Thread: Patagonia Statement on Potter's Delicate Arch Climb

here's a recap of Patagonia's statement - Tammy Wynette Style

...Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh be proud of him
'Cause after all he's just a man

Stand by your man
Give him two [holds] to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely

Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Stand by your man

And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

Originally Posted by Tippster

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

I'm down but only if I can bring my spray paint collection. I mean someone's gotta sack up and tag it with a pattagucci logo.

Originally Posted by truth

I'm down but only if I can bring my spray paint collection. I mean someone's gotta sack up and tag it with a pattagucci logo.

all of which has been done.

btw. at the moment you guys are doing a great job in organizing the publicity campaign for patagonia. by now even your neighbour's housewife knows that they support one of the world best climbers with first class gear.

why don't you just remain honest and claim that this is not about environment protection but your very personal interest to climb in the area in the future. you are putting yourself in custody of a false discussion.

Thanks for the repost, Baron. I'm disappointed but not surprised by Patagucci.

Originally Posted by greg

why don't you just remain honest and claim that this is not about environment protection but your very personal interest to climb in the area in the future. you are putting yourself in custody of a false discussion.

Jesus. It has NOTHING to do with wanting to climb Delicate. Read the other thread. It has to do with already brittle relations between the outdoor "action-sport" recreating community and federal agencies who manage national lands. It's simple. You want honesty? You're an idiot. Honest.

Originally Posted by steve

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..

in which way did he drag down the integrity of the company?

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

It's not like I wouldn't know these discussions. It's about bringing across a valid point. Environmental protection is not a valid point in this case.

Originally Posted by BLOODSWEATSTEEL

It has to do with already brittle relations between the outdoor "action-sport" recreating community and federal agencies who manage national lands. It's simple.

Yeah it is. If the relationships are so brittle one climber can fuck it up we need to do alot more than internet handwringing.

Originally Posted by greg

why don't you just remain honest and claim that this is not about environment protection but your very personal interest to climb in the area in the future. you are putting yourself in custody of a false discussion.

???

I haven't seen too many people bitching about environmental protection. And many of us have not been talking about our own personal interest in climbing there. SO where the fuck are you drawing these conclusions about us, where's the false discussion?

Originally Posted by cj001f

Yeah it is. If the relationships are so brittle one climber can fuck it up we need to do alot more than internet handwringing.

It only takes one to establish a precedent or I/we just don't give a fuck attitude. Even more so when it's a high profile individual. Then it's just one more, then another, and another, and another........

And then gates start getting locked, the machine puts another notch in its belt, and the power struggle begins over again.

CJ, generally I agree with you, but - speak for yourself as far as what little "we" do to establish & maintain working relationships with the NPS/BLM/USFS.....

Originally Posted by edg

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.

Exactly. I really don't get why they say the regs were ambiguous. I guarantee that if I took 100 people, read them the regs, explained what Potter did, and the asked if he broke the regs, they'd say he did.

Originally Posted by BLOODSWEATSTEEL

Jesus. It has NOTHING to do with wanting to climb Delicate. Read the other thread. It has to do with already brittle relations between the outdoor "action-sport" recreating community and federal agencies who manage national lands. It's simple. You want honesty? You're an idiot. Honest.

well, good job in repeating what I said and claiming it to be idiocy.

Originally Posted by BLOODSWEATSTEEL

It only takes one to establish a precedent or I/we just don't give a fuck attitude. Wven more so when it's a high profile individual. Then it's just one more, then another, and another, and another........

CJ, generally I agree with you, but - speak for yourself as far as what little "we" do to establish & maintain working relationships with the NPS/BLM/USFS.....

there is well established precedent on those fronts dude. This isn't going to change it for the people who would be so inclined.

So you don't donate time and money and comment on access? I have.....

Originally Posted by Danno

Exactly. I really don't get why they say the regs were ambiguous. I guarantee that if I took 100 people, read them the regs, explained what Potter did, and the asked if he broke the regs, they'd say he did.

If that was the way the law worked we wouldn't need lawyers, would we?

Originally Posted by cj001f

If that was the way the law worked we wouldn't need lawyers, would we?

actually, that is the way the law works, essentially. Without further explanation about their legal opinion, I'd say that the opinion is wrong.

Originally Posted by Danno

I haven't seen too many people bitching about environmental protection. And many of us have not been talking about our own personal interest in climbing there. SO where the fuck are you drawing these conclusions about us, where's the false discussion?

am I getting you right? it's neither about the environment nor about climbing regulations? so what is it all about?

of course I was referring to those mixing up environmental protection and climbing limitations. because the one has nothing to do with the other and such an argument is contraproductiv. as is your whole campaign. you might not realize it, but that's the outcome: www.climbing.de

good job in promoting the guy and patagonia.

Originally Posted by Danno

actually, that is the way the law works, essentially. Without further explanation about their legal opinion, I'd say that the opinion is wrong.

Of course it is, and we all consult expert legal opinion before every action You may find this post on rockclimbing.com, reprinted here, useful.

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

"Dean asked a park ranger if it was okay to climb Delicate Arch and was given the go-ahead." = END OF STORY

Originally Posted by Tippster

"Dean asked a park ranger if it was okay to climb Delicate Arch and was given the go-ahead." = END OF STORY

Sorry. I'm just not buying it.

"I'm very sorry to see someone do this to Utah's most visible icon," said the park's superintendent, Laura Joss. "I would just ask if they think it's a good idea to encourage this." http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3800468

Originally Posted by cj001f

You may find this post on rockclimbing.com, reprinted here, useful.

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.

That is not something that was in the original thread, that is the first I have seen. In fact, in the original thread, you said this:

Originally Posted by cj001f

Effective May 9, 2006, under the authority of Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1, Section 1.5(a)(1), all rock climbing or similar activities on any arch or natural bridge named on the United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographical maps covering Arches National Park are prohibited.

which is exactly what it was before, except they changed 'climbing' to 'rock climbing or similar activities' to eliminate whatever loophole that Mr. Potter used. (see the link I put in post #3)

I don't recall reading that he asked for permission and was told it was ok, and based upon your prior post, it sounded to me like the regulations were clear as written. In fact, you gave me shit about being a lawyer (as usual ) and not getting where the ambiguity was in the regs. If your original post about the change was wrong, and the original regs just said that named arches may be closed, well, yeah, that makes it more murky. If, instead, the loophole was that the letter of the regulation allowed free-soloing the route (different from "climbing"), then I think that's bullshit.

But of course, if a ranger told him it was ok and he didn't know any different, that also changes the story.

climb
6 entries found for climb.
To select an entry, click on it.
climb[1,verb]climb[2,noun]hill climbrock climbingclimb downfree-climb

Main Entry: 1climb
Pronunciation: 'klIm
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English climban; probably akin to Old English clifian to adhere -- more at CLEAVE
intransitive senses
1 a : to go upward with gradual or continuous progress : RISE, ASCEND b : to increase gradually c : to slope upward
2 a : to go upward or raise oneself especially by grasping or clutching with the hands <climbed upon her father's knee> b of a plant : to ascend in growth (as by twining)
3 : to go about or down usually by grasping or holding with the hands <climb down the ladder>
4 : to get into or out of clothing usually with some haste or effort <the firefighters climbed into their clothes>
transitive senses
1 : to go upward on or along, to the top of, or over <climb a hill>
2 : to draw or pull oneself up, over, or to the top of by using hands and feet <children climbing the tree>
3 : to grow up or over

Hmmph. I fail to see the ambiguity anywhere. Apparently "climbing" doesn't "require" the use of ropes or other aids.

....I'm no lawyer or anything - But then again, niether is Mr. Potter.

Originally Posted by Tippster

"Dean asked a park ranger if it was okay to climb Delicate Arch and was given the go-ahead." = END OF STORY

If that is true, and he didn't know that he was violating the regs, then I agree. But the story as told before sure sounds different. I have a hard time believing this was the case (unless there's more to this, ie what did he ask, and what exactly was the "go-ahead"), because it would not have taken days and days for that little tidbit to get out.

Originally Posted by Danno

If that is true, and he didn't know that he was violating the regs, then I agree. But the story as told before sure sounds different. I have a hard time believing this was the case (unless there's more to this, ie what did he ask, and what exactly was the "go-ahead"), because it would not have taken days and days for that little tidbit to get out.

It may surprise denizens of internet bulletainboards but there are people out there who have better things to do than follow the ins and outs of online discussions, tell their story online, or spray. Not everything or everyone moves at internet speed...

Originally Posted by cj001f

It may surprise denizens of internet bulletainboards but there are people out there who have better things to do than follow the ins and outs of online discussions, tell their story online, or spray. Not everything or everyone moves at internet speed...

+1,000 gnar points for use of "denizens."

Originally Posted by greg

all of which has been done.

btw. at the moment you guys are doing a great job in organizing the publicity campaign for patagonia. by now even your neighbour's housewife knows that they support one of the world best climbers with first class gear.

why don't you just remain honest and claim that this is not about environment protection but your very personal interest to climb in the area in the future. you are putting yourself in custody of a false discussion.

I've come to the conclusion that you're a douche.

Oh, and BTW, I don't want to climb delicate arch. I want to be the first to ride a Big Wheel for a complete loop inside the arch.

Delicate, delicate, delicate.




Did the fucking thing fall over?