Queen Creek Update

Not certain, only guessing; large / probably main user group, thousands of established routes and boulder problems.

Joe G wrote:Please explain to me how climbers are major stakeholders in this.

Joe,

That's a great question and the answer depends on your view of what a "major stakeholder" is. Having been involved with the issue for over 7 years now I'll take a stab and try to explain things from my perspective. I apologize for the length but the topic of Oak Flat is a very complicated one and has many layers of history and use that make for a complex story and explanation.

Firstly, I kind of think that you have to think about the historical stakeholders from the land's perspective, of which these are prominent in my view:

• First and foremost, Native Americans. Their presence has been documented in the Oak Flat area in many books and tales and they continue to call and visit the area amongst the various creeks flowing from the area the home to their spirits. The San Carlos tribe is comprised of some of the people who were forced from this part of their traditional lands in the late 1800's. Others who comprise the Yavapai, Fort McDowell, and various other components of the Indian community are also major stakeholders. Given that the native populations were systematically corralled, marched, starved, and dispersed from these lands to various locations during this time the interest permeates throughout many of the nation's tribes to this day.
• Local residents of various towns who have visited/used the area for various reasons. The people of Superior dominate this group, but there are others who live in nearby communities who claim a sort of ownership as a major stakeholder of Oak Flat and the adjacent lands.
• Those who seek to make a living from the federal lands held as part of the multiple use paradigm for such. This includes the ranchers and miners that graze cattle and remove the minerals for a living.
• Those who visit our federal multi-use lands at and near Oak Flat for recreational purposes. As you may or may not know, the small area of land that was designated as the Oak Flat campground and picnic area in 1955 "pursuant to [an] Executive Order" is actually set aside from mining specifically (ref Public Land Order 1229). Prior to this designation, it is commonly shared by local residents that during the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps (the CCC) improved the Oak Flat area as a stopover for travelers from the adjacent highway.

Generally, those who recreate here and make use of the area tend to be primarily campers, climbers, birders, off road enthusiasts, and hikers as well as others. The PLO was modified in 1971 in PLO 5132 in specific ways "except under the U.S. mining laws." In other words, it still could not be taken and used for mining purposes. Over the years, several attempts were made by private companies to take the campground and mine it but the Forest Service always responded that the lands held the same value as recreational lands as when originally set aside from mining. (documents found via the Freedom of Information Act by the Access Fund and local climbing advocates)

So, I guess these are what I consider to be the major stakeholders in the Oak Flat area and indeed you as a climber are a major stakeholder based on historical documents and the continuing existence of your presence on that land for recreational purposes.

Some would argue that "climbers" are the largest component of the recreational users of Oak Flat but I'm not sure of this. I've seen an awful lot of campers out on that land over the years and this year is no exception. But of course, most of these people aren't organized and frequent users like climbers so most don't know of the threat to take the campground and lands for mining purposes.

Regardless, it is clear from Public Land Order 1229 that Oak Flat itself is specifically set aside for recreational purposes, though "climbing" specifically is not designated. Neither is hiking or birding or any other specific recreational purposes for that matter, but of course these activities are considered valid uses of the USFS lands and have been allowed and even promoted in USFS literature for many, many generations.

I certainly understand the strong sentiment to simply climb here at Oak Flat until forced to go elsewhere but I personally think this denies my (and your) established presence as a true and major stakeholder. I may not have as much money, power, or influence as a mining company has, but I still have the right to stand up and make my voice heard based on real and true documented existence as a major stakeholder. Likewise, so do you if you so choose to do so.

Just my view of course. I hope the information helps.

Fred

Agree heartily with the concept of climbers being major stakeholders out there despite seeing more 4x4 folks going by than climbers. As noted by the posts above, it's the time and incredible expense that goes into developing a climbing area. To say nothing of our continued commitment to keeping the place open for recreation and multi-use.

We're in the midst of more development now and it's easy to spend $70 on putting up a climb (bolts, hangers, quick links, biners since we're putting 2 on the anchors on top of ea. climb to assist in lowering/top-roping). Plus gas, etc., etc. Having put in about 30 climbs in the last year down there, that's a significant outlay of cash as Geir, Marcy and David, to say nothing of all the earlier developers, can attest to.

As a "major stakeholder" I'll add a shout for you all to support the town of Superior. There's a new place in "old town" (off the rt. 60 strip) that is fabulous for dinner in Superior -- it's called "Uptown" and is on the uphill side of town on Main street. Also the new coffee shop on 60 if definitely worth supporting!

arjunmh wrote: Also the new coffee shop on 60 if definitely worth supporting!

Yep. They are non-profit and have good breakfast burritos for on the way to the crag.

Fred and Kirra make good, logical arguments regarding the stakeholders of Oak Flat and, more generally, the Queen Creek recreation area.

Stakeholder: "A corporate stakeholder is a party that can affect or be affected by the actions of the business as a whole. The stakeholder concept was first used in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research institute. .."

Using this definition, and knowing Joe as I do, his comment/question (I believe) was his attempt to point out that climbers have very little influence in the matter (i.e., "can affect") whereas Fred and Kirra focus on the "or be affected"... portion of this definition.

I posted my question about climbers being a major stake holder to see what kind of response it would bring. I figured there would be two. One being that of the selfish climber "I have been climbing there for years no one is going to tell me I can't climb there anymore". The other I was hoping for is that of " I'm a climber, I love the land I climb on and don't want to see it permanently destroyed". Unfortunantly I didn't see any of the latter opinion.

I'm not for the proposed mine due to it's destructive retrieval prctice, but I do support the extraction of the copper under oak flat and think it could be done under less destrutive mining practices although perhaps much more expensive.

I find it hard to believe that a community that I'm involved with would be so selfish to think that as recreational rock climbers we would be against what could be a great asset for our state and our country. It seems to me from reading this forum that the majority of the climbers posting are more concerned about thier sport then the land they climb on.

And don't give me the whole line it's a international company and all the profits are going overseas. We live in a world with a global economy, with multi national corpoations. Besides most of the climbers out there are driving around toyotas and subarus. Our country could really use the taxes and jobs with the current state of the economy, not to mention the resource itself.

We as a climbing community should come together to work with our elected officials and push for less destructive mining prctices. We need to be practical and do what's right for our country and that doesn't mean giving into R.C.C. . We should be fighting the mining company but not because we want to continue to climb there but because we don't want to see it go away forever.

I'd encourage anyone and everyone who cares at all, GET INVOLVED!

Joe-wow you almost sucked me into a rant. It would be awesome to see you at the next Concerned Climbers of Az meeting on Monday 6:30pm at Boulders on Broadway. I think you'd find some climbers who while yes they are concerned about the climbing access to the area (after all we are climbers right?), the other concerns out weigh that one.

By the way the meetings are open to anyone. Really. It's in the small meeting room they have there.

I'll be there. I look foward to hearing what they have to say.

Awesome! The more people involved the better!

Next meeting of Concerned Climbers of AZ
2/28/11 Boulders in Tempe
6:30pm

See you there