Thread: Patagonia Statement on Potter's Delicate Arch Climb

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Delicate, delicate, delicate.




Did the fucking thing fall over?

If it did would it still be an arch?

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.

Beat ya' to it

arch patagonia.JPG

How much TNT do you think it would take to make that fucker go?

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

How much TNT do you think it would take to make that fucker go?

not even tnt, just a bit of rain:

Since 1970, 42 arches have toppled because of erosion. Arches National Park also receives 10 inches (250 mm) of rain a year on average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arches_National_Park

spray-painting isn't enough, we should have their logo (® included) chiselled in

Originally Posted by f2f

not even tnt, just a bit of rain:

Since 1970, 42 arches have toppled because of erosion. Arches National Park also receives 10 inches (250 mm) of rain a year on average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arches_National_Park

Shit, better climb them while we still have the chance!

Originally Posted by greg

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

I didn't say he dragged down the integrity of the company. I said it would have said a lot about the company's character if they addressed the situation with a bit of honesty (as opposed to with a team of lawyers.)

Loophole or not, he wasn't supposed to do it. You know that. I know that. The park rangers know that. Dean knows it.

Fucking patagonia knows it - and they should have acted better.

So (instead of ignoring the question like last time) tell me why this doesn't potentially damage the relationship between the authorities and rock climbers in Utah. And before you accuse me of being personally interested, you should know that I'm a guy who's never been to Utah, and who has never rock-climbed.

Originally Posted by edg

...when he chose to publicise this so wide he lost that rock-hugger aspect...What a fucking jackass.

To me, that sort of sums it all up...

I support the conservation of geological features, national treasures and gems of our park systems. I am in awe of some of the natural beauty that exists in our country--I feebly attempt to capture their evoking emotions with my photography...I do not climb, but have followed both of the threads...I am very pleased nothing was harmed and this really is not the point...sorry, but Dean did not seem to clearly undertake this for the love of his sport, he made a public stunt of the whole thing (hey! look at me!) and jeopardized climbing access for all those who obey the rules, potentially causing future restrictions unnecessarily...

Hopefully for all those concerned this just fades away to business as usual...but with all the stink, it probably will not. And by making a public stunt of the whole thing, I think Dean knew that.

Originally Posted by ctarmchair

So, you don't have a dog in the fight, but still feel a strong need to go after a climber over something you admittedly know very little about? Interesting...

Mtn Biking is banned in Harriman state park, walking distance from my house. For similar reasons.. people abuses the priviledge until the park authorities said, "fuck it."

@steve:

well actually, I think I have made myself clear enough. and since I'm not into that game of mutual insulting (I don't mean you) I am kind of done with this discussion.

to clarify some points.

first of all, I do not think there is anything wrong with having personal interest in climbing a rock. this is not an accusation - although some seem to mistake that.

second, I never claimed it would not potentially damage the relationship between climbers and park authorities.

third, maybe my english isn't elaborate enough to detect the slight difference between

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..

and "draging down the integrity of the company." But my point was, I don't see in which way he hurt the environment and thus do not understand how he could offend against patagonia's policy? so why should they end their relationship?

fourth, I think it is not very smart to argue with environmental protection if somebody freesolos some rock, since it only furthers a false understanding of environment. an understanding that regards nature as a sort of artefact exposed in a museum accessed from a parking lot where you are not allowed to touch anything. of course there is no room for climbing in this understanding.

seriously, if you want to do something about the environment put that parking 10 miles away from delicate arch instead of 0.1 mile or blow that thing up as blurred suggested, so that nobody gets the idea to visit it.

Originally Posted by greg

seriously, if you want to do something about the environment put that parking 10 miles away from delicate arch instead of 0.1 mile or blow that thing up as blurred suggested, so that nobody gets the idea to visit it.

When did I say anything about the environment??

This argument is not about whether the park service is right or wrong to ban climbing.
Rather, it's about whether we should defy their decision; or celebrate those who do.

Originally Posted by ctarmchair

You're upset with Dean Potter and Patagonia because of your mountain biking situation. Got it. Crystal.

Yeah, I make a point to follow the rules, and still get fucked by the authorities because fuckers like potter and their supporters like patagonia who defy them.

Your point is?

Originally Posted by steve

When did I say anything about the environment??

This argument is not about whether the park service is right or wrong to ban climbing.
Rather, it's about whether we should defy their decision; or celebrate those who do.

then I don't get the point why everybody is writing emails to patagonia, asking them to end their relationship arguing he would offend against their environmental policies?? I just don't get the strategy or thinking or whatever... behind this action. as I said befor, I think it's contraproductive.

Originally Posted by ctarmchair

You're upset with Dean Potter and Patagonia because of your mountain biking situation. Got it. Crystal.

you know, just because someone doesn't live there or even climb does not mean they can't have a worthwhile opinion on this. It is possible to a) have experienced an analagous situation, and/or b) have friends who do climb. Where do we draw the line? SHould only people who have been to Arches be permitted to complain? Must you have wanted to climb Delicate Arch to complain? Are only Utah residents allowed to complain? Or should we allow people who have experienced access issues because of this type of behavior, regardless of the particular activity, complain?

Originally Posted by greg

then I don't get the point why everybody is writing emails to patagonia, asking them to end their relationship arguing he would offend against their environmental policies?? I just don't get the strategy or thinking or whatever... behind this action. as I said befor, I think it's contraproductive.

So what are you suggesting? He gets away without as much as a slap on the wrist?

(post 400)

Originally Posted by ctarmchair

That you are trying to take away a man's pick and shovel when you don't know 1) all the facts, 2) the nature of the sport or the potential actual impacts involved, or 3) the overall access and regulatory situation for the area in question, all seemingly because you're angry. Feed your anger however you want to feed it, but personally dealing with BIKE access issues might be more productive.

Ok, fine. Since it seems that I'm ignorant of something, Tell me - What do I need to know?
1. Dean is a figure in rock climbing who both represents all climbers to non-climbers and influences many?
2. He did something that could potentially limit access given to others?
3. The regulation itself is controversial.

And for the record, I do happen to know a lot about rock climbing (people who climb *love* to talk about climbing) - But all that seems to be irrelavant.

So what don't I know that could potentially turn around my decision? I'd love to learn something I don't know today. Please tell me. Thanks.

Originally Posted by BLOODSWEATSTEEL

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

Anyone else?
http://www.denizensofdoom.org/

Originally Posted by ctarmchair

There are problems with all three of these statements. If you want to learn, go learn.

ahh, I see.
I must have the worst reading comprehension in the world.. because all three have been stated over and over in this forum by others.

Originally Posted by steve

So what are you suggesting? He gets away without as much as a slap on the wrist?

I don't think he even gets that at the moment. I think it pays off better than anything he has done before.

i was asked to put up a larger picture of the chiselled arch. here it is, with improved orientation and bump-mapping:



note: i do not condone the climb (as i've stated in the other thread). this is simply meant to be a sarcastic comment.

I'm skiing this week, and don't have time to get pissed about this again.

BUT, Patagonia doesn't have the FACTS. He climbed it with white chalk, specifically prohibited in the park. A small detail, but a fact none the less. Chalk is no big deal, but on THE icon of the park it is.

Try again, Patagonia PR department.

A few facts are in order. First, no crime has been committed.

just got my reply e-mail from the folks over at pat your gonads. Sounds to me like the idea of seeing patagonia climbing pants stradling the delicate arch is much more important to them than climbing ethics and the preservation of a national monument. poo poo on them

whoaa fill me in, patagucci has vid of dp-ing delicate arch. Beaver, please post pics.

Can anyone confirm / deny whether the posting at
http://www.mountain.ru/article/artic...rticle_id=1032
is actually written by Dean Potter, as it claims to be?

Outside Mag just did an article that has a lot of details on the climb: http://outside.away.com/outside/feat...h-climb-1.html

I wonder if some here who have supported him will change their tune after reading it?