain on their resources and risk to their personnel.
- cromulent 11y ago
  I didn't mean to hit that crux, but yeah :) What I was trying to say was: In Norway they say, don't jump here please, jump over there. The reasons in the wikipedia article are no longer valid apart from the instability of the wall and talus.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Sounds like a case where externalities are screwing with the decisions. If rescue costs are high but borne by the public then the jumpers are basically abusing it. But of course outlawing the activity doesn't actually stop it. It's a lot like illegal drugs. It's a fun activity that's bad for the participants and exposes external costs on society. Seems like the standard solution of "legalize, tax, and regulate" would also apply here. Rather than simply ban these activities, maybe they should be made to bear the costs of rescue, either by putting liability on to them after the fact, or charging a fee up front.

japhyr 11y ago

> Engaging in such an inherently dangerous activity inevitably causes a lot of incidents draining those resources. I've done rescue work in Alaska for most of the last ten years, and I've followed rescue-related issues fairly well for a long time. Elite athletes like Dean and Graham do not drain rescue resources. The bulk of rescue work centers around ordinary people who get into situations where they find themselves over their heads. By the time people like Dean and Graham need help, they've typically already helped a good number of people because they have the skills to do so. Their contribution to the pool of rescue resources is a net positive.

eunoia 11y ago
I like this a lot. Thanks for your insight. Edit for substance: I like it because it portrays them as constructive members of a resilient community instead of as drains on a public fund. People are more important than numbers and it wasn't my intention to argue otherwise.