Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - May 19, 2006 - 10:04am PT
|
Just got a call from Jimmy Dunn.
There are new rules at Arches as of the past few days. No new fixed anchors.
|
|
PDHMAN
Trad climber
Eastside N of Bishop just S of 395
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 10:29am PT
|
Hey Ron,
How is Jimmy doing these days and what's his take on Dean's gig on DA????
|
|
landcruiserbob
Trad climber
the ville, colorado
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 10:39am PT
|
Next thing they will do is shut down the 4x4 road from I-70 that gets you into the park with out paying.rg
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 10:41am PT
|
If that is true then that pretty much equates to "no new routes", unless you can walk off. Which is not an easy thing to find in those parts. If this is true then perhaps the internet lynching of DP was spot on. Very disapointing.
|
|
Trashman
Trad climber
SLC
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 11:01am PT
|
i love it, perfect govt. logic.
condemn a no fixed anchor ascent by banning all fixed anchors.
w/ tools like this, maybe we do need more civil disobedience.
|
|
piquaclimber
Trad climber
Durango
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 11:09am PT
|
It is true!
I just spoke with Laura Joss. She confirmed that as of May 9, no new fixed anchors are allowed in the park. She said that there will be a period of time for public input about the new regulations but as of now... no new anchors. She also said that this has promoted the NPS to overhaul/clarify their regulations in the next year. She was happy to hear that most climbers are not happy with Dean’s antics.
ALSO- All nailing in the park is now prohibited with the exception of replacement of existing anchors and bolts on exisiting routes! This means that many of the established climbs are no longer legal to climb!!!! Some of the routes/formations affected by this include Queen Victoria Rock, The Phalis, most routes on the Organ, etc..)
According to Laura, the NPS is getting calls and letters from people asking her to ban climbing in the park. Therefore it is important for climbers to write in and represent their desires and interests to balance out the non-climbers that are asking for a total ban. She was very receptive and personable.
On a personal note I would like thank Dean for his tremendous contribution to the climbing community!
Brad
http://www.nps.gov/arch/pphtml/documents.html
Look page 3 of the 2006 Arches Compendium...
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 19, 2006 - 11:10am PT
|
Just back,
Jimmy, who has climbed my route on the Owl over 100 times including with Dean (they've done MANY climbs together), agreed with me that it was an imprudent act compounded by the limelight.
But I hesitate to even say that much as I certainly don't like others putting words in MY mouth.
But I say that much here because he called SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAID HERE ON THE TACO, namely that EVEN I knew enough to leave THAT one alone.
Its really not such a nonsequeter that they would ban anchors after a free solo. When you deal with pests sometimes tangential tactics work best.
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 11:14am PT
|
Banning fixed anchors in a National Park unit cannot be done legally just be making a new Park rule. See: 36 CFR 1.5.
Since Potter's solo ascent had nothing to do with fixed anchors and it would be very hard to suggest that this ban on fixed anchors is an "emergency", such a prohibition is rulemaking. 36 CFR 1.5(b)
Someone needs to talk to the Supt.
Notwithstanding the legality, Dean Potter is no doubt directly to blame for this retaliatory action. Thanks Dean.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 19, 2006 - 11:22am PT
|
Sketchy,
its a fait accompli, don't say it can't be done.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 19, 2006 - 11:25am PT
|
As far as the CFR goes; its kinda like the Bible.
You can use it to argue either for OR against anything.
|
|
Mick K
climber
Northern Sierra
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 11:25am PT
|
Ron:
From your posts here on ST It sounds like you have a dialog with some of the relevant land managers and a climbing resume sufficient to understand the issues involved in a situation such as this.
The restraint in voicing your personal opinion is commendable. While I personally think the knee jerk reaction by the government is ridiculous it is an unfortunately fact of the times, whether or not it is “legal rulemaking.”
I for one hope you take an active role in the dialogue with the land managers.
Edit- I refering to an exchange without the use of automatic weapons.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 19, 2006 - 11:42am PT
|
Dialogue, hmmmm.
Is that a euphemism for the exchange of gunfire?
|
|
paulj
climber
utah
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 11:54am PT
|
Gee, I never saw this one coming...
|
|
paulj
climber
utah
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 12:53pm PT
|
Here are the regs that piquaclimber referred to. All existing climbs that currently need a hammer are now off-limits.
|
|
Professor Fate
Big Wall climber
Vulgaria
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 12:56pm PT
|
Too quick to be exclusively a reaction. Bureaucracies do not move that fast.
They were waiting to do it. They just used Dean-gate as the catalyst/excuse.
|
|
Slabby D
Trad climber
B'ham WA
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 01:10pm PT
|
NPS decision-making seems to be heavily influenced by maintaining what is considered "historical use" of a resource.
A ban on fixed anchors would appear to be a ruling that on one hand reins in climbers while also maintaining what has been a "historical use" of the park.
I've climbed some of the classic routes in the park and really enjoyed them. I also thought the park was pretty damn amiable to climbers. Dean's stunt has pissed off a lot of non-climbers as well as climbers forcing the parks hand. Pretty damn sad.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 01:11pm PT
|
Professor Fate has a point.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 01:15pm PT
|
My experience may not be representetive, but when I visted Arches, I met the nicest rangers. They were giving me all likes of recommendations for the best routes to climb and best times to climb them, which walks would be the best bets, etc. Although they talked about respecting the rock more than any ohter place I've been (i.e. they brought up the issues of chalk and slings with me), I didn't get a bit of anti-climber vibe. It's too bad that, apparently, enough of one was present to have the situation heat up so far so fast.
|
|
Trashman
Trad climber
SLC
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 01:16pm PT
|
so they updated the rules to match the national park across the road? big surprise, like some have pointed out, this has probably been in the works for a while.
ask crusher how much this has slowed down his route development around the white rim area. just weeds out the weak and lazy.
now we just need to ban camping in the indian creek corrider and we may have prevented the disnification that has plauged yosemite throughout it's history.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
May 19, 2006 - 01:22pm PT
|
Too quick to be exclusively a reaction. Bureaucracies do not move that fast. They were waiting to do it. They just used Dean-gate as the catalyst/excuse.
i have to disagree. i've been working for the park service for 21 years, and have been in division chief level or higher positions for 14 years. certain superintendents can and will act with lightning swiftness if the need arises. my feeling is this is due purely to dean's actions. if they wanted the park to go hammerless, they would not have waited for an "excuse". they simply would have made it so.
there is much, much more to this story. i wonder how long it will be before the other shoe drops....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!