Action Alert - Vulture Peak Management Plan

Access Alert and Action Request - Vulture Peak

Maricopa County Parks Department is requesting public input on the Vulture Mountain Regional Park's Management Plan. This is a proposal for a new county park which includes Vulture Peak. Maricopa Parks and BLM are working together to put a management plan in place. The Parks Department is requesting input from the public as to what activities should be included in the management plan. Thanks to Tom Kreuser (Tom's Thumb) for bringing this to our attention. Bill Sewrey and Larry Treiber put up a climbing route up the middle of the East Face of Vulture Peak in October of 1967.

Tom remembers Vulture Peak fondly. Vulture Peak is a large rock formation near Wickenberg that has some historical climbing routes. There are long multi-pitch and aid routes, climbing types that are in short supply here in Central Arizona and should remain. While it is probably true that few of you have climbed there, as climbers we should fight for every climbing area we can and we should do so within the process that maximizes the potential impact on the land owners/managers. Working with land owners is part of that process.

In this case, Maricopa County Parks Department and the Bureau of Land Management have put together a survey for potential "park" users. The survey tries to identify elements of the future park that are important to the public. They range from higher intensities uses to low impact preservation goals.

As climbers, we should make our opinions known. We are leaving it to your individual judgment as to the feautures that you woujld like to see in a future Vulture Peak Park, but PLEASE - TAKE THIS SURVEY AND MAKE IT KNOWN THAT ROCK CLIMBING IS A HISTORICAL USE THAT THE LAND OWNERS SHOULD ALLOW TO CONTINUE IN THE NEW PARK.

There is a deadline early next week. Take this survey immediately and help us protect our climbing resources. (see link below)

maricopa.gov/parks/vulturem…

If you are able within the context of open ended questions to state that rock climbers work with various raptor preservation standards around the country, it would help mitigate one criticism of rock climbing in that Vulture Peak will be designated as a raptor conservation area. We should not fight that. But we can state that we will work with whatever restrictions are necessary to protect the birds and keep rock climbing as an authorized park activity.

Thank you,
AMC Land Advocacy Committee Action Group
Erik Filsinger, Chair, John Keedy, Vice Chair, Susan Harnage, Tim McCabe, and Ron Auerbach.

I found this link to be active:

surveymonkey.com/s/VultureM…

Thanks, Bio.

ErikF,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

ErikF, your link appears not to be active.

Bio's link to the survey is active, but parts of the survey are not active.

Is the Access Fund aware of this development?

What is the thinking on the amount of development?

Thanks for all your work.

Scott Mc

Hi Scott,

Yes, I have alerted the AF and am working with their staff. They are helping with raptor issues by providing background information. I think the link is the best we have. If folks want to cut and paste the following into their browser this is the original link to the county site that gives a little more information.

maricopa.gov/parks/vulturem…

Generally my personal feelings are more in line with human powered activity and that has influenced my choice of answers to the questions, but there are a lot of users and I want to focus on the rock climbing element. Your choice as to what you'd like to see - minimal to lots of engines.

Erik

Note: None of the alternative allow climbing, this is at the end of the right hand chart given on their website(for each alternative proposal).

Hi folks,

Thanks for checking this out. A bunch of you are completing the survey. The County and BLM are noticing. But I've received some preliminary feedback from the County people that they see rock climbing as only permissible potentially under Options C or D and we tend to be saying Options A or B (in line with lower intensity). Keep that in mind when you fill out the survey (or revisit to correct your responses).

I'm not sure I see it the way they do right now and we should try to educate them that rock climbing is a low intensity use, but for now we may be channeled to Options C or D.

Erik

Thanks for getting this up.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your insights and comments.

I guess part of the choice of action is a read on the likely outome in any given situation. While some may choose an idealistic outcome that has a low probability of success, others choose a realistic outcome based on what is likely to occur. If a realistic read of a situation means that so and so is likely to prevail, then it doesn't do much good to tilt against windmills (unfortunately some purists also tend to be a bit strident and therefore rejected by the powers that be). That being said, I'm not sure I see the downside in expressing a willingness to work with these land owners/managers.

Chances are that as climbers we have relatively little say in whether or not there is a park and therefore we can maximize our outcomes for climbers by working with the powers that be in the context of a draft Management Plan. Without clearly defined and written policies, the individual superintendents in the Maricopa County Parks have pretty much say over park user groups and it was an accident inaccurately portrayed as a climbing accident at the waterfall that caused the White Tanks Park Superintendent to close the Park to rock climbing. Shortly after that time frame Allan Watts, Laurel Arndt and I visited with the County Parks Headquarters staff when they were reviewing activities that would be sanctioned system wide and they are much more open to incorporating rock climbing throughout the system if proper management protocols could be worked out.

What we probably need are more contacts of that nature. Professionally following up with that approach is more likely to gain success than alternatives that aren't based on building a working relationship. While the San Tans may have gone beyond our grasp due to the ensuing onslot of land development around the access points, I had trouble a few years back locating enough interested climbers to take it on to fight for the San Tans. Let's hope we don't lose another opportunity.

I'm not sure Maricopa County Parks is necessarily that adverse to rock climbing. Actually, Knob Hill in the McDowell Regional Park still has rock climbing, which I believe we can retain that with a professional realistic-based approach of cooperation.

Erik

ErikF wrote:Chances are that as climbers we have relatively little say in whether or not there is a park and therefore we can maximize our outcomes for climbers by working with the powers that be in the context of a draft Management Plan....

ErikF wrote:While it is probably true that few of you have climbed there, as climbers we should fight for every climbing area we can...

your comments here are a hypocritical joke. This timing has apparently been well chosen to protect your *sparkling* image while you secretly negotiate another climbing area away

you can no longer be trusted since you (deceitfully) destroyed the climbing group that was created to protect the Queen Creek/Oak Flat climbing areas

Arizona's climbing future is in danger with you Erik Filsinger. It's pathetic to see the noobs (not knowing your history) grovel at your feet. Even the Access Fund has grown silent --very sad indeed--

ErikF wrote: While it is probably true that few of you have climbed there, as climbers we should fight for every climbing area we can and we should do so within the process that maximizes the potential impact on the land owners/managers. Working with land owners is part of that process.

Erik, I have a few questions. Do you mean for every climbing area? What about public land, does that mean working with the public? (land owners)

ErikF wrote: As climbers, we should make our opinions known. We are leaving it to your individual judgment as to the feautures that you woujld like to see in a future Vulture Peak Park, but PLEASE - TAKE THIS SURVEY AND MAKE IT KNOWN THAT ROCK CLIMBING IS A HISTORICAL USE THAT THE LAND OWNERS SHOULD ALLOW TO CONTINUE IN THE NEW PARK.

I've heard that this place only has a few routes and are not much to speak about as far as climbing goes. I'm curious, DO MANY CLIMB OUT AT VULTURE PEAK?
Just curious...IMO

kirra wrote: your comments here are a hypocritical joke. This timing has apparently been well chosen to protect your *sparkling* image while you secretly negotiate another climbing area away you can no longer be trusted since you (deceitfully) destroyed the climbing group that was created to protect the Queen Creek/Oak Flat climbing areas Arizona's climbing future is in danger with you Erik Filsinger. It's pathetic to see the noobs (not knowing your history) grovel at your feet. Even the Access Fund has grown silent --very sad indeed--

Erik's comments are indeed odd--acting as though he cares about two obscure nail-up choss pile routes, while at the same time trying to negotiate away Oak Flat.

Curt

Thanks to everyone for their interest. There seems to be some mixing of topics. For Queen Creek related information please see theqcc.org.

The philosophy of maximizing rock climbing through identification of a likely outcome and a realistic assessment of ways to maximize rock climbing through negotiation holds as a good model for most central AZ climbing issues. This thread is about Vulture Peak. Those of who want to include rock climbing in the future of Vulture Peak should get involved.

ErikF wrote:Access Alert and Action Request - Vulture Peak Maricopa County Parks Department is requesting public input on the Vulture Mountain Regional Park's Management Plan. This is a proposal for a new county park which includes Vulture Peak. Maricopa Parks and BLM are working together to put a management plan in place. The Parks Department is requesting input from the public as to what activities should be included in the management plan. Thanks to Tom Kreuser (Tom's Thumb) for bringing this to our attention. Bill Sewrey and Larry Treiber put up a climbing route up the middle of the East Face of Vulture Peak in October of 1967. Tom remembers Vulture Peak fondly. Vulture Peak is a large rock formation near Wickenberg that has some historical climbing routes. There are long multi-pitch and aid routes, climbing types that are in short supply here in Central Arizona and should remain. While it is probably true that few of you have climbed there, as climbers we should fight for every climbing area we can and we should do so within the process that maximizes the potential impact on the land owners/managers. Working with land owners is part of that process. In this case, Maricopa County Parks Department and the Bureau of Land Management have put together a survey for potential "park" users. The survey tries to identify elements of the future park that are important to the public. They range from higher intensities uses to low impact preservation goals. As climbers, we should make our opinions known. We are leaving it to your individual judgment as to the feautures that you woujld like to see in a future Vulture Peak Park, but PLEASE - TAKE THIS SURVEY AND MAKE IT KNOWN THAT ROCK CLIMBING IS A HISTORICAL USE THAT THE LAND OWNERS SHOULD ALLOW TO CONTINUE IN THE NEW PARK. There is a deadline early next week. Take this survey immediately and help us protect our climbing resources. (see link below) maricopa.gov/parks/vulturem… If you are able within the context of open ended questions to state that rock climbers work with various raptor preservation standards around the country, it would help mitigate one criticism of rock climbing in that Vulture Peak will be designated as a raptor conservation area. We should not fight that. But we can state that we will work with whatever restrictions are necessary to protect the birds and keep rock climbing as an authorized park activity. Thank you, AMC Land Advocacy Committee Action Group Erik Filsinger, Chair, John Keedy, Vice Chair, Susan Harnage, Tim McCabe, and Ron Auerbach.

I agree.
Erik, your actions do not make sense to a lot of us. The website you provided does not offer the an answer to the question of why you say we should fight for every climbing area but your actions are not doing that?

Another question is:
Why did the AMC and the QCC change their mission?

Linda

ErikF wrote: . . . as climbers we should fight for every climbing area we can . . . Thank you, AMC Land Advocacy Committee Action Group Erik Filsinger, Chair, John Keedy, Vice Chair, Susan Harnage, Tim McCabe, and Ron Auerbach.

I agree completely with the AMCLACAG on this point, but I don't think it's Chair really takes this to heart, at least as most of us would interpret the words:

Firslty, those who really do "fight" are marginalized:

ErikF wrote: If a realistic read of a situation means that so and so is likely to prevail, then it doesn't do much good to tilt against windmills (unfortunately some purists also tend to be a bit strident and therefore rejected by the powers that be)

Not only are the fighters like Quixote and delusional, but they are also noisy elitists whose voices are ignored by some sort of fixed ruling class? Ok, that's his view on others not in lock step with him. Good to know.

and:

ErikF wrote: Chances are that as climbers we have relatively little say

Those of a diverse opinion, being deluded and ignored, are reminded that even the larger communty is powerless? Ok, good to know his view.

and:

ErikF wrote: [I believe my personal] philosophy of maximizing rock climbing through identification of a likely outcome and a realistic assessment of ways to maximize rock climbing through negotiation holds as a good model for most central AZ climbing issues.

Lastly,

ErikF wrote: There seems to be some mixing of topics

. . . and I'm pretty sure you knew there would be given the history in the local community and your direct involvement in the resulting splits and controversies.

To me as a reader, "fight[ing] for every [public] climbing area," Vulture Peak inclusive, is somewhat inconsistent with "realistic assessment [and] negotiation" in secret transactions, Oak Flat or elsewhere. I'm not sure that your intentions in this regard really provide the cover that you hope for on these political climbing related issues.

Just my view of course.

Fred

As I said in a post on this subject earlier this year, I have watched the ongoing battle between the various factions of AZ climbers play itself out over the internet. I have waded through the various posts on Queen Creek, however I am still at a loss as to what the "correct" course of action should be. To my marginally informed mind, both sides have some merit and I still do not feel informed enough to choose a side.

What really blows my mind is that Vulture Peak gets a national "action alert" while there is a no communication from the QCC or the Access Fund about Queen Creek as the land swap legislation moves forward.

Am I missing something? Is Vulture Peak worthy of this type of response? Is there a reason that our efforts, as a community, should be focused on a few seldom climbed routes near Wickenberg? Why are we not mobilizing the community in support of maximizing climbing in Queen Creek or stopping the mine from moving forward? These are not meant as rhetorical questions; I really want to understand the reasoning behind the courses of action that the QCC, Access Fund and the Concerned Climbers of Arizona are taking.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

NC Rock Climber wrote: Why are we not mobilizing the community in support of maximizing climbing in Queen Creek or stopping the mine from moving forward?

NC,

The "maximize" group essentially tossed those of us advocating for Oak Flat out last year.

A slim majority, 6 of 10, aligned into the "maximize" group and forced a narrow focus on a private, secret deal with the mining company and to stop talking to Congress.

Those of us who advocate on behalf of the land and the climbing have formed our own group, The Concerned Climbers of Arizona. ( concernedclimbers.com ) We are mobilizing to address the threats to Oak Flat and the adjacent areas.

On our front page you'll find a link to our latest letter delivered to Congress and the Administration earlier this month that advocates for the climbing environment at Oak Flat. Our group is not involved with any secret/private deal negotiations with the mining company and we have regular public meetings to discuss the issues.

Different passions; different missions; different efforts.

Fred

NC Rock Climber wrote: What really blows my mind is that Vulture Peak gets a national "action alert" while there is a no communication from the QCC or the Access Fund about Queen Creek as the land swap legislation moves forward.

I posted this recently on another thread. I found it somewhat thought provoking:

•[The Gosar legislation] removes a 95-acre parcel of RCM land known as “The Pond” and $1.25 million earmarked to fund improvements, development and maintenance of recreational facilities on the Pond parcel. However, RCM is working directly with the recreation community to ensure this funding is still made available for these purposes.

securearizonasfuture.com/bl…

(The link leads to different text now. I happened to capture this before it was changed)

Just to be clear, the only climbing organization that has publicly acknowledged that they are in negotiations with regard to the Oak Flat privatization that I know of is QCC, Inc. (see their website: theqcc.org) I have no idea if the Access Fund is involved and am not in any way implying that they are.

Fred

ErikF wrote:Thanks to everyone for their interest. There seems to be some mixing of topics. For Queen Creek related information please see theqcc.org. The philosophy of maximizing rock climbing through identification of a likely outcome and a realistic assessment of ways to maximize rock climbing through negotiation holds as a good model for most central AZ climbing issues. This thread is about Vulture Peak. Those of who want to include rock climbing in the future of Vulture Peak should get involved.

To be more succinct, your disingenuous platitudes disgust me.

Curt

Fred,

Thanks for the reply.

I would assume that climbers are not the only user group that is interested in preserving Oak Flat. Is there any type of coordination between groups to present a united front to government decision makers? What is the Access Fund doing in regards to this issue?

Again, at the very least it seems to me that we should have a national Action Alert for Queen Creek. I am not saying that Vulture Peak is not a worthy objective. It just seems to pale in comparison to some of the more pressing access issues in Arizona.

Thanks Greg. I appreciate the information. This whole situation is more than a little sad.