Capital Reef climbers draw fines after their photo is used in the Patagonia catalog
|
Oops ... |
|
So who was it? Anyone have the picture from the catalog? |
|
First off, thanks for posting. |
|
if it was boyscout troop leaders, would you be outraged? |
|
spella wrote:First off, thanks for posting. This, to me, is a perfect example of why the nps is so full of shit. I don't even know where to begin. First off (and this is purely speculation) I bet it went like this- Ranger flips through Patagonia catalogue, sees people having fun, Ranger is not having fun. Oooh! Someone climbing in Capital Reef! Ranger seeks out obscure climb that is probably nowhere near a trail. Ranger sees bolts, and possible trundling, gets an erection, and sets out to bust the climbers. Voila- capital reef is in the news, for the first time this... deacade?? I'f they're mission is to deter future first ascentionists/bolters, they need not worry- the reef is pure choss, in the middle of nowhere, and will never be a good, or popular climbing destination. And the nps says those $4Gs will help to pull and fill in the bolts!??!? Give a moab dirtbag half a ham sandwich and he will pull the bolts, patch the holes, and dust off your silly fucking ranger hat. A bolting ban in a place as chossy/remote/lacking in any good routes/shitty as the reef is a pointless rule, that was likely just copied and pasted from some other shitty government agency's climbing plan. Also, trundling happens in nature everyday, and makes routes safer. Beyond all that tho, $4000 seems vastly inappropriate to the crime. In conclusion, this is just another case of the bored NPS using their weight to bully climbers around because they have nothing better to do and they want to feel important. For christsake isnt patagonia, like, good for the environment or some shit?!hahahaha chuckle dirtbag diplomacy |
|
^^^ |
|
gotta admit though - pretty moronic on the part of the climbers, as well as patagonia. |
|
slim wrote:gotta admit though - pretty moronic on the part of the climbers, as well as patagonia.While I have zero direct knowledge I bet the climbers did not know of the bolt ban in Capital Reef. Similarly Patagonia either. The climbers probably submitted the photos just like the rest of us and the photo editors used it. That said the Trib article has a factual inaccuracies. The NPS calling it a photo shoot did not help either. |
|
slim wrote:gotta admit though - pretty moronic on the part of the climbers, as well as patagonia.Word. Kinda like the Sportiva ad a few years back that showed climbers hitting golf balls off the summit of some peak in the CO wilderness. Talk about stupidity. Every Sportiva employee that participated in that ad (or saw it and didn't call it out) should have been kicked in the arse for being a jag-off. As far as this is concerned. Meh. Don't really care. The climbers and Patagonia should have known the rules. Ignorance is not a defense. The NPS does a pretty good job with a very limited amount of resources. For the most part they do their best trying to balance user needs/wants/desires versus protecting the wild lands from use/abuse (news flash, climbing impacts the Park land)... i.e. to those ripping on the NPS, don't be such critical know-it-alls. I for one gladly buy my yearly NPS pass so that our Parks don't get logged and mined into submission. Moreover its not like Patagonia is an altruistic company all the time, they are well, a money making corporation first and foremost. Want proof? Figure out where their corporate headquarters is located. It isn't where all of their employees are (i.e. CA). Their official corporate address is up in Reno. Why? Hmmmm. Evading CA taxes perhaps? Its all well and nice to "save" the salmon, but perhaps they should also be paying taxes in the state that provides them with all of the infrastructure that allows their business to run (CA not NV). I'm not saying that Patagonia is an evil corporate empire, but I am saying that defending them from their own ignorant actions because they love salmon/sustainable cotton/current-trendy-hippy-cause once in a while is a weak stance. |
|
Allen Sanderson wrote: While I have zero direct knowledge I bet the climbers did not know of the bolt ban in Capital Reef. Similarly Patagonia either. The climbers probably submitted the photos just like the rest of us and the photo editors used it. That said the Trib article has a factual inaccuracies. The NPS calling it a photo shoot did not help either.the bolting ban is well known there, it has been in place for quite a while. anybody who has any business climbing there knows that. the nps there wasn't too keen on climbers before, and i doubt this blunder will help. |
|
Allen Sanderson wrote: While I have zero direct knowledge I bet the climbers did not know of the bolt ban in Capital Reef. Similarly Patagonia either. The climbers probably submitted the photos just like the rest of us and the photo editors used it. That said the Trib article has a factual inaccuracies. The NPS calling it a photo shoot did not help either.The bolt ban in CR is pretty well known. |
|
I'm pretty sure that it should be standard knowledge that before you go a'boltin.... find out what the rules are. Around here if you bolt a route that isn't in keeping with the "original style of climbing in the area," the other climbers in the region will go chop them before you even get your second ascent. |
|
J. Albers wrote: Word. Kinda like the Sportiva ad a few years back that showed climbers hitting golf balls off the summit of some peak in the CO wilderness. Talk about stupidity. Every Sportiva employee that participated in that ad (or saw it and didn't call it out) should have been kicked in the arse for being a jag-off. As far as this is concerned. Meh. Don't really care. The climbers and Patagonia should have known the rules. Ignorance is not a defense. The NPS does a pretty good job with a very limited amount of resources. For the most part they do their best trying to balance user needs/wants/desires versus protecting the wild lands from use/abuse (news flash, climbing impacts the Park land)... i.e. to those ripping on the NPS, don't be such critical know-it-alls. I for one gladly buy my yearly NPS pass so that our Parks don't get logged and mined into submission. Moreover its not like Patagonia is an altruistic company all the time, they are well, a money making corporation first and foremost. Want proof? Figure out where their corporate headquarters is located. It isn't where all of their employees are (i.e. CA). Their official corporate address is up in Reno. Why? Hmmmm. Evading CA taxes perhaps? Its all well and nice to "save" the salmon, but perhaps they should also be paying taxes in the state that provides them with all of the infrastructure that allows their business to run (CA not NV). I'm not saying that Patagonia is an evil corporate empire, but I am saying that defending them from their own ignorant actions because they love salmon/sustainable cotton/current-trendy-hippy-cause once in a while is a weak stance.Tax avoidance is perfectly legit. Why should Patagonia pay the ridiculous CA tax rates? After all Patagonia is a for-profit business. |
|
J. Albers wrote: Moreover its not like Patagonia is an altruistic company all the time, they are well, a money making corporation first and foremost. Want proof? Figure out where their corporate headquarters is located. It isn't where all of their employees are (i.e. CA). Their official corporate address is up in Reno. Why? Hmmmm. Evading CA taxes perhaps? Its all well and nice to "save" the salmon, but perhaps they should also be paying taxes in the state that provides them with all of the infrastructure that allows their business to run (CA not NV). I'm not saying that Patagonia is an evil corporate empire, but I am saying that defending them from their own ignorant actions because they love salmon/sustainable cotton/current-trendy-hippy-cause once in a while is a weak stance.According to the state of Nevada site, Patagonia is not headquartered there. nvsos.gov/SOSEntitySearch/C… According to state of California site, they are headquartered there. If you go to this page and search "PATAGONIA, INC." you'll find their info on page 4 . kepler.sos.ca.gov/ |
|
Tradster wrote: Tax avoidance is perfectly legit. Why should Patagonia pay the ridiculous CA tax rates? After all Patagonia is a for-profit business.Because their business depends on the use of infrastructure that CA taxes pay for. Not paying for stuff you use makes you a free loader. Being for-profit or not is largely irrelevant. |
|
slim wrote: the bolting ban is well known there, it has been in place for quite a while. anybody who has any business climbing there knows that. the nps there wasn't too keen on climbers before, and i doubt this blunder will help.I have known about the bolt ban for 25+ years because of dealing with access issues that go way back. Sounds like, that in general folks know about it now. Thanks. |
|
What a bunch of media whores. People have been climbing in Capitol Reef since the bolt ban and following the rules. Now climbers will get the microscope from rangers. This is the second time Patagonia has been involved with sensitive desert related climbing. Is there any way to find out the offenders names? I believe this information should be available publicly. Thanks again trust funded climbers/photographers that pretend to have a career in climbing for the short time their bodies hold up. |
|
J. Albers wrote: Because their business depends on the use of infrastructure that CA taxes pay for. Not paying for stuff you use makes you a free loader. Being for-profit or not is largely irrelevant.Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is not. |
|
Greg D wrote: Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is not.True, but there are lots of actions in the world that are perfectly legal but still make you a douchebag. Besides, the line between tax avoidance and tax evasion is so unbelievable opaque that arguing that one side is moral and the other side is not is pointless. Inverting your company to avoid taxes is legal, but it is IMHO, a total abdication of what I would argue are societal responsibilities. It is sort of like when I was younger and I would enter and leave RMNP before and after hours to skip paying the park fee. Legal? I guess. Douchey? Certainly. I used the roads, outhouses, maintained trails, plowed roads in the winter, etc. etc. that the park fees paid for but I was not doing my part to help maintain the system. Douche. Baggery. I now gladly pay the fee to try and do my part. From my perspective, it really is as simple as taking personal responsibility...and Patagonia's responsibility is to pay for the resources that they use. Otherwise they are just freeloading D-bags. In Patagonia's case, if they don't want to pay taxes in CA, thats totally fine, but then they should move their business to where their actual address is. Otherwise they are asking the tax payers of CA to subsidize their business while NV tax payers get the tax benefit. |
|
Redic! First the Delicate Arch debacle and now this. Patagonia is doing wonders for climber/natl park relations. Boycott Patagonia. I have been ever since the Potter incident as I didn't like their reply to my letter of concern. Only after major complaining from the climbing community did they even offer an apology. I like this quote from Patagonia - "We work very hard to make sure every photo we publish depicts responsible climbing practices that align with Patagonias broad environmental mission by asking vigilant questions and requiring locations always be identified,". That's an f*ing joke. It takes about a minute of reading the rules to realize that climbing arches in Natl Parks is illegal and maybe another five minutes to find out there is a bolting ban in Capital Reef. |
|
J. Albers, can you provide some evidence that Patagonia doesn't pay CA taxes? From what I found (linked above) they seem to still be registered and headquartered firmly in Ventura. |