Oak Flat, S339 Moving Again!!! Please take a minute!

Thanks for pointing out the small part of the package that does people some good. Joe G, thanks for all your help and support in opposing the land swap. We fought a good fight and we have one more chance.

As a fellow pragmatist, I have signed the petition to have Obama veto the bill but I'm afraid that it will not be derailed.

Ignore the bashing. I know where your heart lays.

Joe G wrote:Mike, you're the kind of ignorant voter that put the congress in that is going to push this bill through thanks dummy. Joe Garcia

I don't want to get into p'match w/u manny or anyone else here but be fair -is it OK for Joe to attack others?

Joe G & I have always been on opposite ends of this issue and ok I am pissed because look where we are. IMO winners don't give up looking for ways to succeed and also seem to have a positive attitude. After years of hearing your (and others) defeatist opinions and seeing no positive action or follow through on ideas.. it's been difficult

it should have been fairly clear at one point to those deeply involved that the mine would NOT change it's plan of operations so being against the mine entirely was the ONLY WINNING way to go. Sure Joe has been 'fighting' but for what -an impossible dream of sharing Oak Flat with Resolution?? Hell Joe gave up years ago.. -cheers

Posting Jan 29, 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe G wrote:Look the bill is going through and the mine doesn't give a damn about a bunch of rockclimbers. The best we could have done was to forget about the climbing in the area and would have been to align ourselfs strongly with other groups interested in the area. But we did just what the mine wanted us to do and that is be selfish and focus on the climbing and not the over all impact of the mine. Sure we talk about the potential water conamination and the loss of a uniqe area but it is in a voice as climbers and not as a whole outdoor community with the lands best interest in mind. UNITED YOU BARGAIN DIVIDED YOU BEG. We lost the area during the last election. Truth hurts. With the House falling to the Republicans and two very powerfull senators from our state both supporting the bill. And I don't see Obama going after it with them potentialy labeling him as a "job kiler". I hate backing down but the way it is now atleast get what you can. The ship has sailed and we F@#ked up big time!

Joe G wrote:We should be pushing for less destructive mining pactices, even if that meens we climbers have to step aside for twenty years while they retrieve the copper. As long as the land isn't permanently destroyed.

Well said, CJC!
Rio Tinto, Resolution's parent company is among the most rapacious, greedy, unprincipled mining enterprises in the world. They have been responsible for the murders of indigenous peoples near the Grasberg gold/copper mine in West Papua who were protesting the environmental destruction wrought on their lands and waters by this mine's operation. To give our public lands to these immoral thieves is in itself a criminal act.
The lands under discussion are now private property (or soon will be) and thus are exempt from environmental review or regulation. If you expect Resolution to do anything other than maximize profits while ignoring the inevitable massive damage to the lands and waters surrounding their new profit center, think again.
Talk is cheap, especially their rap.
But I think it was likely a lost cause from the beginning, not to say we don't resist to the bitter end. And I guess this is the bitter end. If I lived nearer Queen Creek I'd get in one or two last laps before the industrialization of the area begins.

These companies will reap havoc on this area, that are only interested in maximizing profits. I used to live in Glenwood Springs CO when the fracking began. The media would always report the local companies in the paper, I guess they thought we were blind driving by the rigs and seeing the Haliburton trucks and machinery all over the area. They operated with pretty much complete disregard for the local communities. And how the acquired the needed water is still a mystery to me, but water law as mining laws are ambigous at best. I love the idea that while you may own the surface property someone else can own whats underneath it.

What bothers me most about this is how this land grab was how it was tucked into the NDAA, this is a bullshit form of governance. And I relaize as others have pointed out some of the land deals were good legislation. Our government is just fucked up. And what actioncan we take, write and sign petitions but in the end thats next to meaningless.

oh well time to hit the hangboard.

Andrew Carson wrote:The lands under discussion are now private property (or soon will be) and thus are exempt from environmental review or regulation. If you expect Resolution to do anything other than maximize profits while ignoring the inevitable massive damage to the lands and waters surrounding their new profit center, think again.

yes Andrew unfortunately u may be correct

..."Supporters touted compromises made in the latest version of the bill, but opponents say those concessions don't go nearly far enough. The latest version of the bill says Resolution Copper must conduct environmental studies before it can get title to the land parcel in Superior. But the bill still guarantees that the mining company ultimately gets the title to the land — regardless of the results of those studies.

If the land remained public, the mining project would be dependent on U.S. Forest Service approval and would have to complete the entire process required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

Opponents say the title transfer should be predicated on approval from the Forest Service and the secretary of agriculture, who conduct the NEPA process. Otherwise, the studies are "an exercise in futility," Roger Featherstone, director of the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition..."

Copper deal elicits celebration & outrage

Did climbers get anything from the land exchange?

Kirra , I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with anyone. I am pointing out that as citizens the differences we can make in these kinds of issues are made in the ballot box . Someone who supports the right wing, and then posts that it is the fault of Obama and his Prius driving allies that this happened, is just plain ignorant of the facts. Saying that because democrats supported the land bill means they are for the mine is just wrong. You have to look at the greater good. The mine was going to happen with this new congress in place. I hope I'm wrong, but even if Obama does veto the bill, the new congress (supported by the guy you say I want a pissing match with) will continue to attach the mine to other important, "must-pass" bills. I dont see Obama Vetoing a defense bill passed by both houses because of a mine. That is not a defeatist attitude, its a realistic one based on common sense. I try to find the best in what is dealt, and in this case there were some positive elements to the lands portion of the bill. What do you suggest as a viable solution ? I voted against McCain, who attached the mine portion to the defense bill. I also signed all the petitions against the mine, so contrary to what you said, I have most certainly NOT been for the mine from the start. The Democrats lost the election. Shit happens. The only thing that was keeping the mine from happening before was a democrat held senate. The Republican party now controls both houses, and only cares about corporate profit,. The republicans now control every committee. That means the mine is going to happen. Try living in the real world. If you really want to make a difference, volunteer to get minorities and lower income voters registered and to the ballot box. Sounds bad but it's reality. The Democrats are the only ones who support conservation efforts, and getting more of them to vote will help advance these causes. You may not agree with the rest of what the democratic party stands for, and thats your right, but you cannot say that the Republicans are the more Eco-friendly party here. -Joe Garcia

Andrew Carson wrote: Rio Tinto, Resolution's parent company is among the most rapacious, greedy, unprincipled mining enterprises in the world. They have been responsible for the murders of indigenous peoples near the Grasberg gold/copper mine in West Papua who were protesting the environmental destruction wrought on their lands and waters by this mine's operation.

Facts are helpful.

1) Rio Tinto owns less than 40% of Grasberg.

2) The indonesian military and police are the only people permitted to carry weapons on Papua. Ex-pats and employees of Grasberg are not permitted to carry weapons and are not responsible for any murders in Papua.

3) There has been a low-level "Free Papua" movement for decades resulting in civil strife. That is the source of some of the issues resulting in the bloodshed in Papua.

4) Illegals miners pan the tailings for gold, for their livelihood. This is a source of strife, also leading to conflict between locals, military, and police.

5) Indigenous Papuas don't protest the "environmental destruction" on Papua. Privileged white people do. Indigenous Papuans didn't have healthcare of any kind until the last two or three decades.

Joe G wrote:Kirra , I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with anyone. I am pointing out that as citizens the differences we can make in these kinds of issues are made in the ballot box . Someone who supports the right wing, and then posts that it is the fault of Obama and his Prius driving allies that this happened, is just plain ignorant of the facts. Saying that because democrats supported the land bill means they are for the mine is just wrong. You have to look at the greater good. The mine was going to happen with this new congress in place. I hope I'm wrong, but even if Obama does veto the bill, the new congress (supported by the guy you say I want a pissing match with) will continue to attach the mine to other important, "must-pass" bills. I dont see Obama Vetoing a defense bill passed by both houses because of a mine. That is not a defeatist attitude, its a realistic one based on common sense. I try to find the best in what is dealt, and in this case there were some positive elements to the lands portion of the bill. What do you suggest as a viable solution ? I voted against McCain, who attached the mine portion to the defense bill. I also signed all the petitions against the mine, so contrary to what you said, I have most certainly NOT been for the mine from the start. The Democrats lost the election. Shit happens. The only thing that was keeping the mine from happening before was a democrat held senate. The Republican party now controls both houses, and only cares about corporate profit,. The republicans now control every committee. That means the mine is going to happen. Try living in the real world. If you really want to make a difference, volunteer to get minorities and lower income voters registered and to the ballot box. Sounds bad but it's reality. The Democrats are the only ones who support conservation efforts, and getting more of them to vote will help advance these causes. You may not agree with the rest of what the democratic party stands for, and thats your right, but you cannot say that the Republicans are the more Eco-friendly party here. -Joe Garcia

I'm not too sure where the us vs them paranoia comes from Joe but you seem to wear some pretty thick blinders if you think one party is better than the other these days. Politicians say quite a bit and may seem to you to be eco friendly (like you want them to be) but when it comes down to it most of them are just greedy fucks that will continue to fuck us all until we wake up, join forces and vote the bastards out. Partisan politics is the problem and you are just feeding the beast.

when Coburn tied to get his peers to strike the lands portion of the bill it was a vote of 18-82!!!!!!!!! please tell us how that vote was a blue vs red thing. blame that cocksucker McCain all you want, we were all let down by more than just him.

In regards to the land bill both sides got something out of it. The left got new national sites and land for conservation and right got a mine, lands in Alaska for logging and new permits for gas exploration and drilling. It's called compermise and that what we need to happen. We need more compermise in Washington I think it's a step in the right direction I just wish it could have been done separate from a defence bill and on its own. That could have drawn light to the envormental concerns . Kirra is right I don't blindly oppose the mine . I wish there was a way for recreational activity to step a side, get the copper out and not destroy the land permanently. But that does not sound feasible .

Joe Garcia

Joe G wrote:I dont see Obama Vetoing a defense bill passed by both houses because of a mine. That is not a defeatist attitude, its a realistic one based on common sense.

I guess only time will tell if Obama will veto and it won't be because it's just a mine- which it ain't. There are larger issues at stake which is why I asked you if you would feel differently about mining copper if it was located under Arlington cemetery

Joe G wrote:What do you suggest as a viable solution ?

well I did like your idea long ago of reaching out and joining other groups -though a bit late there still is at least one group left that has not thrown in the towel. I'll be +1 with 80,000+ who signed a petition to Stop the Apache Land Grab and join Native Americans

Joe G wrote:The republicans now control every committee. That means the mine is going to happen. Try living in the real world.

no need for snark- we live in the same world Joe but we just view things differently. The way I see it is that it currently doesn't matter anymore who controls the Senate or the Presidency because our system is broken when our democratic process fails to represent the people who vote (referring to last minute insertions into budget & defense bills by big banks and foreign corporations). Does it really matter how many minorities vote when the system is rigged?

Obama had it right for a few brief fleeting moments after taking office but then *poof it was gone. IMO we must rid our government system of lobbyists and the revolving door between politicians & lobbyists. Lobbyists should not be writing our legislation and until that ends IMO our original idea and/or ideal of democracy is just history. Thanks for your time & response -Kirra

kirra wrote: currently doesn't matter anymore who controls the Senate or the Presidency because our system is broken when our democratic process fails to represent the people who vote

Great point Kirra! If you also take into account the abysmal number of people that cared to vote, only 1/3 of eligible voters, and include how many people don't even bother to register, it isn't surprising who our government represents.

Our system is broken. Fixing it requires a lot of work by people that don't want to show up but only cry about the results.

Joe G wrote:In regards to the land bill both sides got something out of it. The left got new national sites and land for conservation and right got a mine, lands in Alaska for logging and new permits for gas exploration and drilling. It's called compermise and that what we need to happen.

the ethics of politics today are non-existent imo. I don't buy into the notion the it is ever fair to 'rob peter to pay paul'

1 bad non-ethical, environmentally destructive land exchange is not worth 2 or 3 more pretty trees saved in some congresspersons's backyard -but that's just my opinion

karabin museum wrote:Did climbers get anything from the land exchange?

lol luv it- welcome back to the party Marty! Gee I dunno why don't you ask Erik -perhaps he has a christmas surprise for us

maybe we'll no longer have to sign support for the land exchange to climb at the Pond

*edit -dripping springs is still in the deal- regardless of details IMO that pile o'choss was never worth the trade

ClimbandMine wrote: Facts are helpful. 1) Rio Tinto owns less than 40% of Grasberg. 2) The indonesian military and police are the only people permitted to carry weapons on Papua. Ex-pats and employees of Grasberg are not permitted to carry weapons and are not responsible for any murders in Papua. 3) There has been a low-level "Free Papua" movement for decades resulting in civil strife. That is the source of some of the issues resulting in the bloodshed in Papua. 4) Illegals miners pan the tailings for gold, for their livelihood. This is a source of strife, also leading to conflict between locals, military, and police. 5) Indigenous Papuas don't protest the "environmental destruction" on Papua. Privileged white people do. Indigenous Papuans didn't have healthcare of any kind until the last two or three decades.

My facts are accurate. That Rio Tinto gets the Indonesian Army to do its dirty work hardly exempts them from responsibility. The drainage below the mine is terminally ill from leaching of the tailings pile, among other problems coming from Grasberg, and even in that rain drenched land, water is life.

Andrew Carson wrote: My facts are accurate. That Rio Tinto gets the Indonesian Army to do its dirty work hardly exempts them from responsibility. The drainage below the mine is terminally ill from leaching of the tailings pile, among other problems coming from Grasberg, and even in that rain drenched land, water is life.

Have you been there? Talked to the Papuans, the military? Doubt it.

I have.

Your facts are not completely accurate.

the body is still warm (bill not signed yet)
but John McCain couldn't wait to get the party started and YOUR ALL INVITED !!!!

* image of party invitation removed - not worthy of space here *

link to invite

Joe G wrote: The left got new national sites and land for conservation and right got a mine, lands in Alaska for logging and new permits for gas exploration and drilling. It's called compermise

I'd like to be bright and cheery about this being a compromise but it doesn't seem like it. Given that the land in AZ was already federally protected land for conservation and for religious exercise, what were the apache given? It's more like screw these people and sure we'll set aside some more rather worthless land (that is until we figure out something good to do with it, and then we'll trade it away like we did with that land in AZ). Its not compromise when you do that, it's deceptive practices to enlarge your wallet. If it was compromise it would have been debated and voted on, oh right it failed to even get enough votes to debate like what, 12 times?

ClimbandMine wrote: 1) Rio Tinto owns less than 40% of Grasberg.

SHILL...

So owning a little less then 40% of Auschwitz would be okay? GFY

ClimbandMine wrote: Have you been there? Talked to the Papuans, the military? Doubt it. I have. Your facts are not completely accurate.

Yes, I was there in the mid-90's, among my favorite trips ever. Would my info or accusations hold up in a court of law? Probably not, no... but my sources were/are the local peoples -- several of whom said they'd had relatives shot at a protest -- our translator, who referred to a particular 'massacre' as common knowledge, and finally, our chopper pilot. He, too, talked about the gunning down of local peoples as an accepted fact.