Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:10pm PT
|
It is illegal to climb the Golden Gate Bridge but, rock climbers have been doing it for over 40 years. As near as I can tell, none of them have taken a film crew and bunch of cameras to document theor ascent. They did it because it was climbable and they wanted to climb it.
I would have much more repect for Dean Potter if he had just gone out and done Delicate Arch without all the publicity machine in tow. The fact that he so aggressively attempted to publicize the ascent completely destroys any credibilty he has as to the real reason(s) he did the climb. It looks like Dean is just another in a long line of selfish, self-centered climbers. Yawn!
Bruce
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:12pm PT
|
I only vaguely know Dean, he's struck me as a free spirit, and he's obviously a very good climber.
But, and this is a big but, what he did was totally inappropriate. Not the climb itself -- I wouldn't have any problem with him doing that on the sly.
But to do it as a publicity stunt is throwing sand in the faces of everyone who has worked hard to preserve access to climbing on Federal Land. And I'm equally disappointed in Patagonia for even thinking that it was OK to promote Dean doing that.
|
|
Mick K
climber
Northern Sierra
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:15pm PT
|
It wasn't that he climbed it... but now no one else has the oportunity to argue they shouldn't be prosecuted.
Selfish act- as he will be the last to ever get away with climbing it.
How can you say there is not an access isse as a result. Dean got away with it (good for him) but no one else will ever get away with it. He should have climbed it on the sly and let the rest of us have a shot at it. Now if you try I suspect you will be p[rosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Thanks Dean, it isn't like climbers don't already have an uphill battle already
|
|
lost
climber
truckee
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:19pm PT
|
Lovesgas
There was already a change in Arches policy and it is that they added more words to say the same thing. There currently is no addtional restrictions on climbing in Arches. Slacklining is dumb anyways so who cares about that. The people who continue to cry about access this access that apprently rank up there with the LDS people who claim in op-ed section of the slt, that god made the arch and the oils from our skin will ruin it. Give up it is over. Dean's problem is that he tried to be too rad.
|
|
Ben909
Trad climber
toronto
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:25pm PT
|
I'm sure Dean "respected natures rules" and had a great spiritual experience but his ascent, contrary to incredibly easy to understand rules, encourages others to repeat it. What's to say these people will be as respectful to the rock as Dean? And why would so profound an experience with nature need to be filmed and talked about?
I can definetly understand the desire to climb that formation or any other beautiful piece of rock but his lack of respect for the rules that the rest of us have to follow really makes me want to publish that Mill Creek guide I've been working on...
|
|
MikeL
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:54pm PT
|
If style matters: "not cool."
|
|
paulj
climber
utah
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 06:28pm PT
|
From AccessFund.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 10, 2006
Contact:
Robb Shurr, Access Fund
robb@accessfund.org
303.545.6772 x100
Access Fund Condemns Delicate Arch, UT Climb
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 is 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 ourselves on respect for the environment and the Access Fund’s stewardship efforts around the country speak directly to the greater climbing public taking responsibility for climbing resources.
Policy Questions: contact Jason Keith, jason@accessfund.org
Media inquiries: contact Robb Shurr, robb@accessfund.org
|
|
lost
climber
truckee
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 06:31pm PT
|
No offense but the Access Fund is a weak talk too much do too little group. They do not speak for me as a climber.
|
|
rockgizmo
Trad climber
greeley, co
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 06:44pm PT
|
I would have to say it is irresponsible for D. Potter to do or even to attempt to climb an Arch in the park. I also think corporation such as Black Diamond and Patagonia etc who are huge sponsor of environmental and conservations issues/programs would support such a climber in their ranks (I dont know if they do, but if they are they should reconsider). It is my own opinion but any corporation who sponsors someone to climb also agrees with the ethical choices of that individual and their choice of routes they decide to climb. If climbing corporation or magazines continue to sponsor such a climber then they are indirectly supporting the act. Corporation that support/ sponsor D. Potter economically or by publishing article on him, have doomed the environment to senseless acts.
|
|
piquaclimber
Trad climber
Durango
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 07:04pm PT
|
Dingus,
I guess this is the line I had trouble with
"Its this whole 'us' thing that bugs me. I don't think of climbing and 'all climbers' as 'us.' "
I have read too many well written posts from you to believe that you don't get that any one climber's actions can have repercussions on all climbers. Is part of your stance that you don't really care about climbing in Arches?
FWIW, I don't like the rules that are imposed on climbing areas either. Like many have said, it's cool to climb them, just don't draw attention to yourself. I have climbed things that you will never see on my website for exactly that reason.
I guess I just expected you to be more access minded. Or have I been trolled?
Brad
More importantly... What would Cort think?
|
|
pc
climber
East of Seattle
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 07:12pm PT
|
I agree this was a poor choice but let's not hang the guy without even know the facts. Perhaps he was just a victim of circumstance, where he came up with the idea of doing the climb, chatted casually about it with his buds from Patagonia who then asked to come along and spontaneously decided to film it. They got so excited by the "moment" they called back to the mother ship, relayed the details to the "wrong" person at the mother ship and then all hell broke loose.
You never know...
|
|
David
Trad climber
San Rafael, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 07:31pm PT
|
re"chatted casually about it with his buds from Patagonia who then asked to come along and spontaneously decided to film it."
Nice spin but that's not how it works. Dean Potter isn't Brad Pitt. He doesn't have paparazzi following him 24/7. If he wanted to climb with out cameras rolling all he had to do was choose a day and time that only he knew. It would have been that easy. The only way sponsors with cameras show up is if Potter gets on the phone and explicitly tells them where and when to show up. Besides, take a look at the photo credit in the newspaper article. It was Potter himself that gave the photos to the press.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 07:45pm PT
|
Dean supposedly scoped out the climb a bunch of times. Why did he decide to do the ascent only when the cameras were rolling? I don't think this was a case of Patagonia siezing an opportunity. Dean knew exactly what he was doing. He is a professional climber who relies on sponsorship and the media for his existence. To assume some sort of naivete on Dean's part is well, um, uh, naive.
Bruce
|
|
yo
climber
I'm so over it
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 07:53pm PT
|
Whoa, the Actless Fund condemns?
Then I remove my condemnation.
I now endorse!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 08:19pm PT
|
This reminds me a bit of when an Italian (?) got a permit to climb Mt. Kailas and the world community of climbers rose to condem the planned ascent, to the point that the mountain remains unclimbed.
There is a difference here in that Mt. Kailas is sacred from a religious aspect. Delicate Arch is sacred from ... whell heck, it's sacred from the Gov'ts point of view.
Does this differ from ascents of the Totem Pole or Devil's Tower, which are considered sacred to native americans?
|
|
pc
climber
East of Seattle
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 08:26pm PT
|
Bruce, If that's the case then he must have fully anticipated the outcome of the event. I'm having a tough time seeing the upside to Dean on this venture...
Photos unlikely to be published - assuming ethical straight line by rags.
Possible loss of sponsorship - there are folks here already crying for the boot.
Video commerce? - Seems like the return on this wouldn't justify the potential negative press or loss of sponsorship.
MySpace or YouTube - post the video for free. Generate tons of personal PR. Reap what reward?
Beats me.
pc
|
|
wilcox510
climber
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 09:57pm PT
|
k-man, this is clearly different than climbing devils tower. The tower has a voluntary closure for one month (I think) a year. Im sure people violate that, but its not illegal, and it is fully legal to climb the tower the rest of the year. What dean did was illegal. Semantic bullshit aside, i'm sure he knew fully well that climbing the arch was illegal, even if the apparently cant press charges because of vague wording (which doesnt seem very vague to me). My issue isnt with whether or not it should be illegal to climb the arch (or devils tower, its that he undoubtedly knew it was illegal and did it anyways without considering the possible consequences of his selfish egotistical act. He knew fully well this would cause a sh#t storm and cause more NPS/climber tension.
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 10:32pm PT
|
Did Potter graduate High School?
Please Advise
Batten
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 10, 2006 - 10:43pm PT
|
"nailing a few bongs"???
Is this coming from a person that thought that the RR Rendezvous meant a month long drunk in Florida?
You gotta be trolling Rad.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 10:46pm PT
|
I say allow any and all who feel the need to climb the arches.. or anything else for that matter, to climb the arches.
F*#K, what is the worst thing that could happen? We lose a guy who couldn't bring it? Blood stains don't last long in the desert environment anyway.
What else? The rock degrades? Sorry, your going to have a hard time telling me that a couple of guys with little rubber shoes and some chalk is going to ruin the rock. And isn't all rock degrading anyway? Eventually the earth will have it's way. We might be helping the natural course of things. Remember, everything is breaking down! And you can't stop it.
What else? This starts the line at the bottom of each of the arches? So what? Who gets hurt the most there...? The people who are just there to look and take pictures of themselves standing in front of the big arch? If we could step back just enough to get our collective heads out of our collective arses, we could see that neither of these really works. You can't have both. The guy standing there taking the picture is doing just as much damage as the guy climbing. Because he's there, he's doing damage. Sorry, but in my experience, the folks there to take pictures have the same disregard for others experience in the park as any climber I've met at the base. You say we'll ruin the rock, I say these RV's with their families should maybe try to pick up after themselves, or maybe not visit at all.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the whole "leave no trace" ethic, but no matter how you explain it to me I will still say that there is a trace after we've left. Climbers are pretty good with ethics, but if you've ever walked a trail... you been part of the "leaving a trace".
So climb away. Climb anything you can, while you can.
Jingy Rant
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!