|
sevrdhed
May 19, 2006, 3:36 PM
Post #1 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2004
Posts: 923
|
Taken from the Taco... no new fixed anchors at Arches as of May 9th. Anyone think this doesn't have anything to do with a recent high-publicity stunt by a certain climbing "Ambassador"?
Thanks Dean.
http://www.supertopo.com/...ic_id=195525&f=0&b=0
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
sircamalot
May 19, 2006, 3:52 PM
Post #2 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 48
|
Interesting. Along with the no new fixed anchors is a rule against ANY and ALL nailing on any routes. This, if I'm not mistaken, just closed more than a few existing routes in Arches.
And I'm not buying the "I didn't know it was against the rules" defense.
Thanks Dean.
|
|
|
|
|
sircamalot
May 19, 2006, 3:54 PM
Post #3 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 48
|
Interesting. Along with the no new fixed anchors is a rule against ANY and ALL nailing on any routes. This, if I'm not mistaken, just closed more than a few existing routes in Arches.
And I'm not buying the "I didn't know it was against the rules" defense.
Thanks Dean.
|
|
|
|
|
mdude
May 19, 2006, 4:34 PM
Post #4 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 198
|
Thanks Dean! :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
csgambill
May 19, 2006, 4:38 PM
Post #5 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2004
Posts: 607
|
Whatever. Climbing in Arches sucks ballz anyway. The rock is shit. Any worthwhile climbs have already been anchored. This is as inane a rule as saying no trad climbing in the gym.
Who gives a fuck!
|
|
|
|
|
piquaclimber
May 19, 2006, 4:53 PM
Post #6 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Posts: 25
|
Mdude wrote:
"Whatever. Climbing in Arches sucks ballz anyway. The rock is s---. Any worthwhile climbs have already been anchored. This is as inane a rule as saying no trad climbing in the gym.
Who gives a f---!"
LAME TROLL considering the situation.
Brad
PS, If I am wrong and you are serious, please feel free to stay in Illinois and climb the kick ass rock that abounds there.
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
May 19, 2006, 5:01 PM
Post #7 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
Action, reaction. If it wasn't clear before, it should be obvious to everyone that individual actions affect the community.
|
|
|
|
|
csgambill
May 19, 2006, 5:04 PM
Post #8 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2004
Posts: 607
|
In reply to: Mdude wrote: LAME TROLL considering the situation. Brad PS, If I am wrong and you are serious, please feel free to stay in Illinois and climb the kick ass rock that abounds there.
Sorry to burst your dumbass bubble. I was climbing in Arches two weeks ago, and in the Moab area while the whole thing went down.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 19, 2006, 5:14 PM
Post #9 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Action, reaction. If it wasn't clear before, it should be obvious to everyone that individual actions affect the community.
These regs were posted here last week. Few seemed to have read them very closely.
Letters to the NPS had to have had their effect too, but the bad publicity of this whole thing clearly has gone down the path most feared and is due to the incident, not those who complained about it to officials.
So the sound and fury appear to have had their desired effect?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
piquaclimber
May 19, 2006, 6:11 PM
Post #10 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Posts: 25
|
Mdude,
Glad you're getting out. Since you apparently climb in Arches, I'll stick with my first point.
It was a lame troll.
Brad
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
May 19, 2006, 6:12 PM
Post #11 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
Dingus,
I dont think these were the same regs previously posted. The new ones prohibit bolts and hammers. This is a change in policy. Now the internet lynch mob really has something to bitch about. I am curious. You make it sound like these threads have negatively influenced the NPS? I was not sure what you were inferring.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 19, 2006, 6:43 PM
Post #12 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Dingus, I dont think these were the same regs previously posted. The new ones prohibit bolts and hammers. This is a change in policy. Now the internet lynch mob really has something to b---- about. I am curious. You make it sound like these threads have negatively influenced the NPS? I was not sure what you were inferring.
Um, I saw either a url or a direct quote that said no new fixed anchors in the park. I saw and read it, didn't dream it, but no biggie.
Um, no I am not attributing the reg change to these threads at all. I suspect they had no effect whatsoever.
I do think that a flood of negative letters to the nps WILL have a negative effect. That is something each letter writer will have to and should evaluate before dropping the letter in the box.
But as pointed out to supertopians this change happened lightning fast, so ti would seem to be either something the park was already in the process of implementing or a direct reaction to the DA climb.
But back to those letters... (I'm not sure its a safe assumption that non-climber letters of outrage will outnumber those written by climbers)...
they are now 'on file' so to speak and will surely influence future directions to some extent. Again, that implication is something each letter writer will have to evaluate for herself. I'm not drawing any conclusions or trying to assert 'blame.'
This rule change seems to be a direct result of the publicity associated with the climb, in its various forms.
Cheers bro
DMT
ps. I still don't buy the monolithic climber community thing... but for the loss of access I'm sorry FWTW.
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
May 19, 2006, 6:57 PM
Post #13 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
I agree with you on the letter writing thing. As someone who put up some routes there way back in the day, I feel bad for those climbers of today that have shrinking opportunities.
|
|
|
|
|
jer
May 19, 2006, 6:58 PM
Post #14 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2000
Posts: 426
|
So in the end, Deans ascent created less traffic, less fixed anchors, less impact, and less confusion as to the rules than previously?
Sweet.
Seriously, thanks Deango.
jer
|
|
|
|
|
jer
May 19, 2006, 7:02 PM
Post #15 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2000
Posts: 426
|
hahahha!!
I love this post and agree.
"Whatever. Climbing in Arches sucks ballz anyway. The rock is shit. Any worthwhile climbs have already been anchored. This is as inane a rule as saying no trad climbing in the gym.
Who gives a fuck!"
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
May 19, 2006, 7:04 PM
Post #16 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
Yeah Jer, sounds like an environmental award is in order huh?
|
|
|
|
|
rocketsocks
May 19, 2006, 7:07 PM
Post #17 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2006
Posts: 179
|
In reply to: In reply to: Mdude wrote: LAME TROLL considering the situation. Brad PS, If I am wrong and you are serious, please feel free to stay in Illinois and climb the kick ass rock that abounds there. Sorry to burst your dumbass bubble. I was climbing in Arches two weeks ago, and in the Moab area while the whole thing went down.
Why would you spend time and effort to climb in an area that you think "sucks balls"? Are you developmentally disabled or something?
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
May 19, 2006, 7:07 PM
Post #18 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
In reply to: So in the end, Deans ascent created less traffic, less fixed anchors, less impact, and less confusion as to the rules than previously? Sweet. Seriously, thanks Deango. jer
well, shoot, why not just ban climbing outright? That way you'll have zero traffic, zero fixed anchors and zero climber impact. Do you also support the idea of managing crowded crags by charging exorbitantly high user fees? sweet!
|
|
|
|
|
md3
May 19, 2006, 7:10 PM
Post #19 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 172
|
Some of the post by Piquaclimber on SuperTopo:
In reply to: I just spoke with Laura Joss. She confirmed that as of May 9, no new fixed anchors are allowed in the park. She said that there will be a period of time for public input about the new regulations but as of now... no new anchors. She also said that this has promoted the NPS to overhaul/clarify their regulations in the next year. She was happy to hear that most climbers are not happy with Dean’s antics. ALSO- All nailing in the park is now prohibited with the exception of replacement of existing anchors and bolts on existing routes! This means that many of the established climbs are no longer legal to climb!!!! Some of the routes/formations affected by this include Queen Victoria Rock, The Phalis, most routes on the Organ, etc..) According to Laura, the NPS is getting calls and letters from people asking her to ban climbing in the park. Therefore it is important for climbers to write in and represent their desires and interests to balance out the non-climbers that are asking for a total ban. …
Responses on Supertopo to this change in Arches policy included complaining and a ridiculous call for civil disobedience. Does anyone think that is a good idea? Does anyone think climbers can achieve anything in the way of preserving access by complaining and protesting? Imagine the way that would read to the general public: “While our nation is at war, dealing with some natural disaster, in deep recession, etc… rock climbing brats today slowed traffic and created havoc at the entrances to Zion, Arches and other National Parks. They are protesting the increasing restrictions on climbing the sandstone formations. Experts say that rock climbing is causing damage to the soft rock formations in these areas. Many more people come to enjoy the beauty of these national treasures than to climb them. The representative for the Parks insists that the restrictions are necessary if the formations are to be preserved.”
The speedy response by the Park should make it clear that climbers really don’t have very deep support among land managers for maintaining access. The “hikers” and tourists comprise a much greater portion of the visitors to any Park.
|
|
|
|
|
golsen
May 19, 2006, 7:13 PM
Post #20 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 361
|
guys I think a sarcasm emoticon may have helped you comprehend. No offense intended...
|
|
|
|
|
triznut
May 19, 2006, 7:35 PM
Post #21 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 26, 2000
Posts: 96
|
Not saying I do or don't....I'm just keeping it real... 8^)
In reply to: Dean Potter: I NEED HELP! Dean Potter Dear everyone, Patagonia is being flooded with complaints by people who are saying I broke the law, hurt the environment and disrespected nature by free soloing Delicate Arch. None of those accusations are true, but people keep repeating them. It would help morale and give a balanced set of comments if they heard from people who support judgments based on fact. Here are the facts. You would be doing me and Steph a favor if you would either put this message in your own words or just copy and paste it into an email, then send it to the CEO of Patagonia: Casey_Sheahan@patagonia.com. Additionally, if you have time, a phone call would be great. The free number is 1-888-344-4567 x4802. Please keep it short if you do call...."I support Dean and his climb of Delicate Arch. It's in line with Patagonia 100%." Also, please forward this to other people you know who would send this message. The more the better, as there have been a lot of complainers. Thanks, Dean "I object to the criticism of Dean's climb of Delicate Arch. It was not illegal. No harm was done to the rock. It is unfair and libelous to criticize Dean on the basis of inaccurate reports and unsubstantiated opinions. I respect Dean's no impact climbing style, and I think it is completely in line with Patagonia's strong environmental ethics. Thank you for supporting Dean."
Link to Article---> http://www.mountain.ru/article/article_display1.php?article_id=1032. --Yes, it's that stupid Russian site.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
May 19, 2006, 7:46 PM
Post #22 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
Here is a quote by ProfessorFate, in Supertopo, which I believe warrants serious consideration before you send Dean down in a ball of flames.
In reply to: "Too quick to be exclusively a reaction. Bureaucracies do not move that fast. They were waiting to do it. They just used Dean-gate as the catalyst/excuse."
Now is especially not the time for visceral, knee-jerk accusations like: "Thanks, Dean."
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 19, 2006, 8:18 PM
Post #23 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
esallen
May 19, 2006, 8:20 PM
Post #24 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2004
Posts: 304
|
Dean has made a stupid move that could potentially hurt all climbers, especially Utah climbers like me. My friends and I will not be purchasing gear from any company that sponsors this guy.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
renohandjams
May 19, 2006, 8:21 PM
Post #25 of 70
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2005
Posts: 616
|
In reply to: Whatever. Climbing in Arches sucks ballz anyway. The rock is s---. Any worthwhile climbs have already been anchored. This is as inane a rule as saying no trad climbing in the gym. Who gives a f---! |
|
|
|
|
|
1
