Delicate Arch - Relationship vs. Performance

I've been having conversations with friends about The Dark Wizard. As I am pivoting careers from teaching to environmental management, I thought the Delicate Arch bit was particularly interesting, and demonstrated a lot of the inherent contradictions in outdoor recreation in terms of how we perceive environmental impact, risk, and relationship. I am curious what you all thought about that scene, and relationship vs. performance more generally, and wanted to share a reflection I wrote on my Substack: Transgressing the Delicate.

Thanks for engaging - Alex.

You wrote: "If Delicate Arch had an extractive use that caused the state of Utah’s GDP to rise by $100 million, there is no doubt that it would be demolished in a flash and ground into a fine powder." 

I disagree.  Utah's GDP is over $300 billion, and adding 0.1 to that at the cost of removing one of the state's most iconic symbols... I really doubt it.

I appreciate you taking the time to write down your thoughts about Potter and Delicate Arch, and I think you bring up interesting points when discussing how our culture views the value of nature. However, I can't get behind your claims of sensationalism of his act. And if we want to say he is guilty of only "cultural ignorance" I have to say that it is willful cultural ignorance.  

I agree with you that less iconic and breathtaking natural places deserve more respect than we often give them, and sure the environmental harm caused by all of the visitors traveling to Arches National Park each year far surpasses the harm Potter caused to Delicate Arch. But why does that make Potter's act any less distasteful or more deserving of forgiveness? I don't really buy into the idea that Potter has cultivated a level of connection with the natural world that few of us have ever experienced, or that him climbing Delicate Arch is an example of that. To be fair, I have only watched the first episode of The Dark Wizard. Perhaps the rest of it will change my mind.

I think there are plenty of examples in even the first episode of the series that show Potter was much more driven by his ego, and did not let the rules or expected norms get in the way. In a HowNot2 Video where they rebolt the top of the Lost Arrow Spire they clean up the mess of 8 bolts that Potter had installed for a highline (and speculate that he used a power drill to do so). Are we supposed to be okay with that, just so he can commune with nature in the way he desires?

There are plenty of other figures out there that manage to connect with nature in real and powerful ways without upsetting the general public, without feeding their ego, and without leaving a lasting negative impact on climbing access.
 

John RBwrote:

You wrote: "If Delicate Arch had an extractive use that caused the state of Utah’s GDP to rise by $100 million, there is no doubt that it would be demolished in a flash and ground into a fine powder." 

I disagree.  Utah's GDP is over $300 billion, and adding 0.1 to that at the cost of removing one of the state's most iconic symbols... I really doubt it.

Yeah, and they would never tear down a wing of one of their most iconic buildings with no actionable plan to replace it... right?

John RBwrote:

You wrote: "If Delicate Arch had an extractive use that caused the state of Utah’s GDP to rise by $100 million, there is no doubt that it would be demolished in a flash and ground into a fine powder." 

I disagree.  Utah's GDP is over $300 billion, and adding 0.1 to that at the cost of removing one of the state's most iconic symbols... I really doubt it.

You have a lot more faith in the state government of Utah than I do. I imagine that if a small handful of individuals in the state legislature could pocket a couple million dollars each through the destruction of the arch it would be on the ground by morning.

Recreation and conservation can work together collaboratively but it rarely does, depending on how you define recreation, and one does not logically follow from the other. Recreation is inherently consumptive - not matter how you do it or what activity you are engaged in. Again, depending on your definition, conservation should seek less impact - but it often doesn't. All one has to do is look at downhill skiing - an outdoor sport that should breed some sort of env ethic but is hell bent on building bigger lifts, more artificial snow, and bigger resorts that consumer more land. I have never seen climbing as inherently environmentally friendly - it is more like environmentally agnostic for the most part. It's complicated (see this self serving link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D1PJH796?ref_=pe_93986420_774957520). As for Potter's supposed deep relationship with nature - his stunt on the arch appears to me to be driven purely by selfish ego. It was like a humble brag performance. As for the arch itself - Utah knows it is a golden goose and is already exploiting it as if it were a commodity (because it is). They seek to maximize Utah tourism visitation to the benefit of a few, relentlessly promote the image, and see no end to the free dollars that accrue to the state via a federal resource. If they could they would take over their national parks and develop them full on. The state has no conservation ethic. Your substack article is interesting and, obviously I find this topic worth thinking about, well done. 

John RBwrote:

You wrote: "If Delicate Arch had an extractive use that caused the state of Utah’s GDP to rise by $100 million, there is no doubt that it would be demolished in a flash and ground into a fine powder." 

I disagree.  Utah's GDP is over $300 billion, and adding 0.1 to that at the cost of removing one of the state's most iconic symbols... I really doubt it.

Oh yea Utah would never try and threaten or lease their public lands for profit. Utah Senator Mike Lee is the best friend to conservation! Straight from the Senators website:

“Section 9 of the federal legislation that created Utah said that federally owned land within the state of Utah, “shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said state into the union.”

But Congress has not honored that promise to sell federal land in Utah or most of the west. They should. Sen. Lee is fighting to make Congress keep that promise and to mitigate the damage the federal government is inflicting on rural communities in the meantime.”

Mike Lee's "interpretation" is flat wrong. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2, gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States and takes precedence over anything the state of Utah would claim. It reads: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.  There is no requirement to sell off public lands after a state joined the Union and the operative word is "shall" not will. Anyone who thinks Lee or Utah would not sell off federal public land is not paying attention. Leasing is another matter but I don't know of an instance where federal land is leased for state profit. Grazing and mining leases (a massive subsidy to ranchers and international mining companies) as well as water rights in some instances (usually a giveaway) accrue to the federal general fund as do a portion of national park receipts. Even with the present administration trying to burn down our democracy we are better off with our parks managed by the NPS than anything the state of Utah would do. 

FYI - in case you still need to be convinced Lee and Utah do not have the best interests of public lands at stake the current criminal administration just opened up the red rock landscapes of Arches and Canyonlands National Parks to off road travel. We can look forward to the motorheads terrorizing everything in sight. Who sponsored that legislation that led to this administrative decision - Mike Lee. 

Thought it was dumb when it happened, thoughts haven't changed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion though. There's no good reason for that climb other than grabbing attention.