This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The professional climber Dean Potter, known for his solo and speed ascents in Yosemite, has ignited a storm of controversy in the USA when he climbed Delicate Arch, the state of Utah's most famous natural icon situated in Arches National Park last Sunday.
More in the news (including a virtual panorama of Delicate Arch)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
More in the news (including a virtual panorama of Delicate Arch)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
This is an Op-Ed Piece submitted to the Salt Lake Tribune by Paul M. Jakus, a climber.
A couple of years back the Outdoor Retail Show threatened to leave Utah due to the state’s perceived lack of support for the non-motorized recreation community. The retailers argued the state gave too much “weight” to motorized recreation community in public lands management, an argument partially rooted in the belief that the motorized folks flouted regulations designed to limit user conflicts and damage to public lands.
Now we have Dean Potter, a non-motorized user of public lands, who decided to climb Delicate Arch in clear violation of the climbing regulations of Arches National Park. Yes, one of their own decided to violate the rules.
Or, should I say, “one of our own”, for I am a climber of more than thirty years, and I am outraged by the indefensible actions of Mr. Potter.
Potter’s statement that climbing Delicate Arch was not illegal is self-serving and disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. Every climber understands that access to climbing resources on public land is governed by a climbing management plan. Prior to his climb the Arches National Park website specifically stated that all named arches on 7.5 minute USGS maps were off-limits to climbing. In fact, all the climbing management plans in areas with such features have a similar statement. How stupid does Mr. Potter think the Park Service is? How stupid does he think other climbers and the public are? Pretty stupid, I guess.
Mr. Potter’s actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for our sport’s history. I remember the days when the number of climbers and the damage we caused was small. But the rapid growth of our community over the past three or four decades meant that we could no longer ignore the damage we caused ourselves and others. In the 1970’s climbers engaged in self-regulation as we moved from exclusive use of rock-scarring pitons to so-called “clean-climbing” techniques. With the advent of climbing management plans in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, climbers banded together in regional and national organizations to negotiate with land managers about access issues. Such plans always designate the formations on which climbing is prohibited. Over the past two decades we climbers have become acutely aware that the actions of one person could affect access for the community as a whole.
But along with the growth our sport came the opportunity to move up the social ladder from “dirtbag climber” to “professional climber”. Mr. Potter is a professional climber paid in cash and kind by numerous outdoor equipment companies to have his exploits and photographs—sponsor’s logo prominently displayed—published in outdoor magazines. Indeed, the announcement of Mr. Potter’s ascent of Delicate Arch came from his sponsor, Patagonia. To maintain sponsorship, a professional climber must stay in the public eye, something for which Mr. Potter is apparently richly gifted.
About a month ago Mr. Potter’s “slackline” stunt on The Three Gossips (similar to a tight-rope walk between rock spires) caught the eye of climbers and the National Park Service. Less than a week later, all slacklining in Arches was banned. And now Mr. Potter has climbed Delicate Arch, apparently hoping to profit from an action that puts climbing access to Arches at risk to all climbers. Let’s face it: the easiest management policy is an absolute ban on all climbing. Such a policy would be so simple that even Dean Potter could understand it, yet would punish the rest of us.
All of which brings us back to the Outdoor Retail Show. The companies that participate in this trade show must band together on behalf of all climbers and condemn the actions of Mr. Potter and the complicity of Patagonia. His actions are clearly motivated by sponsorship, and his sponsors should show respect for other climbers by immediately terminating their relationship with Potter. Only if we, as a community of climbers and equipment manufacturers, assure land managers that we can engage in self-regulation and self-censure will these same managers allow us access for enjoyment by all.
This is an Op-Ed Piece submitted to the Salt Lake Tribune by Paul M. Jakus, a climber.
A couple of years back the Outdoor Retail Show threatened to leave Utah due to the state’s perceived lack of support for the non-motorized recreation community. The retailers argued the state gave too much “weight” to motorized recreation community in public lands management, an argument partially rooted in the belief that the motorized folks flouted regulations designed to limit user conflicts and damage to public lands.
Now we have Dean Potter, a non-motorized user of public lands, who decided to climb Delicate Arch in clear violation of the climbing regulations of Arches National Park. Yes, one of their own decided to violate the rules.
Or, should I say, “one of our own”, for I am a climber of more than thirty years, and I am outraged by the indefensible actions of Mr. Potter.
Potter’s statement that climbing Delicate Arch was not illegal is self-serving and disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. Every climber understands that access to climbing resources on public land is governed by a climbing management plan. Prior to his climb the Arches National Park website specifically stated that all named arches on 7.5 minute USGS maps were off-limits to climbing. In fact, all the climbing management plans in areas with such features have a similar statement. How stupid does Mr. Potter think the Park Service is? How stupid does he think other climbers and the public are? Pretty stupid, I guess.
Mr. Potter’s actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for our sport’s history. I remember the days when the number of climbers and the damage we caused was small. But the rapid growth of our community over the past three or four decades meant that we could no longer ignore the damage we caused ourselves and others. In the 1970’s climbers engaged in self-regulation as we moved from exclusive use of rock-scarring pitons to so-called “clean-climbing” techniques. With the advent of climbing management plans in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, climbers banded together in regional and national organizations to negotiate with land managers about access issues. Such plans always designate the formations on which climbing is prohibited. Over the past two decades we climbers have become acutely aware that the actions of one person could affect access for the community as a whole.
But along with the growth our sport came the opportunity to move up the social ladder from “dirtbag climber” to “professional climber”. Mr. Potter is a professional climber paid in cash and kind by numerous outdoor equipment companies to have his exploits and photographs—sponsor’s logo prominently displayed—published in outdoor magazines. Indeed, the announcement of Mr. Potter’s ascent of Delicate Arch came from his sponsor, Patagonia. To maintain sponsorship, a professional climber must stay in the public eye, something for which Mr. Potter is apparently richly gifted.
About a month ago Mr. Potter’s “slackline” stunt on The Three Gossips (similar to a tight-rope walk between rock spires) caught the eye of climbers and the National Park Service. Less than a week later, all slacklining in Arches was banned. And now Mr. Potter has climbed Delicate Arch, apparently hoping to profit from an action that puts climbing access to Arches at risk to all climbers. Let’s face it: the easiest management policy is an absolute ban on all climbing. Such a policy would be so simple that even Dean Potter could understand it, yet would punish the rest of us.
All of which brings us back to the Outdoor Retail Show. The companies that participate in this trade show must band together on behalf of all climbers and condemn the actions of Mr. Potter and the complicity of Patagonia. His actions are clearly motivated by sponsorship, and his sponsors should show respect for other climbers by immediately terminating their relationship with Potter. Only if we, as a community of climbers and equipment manufacturers, assure land managers that we can engage in self-regulation and self-censure will these same managers allow us access for enjoyment by all.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Any idea who his sponsors are? If enough climbers provide negative feedback on this idiotic stunt, then future ones would be discouraged.
Any idea who his sponsors are? If enough climbers provide negative feedback on this idiotic stunt, then future ones would be discouraged.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I've been following this on one of the US climbing websites. I think I'm on Dean Potter's side on this one. I've hiked up to Delicate Arch and true enough, it's wonderful sight to see, but I don't know if it needs protection from the likes of Dean Potter. If the park authorities are so bothered about damage, what are they doing about the thousands of hikers who make their way up and down the trails? It's not as if Arches is going to become the new Yosemite and be over-run with hairy climbers.
I've been following this on one of the US climbing websites. I think I'm on Dean Potter's side on this one. I've hiked up to Delicate Arch and true enough, it's wonderful sight to see, but I don't know if it needs protection from the likes of Dean Potter. If the park authorities are so bothered about damage, what are they doing about the thousands of hikers who make their way up and down the trails? It's not as if Arches is going to become the new Yosemite and be over-run with hairy climbers.
In reply to tony:
Fair enough if he'd just climbed it and told a few mates. As no doubt many others have before (if not that particular arch, then other banned arches). But the reaction after he launched the publicity machine was fast and entirely predictable. Previously there were some seasonal exceptions from the ban. Now the ban is total.
Fair enough if he'd just climbed it and told a few mates. As no doubt many others have before (if not that particular arch, then other banned arches). But the reaction after he launched the publicity machine was fast and entirely predictable. Previously there were some seasonal exceptions from the ban. Now the ban is total.
In reply to tony: yeah thats fair enough but if the national park issues rules that certain places cant be climbed on then thats what should be done.its just another story of a climber breaking the rules for his own agenda and risking it for the rest of us.this is how it all starts and it all end either in a complete ban on climbing in the area of limited access like at hueco
rich
rich
In reply to tony:
maybe not from the likes of DP but what about from the likes of all those hikers you mention who go scrambling around the base or a bit higher. I'm sure if DP bouldered out the Stonehenge arches or climbed the pyramids he wouldn't do much damage but does that mean we should turn a blind eye and allow anyne free access to scramble over these relics?
> I don't know if it needs protection from the likes of Dean Potter
maybe not from the likes of DP but what about from the likes of all those hikers you mention who go scrambling around the base or a bit higher. I'm sure if DP bouldered out the Stonehenge arches or climbed the pyramids he wouldn't do much damage but does that mean we should turn a blind eye and allow anyne free access to scramble over these relics?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Does seem like he was a bit naive to think that he wasn't going to get his butt busted... I don't see that Patagonia have much choice especially considering their take on access and conservation...
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: i beleave that climbing is a adventure and an extream sport. (if its there try and climb it) i dont see such bans as even leagle as these areas belong to everyone. and as no damage was done im not sure wat ur moaning about. i say keep climbing keep pushing the Boundaries go dean!
In reply to grant727:
Not really the point is it?
i beleave that climbing is a adventure and an extream sport.
It is an adventure sport (sorry can't abide the 'extreme' tag) but as so many people participate, enviromental impact has to be taken into account. I, personally, see climbers as enviromentally concious folk who try to minimise the impact they have. Having one of the leading lights of our sport walk rough-shod over an access agreement is shear stupidity which will lead to resticted access or bans.
Not really the point is it?
i beleave that climbing is a adventure and an extream sport.
It is an adventure sport (sorry can't abide the 'extreme' tag) but as so many people participate, enviromental impact has to be taken into account. I, personally, see climbers as enviromentally concious folk who try to minimise the impact they have. Having one of the leading lights of our sport walk rough-shod over an access agreement is shear stupidity which will lead to resticted access or bans.
In reply to grant727:
The fact that the ascent was announced with great publicity, leading to a more severe ban than was there before, which will be more vigilantly enforced. Plus the less easily measured affect on access elsewhere.
> as no damage was done im not sure wat ur moaning about
The fact that the ascent was announced with great publicity, leading to a more severe ban than was there before, which will be more vigilantly enforced. Plus the less easily measured affect on access elsewhere.
In reply to Tyler:
but those ae man made so i feel there very different to the arches (just my opinion)
> (In reply to tony)
>
> [...]
>
> I'm sure if DP bouldered out the Stonehenge arches or climbed the pyramids he wouldn't do much damage but does that mean we should turn a blind eye and allow anyne free access to scramble over these relics?
>
> [...]
>
> I'm sure if DP bouldered out the Stonehenge arches or climbed the pyramids he wouldn't do much damage but does that mean we should turn a blind eye and allow anyne free access to scramble over these relics?
but those ae man made so i feel there very different to the arches (just my opinion)
In reply to grant727:
That's correct. Public lands in the US are just that, public, for all. However the land managers have to protect them for all and not just a few that is why there is legislation to protect the lands from the 'few' who exploit them for themselves.
Although legislation has been weakened by the Bush administration, especially in Utah.
In most Parks, reserves, and areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (and Department of the Interior) the nature of these areas are protected, both wildlife and the geology, for all to enjoy.
Mick
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) ) i dont see such bans as even leagle as these areas belong to everyone
That's correct. Public lands in the US are just that, public, for all. However the land managers have to protect them for all and not just a few that is why there is legislation to protect the lands from the 'few' who exploit them for themselves.
Although legislation has been weakened by the Bush administration, especially in Utah.
In most Parks, reserves, and areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (and Department of the Interior) the nature of these areas are protected, both wildlife and the geology, for all to enjoy.
Mick
In reply to grant727:
So if it's man made it's worthy of protection, if it's natural it's not?
> but those ae man made so i feel there very different to the arches
So if it's man made it's worthy of protection, if it's natural it's not?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
This thread was started in the wrong forum and has now been moved.
Please could you try and post in the correct forum, it makes life easier for both users and moderators.
Forum descriptions - http://www.usaclimbing.org/forum/
Hope he doesnt come here; he'll be on the egg at the bridey...
This thread was started in the wrong forum and has now been moved.
Please could you try and post in the correct forum, it makes life easier for both users and moderators.
Forum descriptions - http://www.usaclimbing.org/forum/
Hope he doesnt come here; he'll be on the egg at the bridey...
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Is Paul Jakus completely overlooking that he might have done it to provoke access for the rest of us. The park service can arrest or fine him, right? They should be more concerned about French or Belgian artists painting shit like that blue for god knows what gallic reason.
Anyway, big deal, is the route any good or not, doesn't look it. He's not going to do any harm climbing solo like everyone says. If it was on a world wide arch tick list I could understand.
Marble Arch: http://www.aboutbritain.com/MarbleArch.htm
Arc de Triomphe http://www.paris.org/Monuments/Arc/
Grande Arche de la Défense http://www.grandearche.com/
Royal Arches. http://www.supertopo.com/rockclimbing/route.html?r=yoraroya
Underneath the Arches, E2, Pembroke
Though I think the last one is technically not on an arch and any arches in that area are technically bridges as they are over water. To tick an arch do you have to just get to the top or do you have to go up one side and down the other?
Is Paul Jakus completely overlooking that he might have done it to provoke access for the rest of us. The park service can arrest or fine him, right? They should be more concerned about French or Belgian artists painting shit like that blue for god knows what gallic reason.
Anyway, big deal, is the route any good or not, doesn't look it. He's not going to do any harm climbing solo like everyone says. If it was on a world wide arch tick list I could understand.
Marble Arch: http://www.aboutbritain.com/MarbleArch.htm
Arc de Triomphe http://www.paris.org/Monuments/Arc/
Grande Arche de la Défense http://www.grandearche.com/
Royal Arches. http://www.supertopo.com/rockclimbing/route.html?r=yoraroya
Underneath the Arches, E2, Pembroke
Though I think the last one is technically not on an arch and any arches in that area are technically bridges as they are over water. To tick an arch do you have to just get to the top or do you have to go up one side and down the other?
In reply to Paz:
The Grande Arche is still unclimbed is it not? Saw Alain Robert back off an attempt in one of the documentaries about him. It looks like a relentless hand jamming crack
The Grande Arche is still unclimbed is it not? Saw Alain Robert back off an attempt in one of the documentaries about him. It looks like a relentless hand jamming crack
In reply to jam:
Amongst several, Patagonia, who initially publicised the stunt. Not the greatest promotion they have ever undertaken. I'm sympathetic to discrete ascents of the "banned" or publicised climbs to make a political point. This seems to have failed spectacularly as PR, unless I'm missing a subtle twist here?
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Any idea who his sponsors are?
>
> Any idea who his sponsors are?
Amongst several, Patagonia, who initially publicised the stunt. Not the greatest promotion they have ever undertaken. I'm sympathetic to discrete ascents of the "banned" or publicised climbs to make a political point. This seems to have failed spectacularly as PR, unless I'm missing a subtle twist here?
In reply to Jon Greengrass:
You saw correctly that I'm a fan of his. I saw that too - he's definiteyl backed off it but his website seems to imply he did it in 1999:
http://www.alainrobert.com/en/urbain.htm
You saw correctly that I'm a fan of his. I saw that too - he's definiteyl backed off it but his website seems to imply he did it in 1999:
http://www.alainrobert.com/en/urbain.htm
In reply to Tyler: no if is natural then u cant stop natural things happening to it. kids will always climb tree because its fun this the same but bigger. the things that were mentioned earlier were made extrodenly my people thousands of years ago so arnt natural so climbing on thm isnt natural.
plus u there not protecting it if it can be climbed with no damage done.
plus u there not protecting it if it can be climbed with no damage done.
In reply to tony: I agree with you entirely Tony.
In reply to grant727:
what a load of bollox
if its natural to climb a tree it can also be considered natural to chop one down especially as people have been chopping trees down for longer than people have been climbing on rocks.
the park authority said there was no climbing on the arch,harry potter knew the rules and broke them and should be punished accordingly.
plus as a climber in the spotlight he is setting a bad example to others.how many more people are now going to think that they can get away with it too,before you know it the place will be packed.it only takes one to start then others will follow!!!
rich
> (In reply to Tyler) no if is natural then u cant stop natural things happening to it.
what a load of bollox
if its natural to climb a tree it can also be considered natural to chop one down especially as people have been chopping trees down for longer than people have been climbing on rocks.
the park authority said there was no climbing on the arch,harry potter knew the rules and broke them and should be punished accordingly.
plus as a climber in the spotlight he is setting a bad example to others.how many more people are now going to think that they can get away with it too,before you know it the place will be packed.it only takes one to start then others will follow!!!
rich
In reply to grant727:
So are you saying that no damage has been done in the peak district by bouldering as they don't place gear?
> plus u there not protecting it if it can be climbed with no damage done.
So are you saying that no damage has been done in the peak district by bouldering as they don't place gear?
In reply to beermonkey: yeah im sure i could climb at stonehenge and nobody would know unless they saw me
rich
rich
In reply to Ste Brom:
This is in reply to a post a while back...
whats so special about the egg at bridestones? ive always been puzzled as to why climbing isnt allowed on it.
Si.
This is in reply to a post a while back...
whats so special about the egg at bridestones? ive always been puzzled as to why climbing isnt allowed on it.
Si.
In reply to grant727:
>i beleave that climbing is a adventure and an extream sport
Just get 'moron' tattooed on your forehead, would you? It'll save everyone a lot of time. And see if the tattooist can fit DP in as well, while you're at it.
More Red Bull, anyone?
jcm
>i beleave that climbing is a adventure and an extream sport
Just get 'moron' tattooed on your forehead, would you? It'll save everyone a lot of time. And see if the tattooist can fit DP in as well, while you're at it.
More Red Bull, anyone?
jcm
If the issue was the actual damage to the rock, then many places would not be banned. Climbers need to realise that their views aren't necessarily shared by everyone. Hence we need to keep a low profile in certain places.
Every single time someone has done something like this it always impacts the wider climbing community. It's all about managing the relationship between climbers and the parks services. Actions like this are like saying a big "F#@k you" to the people responsible for managing the parks. So why should they bother to try and help us by spending time negotiating access agreements?
No matter how wrong it is, climbers get lumped together as one group and what one person does impacts the rest of us. We need to take responsibility for access issues and condemn Dean Potter. He obviously doesn't care about other climbers, so why should we stick up for him?
Every single time someone has done something like this it always impacts the wider climbing community. It's all about managing the relationship between climbers and the parks services. Actions like this are like saying a big "F#@k you" to the people responsible for managing the parks. So why should they bother to try and help us by spending time negotiating access agreements?
No matter how wrong it is, climbers get lumped together as one group and what one person does impacts the rest of us. We need to take responsibility for access issues and condemn Dean Potter. He obviously doesn't care about other climbers, so why should we stick up for him?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Probaby not that much time, actually.
> It'll save everyone a lot of time.
Probaby not that much time, actually.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
i go with the irresponsible line....
if the 'pros' start doing what they shouldn't it sets a bad example.
like footballers. if they start punching other players (in violation of the rules), it doesn't send out a good message to aspiring players.
i know there aren't any rigid rules in climbing (which is good) but surely that's more of a reason to be responsible, as it's only by going with the trends that our sport naturally develops.
also, you can't say that 'people won't be stupid enough to copy something stupid'.... people are stupid... people will do stupid stuff.
i go with the irresponsible line....
if the 'pros' start doing what they shouldn't it sets a bad example.
like footballers. if they start punching other players (in violation of the rules), it doesn't send out a good message to aspiring players.
i know there aren't any rigid rules in climbing (which is good) but surely that's more of a reason to be responsible, as it's only by going with the trends that our sport naturally develops.
also, you can't say that 'people won't be stupid enough to copy something stupid'.... people are stupid... people will do stupid stuff.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Great take on the whole Potter thing here:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=192082#msg192386
I love the line "Potter, who reportedly got his head caught in the door as a youth,"....
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=192082#msg192386
I love the line "Potter, who reportedly got his head caught in the door as a youth,"....
In reply to Mick B:
May as well.
"Damn, Dean's antics made the NY Times! Check out the article below.
---
Although some time has passed since Dean "The Raven" Potter garnered serious publicity for any climbs of groundbreaking difficulty, the 34-year-old Potter hasn't stopped making headlines. Just weeks after Arches National Park announced a park-wide ban on slack-lining as a result of Potter's highly publicized spiritual slack-lining journey, Potter is at it again. Last Sunday morning, in the presence of pre-arranged photographers, movie cameras, and Channel 9 Fox News, along with hordes of tourists, Mr. Potter free-soloed (climbed without a rope) the famous Delicate Arch, in Arches National Park. Climbing on the arch, the Utah state icon, is clearly prohibited. But Potter couldn't help himself.
"For the past four years or so, I've been going up there kind of obsessively and looking at it in every possible light," Potter told the Salt Lake Tribune on Tuesday. "I had to do it in the morning, since the lighting is better--my sponsor's logos didn't turn out good last tim--I mean," said Potter, interrupting himself, "I mean, my celebration of nature through slack-lining just naturally led to this when a raven flew overhead and told me that me, and only me, could celebrate my oneness with Delicate Arch."
Potter, who reportedly got his head caught in the door as a youth, is famous for his bold ascents, often performed alone (obligatory camera crew notwithstanding), and his spiritual journeys through climbing (click [here] to buy the live movie shot during the climb, click [here], [here], and [here] for links to the websites of professional photographers who documented Potter's commune with nature, and [here] for a direct link to Patagonia, where you can purchase the book, Let My People Climb Delicate Arch).
When asked how he could justify such seemingly damaging actions to the climbing community, one that has long-struggled with land managers and access issues, The Raven screamed, "I was communing with nature--f*#k off!"
But despite considerable scorn from the climbing community and most anybody with an intact frontal lobe, at least one group has praised Potter. In a Times interview, Bubba "Tiny" Larson, president of the Off-Road Vehicle alliance, said, "As a free 'Merican, he ain't gotta follow no damned rules. I ain't never fancied them climberin' types, I gotta admit, but he done inspired me," the 300-pound Larson said, getting misty-eyed and fiddling with the brim of his confederate flag ballcap. "Me an' Jimbo is a-fixin' to drive our jeeps up-top that arch next week. I just love gettin' out, seein' nature, just like Dean," said Larson before signing off with his trademark, "Yeeeeee-hawwww!"
Industry insiders and gossip columnists suspect that Potter may be trying to embrace a bad-boy image for greater publicity, ala rapper 50 Cent and basketball player Dennis Rodman. "Yo, I down wit Dean, we gonna bust a cap in dem NPS suckas, knowwhati'msayin'," said Mr. Cent. Others think he's simply a media whore.
It remains unclear whether or not Patagonia, Potter's main financial sponsor and an industry leader in environmental and conservation issues, will shit-can Potter or name a new shirt after him. Patagonia initially alerted media outlets to Potter's climb, a puzzling move given the predictable backlash. "Well," said one soft-spoken Patagonia employee who spoke on condition of anonymity, "I really feel like any publicity is good publicity, and this just helps spread our message." When asked what, exactly, the message is that Potter's actions support, the person simply responded, "Namaste."
Most climbers, however, have been less kind. In a long-winded rant, Wyoming climber Eddie Sender said:
"Let's hope mister spiritual pro athlete did alright in shop class because he'll need those skills for his next job, cutting sheet metal. Then again, that might be too intellectually demanding. He'll be pumping gas. Maybe not enough publicity in that, though. Given the deluge of 'my space' accounts and what-not, he can get his mug on the internet once he's sucking c*#k for wine money down in the park."
Although Potter declined an in-person interview until his photographer returns from his latest shoot, in a phone interview the Times asked if, in retrospect, he thought his actions were irresponsible. After a long pause, he answered: "No I'm not, you are. F*#k off."
May as well.
"Damn, Dean's antics made the NY Times! Check out the article below.
---
Although some time has passed since Dean "The Raven" Potter garnered serious publicity for any climbs of groundbreaking difficulty, the 34-year-old Potter hasn't stopped making headlines. Just weeks after Arches National Park announced a park-wide ban on slack-lining as a result of Potter's highly publicized spiritual slack-lining journey, Potter is at it again. Last Sunday morning, in the presence of pre-arranged photographers, movie cameras, and Channel 9 Fox News, along with hordes of tourists, Mr. Potter free-soloed (climbed without a rope) the famous Delicate Arch, in Arches National Park. Climbing on the arch, the Utah state icon, is clearly prohibited. But Potter couldn't help himself.
"For the past four years or so, I've been going up there kind of obsessively and looking at it in every possible light," Potter told the Salt Lake Tribune on Tuesday. "I had to do it in the morning, since the lighting is better--my sponsor's logos didn't turn out good last tim--I mean," said Potter, interrupting himself, "I mean, my celebration of nature through slack-lining just naturally led to this when a raven flew overhead and told me that me, and only me, could celebrate my oneness with Delicate Arch."
Potter, who reportedly got his head caught in the door as a youth, is famous for his bold ascents, often performed alone (obligatory camera crew notwithstanding), and his spiritual journeys through climbing (click [here] to buy the live movie shot during the climb, click [here], [here], and [here] for links to the websites of professional photographers who documented Potter's commune with nature, and [here] for a direct link to Patagonia, where you can purchase the book, Let My People Climb Delicate Arch).
When asked how he could justify such seemingly damaging actions to the climbing community, one that has long-struggled with land managers and access issues, The Raven screamed, "I was communing with nature--f*#k off!"
But despite considerable scorn from the climbing community and most anybody with an intact frontal lobe, at least one group has praised Potter. In a Times interview, Bubba "Tiny" Larson, president of the Off-Road Vehicle alliance, said, "As a free 'Merican, he ain't gotta follow no damned rules. I ain't never fancied them climberin' types, I gotta admit, but he done inspired me," the 300-pound Larson said, getting misty-eyed and fiddling with the brim of his confederate flag ballcap. "Me an' Jimbo is a-fixin' to drive our jeeps up-top that arch next week. I just love gettin' out, seein' nature, just like Dean," said Larson before signing off with his trademark, "Yeeeeee-hawwww!"
Industry insiders and gossip columnists suspect that Potter may be trying to embrace a bad-boy image for greater publicity, ala rapper 50 Cent and basketball player Dennis Rodman. "Yo, I down wit Dean, we gonna bust a cap in dem NPS suckas, knowwhati'msayin'," said Mr. Cent. Others think he's simply a media whore.
It remains unclear whether or not Patagonia, Potter's main financial sponsor and an industry leader in environmental and conservation issues, will shit-can Potter or name a new shirt after him. Patagonia initially alerted media outlets to Potter's climb, a puzzling move given the predictable backlash. "Well," said one soft-spoken Patagonia employee who spoke on condition of anonymity, "I really feel like any publicity is good publicity, and this just helps spread our message." When asked what, exactly, the message is that Potter's actions support, the person simply responded, "Namaste."
Most climbers, however, have been less kind. In a long-winded rant, Wyoming climber Eddie Sender said:
"Let's hope mister spiritual pro athlete did alright in shop class because he'll need those skills for his next job, cutting sheet metal. Then again, that might be too intellectually demanding. He'll be pumping gas. Maybe not enough publicity in that, though. Given the deluge of 'my space' accounts and what-not, he can get his mug on the internet once he's sucking c*#k for wine money down in the park."
Although Potter declined an in-person interview until his photographer returns from his latest shoot, in a phone interview the Times asked if, in retrospect, he thought his actions were irresponsible. After a long pause, he answered: "No I'm not, you are. F*#k off."
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Is he a mate of Scott Muir?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Further stuff on here:
http://www.planetfear.com/news_detail.asp?n_id=5753
Spin that would make New Labour proud. Can't say it would endear anyone to potter nor patagonia.
Further stuff on here:
http://www.planetfear.com/news_detail.asp?n_id=5753
Spin that would make New Labour proud. Can't say it would endear anyone to potter nor patagonia.
In reply to Fiend:
I sent them the email as requested.
With a few amendments.
"I do not object to the criticism of Dean's climb of Delicate Arch. If it was not illegal it should be. Maybe it is unfair and libelous to criticize Dean on the basis of inaccurate reports and unsubstantiated opinions but he asks for it. I have no respect for Dean's climbing stunts, and they are completely in line with Patagonia's very shaky environmental ethics.
I sent them the email as requested.
With a few amendments.
"I do not object to the criticism of Dean's climb of Delicate Arch. If it was not illegal it should be. Maybe it is unfair and libelous to criticize Dean on the basis of inaccurate reports and unsubstantiated opinions but he asks for it. I have no respect for Dean's climbing stunts, and they are completely in line with Patagonia's very shaky environmental ethics.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Could someone explain to me why the UKC consensus holds that it is 'bad' for an american climber to ascend a possibly-legally-restricted chunk of rock in a US national park (Delicate Arch) whilst it is 'good' for brit climbers to ascend a definitely-legally-restricted chunk of rock in Devon (Vixen Tor)?
Could someone explain to me why the UKC consensus holds that it is 'bad' for an american climber to ascend a possibly-legally-restricted chunk of rock in a US national park (Delicate Arch) whilst it is 'good' for brit climbers to ascend a definitely-legally-restricted chunk of rock in Devon (Vixen Tor)?
In reply to tobyfk:
Where be this consensus?
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Could someone explain to me why the UKC consensus
>
> Could someone explain to me why the UKC consensus
Where be this consensus?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Well I tried counting the posts and calculating the percentage anti-Potter ... but it was just too tedious trying to figure out what some people were actually trying to say .. anyway it's an overwhelming majority. Similarly on the Vixen threads. 'Consensus' is a slippery concept, but equating it with majority view is a reasonable start point.
> Where be this consensus?
Well I tried counting the posts and calculating the percentage anti-Potter ... but it was just too tedious trying to figure out what some people were actually trying to say .. anyway it's an overwhelming majority. Similarly on the Vixen threads. 'Consensus' is a slippery concept, but equating it with majority view is a reasonable start point.
In reply to tobyfk:
One is a nationally important landscape/geological monument whose preservation will benefit many whilst the other is not as environmentally sensitive but has optimum public 'good' potential as a recreational resource which has been compromised by bad legislation and an unreasonable landowner.
One is a nationally important landscape/geological monument whose preservation will benefit many whilst the other is not as environmentally sensitive but has optimum public 'good' potential as a recreational resource which has been compromised by bad legislation and an unreasonable landowner.
In reply to tobyfk:
Delicate Arch is owned/controlled by people who own/control huge amounts of land, and have the power to make life very difficult for climbers. Vixen Tor is a self-contained situation, without significant risk of causing access problems elsewhere.
Delicate Arch is owned/controlled by people who own/control huge amounts of land, and have the power to make life very difficult for climbers. Vixen Tor is a self-contained situation, without significant risk of causing access problems elsewhere.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
That's a very honest answer. Basically you're saying that it is pragmatic to co-operate with powerful opponents but fine and proper to be confrontational with 'little people'? Or, even simpler: 'only pick fights you can win'?
Anyway, should we actually be so sure that the Vixen situation won't lead to anti-climber policy elsewhere? From certain perspectives it must look remarkably like an interest group (climbers) being greedy (there are plenty of crags in the UK with access rights) and standing against private property rights.
> Delicate Arch is owned/controlled by people who own/control huge amounts of land, and have the power to make life very difficult for climbers. Vixen Tor is a self-contained situation, without significant risk of causing access problems elsewhere.
That's a very honest answer. Basically you're saying that it is pragmatic to co-operate with powerful opponents but fine and proper to be confrontational with 'little people'? Or, even simpler: 'only pick fights you can win'?
Anyway, should we actually be so sure that the Vixen situation won't lead to anti-climber policy elsewhere? From certain perspectives it must look remarkably like an interest group (climbers) being greedy (there are plenty of crags in the UK with access rights) and standing against private property rights.
In reply to Yorkspud:
It is not obvious why free-soloing up and down the thing is likely to lead to any damage? Having stood under the D.A. I can assure you it is very solid and looks very hard to climb.
> One is a nationally important landscape/geological monument whose preservation will benefit many
It is not obvious why free-soloing up and down the thing is likely to lead to any damage? Having stood under the D.A. I can assure you it is very solid and looks very hard to climb.
In reply to tobyfk:
A reasonable summary.
I don't think Vixen Tor risks setting any precedents, other than if we don't object there's the risk of other landowners behaving similarly to get their land removed from CRoW.
But I wouldn't suggest picking a fight with the RSPB!
> 'only pick fights you can win'
A reasonable summary.
I don't think Vixen Tor risks setting any precedents, other than if we don't object there's the risk of other landowners behaving similarly to get their land removed from CRoW.
But I wouldn't suggest picking a fight with the RSPB!
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Pedant.
> You are talking people who actually post obviously?
Pedant.
In reply to tobyfk:
The US is so different from the UK and terms of the NP users and the rules and regs. It does seem somewhat prejudiced towards climbers.
You have to "show your helmet" to the Rangers on Long's Peak before they will 'allow' you to climb on the Diamond. Climbers get charged (they call it a 'compulsory donation'!) - a disproportionate amount - to bivi. No doubt that helps pay for moving boulders to make the trail to the summit wider and more 'accessible'? Make the trails wider, but keep em off the rocks seems to be the message.
The US has the best rock in the world, but a lot of the best venues are becoming a total pain to visit or are now banned. I can see how living in Utah (Potter) gets you frustrated with the 'system'.
So he raises his profile and that of Patagonia. Good on him! If it means he can go climbing more and work less, than I admire him for that. If it means Patagonia keep developing excellent clothing, then great. Chouinard claims in his "Let my people go surfing" book that Patagonia don't pay anyone to climb, so I can't think Potter earns much of a crust really.
I think his 'stunt' is more likely to raise awareness and make those venturing into the outdoors to think more about their actions, than if he hadn't done it. Maybe it will have had a negative impact on the NP/climber relations, but I doubt it...
The US is so different from the UK and terms of the NP users and the rules and regs. It does seem somewhat prejudiced towards climbers.
You have to "show your helmet" to the Rangers on Long's Peak before they will 'allow' you to climb on the Diamond. Climbers get charged (they call it a 'compulsory donation'!) - a disproportionate amount - to bivi. No doubt that helps pay for moving boulders to make the trail to the summit wider and more 'accessible'? Make the trails wider, but keep em off the rocks seems to be the message.
The US has the best rock in the world, but a lot of the best venues are becoming a total pain to visit or are now banned. I can see how living in Utah (Potter) gets you frustrated with the 'system'.
So he raises his profile and that of Patagonia. Good on him! If it means he can go climbing more and work less, than I admire him for that. If it means Patagonia keep developing excellent clothing, then great. Chouinard claims in his "Let my people go surfing" book that Patagonia don't pay anyone to climb, so I can't think Potter earns much of a crust really.
I think his 'stunt' is more likely to raise awareness and make those venturing into the outdoors to think more about their actions, than if he hadn't done it. Maybe it will have had a negative impact on the NP/climber relations, but I doubt it...
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:
But it says on the other forum that previously, some of the Arches had climbing allowed for 6 months of the year, and now there is a blanket ban. Seems a quite clear negative impact to me...
> Maybe it will have had a negative impact on the NP/climber relations, but I doubt it...
But it says on the other forum that previously, some of the Arches had climbing allowed for 6 months of the year, and now there is a blanket ban. Seems a quite clear negative impact to me...
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:
Junior North Facers get about $25,000 a year I heard. More for big guns like Croft.
> (In reply to tobyfk)
>
> Chouinard claims in his "Let my people go surfing" book that Patagonia don't pay anyone to climb, so I can't think Potter earns much of a crust really.
>
> Chouinard claims in his "Let my people go surfing" book that Patagonia don't pay anyone to climb, so I can't think Potter earns much of a crust really.
Junior North Facers get about $25,000 a year I heard. More for big guns like Croft.
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:
It will be talked about by all NP staff who are involved in climber management. Hopefully it won't have a negative impact on policy.
> (In reply to tobyfk)
>
> Maybe it will have had a negative impact on the NP/climber relations, but I doubt it...
>
> Maybe it will have had a negative impact on the NP/climber relations, but I doubt it...
It will be talked about by all NP staff who are involved in climber management. Hopefully it won't have a negative impact on policy.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
My point really is that there's already a lot of negative perceptions of climbers - that's been my experience anyway. Trail-widening so that you've got freeways to the summit isn't environmentally sensitive in my opinion, so I think the enviro issue is sometimes used when really climbers are a minority who they are happy to exclude.
> (In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor)
> [...]
>
> It will be talked about by all NP staff who are involved in climber management. Hopefully it won't have a negative impact on policy.
> [...]
>
> It will be talked about by all NP staff who are involved in climber management. Hopefully it won't have a negative impact on policy.
My point really is that there's already a lot of negative perceptions of climbers - that's been my experience anyway. Trail-widening so that you've got freeways to the summit isn't environmentally sensitive in my opinion, so I think the enviro issue is sometimes used when really climbers are a minority who they are happy to exclude.
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:
I'd agree with that Tom. Much of it irrational.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
>
> My point really is that there's already a lot of negative perceptions of climbers - that's been my experience anyway.
> [...]
>
> My point really is that there's already a lot of negative perceptions of climbers - that's been my experience anyway.
I'd agree with that Tom. Much of it irrational.
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:mmm, I think the stunt has probably aggrevated the NP further- fueling the "climbers dont like rules + regs" impression that the NP's probably have. Surely its better to work with them, nurturing good relationships rather than making some sort of demo that will be interrpreted as disregard for laws/regs etc. Stuff like this could damage access to other sensitive areas/NP's..Indian Creek, Devils Tower(has happenend I believe), Joshua Tree.
He's raised his profile but behaved selfishly!
Not sure whether its changed but The Arches NP used to allow climbing with only a few exceptions (Delicate Arch etc).
In the UK this sort of behaviour has lead to a favourable result for climbers (e.g. Range West trespasses in the early 90's)..I'm not so sure its the way to go about things in the States.
He's raised his profile but behaved selfishly!
Not sure whether its changed but The Arches NP used to allow climbing with only a few exceptions (Delicate Arch etc).
In the UK this sort of behaviour has lead to a favourable result for climbers (e.g. Range West trespasses in the early 90's)..I'm not so sure its the way to go about things in the States.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
"It was always our intent that all named arches ... are closed to climbing."
How can he say that when the old regulations stated quite clearly
"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."
"It was always our intent that all named arches ... are closed to climbing."
How can he say that when the old regulations stated quite clearly
"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."
n reply to richard kirby:
Though ironically hardly anyone climbs on Range West still because the briefings system is so restrictive. So it may have seemed like a big victory 15 years ago, but it could do with moving along.
> In the UK this sort of behaviour has lead to a favourable result for climbers (e.g. Range West trespasses in the early 90's)..I'm not so sure its the way to go about things in the States.
Though ironically hardly anyone climbs on Range West still because the briefings system is so restrictive. So it may have seemed like a big victory 15 years ago, but it could do with moving along.
In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor: The Range West situation is moving along, though not at great speed. A briefed climber is now permitted to take in one unbriefed climber, and access is allowed to areas without nesting birds from the end of May rather than the start of August.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Simon: I think you are confusing 'arches' with other rock features. Arches NP is a huge place and includes some decent size desert sandstone towers with routes up to 4 pitches++. These have been permitted for climbing to varying extents for years. The arched features, however, have always seemed to be closed for climbing - at least as I understood the restrictions.
Simon: I think you are confusing 'arches' with other rock features. Arches NP is a huge place and includes some decent size desert sandstone towers with routes up to 4 pitches++. These have been permitted for climbing to varying extents for years. The arched features, however, have always seemed to be closed for climbing - at least as I understood the restrictions.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: This arch was first summited about ten years ago.
In reply to me.:
Aye ' appen.
Some words from Jimmie Dunn:
"This is for those climbers who accept Dean Potter's ascent of Delicate Arch. I've been fortunate enough to have climbed and hiked in the canyon country for 37 years and I still do. Dean is a very good friend of mine. We have climbed some good routes together and even climbed in Arches together. I consider him a high quality person and a rad climber and he is for nature. Dean's ascent of Delicate Arch may not have been against the law because of a loophole, but this is not the issue.
Dean broke a trust that we climbers had with the Park Service to not climb the arches. Instead we left them for the ravens. We were allowed to climb the towers, the walls, the boulders, do new routes, and even place bolts with a hand drill if needed. Just stay off the arches! This ascent shows the Park Service that we may need rules on paper in big letters. This is not good.
I've climbed the Three Gossips many times and always seem to have some sort of spiritual experience up there. The Gossips know this...but they're not talking...Jimmie Dunn"
Some words from John Long:
"There's always going to be people who put restrictions on us--that's what "authorities" do. It's always a tighrope act in trying to get away with as much as possible without having the authorities feel as though their hegemony is being usurped and then start shutting down entire areas. That's what I see Jimmy bringing to our attention--a case where a guy probably went too far. I personally don't hae a problem with Dean climbing the Arch, had he kept it a secret only to himself. No harm, no foul. But plastering the ascent all over the web is tantamount to flipping off the rangers and I'd bet if Dean (who I respect a lot) were to have it to do all over again, he'd still solo the arch but wouldn't tell anyone. "
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=197165&f=0&b...
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) This arch was first summited about ten years ago.
Aye ' appen.
Some words from Jimmie Dunn:
"This is for those climbers who accept Dean Potter's ascent of Delicate Arch. I've been fortunate enough to have climbed and hiked in the canyon country for 37 years and I still do. Dean is a very good friend of mine. We have climbed some good routes together and even climbed in Arches together. I consider him a high quality person and a rad climber and he is for nature. Dean's ascent of Delicate Arch may not have been against the law because of a loophole, but this is not the issue.
Dean broke a trust that we climbers had with the Park Service to not climb the arches. Instead we left them for the ravens. We were allowed to climb the towers, the walls, the boulders, do new routes, and even place bolts with a hand drill if needed. Just stay off the arches! This ascent shows the Park Service that we may need rules on paper in big letters. This is not good.
I've climbed the Three Gossips many times and always seem to have some sort of spiritual experience up there. The Gossips know this...but they're not talking...Jimmie Dunn"
Some words from John Long:
"There's always going to be people who put restrictions on us--that's what "authorities" do. It's always a tighrope act in trying to get away with as much as possible without having the authorities feel as though their hegemony is being usurped and then start shutting down entire areas. That's what I see Jimmy bringing to our attention--a case where a guy probably went too far. I personally don't hae a problem with Dean climbing the Arch, had he kept it a secret only to himself. No harm, no foul. But plastering the ascent all over the web is tantamount to flipping off the rangers and I'd bet if Dean (who I respect a lot) were to have it to do all over again, he'd still solo the arch but wouldn't tell anyone. "
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=197165&f=0&b...
In reply to tobyfk:
Because both are examples where the spirit of a law has been broken if not the letter.
The Arches National Park has negotiated accessfor climbers, a bit like the voluntary bird-bans in the UK. As John Long and Jimmy Dunn say, it's not ideal but an acceptable compromise for most. Potter didn't break any law as he is so keen to point out but that's not the point, he broke that agreement and I think he has risked climbing in Arches park and possibly elsewhere. You know how keen they are on regulation in "the land of the free". The occasional discrete ascent by Potter, or anyone else, doesn't jeopardise this agreement. It's the transparently commercially motivated publicity that has pissed people off and the latest cringe-making appeals from Potter and Patagonia make things even worse. If you can't see out of the hole, it's time to stop digging.
Organised mass tresspass as a tactic where access negotiation has broken down is an entirely different issue and, pragmatically, there are plenty of examples where this has been an effective ploy. Potter isn't doing this, it was a purely individual action, most likely for his financial gain. If it was just about the climbing he'd have kept quiet about it.
In Reply to Mick Ryan:
People here will know John Long; it might be worth pointing out the Jimmy Dunn was the first person to do a solo first ascent of El Cap. He's been around climbing for some time.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Could someone explain to me why the UKC consensus holds that it is 'bad' for an american climber to ascend a possibly-legally-restricted chunk of rock in a US national park (Delicate Arch) whilst it is 'good' for brit climbers to ascend a definitely-legally-restricted chunk of rock in Devon (Vixen Tor)?
>
> Could someone explain to me why the UKC consensus holds that it is 'bad' for an american climber to ascend a possibly-legally-restricted chunk of rock in a US national park (Delicate Arch) whilst it is 'good' for brit climbers to ascend a definitely-legally-restricted chunk of rock in Devon (Vixen Tor)?
Because both are examples where the spirit of a law has been broken if not the letter.
The Arches National Park has negotiated accessfor climbers, a bit like the voluntary bird-bans in the UK. As John Long and Jimmy Dunn say, it's not ideal but an acceptable compromise for most. Potter didn't break any law as he is so keen to point out but that's not the point, he broke that agreement and I think he has risked climbing in Arches park and possibly elsewhere. You know how keen they are on regulation in "the land of the free". The occasional discrete ascent by Potter, or anyone else, doesn't jeopardise this agreement. It's the transparently commercially motivated publicity that has pissed people off and the latest cringe-making appeals from Potter and Patagonia make things even worse. If you can't see out of the hole, it's time to stop digging.
Organised mass tresspass as a tactic where access negotiation has broken down is an entirely different issue and, pragmatically, there are plenty of examples where this has been an effective ploy. Potter isn't doing this, it was a purely individual action, most likely for his financial gain. If it was just about the climbing he'd have kept quiet about it.
In Reply to Mick Ryan:
People here will know John Long; it might be worth pointing out the Jimmy Dunn was the first person to do a solo first ascent of El Cap. He's been around climbing for some time.
In reply to duncan:
Though wordier than Simon's response, this is also a good explanation. You must be a lawyer?
Anyway, I concede that the UKC consensus is probably right on this one ...
Though wordier than Simon's response, this is also a good explanation. You must be a lawyer?
Anyway, I concede that the UKC consensus is probably right on this one ...
In reply to tobyfk:
Hmm. I've also stood under it and it didn't look that hard to climb to me. It also looked like the sort of thing you obviously wouldn't climb unless you wanted to be a tw*t.
Presumably it's not called Delicate Arch for nothing.
jcm
Hmm. I've also stood under it and it didn't look that hard to climb to me. It also looked like the sort of thing you obviously wouldn't climb unless you wanted to be a tw*t.
Presumably it's not called Delicate Arch for nothing.
jcm
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...