Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Patagonia's Delicate Position

Mike Jones at Utahania published an interesting email from Patagonia Co. regarding the recent Delicate Arch ascent. It's interesting that in the email, Patagonia claimed they are not taking any position on the ascent (performed by one of their climbers) but they spent a lot of the email defending the climber: "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." VOMIT!

9 Comments:

Blogger theorris said...

Hmm. Seems like Patagonia folk want it this way: freedom to do whatever they want but government regulation to prevent others from doing whatever they want. Oh those rebels in $100 khakis!

5/24/2006 07:09:00 AM  
Blogger Charley Foster said...

I'm not sure I share in the angst. It wouldn't bother me if he had climbed the Washington Monument. On the other hand, I'm not bothered that the park service has taken the ambiguity out of the rule banning it, either.

5/24/2006 07:55:00 AM  
Blogger Shawn said...

I think the jruy is still out on whether climbing is intrinsically good or bad for our natural environment. A good climber has an innate respect for the environment because of the relationship he/she develops with whatever he/she is climbing. Sounds hokey, I know, but humans better integrate into the environment when they are limited to their own physical faculties, with things like ATV's and even mountain bikes factored out of human activity. On the other hand, though, too many ecologically integrated humans have the same effect on the environment that, say, an overgrown elk herd has and thus, the thinning of the herd becomes necessary. So it seems the question with Delicate Arch is can climbing be accomodated, whether it be mitigated by numbers of climbers or restricting it to free climbs.

5/24/2006 08:46:00 AM  
Blogger Charley Foster said...

"thus, the thinning of the herd becomes necessary."

I got an odd image of a culled climber strapped to the hood of a pickup. Would there be a bow hunting season?

5/24/2006 10:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was no ambiguity in the rule. every climber knows the rule and Delicate Arch has been off limits for generations.

It is also not in doubt that Delicate Arch could be damaged by excessive climbing.

It does seem like Patagonia wants rules for everyone but themselves.

But that is not what the climbing community wants. We want morons like that punished with substantial fines if they can't be sent to the Grand County Pen for a few days. The alternative is that we'll lose all our climbing access as land managers try to protect their resourcecs.

5/24/2006 05:54:00 PM  
Blogger Charley Foster said...

I haven't seen what the rule said, so I can't decide whether it was ambiguous or not. Does anyone know what it said? It sounds to me like clubbers are miffed that the guy transgressed a gentleman's agreement among all the gentlemen.

5/24/2006 08:33:00 PM  
Blogger theorris said...

Here is said ruling right from the Park Service:

http://www.nps.gov/arch/pphtml/newsdetail23210.html

5/26/2006 07:11:00 AM  
Blogger theorris said...

Oops--got confused, sorry. That's the new ruling. The Park Service never had a rule on this before; it was, as you suggest, Charley, an agreement between folks not to engage in such activities. Now it is banned, along with slack lining. Oh where will the slack lining community slack line now?

5/26/2006 07:14:00 AM  
Blogger theorris said...

All is well! They can slackline in Paris:

go see.

5/26/2006 07:16:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home