|
|
|
|
jackflash
May 17, 2006, 5:39 PM
Post #76 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 483
|
In reply to: Did he really ruin access or just show the park that they need to be more careful with their attempts at legalese?
In reply to: 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.
It is much easier to restrict all climbing in an area than it is to communicate which features or routes are open and which are closed. The NPS regulation on arches was ambiguous, in what seems to have been a mistake. Many laws are ambiguous out of necessity, however. Sometimes it is hard to precisely draw a linguistic line between where access is allowed and where it is restricted. Authorities can either keep the ambiguity and trust that visitors will follow the spirit of the regulation, or they can broaden the rule so that every route in the gray area is off limits, even those that would have been open.
The issues surrounding Potter's ascent are not so much about whether he used white chalk or otherwise damaged the arch. The issue is trust. If managers don't feel that they can trust visitors to obey laws, both in their letter and their spirit, they may decide that they need greater restrictions to help preserve whatever it is that they feel access will jeopardize. This applies to more than just Arches National Park, more than just the NPS, and more than just climbers.
Dean Potter's ascent is unlikely to be the sole infraction that closes climbing in ANP or anywhere else, but it will have its effects. The idea that Potter simply found a loophole, taught the NPS a lesson about wording and ended the matter with no consequences is ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
powen
May 17, 2006, 7:58 PM
Post #77 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 201
|
In reply to: It is much easier to restrict all climbing in an area than it is to communicate which features or routes are open and which are closed. The NPS regulation on arches was ambiguous, in what seems to have been a mistake. Many laws are ambiguous out of necessity, however. Sometimes it is hard to precisely draw a linguistic line between where access is allowed and where it is restricted. Authorities can either keep the ambiguity and trust that visitors will follow the spirit of the regulation, or they can broaden the rule so that every route in the gray area is off limits, even those that would have been open.
Or is it just easier to use the correct wording and language in the first place? What Potter did has the potential to make the NPS approach closures more concisely and efficiently... or they can take the easier route, be lazy and ban climbing everywhere. Dean's actions will not dictate how they address this in the future...
As for trusting visitors to follow the "spirit" of regulations... Good luck. If I owned a large swath of land with millions of visitors and users, I would have a hard time trusting that everyone would follow the "spirit" of any law or regulation. I don't think Mr. and Mrs. Touron, or even Mr. Badass Climber, are going to say to themselves... "well, let's think about what so and so intended with their law"... When you're dealing with large groups of people, you need to be explicit if you want something. You can't just trust them to do what is right.
In reply to: The issues surrounding Potter's ascent are not so much about whether he used white chalk or otherwise damaged the arch. The issue is trust. If managers don't feel that they can trust visitors to obey laws, both in their letter and their spirit, they may decide that they need greater restrictions to help preserve whatever it is that they feel access will jeopardize. This applies to more than just Arches National Park, more than just the NPS, and more than just climbers.
I agree for the most part. However, I don't trust visitors when it comes to the spirit of the law. I'm sure this is the same issue that the NPS deals with when it comes to base jumpers, ATV users, hikers, campers etc. People constantly try to get away with stuff. It's to be expected in land management with all users, not just climbers.
Climbers and parks need to communicate better, write down specific rules and constantly monitor their own actions and members for any ongoing or new issues. Pretty daunting without people like the Access Fund.
In reply to: Dean Potter's ascent is unlikely to be the sole infraction that closes climbing in ANP or anywhere else, but it will have its effects. The idea that Potter simply found a loophole, taught the NPS a lesson about wording and ended the matter with no consequences is ludicrous.
It's ludicrous that you put words in my mouth. I never said it had no consequences. It's what we do individually and collectively after the fact that will determine whether Dean's climb will have a positive or negative impact on Arches NP or in our own backyard. It could have a great effect, or a not so great effect.
I, for one, look at it as an opportunity to do some good... For everyone that is paying lip service to boycotting Patagonia, donate what you would have spent on Patagonia gear to the Access Fund or a local Utah climbers organization dedicated to maintaining access. If you support Dean or not, go do some good for access or climbing. Participate in a trail day, donate some money to climbing groups, educate a noob about LNT, buy Maldaly a beer... worry less about Dean soiling the skirt of the spirit of the law, and more about what you can do as a member of the community.
Or just send me your Patagonia gear. PM me for my sizes.
|
|
|
|
|
jackflash
May 17, 2006, 8:38 PM
Post #78 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 483
|
In reply to: Or is it just easier to use the correct wording and language in the first place? What Potter did has the potential to make the NPS approach closures more concisely and efficiently...
They certainly should have made sure that all of their wording was consistent. However, the most efficient approach to closures is to either close everything or have everything open. Then there's no worry that your rangers or climbers will misunderstand what people can climb on or when they can climb it. Parks aren't required to allow climbing, and some don't.
In reply to: When you're dealing with large groups of people, you need to be explicit if you want something. You can't just trust them to do what is right.
That's exactly my point. In this case, Potter stuck to the loophole instead of how everyone else interpreted the rules. The existence of the loophole was a mistake, but it will still erode trust between climbers and park management. When you don't trust people, you tend to impose more restrictions on them.
In reply to: In reply to: The idea that Potter simply found a loophole, taught the NPS a lesson about wording and ended the matter with no consequences is ludicrous. It's ludicrous that you put words in my mouth. I never said it had no consequences.
I did not attribute the position to you.
|
|
|
|
|
powen
May 17, 2006, 9:26 PM
Post #79 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 201
|
In reply to: In reply to: Or is it just easier to use the correct wording and language in the first place? What Potter did has the potential to make the NPS approach closures more concisely and efficiently... In reply to: They certainly should have made sure that all of their wording was consistent. However, the most efficient approach to closures is to either close everything or have everything open. Then there's no worry that your rangers or climbers will misunderstand what people can climb on or when they can climb it. Parks aren't required to allow climbing, and some don't.
Agreed, but it's what I call a lazy approach. Again, it's an opportunity for both sides to do things the right way, and to come to a compromise agreeable for both.
In reply to: When you're dealing with large groups of people, you need to be explicit if you want something. You can't just trust them to do what is right.
In reply to: That's exactly my point. In this case, Potter stuck to the loophole instead of how everyone else interpreted the rules. The existence of the loophole was a mistake, but it will still erode trust between climbers and park management. When you don't trust people, you tend to impose more restrictions on them.
Or it could lead to more open dialogue, clearer rules and an improved relationship... Just depends on both sides... Right?
In reply to: In reply to: The idea that Potter simply found a loophole, taught the NPS a lesson about wording and ended the matter with no consequences is ludicrous. It's ludicrous that you put words in my mouth. I never said it had no consequences.
In reply to: I did not attribute the position to you.
To whom did you attribute the idea then? You happened to paraphrase two of my thoughts from a previous post, then added a third thought that I never expressed and labelled it all as ludicrous. I'm sure you can understand how that would be perceived...
|
|
|
|
|
markguycan
May 21, 2006, 5:46 PM
Post #80 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 136
|
well said michaelmcguinn, I respect your ethics. I can relate to the desire to climb something that's forbidden; It's too bad Potter had to go public. Since he soloed w/o adding permanent gear or damaging(hopefully) the arch I personally would not hold complaint. But the photo-Op for the public sends the WRONG message. A stunt like that deserves repercussions. His sponsors should take some action.
|
|
|
|
|
markguycan
May 21, 2006, 5:47 PM
Post #81 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 136
|
well said michaelmcguinn, I respect your ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 21, 2006, 6:09 PM
Post #82 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Dean
Great job man, can you solo this
http://www.atpm.com/7.01/washington-dc/images/wash-monument-reflect.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 21, 2006, 6:11 PM
Post #83 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Dean
Great job man
Have you thought about doing this SOLO ?
www.raywilsonbirdphotography.co.uk/Galleries/Landscapes/images/S003-Washington-Monument-DC.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
jstan
May 27, 2006, 6:26 AM
Post #84 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Suppose you are a principal in the Access Fund and have a scheduled meeting with the superintendent of ANP tomorrow. There it will be your task to represent the climbing community. Now I have a question for you. Do you assume the superintendent is following this discussion on RC.com? If you do, how credible will you be when you say climbers have a well defined position?
If there were a chance this discussion could lead to agreement among us, then it might justify the cost. I don’t see any signs of motion however. All the positions seem quite rigid. If so, this discussion is largely destructive.
It does not portray climbers as a community striving to reach agreement. Don't get me wrong. It is OK to be that way. Just don't expect people in positions of power to pay much attention to you.
|
|
|
|
|
leapinlizard
May 27, 2006, 8:57 AM
Post #85 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2004
Posts: 200
|
I still fully support Dean. From the brief encounter I have had with him, he is a true person, not someone following in footsteps so as not to step on anyone's toes.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 28, 2006, 2:34 AM
Post #86 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Dean is an amazing guy and there is much to admire about him.
Still, all humans, even our climbing heros have blind spots and faults that allow us to make mistakes. I sure do.
I tend to believe Dean's ill feelings from some bad NPS encounters have tainted his vision in this casee on how to be an "ambassador" of the sport wisely.
The fact that the ascent was photographed, taped and published shows that his public persona was part of this ascent, not just the private renegade visionary.
It seems that taunting the NPS was part of his vision. That's like pissing in the wind. You come out smelling badly.
Doesn't mean he's a bad guy. But I do think he made a bad call in this case.
Good could still come of it, particularly if Patagonia and the Access Fund (maybe even with Dean) took the opportunity to educate and communicate with NPS and the public about what should and shouldn't be kosher in the parks and establishing lines of communication to hash out issue before they become regulations.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 29, 2006, 11:00 PM
Post #87 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
As long as folks are talking about letter writing mode, it might be the best idea to write the Arches Superintendent with ideas along the lines of:
"The climbing community appreciates the history of reasonableness and amicability between NPS and Climbers in Arches National Park. While we understand that the recent rule change might have been a necessary stopgap measure to plug a loophole in the regulations, the climbing community looks forward to a positive dialog aimed at preserving the ability of climbers to use and enjoy Arches National Park while protecting the resources there for all users and future generations. Lets work together to fine tune the regulations to allow appropriate access while assuring protection."
While NPS has a certain groupthink culture, it is composed of individual human beings that respond well to being treated as such, which respect and consideration. The best way to win a war with the "the man" is to avoid war in the first place.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
socialclimber
Jun 17, 2006, 1:48 AM
Post #88 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2001
Posts: 1163
|
..
|
|
|
|
|
relentless
Aug 7, 2006, 8:16 PM
Post #89 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2006
Posts: 1
|
Interesting that the park service banned slacklining in Arches National Park because of the Delicate Arch ascent.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 7, 2006, 11:23 PM
Post #90 of 90
(13951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
I'm pretty sure that the Slackline thing happened before the delicate arch fiasco but that it also involved Dean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
