Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 89 of total 89 in this topic |
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - May 10, 2006 - 02:26pm PT
|
Ok folks,
continue the dialogue.
Was the climb an exultation of our rebelious spirit or an act of shameless self-promotion?
|
|
Mick K
climber
Northern Sierra
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 02:29pm PT
|
Shameless act of self promotion. Maybe Mr. Potter's wife, with her 1 week of law school (see, letter to Alpinist), got confused between legal and illegal.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 03:08pm PT
|
For sh|ts and giggles, here's a link to the Prime Post on this subject:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=189992&f=0&b=0
Please try to make all new responses right here in this new thread.
As for my opnion on the act, I doubt it was an FA. I don't know the details of how the folks involved got the story out (maybe they sent the vid to Patigucchi without thinking it'd be released it to the press), but I don't think promoting the climb furthers our sport.
However, it sure gives us Tacos something to chew on while we wait for the season to get into full swing! Pass me that beer, this ain't close to being over. And while I didn't know him, I can't help but ask: What would Walt say?
[Edit: after reading the SLC Trib article detailing how long Dean scopped the route, looks more likely it was an FA...]
|
|
Slabby D
Trad climber
B'ham WA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 03:11pm PT
|
Some Dude -
Yup, someone speed climbed the icon of Utah over the weekend and spent some time standing on top...there's 16 x 9 HD video of the whole thing, and it's going to raise a shitstorm of controversy.
Dean Potter -
"This was one of the most beautiful climbs I've ever done," Potter said. "For me, it was just an overwhelming experience, as if the formation was vibrating with energy."
"I am very conscientious about following nature's rules. I respected the arch to the fullest......"What has our world come to if we cannot join nature by climbing one of nature's most beautiful features?"
My take --
Whenever we pursue intimiate, transendental experiences in nature it's important, NO CRITICAL! that it be videotaped in high-definition format for IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE!
I think a lot of climbers probably see a cognative dissonance between his actions and his words.
Editorial in Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3802787
|
|
vegastradguy
Trad climber
Las Vegas, NV
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 03:28pm PT
|
That he climbed it doesnt really bother me, but the way he did it really does-- and for more than just the reason that he's pissed off the NPS and caused waves there that will likely impact climbing at some point.
I'm also concerned because other land management agencies are going to see this and its just one of those things that shapes their perceptions of climbers, whether we like it or not.
Foremost on my mind is Red Rock, which is currently having its Wilderness Management plan drafted and scoping meetings in the coming weeks. Now, I doubt this will have a direct effect, but how are the BLM officials going to see the climbers who come to these meetings after hearing about Potter's stunt in Utah? It may well affect credibility and may have some impact on the plan that is being drafted.
If he wanted to climb it that bad, he should have just climbed it--- just like the rest of us would have. Calling the media was just grandstanding, and I have to say that I'm a little more than disappointed in Dean.
|
|
piquaclimber
Trad climber
Durango
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 03:38pm PT
|
I am surprised that there is any support for Dean in this endeavor.
Dingus, I am most surprised by your stance. Part of me still hopes you're trolling.
Personally, I couldn't care less what Dean or anyone does until they threaten access for the rest of us. Dean has managed to draw bad publicity to the Arches climbing community twice in a month. What's to discuss? It was an ego driven move that could hurt all of us. What a dick.
Brad
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 10, 2006 - 03:44pm PT
|
"Vibrating with energy"?
Sounds like he might be looking to expand alternate endorsement possibilities.
|
|
paulj
climber
utah
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 03:51pm PT
|
Sorry, Russ, it was illegal. Only with the most painful parsing of words could one construe the policy as leaving Delicate Arch open to climbing.
On a personal note, I do regret my flaming of Potter in yesterday's thread. The following represents a more considered approach and has been submitted to the Salt Lake Tribune as an Op-Ed piece; I have no idea if they'll publish it.
An Op-Ed Piece for the SLT
Paul M. Jakus
A couple of years back the Outdoor Retail 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 community 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 thirty 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 website 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. How stupid does Mr. Potter think the Park Service is? How stupid does he think other climbers and the public are? Pretty stupid, I guess.
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 1970’s 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 1980’s and early 1990’s, 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 Retail 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.
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Same place as you, man...... (WB)
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 03:58pm PT
|
Loop hole = not illegal = can't be reamered
Arches acting Chief Ranger Karen McKinlay-Jones believes Potter's actions on Sunday violated the intent of park regulations but said the park's solicitor advised that Potter cannot be prosecuted because the regulation "was not worded well."
Intent is all fine and good, but clear words are what put guys in the cuffs.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 04:03pm PT
|
Here's the wording of the climbing restrictions before they enhanced them after Potter's ascent:
"Climbing is prohibited on any arch identified on current USGS 7.5 minute topographical maps; on Balanced Rock year-round; on Bubo from January 1st to June 30th; on Industrial Disease on the Devil Dog Spire from January 1st to June 30th."
Now:
"Effective May 9, 2006, under the authority of Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1, Section 1.5(a)(1), all rock climbing or similar activities on any arch or natural bridge named on the United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographical maps covering Arches National Park are prohibited."
|
|
jsavage
climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 04:10pm PT
|
"Mr. Potter’s actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for our sport’s history."
from the op-ed by paul
seems to me he gave homage to our history. (Though I wish it weren't on film and I wish it was done on the sly.)
Again, this is climbing. What do you call beating on El Cap with a hammer?
Jim
|
|
Slabby D
Trad climber
B'ham WA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 04:18pm PT
|
....Lawyers.....
Can someone please explain how the original regulation is somehow more vague than the new rewritten version? They both seem pretty damn clear to me!
|
|
paulj
climber
utah
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 04:18pm PT
|
Russ, if we all start looking for loopholes there won't be any loopholes left. CMPs will be very simple: no climbing allowed.
Can't you see it coming to this? Check out the slacklining regulation...any room for doubt here?
"In addition, 'slacklining' in Arches National Park is prohibited. Slacklining is defined as walking on a rope or other line that is anchored between rock formations, trees, or any other natural features. Height of the rope above the ground is immaterial."
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 04:21pm PT
|
Outdoor retailer show out of Utah? Yahoo!
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Same place as you, man...... (WB)
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 04:22pm PT
|
Paul.. it is coming to "this" regardless. Find a loophole and have some fun.
"We the people...."
|
|
lost
climber
truckee
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 04:25pm PT
|
Sounds like the park has taken all the regulatory action it is going to by rewording their regs. So I think crying over the access thing is just about over.
|
|
George Bell
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 04:36pm PT
|
Dean's defense is almost down to the level of:
"It depends on what your definition of "is" is." -WJC
My guess, based on the NPS action (or lack of), was that Dean Potter did actually ask a ranger if rock climbing on arches was illegal. When the ranger replied "Yes!" Dean asked, "You mean, using ropes and pitons and all that stuff?" After the ranger said "Yes", voila! Dean now has a free pass to free solo up arches and that poor ranger is under the gun, and this is the reason they posted a "changed" regulation which is nearly identical to the old one.
Just a guess, though ...
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 10, 2006 - 04:44pm PT
|
"I did not have climbing relations with that rock."
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 04:58pm PT
|
Ron-- =D hahaha
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:10pm PT
|
It is illegal to climb the Golden Gate Bridge but, rock climbers have been doing it for over 40 years. As near as I can tell, none of them have taken a film crew and bunch of cameras to document theor ascent. They did it because it was climbable and they wanted to climb it.
I would have much more repect for Dean Potter if he had just gone out and done Delicate Arch without all the publicity machine in tow. The fact that he so aggressively attempted to publicize the ascent completely destroys any credibilty he has as to the real reason(s) he did the climb. It looks like Dean is just another in a long line of selfish, self-centered climbers. Yawn!
Bruce
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:12pm PT
|
I only vaguely know Dean, he's struck me as a free spirit, and he's obviously a very good climber.
But, and this is a big but, what he did was totally inappropriate. Not the climb itself -- I wouldn't have any problem with him doing that on the sly.
But to do it as a publicity stunt is throwing sand in the faces of everyone who has worked hard to preserve access to climbing on Federal Land. And I'm equally disappointed in Patagonia for even thinking that it was OK to promote Dean doing that.
|
|
Mick K
climber
Northern Sierra
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:15pm PT
|
It wasn't that he climbed it... but now no one else has the oportunity to argue they shouldn't be prosecuted.
Selfish act- as he will be the last to ever get away with climbing it.
How can you say there is not an access isse as a result. Dean got away with it (good for him) but no one else will ever get away with it. He should have climbed it on the sly and let the rest of us have a shot at it. Now if you try I suspect you will be p[rosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Thanks Dean, it isn't like climbers don't already have an uphill battle already
|
|
lost
climber
truckee
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:19pm PT
|
Lovesgas
There was already a change in Arches policy and it is that they added more words to say the same thing. There currently is no addtional restrictions on climbing in Arches. Slacklining is dumb anyways so who cares about that. The people who continue to cry about access this access that apprently rank up there with the LDS people who claim in op-ed section of the slt, that god made the arch and the oils from our skin will ruin it. Give up it is over. Dean's problem is that he tried to be too rad.
|
|
Ben909
Trad climber
toronto
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:25pm PT
|
I'm sure Dean "respected natures rules" and had a great spiritual experience but his ascent, contrary to incredibly easy to understand rules, encourages others to repeat it. What's to say these people will be as respectful to the rock as Dean? And why would so profound an experience with nature need to be filmed and talked about?
I can definetly understand the desire to climb that formation or any other beautiful piece of rock but his lack of respect for the rules that the rest of us have to follow really makes me want to publish that Mill Creek guide I've been working on...
|
|
MikeL
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 05:54pm PT
|
If style matters: "not cool."
|
|
paulj
climber
utah
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 06:28pm PT
|
From AccessFund.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 10, 2006
Contact:
Robb Shurr, Access Fund
robb@accessfund.org
303.545.6772 x100
Access Fund Condemns Delicate Arch, UT Climb
A recent ascent of Delicate Arch in Utah’s Arches National Park has fueled a firestorm of media coverage and interest from federal land managers, politicians and the climbing community. See Park tweaks rules after Delicate Arch climb in the May 10 edition of the SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3804296);. Many individuals—both climbers and non-climbers—have expressed outrage at this event, and the climb has received both statewide and national media attention.
The Access Fund does not condone the climb of Delicate Arch and the actions of this individual are not representative of the climbing community.
The Access Fund supports justifiable climbing restrictions which protect natural and cultural resources and works towards effective and reasonable climbing management policies is cooperation with land managers and the greater climbing community. This process of discussion limits unnecessary restrictions, results in climbing management policies based on mutual agreement, and helps to ensure cooperation and effective enforcement of climbing policies.
We trust the public will understand that the actions of one person should not condemn the larger community of climbers who are equally appalled by this event. The Access Fund urges all climbers to recognize and limit the impacts of their climbing practices on the environment and other users of the land and to respect existing closures. If questionable restrictions arise, climbing advocacy efforts opposing such unreasonable restrictions should follow proper administrative procedures.
Climbers pride ourselves on respect for the environment and the Access Fund’s stewardship efforts around the country speak directly to the greater climbing public taking responsibility for climbing resources.
Policy Questions: contact Jason Keith, jason@accessfund.org
Media inquiries: contact Robb Shurr, robb@accessfund.org
|
|
lost
climber
truckee
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 06:31pm PT
|
No offense but the Access Fund is a weak talk too much do too little group. They do not speak for me as a climber.
|
|
rockgizmo
Trad climber
greeley, co
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 06:44pm PT
|
I would have to say it is irresponsible for D. Potter to do or even to attempt to climb an Arch in the park. I also think corporation such as Black Diamond and Patagonia etc who are huge sponsor of environmental and conservations issues/programs would support such a climber in their ranks (I dont know if they do, but if they are they should reconsider). It is my own opinion but any corporation who sponsors someone to climb also agrees with the ethical choices of that individual and their choice of routes they decide to climb. If climbing corporation or magazines continue to sponsor such a climber then they are indirectly supporting the act. Corporation that support/ sponsor D. Potter economically or by publishing article on him, have doomed the environment to senseless acts.
|
|
piquaclimber
Trad climber
Durango
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 07:04pm PT
|
Dingus,
I guess this is the line I had trouble with
"Its this whole 'us' thing that bugs me. I don't think of climbing and 'all climbers' as 'us.' "
I have read too many well written posts from you to believe that you don't get that any one climber's actions can have repercussions on all climbers. Is part of your stance that you don't really care about climbing in Arches?
FWIW, I don't like the rules that are imposed on climbing areas either. Like many have said, it's cool to climb them, just don't draw attention to yourself. I have climbed things that you will never see on my website for exactly that reason.
I guess I just expected you to be more access minded. Or have I been trolled?
Brad
More importantly... What would Cort think?
|
|
pc
climber
East of Seattle
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 07:12pm PT
|
I agree this was a poor choice but let's not hang the guy without even know the facts. Perhaps he was just a victim of circumstance, where he came up with the idea of doing the climb, chatted casually about it with his buds from Patagonia who then asked to come along and spontaneously decided to film it. They got so excited by the "moment" they called back to the mother ship, relayed the details to the "wrong" person at the mother ship and then all hell broke loose.
You never know...
|
|
David
Trad climber
San Rafael, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 07:31pm PT
|
re"chatted casually about it with his buds from Patagonia who then asked to come along and spontaneously decided to film it."
Nice spin but that's not how it works. Dean Potter isn't Brad Pitt. He doesn't have paparazzi following him 24/7. If he wanted to climb with out cameras rolling all he had to do was choose a day and time that only he knew. It would have been that easy. The only way sponsors with cameras show up is if Potter gets on the phone and explicitly tells them where and when to show up. Besides, take a look at the photo credit in the newspaper article. It was Potter himself that gave the photos to the press.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 07:45pm PT
|
Dean supposedly scoped out the climb a bunch of times. Why did he decide to do the ascent only when the cameras were rolling? I don't think this was a case of Patagonia siezing an opportunity. Dean knew exactly what he was doing. He is a professional climber who relies on sponsorship and the media for his existence. To assume some sort of naivete on Dean's part is well, um, uh, naive.
Bruce
|
|
yo
climber
I'm so over it
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 07:53pm PT
|
Whoa, the Actless Fund condemns?
Then I remove my condemnation.
I now endorse!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 08:19pm PT
|
This reminds me a bit of when an Italian (?) got a permit to climb Mt. Kailas and the world community of climbers rose to condem the planned ascent, to the point that the mountain remains unclimbed.
There is a difference here in that Mt. Kailas is sacred from a religious aspect. Delicate Arch is sacred from ... whell heck, it's sacred from the Gov'ts point of view.
Does this differ from ascents of the Totem Pole or Devil's Tower, which are considered sacred to native americans?
|
|
pc
climber
East of Seattle
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 08:26pm PT
|
Bruce, If that's the case then he must have fully anticipated the outcome of the event. I'm having a tough time seeing the upside to Dean on this venture...
Photos unlikely to be published - assuming ethical straight line by rags.
Possible loss of sponsorship - there are folks here already crying for the boot.
Video commerce? - Seems like the return on this wouldn't justify the potential negative press or loss of sponsorship.
MySpace or YouTube - post the video for free. Generate tons of personal PR. Reap what reward?
Beats me.
pc
|
|
wilcox510
climber
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 09:57pm PT
|
k-man, this is clearly different than climbing devils tower. The tower has a voluntary closure for one month (I think) a year. Im sure people violate that, but its not illegal, and it is fully legal to climb the tower the rest of the year. What dean did was illegal. Semantic bullshit aside, i'm sure he knew fully well that climbing the arch was illegal, even if the apparently cant press charges because of vague wording (which doesnt seem very vague to me). My issue isnt with whether or not it should be illegal to climb the arch (or devils tower, its that he undoubtedly knew it was illegal and did it anyways without considering the possible consequences of his selfish egotistical act. He knew fully well this would cause a sh#t storm and cause more NPS/climber tension.
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 10:32pm PT
|
Did Potter graduate High School?
Please Advise
Batten
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 10, 2006 - 10:43pm PT
|
"nailing a few bongs"???
Is this coming from a person that thought that the RR Rendezvous meant a month long drunk in Florida?
You gotta be trolling Rad.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 10:46pm PT
|
I say allow any and all who feel the need to climb the arches.. or anything else for that matter, to climb the arches.
F*#K, what is the worst thing that could happen? We lose a guy who couldn't bring it? Blood stains don't last long in the desert environment anyway.
What else? The rock degrades? Sorry, your going to have a hard time telling me that a couple of guys with little rubber shoes and some chalk is going to ruin the rock. And isn't all rock degrading anyway? Eventually the earth will have it's way. We might be helping the natural course of things. Remember, everything is breaking down! And you can't stop it.
What else? This starts the line at the bottom of each of the arches? So what? Who gets hurt the most there...? The people who are just there to look and take pictures of themselves standing in front of the big arch? If we could step back just enough to get our collective heads out of our collective arses, we could see that neither of these really works. You can't have both. The guy standing there taking the picture is doing just as much damage as the guy climbing. Because he's there, he's doing damage. Sorry, but in my experience, the folks there to take pictures have the same disregard for others experience in the park as any climber I've met at the base. You say we'll ruin the rock, I say these RV's with their families should maybe try to pick up after themselves, or maybe not visit at all.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the whole "leave no trace" ethic, but no matter how you explain it to me I will still say that there is a trace after we've left. Climbers are pretty good with ethics, but if you've ever walked a trail... you been part of the "leaving a trace".
So climb away. Climb anything you can, while you can.
Jingy Rant
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
|
May 10, 2006 - 11:10pm PT
|
From looking at the Arch it appears to be in a state of highly unstable equilibrium.
It is quite possible that a single climber could bring the whole thing down.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 10, 2006 - 11:13pm PT
|
Too lazy to research the thread.
Jingy, climber erosion is actually a serious problem.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 12:38am PT
|
Piton... Serious to who? You? Me? Who the hell are we?
Taken from the one point of view that may just be here long after you or I, and our children's children are long gone... It's going to happen anyway. That arch will fall. Will the earth stop? Probably not!
"But what about future generations?", yeah we should think about them... But not by showing our appreciation for a damn rock. When a rock falls in the Valley who hears it? And who is there with the signs saying "We must stop rock-falls that happen..."?
Sorry again, we humans are f*&kin things up, in a big way and caring for a piece of rock will not change that.
Just take a look at any one of the base camps over on Everest, then tell me how sacred one of the worlds highest peaks is to those who have tread that path.
If we wanted the rock to remain in its natural state... we would not have started climbing. Who are you going to blame this on..? The first climber? I'm sure we can all have a good time trying to get a conversation started there.
Climb away! Climb anything and everything before it falls to the ground or crumbles into dust and is not even worth looking at any longer.
You want to keep things the way they are? That's fine. Don't ever go there. If it weighs too heavily on your mind then please, stop climbing. More climbing for the rest of us.
Nothing personal Piton. I'm just tired of the whole "save the earth" thing. I've heard it enough... haven't seen much action. And the reason is... there's nothing that can be done about environmental degradation. It's been happening since the beginning, and our "not going there" is not going to stop it.
Another Jing-Rant
|
|
Loom
climber
167 stinking feet above sea level : (
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 12:40am PT
|
I feel like I'm listening in on a bunch of stay-between-the-lines, bitchy gossips.
The rock doesn't care, we care about the rock. Dean didn't harm the rock. If others are tempted to climb it, they are responsible for the damage they do, and we should give them sh!t for it once we are certain about what harm they've done.
Climbing is an expression of freedom. I'm not saying there should be no rules or laws; sometimes my expression of freedom bumps into or infringes on someone elses, but IMO the rules against climbing those arches are senseless. If I believe that a law is senseless, burdensome, or immoral I may choose to openly or stealthily break it. If I do so I should know that I could be caught; if caught I shouldn't be surprised that I am punished for breaking the rule or law. Perhaps it will do good if I am caught: I may be wrong and brought to my senses by my punishment (and I will be an example to all the namby-pambies), or I may be right and I can now speak truth to power and fight the senseless law and expose it for all its senselessness.
Dean did not jump into being a sponsored climber like some of the crack whores out there. I don't know if being sponsored has changed him much (I haven't seen him for awhile), but I know he was rebellious and had a problem with authority which I don't fault him for. Perhaps he felt he had reached a point that he was in a powerful enough position that he could be openly defiant.
Did he know that while he was climbing that arch, he was also climbing through a loophole? I doubt it. I don't think he would have been surprised if he was cited for the climb. And I think he would have relished arguing in court. And if he realized it could have jeopardized his sponsorship, but he did it anyway? I sure wouldn't think that was stupid; actually if that were true it would give me some hope for the Disneyfied, McClimbing, sheep pasture, sh#t-hole that climbing is becoming.
When the government clamps down because Dean did his climb it doesn't mean he's a selfish a$$hole who has ruined it for us all (look in the mirror, climbing is a selfish pursuit)--it might just mean that an overbearing government has ruined it for us all and it needs to be confronted, and we shouldn't run away with our tails between our legs. If my climbing--my expression of freedom--leads to a kneejerk crackdown by the government, that is not an example of my expression of freedom infringing on yours--that is government infringement--period
Base jumping was legal in Yosemite for a time. The park service was willing to let people jump, but only on certain days and times (once a month?). Some jumped whenever they felt like it, and the park service eventually banned it completely. Now, some people look at that and shake their heads and say, "what idiots; they could legally jump and now they have to sneak, and if they are caught there's a $2000+ fine, a night in jail, and your expensive rig is confiscated, what dumbfvcks! all they had to do was follow the rules." But the naysayers don't get it--never will.
So, what a big fvcking cataclysm: the loophole (that no one knew was a loophole) has been closed and unless you want to openly participate in an act of civil disobedience you still have to climb Delicate Arch stealthily if you want to climb it and the other arches that are named on the 7.5' map.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 12:42am PT
|
The man in the newspaper said Deans act was hedonistic.
Jingy are you saying we should be hedonistic?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 11, 2006 - 12:43am PT
|
Jingy,
I'm not a hands off kind of person but this was an imprudent act that could cost us far more than ANY of us could gain.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 12:55am PT
|
Loom- Stay between the lines!
Werner- YES! BY EVERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD!
Piton-Who cares? He climbed! He has experienced that. I'm not going to pass judgement on him no matter what happens. I'm going to let all of you do that. What else will it cost? A few grains of sand?
P.S. No more big words, please... I'm half retarded!
Jingy-defense-of-Rant-three-on-one-tactic!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 01:04am PT
|
Loom
One thing no one really understands. The most powerful reason the NPS banned base jumping back in the day was because half the people couldn't land where the were supposed to.
Guys were ending up everywhere, out on the sandbar in the middle of the merced asking for help to get off. Landing in trees asking for help getting down. Landing in other crazy places and the rangers didn't know if they based or were injured or were ok. They had to run around and go find them and make sure. I know because there were many times when we had to go make sure this or that dude that flopped down in some out of sight place wasn't fuccked up or dead.
It tied up to many resources to many times and they got tired of running all over the place every time.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 01:14am PT
|
Crosspost from MP:
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...
|
|
Loom
climber
167 stinking feet above sea level : (
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 01:26am PT
|
Thanks Werner. I didn't know that. So my example sucks : )
But, people still jump in large numbers, and they accept the legal as well as the physical risks. As I said, I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules or laws--and maybe there should be serious restrictions on BASE jumping if there is such a large-scale effect.
I still stand by my argument that if the group is punished for the action of the individual we shouldn't blame the individual, we should blame the punishing authority.
If I am a teacher, and I foolishly turn my back on the teenagers in my classroom, and a wad of paper comes flying through the air to hit me on the head, should I punish the whole class?
So lets all behave ourselves out there.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 01:28am PT
|
Jingy
The Earth is Conscious
This earth planet is not a lump of dead rock as many scientists would like us to believe. We have a body, the ants have a body, the earth planet is a body and the entire universe is a body. The common factor in all bodies is they are pervaded by consciousness.
The earth, therefore, is in a position to react to our attempts to exploit her resources for our sense gratification.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 03:15am PT
|
PC writes:
Bruce, If that's the case then he must have fully anticipated the outcome of the event. I'm having a tough time seeing the upside to Dean on this venture...
Photos unlikely to be published - assuming ethical straight line by rags.
Possible loss of sponsorship - there are folks here already crying for the boot.
Video commerce? - Seems like the return on this wouldn't justify the potential negative press or loss of sponsorship.
MySpace or YouTube - post the video for free. Generate tons of personal PR. Reap what reward?
Beats me.
pc
---------------------------------------------------
One possible explanation for having all the media there is that Dean was defying authority and he wanted his defiance documented. Maybe this was a response to the slack line ban.
But, wether he did it for the publicity or as an act of defiance the end result is the same. And it is not a good result. We climbers have to fight for access to the rock and this kind of action only makes it more difficult.
Bruce
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 03:24am PT
|
"k-man, this is clearly different than climbing devils tower. The tower has a voluntary closure for one month (I think) a year."
The one-month closure was a compromise by the tribes who hold the tower as sacred. They wanted it completely closed, but gave in to just one month, that during the Summer Solstice.
The parallel I'm trying to make is that certain places are "closed" because they are viewed as sacred. Folks still want to climb them, either because they are closed, because no one else has climbed them, or just because they have great climbing.
By and large, the climbing community has abided by the closures and have condemed the ascents of closed formations. Normally it's a compromise with "authorities" to ease tensions and allow for more areas to be open for climbing. People stay away from other formations, Mount Kalias for example, to honor the sacred site.
People who climb sacred formations rarely feel that thier ascents belittle the site, while those that hold it sacred find it blasphemous.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 09:36am PT
|
I have sponsorship from the reverend Jerry Falwell to climb the Dome of the Rock and plant a crucifix. Looking for a videographer to document my sensitivity.
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 09:44am PT
|
There is this Mountain in Tibet, anyone up for a go at it?
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 10:41am PT
|
Werner writes:
"Jingy
The Earth is Conscious"
Not sure where this is going?
"The earth, therefore, is in a position to react to our attempts to exploit her resources for our sense gratification."
Don't see how climbing can be considered exploitation of the planet? But, if that how you see it, I'm not going to be the one to try to sway you. Good argument, with the exception of the exploitation, because it goes to re-enforce my statements. the earth planet will have it's way with us... But not just us climbers! On the grand scale of things , I would think that my placing hands on rock does little to hurt the planet. It's the corporations that might be doing more damage to the earth planet. You want to make a difference... Stop one of them from drilling! Stop one from cutting down an entire grove of trees, or paving over another swath of farmland with nothing but a Wal-Mart to go in it's place. Stop one from buy our politicians from the prez all the way down to the local cop. Stop one from buy a public school, or dumbing down the intellect of the average human... Like what they did with me!
Jingy-Out
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 11:05am PT
|
I am getting ready to climb Dingus’s house. I will free solo to the top. I don’t care if anybody objects because I might fucck up his roof.
Stupid logic!
The house is there and I’ve been studying it for years.
I must do it! I really must.
Hahahaha .......
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 11, 2006 - 11:12am PT
|
No Werner. Don't start yet. One of the cameras needs to be focused.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 11:37am PT
|
If you are really unhappy you should voice your displeasure to patagucci.
" I shall no longer purchase your products bcause you sponsor a selfish twit who is doing a good job of attempting to shut down a climbing area by his idiotic publicity seeking illegal actions."
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 11:47am PT
|
I've always had a relatively positive view of Dean Potter. Until now. If you want the thing you're told you can't have, well, that's awkward. There are ways to deal with it. Video-taping it and proclaiming loudly to the world what you've done is not one of them.
Any of you who think that climbing Delicate Arch is some kind of expression of personal freedom and oneness with the natural world are fooling yourselves. There was nothing "extreme" or impressive about this ascent. It was a thumbing of the nose at the NPS and other land managers, who, like it or not, the climb ing community has to deal with. If we do things to blatantly piss them off, it will cause us problems in the future.
Then someday we'll complain "why is climbing banned in National Parks?" and the answer will be because some of us (yes, climbers are "us," so far as "they" are concerned, whether you like it or not) thought we could get a cheap shot in way back when.
And to answer the recurring question "how is this different from banging on El Cap with a hammer?" I can only respond that you've obviously never touched desert sandstone. 100 people a day climbing Delicate Arch would destroy the thing, at the very least visually, and possibly physically as well. 100 people banging on el cap with a hammer everyday has done, well, very very little overall.
"A few grains of sand" keeps being mentioned as the only cost of climbing Delicate Arch. Maybe for you. But it's a few for every single person who climbs it, and it doesn't take long at all for the traffic to have a very real physical impact on the rock. This stuff is delicate, hence the name.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 11:52am PT
|
I'm flying my mud falcon tomorrow..Anybody know where I can find some NPS employee's?
i'm your huckleberry.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 11, 2006 - 12:07pm PT
|
And if he won't do....
You're a daisy if you do.
(also, well said Forest)
|
|
RocaLibre
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 12:14pm PT
|
Very interesting,
I used to live in the states and now I am in Mexico, something that distinguishes the two countries is the enormous system on Parks in the US and the apparent respect that people in general seem to have for them. All my climbing friends in the states seemed to be very proud of some of them parks and even "respected" their idiosyncrasies (at least in the daylight). Here in Mexico there are parks and some of them have climbing, but you see an utter disrespect for ethics or even common sense, grid bolting, piles of trash, and a general sense that the resource is there for you to use indiscriminately. I think if we had some untouchables that become symbols, that would be ingrained in people’s minds and is a seed of pride in their parks. You need to see an arch without a million f*#ks in it. Climbing is great because its high sense of aesthetics, we love to climb great looking pices of rock, but we hate to see a conga line in the route we want, we love the valley but hate the tourist, well, Potter just behaved like a touron.
|
|
Mick K
climber
Northern Sierra
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 12:20pm PT
|
Could it be that Dean was trying to get arrested so that he could fight the climbing/slacklining ban in court?
If that is the case, then my opinion on the matter would change.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 12:29pm PT
|
"I know 3 people, pesonally, that have climbed Shiprock."
Sure, and I know folks who've climbed Devil's Tower, Cave Rock, and so on. [And I mention these two formations specifically because they are off limits from a native-american point of view, but are "legal" from a US-law viewpoint.] Usually the ascents of sacred sites are done on the sly and the climbers don't feel they're knocking any spirits around by trekking on the formations. (Mount Kalias is a notable example of where climbers have restrained themselves.)
As far as sacred formations are concerned, one group will claim that a formation is sacred, another will claim that their religion is climbing and making ascents is how they worship.
If you [Dingus] say "Climbers are not allowed to climb my house" and Werner mocks you by posting a photo of himself swinging from your chimney by a lasso and claims he's not a climber but a cowboy with a lust for roping bricks, you'd probably get pissed (or just laugh your ass off).
What's the point here? It's that people usually don't like to have sand thrown in thier face. In our climbing community, we see ourselves as indivuduals. Those outside our community see us as a group. When an individual in our group acts, it reflects on our whole group.
Pass the mustard, please...
|
|
Rhodo-Router
Gym climber
Otto, NC
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 12:56pm PT
|
Re: "Could it be that Dean was trying to get arrested so that he could fight the climbing/slacklining ban in court? "
Good luck with that one. NPS is clearly authorized to manage 'their' 'resource' as they see fit.
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.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 01:00pm PT
|
Does anyone know what their stated rationale for prohibiting climbing on named formation is, in the first place?
Liability?
Preservation?
Bojed photo opps?
"it's wrong"
other?
|
|
mtn
climber
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 01:07pm PT
|
Re: "Could it be that Dean was trying to get arrested so that he could fight the climbing/slacklining ban in court? "
Could it be that Dean does these things to get them banned so that he is the first and last to do such things and get recognition for them?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 11, 2006 - 01:28pm PT
|
Just because it has a name on a map is no reason to place it off limits, but Delicate Arch, c'mon.
Even I knew enough to leave THAT one alone.
The rock in Arches, while being very fine grained (which is GOOD for durability), is unfortunately very poorly cemented. The bonding material that holds those silica crystals together has very little strength.
In the perhaps not too distant future climbers will be forced to recognize that compromises will have to be made. When the resource degrades SO easily we will be left with little to climb unless we show a certain degree of restraint.
Reaching an agreement as to WHERE that degree is to be found will certainly be a challenge, but clearly the effects of repeated performances of this nature would result in wearing down of an icon as shoe wear, hold breakage and grooves from rope retrieval would all be cumulative.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 01:36pm PT
|
Ron, I've climbed in Arches (Not DA!) and recognize the reasons you state. I was wondering what the offical word is. I suspect it is not as conservation minded as our reasons are.
Not to say that preservation isn't of some importance to the powers that be, there; I have been to the 'Firey Furnace,' and seen the movie and been quized, before I was deemed 'responsible' enough to hike in that area.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 11, 2006 - 03:07pm PT
|
Tell him Ron says hi to him and Steph.
Ask him if he's read the threads and whether or not he feels that perhaps this was more of a loser than a winner in light of the (ahem, cough cough) exposure.
|
|
Bilbo
Trad climber
Truckee
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 03:12pm PT
|
Tell him: He is a self centered ASS, and he should stick to slacklining.
|
|
Apocalypsenow
Trad climber
Cali
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 03:17pm PT
|
OK, I will copy and paste right off this site. Fire away! Seriously, I know his wife is going to be at Smith, suppose Potter will be with her.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 03:27pm PT
|
HOW EXACTLY DID HE GET OFF THE THING, AND HOW DID HE AVOID ANY IMPRESSIONS FROM THE ROPE?
(oops, caps lock) why not just downclimb and jump onto pads?
did pattagucci know in advance?
why did he think it was legal?
why did he make it so public w/out even checking if it was legal?
would he do the same thing again, or would he do it quietly instead?
why didn't he rig a killer hammock swing under that thing?
(wouldn't need fixed anchors for that either)
|
|
Bilbo
Trad climber
Truckee
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 03:35pm PT
|
Matt- There's a few links to news articles in Part 1 that answer your questions.
|
|
Minerals
Social climber
The Deli
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 09:01pm PT
|
Maybe I can get Patagonia to sponsor my next ‘environmentally friendly’ dirt bike extravaganza! Time trials from Happy Isles to Merced Lake… Only two-strokes allowed; trench-digging 500s preferred. Bonus points for mowing down stupid tourons. $20 entry fee required; winner takes all (but cash prize will be paid in beer (of your choice)). The cameras will be rolling… let’s see what you throttle heads have got!!!
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 09:08pm PT
|
i think it's time for this thread to go away. nothing new has been said since the first few posts, and mr. potter can make his peace with the nps and patagonia it whatever manner he sees fit.
as for myself, i'm going to get in my car and endure the 12 minute drive to the best limestone roof climbing on the planet.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 11, 2006 - 09:23pm PT
|
No you're not.
It's now prohibited.
Limestone has been declared protected, to make tonics in drinks.
Against the new rulez, bad boy Bob.
|
|
PDHMAN
Trad climber
Eastside N of Bishop just S of 395
|
|
|
May 12, 2006 - 12:56am PT
|
Ask him what Jimmy (Dunn) thinks about his gig on the DA???
|
|
Eddie
Trad climber
Boston
|
|
|
May 12, 2006 - 01:22am PT
|
what's it go at?
Why didn't he downclimb it?
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
May 12, 2006 - 01:30pm PT
|
Whoever suggested that he may have done this to get back at the park for their outlawing of slacklining - there's probably at least a grain of truth in that.
As for the person who asked what the park's justification is for their rules, I don't know, but here's my guess:
They feel, and I think they are correct in this, that climbers' interests and hikers' interests are, in some cases, at cross purposes. It is their role to determine where to draw the lines to best protect the interests of each. They seem to be trying to accomplish that, in the sense that most hikers come in to check out a limited number of arches, and so they're trying to preserve them for that interest group, while recognizing the climbers' interests in most of the arches, and all the other formations.
GO
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
May 12, 2006 - 01:44pm PT
|
Could be, and I am sure they would agree with what you said.
But I would like to see it in the park's words, so to speak. I suspect they have never articulated them as eruditely as you did.
|
|
Ain't no flatlander
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2006 - 03:58pm PT
|
Ask him how many times he rehearsed the climb on a top rope before making the "onsight." When he shot the arrow over the arch to pull up the rope, did he use a compound bow? What type of rope is best for pulling repeatedly across soft sandstone?
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
May 12, 2006 - 04:05pm PT
|
You guys sound like a bunch of bickering BASE jumpers over someone possibly burning a site.
Werner. Can't hit the meadow? Back then the parachutes had a very low glide ratio. Now any dimwit should make the meadow if they pull around El Cap Tower.
You all should be aware that land managers have a very long memory.
|
|
UberBabs1
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2006 - 04:37pm PT
|
Slabby D: Don't know if any other "lawyer" has chimed in. But based on k-man's citation of the statutory language, maybe someone thought the old reg only concerned the three named formations. (I have not read the actual regulation). Here's a little primer on statutory construction (from a copyright case; I'm doing research on copyright, so) that should numb the mind and stifle discourse:
The Majority concludes that because the statute does not expressly grant standing to assignees of an accrued cause of action, such persons do not have standing. See op. at 885-86. Rather, the Majority reasons that, applying the maxim of statutory construction expressio unius exclusio alterius est,“Congress' explicit listing of who may sue for copyright infringement should be understood as an exclusion of others from suing for infringement.” Op. at 885 (emphasis in original). In my view, the Majority misapplies this maxim of statutory construction.
First, such maxims of statutory construction are to be used only when Congressional intent cannot be discerned. Indeed, we have noted:
Most strongly put, the expressio unius, or inclusiounius, principle is that ‘[w]hen a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes a negative of any other mode.’ This is a rule of interpretation, not a rule of law. The maxim is ‘a product of logic and common sense,’ properly applied only when it makes sense as a matter of legislative purpose···· [T]he expressio unius principle describes what we usually mean by a particular manner of expression, but does not prescribe how we must interpret a phrase once written. Understood as a descriptive generalization about language rather than a prescriptive rule of construction, the maxim usefully describes a common syntactical implication. ‘My children are Jonathan, Rebecca and Seth’ means ‘none of my children are Samuel.’ Sometimes there is no negative pregnant: ‘get milk, bread, peanut butter and eggs at the grocery’ probably does not mean ‘do not get ice cream.’ ”
Longview Fibre Co. v. Rasmussen, 980 F.2d 1307, 1313 (9th Cir.1992) (internal citations omitted). See also Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of R.R. Passengers, 414 U.S. 453, 458, 94 S.Ct. 690, 38 L.Ed.2d 646 (1974) (“This principle of statutory construction reflects an ancient maxim- expressio unius est exclusion alterius··· But even the most basic general principles of statutory construction must yield to clear contrary evidence of legislative intent.”). Here, Congressional intent is readily discernible, and, as demonstrated above, contrary to the Majority's application of the maxim.
Second, commentators have noted that the use of maxims of statutory construction such as “ expressio unius ” are problematic insofar as there is no hierarchy of maxims of statutory interpretation. Why choose expressio unius rather than another maxim, indeed, the exact opposite: that listing some cases may include others? ( see fn. 9, infra ). In his recent book, A Matter of Interpretation, Justice Scalia wrote, “[t]he hard truth of the matter is that American courts have no intelligible, generally accepted, and consistently applied theory of statutory interpretation.” FN9 Antonin*900 Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, 14 (1997) (quoting Henry M. Hart, Jr. & Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process 1169 (William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey eds., 1994)).
FN9. See Stephen J. Safranek, Scalia's Lament, 8 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 315, 316 (Spring 2004) (noting the lack of hierarchy among maxims of statutory interpretation; “in the cases where judges apply interpretive aids, the aids are often used in isolation and are not necessarily the controlling method by which the statute is interpreted.”); see also Karl N. Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and The Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed, 3 Vand. L. Rev.. 395, 405 (1949-1950) (noting that “there are two opposing canons on almost every point”; and noting that the opposing canon for the expressio unius exclusio alterius est is “[t]he language may fairly comprehend many different cases where some only are expressly mentioned by way of example”).
Third, while maxims of statutory construction may, indeed, be helpful in interpreting statutes, they are not binding. The Founders, including Alexander Hamilton, recognized as much. See Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 83 at 464 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (“The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of laws. The true test of a just application of them is its conformity with the source from which they are derived.”).
Hence, rather than be guided by a Latin maxim nowhere mentioned by the 1976 Act or our jurisprudence as hierarchically preferable to other means of statutory interpretation, we should be guided by plain legislative intent, which, as our Supreme Court reminds us, trumps the ancient Latin maxim underpinning the Majority Opinion's conclusion. See Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 414 U.S. at 459, 94 S.Ct. 690.
Indeed, it should be noted that where Congress chooses to expressly prohibit assignment, it knows how to do so explicitly. See, e.g., Federal Anti-Assignment Act of 1862, 41 U.S.C. § 15 (expressly prohibiting public contract claims against the U.S. government from being assigned); Federal Assignment of Claims Act of 1940, 31 U.S.C. § 3727 (expressly prohibiting assignment of federal claims against the U.S. government from being assigned); Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (expressly prohibiting the assignment of pension benefits). Here, that Congress did not prohibit assignment of infringement claims may well carry a negative pregnant that it intended not to prohibit assignment.
A second consideration in statutory interpretation is practicality, or put another way, the avoidance of an absurd result. See Royal Foods Co., Inc. v. RJR Holdings Inc., 252 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.2001) (courts will not interpret a statute in a way that results in an absurd or unreasonable result). Here, were the statute to be read literally, it would result in absurd or unreasonable results.
It has long been recognized that assignment of the copyright does not automatically include assignment of accrued causes of action for earlier infringements of the copyright. See Prather, 410 F.2d at 700 (“ ‘a mere assignment of a copyright does not itself transfer to the assignee any cause of action for infringements that occurred prior to the assignment. Unless the assignment of copyright contains language explicitly transferring causes of action for prior infringements, the assignee cannot maintain a suit for infringements which happened before the effective date of the assignment.’ ”) (internal citations omitted). See also DeSilva Construction Corp. v. Herrald, 213 F.Supp. 184, 192 (M.D.Fla.1962) (holding that the assignment of copyright under 1909 Act does not include the right to sue for “infringements antedating the assignment” and since the assignment as written failed to contain such a grant, “no such right is conferred by the assignment”).
The recognition that the right to an accrued cause of action did not (in the absence of an express contractual assignment*901 of such rights) automatically follow the assignment of the copyright is necessarily a recognition that the two rights should be capable of being separate assets. As separate assets, like any other property right, the two rights can be separately alienated. That much was squarely decided in Prather, supra.
Similar to the 1909 Act, courts have interpreted the 1976 Act to mean that an assignment of a copyright does not automatically carry with it accrued claims unless such claims are specifically named in the contract of assignment. For example, in Infodek, Inc. v. Meredith-Webb Printing Co., Inc., 830 F.Supp. 614 (N.D.Ga.1993), in interpreting the 1976 Act, the court held “the case law clearly states that a transfer of interest for accrued damages must be stated in no uncertain terms. It follows that the transfer of interest to past infringements did not pass from [assignor] to [plaintiff assignee] in the first assignment despite the alleged intent to transfer any and all accrued damages.” Infodek, 830 F.Supp. at 620 (citing Prather, 410 F.2d at 700).
The recognition under both the 1909 and 1976 Acts that an accrued cause of action for copyright infringement is an asset separate from the copyright or the exclusive uses of the copyright saves 501(b) from some absurd results.
Read as the Majority does, Section 501 of the 1976 Act converts a claim for relief for infringement into a life estate, by providing a cause of action for copyright infringement but only for the person who owned the exclusive right at the time of the infringement. The statute would preclude an assignee of the copyright and accrued causes of action from suing on an accrued cause of action-which infringement, by definition was not “committed while he or she was the owner of it.”
The following result would obtain: if a copyright owner instituted suit for copyright infringement (“while he was the owner”), and then assigned the copyright after instituting such suit, the assignee of the copyright and the accrued cause of action could not maintain such suit, for the assignee was not the owner when the infringement occurred. In addition, the text would have to be read such that when the “he” or “she” who owned the exclusive right at the time of the infringement of the copyright dies, “his” or “her” heirs cannot institute the infringement action, for the same reason.
Luckily, Section 501(b) has not been so interpreted. See17 U.S.C. § 501(b). Rather, the section has been interpreted to allow the post-1976 assignee of the accrued cause of action to maintain the suit for accrued causes of action. Indeed, courts have recognized that assignees of a copyright may maintain an action instituted by the previous owner during which such previous ownership the infringement claim arose. See, e.g., ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 944 F.2d 971 (2d Cir.1991) (allowing plaintiff to bring suit for copyright infringement that had occurred prior to plaintiff's owning any copyright interest where plaintiff was assigned the right to accrued causes of action); see also17 U.S.C. § 201(d)(2) (1976) (“[t]he owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner.”).
Accordingly, if individuals can bring suit on an accrued infringement claim that did not accrue while he or she was the owner, there is no reason the accrued cause of action cannot be assigned here.
Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
402 F.3d 881
C.A.9 (Cal.),2005.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 12, 2006 - 04:50pm PT
|
Sheesh!
OK thats 101, now we're overloaded again. I'm starting Indelicate Arch Climb? part III, the resurrected horse
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
May 12, 2006 - 04:56pm PT
|
There hasn't been much of an objective look at how much damage, if any, was really and truly done by someone free soloing this thing. That is probably the entire point of the Park Service--they fear this zillion year old arch might get damaged and defaced by people climbing on it, or if one person climbs it, others will follow and ruin the thing. I'm curious as to how much actual damage was done to the arch. If this is all about what "might happen" in the future, setting a dangerous precedent and all that, that's another issue.
JL
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
May 14, 2006 - 01:38pm PT
|
Here is a scenario. A herd of tuoronasaurus photographicus are milling around the base of delicate arch on a typical Arches scorcher. From the crowd emerges a wild haired youth. He is on summer vacation with his parents. He is wearing his Dean Potter chinos and Dean Potter polo shirt. He sports an empty but oh so fashionable Dean Potter chalk bag. The chalk bag is empty as new Park Service regulations require leaving all nail clippers, climbing paraphenallia and "chalk" at check point Potter before entering. In the sixties this kid would have been wearing a cowbow costume complete with six shooter. But that was old hero stuff. This kid doesn't want to be like Gary Cooper and he doesn't want to "be like Mike". He wants to be like Dean! The kid has seen this scene before. Cyber DejaVu. Something deep in his cerebral cortex clicks and the kid becomes transfixed and transcendent. Ignoring the newly bolted on "no climbing above sign" sign and his parents consternation he goes for it just like BigD. Only his spiritual quest ends as a sweated off splat spot at his parents feet. Damn that Park Service rule against chalk. Did I mention the hoard of cameras clicking and whirring away. You just can't buy publicity like that!
While Dean is in no way responsible for the actions of others he should be accountable for his own. He should have known better. I really wonder what was the actual dialog he had with the ranger. Dean "hey can I climb that thing". Ranger " oh yeah sure go for it no body gives a sh#t Mr. Potter".
What could be clearer, No climbing on named arches and no white chalk! The issue is not a single ascent of Delicate Arch. Which by the way vibrated for Dean not because of his transcendence but because it is very "Delicate". Just look at how massively top heavy it is above the erosion zones. The issue is on going and long term relations with land managers everywhere for all climbers' access. Does anyone like having to have their hand held by rangers to climb at Hueco? What about the 'great' treatment climbers get at Red Rocks Nv.? Many areas around the country that are of significant interest to climbers are up for review of their use and management. And what about Private land owners? Do you think they care how cool Dean is?
Take for example Lou Pai. Louie is the former founder of Enron who owns the Taylor Ranch, one of the largest land parcels in Colorado. The Taylor Ranch contains all of Mount Culebra the only state 14er wholly owned by a single private citizen. Access to climb Culebra has been more than problematic since Louie and his armed patrols took over. And trust me Mr Lou will use anything, anything to restrict access to his domain. And that is only one example. The 14ers are criss crossed with private lands and mining claims. Now you or Dean may not care to one day climb all of the 14ers in Colorado but believe me it is a dream and motivation to a great many more people than those who aspire to climb 5.16. And in the long run, all fads aside, the regular outside Joes (and Janes) are the engine of the outdoor industry. Glamour sells but it's regular folk that buy and they buy what they can believe in. Or are sold! Now if these folks cant fulfill their dreams because of imposed access restrictions will the market be happy? Face it our independent free spirited transcendental communion with nature IS big business.
Just because the NPS has so far only said oops guess we need to dumb down the legal speak don't for a moment think that this is over. I predict in a few years it and similarly bone headed acts will be called pullin' a Potter or perhaps doin' a Dean.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 89 of total 89 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!