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.

John

Sounds fair to me (RE: Scott's post & Patagonia).

I would offer that if anyone has an opinion toward climbing access, advocacy, conservation, media, to let the AF know about it. Even though an opinion may be a minority or a majority, letting them know does help.

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!
The other shoe has NOT fallen yet. Wait and whine later.

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
I have made a point to not address individual posters as I did not want anyone to think I was attacking them. But recently I have strayed from that position. Dean could lose his ambassadorship and he won't starve, he won't be destitute. Yes he is a phenomenal climber worthy of much respect. BUT that is not a free pass to be above the law. Clearly, semantics aside, he broke the rules which are now under review. Does anyone of us really want more lawyers involved in deciding our access. Now the NPS will have a hoard of lawyers being sure there are NO loop holes and no vagary. How sweet!
Most people as far as I can tell are pissed at Dean but not demanding his head on a plate. But they are apprehensive about the inevitable fall out.

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!

Jimmie Dunn and I are sitting here, still talking about Dean's Delicate Arch ascent. We just realized that between the two of us, we have been climbing in the canyon country and Arches NP for 73 years...and we still climb there. During that whole time, since 1969, we have realized that the arches are illegal and off-limits to rock climbing. There are lots of other cool towers and walls to climb in Arches. We never had to climb the arches. It was always an understood taboo between the Park Service and climbers that the arches were not to be climbed. And most climbers, including us, left the arches for the ravens...and now the tourists! (There wasn't many tourist or climbers back in 1970 but there were plenty of ravens!)

Arches NP is a great place to climb. The towers are in, the walls are in, the boulders are in, new routes are in, and bolts and pitons placed by a hammer and drill have always been in. The Park Service and rangers have always been very accommodating toward climbers and the climbing scene. They always left us climbers alone...unless we messed up. All we needed to do was to stay off the arches. Both of us as well as all the other climbers we know, understood and accepted this rule and condition on climbing. We don't need a "Keep off the Arch" sign at the base of every arch to know that they're off-limits.

Now Dean Potter's insensitive ascent of Delicate Arch, which seems like more of a publicity stunt than a "spiritual experience," has put the future of climbing in Arches NP as we all know it in jeopardy. It seems a foregone conclusion that new and more severe regulations for climbing will be imposed in the future. At the very least they will be the same regulations as those in its sister park Canyonlands.

We need to let Arches NP know that Dean's ascent of Delicate Arch does not reflect our climbing styles and values as well as those of most of the climbers we know. There's plenty of great climbs in Arches NP, so let's leave the arches for those ravens.

In response to other climbers, the Delicate Arch issue is not about Dean breaking any law or park regulation, but is about an understanding that climbers have always had with the park. That trust and understanding was broken by the ascent. Now we have to deal with future draconian rules. We both feel that Dean's ascent (though maybe a great solo!) sets a bad precedent for other climbers to attempt to climb Delicate Arch...this is one of the issues the park is most concerned with. Delicate Arch is off-limits to rock climbing, hikers scrambling around, and dogs urinating on the slickrock beneath it and will continue to be so...let's hope that climbing will still be allowed on all the other great towers in Arches NP.

This ascent also shows the park service that climbers can't be trusted...they need guidance, they need a rulebook, they need to be controlled. As Jim just said...Dean f--ked up...that's it in a nutshell.

And by the way Dean, how hard was the climb?

Dean's ascent of DA was a bad move.
There are some places we just don't belong,
and that's one of them. Period.

NO!

I lost all respect during his "The Power of One" presentation, at the Boulder Theatre. If the title doesn't scream.. "ME! ME! ME!". I don't know what does.

PS. This was his selfish base jumping accomplishment in Patagonia where he deserted his partner (i.e. Steph) to descend several dangerous raps and glaciers, alone.

NO!

It wouldn't matter to me if he did it and kept it quiet. Others have on that arch and several others. Just wondering what he was trying to prove by publicizing like he did. Has he made a statement about it yet?

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.