I'm not a local, but it would seem to me that the relationship between climbers and Utah land managers is tenuous enough without the fallout from what was at least partially a commerically driven event. From my perspective the whole venture was ill-conceived and at this point neither Potter, Patagonia, or climbers in general stand to benefit in any way from it. Quite the contrary, it would seem it turned out badly instead by casting all of us in an arrogant light to land managers and the public. I'm sure none of this negative press was what Dean nor Patagonia had in mind at the time - but such is the peril all commercial endeavors entertain...

Thanks, John, coming from a left-winged liberal lunatic like yourself means a good deal.

I know there's a difference between writing an opinion(s) & unilaterally taking the law into your own hands. I don't think we'd be doing much good going trunkless in the pale moonlight of the arch.

But, I do focus the positive energy of climbing to try and make outdoor areas a conservational balance between evironmental responsibility & places to keep our freedom of expression & recreational enjoyment intact. I saw this post as a focus on a controversial clean ascent given a national park policy setting for the category General Climbing (& not just Utah) - which is why I kept posting my point of view though it is not locale to the specific formation.

The redneck, guntotin, right-winged conspiracist; but crack climbing monster to the bitter end, Mark N.

You know, I like Dean, but every now and then he does something really dumb. Doing things that reflect badly on a perceived interest group to which one belongs doesn't exactly set him apart, but that's no excuse.

When you want to live your life as if the rules don't apply to you, you sometimes create effects that extend beyond your particular case. This is something that is painful to learn, much less to re-learn over and over. Hopefully it sticks.

And hey, if Gucci drops him, he can return to that true state of soul-climber union with vibrating nature he's always going on about in the catalog copy. By himself. Undocumented.

"Thanks, John, coming from a left-winged liberal lunatic like yourself means a good deal."
Ah yes Mark.... turn this into a left-wing/right-debate to keep it in the gutter. Colbert would be proud of you.
Maybe only Karl Rove would feel differently, but I think most climbers feel Potter is being the bad apple that will ruin it for the rest of us.
He should have had some foresight to know this would draw too much negative press to the climbing community.
Or is that only selfish democrat thinking?

I don't know if I agree about the focus of commercialization when it comes to clean climbing. My interest in a climb is something I have for what it is in nature, try to explore it, rise to it's level, and leave it the way I found it.

I would more rather pay twice for the Alpinist showing me brilliant natural lines & describing area history than receive a free ad for a climbing shoe because someone is using it.

"The redneck, guntotin, right-winged conspiracist; but crack climbing monster to the bitter end, Mark N."
I guess you're right, it was out of context.

In fact, maybe you're totally right.
If all of us tree huggin hippies would just put down the bong and stop hating america so much, we would see that true conservationists drive ATVs while drinkin PBR and eating slimjims.
Moab's future should be motocross and fourwheelin, maybe a huge walmart and a motorspeedway for NASCAR, then us pinko commies will move to CANADA.
You are a true american Mark. Godspeed.

Thanks, I am an American. Hey, the seventies called, they want their haircut back.
Peace, love, dope!

Glad I checked this before I left for the weekend.

Mark's comment was meant jokingly. He knows my politics. I know his politics. He wasn't trying to turn it into a right vs. left debate. If I may speak for him, we are happy when we can give each other compliments. I wasn't offended when he wrote the leftist comment, I laughed. I am proud to be a socialist!

Maybe that's the point Mark.
"American" does not mean conservative, gun loving, bible thumping republican.
Pot smoking tree hugging greeny from Boulder, or spanish speaking legal immigrant from Juarez is just as american as you. So you and your ilk do not own the patent on what it is to be american or "correct" when it comes to land issues.
Potter was wrong because he broke clearly posted rules, to execute a selfish, self promoting prank that tarnishes us all who "rope up".
"Nelson" isn't that a European last name?

Thanks, John, I guess if Noisewater had a point to offer, it should have actively engaged when the debate was ongoing the past few days; not after the AF posted their decision. At least my unnamed balls can stand up for what they believe in. By all means, don't stand up to controversy until after you are told to, you might mess up your hair, KN.

Yea, Nelson is Swedish, we've been farming & defending these lands for over a century starting from 1 penny so that you have the opportunity to eat & sleep in comfort and type whatever comes from your mind and onto your keyboard without being shot at or starving to death.

Also, John, I kept my word & was finally able to procure a copy of Blink.

Thank you for the compliment on my hair.
As you can see in my photo I take care of it.
By your last couple of posts your seem to be quite envious of it.

And by the way my name is Ken Noisewater, and my family has been here, mostly in Massachusett, since the Mayflower. SO IF there is a debate about who is MORE American, it is I.
And that is my point, there is no MORE American. We are all visitors and we all should respect other peoples space here.

But thank you for defending my right to tell you that you are a an arrogant j@rk.
So is W

no problem, right back at you, thanks for dragging this post into a bunch of bullshit.

Mark,
The critical issue here is not environmental protection it is access protection. Public opinion goes along way with policy makers when it comes to regulating our public lands. And never forget that land managers, many of whom are career feds have a long, long memory. With something as public as this affair how can land managers, public and private, feel that they can trust climbers to abide by any rule implicit or explicit? Like the classic traveling salesman and the farmer story; "you can sleep in the barn but stay away from my daughter". Look around many areas face closure or further restrictions. Do we need bad press?

But, Phil, shouldn't regulation be based upon frequency of use and not visibility of someone climbing on a rock?

I mean press of someone on a rock, in and of itself, is not bad in my mind, it's the context of the press and the manner in which it's presented that always seems to put climbers in a detrimental position. One of the few good press items I have seen is the documentary presented on Yosemite narrated Tom Brokaw in which the climbers took the NPS head on to show the importance of our heritage. Why is clean climbing a bad press piece?

Mark, your analogy to Glenn Exum makes no sense to me. When Glenn Exum climbed his ridge, nobody had even been there. The Grand Teton was a wild and unknown peak (and still is compared to Delicate Arch). Delicate Arch is hardly an unknown rock. Literally millions of people have stood under it. Sure the rock Potter grabbed was virgin (probably) but I'm sure thousands of rock climbers have looked at it.

There are no climbing bans on the Grand Teton, at least I don't think so. So it is difficult to imagine a modern Glenn Exum violating any ban of the Exum ridge.

Compare it to a peregrine falcon ban. Suppose Glenn Exum IV puts up a new route on the 3rd Flatiron today. He claims it wasn't really clear on the open space web site that this piece of the 3rd was closed. He contacts Fox News to get the word out of his amazing climb. Although what he did may have been technically legal, it would damage climbing access (in my opinion anyway). It doesn't make sense to do a borderline legal climb and then trumpet it to the media, even for Glenn Exum.

George, I am posing a hypothetical situation in the Tetons given a NPS setting. The likeness to the Arches is a notable/visible clean ascent if both parks had a climbing policy restriction that did not meet at least one of the three points I had previously offered to prohibit climbing.

The 3rd Flatiron has a wildlife restriction which was already one of the reasons I gave for restricting climbing access, so such an ascent should not be seen as favorable.

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 (after Dean's ascent) may be found here: New Regulations

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).

One thing that I have read that I feel might explain better is something that Ron Olevsky wrote over on Supertopo.

He said something to the effect of, "Come on, even I knew to leave Delicate Arch alone!"

Seeing as Ron is no stranger to controversy or his rights as a U.S. citizen. I feel like the point is not that climbing visibility is a problem. It is just a bit too much of a symbol to be climbed. It to me is kind of like climbing Mt. Rushmore (which I think is a disgrace by the way). Why shouldn't we be allowed to climb it? There is something in the public psyche that would make people cringe at seeing people climbing over the presidents faces.

I guess the concern I have relates to "aesthetic" - its application is so subjective that it implies climbing in and of itself is what is seen as the problem. I thought the point of climbing advocacy groups was to get the point across that climbing should not be considered detrimental just because someone is enjoying a climb on a rock. Eldo, Tetons, RMNP, are all aesthetic parks, climbers don't cause detriment to the natural resource just by being there unless frequency of use is causing trailside erosion; but, then, so would every other user going into the park.