It's sort of a toss up between, man thats cool and, I still want to be able to climb owl rock.

I always wanted to climb the Washington Monument and the White House. Do you think they will mind? After all I am an American and can climb where and when I want to, right? While I am at it I think I will whip up a bald eagle egg omelet. I can cook it on the JFK eternal flame.
A spiritual adventure my ass. This was a photo-op and a shameless act of self agrandizment! Dean, you are a great climber why do you have to blow your load for 45 feet of bullshit? Would you still have done it if NO ONE was there to know about it? This is a low point in North American climbing. And a major black eye for climber / land manager relations! Fortunately for Dean his celebrity may help him pass with a wrist slap. But what about the rest of us dirt bag climbers and our dealings with the keeper of the keys?
Potter and Patagonia should be ashamed! They should probably cough up an apology and a huge donation to the access fund to mitigate damage.

Wrong place, wrong arch/rock, wrong reasons.

i have a lot of respect for dean, but i believe that this was a bad move. it gives climbers a bad rap, by disrespecting rules set forth, irrelevant whether we agree with them or not. but shit, id do it too if i had the chance (i just wouldn't publicize it everywhere.)

I just find it to be a particularly poor reflection on the climbing community for purely selfish motives -- unfortunately, at the expense of you and me. One knows better. Real bad move...

Here's the press release from Arches, regarding the new regulations:

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.

Wow....
I don't know Dean Potter other then what I have read in the mags.
I feel what he achieved in Arches National Park was a swift kick in the nuts for all climbers.Who do you (Dean)think you are? Are you above all laws and regulations? Thanks for starting the sliding slope for future climbing issues we might have with the national parks and on other lands.Hope the pictures are keepers ...Would not want your Patagonia sponsors to have a mediocre catalog this year.Very selfish, shame on you Dean Potter for thinking that you are above the law.
Guess I will need to re-new my gym membership due to all my favorite climbing areas future closure. Boycott Patagonia for supporting this selfish stunt.

I think that this was a WEAK and SELFISH act. For someone as famous and respected as Potter, to publicize his blatant disregard for rules in an area where so much OTHER climbing is available, is total bullshit. Not to mention, a slap to face of the climbing community and, the people who work so hard to preserve access in sensitive areas.

My .02

And I agree with Phil. . . .
Potter and Patagonia should be ashamed! They should probably cough up an apology and a huge donation to the access fund to mitigate damage.

To be fair, it sounds like this was done on Potter's own time and that Patagonia is as surprised as the rest of us. Still, it's a tacky tacky stunt. Aid climbing Mt. Rushmore would be extremely cool, too, but goes beyond the pale of what is in good taste. Ditto New Hampshire's late, lamented Old Man of the Mountains, the Washington Monument, etc. The damage to climber-landowner relations is going to be significant.

I agree, best course of action would be for Patagonia to drop Potter as one of their "ambassadors" and for them to make a major donation to the Access Fund to try to counteract this mess. I've sent them a note to this effect and encourage others to do so as well.

Dean Potter's ill-advised stunt will only serve to
undermine the support of land managers and Park
officials who we ultimately depend upon for climbing
access. He was a fool to do it. We can't risk
high-profile nonsense like this. If the Feds choose
to take him to court, it's fine with me.

Just because it's there doesn't mean you need to climb it, spirituality and nature aside. George Mallory proved that 80 years ago.

"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."

Depending on how one interprets this statement I think that it represents the fact that someone always has a problem with things that other people are doing. For example in Boulder I constantly hear complaining about dogs that are walked off the leash, people talking on their cell phones, people having fun congregating and riding their bikes around town, drinking, smoking, driving their car instead of riding their bike, eating meat, etc... I don't exactly understand how a guy climbing a rock in particular an arch or natural bridge puts anyone aside from himself in jeopardy of compromising anyone's health or safety. I guess if it topples over but then again a strong gust of wind could do that too. If the climber isn't bolting or damaging the rock and doesn't use caulk then it doesn't change it's appearance. Are they going to make it illegal to climb couliors because the line compromises the aesthetic value of the mountain or because potential avalanche danger puts the public's health at risk. To me this rule is just another way for the man to hold us down for reasons I don't understand.

Jeff Barnow Wrote:
...
I don't exactly understand how a guy climbing a rock...
...
just another way for the man to hold us down for reasons I don't understand...

Well Jeff, your understanding isn't the topic here.

It's sort of like smoking pot in public. Don't do it! If you want to do something harmless but illegal in private, OK. If you want to create bad juju and open yourself to punishment, tell the world about it.

The act of climbing wasn't inherently bad. Publicizing it wasn't too smart. It's on the same order as basejumping El Cap. Let's hope the only one punished is Potter.

Sure hope the pics aren't used to sell some magazines.

climbing the rock with out leaving a trace is OK telling everybody about it makes you look like a chump for putting everybody's access at risk for your own publicity

This is NOT the publicity climbers need. What a major step backwards for the Access Fund!! Im sure all gov't agencies are looking at revising their regulations. Thanks Dean & Patagonia. Way to go. I guess he needs lots of attention and we'll have to work on damage control.

As much as I hate to say anything that might make me seem a Rush Limbaugh fan, here it is. Ditto's Phil. Your right on. By the way Phil talked to Chuck yesterday, he's out climbing in the desert on a well needed vaction.

If you want to email Patagonia and express your disapproval, their general comments address is customer_service@patagonia.com

I like climbing in Arches (and other parks), and I like Patagonia stuff. But I think they should know that as an "ambassador" for Patagonia, this makes both Potter and the company look bad. Whether or not they knew about it, I wouldn't want my company associated with him.

I wrote the following letter, FWIW:

5/11/06

Dear Yvon/Patagonia:

By now you have certainly heard about the actions of your Ambassador, Dean Potter, in Arches National Park, Utah, and the reactions in the press and by public officials. As a 20 year customer of your company, I was deeply disappointed to hear about this illegal act that jeopardizes climbing for the American public and that it was committed by a "poster-child" for your company, and that you promoted the act. Whether or not you or members of the company knew about the climb in advance, I strongly urge you to cut all ties with Dean Potter, financial and otherwise. Anything less would be hypocritical. This selfish act will impede access for regular climbers like me. Patagonia's commitment to style and ethics would lead me to believe that you would disapprove of his actions. As we all attempt to preserve access to the world's wild lands, Potter's actions put a most-unneeded blemish on the face of climbers, making us look like self-absorbed egoists who believe that they are above the law. His shameless self-promotion, under the guise of what will be perceived as enviro-psycho-babble by land managers, only adds to this blemish. Much like the sad reality of the drug addict hurting "only themself," if Potter truly needed to act on his "obsession" with climbing the arch, why didn't he do it quietly and keep it to himself? Why not commune with nature and do it without hurting the average climber's ability to do the same? This is self-aggrandizement in its worst form and will hurt others who want to climb on public lands. Please see the quotes attributed to Potter and Patagonia below.

Mountain climbers already get a (often undeserved) bad rap for their selfish pursuit of climbing. Maybe Potter needs to move from Moab so that he isn't so bored the thousands of climbs that he can legally climb there. Aren't there un-freed climbs in the Fishers he can work on?

Please respond to my concerns as soon as possible. I hope that Patagonia will take as strong an ethical stance on this issue as they have on many others.

-Chris Weber
Boulder, Colorado

From the Salt Lake Tribune:
"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 said Tuesday. "When I realized I was going to try this, I started going out to it more and more frequently."
Feeling his way along the rock face early Sunday morning, Potter inched his way to the top of Delicate Arch, stood on the flat, wide shelf and looked out over the Moab Valley.
"This was one of the most beautiful climbs I've ever done," Potter said. "For me, it was just an overwhelming experience, as if the formation was vibrating with energy."
"Patagonia's publicity department initially alerted the media to Potter's ascent, but indicated it may back off on further promotions after learning that Potter may have broken park service regulations."

Also have to agree with all the folks, the climb of Delicate Arch by Dean Potter is not appreciated by me. However, in my youth I too have been guilty of civil disobedience, careless acts, etc.. that I would not like to review at this time. Hopefully, Dean will see this act as a mistake and part of the maturing process.

Not all laws are written Dean. Don't do something like this again kid.

Signed,
50 year old armchair climber

Don't allow an admiration for someone's climbing ability to be confused with respect, integrity or superior intellectual decision making. Anyway, I like your comment Terry. Hopefully someday he will come to realize that some places or things are just better left alone. Nonobservance of conservation is just not going to get anyone anywhere.

I think he's old enough, experienced enough and accomplished enough to know better.

That was a well written letter Chris. Be sure to post the reply, should you get one out of Patagonia.
I have to agree with all of you, Potter acted like an idiot. It makes the climbing community as a whole look like a bunch of irresponsible, reckless and law breaking vandals.

I understand your feeling on keeping nature pure and undisturbed. But I dont agree that all climbers destroy natural features when climbing and therefore Delicate Arch being free solo'd was a climbing masterpiece. Without aid or bolts, Delicate Arch will remain a treasure for years to come and you have simply advertised one of climbings crowning acheviements.

"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."

Jeff Barnow was the only one to question the closures based on this statement and to notice that there is very little good reason to stop people from free-soloing there.

From reading his quotes, Dean didn't "know" he was breaking the regulations and certainly wasn't doing anything against his own values. Analyzing it from his perspective, it's easy to see the thought process. There's a big difference between one man free soloing something early in the morning, and crowds of people pulling their way up grid bolted / chipped walls screwing up peoples view and worrying the arch until it falls.

But rules apply to everybody and are hard lines in the sand, while the values they're based on are less precise. "good rules" strike the right balance between promoting the common good and respecting individuals rights. The question is whether this is a "good rule". If it is, one follows it. If not, one fights it on principle. What did Dean do?

They don't call it Delicate Arch for nothing. The rock in Arches National Monument is really, really soft. This isn't Yosemite granite. Even the act of free soloing and rappelling off will undoubtedly leave some form of impact or trace of an ascent. Note that Dean also used white chalk, which doesn't always wash off in the next rainstorm.

So, given the very soft nature of this particular formation, the argument that free soling leaves no trace does not really apply here. What did Dean do? He climbed a prohibited formation and left a trace of his ascent.

Bruce

When did you all become so afraid to break a rule?
Edward Abbey would be proud.

Brian,
That is absurd! Ed Abbey would be appalled as this act will only mean more draconian rules and regulations for all of us! The whole Hayduke M.O. was to NOT be seen or caught. They weren't flying a big banner with their names on it off of the house boats. And they weren't filming a promotional video of their exploits in monkey wrenching. I don't have a problem with an independent will, free spirit, or bandito approach. And I don't have a real problem with a delicate ascent. I can assure you that Dean was not the first ascensionist of DA. But he was the first to try and sell crash pads and chalk bags by doing it. And that is what I have a problem with. This in your face defiance will have negative ramifications to land management plans for years to come. Leave No Trace...Show No Face

Yeah, what Phil B. says. Climbers have been doing clandestine ascents of forbidden formations for a long, long time with the only record of such feats being word of mouth. For example, people have been climbing the towers on the Golden Gate Bridge for over 40 years (its a bit more difficult now after 911). But, nobody ever dragged a film crew and reporter from a newspaper along to publicize their ascent.

It would be interesting to know Potter's motivation for publicizing his ascent. I really can't believe he thought was he was doing was legal in any way shape or form. Maybe he was publicizing the ascent to thumb his nose at the NPS for banning slacklining in the Monument.

Bruce

I agree with Phil B. The fact that he publicized the event really makes me mad. This may make other people think that they can climb DA without any consequences.
I can see some amateur trying to solo it, "Just like Dean Potter did", and falling right off. Or the arch falling right on top of him/her...

Can anyone name a natural rock formation in the USA that is less appropriate to be climbed? Well, maybe chossy cliffs above your local highway. How many tens of thousands of people in Utah did Dean manage to p#$% off? Its only their state symbol. Has anyone noticed how little attention has been paid to his descent? Ever rapped off of Dark Angel or Owl Rock, remember the huge grooves worn away into those rocks? Dean has given a black eye to all climbers, slapped the state of Utah in the face, and exemplified the worst that Americans represent, with all the rock available in the world, his greed to climb this invaluable symbol will hurt access for decades...

Shiprock...

Maybe it’s time for everyone to take a deep breath, because character-assassinating Dean will do nothing toward reconciling this situation.

He did not shoot down a nest full of peregrine falcons, nor did he break a specific law - or rule - for that matter. Several news agencies quoted Arches Park Superintendent (Laura Joss) as conceding that Delicate Arch was not specifically closed, but that most climbers understood that it was off limits. Joss also said: "No other climber has interpreted these ‘guidelines’ the way he did, but since he has, we clearly needed to strengthen the rules." The park regulations have since been amended, and Dean has promised not to violate them.

Considering the above statements, I see no reason for Dean’s own climbing community to publicly disdain him. In light of his and Joss’s description of the rules, his only indiscretion was that he tested a park guideline and then publicized it. Who among us has never tested a guideline in order to achieve a personal best, or at least seriously thought about it?

On a positive note, Dean’s ascent has prompted the park service to amend the rules, so that they are explicit. This action should end any controversy about what is and isn’t allowed, and I see no reason why the park service would take steps toward punishing the climbing community as a whole.

One closing thought, if I may: It is too easy to jump on the vigilante bandwagon when things get hot, although I believe that a modicum self-restraint would better represent us at this point. Many of you are throwing stones at someone about whom you know little or nothing of the person and his mindset. We can, however, safely assume that he shares a passion, among many climbers, for the pursuit of personal excellence in our sport. Such pursuits will inevitably bring us face-to-face with conflicting rules, at some point, and the best that we can do is to learn how to negotiate them in a way that preserves overall harmony. Hindsight is twenty/twenty, and time will tell if Dean has grown from this experience, so let’s ease up and allow him that time.

KC

Ken's right. After I heard this many people asked me to chime in with my opinion. I had nothing but heresay and innuendo to go by so I got in touch with Dean and Steph to hear their story before I spewed.

Here's the deal: Dean asked a park ranger if it was okay to climb Delicate Arch and was given the go-ahead. So let's back off and cool down a bit. What Dean did was legal, authorized and pre-aproved by the NPS. You may or may not agree with his decision to publicize the climb but that's Dean's deal, not yours. How many of you have seeked approval for climbing on a new cliff before climbing it?

I stand in awe of what he did. Bravo Dean.

I also support the NPS' closure of the Arch to climbing. No doubt some idiot would bolt it (legal or not) and lots of traffic would ruin it

Malcolm Daly

Ken,

can you please post pointers to the news media where the NPS superintendent admitted that Delicate Arch is not specifically closed to climbing.

Here is the pre-ascent and post-ascent wording of the of NPS regulations, frankly, I don't see how these two really differ that much and how Dean's ascent of Delicate Arch could be considered legal pre-ascent and now illegal post ascent.

Pre-ascent:

"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."

Post-ascent:

"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."

http://www.abc4.com/local_news/local_headlines/story.aspx?co>>>>>


http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635206306,00.html

On the other hand: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635206395,00.html

"The National Park Service regulation is abundantly clear:

'Climbing is prohibited on any arch identified on current USGS 7.5 minute topographical maps.'

Delicate Arch is on the map. Thus it is off-limits."

This is in reference to the pre-climb regulation, not the amended post-climb regulation.

Here is a scenario. A herd of tuoronasaurus photographicus are milling around the base of delicate arch on a typical Arches scorcher. From the crowd emerges a wild haired youth. He is on summer vacation with his parents. He is wearing his Dean Potter chinos and Dean Potter polo shirt. He sports an empty but oh so fashionable Dean Potter chalk bag. The chalk bag is empty as new Park Service regulations require leaving all nail clippers, climbing paraphenallia and "chalk" at check point Potter before entering. In the sixties this kid would have been wearing a cowbow costume complete with six shooter. But that was old hero stuff. This kid doesn't want to be like Gary Cooper and he doesn't want to "be like Mike". He wants to be like Dean! The kid has seen this scene before. Cyber DejaVu. Something deep in his cerebral cortex clicks and the kid becomes transfixed and transcendent. Ignoring the newly bolted on "no climbing above sign" sign and his parents consternation he goes for it just like BigD. Only his spiritual quest ends as a sweated off splat spot at his parents feet. Damn that Park Service rule against chalk. Did I mention the hoard of cameras clicking and whirring away. You just can't buy publicity like that!

While Dean is in no way responsible for the actions of others he should be accountable for his own. He should have known better. I really wonder what was the actual dialog he had with the ranger. Dean "hey can I climb that thing". Ranger " oh yeah sure go for it no body gives a shit Mr. Potter".
What could be clearer, No climbing on named arches and no white chalk! The issue is not a single ascent of Delicate Arch. Which by the way vibrated for Dean not because of his transcendence but because it is very "Delicate". Just look at how massively top heavy it is above the erosion zones. The issue is on going and long term relations with land managers everywhere for all climbers' access. Does anyone like having to have their hand held by rangers to climb at Hueco? What about the 'great' treatment climbers get at Red Rocks Nv.? Many areas around the country that are of significant interest to climbers are up for review of their use and management. And what about Private land owners? Do you think they care how cool Dean is?
Take for example Lou Pai. Louie is the former founder of Enron who owns the Taylor Ranch, one of the largest land parcels in Colorado. The Taylor Ranch contains all of Mount Culebra the only state 14er wholly owned by a single private citizen. Access to climb Culebra has been more than problematic since Louie and his armed patrols took over. And trust me Mr Lou will use anything, anything to restrict access to his domain. And that is only one example. The 14ers are criss crossed with private lands and mining claims. Now you or Dean may not care to one day climb all of the 14ers in Colorado but believe me it is a dream and motivation to a great many more people than those who aspire to climb 5.16. And in the long run, all fads aside, the regular outside Joes (and Janes) are the engine of the outdoor industry. Glamour sells but it's regular folk that buy and they buy what they can believe in. Or are sold! Now if these folks cant fulfill their dreams because of imposed access restrictions will the market be happy? Face it our independent free spirited transcendental communion with nature IS big business.

Just because the NPS has so far only said oops guess we need to dumb down the legal speak don't for a moment think that this is over. I predict in a few years it and similarly bone headed acts will be called pullin' a Potter or perhaps doin' a Dean.

Here is how I'd guess it went:

DP: "Is it OK to climb Delicate Arch?"
Ranger: "No way! Rock climbing is not allowed on Delicate Arch!"
DP: "But you mean rock climbing with ropes and pitons and all that stuff?"
Ranger: "Yes, of course."

Voila, Potter has his loophole! Free soloing is not "rock climbing". It did seem that he used a rope to get down, but I guess that is "rock descending" not "rock climbing". My guess is that this weekend all rangers are taking a special course on how to talk to climbers.

George,

With all due consideration, your post sounds as though it were written by a spiteful teenager. Do you actually know Dean? Were you privy to his conversation with the ranger? You sound like you want him to be guilty.

One would think that someone who has been around as long as you would have learned not to make snap judgments.

This is from an interview with Linda Joss, the Park Superintendent at Arches:

Arches Park Superintendent Laura Joss said she reported Potter's climb to the Interior Department's chief lawyers and that park rangers were investigating whether Potter did any damage to Delicate Arch, where a photographer was once charged with a misdemeanor for setting fires under the span.

Joss said she was rewriting rules Tuesday to ban climbing of any named arches or natural bridges in the park. The old rules said Delicate Arch was among landscape features that "may be closed for all or a portion of the year due to aesthetic, wildlife or other resource-related concerns."

Joss conceded that Delicate Arch wasn't specifically closed, but that most climbers understood it was off-limits. Except for Potter.

"The Park Service didn't want me to do it, but no law was broken," he said.

Said Joss, "No other climber has interpreted these guidelines the way he did, but since he has, we clearly needed to strengthen the rules." The new rules took effect Tuesday and were posted prominently on the park's Web site.

Very clearly the regs did not ban climbing on Delicate. The rules that were posted on the website and in the brochure were not the regs on the books. Loophole? You bet. You can be sure that if there was any way for the NPS to charge Potter with anything, they would have. They didn't so they must have known about the loophole too.

The park is looking at the arch to see if the climb caused any damage to it. If it did, surely Dean will be cited for that but, so far, nothing. He was pretty careful.

I'm glad they tightened up the regs to permanently ban climbing on the arch. I'm also glad that Dean found the loophole and got to climb it. What an inspiration! As for long term negative affects on climber/ranger relations? Probably not much. There is no evidence that Arches or any other park is doing anything other that looking over their rule books to be sure that the rules say what they think they say.

Mal

The NPS case is not helped by the fact that slightly different wording has been used for the regulations (see Bruce's version above and Ron's below!). I also checked several climbing guides that have Arches in them, they refer to the ban on white chalk and suggest you check at the ranger station for further regulations.

The publicity stunt was the real mistake for Dean Potter. Sure, violations have occurred in the past but nobody trumpeted their ascent on Fox News!

Malcolm Daly seems to be looking at this issue with blinders on. You're thinking in terms of climber/NPS relations when you should be thinking in terms of climber/public relations.

There will always be some tension between climbers and the NPS, and it's true that the Delicate Arch climb may not affect that relationship much directly. But following this issue on other forums, I've seen Salt Lake Trib editorials and letters to the editor, as well as a statement of condemnation from the Access Fund. It's clear that the issue has blown up way beyond the realm of climbers and the NPS. It's in front of the mainstream press, the general public, and even the politicians. That world is not happy about the climb and they expect someone to be held accountable.

Maybe Dean Potter didn't break a law explicitly. But the guidelines were well-known and just because something is not illegal doesn't make it right. I think Potter should apologize publicly for what he did, and if he won't, I think he should lose his "ambassador" job. That's the sort of accountability that the public expects. If Potter is not held accountable, then we shouldn't be surprised if the public, the press, and the politicians support tighter and more arbitrary restrictions on all climbers. The NPS responds to public input. So indirectly, the Delicate Arch climb could have a definite negative effect.

If Dean Potter takes seriously his role as an ambassador, he needs to keep his Delicate Arch blunder (and yes, it was a blunder) from affecting the entire climbing community by taking responsibility himself.

Malcolm Daly Wrote: "What an inspiration!"

You serious? Maybe Potter should be the next Trango spokesperson? Heck, maybe he is, FIIK...

""Considering the above statements, I see no reason for Dean's own climbing community to publicly disdain him. In light of his and Joss�s description of the rules, his only indiscretion was that he tested a park guideline and then publicized it""

Is the writer of this thinking as a fellow climber or as a Joe citizen?

""Very clearly the regs did not ban climbing on Delicate. The rules that were posted on the website and in the brochure were not the regs on the books. Loophole? You bet. You can be sure that if there was any way for the NPS to charge Potter with anything, they would have. They didn't so they must have known about the loophole too.""

Does it really matter? Does the writer really believe this? Come on, common sense knows what it means...

Finally, step out of this climbing forum. If the NPS makes a big deal out of it, then he really screwed up for all of us. If they dont make a big deal then he still really screwed up but got away with it. Either way, there are plenty of rocks to satisfy ones ego. Stay the hell away from rock that the federal government has chosen to protect. Is it right that they prohibit certain activities from this chunk of rock? Thats to be debated. Does sanctioning some stud to break the rules for the sake of self satisfaction relinquish accountability? Not in my mind. Thats what manifests more regulations.

ATS wrote: "Is the writer of this thinking as a fellow climber or as a Joe citizen?"

Thirty year veteran climber, forty-six years on the planet. I am thinking as both. What is your point?

ATS wrote: "Finally, step out of this climbing forum. If the NPS makes a big deal out of it, then he really screwed up for all of us. If they dont make a big deal then he still really screwed up but got away with it."

So is this your reason for the diatribe? Will you feel cheated out of something if he, as you say, gets away with it?

ATS wrote: "Stay the hell away from rock that the federal government has chosen to protect."

Are you invoking this order, or are you representing the federal government? Will you also don the roll of judge and jury? If the government had been half as concerned with the arch as you seem to be, then it would have placed an explicit moratorium on climbing it, long ago.

This type of ranting and witch hunting is helping nothing. It is embarrassing.

There are the Malcolms, Kens, and some others who sound as if they believe it was an acceptable act -- or at least are not an issue. Certainly the Access Fund does not agree with these individuals, and I believe they typically assess the pulse and best-interest of the climbing community.

I strongly *suspect* that:
- The climbing community (or part thereof) is not highly offended by the legality of this issue. Would they be up in arms equally about any/every other violation? Say, using white chalk -- just once -- on another legal climb?
- The climbing community (or part thereof) would not be outraged, had someone climbed the arch without any general public knowledge (perhaps it would become 'urban legend', but certainly not high profile)
- The climbing community (or part thereof) would not be highly offended by the damage to the structure if, for instance, they found the damage to be negligible -- say equal to that of a single storm.

Whereas, I *suspect* the following is moreso the root issue. Perhaps this may help shed some light for those in the 'it's cool' or 'it's okay' camp, as to why the rest of us are pretty bummed:
- The climbing community (or part thereof) is a little ticked that DP portrayed himself 'more worthy' than the rest of the climbing community to (ab)use the written law (or lack thereof) to 'legally' climb DA. Mere mortal climbers need-not-apply?
- The climbing community (or part thereof) is a little ticked that DP did not act in what most would consider to be an ethical manner
- The climbing community (or part thereof) is a little ticked that DP shows no remorse to the Park service, Climbing Community, or other Citizens that 'use' and 'own' the arch; thus it could be perceived that he believes himself 'above the rest of us' or that his standards for ethics are sub-par. Hard to learn from a 'mistake' if you don't consider it a mistake.
- The climbing community (or part thereof) is more than a little ticked that DP flaunted this in a pre-mediated manner with the use of extensive media, which appears to be entirely for selfish and personal gain
- The climbing community (or part thereof) is more than a little ticked that DP degraded climber-public AND climber-park service relations to a certain level (this is incontestable IMO), and that this 'case' could (and most likely WILL) be reflected upon when making future decisions about various climber rights in National Parks or other public areas. It's pretty cool we have the PRIVILEGE to climb in National Parks. Who really wants one person indirectly 'making decisions' for every individual? As a side-note, mountain bikers are probably an even larger group of 'mountain users' which are denied access entirely.
- The climbing community (or part thereof) is more than a little ticked that a company who's specifically projected focus is "do what's right for the environment, not what you're legally required to do" would attempt to promote the incident and continue to retain DP in a 'promoting our product as an *ambassador*' role without any demerits issued.

Anyhow, that's my personal take of the whole situ. Life will go-on, but it's good the community understand each other on these issues -- so as to prevent further incidents and promote an understanding that the acts of a single individual have the potential to affect the entire climbing community.

On another interesting note... went down to Patagonia Denver to return an unused pack, as it didn't fit well. I told the employee that the DP incident wasn't my reason for the return, but that I was quite disappointed in the manner Patagonia initially tried to promote the incident, and lack of public response to the general public's discontent. The clerk didn't even know what I was talking about, until she went and flipped through a clipboard; that's sad. Has anyone seen a formal response issued from Patagonia? Perhaps I'm just missing it, but it's certainly not on their 'Press Room'. IMO -- their inability to provide a timely formal response does do some additional damage to my image of Patagonia (which I have a lot of respect for).

Ron - Couldn't find a previous copy of the regs on the NPS site, but here are the new/improved excerpts from the complete linked PDF

Paul - Too damn funny. >"I predict in a few years it and similarly bone headed acts will be called pullin' a Potter or perhaps doin' a Dean."

Malcom - >"Dean asked a park ranger if it was okay to climb Delicate Arch and was given the go-ahead."
If this was in fact the case and asked/stated clear as a bell, it changes ***everything***, except for the fact about him flaunting himself in the media. I would be curious to know if the ranger had a name, and the exact conversation. Funny this has not yet been public info (from what I can tell). I would think DP would have come forward with this info; had it been true and straight-forward, could have prevented a lot of damage to his reputation and the reputation of the climbing community. Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe it without those details being publicly stated and acknowledged by both parties.

-Avery

http://www.nps.gov/applications/parks/arch/ppdocuments/ARCHC>>>>>

"ARCHES NATIONAL PARK
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
TITLE 36, CHAPTER 1
...
May 9, 2006

SECTION 1.5 CLOSURES AND PUBLIC USE LIMITS
...
Rock Climbing:
Definitions:
Technical Rock Climbing is defined as ascending or descending a rock formation utilizing rock climbing equipment.

Free Climbing and Clean Aid Climbing are minimum impact approaches that employ chocks, stoppers, nuts and camming devices, rather than pitons or bolts, for protection or direct support. These are climbing aids that are removable and do not damage the rock.

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.

The following closures, conditions, and restrictions apply to rock climbing or similar activities such as, but not limited to, technical rock climbing, free climbing and clean aid climbing within Arches National Park:
Closures:
1. Any arch or natural bridge named on the United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographical maps covering Arches National Park is closed to climbing year-round.
2. Balanced Rock- Closed to climbing year-round.
3. Bubo- Closed from January 1st to June 30th.
...
The use of chalk for climbing must be of a color that blends with the native rock.
..."

I found the official regulations in force prior to Dean's ascent: Old Regulations

Relevant portions:

------------------------

"COMPENDIUM
ARCHES NATIONAL PARK
February 7, 2006
SECTION 1.5 CLOSURES AND PUBLIC USE LIMITS

Rock Climbing:

The following rock climbing routes may be closed for all or a portion of the year due to aesthetic, wildlife, or other resource related concerns:
1. Any arch identified on the current issue U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute topographical map.
2. Balanced Rock- Closed to climbing year-round.
3. Bubo- Closed from January 1st to June 30th.
4. Industrial Disease on the Devil Dog Spire is closed from January 1st to June 30th.

The use of chalk for climbing must be of a color that blends with the native rock.

Webbing left at rappel/belay points must be subdued colors that blend with the rock.

The use of motorized power drills is prohibited."

------------------------

The key phrase is "may be closed". It did not say "are closed." Thus there indeed was a loophole, and Dean danced right through it.

The New Regulations close the loophole by:
1. Stating that closures apply to "rock climbing or similar activities." (So the closures apply to soloing, not just forms of rock climbing that use technical equipment like ropes, harnesses, protection, etc.)
2. Stating that any named arch or natural bridge is closed to climbing year-round (not may be closed).

Submitted By: John McNamee on Mar 3, 2006

Tommy Caldwell, Topher Donahue and Erik Roed free-climbed the 4000 foot route Linea di Eleganza on Fitz Roy at 5.12+, onsighting the second ascent of the Patagonian route in a single, team-free push.

Starting up at 11 a.m. and climbing through the night, they reached the summit of Fitz Roy at 3 p.m. the following day. See climbing magazine's hot flashes for details.



NOW THAT IS INSPIRATIONAL CLIMBING TO STAND IN AWE OF.

A lot of splitting hairs in this forum...if it comes down to that, it seems apparent that Potter did something not to kosher. Why deny it?

Henry, I was not trying to justify what Potter did; I think it was inappropriate.

I was trying to verify Malcolm Daly's remarks when he said: "Very clearly the regs did not ban climbing on Delicate. The rules that were posted on the website and in the brochure were not the regs on the books. Loophole? You bet."

Ron,
Thanks for doing the research and posting that reg. After reading it I think that I was mistaken: there was no loophole. Delicate Arch was plain and simply open when Dean climbed it. The situation seems identical to climbing the 3rd Flatiron or the Naked Edge in October. They are just open--no climbing restrictions and no closures. I think we were all operating under the assumption that the thing was closed, as it probably should have been. Only it wasn't closed and it took Dean figured that out. I imagine that he approached a ranger and asked if it was okay to climb Delicate. The ranger looked up the regulation and said something like, "Hmmmm. I guess so." So he climbed it. Bravo.

I'm glad, however, that it and all the other named arches are closed now. Delicate Arch and the others are fragile icons that clearly couldn't handle any significant traffic. We need to protect these places for future generations to enjoy. I think it's fine that there are things that can't or shouldn't be climbed for various reasons. Private land, difficulty, spiritual value, resource damage or whatever. I also think that there are some closures that are total bullshit--the Totem Pole, for instance. There's one that, ostensibly, is closed for Navajo religious significance yet is open to climbing for a huge fee. Hell, if you have enough money and you're a big US corporation you can land a car on the top of it and film a commercial. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Mal

C'mon, folks. Is anybody REALLY under the impression that DP didn't think he was at least stretching the rules? And so what if he queried one ranger (presumably not in a position of specified authority regarding such regulations) about the climb beforehand? A high-profile first ascent such as this, which any reasonable person would have assumed off-limits, deserved a significant pre-climb investigation. By the way, Potter's purported ranger approval still remains hypothetical. I heartily agree that this ranger-permission allegation should be revealed in more detail. Certainly, if a ranger gave the go-ahead despite park regulations against the action, he/she should bear some responsibility. Wanting to protect the ranger against possible repercussions would not seem to me to be a legitimate reason to withhold clarification - after all, rangers are a form of police, and don't have much right to object to being policed.

But back to DP: Clearly, the soft sandstone of Arches would be marked/"marred" over time by climbers, particularly with the use of white chalk (not to mention the accumulation of boot rubber over time). Anyone who's climbed at Indian Creek can attest to that. Starting a precedent of climbing high-visibility formations in the park, particularly those viewed up close and valued for the beauty of the actual stone, would be at the very least a first step toward poor relations between climbers and authorities/other visitors.

The bottom line: DP, as a "professional climber," is dependent on publicity to continue making a living. He alone is responsible for his choice of publicity stunts, and the choices he makes determine what kind of "ambassador" he is for his good (or otherwise) name, and that of his sponsors (Patagonia can determine whether or not they get my continued support based on their response to all this). I'll watch this subject with interest as it continues to unfold, but it would take some seriously unlikely twists to this story to make me think of Ambassador Potter with any sense of camaraderie or pride.

Potter knew what he was doing and that, I believe, is damnable. Some of us climb "forbidden" features and in "closed" areas often. Monkey Wrench mentality is cool...even admirable (I believe Abbey is smiling). Publicizing it and then standing on some grandiose platform of climbing rights is hypocritical and destructive. Especially to those of us who pay to climb...you know....the UNsponsored masses.It was an act of arrogance to make the ascent public knowledge and, it seems to me, in direct conflict with Patagonia's ethical mission. Que no, Yvon?

I just recieved this email from Patagonia.

"Patagonia ambassador Dean Potter’s May 7 free solo of Delicate Arch has generated significant controversy about the legality and appropriateness of the climb of what has been described as a national icon. We’ll be interested to follow the controversy and to listen to views of those on both sides.

A few facts are in order. First, no crime has been committed. The National Park Service has conceded that its regulations were ambiguous and that they will not cite Dean for the ascent. They have said they will seek to clarify their regulations to prevent a second try. The Park and a number of opinion leaders have argued that Delicate Arch is an icon that should not be climbed.

It is important to note that Dean did no harm to the route or to the rock. He free-soloed the arch, placing no anchors and creating no impact beyond blowing dust off the holds. As he says, “No one reveres rocks more than me. I consider all rocks sacred, as do most climbers.”

Dean, like all Patagonia ambassadors, undertakes his own climbs on his own terms. He told us about the climb afterward.

We have taken positions in the past on a number of issues of climbing ethics, including bolting. We take no position on this one. As Casey Sheahan, our CEO, notes, “From the early days in the Tetons to the rebelliousness of Yosemite’s Camp 4, every generation of climbers has had its run-ins with government regulations that attempt to restrict climber’s freedom of expression. At Patagonia we don’t control the ways our sponsored athletes conduct themselves except to encourage respect for the environment and uncommon approaches to every challenge. Dean is at the pinnacle of free solo climbing, makes decisions for himself, and has our complete support.”

I guess it's clear now where the players stand: Potter thinks what he did was fine and could care less what climbers or anybody else thinks. Patagonia takes no position at all and probably hopes all this will just go away. We all wonder where Dean's vision will take him now from the pinnacle of his sport, and whether Patagonia even wants to know what that vision is. At least the Access Fund had the guts to say they did not think his ascent was right.

I think the whole point here is how will the ascent of Delicate Arch change how non-climbers view our sport? As climbers, it is impossible for us to predict this. We just have to wait and see what happens. It seems that the impact has got to be negative, but just how negative? Only time will tell.

Well said, George. I sincerely hope the fallout is minimal.
Thanks.

George Bell wrote: "I guess it's clear now where the players stand: Potter thinks what he did was fine and could care less what climbers or anybody else thinks. Patagonia takes no position at all and probably hopes all this will just go away. We all wonder where Dean's vision will take him now from the pinnacle of his sport, and whether Patagonia even wants to know what that vision is. At least the Access Fund had the guts to say they did not think his ascent was right.

I think the whole point here is how will the ascent of Delicate Arch change how non-climbers view our sport? As climbers, it is impossible for us to predict this. We just have to wait and see what happens. It seems that the impact has got to be negative, but just how negative? Only time will tell."

Grow up, George. Why are you so personally offended by this, and why are you trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill? Moreover, why is it so hard for you to see that some of us are simply trying to stay level-headed and keep this all in perspective?

I honestly think that non-climbers would consider this childish whining and bickering more offensive than the act itself. In fact, your incessant ranting is more likely to prompt a negative NPS action. Are you trying to prompt an action? You know what they say about the squeaky wheel.

George, don't be quiet for Ken. Being so "level-headed" he will continue to not see the forest through the trees. Viewpoints like his are what cause regulatory agencies to clamp down and leave nothing open to interpretation.

Ken Cangi writes: "I honestly think that non-climbers would consider this childish whining and bickering more offensive than the act itself."

There goes your credibility, Ken.

When the Salt Lake Tribune publishes an editorial or letter to the editor describing how offensive this discussion among climbers is, I hope you will post it right away. And when the Access Fund releases a statement condemming this debate among climbers, I hope you'll post that too.

I'll be waiting.

The bottom line here, in my mind, is that this climb has led to not only the absolute closure of a single formation, but to the realization on behalf of the park service that they "clearly needed to strengthen the rules"(Park superintendent quoted by Malcom Daly). To think that this is just one isolated event that won't influence future climbing management plans seems a bit naive. In a time when we as a community are fighting to preserve access to areas all across the country, what we don't need is for the park service to lay out stricter rules than may be necessary for the sake of clarity. Maybe the wording of the rule did prohibit Dean's climb and maybe it didn't. Maybe Dean was in fact told by a ranger that there was no problem with doing the ascent. The result has been, at best, the isolated closure of climbing areas that were previously open. We as climbers may understand when someone thinks of climbing a rock as a spiritual experience, but the general public I think would equate this to swimming in a public fountain. The reluctance of the players involved (Dean and Patagonia) to recognize that this action may have upset people only furthers the misunderstanding between the climbing community and those who are upset. I feel that an apology to those who felt this act was disrespectful, along with an explanation of what Dean's motivations were (surely not disrespect of the area) would help to strengthen the understanding between the climbing community and the public as well as the park service. After all that is the job description of an "ambassador". We don't want to be nor should we be viewed as a group of folks who feel that our method of enjoying the outdoors outranks everyone else's. Perhaps a response letter to the Salt Lake Tribune editor showing sensitivity and explaining motivation would help to foster understanding and reduce the negative fallout from this short journey up a beautiful formation.

Kudos Lowell and Evan

Ken Cangi wrote: "Grow up, George... childish whining and bickering more offensive than the act itself. In fact, your incessant ranting ..."

This is actually called a 'discussion'. People discuss things here, including differing opinions. It's kind of the point. Totally uncool to make derogatory remarks like this, IMO. To me, it's relatively clear that people are concerned about both public/NPS perception and impacts it could have in future access decisions, moreso than the technicalities. That's why there is the discussion of opinions.

Evan -- I agree that this encourages the thinking by land managers: "give climbers an inch, they'll take a foot", which could likely promote "the park service to lay out stricter rules than may be necessary for the sake of clarity".

Patagonia's response -- pretty darn lame. Seems that these phrases: "We take no position on this one... Dean ...has our complete support" strongly contradict themselves.

Here is my response to the bulk email Patagonia sent me regarding DP on DR.

With all due respect you are totally WRONG! Dean scrambled through a loop hole in the NPS legalese. The NPS will be sure to clarify the language in the future. How does NO CLIMBING sound? Clear, concise, to the point and unmistakable. What about the use of white chalk? Is there any vagary in their wording on that issue? AND what about the use of a rope for descent? doesn't the use of a rope put this selfish act into the ILLEGAL category? There is much more to this story than a loop hole in the law! And by what standard of interpretation do you state that Dean did NO DAMAGE to Delicate Arch? Were you there? Did you examine the arch personally?What about pulling the rope up and down? NO DAMAGE? Your response seems to be a clear case of CYA (cover your ass). The next time a Red Rocks park rangeracts like a power tripping Nazi to me I will say THANK YOU DEAN! And I will remember, as will vast numbers of gear buying climbers, that Patagonia stood up and applauded Dean with full support!

Well, at least the gloves are off now, so lets get real about this. I'll start.

Lowell Skoog wrote: "There goes your credibility, Ken."

I've been involved in this sport for thirty years, on numerous levels - sponsored climber, fundraiser, instructor, guide, professional photographer, and as a general lifestyle. I looked at your profile, and I saw basically nothing to validate your assault on my credibility. Moreover, I own a business in Salt Lake, so I am very active in the community. Consequently, I can tell you that this issue isn't nearly as front page around here as some of you are making it out to be, although that could change. What are your qualifications?

Evan Sloane wrote: " In a time when we as a community are fighting to preserve access to areas all across the country, what we don't need is for the park service to lay out stricter rules than may be necessary for the sake of clarity."

This comment sounds a bit ironic, considering how aghast you are about Dean's having climbed this feature. In other words, you are speaking with forked tongue. The rules regarding DA should have been explicit if the NPS did not want to risk what happened. Now they are. Case closed.

Evan Sloan wrote: "We as climbers may understand when someone thinks of climbing a rock as a spiritual experience, but the general public I think would equate this to swimming in a public fountain. The reluctance of the players involved (Dean and Patagonia) to recognize that this action may have upset people only furthers the misunderstanding between the climbing community and those who are upset."

How many members of the general public have you discussed this with, because my experience so far has been that most of the dissent has been expressed in climbing forums like this, by people who aren't even that close to the actual players and/or facts.

Evan Sloan wrote: "I feel that an apology to those who felt this act was disrespectful, along with an explanation of what Dean's motivations were (surely not disrespect of the area) would help to strengthen the understanding between the climbing community and the public as well as the park service. After all that is the job description of an "ambassador"."

Do you actually know who Dean has or hasn't apologized to? It sounds as though you are admonishing Dean to apologize to you just because you decided that he did something wrong. Dean owes you (Evan Sloan) no explanation, and I have the utmost confidence that he will do what is required of him, per his contract.

Avery Nelson wrote: "This is actually called a 'discussion'. People discuss things here, including differing opinions. It's kind of the point. Totally uncool to make derogatory remarks like this, IMO."

You are absolutely correct, which is why some of these posts are so offensive to me. Some of you have judged and convicted Dean without even having privy to all of the facts. A balanced discussion would be refreshing, unlike the witch hunt that is occurring here.

Avery Nelson wrote: "Evan -- I agree that this encourages the thinking by land managers: "give climbers an inch, they'll take a foot", which could likely promote "the park service to lay out stricter rules than may be necessary for the sake of clarity"."

Don't underestimate the intelligence and understanding of the NPS. They have been interacting with climbers since long before you took your first breath, and they will continue to do so for years to come. They are not so naive as to think that this was any more than an isolated incident.

Avery Sloan wrote: "Patagonia's response -- pretty darn lame. Seems that these phrases: "We take no position on this one... Dean ...has our complete support" strongly contradict themselves."

Did it ever occur to you that Dean has their support because they know something that you don't?

Here is what I get from this comment: We nameless climbing bloggers are more informed and more enlightened than Ivon Chouinard, Patagonia, Malcolm Daly, and every other vastly experienced member of the climbing community who isn't willing to blindly defame Dean Potter.

At the risk of repeating myself, it really is time for everyone here to take a deep breath and consider a more reasonable tone for this discussion. The rest is up to you.

KC

Ken, perhaps your own words, below, speak some wisdom. Be it development issues or degradation of public/land manager perception of climbers, the effect is the same on the climbing community:

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/utah/wasatch_range/big_cott>>>>>

"...I said this before and I will repeat it now: The style in which you choose to climb is your business; how your actions affect the ability of others to do so is another story... Nature's cliff's, on the other hand, are a finite natural resource, on which we have been given the privilege of practicing our sport. This fact, by its very existence, is proof that we need to exercise mutual consideration and form a general consensus about how we develop these climbing areas. Anything short of this is self-serving. These cliffs are not public domain, and they are always subject to closure.

Organizations like The Access Fund are busting their humps to preserve our ability to enjoy many threatened areas...

... Selfish is as selfish does, and we ultimately reap what we sow. It is time that we start practicing the rules of responsible climbing, before we lose our opportunity to develop these areas all together.

Think about it. Ken Cangi"

I might add I don't appreciate your personal 'attack' on George or tone with Lowell. Those might be interpreted as violating Guideline #1.

Because of this, I am done debating with you. Hopefully, that is clear.

Regards,
Avery

"I might add I don't appreciate your personal 'attack' on George or Lowell. Those might be interpreted as violating Guideline #1.

Because of this, I am done debating with you. Hopefully, that is clear."

You are welcome to do as you please, and I will take no offense to your decision, either way. However, you insinuation that I have attacked George or Lowell is absurd. Suggesting that someone grow up, when they have made unsubstantiated accusations about a person's actions and character, is anything but an attack. If it were, half of the population would be guilty of attacking their children, friends, and any number of loved ones. On the topic of attacks, are any of you willing to publicly apologize to Dean for attacking and judging him without first procurring all of the facts?

As for the guideline, if trying to quell a lynch mob mentality makes me a jerk, then I'll happily accept the title.

Regards,

KC

Ken,

If you want to know Lowell Skoog's qualifications, check here: About Lowell Skoog

If you want to know about George Bell, check here: George Bell's Home Page

His father, George I. Bell, Sr., was a member of the 1953 K2 expedition documented in "K2, The Savage Mountain."

In the spirit of not further inflaming the situation, I will state my position on a few of the matters thus far discussed, and then I will bow out of the discussion.

1) I believe that the rules regarding DA were unclear, and I am inclined to believe that Dean believed that he was not breaking them at the time of his ascent.

2) I am happy, regardless of the source of inspiration, that the rules regarding DA have been made explicit. I am also happy that measures will be taken to preserve this landmark's physical integrity.

3) I am disappointed by how quick to judgment some of you are about your peers. This is becoming an alarming trend in our society - particularly since the introduction of blogging. I guess my shortcoming is that I let it bother me too much.

4) I am never happy about negative confrontations between myself and peers, but I am more uncomfortable with unfair, public attacks on people's character. It makes me hot under the collar, and I sometimes lash out. That is my cross to bare.

Finally) I am constantly trying to find perspective in my life and about the things that affect me, and I am not afraid to apologize when I have been unfair to another. Consequently, I want to apologize to you, George. Hindsight is twenty/twenty, and telling you to grow up was a mistake. You are as entitled to your opinions as am I and every other member of this discussion board. All I am asking is that you all try to reserve judgment on Dean until the dust has cleared and all of the facts are on the table. I believe that such a courtesy to Dean will better represent us as a civilized and reasonable community of climbers. I hope that you can at least agree with me on that one point.

Sincerely,

KC

""In the spirit of not further inflaming the situation, I will state my position on a few of the matters thus far discussed, and then I will bow out of the discussion.""
Thanks

Jimmy Dunn called me last night and ask me my opinion on this matter.

My opinion is that is was the wrong time, wrong place and wrong arch.

He (Jimmy) is against what Dean did and thought it was a selfish act that could/would put climbing access in danger in the Arches and maybe other areas.

Ken Cangi writes:

"How many members of the general public have you discussed this with, because my experience so far has been that most of the dissent has been expressed in climbing forums like this, by people who aren't even that close to the actual players and/or facts."
-----------
I was talking about this with one of the editors at Outside Magazine and he told me that they have been getting scores of letters to the editor about Potter's climb and they haven't even run a story on it yet!

Bruce

This is NOT the first time DA has been climbed. The way that Potter did it was out of line and did put climbers in a bad light.

Bob you are very correct. I know that this arch was ascended in absolutely pure style, ie; no ropes, no chalk, no press, in the mid seventies. The perpetrator, my best friend, later died in an avalanche in Canada. Dean's Statement that NO ONE reveres rock as much as he does is utterly arrogant self serving BS!
Om mani pahdme hooey!

Ken said,

"How many members of the general public have you discussed this with, because my experience so far has been that most of the dissent has been expressed in climbing forums like this, by people who aren't even that close to the actual players and/or facts."

I have read all of your comments up to here and wonder about the above statement the most. As was stated above, Outside magazine will run an article, backpacker, climbing, rock&Ice, etc. and these are just the related journals. My wife teaches at the local high school and this subject was already brought up by her students in her Biology class! Dissent or not, the style or pre-planning of this climb has brought Dean to the center of the light. IMO He knew what he was bringing upon himself. I feel for the groups that wish to promote or maintain access to delicate areas of our wilderness because these actions put them at risk.

Please Ken, Understand that my dissent is meaningless in the big picture. The wrath brought on Dean is by his own "performance" and what that "performance" will bring to the table.

I have known about a previous ascent of the DA and was proud that the person/persons did it in such a way as to make their experience. Too bad Dean used his accent in the way he did.

I'm off the point here. This event WILL generate a large discussion about access outside of the climbing community and where it goes will have to be seen. I look forward to the larger journals getting a response from Patagonia other than the "no position" I received in my email. I hope they hold the company to task. Their policy towards their ambassadors and the pictures they publish (pay for) instigates this type of theater.

Upon hearing this news, my first reaction was one of sadness. Now we have to add the beautiful, eons-old Delicate Arch to the list of places "conquered" by humans looking for a "spiritual boost". In the spirit of David Quammen, why is it so important to tame every aspect of wilderness? What is really more spiritual? The Arch isn't a highly technical climb and it's within the ability of countless climbers. There is something to be proud of when we could say that no one had climbed it, not because we lacked the skill but because we respected the notion of the arch as a wild place.

I'm not openly opposed to rogue ascents. In fact, I'm sure Dean wasn't the first person to climb the Arch. Hopefully, the previous ascenders were not as selfish but actually seeking a commune with the rock, a peace known only to themselves and the arch. As a professional climber making his livelihood off his deeds and reputation, it seems fairly logical why Dean would boast of his climb.

While his act was legally ok, it reverberates with a lack of class and respect for every other climber who will now not be allowed to attempt the arch, simply because they are not Dean Potter. Dean has earned his reputation with skill, hard work, and daring, but like any other person transcending normalcy, he felt a need to exert that privilege over those of us lacking his incredible talent. I agree with some of the others here, if it was imperative he climb the Arch, he should have done it in the stealth. Now, the arch will be closed, Dean has his bragging rights, and to what end?

I was almost bullied out of this forum, because of my position, which, after some thought, caused me to decide that I am not done here. Caveat: For those of you, who don’t like what I have to say, block your ears.

I went to two major climbing stores and one bike shop, today, and I spoke to seven local climbers and three non-climbers. Here is what they had to say, in a nutshell: No Big Deal. In fact, two of them hadn’t even heard of the incident. When I asked those two how often they climb, one said that he climbs three to four days per week. For those of you, who think I am making this up, you are welcome to ask my fiancée, because she was there. Honestly, most of them said that they had no use for these climbing sites, because of all of the spray that takes place within them.

As I said earlier, I live in Utah, I am a veteran climber, and I am an active business owner in the community. My experience here has been that this is not a big deal, both inside and outside of the climbing community. Except for one of the people with whom I spoke, all felt that it was okay with them that the arch is now officially closed, which brings me to my next point.

Some of you have argued that this incident is all the buzz in schools, among magazine editors, etc. Although I am reluctant to believe that this issue is at the forefront of school debate, it is expected that magazines would make this a front-page issue. Afterall, that is what sells magazines, . Climbing magazines would also be the ones likely to receive the most input from climbers throughout the country. It's ironic, considering that the Utah locals are the least upset about it.

Earlier, I tried to make the point that we all needed to calm down and reconsider the lynch mob tone of this forum, to which the responses by some – except for Malcolm’s – were all but hostile. Frankly, I get the impression that the regulars gang up on anyone with an alternative point of view. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

Some of you made the argument that Dean was somehow more at fault because he announced his ascent. I say: “So, What?” That is how he makes his living, and he maintains that he had permission to make the ascent. Consequently, I see absolutely no problem with that. Dean is already a world-renowned climbing celebrity with a very impressive list of accomplishments on his resume’. Why in the world would he advertise his ascent of a forty-five foot high "5.11" free solo for the purpose of procuring bragging rights? Common sense dictates that such an idea is absurd on the face of it. It is incumbent upon him, as a professional climber, to announce his notable ascents. That is part of the job of a pro climber.

I also heard some comments posted about how he screwed it up for other climbers. How so, unless those climbers had the same intention? Maybe they feel that they won’t be able to sneak out there and climb it themselves. Am I being a smartass? Not really. You can’t have it both ways. The only logical reason that any of you would be upset with DA's having been officially closed is because you want the opportunity to climb it yourself. Otherwise, you would have no problem with its closure.

I will say it one more time for those who haven’t yet absorbed it. Take a deep breath and chill out. I know that climbers like to think that their issues are at the forefront of world concern, but it just ain’t so. This is not the epic catastrophe that you might wish it to be, so get over it. If Dean is not your idea of the ideal ambassador, then adopt one who suits you. There are plenty of them out there.

One last thing: Until today, I believed that these blogs had become representative of the general consensus. After talking to climbers in person, I have concluded that these blogs represent a very small portion of the real story. They mostly consist of people who feel the need to have a voice. Maybe beating up on accomplished climbers like Dean makes them feel more significant?

Carry on.

KC

KC ""Honestly, most of them said that they had no use for these climbing sites, because of all of the spray that takes place within them.""
I think you should side with them ken
KC ""As I said earlier, I live in Utah, I am a veteran climber, and I am an active business owner in the community""
I own three businesses which grossed over 25 million in Q4 of 05 across three states including Utah, therefore my word is more gospel.
KC"" It's ironic, considering that the Utah locals are the least upset about it.""
All four at the climbing store...hahaha
KC""reconsider the lynch mob tone of this forum....AND...the regulars gang up on anyone with an alternative point of view. I may be wrong, but I doubt it""
Yup, that's "us" alright. We are out to get ya KC!
KC""I also heard some comments posted about how he screwed it up for other climbers. How so, unless those climbers had the same intention?""
Haven't you figured that out yet? You read everything else very closely but you missed that one?
KC""I know that climbers like to think that their issues are at the forefront of world concern, but it just ain�t so""
Hence your minimalist response to this.....
KC""so get over it""
You go first Ken
KC""Maybe beating up on accomplished climbers like Dean makes them feel more significant?""
That hurt so good, it hit me right in the sphincter...yum...
And finally....
KC""In the spirit of not further inflaming the situation, I will state my position on a few of the matters thus far discussed, and then I will bow out of the discussion.""
promises promises.....hahahaha

Below is Patagonia's response to my letter (posted earlier--see above), and my response to their letter.

Hello,

Thank you for writing us with your concerns. Patagonia ambassador Dean
Potter's May 7 free solo of Delicate Arch has generated significant
controversy about the legality and appropriateness of the climb of what has
been described as a national icon. We'll be interested to follow the
controversy and to listen to views of those on both sides.

A few facts are in order. First, no crime has been committed. The National
Park Service has conceded that its regulations were ambiguous and that they
will not cite Dean for the ascent. They have said they will seek to clarify
their regulations to prevent a second try. The Park and a number of opinion
leaders have argued that Delicate Arch is an icon that should not be
climbed.

It is important to note that Dean did no harm to the route or to the rock.
He free-soloed the arch, placing no anchors and creating no impact beyond
blowing dust off the holds. As he says, "No one reveres rocks more than me.
I consider all rocks sacred, as do most climbers."

Dean, like all Patagonia ambassadors, undertakes his own climbs on his own
terms. He told us about the climb afterward.

We have taken positions in the past on a number of issues of climbing
ethics, including bolting. We take no position on this one. As Casey
Sheahan, our CEO, notes, "From the early days in the Tetons to the
rebelliousness of Yosemite's Camp 4, every generation of climbers has had
its run-ins with government regulations that attempt to restrict climber's
freedom of expression. At Patagonia we don't control the ways our sponsored
athletes conduct themselves except to encourage respect for the environment
and uncommon approaches to every challenge. Dean is at the pinnacle of free
solo climbing, makes decisions for himself, and has our complete support."

Again, we thank you for your time and your opinion.

Patagonia
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My response to Patagonia:

Dear Patagonia,
This is a weak response. I expect more from a company that prides itself on ethics. If I, an average-Joe climber, know that arches are off-limits, then so surely does a professional climber living in Moab, the capital of arches. It's not like he flew in from Tasmania. Secondly, if Potter didn't know it was illegal when he did it, he knew it was illegal when he started promoting himself and the ascent. So he shouldn't have promoted it. Lastly, this ascent cannot be seen as the same as the historic conflicts you allude to in the Tetons and Yosemite. Is Patagonia going to start a campaign to open all arches to climbing? Do you really want to take that stand? The ramifications on the environment--complete destruction of the natural formations--are obvious. Unless you're want to argue that a select few--Patagonia-sponsored--climbers can make the ascents, then clearly arguing that this is even a debatable issue is wrong. But maybe you want to promote lines at the base of arches and see how long they last? The debates over pitons scarring rock, the impact of campgrounds on valley floors, are obviously more legitimate that the crumbling of entire formations.

-Chris Weber
Boulder, Colorado

Phil Broscovak is right on the money. He failed to mention your "slackline" episode in Arches which resulted in a similar admonishment from the BLM...! You knew better and still chose to disgracefully promote and market yourself.

Dean you are too good of a climber and too conscientious to sell your soul for self promotion.

I for one will not buy any Patagonia product until an apology is provided the trade journals and appropriate newspapers.

Hows that for action..?

Ken C.-
Let me say first that I appreciate you arguing in support of Dean's climb, there is no point in having a discussion forum that is just an echo chamber.

You write "The rules regarding DA should have been explicit if the NPS did not want to risk what happened. Now they are. Case closed."
Agreed, the rules should have been explicit and they were not explicit enough. I think that my fear of the NPS reacting by making the rules undeniably clear in areas (i.e. No Climbing), is, however, valid.

Ken also writes "...my experience so far has been that most of the dissent has been expressed in climbing forums like this, by people who aren't even that close to the actual players and/or facts."
I hope you are right. I hope we are making a much bigger deal out of this than it really is. The fact that there have been at least 2 features in the Salt Lake Tribune and a cartoon (on the SLT webpage 5/18 at least) makes me wonder. Only time will tell if this becomes a wider story. My concern is that this is another example that can be used put climbers in a bad light.

I earlier called for an apology/explanation from Dean and Ken replied, "Do you actually know who Dean has or hasn't apologized to? It sounds as though you are admonishing Dean to apologize to you just because you decided that he did something wrong. Dean owes you (Evan Sloan) no explanation, and I have the utmost confidence that he will do what is required of him, per his contract."
Obviously I don't know who Dean has or has not apologized to, but there hasn't been any publicized response that I've seen (apart from the initial interviews). And keep in mind I don't think he needs to apologize for the actual climb, but for the ill will it has generated and as an opportunity to lay out his side of the story. I think we would both agree that what's missing here is Dean's point of view. From what I know of him, my guess would be that he had good intentions, but I wouldn't have to guess if there was a response. I hope that Dean will do what is required of him, not just by his contract, but in the effort of preserving access and minimizing impact that is the responsibility of every one of us regardless of skill and experience.

My point here is not that I think Dean should be punished, but that this is a situation that has the potential to go bad and he is in a position to try and prevent that. Why not try to use this attention as a way to inform the non-climbing public about some of why we climb instead of letting the impression reign that we're just a bunch of careless and destructive thrillseekers?

I thought it was made clear that Dean climbed the arch legaly. Looks like it to me. I was at the arch the afternoon, just killing time, after the alleged incident took place. I gave the arch a good look, just like any climber would looking for possible holds and wondereing if anyone had ever climbed it. I saw absolutely no chalk or sign of anyone besides little rugrats trying to climb the arch. I think it is seems like the climbers in Boulder are much more concerned about this symbol of the mormon state than the people in Moab or in Utah. I've been in and around Moab for two weeks now and this is the first news I have heard of the climb. I believe this thread is making a huge deal out of this very insignificant news story. Only the arches in the National park are off limits by the way. I climbed Jug handle arch later in the week and even clipped a few bolts. Where were all of the media and controversy. All I saw was some semis haulin ass up potash.

Wow, I have to agree that the tone of this email thread is pretty acerbic. My two cents:

When I saw Dean’s photo, my reaction was “Sweet, Dean had free soloed yet another nice piece of rock”.

THE CLIMB WAS NOT ILLEGAL. If one takes the legality of the ascent literally, I’m not too sure what all the fuss is about. Maybe folks feel the Delicate Arch is sacred because it’s on the Utah license plate but that doesn’t count for too much to me. If the DA is sacred, what about recurring violations of climbing closures at Devils Tower and Ship Rock?

Yep, he publicized the photo rather than savoring the experience on his own…but isn’t that what we average-Joes do on the very website.

As for Ed Abbey’s take on the matter I think he would be proud of Dean. Ed advocated getting out from behind the windshield, walking, picking up and smelling some dirt to truly appreciate our national parks. Dean happens to have the skills to smell and enjoy vertical rock, unroped. Anyway, I’m pretty sure Ed would have written off the park after the road extension they paved so that one could view the DA from a parking lot…just as Ed had predicted they would. This new road actually would have put the DA within striking distance of one of Ed’s drunken tears through the desert.

Buck up Weber, I think you’re a rad climber.

Kudos to whomever climbed it in EBs or barefoot or whatever in the 70s and didn't publish the fact.

I'll take exception to the quote which, though a grammatical slip, shines light on the self-reverence involved:

As he says, "No one reveres rocks more than me."


Can I be the first to assert that I revere all rocks more than I revere the speaker. And he thinks no one does.

Well, it looks like Dean's little climb did have an impact. There is now no new fixed anchors allowed.

See page of the 2006 Arches Compendium...

http://www.nps.gov/arch/pphtml/documents.html

Here is a quote by ProfessorFate, in Supertopo, which I believe warrants serious consideration before you send Dean down in a ball of flames.

ProfessorFate wrote: "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."

So that Ken's voice isn't singular, I will state for the record that I personally don't care.

I have to ask myself "what is the worst thing a person can do? ... what is the worst thing a pers