Sara Porterfield

I found your article on Dean Potter’s ascent of Delicate Arch to be an interesting and provocative call to the climbing and environmentalist communities. I am responding both as a climber and an environmentalist; I think Potter’s actions affect both communities in similar and adverse ways. I do not agree with what Potter did. In my mind he treated Delicate Arch, an icon of natural beauty and wilderness values, in a very flippant and self-absorbed manner, which reflects negatively on both the climbing community and the environmental values of our country.

Our treatment of the natural world is the direct result of what Aldo Leopold called a "land ethic," which he defined as having both ecological and philosophical components. From an ecological standpoint, an ethic is "a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence." Philosophically, an ethic is "a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct." In other words, in both senses an ethic implies respect for the community and a focus on actions which are conscious of and benefit the whole rather than the individual. In an ideal world, a land ethic "changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such."

Sadly, our land ethic today does not reflect Leopold’s idea of how we should see ourselves in context with the land. Instead of making decisions which benefit each other, wildlife, and the land itself the majority of our society values the natural world as a place to extract commodities such as oil and gas or to perform adrenaline-pumping, attention-getting acts such as Potter did. Our actions reflect a culture which places consumerism and individual gain above the community itself. Therefore, enviros should maybe not prioritize "going after" Potter, but they (we) certainly should devote attention to his actions because they help to fuel a negative land ethic just as oil and gas leases or Norton’s road-validity declarations do. A land ethic must include not only the treatment of commodities gained from it but also the recreational activities which occur on it. Instead of fostering an ethical and beneficial land ethic, Potter’s ascent of Delicate Arch reflects the quest for personal achievement and attention that mainstream society values, even though climbers and other outdoor recreationists tend to seek to set themselves apart from the mainstream (I know I do).

Potter’s climb is accepted because it is not only in keeping with our society’s less desirable values, but also because he was able to invoke wilderness values as a reason for his actions. I would argue that those values – solitude, peace, spirituality – are marketable (how else do national parks and the resulting tourism industry appeal to the public and earn money?) and that Potter used this to his advantage. He could "sell" folks on his climb because they would be familiar with those "intangible" values legally recognized by the Wilderness Act of 1964.

As a climber, I disagree with his free solo of Delicate Arch because it perpetuates the popular notion that the climbing community is composed of adrenaline junkies who are always searching for the "next big one." This reflects badly on the people of the community as well as gives non-climbers the idea to go out and pull similar stunts, which they are not qualified to do. The result is rash decisions and actions which are both unsafe and unethical. Potter’s climb also threatens the chance at a communal ethic which embraces a healthy land ethic as well as safe, informed, holistic actions; again, it places the individual over the community. This could lead to limited access for climbers in other areas where they have spent time building rapport with and earning the trust of local landowners and/or governing bodies. Agencies such as the Access Fund spend their time trying to dispel the myth of the character of climbers mentioned above and proving that we are worthy of access to and capable of caring for the land.

George Perkins Marsh, a nineteenth century intellectual and one of the first conservationists, declared that "every new fact, illustrative of the action and reaction between humanity and the material world around it, is another step toward the determination of the great question, whether man is of nature or above her." What do our actions say about our answer to this "great question"? Will we let feats such as Dean Potter’s ascent of Delicate Arch define our relationship towards the land and our community, or will we work to establish a more holistic and communal land ethic?