The Potter poll
|
Scott, I don't think that's a good idea. While I have a certain point of view, I would offer to the let the AF handle this matter. |
|
Mark Nelson wrote:Scott, I don't think that's a good idea. While I have a certain point of view, I would offer to the let the AF handle this matter.so you don't write your senator because you prefer special interests to handle matters? are you serious, or are you just trying to stir further debate? I really can't tell. |
|
In this case, my advocate would be the AF in dealing with the NPS, I would write the my opinion regarding policy to the AF. |
|
Mark Nelson wrote:In this case, my advocate would be the AF in dealing with the NPS, I would write the my opinion regarding policy to the AF.okay, so it's just a matter of the recipient list. since the AF already has published a position on this event, I'd rather send a letter to patagonia (who seem to be weasling out of taking a position). that way I wouldn't be preaching to the choir. |
|
See Updated Arches regs for an update. |
|
Sounds fair to me (RE: Scott's post & Patagonia). |
|
Yes. In the 1984-esque world we are in now, it's refreshing to see that some are still bending rules a bit. I understand the AF has to play their cards a certain way, being the climber's lobby but the rest of us should just look at this and think, "Nice climb." |
|
For those of you who want to proclaim "no harm, no foul" WAKE UP! |
|
One of the site administrators respectfully requested I consider the wording of my poll question. He was right! It was very misleading and did not leave room for other choices. I just wanted to keep it simple and present it as a yea or nay response. I am sorry if I inadvertently upset anyone. |
|
Charles |
|
nope |
|
no |
|
phil broscovak wrote:Clearly, semantics aside, he broke the rules which are now under review... being sure there are NO loop holes and no vagary.I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced that Dean did break any rules. If he did, why wasn't any punitive action taken against him? I think the answer is glaringly simple -- the NPS knew that there was indeed a "loop hole" and that a case against Dean wouldn't hold up in court. I certainly don't think they let him go as a favor or because he wasn't worth it -- punishing Dean would have made a great example and I think they would have if they could have. And frankly, I think clarity of the rules actually IS a good thing. Phil, you seem upset by the prospect of lawyers making sure that there are "NO loop holes and no vagary." Why is that? Because you hoped to exploit loop holes and vagary in the future for your own interests? I think the cameras and fanfare were tasteless, but I stand by my opinion that the ascent itself is sweet and that it will do absolutely nothing to jeopardize access for the rest of us. |
|
The news report I heard said the only trace he left was a little bit of white chalk here and there. The rules do state that you use colored chalk. |
|
phil broscovak wrote:One of the site administrators respectfully requested I consider the wording of my poll question. He was right! It was very misleading and did not leave room for other choices. I just wanted to keep it simple and present it as a yea or nay response. I am sorry if I inadvertently upset anyone.Yeah, I actually thought about putting a poll out, about the same time this one started... was going to look something like: Do you believe that Dean Potter's publicized ascent of Delicate arch: a) Had a positive impact on the future of climbing access b) Had zero impact on the future of climbing access c) Had a negative impact on the future of climbing access Of course, I'd also point out the obvious -- that there were alternative means to closing the 'loophole' (i.e. opening discussion), rather than publicizing a controversial ascent. I believe I have heard some persons justifying the ascent by saying "I'm glad the ascent happened, because otherwise the park service wouldn't have closed the loophole and thus the arch wouldn't be protected" Seems like a flawed argument to me :) |
|
The Dreaded Topic! |
|
Dean's ascent of DA was a bad move. |
|
NO! |
|
NO! |
|
Josh Janes wrote: I think the cameras and fanfare were tasteless, but I stand by my opinion that the ascent itself is sweet and that it will do absolutely nothing to jeopardize access for the rest of us.NO the tacit understanding that has long existed between climbers and park officialdom has been betrayed. the belief that this will pass with no repercussions is naive. we as a climbing community have an obligation to up hold up our end of the "deal" or we won't have a leg to stand on when negotiating positions concerning our future access. this goes beyond just Arches as it is merely the banner for broader issues being fought in other parks where access issues are coming under more stringent review as climber visits rise. |