Thread: Patagonia Statement on Potter's Delicate Arch Climb

(courtesy of thepiton.com)

Many individuals have asked us where we, as a company, stand on Dean's recent climb. Since last week, Patagonia has received hundreds of emails on the issue, many asking for a public stance.

First of foremost, we support Dean as our Ambassador. He's part of our family and will continue to be.

For those who are curious to see Patagonia's "official stance" on the subject, read on:

Patagonia ambassador Dean Potter’s May 7 free solo of Delicate Arch has generated significant controversy about the legality and appropriateness of the climb of what has been described as a national icon. We’ll be interested to follow the controversy and to listen to views of those on both sides.

A few facts are in order. First, no crime has been committed. The National Park Service has conceded that its regulations were ambiguous and that they will not cite Dean for the ascent. They have said they will seek to clarify their regulations to prevent a second try. The Park and a number of opinion leaders have argued that Delicate Arch is an icon that should not be climbed.

It is important to note that Dean did no harm to the route or to the rock. He free-soloed the arch, placing no anchors and creating no impact beyond blowing dust off the holds. As he says, “No one reveres rocks more than me. I consider all rocks sacred, as do most climbers.”

Dean, like all Patagonia ambassadors, undertakes his own climbs on his own terms. He told us about the climb afterward.

We have taken positions in the past on a number of issues of climbing ethics, including bolting. We take no position on this one. As Casey Sheahan, our CEO, notes, “From the early days in the Tetons to the rebelliousness of Yosemite’s Camp 4, every generation of climbers has had its run-ins with government regulations that attempt to restrict climber’s freedom of expression. At Patagonia we don’t control the ways our sponsored athletes conduct themselves except to encourage respect for the environment and uncommon approaches to every challenge. Dean is at the pinnacle of free solo climbing, makes decisions for himself, and has our complete support.”

I'm writing an email to Casey Sheahan's mother, boy is he gonna be in trouble.

BobMc

Ah, the old no-position position. Right or wrong, it doesn't seem to fit a company like Patagonia. Magic 8 Ball predicts "this statement does more harm than good."

Originally Posted by Schmear

Ah, the old no-position position. Right or wrong, it doesn't seem to fit a company like Patagonia. Magic 8 Ball predicts "this statement does more harm than good."

I predict 99% of Patagonia's customer base will never even hear about it.

Originally Posted by truth

I predict 99% of Patagonia's customer base will never even hear about it.

Nor, outside of internet blowhards pro con and neutral, give a fuck.

But..........will they publish the logo shot in an ad?

Originally Posted by Red Baron

The National Park Service has conceded that its regulations were ambiguous and that they will not cite Dean for the ascent. They have said they will seek to clarify their regulations to prevent a second try. The Park and a number of opinion leaders have argued that Delicate Arch is an icon that should not be climbed.

I think this is totally the wrong line to take. Whilst perhaps legally the regulations were ambiguous (IANAL, and I can't see why) but their intentions were crystal-fucking-clear. No climbing on named arches. At all. Ever. Except for the very few expection *clearly stated* in the regs.

It comes to something when some rediculous neo-hippy is creating essentially non-existant loopholes in NPS regulations to publicly climb the arch. I have no problem if he wanted to do this on his own and keep it on the DL, so he could be at one with nature or whatever, but when he chose to publicise this so wide he lost that rock-hugger aspect. He's merely an attention whore who's started a controversy for the sake of his own ego.

What a fucking jackass.

Originally Posted by Red Baron

“From the early days in the Tetons to the rebelliousness of Yosemite’s Camp 4, every generation of climbers has had its run-ins with government regulations that attempt to restrict climber’s freedom of expression.”

Also interesting that Patagonia chooses to pin the controversy on the regulation. I sensed from the other thread that there's a grassroots feeling that regardless of rules, the climb was a mistake. Again, right or wrong, it just seems like they're missing the boat. Anyway...

Truth & cj, I agree.

Who cares! He didn't fuck anything up... I'll keep supporting Patagonia's products and their causes.

I doubt this guy would do anything malicious. He probably lights his friggin pot with a magnifying glass to save the earth from butane.

Well at least these kids will still be able to get sponsered:

Anti graffiti sealer? Man, talk about limiting freedom of expression. What BULLSHIT.

It's a shame. Patagonia had such a great opportunity here to take action when the park service's hands were tied. It would have said a lot about the integrity of the company..

But why would they do that? As was pointed out, 99% of their customers won't even hear about it.

Originally Posted by Schmear

Ah, the old no-position position. Right or wrong, it doesn't seem to fit a company like Patagonia. Magic 8 Ball predicts "this statement does more harm than good."

Patagucci has an opinion about everything. the mere fact they produced this wishy-washy statement means thay are more interested in toeing the profit line than anything else- it's been like that for awhile.

Originally Posted by truth

I predict 99% of Patagonia's customer base will never even hear about it.

People wearing the latest stretchy top doing yoga in Cleveland or Gainsville care little about stuff like this. They buy Patagucci because it has been made cool by meatheads like this Dean character.

Remember it's Patagonia- everything has to LOOK good

Kinda weak from a company that had a whole ad campaign of publishing death threats from loggers in the Pacific Northwest...

there is no mention of Yvon Chouniard making a statement. he is patagonia, not some employee making statements on behalf of the company...imo.

like splat said, the real statement will be whether patty uses any footage of the climb to sell stretchy tops to well-intentioned yuppies

edit: I also doubt that Dean climbed the Arch just to appease patagonia's marketing dept. seems like way too arrogant of a move on his part to do it for the $$$

Originally Posted by jackstraw

there is no mention of Yvon Chouniard making a statement. he is patagonia, not some employee making statements on behalf of the company...imo.

And what do you expect him to say?

He did the same kind of stuff back in his day living in Yosemite. I'm sure he's not real happy about what Deand did, but at the same time, can't really come down on him given the shit he and the other climbers used to pull in the Valley.

you guys have stirred up so much dust with all your emails that by now notice has even been taken from across the pont...

and to be honest from here this discussion appears quite rediculous. If you want to do something about environmental protection - do something about it. but don't appease your mind by declaring some rocks as a sanctum that nobody is allowed to touch. that's nothing but a displacement activity.

if you want to do something about those rocks shoot off all the birds. they shit all over the place and their acidic poo is more than harmful to soft sandstone.

if you want to do something about environment, close down the access roads and prevent all those fat asses from driving their suvs every weekend hundreds and hundreds of miles to praise the sanctum.

but as this is obviously not about environment protection how could it possibly be in contradiction with patagonias policy?

Originally Posted by greg

you guys have stirred up so much dust with all your emails that by now notice has even been taken from across the pont...

and to be honest from here this discussion appears quite rediculous. If you want to do something about environmental protection - do something about it. but don't appease your mind by declaring some rocks as a sanctum that nobody is allowed to touch. that's nothing but a displacement activity.

if you want to do something about those rocks shoot off all the birds. they shit all over the place and their acidic poo is more than harmful to soft sandstone.

if you want to do something about environment, close down the access roads and prevent all those fat asses from driving their suvs every weekend hundreds and hundreds of miles to praise the sanctum.

but as this is obviously not about environment protection how could it possibly be in contradiction with patagonias policy?

What, greg, would you like to do about the relationship between authorities and rock climbers in general?

Greg: you've never been there, I take it.

Uh, uh, uh........

Originally Posted by greg

you guys have stirred up so much dust with all your emails that by now notice has even been taken from across the pont...

and to be honest from here this discussion appears quite rediculous. If you want to do something about environmental protection - do something about it. but don't appease your mind by declaring some rocks as a sanctum that nobody is allowed to touch. that's nothing but a displacement activity.

if you want to do something about those rocks shoot off all the birds. they shit all over the place and their acidic poo is more than harmful to soft sandstone.

if you want to do something about environment, close down the access roads and prevent all those fat asses from driving their suvs every weekend hundreds and hundreds of miles to praise the sanctum.

but as this is obviously not about environment protection how could it possibly be in contradiction with patagonias policy?

You're missing the point here -> We know that Dean didn't hurt the rock, it's the fact that he pissed off all the people that manage the rocks we like to climb on..... It's kind of like pissing on the Alamo...

Originally Posted by sfotex

It's kind of like pissing on the Alamo...

But it already smells like urine in Texas anyways.....

Originally Posted by sfotex

You're missing the point here -> We know that Dean didn't hurt the rock, it's the fact that he pissed off all the people that manage the rocks we like to climb on..... It's kind of like pissing on the Alamo...

Its our rocks, not the park service's. They just manage the park. Maybe the rules need to be changed.

Everyone's rocks, not just the climbing communities. Maybe we should all go and climb all over the Arch. Who's in?