Funny how in South Dakota, drilling and blasting a massive rock face for a tourist trap is kosher, and in Utah, simply soloing up some choss pile is a way to get lynched.


Hmmmmm..... me thinks you all rather be pickin on bigger problems...

punters......

Impressions last longer than chalk.

Curt, you fight for your precious bouldering in Queen Creek to keep it from the mining, but you could care less about Arches?

Let's attempt to use some reasoning:

Example one:
Dean Potter breaks a climbing rule/law in a National Park.
Park Authorities take away climbing for everyone.

Example two:
Someone illegally breaks the speed limit.
Highway Patrol takes away all driving privileges to licensed drivers.

This lacks reasoning.
As such, it seems the Park Authorities are trying to specifically bully the climbers.
Laws/rules will be broken, by climbers and tourists - anybody. It will happen.

Let me pose a question... if Potter had climbed that thing and only told a bud or two, and nothing else... how would that affect your opinion of the whole thing? So instead of reading about it here, you hear it from your Bro one night at the Climber's Bar...'say, didjya hear Potter bagged Delicate Arch?"

All quiet, hush hush, strictly on the Q T. Still warrant comdemnation?

Just curious...

DMT

Elevated ego: Climber who scaled Delicate Arch deserves stiff penalty
Tribune Editorial

Dean Potter and a few irresponsible all-terrain vehicle riders have two traits in common: They are stubbornly determined to go where no humans have gone before, and they believe that rules meant to protect the landscape don't apply to them.

Potter is the professional climber who scaled Utah's most prominent icon, Delicate Arch, Sunday, despite Arches National Park rules against climbing all its named arches. Making the ascent had become an obsession, he said. We see it more as an ego trip and a chance to advance his climbing career.

That Patagonia, whose outdoor gear Potter promotes, had plans to use the climb in its advertising seems the most probable motive for the stunt.

Potter obviously did not consider the potential harm he could cause by disregarding park regulations. Or he simply put his own personal gratification - or was it a need for attention? - ahead of any concern for the unique rock formation he claims was "vibrating with energy" as he stood on its top. If the huge old arch could vibrate, indignation or outrage would be a more likely cause.

His rationalization that he did not harm the 45-foot natural sculpture - "I respected the arch to the fullest. I did no more than blow a little dust off a few handholds" - does nothing to excuse his behavior. It's the same reasoning that takes ATV riders off established trails and into untrammeled territory. How much damage can just one vehicle do?

That argument has a hollow ring. Once an ATV has shoved its way through formerly pristine forest or desert, its track becomes a trail and others will soon follow. That may also be a consequence of Potter's climb, and Park Service prohibitions will only make it more of a challenge to those who, like Potter, care little about the reasons behind the rules. His legacy may well be a damaged and violated Delicate Arch, not a notable sports achievement.

Whatever penalty the Park Service exacts, we hope it includes a lifelong ban of Potter from Arches National Park.

Potter wonders "What has our world come to" if climbers are prevented from scaling "one of nature's most beautiful features"? Despite what he seems to believe, the world is not Potter's personal playground and it will be better off if no other climbers follow his hedonistic example.

Hey Roy? Bought a climbing mag in the last coupke of years?

What is this loophole? Can someone explain it please?

Potter explained that he interpreted the "...no climbing on named arches..." regulation as meaning no pitons or bolts and that somehow free soloing a route isn't "climbing" the arch.

There is no loophole, just a lame attempt at justification.

But the fact is Potter is a very high profile climber who has already pissed off the NPS on multiple occasions, and NPS climber relationships are already very strained. His denial that he was doing something illegal is s---, he's just playing semantics. Whether or not he really did degrade the environment is not the issue to me, it's that he was being a selfish prick and putting further strain on climbing access.

Climbing may have a history of rebelliousness, but unfortunately we have outgrown our history.