At first Potter's handler at Patagonia spread the word of his climb by calling a press release to the Salt Lake Tribune. Public outrage was immediate, though, especially in Utah, where many see Delicate Arch as a symbol for the state's wild beauty. The company's communications department took over and Potter retreated from public view.
Meanwhile, Park Service officials swiftly moved to close a loophole that Potter used to justify his climb. The regulations, which had been in effect since 1988, stated that rock-climbing routes "may be closed" on any arch named on detailed topographical maps. Two days after the climb, park officials changed the wording to say that all named arches are closed to climbing year-round.
They also passed two other regulations that officials insist were simply overdue and not a reaction against what Potter did: Henceforth, slacklining (tightrope walking, often on a long piece of webbing) will not be allowed in Arches, and the placement of new fixed anchors on new climbs is also prohibited. Many climbers blame Potter for both
| The Dean Debate |
| Vote here on whether or not you think Dean Potter should have climbed Delicate Arch, then see the current poll standings. |
changes. Shortly before the Delicate Arch ascent, Potter rigged a slackline between the park's Three Gossips, a series of exposed rock pillars some 200 feet off the ground. And until two days after his climb, climbers could place bolts on new routes with a hand-powered drill.
"The fixed-anchor change means we basically can't do new routes in Arches anymore," says Jimmie Dunn. "There's a lifetime's worth back there."
Far more virulent was the critical hurricane that tore through the blogosphere. Some blamed Potter for trying to gain publicity (which is, after all, part of his job). In online forums like Mountain Project, other climbers debated his motives.
"A spiritual adventure, my ass," wrote user Phil Broscovak. "Om mani pahdme hooey!"
Others, like Utah climber Ken Cangi and Trango's Malcolm Daly, rose to Potter's defense. "Why are you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill?" Cangi asked one critic.
Indeed, compared with other indignities that the park's formations have suffered, a few rope marks might pale in comparison. There are deep rope gouges carved on crags like Owl Rock, a legal place to climb inside the park. Delicate Arch itself was damaged in September 2000 when Michael Fatali, a photographer, set a fire at the base to light a picture he wanted to take. Fatali was later convicted of damaging park resources and paid nearly $11,000 in fines and restitution.
But Dunn says the gripes about Potter's climb quickly roared to a level "beyond anything I can remember." Stunned by the outcry, Potter sent out an urgent e-mail titled "I NEED HELP!" in which he included the e-mail address for Patagonia's CEO, Casey Sheahan, and asked people to write in on his behalf. Hundreds did, says Jen Rapp, a company spokesperson, but so did plenty of others who wrongly assumed Patagonia knew about Potter's plans in advance.
 |
 |
 |
Tourists at the base of 60-foot-tall Delicate Arch. (Steve Howe)
|
 |
|
|
A former Patagonia employee familiar with the Ambassador program for professional athletes estimates that Potter probably earns at least $50,000 a year from the company to travel around doing slideshows, attend product-design meetings, and represent climbers on behalf of the brand. The Ventura, California-based company hires about 30 of these pros in a wide array of adventure sports, including seven other rock climbers, like Steph Davis and Katie Brown. The "shit storm" over Delicate Arch, Rick Ridgeway says, was a blow against Patagonia's reputation for having a strong environmentally oriented mission.
"Right after the climb, the official position we put out was that we had no position," Ridgeway says. "Personally, I was opposed to that, as it was mealymouth."
An upper-echelon debate at Patagonia ensued, Ridgeway says. Some execs felt the company should support Potter's stunt as an issue of climbers' rightsas long as he broke no laws and didn't damage the rock. Others believed the spirit of the law had been broken and that the company had to do something to soothe outraged climbers. On Friday, May 26, they came to an agreement: They would strongly urge Potter to issue a public apology, and to make it clear that he didn't perform the climb on behalf of Patagonia.
"We haven't given him an ultimatum," Ridgeway says. "But we've come to a consensus. We want him to apologize."
The thing that riles climbers most, says Dunn, isn't that Potter climbed Delicate Arch but, rather, that he flaunted the feat to the world, a move that embarrassed the Park Service and broke an unspoken trust that climbers had with officials to respect the intent of the law. "We all knew not to climb it, and Dean knew that, too," says Dunn. "He had to put a flag on top. It makes me want to vomit."
At first, Potter refused to talk about the Delicate Arch incident when Outside contacted him in Yosemite over Memorial Day weekend. The next day he called back, saying he had not been pressured to speak on the record by Patagonia. He apologizedsort ofsaying that he was "sorry that all this negativity has arisen from such a beautiful communion with nature," that he should be allowed to take pictures of his exploits just like everybody else, and that, at the time, he saw "no reason legally or morally" that he shouldn't have climbed the arch.
"The voice of the community is important to me," he said. "My views are not concrete. I'm open to change." In a private e-mail exchange among colleagues, Potter also said climbing the arch represented his "freedom of expression."
And that, insists Eric Perlman, is where the bickering should end.
"I can't speak for Dean, but I can say that if I were in his positionknowing that I had done the best that I could do and my motives were pure and my execution was pure in the highest styleif other people choose to misinterpret what I've done, that's their business," he says. "I don't have to bow down and apologize for doing what I did just because you have an opinion that's counter to it."