Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat Land Swap

To pose a question: Can Climbers Determine What is Done with Public Lands?

While it is a convenient slogan, the facts behind the battle cry “don’t take my public lands” are quite a bit more complex that drawing the conclusion, “It is my land and I therefore have a right to use it as I see fit, or, I have ownership rights over what should be done with it, etc.” Of course as citizens, we are somewhere in the chain of events, but the technical fact is that “public lands” are owned by some governmental entity that manages the land according to some mandate or mission established by that government. In other words, the frequently heard cry, "They can't take Our Lands" may be rooted in fundamental misunderstanding of land ownership, property rights, user rights and entitlements. I’m not saying that it isn’t a useful slogan to get climbers fired up, but when fully exposed we also need to be circumspect.

There could be some loose merit in saying, "It is our land...", but in point of fact the public does not hold any technical ownership interest. Neither the “public” nor any “citizen’s name” appears on the “deed” for the land. Consequently, the public does not have inherent recreational rights. At best they have privileges to recreate within the rules and regulations of the Land Manager of the public lands.

Climbers recreate on a host of public lands - city parks, county recreational areas, State Parks, National Parks, BLM, USFS, etc. When access is threatened they tend to cry foul, "You can't take our land!", or "We've been doing that for years. You can't stop us from doing it." In fact, there probably are relatively few “use rights” associated with public lands. City parks, for example, are public lands but come with fairly defined and bracketed use rights. They only allow certain activities. The parks only are open at certain hours. It probably is more proper to talk about “use privileges” than “use rights.” The government allows citizens to use the land. In some cases the use may have fewer limits, e.g., BLM and USFS, or in other cases very tight limits may apply, e.g., Land Preserves.

And technically, we as citizens do not even “own” public lands. We do not have an ownership right the way we “own” our homes or other real property. We cannot determine its use by ourselves, and we cannot dispose of it by ourselves. And we do not have one of the variations of group ownership of real property such as an undivided share, a fractional ownership, etc.

That means that some governmental entity owns the public land and some governmental entity manages the land according to some established mission. The mission can vary from holding and maintaining land for the benefit of current and future generations (e.g., National Parks) to in part managing the land for the purpose of extracting resources (e.g., the US Forest Service).

So who decides what can be done on public lands? And who determines with those lands? Generally, the governmental branch elected by the people writes into their "laws" which governmental agency has oversight responsibilities and what the general goals of those responsibilities are.

In the case of the USFS lands, the United States Forest Service is charged with managing the USFS designated lands. Their charge is a broad one related to managing the resource, a large part of which relates to proper mining and timber activities. Broad recreational activities are considered part of the USFS management charge, but it is left to the Land Manager (USFS) what uses are appropriate, where they occur, what areas are closed, where additional rules like Wilderness rules apply, etc.

What this means is rather than climbing being a property right where climbers are recreating on "their" land, in point of fact climbing is more of a privilege granted by the Land Manager. So it follows that the best way to maximize climber interests are to both elect public officials who will be friendly to climbing, but also develop and maintain excellent working relationships with the Land Managers whether they be private or public entities.

Sure, I wish we “owned” Oak Flat and could decide its fate. Unfortunately our “say” is only one of many who have a voice as it is heard by the Land Manager and our elected officials. That is why in general we are weighing the pluses and minuses of arguments and trying to lay out a path which maximizes the results for climbers. Indeed, climbers should be our primary constituents when weighing the options.

Fred AmRhein wrote: As to Tamo, it is secure. It is BLM and State Trust land. You are free to go there by road across private land as long as the owner allows or by hiking in via some other route...

As I understand it, access to Tamo is not secure via the current road and the alternative access needs work to be desirable. That is what I meant when I mentioned that we should "secure" Tamo.

Curt Shannon wrote: We're merely at a point currently where RCM is claiming that their hands are tied--because the Senate version of their Bill (the McCain-Bingaman compromise Bill) has been worked out in committee.

That is what I was alluding to when I said that our position had weakened. Things that RCC was offering to include or requested by the QCC to be included can't because the bill has already been worked in committee.

David E. wrote:access to Tamo is not secure via the current road and the alternative access

David,

Ok, thank you for clarifying.

I guess I was replying to the point that the actual land that comprises most of Tamo is public land. Notwithstanding Erik's point about administrative oversight pertaining to ownership, Tamo is your public land.

As to the suitable permanent public "access" to Tamo. I agree and the appropriate public access to Tamo has always been the problem.

Fred

ErikF wrote:To pose a question: Can Climbers Determine What is Done with Public Lands?

Erik,

To answer your question simply, "Yes."

With lots of thanks to the efforts of the QCC, the Access Fund, non/local climbers, and other like-minded individuals and groups, some of whom are climbers and some of whom are not, that are working hard to do this at all levels of the political and administrative spectrum.

Fred

You guys just keep quibbling about the details and we will get screwed. The reason there is little in the legislation that is a carrot for climbers is because you guys can't get your act together. This could have been settled long ago with a much better outcome than is even possible now. If you are going to get in the middle of this then you had better stop thinking about what you want and start thinking about what is in the best interest of the climbing community and the future climbing community.

To have a successful negotiation you have to know what you want and what they want and then be realistic about a compromise. But mostly you have to approach it with the idea of success and a little bit of trust. RCC wants to make us as happy as possible but there are limits.

But go ahead and keep it up so I will get what I want. Tamo will remain forever wild and I won't have to worry about the crowds spoiling my wilderness experience.

Go ahead. Make my day.

^^You crack me up.

What is your point? You are not very clear.

I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Curt Shannon wrote:I say this from the perspective of someone who has probably been following the status of this RCM land exchange legislation as closely as anyone--having made eight trips back to Washington DC over the last five years to attend hearings, meetings with Senate and House staffs, meetings with Agency USDA/NFS staffs and meetings with numerous Congressmen and Senators and their respective staffs. Curt

curt, sincere thanks for your continued time & involvement

Meeting Summary – QCC Board meeting Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Present: Rick Cecala, John Keedy, Fred AmRhein, Curt Shannon, Marty Karabin, Paul Diefenderfer, Greg Opland, and Erik Filsinger

Mike Covington had given his instructions and proxy to Erik Filsinger for the purposes of voting on a new course of action.

Curt Shannon gave an overview of the recent visits with administration and legislative contacts in Washington regarding the Land Exchange.

The discussion covered a wide variety of assumptions and possible interpretations of events. The QCC board members expressed a fairly diverse set of opinions. Among the topics covered were the likelihood of passage of the land exchange, the ability of the opponents of the RCM-backed measure to influence its passage, the importance of continuing to focus on protecting the land surface versus the alternative focus of obtaining the most net rock climbing, and the potential actions consistent with each assumption and opinion.

Paul Diefenderfer moved that: The QCC's goal is to maximize climbing in the Queen Creek region and we seek to accomplish this by agreeing to a deal with RCM that includes access to Tamo and endorsement of the land exchange legislation. The motion was seconded by John Keedy.

Discussion of the proposed motion followed with different members expressing a variety of opinions about the motion, its consequences, and implementation. The stated intent of the motion is to have the QCC draft a new agreement with Resolution upon the execution of which the QCC will be willing to endorse the land exchange legislation.

After a call for the question, the motion carried 6 to 4.

Paul was given the assignment to draft a document that would contain the specifics of the arrangement with RCM. He will get it back to the QCC within two weeks where it will be vetted and voted on.

Dief wrote:Meeting Summary – QCC Board meeting Wednesday, May 19, 2010 Present: Rick Cecala, John Keedy, Fred AmRhein, Curt Shannon, Marty Karabin, Paul Diefenderfer, Greg Opland, and Erik Filsinger Mike Covington had given his instructions and proxy to Erik Filsinger for the purposes of voting on a new course of action. Curt Shannon gave an overview of the recent visits with administration and legislative contacts in Washington regarding the Land Exchange. The discussion covered a wide variety of assumptions and possible interpretations of events. The QCC board members expressed a fairly diverse set of opinions. Among the topics covered were the likelihood of passage of the land exchange, the ability of the opponents of the RCM-backed measure to influence its passage, the importance of continuing to focus on protecting the land surface versus the alternative focus of obtaining the most net rock climbing, and the potential actions consistent with each assumption and opinion. Paul Diefenderfer moved that: The QCC's goal is to maximize climbing in the Queen Creek region and we seek to accomplish this by agreeing to a deal with RCM that includes access to Tamo and endorsement of the land exchange legislation. The motion was seconded by John Keedy. Discussion of the proposed motion followed with different members expressing a variety of opinions about the motion, its consequences, and implementation. The stated intent of the motion is to have the QCC draft a new agreement with Resolution upon the execution of which the QCC will be willing to endorse the land exchange legislation. After a call for the question, the motion carried 6 to 4. Paul was given the assignment to draft a document that would contain the specifics of the arrangement with RCM. He will get it back to the QCC within two weeks where it will be vetted and voted on.

Terrific!!!! This is great news!! Thanks so much to all of you for your hard work!!!

(clapping paws enthusiastically!)

Geir Hundal wrote: Terrific!!! This is great news!! Thanks so much to all of you for your hard work!!!

Geir,

To be clear, I voted against this major change in mission by this group.

I cannot endorse the destruction of a climbing area as those 6 others have.

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote: Geir, To be clear, I voted against this major change in mission by this group. I cannot endorse the destruction of a climbing area as those 6 others have. Fred

In my opinion, this was a truly stunning blunder on the part of the Queen Creek Coalition and effective tonight, I have resigned from its Board. The QCC is no longer an advocacy group, with the protection and preservation of long established AZ climbing areas in mind.

Even more disturbing, the vote on this misguided motion was forced tonight with the purposeful intent of preempting soon to be introduced RCC related legislation in the House of Representatives that will contain language that a vast number of Arizona climbers would be extremely enthusiastic to support. Unfortunately, climbers have now lost an excellent vehicle through which their collective support could have have been expressed.

Curt

Colin Giegerich wrote:Is QCC so firmly placed as the community representative . . . ?

Colin,

This is a good question by itself and what follows is simply my view of events.

As of tonight, I'm still a member of the QCC but I'm really having a difficult time understanding the wisdom in supporting and forcing such a divisive vote by the leadership? (We've never made much use of forcing votes before, usually we operate on consensus, especially on big issues like this)

The ramifications were predictable and it puts the vestige of the QCC in a very awkward situation it seems; especially with the resignation of Curt, the group's Congressional Liaison and a pivotal founding member. No doubt the group could survive without some members, but I'm not sure it's good for the overall community and this is why I pleaded not to take such a vote. Rather than continuing to unite, it obviously divides and the community has been through this all before with Tamo.

The group's internal agreement to never endorse the destruction of an existing climbing area was kind of the glue, as written or just generally held in common, that held the diverse members of the group together; that's pretty clear.

So, it would seem that what the local climbers now have in the QCC if it doesn't reverse course on this idea, is a group still purporting to be a "coalition" even though it is effectively culling out those who don't now fit under the smaller "endorse" umbrella.

In the end, only time will tell how to answer some of the questions you pose.

Fred

PS: The proponents of the motion to endorse did not really seem to care what other concerned groups thought, at least as I heard them say. Surprisingly, this even included what the Access Fund had to say pertaining to this change of stance toward the legislation.

this is bullsh*t --the vote of such an important responsibility has obviously gone to the dogs..

the QCC no longer speaks for me or the Climbing Community

To Erik, Paul, John and those that voted to support this farce:
This vote is YOUR personal opinion not mine

Marty, I can't believe that you voted for this..!!
your missing the *facts* and listening to people giving you fancy promises that will never come through

Thanks to everyone on the QCC board who had to make a difficult decision on whether to form an agreement with RCC or not. I think it was time to get off the fence and stand on one side or the other. Let's save as much climbing as possible.

I am disappointed that board members are taking the stand of “my way or the highway” and are choosing the highway. I thought the Coalition was created to represent ‘all’ of the climbers not just a particular position. Curt, I hope you will reconsider your resignation because you have been an integral part of the Coalition, and your knowledge and insight will be sorely missed. Fred, I am glad to see you are still on the board and hope you will continue to be, even though I know the result was not what you would have wished.

We know the facts. Nothing promised. Nothing back handed. Just hard decisions. And the work continues.

For the record, The Access Fund was adamantly opposed to the QCC taking the vote that it did last night setting the "new direction" for the group. The vote was forced by the QCC in spite of written communication from the Access Fund Policy Director stating this position. Additionally, the Chair of the QCC (Erik Filsinger) intentionally misrepresented the position of the Access Fund Policy Director to the group on this very point.

Jason Keith informed me this morning that he told the QCC Chair no fewer than three times, in no uncertain terms, that this vote should not be taken. Jason also spent considerable time trying to convince the QCC Chair that an outside mediator should be brought in to look over all the available information and suggest a reasonable path forward for the group--in order to preserve the integrity of the QCC moving forward. Not only was this suggestion ignored, the suggestion was not even presented to other members of the board for consideration.

Unfortunately, it appears that the QCC Board has become nothing more than a rogue group representing perhaps little more than their own personal interests.

Curt

Sure sounds like sore losers too me.

Some of you have been trying to take control of the coalition to make it represent your limited and selfish viewpoint but and now when rational minds prevail and you find yourselves in the minority you cry foul and start the name calling. I admire the folks that voted to get something in return for what we stand to lose at OF especially considering the inevitable character assassination that will ensue. Of the three options presented the only one that guarantees that climbers will get something in return for our losses is the "endorse" option. To choose either other option because of your personal stand on the matter would have been a slap in the face to the rest of the climbing community the QCC professes to represent.

If this land exchange happens the QCC will go down as the group that saved part of OF, created better access to other areas, and delivered Tamo to the general climbing community. If QCC does not agree to endorse the land exchange the QCC will go down as the group who dropped the ball so climbers got screwed again. It really is that simple. The legislation is already moving through congress and we need to get on it now or we will be left out.

As an AZ native and 30+ year climber I want to get something for the loss of climbing resources at OF. To me that's what the QCC should be doing. I have never seen a mission statement if there is one but it is absurd to think you can "negotiate" with the mine by demanding that they not actually do any mining. What is the mission of QCC anyway? If it is to prevent RCC from mining at OF then why are you speaking with them at all? They have nothing to gain from that conversation. As I understood it you guys had taken over what Sherman and I were doing, that is to try to negotiate with the mine for compensation for lost climbing resources.

As far a QCC not representing you, I think you are right. They are supposed to be representing the climbing community. It appears to me that the 60/40 vote is actually skewed away from the interests of the climbing community as a whole. It should have been a 90/10 split in favor of the "endorse" agreement because in my conversations with many climbers over the last 6 years the vast majority understand the situation and are in favor of trying to get the most we can out of RCC.

Manny is the one member that I can understand voting no. He has much more history with OF than the rest of us. I feel that he probably shouldn't have been on the committee in the first place because it puts him in an uncomfortable position. The other no votes I suppose I can understand because you are holding true to your principles however irrational they may be.

curt, Why don't you share with us this exciting legislation you were to propose?