|
triznut
May 19, 2006, 8:31 PM
Post #26 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 26, 2000
Posts: 96
|
In reply to: While I have made my conflicted opinions well known here I must say... that fake Potter letter is a real hoot. It can't be real. Hastabe fake. Hastabe. DMT
The fact that it's posted on a Russain Website, it wouldn't suprise me at all if it was fake. Hard to say...
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 19, 2006, 8:37 PM
Post #27 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: While I have made my conflicted opinions well known here I must say... that fake Potter letter is a real hoot. It can't be real. Hastabe fake. Hastabe. DMT
Nope, it's the real deal. A friend who received it directly from Potter forwarded me a copy.
|
|
|
|
|
piquaclimber
May 19, 2006, 8:41 PM
Post #28 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Posts: 25
|
Rufusandcompany,
You're right; Dean's actions have had no influence on the thinking and decisions of the park service. It's a lie to say that they have been getting letters and phone calls for a climbing ban. Never mind that this information comes directly from the park superintendent.
In fact, I think that the media attention and the new rules are great for climbing in the park. I know I'm stoked that climbs that have been available for decades are now off limits to everyone. Killer! Right on!
Even if they were considering these moves, it doesn’t help us as climbers to work at accelerating the process and forcing a decision. Do you cut all the switchbacks on trails because it's all going to erode at some point anyway?
Let us know when you get back to Earth,
Brad
|
|
|
|
|
roadman33
May 19, 2006, 8:59 PM
Post #29 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2004
Posts: 84
|
Dean, Dean, Dean, why did you feel the need to take so many pictures and tell so many people?
Should we expect you to do this all over the country?
Will it be Dean Potter coming to a gray area crag near you soon?
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 19, 2006, 9:03 PM
Post #30 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: In reply to: While I have made my conflicted opinions well known here I must say... that fake Potter letter is a real hoot. It can't be real. Hastabe fake. Hastabe. DMT The fact that it's posted on a Russain Website, it wouldn't suprise me at all if it was fake. Hard to say...
The phone number works - thanks Dean (or Vladimir or whoever put it up), it was nice to leave a live message of disapproval. I'm sure Casey will have his number changed shortly seeing as how Patagonia doesn't make the numbers or emails of their executives available to the general public.
There's some video of the ascent here (click the video link on the right side of the page):
http://www.ksl.com/...p?sid=255234&nid=148
Although this is not a crucial point, you'll note that the video clearly shows use of white chalk.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 19, 2006, 9:07 PM
Post #31 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: Nope, it's the real deal. A friend who received it directly from Potter forwarded me a copy.
So dean just started a chain email? When was it sent out? Provide more details.
|
|
|
|
|
sircamalot
May 19, 2006, 9:22 PM
Post #32 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 48
|
Dean is right. The climb wasn't illegal (he found a loop hole), it didn't hurt the enviornment, and I don't believe he disrespected nature.
But what you did do Dean is start a whole mess of access issues. You knew the climb was against the "rules" and that's why the NPS is taking the action it is. You of all people being an "ambassador" should have known this would fuel a firey debate.....but hmmm....maybe that was the point? hint hint patagonia wink wink???
To those who say the NPS had this on the burner for quite some time...I call BS. The rules were changed 3 days after the climb. No coincidence there.
Again, thanks Dean
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 19, 2006, 9:40 PM
Post #33 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: In reply to: Nope, it's the real deal. A friend who received it directly from Potter forwarded me a copy. So dean just started a chain email? When was it sent out? Provide more details.
Went out last Friday. The header had about 30 people on it, mostly well-known climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
May 19, 2006, 9:49 PM
Post #34 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: ps. I still don't buy the monolithic climber community thing...
I'm not sure that a community has to be monolithic. Call it a user group if you prefer, but the point remains that one mans actions impact another man's freedoms. I hope it's not the shape of things to come.
|
|
|
|
|
paulj
May 19, 2006, 9:53 PM
Post #35 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2001
Posts: 14
|
In response to the comment that the regs could not be changed quickly, check this from "bvb" over on ST:
In reply to: i have to disagree. i've been working for the park service for 21 years, and have been in division chief level or higher positions for 14 years. certain superintendents can and will act with lightning swiftness if the need arises. my feeling is this is due purely to dean's actions. if they wanted the park to go hammerless, they would not have waited for an "excuse". they simply would have made it so. there is much, much more to this story. i wonder how long it will be before the other shoe drops... |
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 19, 2006, 10:30 PM
Post #36 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Dean is right. The climb wasn't illegal (he found a loop hole), it didn't hurt the enviornment, and I don't believe he disrespected nature. But what you did do Dean is start a whole mess of access issues. You knew the climb was against the "rules" and that's why the NPS is taking the action it is. You of all people being an "ambassador" should have known this would fuel a firey debate.....but hmmm....maybe that was the point? hint hint patagonia wink wink??? To those who say the NPS had this on the burner for quite some time...I call BS. The rules were changed 3 days after the climb. No coincidence there. Again, thanks Dean
He didn't start anything that wasn't already on the table. All he did was give them an excuse. It would have happened sooner or later, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 19, 2006, 10:34 PM
Post #37 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Let us know when you get back to Earth, Brad
Been here the entire time - thirty active years in the sport, with numerous contributions. Insulting me will do little to qualify your point.
|
|
|
|
|
sircamalot
May 19, 2006, 10:41 PM
Post #38 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 48
|
rufus,
If "sooner or later" are my options, then I'll take "later" thank you. While the NPS quite possibly had intentions of revising access to Arches this whole firestorm certainly helped to speed things up, wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 19, 2006, 10:50 PM
Post #39 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: rufus, If "sooner or later" are my options, then I'll take "later" thank you. While the NPS quite possibly had intentions of revising access to Arches this whole firestorm certainly helped to speed things up, wouldn't you agree?
Whether or not this incident expedited the process is a moot point, and it makes Dean no more guilty of a crime. If you want to lash out at anyone, look to the park superintendent, because she clearly has an anti-climber agenda. Banning hammers, and anchors on towers, has nothing to do with Dean's having climbed the arch, and I welcome NPS the opportunity to rationalize such an excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 20, 2006, 2:06 AM
Post #40 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: Whether or not this incident expedited the process is a moot point, and it makes Dean no more guilty of a crime.
What!? Could you add some logic here?
In reply to: If you want to lash out at anyone, look to the park superintendent, because she clearly has an anti-climber agenda. Banning hammers, and anchors on towers, has nothing to do with Dean's having climbed the arch, and I welcome NPS the opportunity to rationalize such an excuse.
1) Would lashing out be better than Dean apologizing and Patagonia making a public statement denouncing the whole spectacle?
2) I agree that Dean's actions don't provide a logical rationale for the Park Service's move to climbers, but to the general public it would. It doesn't matter as much how it appears to us but to the public at large - and it looks very bad. It portrays climbers as:
a) reckless (to the average person free soloing is pure danger)
b) egotistical (Potter has been pretty explicit about wanting to do this for him and the cameras only added to it)
c) unapologetic (we'd rather look for loopholes than abide by the spirit of the law).
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
May 20, 2006, 2:54 AM
Post #41 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
News flash:
Dean Potter climbs Mt. Rushmore
In a swift kneejerk reaction, the NPS has let all the air out of the monument and refuses to re-inflate it for the entire summer. Tourons are mortified and have been found wondering aimlessly thru the Black Hills looking for inflated heads. Surrounding towns that gouge, err, serve the tourons are appalled at the whiplash effect this stunt will take on their pocketbooks and are looking at collectively suing Patagucci for reimbursement. The NPS has also immediately instigated a $5 per wheel tax on passerbyers to help offset the funding for the additional 100 park employees needed to secure the deflated mountain. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Anyway,
Dean is a catalyst that fits into an agenda the NPS has, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 20, 2006, 3:15 AM
Post #42 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: In reply to: Whether or not this incident expedited the process is a moot point, and it makes Dean no more guilty of a crime. What!? Could you add some logic here? In reply to: If you want to lash out at anyone, look to the park superintendent, because she clearly has an anti-climber agenda. Banning hammers, and anchors on towers, has nothing to do with Dean's having climbed the arch, and I welcome NPS the opportunity to rationalize such an excuse. 1) Would lashing out be better than Dean apologizing and Patagonia making a public statement denouncing the whole spectacle? 2) I agree that Dean's actions don't provide a logical rationale for the Park Service's move to climbers, but to the general public it would. It doesn't matter as much how it appears to us but to the public at large - and it looks very bad. It portrays climbers as: a) reckless (to the average person free soloing is pure danger) b) egotistical (Potter has been pretty explicit about wanting to do this for him and the cameras only added to it) c) unapologetic (we'd rather look for loopholes than abide by the spirit of the law).
Can you prove your allegations? If so, please do.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
May 20, 2006, 4:10 AM
Post #44 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Kim,
I'm not saying he gave them an excuse on purpose, or to its timing, my opinion is that it just fits conveniently.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 21, 2006, 7:25 PM
Post #45 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: In reply to: Dean is a catalyst that fits into an agenda the NPS has. Assuming you're right, why would Potter give them that excuse? It is that - giving NPS the excuse - that I find so *inexcusable about Potter's actions. Graham Greene, in his great book " The Quiet American," says "innocence is a form of insanity." This "innocence" is what is being displayed by Potter and Patagonia in "I did nothing illegal." The "world" is much bigger than that simplistic defense/excuse. Actions have consequences, whether they are legal or not. To think otherwise is "insane." Kim
I have several issues with this line of reasoning, as it relates to this incident.
First, the legality question has everything to do with the incident if NPS is sighting it as their reason for imposing the new restrictions. Otherwise there is no justification for those restrictions. To invoke such harsh federal moratoriums - any, for that matter - just because you don't like what someone did, is unjust and irresponsible.
Your comment about Dean's having giving them an excuse is nebulous, in that you can't know that unless you know his mind and his intentions. He maintains that he had done the research, and that he believed that he was breaking no laws at the time of his ascent, and we have to take him at his word until proven otherwise. He is innocent until proven guilty, and no official charges have, thus far, been filed against him.
To say that he should have known that the park service would not appreciate his actions is a moot point. Federal rules need to be explicit, and these weren't. That is not Dean's problem, nor should it be ours. Moreover, invoking harsh and, more importantly, non-related restrictions, under the guise that Dean's actions provoked them, is unfair and irresponsible. The entire climbing community is being punished, not because of Dean's ascent, but because of a rash decision made by Laura Joss. Nailing and installing anchors on towers has absolutely no correlation to Dean's free solo of DA. Consequently, one has to assume that Joss and company already had those restrictions on the table, and that they were looking for an excuse to impose them. Otherwise, and I am not accusing her of do, she felt that her authority was being challenged and so took measures to assert that authority. Either event demonstrates her culpability in making impetuous and unreasonable policy decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
May 21, 2006, 9:53 PM
Post #46 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: The entire climbing community is being punished, not because of Dean's ascent, but because of a rash decision made by Laura Joss. Nailing and installing anchors on towers has absolutely no correlation to Dean's free solo of DA. Consequently, one has to assume that Joss and company already those restrictions on the table, and that they were looking for an excuse to impose them. Otherwise, and I am not accusing her of do, she felt that her authority was being challenged and so took measures to assert her authority. Either event demonstrates her culpability in making impetuous and unreasonable policy decisions.
BS, this is 100% on Potter. A little Googling shows that Laura Joss took over Arches in May 2004. Before that, she spent many years at Yellowstone as chief of cultural resources (and apparently did some very cool stuff). In her short time at Arches, she'd already seen Potter being a dick with a high profile slackline but that wasn't enough to trigger a climbing ban. Her "rash decision" was merely to adopt the same rules and wording already in place next door at Canyonlands (only adding slacklining and a fixed rope time limit). Actually a pretty reasonable call on her part considering climbers are a tiny fraction of park users. Should even stricter rules come later, they will be calculated and taken in the context of Potthole's pr stunt. Don't blame Joss for doing her job of protecting her charge, blame Potter for forcing her hand.
|
|
|
|
|
mtnfr34k
May 21, 2006, 10:43 PM
Post #47 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2005
Posts: 184
|
I've heard a rumor, which I'll happily spread, that Potter asked an NPS Ranger if it was alright to solo climb the arch, and was told it was OK, since he wouldn't be using any equipment that would scar the rock. I've personally experienced similar well-intentioned missinformation from NPS Rangers (though in two other Parks, not Arches).
Assuming this is true, I think Potter made a reasonable effort to clear his actions prior to the climb.
Blaming Potter for the hammerless rule is a little silly to me. "Since Mr. Potter climbed without a hammer or bolt on Delicate Arch, we will impose a similar rule all over the park." Yawn.
And finally a question. I've noticed here, on ST, and on CascadeClimbers.com that this conversation confuses rules and regs on arches in ANP, and rules and regs that cover the entire Arches National Park. Arches versus arches, if you understand me. Is this new hammerless rule park-wide, or does it only apply to the arches in Arches National Park. Has anyone posted this new regulation? I'm off now to go looking for it!
|
|
|
|
|
aimeerose
May 21, 2006, 11:00 PM
Post #48 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 574
|
IC closures are just a matter of time....
|
|
|
|
|
mtnfr34k
May 21, 2006, 11:07 PM
Post #49 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2005
Posts: 184
|
OK, back from my fact-finding trip across the internet, and this is what I found. All of this information came straight for the horse's mouth (or some other orifice) http://www.nps.gov/arch/
So prior to 9 May 2006, this was all the Arches National Park website had to say about about climbing, in its “Regulations” section:
“Climbing
“The rock at Arches offers excellent climbing opportunities, despite its sandy nature. Most climbing routes in the park require advanced techniques. Permits are not required, unless the trip involves an overnight stay in the backcountry. It the responsibility of all climbers to know and obey the following park regulations:
“1. Use of motorized drills is prohibited.
2. Climbing is prohibited on any arch identified on current USGS 7.5 minute topographical maps; on Balanced Rock year-round; on Bubo from January 1st to June 30th; on Industrial Disease on the Devil Dog Spire from January 1st to June 30th.
3. The use of chalk for climbing must be of a color which blends with the native rock.
4. Climbers are encouraged to employ clean-climbing ethics, leave dull-colored webbing when recovery is impossible, and access climbing routes via established trails, slickrock or sandy washes.”
- from http://www.nps.gov/arch/regs.htm
The following “Climbing closure announcement” was at the top of the first page, dated 9 May 2006:
“NEWS
Arches National Park Announces Climbing Closures
“Date
May 09, 2006
“Contacts
Laura Joss, 435-719-2201
Karen McKinlay-Jones, 435-719-2222
“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.
“In addition, slacklining in Arches National Park is prohibited. Slacklining is defined as walking on a rope or other line that is anchored between rock formations, trees, or any other natural features. Height of the rope above the ground is immaterial.
“These closures are based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural resources and avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities.”
- from http://www.nps.gov/arch/pphtml/newsdetail23210.html
Someone straighten me out. There is no mention about banning bolts or hammered gear on the ANP website. I'll grant that the website may be a couple of days behind the times, but can anyone QUOTE and give a SOURCE for this rew regulation, and tell me EXACTLY were it is applied?
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 21, 2006, 11:16 PM
Post #50 of 70
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: In reply to: The entire climbing community is being punished, not because of Dean's ascent, but because of a rash decision made by Laura Joss. Nailing and installing anchors on towers has absolutely no correlation to Dean's free solo of DA. Consequently, one has to assume that Joss and company already those restrictions on the table, and that they were looking for an excuse to impose them. Otherwise, and I am not accusing her of do, she felt that her authority was being challenged and so took measures to assert her authority. Either event demonstrates her culpability in making impetuous and unreasonable policy decisions. BS, this is 100% on Potter. A little Googling shows that Laura Joss took over Arches in May 2004. Before that, she spent many years at Yellowstone as chief of cultural resources (and apparently did some very cool stuff). In her short time at Arches, she'd already seen Potter being a dick with a high profile slackline but that wasn't enough to trigger a climbing ban. Her "rash decision" was merely to adopt the same rules and wording already in place next door at Canyonlands (only adding slacklining and a fixed rope time limit). Actually a pretty reasonable call on her part considering climbers are a tiny fraction of park users. Should even stricter rules come later, they will be calculated and taken in the context of Potthole's pr stunt. Don't blame Joss for doing her job of protecting her charge, blame Potter for forcing her hand.
You misinterpreted my entire post, although that doesn't surprise me, as you seem hellbent on only seeing this from one perspective. Carefully read it again, and try to do so with a broader perspective this time.
BTW, your referring to Dean as "Pothole" reveals quite a bit about your maturity and your general attitude toward the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
