People tell me that I live in the "bouldering capital of the South." But a fear of heights keeps me from scaling anything vertical. But the sport is interesting. One reason is that climbers have a serious internal tug of war with wanting to climb anything that looks fun/beautiful and wanting to avoid risking damage to it (e.g., anchoring). Here is a recent example (Park Service Bans Climbing of Utah Arches):
Climber Dean Potter scaled Delicate Arch, the soaring desert symbol of southern Utah. Now, the National Park Service wants to make sure he doesn't do it again.
Arches National Park on Tuesday announced a tightening of its rules on climbing after Potter announced with photographs and video that he made an unassisted climb of the arch just after daybreak Sunday.
Arches Park Superintendent Laura Joss said she reported Potter's climb to the Interior Department's chief lawyers, and park rangers were investigating whether Potter did any damage to the arch.
The issue is "user conflicts." The use of the environment by some threatens the use by others (e.g., snowmobiling in National Parks). Land managers get yelled at by both sides in a user conflict situation. Here is the reaction from a honest-to-goodness environmental economist/rock climber (Delicate Arch Stunt Will Limit Access for All Climbers):
A couple of years back the Outdoor Retailers Show threatened to leave Utah due to the state's perceived lack of support for the non-motorized recreation community. The retailers argued the state gave too much "weight" to motorized recreation in public lands management, an argument partially rooted in the belief that the motorized folks flouted regulations designed to limit user conflicts and damage to public lands.
Now we have Dean Potter, a non-motorized user of public lands, who decided to climb Delicate Arch in clear violation of the climbing regulations of Arches National Park. Yes, one of their own decided to violate the rules.
Or, should I say, "one of our own," for I am a climber of more than 30 years, and I am outraged by the indefensible actions of Mr. Potter.
Potter's statement that climbing Delicate Arch was not illegal is self-serving and disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. Every climber understands that access to climbing resources on public land is governed by a climbing management plan. Prior to his climb the Arches National Park Web site specifically stated that all named arches on 7.5 minute USGS maps were off-limits to climbing.
In fact, all the climbing management plans in areas with such features have a similar statement.
Mr. Potter's actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for our sport's history. I remember the days when the number of climbers and the damage we caused was small. But the rapid growth of our community over the past three or four decades meant that we could no longer ignore the damage we caused ourselves and others.
In the 1970s climbers engaged in self-regulation as we moved from exclusive use of rock-scarring pitons to so-called "clean-climbing" techniques. With the advent of climbing management plans in the late 1980s and early 1990s, climbers banded together in regional and national organizations to negotiate with land managers about access issues. Such plans always designate the formations on which climbing is prohibited.
Over the past two decades we climbers have become acutely aware that the actions of one person could affect access for the community as a whole.
But along with the growth our sport came the opportunity to move up the social ladder from "dirtbag climber" to "professional climber." Mr. Potter is a professional climber paid in cash and kind by numerous outdoor equipment companies to have his exploits and photographs - sponsor's logo prominently displayed - published in outdoor magazines. Indeed, the announcement of Mr. Potter's ascent of Delicate Arch came from his sponsor, Patagonia. To maintain sponsorship, a professional climber must stay in the public eye, something for which Mr. Potter is apparently richly gifted.
About a month ago Mr. Potter's "slackline" stunt on The Three Gossips (similar to a tight-rope walk between rock spires) caught the eye of climbers and the National Park Service. Less than a week later, all slacklining in Arches was banned. And now Mr. Potter has climbed Delicate Arch, apparently hoping to profit from an action that puts climbing access to Arches at risk to all climbers.
Let's face it: The easiest management policy is an absolute ban on all climbing. Such a policy would be so simple that even Dean Potter could understand it, yet would punish the rest of us.
All of which brings us back to the Outdoor Retailers Show. The companies that participate in this trade show must band together on behalf of all climbers and condemn the actions of Mr. Potter and the complicity of Patagonia. His actions are clearly motivated by sponsorship, and his sponsors should show respect for other climbers by immediately terminating their relationship with Potter.
Only if we, as a community of climbers and equipment manufacturers, assure land managers that we can engage in self-regulation and self-censure will these same managers allow us access for enjoyment by all.
Paul M. Jakus is a professor in the Department of Economics at Utah State University.
