|
|
|
|
rhythm164
May 15, 2006, 6:39 PM
Post #51 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 964
|
In reply to: If such a conversation did take place isn't it just as likely that Potter offhand says to a low level ranger friend "hey, it would be cool if someone could climb Delicate, huh?" "Yep, I'd like to see that." Is that permission? .
OK, now wait, you seemto be annoyed that people are believing second hand info off the internet, but you're offering up some speculative "Yea, dude" conversation? IF that took place of course that's not permission, but c'mon, talk about unsubstansiated. I'm more likely to believe Malcom Daly for the following reasons:
1. He's a respected figure in the climbing community.
2. What does he have to gain by lying? If anything, just the opposite
3. He knows, and recently talked to Potter about the whole thing.
I guess all we can do IS to speculate, but in light of recent posts supporting Potter and offering a broader view as to what could have possibley transpired (i.e. Daly's conversation with Potter), hasn't he at least earned SOME benefit of the doubt?
|
|
|
|
|
rhythm164
May 15, 2006, 6:44 PM
Post #52 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 964
|
[quote="sidepull
If such a conversation did take place isn't it just as likely that Potter offhand says to a low level ranger friend "hey, it would be cool if someone could climb Delicate, huh?" "Yep, I'd like to see that." Is that permission? .
OK, now wait, you seemto be annoyed that people are believing second hand info off the internet, but you're offering up some speculative "Yea, dude" conversation? IF that took place of course that's not permission, but c'mon, talk about unsubstansiated. I'm more likely to believe Malcom Daly for the following reasons:
1. He's a respected figure in the climbing community.
2. What does he have to gain by lying?
3. He knows, and recently talked to Potter about the whole thing.
I guess all we can do IS to speculate, but in light of recent posts supporting Potter and offering a broader view as to what could have possibley transpired (i.e. Daly's conversation with Potter), hasn't he at least earned SOME benefit of the doubt?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 15, 2006, 6:49 PM
Post #53 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: This is a pretty shaky foundation. At this point you are relying on second hand information passed via the internet.
Oh NO! WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT!!!111
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
May 15, 2006, 8:11 PM
Post #54 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
In reply to: In reply to: Here's the complete relevant text of the official park regs that were in place at the time of Dean's climb. Thanks for Ron Olsen at mountainproject.com for this info. Mal The following rock climbing routes may be closed for all or a portion of the year due to aesthetic, wildlife, or other resource related concerns: 1. Any arch identified on the current issue U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute topographical map. Loopholes don't absolve.
Why is that a loophole? I know that routes at Looking Glass may be closed for Peregrine Falcon nesting, this doesn't mean that they are always closed! This merely means that one should check for announced closures (which they do post each and every year). The intent behind announcing the routes may be closed it merely to raise awareness and encourage potential climbers to check before climbing. It sounds like Potter did check (yes, from heresay). But even if he didn't check, no closure was in place at the time of his climb! Sure, the arch may be closed at any time, according to the regs in place, but it was not!
In reply to: In reply to: The use of chalk for climbing must be of a color that blends with the native rock. It's just plain tacky that he used white chalk. Others have argued above that people climb in the park all the time with white chalk and therefore it's become an excepted norm. Okay, if we use that logic to forgive the use of white chalk then the same logic should apply to the ascent. It's common wisdom and accepted practice that climbing arches is off limits.
Has it been established that he used white chalk?
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 15, 2006, 8:23 PM
Post #55 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: In reply to: If such a conversation did take place isn't it just as likely that Potter offhand says to a low level ranger friend "hey, it would be cool if someone could climb Delicate, huh?" "Yep, I'd like to see that." Is that permission? . I guess all we can do IS to speculate, but in light of recent posts supporting Potter and offering a broader view as to what could have possibley transpired (i.e. Daly's conversation with Potter), hasn't he at least earned SOME benefit of the doubt?
1) There haven't been posts (plural), there is only Malcolm's claim (singular) to have talked with Potter who claims to have talked with a ranger.
2) I don't think these so called facts necessarily represent a broader view. As I stated earlier, if Potter talked to a ranger, we don't have any information regarding the content of that discussion or how specific it was regarding what actually occurred. I threw out the hypothetical scenario as a demonstration of how equivocal these situations can be. So, even if you take it as fact that Potter spoke with a ranger and as fact that Potter felt like he had permission the ranger might not have the same recollection. In that sense, it's not that I doubt the veracity of Malcolm's description, it's just that it doesn't provide enough information to actually "broaden" the discussion. More importantly it's unlikely that this person had any authority to provide permission. Again, why doesn't Patagonia back this story? Why hasn't Climbing or Rock and Ice openly defended Potter? Why is he so silent about this?
At this point it would be better for Potter and for climbing in general if he just apologized. Hanging onto these narrow interpretations and slim justifications is like winning a gold medal in ice skating courtesy of a french judge - it diminishes the integrity of the sport.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 15, 2006, 8:28 PM
Post #56 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Here's the complete relevant text of the official park regs that were in place at the time of Dean's climb. Thanks for Ron Olsen at mountainproject.com for this info. Mal The following rock climbing routes may be closed for all or a portion of the year due to aesthetic, wildlife, or other resource related concerns: 1. Any arch identified on the current issue U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute topographical map. Loopholes don't absolve. Why is that a loophole? I know that routes at Looking Glass may be closed for Peregrine Falcon nesting, this doesn't mean that they are always closed! This merely means that one should check for announced closures (which they do post each and every year). The intent behind announcing the routes may be closed it merely to raise awareness and encourage potential climbers to check before climbing. It sounds like Potter did check (yes, from heresay). But even if he didn't check, no closure was in place at the time of his climb! Sure, the arch may be closed at any time, according to the regs in place, but it was not!
You've missed an important part of the post. It's a loophole because common knowledge is that Arches are off limits to climbing. The only person that seems to lean on the "may" is Dean.
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: The use of chalk for climbing must be of a color that blends with the native rock. It's just plain tacky that he used white chalk. Others have argued above that people climb in the park all the time with white chalk and therefore it's become an excepted norm. Okay, if we use that logic to forgive the use of white chalk then the same logic should apply to the ascent. It's common wisdom and accepted practice that climbing arches is off limits. Has it been established that he used white chalk?
Sorry, but you can see it in the pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
mdude
May 15, 2006, 9:04 PM
Post #59 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 198
|
Dean's hand is white in the picture that has been posted. My hands look white while climbing too.
GUILTY!
MD
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 15, 2006, 9:08 PM
Post #60 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: In reply to: You've missed an important part of the post. It's a loophole because common knowledge is that Arches are off limits to climbing. The only person that seems to lean on the "may" is Dean. So if common knowledge is WRONG, we should still obey it because everyone thinks that it's true? Just because the named arches MAY be closed, does not mean that they ARE closed! Any climb in any park MAY be closed at any time. Should we assume that because everyone says that a climb is closed that we cannot climb it, even though we have found FACTS that state that the climb not closed?
In this case, common knowledge wasn't wrong. The re-release of the rules simply served to codify what everyone already knew to be the case. Dean knew that his interpretation went against the norms - anyone who has been to Arches would know that.
I'm not sure you understand, Arches is not Devil's Tower or any other of a handful of places that puts seasonal restrictions on climbing. Arches have always been off limits to climbing. That is a social fact.
Moreover, the assumption that you're forwarding is that we should always climb things until we're told not to. This type of attitude doesn't help access. Pushing semantic loopholes doesn't help access.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 15, 2006, 9:10 PM
Post #61 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Just because the named arches MAY be closed, does not mean that they ARE closed! Any climb in any park MAY be closed at any time. Should we assume that because everyone says that a climb is closed that we cannot climb it, even though we have found FACTS that state that the climb not closed?
What, are you new???
Once you try and convict someone via internet lynch mob additional testimony will not be accepted.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
rhythm164
May 15, 2006, 9:57 PM
Post #62 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 964
|
In reply to: 1) There haven't been posts (plural), there is only Malcolm's claim (singular) to have talked with Potter who claims to have talked with a ranger. 2) I don't think these so called facts necessarily represent a broader view. As I stated earlier, if Potter talked to a ranger, we don't have any information regarding the content of that discussion or how specific it was regarding what actually occurred. I threw out the hypothetical scenario as a demonstration of how equivocal these situations can be. So, even if you take it as fact that Potter spoke with a ranger and as fact that Potter felt like he had permission the ranger might not have the same recollection. In that sense, it's not that I doubt the veracity of Malcolm's description, it's just that it doesn't provide enough information to actually "broaden" the discussion. More importantly it's unlikely that this person had any authority to provide permission. Again, why doesn't Patagonia back this story? Why hasn't Climbing or Rock and Ice openly defended Potter? Why is he so silent about this? .
1. There have been more than one post in Potter's defense in this thread, and in the other threads about the topic on this website. Look around.
2. Any new opinion broadens the view. True, you don't have a transcript of POtters conversation with the ranger, to automatically assume that it consisted of nothing more than, "Dude, that would be sweet.", is just speculation to try and prove he was underhanded. Not to mention you have no idea what said ranger recollects. And how does Daly having a conversation with the person that this whole thing is about NOT broaden the discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 15, 2006, 10:10 PM
Post #63 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: .And how does Daly having a conversation with the person that this whole thing is about NOT broaden the discussion?
It doesn't support the lynching.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 15, 2006, 10:39 PM
Post #64 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
As a utah climber (moved here 2 years ago), I just climbed in Arches for the first time this April. It's an amazing place to climb... actually, I think the rock is sorta gritty/nasty, but balanced with the scenery, it's some of the best in the states, IMHO.
With this whole thing going down with the media, it just makes me sad that there is now going to be much more strict monitoring of climbing and people WILL be slammed with rules. I liked going to Arches and not having to worry about a ranger coming by and checking in to make sure that I wasn't breaking certain rules, etc. I guess this sort of thing is bound to happen as the climbing community continues to get larger, and maybe more rules will end up proving to be a good thing so that special landmarks won't be destroyed... I just didn't think we were at that level of impact yet as a climbing community. I guess I was wrong.
As a closing comment, I hope everybody contributes something each year to the Access Fund. It's pretty important and will only get more important as time goes on.
PS
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 15, 2006, 10:41 PM
Post #65 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: 1. There have been more than one post in Potter's defense in this thread, and in the other threads about the topic on this website. Look around.
I guess I was either unclear or your took some liberty to misinterpret - in either case, I was talking specifically about the information regarding Potter getting permission from a ranger. To my knowledge, Malcolm is the first person to have introduced this to the conversation. Other posts repeating Malcolm don't provide additional evidence. I am fully aware that there are others that defend Potter.
In reply to: 2. Any new opinion broadens the view. True, you don't have a transcript of POtters conversation with the ranger, to automatically assume that it consisted of nothing more than, "Dude, that would be sweet.", is just speculation to try and prove he was underhanded. Not to mention you have no idea what said ranger recollects. And how does Daly having a conversation with the person that this whole thing is about NOT broaden the discussion?
You're right, any "new" opinion broadens the view. Aliens told Potter it was okay. There.
|
|
|
|
|
rhythm164
May 15, 2006, 11:00 PM
Post #66 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 964
|
In reply to: I guess I was either unclear or your took some liberty to misinterpret -
You were unclear.
In reply to: You're right, any "new" opinion broadens the view. Aliens told Potter it was okay. There.
That was an intelligent thing to write. Way to further the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 16, 2006, 12:10 AM
Post #67 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: In reply to: You're right, any "new" opinion broadens the view. Aliens told Potter it was okay. There. That was an intelligent thing to write. Way to further the discussion.
You're right - that wasn't that intelligent of a comment. I guess, in the same way that dingus has checked out of arguing and decided to just reply with sarcasm because of the momentum of the "internet lynch" I also checked out because of the inertia of supporting behavior that I see as destructive to climbing and the environment. I'm tired of arguing trivial points with people who adamantly miss the core of the my arguments. So, it was a stupid comment in one sense.
In another sarcastic sense, I was trying to highlight that, from my perspective, the justification for Potter's actions are very slim rationalizations based on semantics and heresay. I guess because that's my view, I don't see Malcolm's posts as very broadening.
At any rate, I think I agree with dingus' approach. At this point I've spent too much time arguing with people who seem set on trying to see this in as optimistic a light as possible. That doesn't mean that I think your optimists - it means I don't think you understand the normative consequences of Potter's actions.
Ripples. Just ripples.
PS - thanks for the edit - much nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
powen
May 16, 2006, 12:18 AM
Post #68 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 201
|
Yeah, Dean "found" a loophole. He got to climb it. He's probably the last person who will ever get to do it legally. Did he really ruin access or just show the park that they need to be more careful with their attempts at legalese? Or something somewhere in between?
He could have just climbed it without cameras etc. Then again, it's the last chance anyone has to document a legal ascent of the arch...
Did be break the letter of the law? No. Did he break the spirit of the law? Maybe, hard to prove. I'll take Mal's word on his friend's intent. What would it take to prove/disprove Dean's intent? All you will get is the man's word...
Lord knows none of us have ever over-crowded a crag, brought a dog that shit everywhere, strung up a dozen top-ropes every five feet, trampled and eroded trails or crossed private land to get to a route. No, none of us have ever had an impact on access. Oh yeah, and my chalk is INVISIBLE! No hikers or rangers ever see it!
Dean Potter is the least of our problems in terms of access. Hopefully we all take a good look at ourselves and our impact on our own climbing access.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
May 16, 2006, 5:03 AM
Post #69 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
In reply to: In reply to: Just because the named arches MAY be closed, does not mean that they ARE closed! Any climb in any park MAY be closed at any time. Should we assume that because everyone says that a climb is closed that we cannot climb it, even though we have found FACTS that state that the climb not closed? What, are you new??? Once you try and convict someone via internet lynch mob additional testimony will not be accepted. DMT
Can't blame me for trying! Or maybe you can... :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 16, 2006, 5:17 AM
Post #70 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: .And how does Daly having a conversation with the person that this whole thing is about NOT broaden the discussion? It doesn't support the lynching. DMT
Correct. Instead, it supports the crime.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
May 16, 2006, 5:31 AM
Post #71 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
Whatev. I've been free soloing the arch for years anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
May 16, 2006, 5:35 AM
Post #72 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
If land managers are going to take the exception and apply his example to the majority, well, they're the asses. DP is responsible for his own actions so he should be the only one to suffer the consequences. If climbers in this area have to toe a line that's thinner than every other park user, maybe they should take offense to those writing the rules. Climber profiling? White chalk was tacky, but would this have incited the hub-bub had it not been an "ambassador" of climbing?
|
|
|
|
|
secretninja
May 16, 2006, 5:50 AM
Post #73 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2005
Posts: 154
|
So Potter found a loophole...big whoop. If he did if fact violate the letter of the law the NPS would have nailed him to the wall in a stunt of this magnitude. While it was rather shortsighted of him to promote the climb and use white chalk, his ascent didn't damage the route. It's not like he put a series of bolts up it, or chisel out holds, so i find that the arguments saying that climbers are now seen in a negative light weak at best. What's that sucker rated, anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
May 17, 2006, 4:01 PM
Post #74 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
PHONE
1-800-638-6464
Patagonia Customer Service Reps are available for inquiries weekdays from 6am to 6pm, and weekends from 8am to 4pm (PST). Phone orders are accepted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Call em and give em a piece of your mind, for good or bad.
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
May 17, 2006, 4:33 PM
Post #75 of 90
(14108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
Mal, I usually agree with you and you are a straight shooter, but whether climbing Delicate Arch was against the law or not is kind of moot, dont you think?
There are a lot of things well within the law that Patagonia and others, including yourself champion vociferously against, such as the use of pesticides in cotton farming, unsustainable water use, the wholesaleing of our natural heritage, and so on. I don't think the law has anything to do with this. It's a matter of style, as climbing has always been about.
When access is handed to you on a silver platter by the National Park Service, its easy to feel entitled to do whatever you please. Here in the South things are a little different. Pretty much every piece of climbing real-estate is privately owned or accessible by the goodwill of the various agencies that control it. Climbers here have to fight hard for it.
Problem is, NPS doesn't understand climbing, as is the nature of a government entity. Throw them a curve ball, and they start making unreasonable restrictions on everyone. Once that happens, you can't just go back and have a little chat with Bubba and straighten things out. It's a little more serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
