|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 12, 2006, 5:21 PM
Post #226 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact: Robb Shurr, Access Fund 303-545-6772 x100 robb@accessfund.org Policy Information Contact: Jason Keith, Access Fund 303.545.6772 x102 jason@accessfund.org Access Fund Condemns Recent Climb of Delicate Arch, UT May 11, 2006, Boulder, CO- A recent ascent of Delicate Arch in Utah's Arches National Park has fueled a firestorm of media coverage and interest from federal land managers, politicians and the climbing community. See Park tweaks rules after Delicate Arch climb in the May 10 edition of the SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3804296). Many individuals-both climbers and non-climbers-have expressed outrage at this event, and the climb has received both statewide and national media attention. The Access Fund does not condone the climb of Delicate Arch and the actions of this individual are not representative of the climbing community. The Access Fund supports justifiable climbing restrictions which protect natural and cultural resources and works towards effective and reasonable climbing management policies in cooperation with land managers and the greater climbing community. This process of discussion limits unnecessary restrictions, results in climbing management policies based on mutual agreement, and helps to ensure cooperation and effective enforcement of climbing policies. We trust the public will understand that the actions of one person should not condemn the larger community of climbers who are equally appalled by this event. The Access Fund urges all climbers to recognize and limit the impacts of their climbing practices on the environment and other users of the land and to respect existing closures. If questionable restrictions arise, climbing advocacy efforts opposing such unreasonable restrictions should follow proper administrative procedures. Climbers pride themselves on respect for the environment and the Access Fund's stewardship efforts around the country illustrate how the greater climbing public takes responsibility for their climbing resources. On May 10, Access Fund policy director Jason Keith met with Arches National Park Supervisor Laura Joss to address these incidents as they relate to future climbing access in Arches National Park. At this meeting the Access Fund was told that while no immediate additional restrictions are planned, future climbing access in Arches and other national parks may be restricted as a result of the Delicate Arch incident. Utah's US Congressional delegation has also weighed in but the possibility of additional restrictions is not known at this time. |
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
May 12, 2006, 5:26 PM
Post #227 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: In reply to: Honestly, idiots doing things like this are the reason that we have access problems. Can you cite examples? I can't think of any frankly, where the actions of a sole climber caused the loss of access for an entire area. Please advise, thanks DMT
Dingus,
He said, “access problems.” I think that is a bit broader than just closures. It might be useful to look at that question from another angle.
Climbing in one of my favorite areas was banned in the ‘90’s - The Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma. Not only was this an entire area that was closed, but it was the best (and in many cases only) climbing resource in a multi-state area.
It was decided that climbing was not a use that was compatible with the purpose of the Refuge. It was only through hard work by dedicated climbers that they were able to convince the land manager that climbing was not only compatible, but that climbers were among the “best” user groups who visited the area. After a long struggle, access was restored.
The image of climbers as a user group is very important. In the case of the Wichita Mountains, the land manager’s perception of climbers was rather neutral, yet it took a tremendous effort to change that perception from neutral to positive, and without that shift in perception access would have never been restored.
I don’t think it’s a great stretch to consider the possibility that Potter’s antics will make it more difficult in future access issues to make a case for climbers being a “good” user group. The more actions like this - especially highly visible ones, by highly visible climbers, in areas managed by very powerful land managers (the NPS controls a vast inventory of climbing resources) - the more difficult it will be to change those perceptions from negative, or even neutral, to positive ones.
|
|
|
|
|
killclimbz
May 12, 2006, 5:29 PM
Post #228 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2000
Posts: 1964
|
^^^ Threats not bans. I've read where the tightening of the regulations has resulted in a ban of any sort of climbing on all named natural bridges and arches. That makes sense.
So far there is this threat of a ban but there is not ban on climbing. Sounds like a bunch of saber rattling to me.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 12, 2006, 5:50 PM
Post #229 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: I don't remember seeing that climbing has been banned because of this.
Correct, it was slacklining that Potter got banned from his stunt in September. Good riddance but somehow I doubt that was the desired outcome. All he did this time was weasel out of a fine by pretending that free soloing isn't climbing so that he could commune with his ego. Personally, I think he should stay sponsored and be required to put in at least 150 hours of communtiy service (a la Fatali). See Dougald's post on The Mountain World blog about how Kurt Smith attoned for his lesser screw up...way better example than Potter so far.
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
May 12, 2006, 5:52 PM
Post #230 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
In reply to: I am talking about those who contact Patagonia in a specific effort to get Potter fired, at least some of whom have never even set foot in Arches NP. DMT
Not trying to start anything here, and I agree with you about the firing business, I really don't care one way or the other. But, why can't people care and be involved in issues about places they have never been too? (ANWR comes to mind).
cl
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 12, 2006, 5:57 PM
Post #231 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: But, why can't people care and be involved in issues about places they have never been too? (ANWR comes to mind). cl
No reason, but I am suspect of distant calls for firings. I question the motives behind the call for dismissal.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 12, 2006, 5:58 PM
Post #232 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: ^^^ Threats not bans. I've read where the tightening of the regulations has resulted in a ban of any sort of climbing on all named natural bridges and arches. That makes sense. So far there is this threat of a ban but there is not ban on climbing. Sounds like a bunch of saber rattling to me.
but i think that misses two points 1) a saber rattling environment casts a negative halo on other access issues, so even if areas aren't closed because of this, the stunt will force climbers to work harder to maintain access because they have to overcome the negativity associated with this. 2) wouldn't you rather not have anyone making threats because some selfish twit decided to feel vibrations on top of Delicate Arch?
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
May 12, 2006, 6:09 PM
Post #233 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Cut his balls off and throw them to the wolves :twisted: If he had stealth climbed it at midnight for himself that would be one thing but the publicity stunt video thang was pretty fckn stuuuupiidd
|
|
|
|
|
killclimbz
May 12, 2006, 6:43 PM
Post #234 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2000
Posts: 1964
|
In reply to: In reply to: ^^^ Threats not bans. I've read where the tightening of the regulations has resulted in a ban of any sort of climbing on all named natural bridges and arches. That makes sense. So far there is this threat of a ban but there is not ban on climbing. Sounds like a bunch of saber rattling to me. but i think that misses two points 1) a saber rattling environment casts a negative halo on other access issues, so even if areas aren't closed because of this, the stunt will force climbers to work harder to maintain access because they have to overcome the negativity associated with this. 2) wouldn't you rather not have anyone making threats because some selfish twit decided to feel vibrations on top of Delicate Arch?
Don't get me wrong. What Dean did was very detrimental. Another stunt like this in the near future by anyone, could cause an outright ban. That could go NPS wide. Hmm Yosemite without climbing....
Give it a few months, a year, heck maybe a week and the policticians will move onto the next hot subject. The biggest thing for climbers is to not repeat this, and make sure that the powers that be understand this was the act of an individual, not a community attitude. Seems that the Access Fund is working to make sure of this.
Repurcussions should fall on Dean's shoulders, not the other users who respect the regulations of the NPS.
The reality is climbing is not banned at this time. Play by the rules and chances are that is not going to change. I honestly think that if this had of been done as a "stealth" mission a climbing ban would have been more likely if the park service noticed that the arch had been climbed. By chalk marks, left slings whatever. Then they would just know "climbers" are breaking the regulation vs a "climber" broke them. Group vs individual etc...
|
|
|
|
|
alpinismo_flujo
May 12, 2006, 6:50 PM
Post #235 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2006
Posts: 603
|
Potter has the opportunity to climb anywhere in the world...anytime (when access is LEGAL)...doing the Delicate Arch = wanker.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 12, 2006, 6:52 PM
Post #236 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Another stunt like this in the near future by anyone, could cause an outright ban. That could go NPS wide. Hmm Yosemite without climbing....
I agree with the underlying point, but come on now... they are not going to ban climbing in Yosemite over incidents in Arches NP. That just isn't going to happen.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
May 12, 2006, 6:59 PM
Post #237 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
With this administration anything can happen. Wouldn't supprise me if they screwed up so bad that there was no mony left for NPS so they just shut them all down. Lock the gates and walk away just like a scrapped military base. maby Bid them all out to the oil and copper companys :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
May 12, 2006, 7:00 PM
Post #238 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
With this administration anything can happen. Wouldn't supprise me if they screwed up so bad that there was no mony left for NPS so they just shut them all down. Lock the gates and walk away just like a scrapped military base. maby Bid them all out to the oil and copper companys :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
killclimbz
May 12, 2006, 7:03 PM
Post #239 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2000
Posts: 1964
|
In reply to: In reply to: Another stunt like this in the near future by anyone, could cause an outright ban. That could go NPS wide. Hmm Yosemite without climbing.... I agree with the underlying point, but come on now... they are not going to ban climbing in Yosemite over incidents in Arches NP. That just isn't going to happen. DMT
I didn't think I would get you to bite on that one! :lol: There is mention of a ban affecting all National Parks, but yeah there is no way a ban of climbing in Yosemite would happen.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 12, 2006, 7:09 PM
Post #240 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Cheers buddy!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 12, 2006, 7:26 PM
Post #241 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
So now the ugly truth emerges. Turns out ol' Dean rehearsed the climb with a top rope. He used a bow and arrow to shoot a line over the arch then pulled a rope over. Apparently made several ascents before his poser climb in front of the cameras. I retract my earlier comment about hoping he doesn't lose his contract. Pathetic loser.
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
May 12, 2006, 7:47 PM
Post #242 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
So roy, where did you get the ugly truth? Just curious.
The desert landscape is fragile, wild and beautiful. I started climbing in Arches about 25 years ago, and at the time I was somewhat surprised that climbing was allowed. I still think that being allowed to climb anything in Arches is a privilege. One needs only look at some of the other NP’s in Utah (ie: Capitol Reef) to find more stringent climbing restrictions (leave no trace restrictions). IMO the access is pretty good in Arches NP. Climbers can already summit many named and obvious towers such as 3 Penguins and 3 Gossips that are very obvious from the road. While Dean may not have left a trace other than chalk, I believe that his selfishness has risked access for the climbing community and the rest of us punters. While it may have been spiritual for him it will no doubt be seen as a publicity stunt to the mainstream public.
If DP had climbed the thing and stroked his self in secret, then good for him. Then it would have been between him and the rock. Commune with nature he says? Cool, why the cameras and publicity then?
|
|
|
|
|
delarig
May 12, 2006, 7:57 PM
Post #243 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 167
|
"It's not the end of the world. He free soloed an arch. Woo Woo. At least he did'nt scar our countries' rock with pro like everyone else here does. Did you notice that Potter did'nt get fined? That's because he did'nt hurt the rock...at all. People climb "Ancient Art" all the time and that thing is WAY, WAY more fragile than Delicate Arch. Yet you don't see climbers getting chatised for climbing it. Why? It's because this argument is all about Dean Potter conforming to laws and technical regulations rather than his lack of respect for nature. How is Delicate Arch any different than Ancient Art? It's because it's in a National Park that is choked with the exhaust of hundreds of thousands of tourist cars stopping by on their way to Disneyland, all paying $20 to go look at an arch they saw on a postcard. Who is truly exploiting nature...Potter or the NPS? Hmmmmm? He climbed it with the highest level of respect. Props!!"
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
May 12, 2006, 9:40 PM
Post #244 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
In reply to: In reply to: Another stunt like this in the near future by anyone, could cause an outright ban. That could go NPS wide. Hmm Yosemite without climbing.... I agree with the underlying point, but come on now... they are not going to ban climbing in Yosemite over incidents in Arches NP. That just isn't going to happen. DMT
Overnight an outright ban. Unlikely. But individual climbers pulling stupid tricks gives the government/NPS/whoever a better reason to add regulations. Say, requiring every climber to register. So that they can force climbers to listen to a lecture about the do's and don'ts of climbing in the area, keep track of imacts, and possibly aid enforcement when a climber does something they shouldn't.
Then you get regulation creep where more restrictions are added, instead of a "registration" system you get a "permit" system where the number of permits (and the area they are good for) is limited and on, and on, and on.
If we want to keep the free spirit/unregulated aspect of climbing legal, there are a lot of things the climbing community can do to help or hurt.
Climbing Delicate Arch sure isn't helping.
|
|
|
|
|
roadman33
May 13, 2006, 5:29 AM
Post #245 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2004
Posts: 84
|
Dean Potter is a fucking hypocrite....
I hope Patagonia has the sense to drop his sponsorship!
I'm writing Patagonia to ask them to stop supporting him.
|
|
|
|
|
mattyp
May 13, 2006, 1:22 PM
Post #246 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2003
Posts: 162
|
Laws? Who writes those laws? Who do they pertain to? I suppose it is becoming more and more obvious that our legislative body isn't for the people by the people. More like for special interest by special interest and we just get in the way.
Did he hurt the arch? Is it going to fall down? No. Oh no, white chalk! Isn't that stuff water soluble? I know it doesn't rain much in the desert, but when it does, it really comes down and will probably manage to wash that "nasty white stuff" off the rock.
Nature isn't there for us to put in a box and wonder at. It was ALL wilderness at one point, but nobody seems to have a problem living up in the Rockies or out in the forested sides of the Cascades. I don't condone abusing our planet, but get real people, it is here for us.
|
|
|
|
|
jabtocrag
May 13, 2006, 7:30 PM
Post #247 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 476
|
In reply to: "It's not the end of the world. He free soloed an arch. Woo Woo. At least he did'nt scar our countries' rock with pro like everyone else here does. Did you notice that Potter did'nt get fined? That's because he did'nt hurt the rock...at all. People climb "Ancient Art" all the time and that thing is WAY, WAY more fragile than Delicate Arch. Yet you don't see climbers getting chatised for climbing it. Why? It's because this argument is all about Dean Potter conforming to laws and technical regulations rather than his lack of respect for nature. How is Delicate Arch any different than Ancient Art? It's because it's in a National Park that is choked with the exhaust of hundreds of thousands of tourist cars stopping by on their way to Disneyland, all paying $20 to go look at an arch they saw on a postcard. Who is truly exploiting nature...Potter or the NPS? Hmmmmm? He climbed it with the highest level of respect. Props!!"
:roll:
Just because he hasn't been fined doesn't mean he won't be. And if you really think that the NPS is exploiting nature for what can only be called financial gain (why else??), then you really know nothing about the organization and what they do with park proceeds.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
May 14, 2006, 2:59 PM
Post #248 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
After I heard this many people asked me to chime in with my opinion. My first reaction was one of shock. Why would he do that? As a founding board member of the Access Fund this was the ultimate insult, wasn't it? As I watched this thread grow and mutate into a hate fest I realized I had heard nothing but heresay and third party innuendo. That was when I decided to get in touch with Dean and Steph to listen to their story before I spewed.
Here's the deal: Dean asked a park ranger if it was okay to climb Delicate Arch and was given the go-ahead. At the time of Dean's climb, one week ago today, the official regulation said that "...named arches may be closed for all or a portion of the year due to aesthetic, wildlife or other resource-related concerns." What was on their website was NOT in the regulations. Loophole? Perhaps, but certainly one that I'd take advantage of if I was in any shape to climb something like Delicate.
So let's back off and cool down a bit. What Dean did was legal, authorized and pre-aproved by the NPS. (If it was illegal Dean would be either sitting in jail or looking at a hefty fine. All the NPS has done since is to tighten up their regulations. You may or may not agree with his decision to publicize the climb but that's Dean's deal, not yours. How many of you have seeked approval for climbing on a new cliff before climbing it?
I stand in awe of what he did. Bravo Dean.
I just spoke with Dean (Sunday Morning) and he apologized for being somewhat of a luddite in regards to internet protocol. He does email but not much more so he hasn't been following these threads. He's just been suffering the blowback and you can imagine it's a lot. I encouraged him to pipe in here in the next few days if he can.
I support the NPS' new closure of the Arch to climbing. No doubt some idiot would bolt it (legal or not) and lots of traffic would ruin it
"There, but for the grace of God, go I"
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
roadman33
May 15, 2006, 5:22 AM
Post #249 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2004
Posts: 84
|
Mal,
Dean was in the wrong and it's sad that you're out here blowing this BS horn saying his shit don't stink. He's just a hypocrite. And yes I've met him, heard him speak and yes he's pretty self-righteous.
Oh and if he plans on selling his images or video from the climb he better have a filming permit! Because it’s very illegal to break that LAW in any national park.
|
|
|
|
|
treez
May 15, 2006, 5:40 AM
Post #250 of 322
(42852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2004
Posts: 347
|
Maybe he can get sponsored by Bad Idea Jeans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
