Tam O'Shanter

Thanks for all the pics & info, Greg! Looks like it took a decent chunk of your time.

What I'm seeing in these pictures is that nothing looks very steep. So are the 13s horrible crimp-fests ? When I see a wall that has a 5.8 and a 5.13+ and they look equally steep, I'm thinking the 13+ must be nasty thin. And that's not what most people mean when they talk of a world-class area. Are any of these faces really steep ? Like 40 degrees or more overhung ? 30 ? 20 ?

OK I've read all the threads about this area. I have a few questions; Why would JS, or anyone else, pick an area with a plethora of access issues and miles of crap road as the "replacement" for Queen Creek when there are literally dozens of crags around the state with no access issues and a easier approaches???? The Homestead, within view of Tam, is just one example.
Why, if the access issues have not been worked out, would you post the area on Mountain Project in the first place??
Why would you dream that the state would spend the millions of dollars to build and acceptable road into such and area, if the access ever does get worked out??? Climbers don't generate that kind of revenue. Phoenix is not Boulder Colorado.

Most people don't realize that the access to the Homestead is across State Trust Land and across several private parcels. The parking is also on a private piece of land. Several Homestead crags are on private land also. With continued publicizing of the crag and its great climbing there will no doubt be issues. Probably sooner than we think. (Cinco de Homestead, etc., . . . ) See my notes on that site's comments.

As for Tam O'Shanter, you should head out there to check it out for yourselves whether you go in by the "official" access described above or some other way across non-posted private property (similar to accessing the Homestead areas). Best to judge for yourselves and let your legislators, congressmen/women, and state officials (State Parks Board) hear your opinion. (Positive, negative, whatever, just get heard)

Info on the crag was really only posted on MP after the mining company consultants had their climbtamo.com web site up for almost 2 years and there had been little other detailed public info coming out about the place and some went in independently and posted up.

Currently, as of May 17th, the State Parks Board is not expending any significant energies on the climbing park as they are concerned that their investment may be futile given the intertwined land swap difficulties of the last few years. They have little money to do very much right now anyway.

The rock is Quartzite, a metamorphosed sandstone. The space between the sand grains is filled with silica cement and when the rock is broken it will break through the sand grains or pebbles unlike sandstone which breaks around the grains and pebbles. It is much harder than granite. It is almost horizontally layered and features occasional horizontal cracks and pockets. Famous quartzite areas are the Gunks, Ny. and Arapiles, Australia. Other North American areas are Seneca, Wv., Moores Wall, Nc., Big Cottonwood Canyon, Ut., the Uintas, Ut., Devils Lake, Wi., Lake Louise, Alberta, Stone Hill, Mt., and Ibex, Ut. It takes gear well, but requires some tricky placements. It can range from sharp to mirror smooth.

It usually offers trad, mixed, sport and bouldering at the same crag. It has a wide variety of features, cracks, pockets, heucos, horizontals, baby bums (Arapiles) and endless other variations. It often climbs steeply and tends to be very sequential. Seems to me the sequential nature is due to the slippery feel of the rock and difficulty of smearing my feet and my tendency to use THE foothold, not just a smear.

As far as Tamo is concerned, I like quartzite so I wanted to climb there and when in the area, I asked around and was given the opportunity. The road is horrible. Definitely a jeep road, quite rough and better for a short wheelbase vehicle. Legally it crosses private land, most likely owned by a copper company (very common for the copper belt in Arizona). I only got to go out there for a few days, so I have not seen much of the place or done many routes. There are saguaro cactus next to the cliff which, to me, means the weather is generally quite warm. This is good for winter. The cliffs face many directions and often have gullies and corridors, so sun or shade can easily be found.

The routes I did had excellent rock. The first was a 5.8 gear route that didn't look that great, but once on it, climbed wonderfully. It overhung 10+ feet in 80. The next was a 5.8 sport route that looked incredible. It was smooth, had limited features and took an improbable line. Definitely one of the best 5.8 sport routes I've ever done. From the ground I thought it looked 5.11. Next was a 5.10+ that was past vertical. Beautiful rock, hard to read, limited features, classic. This was the only place I've ever seen the baby's butt features besides Arapiles. All the routes I did in the few days had great rock. Obviously not all the rock I saw looked great, but much of it did. I was told that many of the areas have different characteristics and climb differently. The cliffs seem to be between 30-100 feet. I found it to be great cragging. The rock in places reminds me of Arapiles (the greatest crag on earth).

Politically, the area has issues. This was found as a replacement crag for Queen Creek. I think it easily surpasses the rock quality and route scope of Queen Creek (which I have spent only 2 days bouldering and 2 roped climbing). I think mining the Queen Creek area is unfortunate, it will devastate the piece of land and it will never be the same. I think the land swap is a dangerous precedent to set, what if someone find gold under Yosemite, will they trade the land for something else and trash the valley to find the precious metals? (Extreme example).

On the other hand, climbing state parks could be a good precedent to set (at least for climbers). This resource could live on for the life of climbing, certainly longer that the mining of copper at Queen Creek. Not that climbers are a big economic force, but it would give the town of Kearny a small, very long term boost, rather that the quick and large boost of copper mining.

I don't know the exact figures, but for the sake of argument is the copper company going to give up on 20 billion dollars worth of copper under Queen Creek? For many generations to come they will be trying to get this deposit if the don't succeed now. They have done well for the last few generations.

In conclusion, I would like to be able to climb Tamo in the future. It would be a good addition to the available winter destinations. Joshua Tree, Ca. is great, but windy, grainy and short. Bishop, Ca. has great bouldering, but the roped climbing is limited because sun only reaches the Owens River gorge for a portion of the already short days. Red Rocks is ok in the winter, but sport climbing is the main option because a large proportion of the longer routes face north. Also, Red Rocks is a storm magnet with 12,000 ft Mt Charleston catching most storms in the area and once the rock gets wet, it takes at least 2 days of no climbing before it drys. Tucson, Az. has lots of good granite climbing in the winter. Cochise has longer routes that wonder up a number of domes. It is generally slabby and has some bird closure issues. Mount Lemmon has lots of climbing. The rock gets more solid the higher up the mountain you go, also windier and colder. Mt. Lemmon also attracts weather. Heuco Tanks, Tx. is some of the best bouldering in the world with some of the biggest access issues in the climbing world. Tamo has no good access, some very good rock, semi short routes, a good range of route difficulties and lots of steep limestone with some deposition features (tuffas) in the area. If there was a road built, it would be one of my first choices for US. winter climbing, and definitely a stop during the winter climbing circut.

answering jimbo's questions:

Why would JS, or anyone else, pick an area with a plethora of access issues and miles of crap road as the "replacement" for Queen Creek when there are literally dozens of crags around the state with no access issues and a easier approaches?

JS thought that climbers deserved a new area as opposed to an area that already exists. The land swap would require Resolution to build/improve the road into a new area, rather than telling you to just go climb over at the Homestead, Projects, etc. The road to the Homestead is in, you can go there already. Why not make Resolution put their money into acquiring a whole new climbing crag? As far as setting a bad precedent, at least Resolution is putting something on the table. Most other corporations would (and have) just said "No more climbing on our property. Fuck off." Which do you choose?

Why would you dream that the state would spend the millions of dollars...

Not the state, the whole project is on Resolution's tab.

Climbers don't generate that kind of revenue.

Tell that to the barkeep at La Cantina. I'll bet she took home more cash the night that the climbers were in the bar, waiting for pizza, than on any other night in the last year. I didn't see many locals in there that night buying multiple rounds of Petron. On my last visit, it was very apparent that a large majority of the locals are unanimous in wanting the park to happen. Several thousand climbers per winter would definately benefit Kearny economically. Not every climber is a cheapskate, non-tipping dirtbag. It would be nice to actually have a pro-climber state (or national) park for a change instead of being treated as a potential criminal like in Hueco, Yosemite, Zion, etc.

I posted of movie of the various climbs at Tamo on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO5l-qTCpCk

Seems this area has now become a bit of an ethics sidebar conversation. I'm guessing it fails Guideline #3, my apologies in advance

Joe A. -As far as setting a bad precedent, at least Resolution is putting something on the table. Most other corporations would (and have) just said "No more climbing on our property. Fuck off." Which do you choose?

RCC put nothing on the table except a bill to the State of AZ to pay for the park (who didn't have the $$$) Fact is they (RCC) had to put 'something' on the table because the legislation is about an 'exchange'. The stakeholders (climbers) had to be offered something on paper whether it was fair or not.

Not the state, the whole project is on Resolution's tab.

More accurately phrased is "part of the project" not 'whole' project

On my last visit, it was very apparent that a large majority of the locals are unanimous in wanting the park to happen.

Apparently you missed meeting the 'other' LARGER majority ~(:

Some pretty vague, brisk answers there, kirra. I can't say I'm really interested in debatin this topic. I was directing my response to Jimbo's questions and provided answers that were given to me by JS, as well as things I observed personally while visiting Kearny. Most anti-Tamo propaganda is put forth by people who have neither spoken with anyone directly related to the project or actually climbed at Tamo, so I offered some alternative insight.

Joe- no intention meant to be vague by being brief. My brisk response was meant as comments within the 'climbing area' usually address specific climbing details and not politics.

You mentioned some of your answers are 2nd hand. Mine are put forth from verifyable fact aquired 1st hand. Your observations are correct that folks sometimes cloud issues concerning Tamo with personal opinions. If you do decide someday you want references to what I have said, I would be only too happy to answer a pm. There is also a new organization, the 'Queen Creek Coalition' recently created to assist climbers with all of their questions and address concerns.

kirra- I don't see anywhere that Joe A "mentioned that some of his answers are 2nd hand". FYI, JS stands for John Sherman, probably the most informed, accurate, verifiable source on the entire Tam'O project. Last time I checked, personal observation is also still considered 1st hand.

As for what Resolution has "put on the table" I can guarantee you have NO IDEA, because you were not at that table...this is a verifiable fact.

CHill, your historical 'splitter-spatter' is of no importance to the current matters at hand. I'm very aware of who JS is - the person who got this tamo-for-trade mess started. As far as sitting at tables I've been invited to far more than you knew were available. The Local Climbers should have been at that meeting with RCC long ago -- NOT just YOU and/or JS -- Talk to the hand.

Bear in mind as mentioned I was trying to be brief here. Your continued arguing only pursues this comment area as "off-topic". I suggest to start a forum thread or try constructive conversations with the local climbing group created for this situation, the QCC. BTW Tamo is currently OFF the table and it's time to move forward.

kirra-
None of your comments on this page are “on-topic.”

I’m not familiar with the term “splitter-spatter”, I assume it is some sort of elementary school insult, perhaps I should retort with something age appropriate like “you wish!” or “Talk to the Hand.”

I know you don’t have any idea what “tables” I know are available , and the “Local Climbers” that you speak of (but are not one of), have been included during this entire process.

Tamo may be off your table, but it’s still on mine.

LOL ~ tamo's not the only pile on your table CH

smack yerself sillier mr utah & put the bong away

You wish, kirra! Talk to the Hand!

child... come up with yer own material

the continued whining and cock-strutting BS pile that goes on about this area is pathetic. I'm from AZ, your not from AZ, 30 yrs., 50 yrs. blah... blah... blah...

Doesn't matter how many glossy propaganda photos you place here CH.

Doesn't change the fact that QC/OF is not for sale or trade -period- that's how MOST local folks want it and the newly formed climbers group. Regardless of how certain folks here seem confused, perhaps they would not be so if they actually ATTENDED a recent meeting. For the record, access to Tamo is now a separate issue from the Land Exchange and shall remain until further notice which hopefully will be posted on on an actual forum thread and not here.

CHill,

Sorry Chill I gotta pull out the OG card on you. Number One, not Keystone Light) was the first roped climb at Tamo. We did some bouldering before that too. Great pictures.

I am an AZ local of over 30 years and have been involved from the beginning. Many other locals were invited to participate as well. Jim Waugh being another one who chose to participate. He too agreed that Tamo is GREAT. JS has lived in AZ on and off since the 80's so he is as much of a local as many who claim to be. All of the AZ locals I have talked to are in favor of acquiring access to Tamo including most of the new coalition.

I've climbed all over the western US and Tamo is one of the best cragging areas I've ever been too. The bouldering is phenomenal and has problems (and future problems)that are as good as those found in any area in the world. The diversity of climbs is amazing and the rock is as good as it gets. If we can get a decent road built to Tamo it will become a true destination area. It could become the crown jewel of AZ climbing areas.

chris-

except it's short and sherm is baggin all the lines. What fun will that be?

it has a long way to go to being the best- it is simply another new river w/ less trees. Certainly no squamish, fishers, needles (sd OR so cal)....

I didn't say it was the best in the country just ONE of the best in the west. I'm happy to have "another New River" in AZ. I don't think short is a mark against Tamo. Seems like most people only want to climb up to some anchors and lower off anyway.

Verm is old an fat so he is just bagging the easy trad lines. All of the great hard stuff is still there. HA! Probably 1500 routes left to do now.

Thanks CJD, my bad, I thought it was Keystone Light, your historical 'splitter-spatter' is important to me.

First of all, Tamo is not shorter than Oak Flat, and there is no question it is better rock. I too have climbed extensively in the western states and have found Tamo to be "one of the best" areas I have climbed at. The more I climbed there, the more impressed I was with the area. Most of the people who cast dispersion on Tamo's quality have never climbed there or have not climbed there enough to accurately judge the area.

Second, no one complains that Verm "bagged all the lines" at Hueco. The hardest routes and many classics at Tamo still await FAs.

Tamo is always going to be "off the table" to people who don't want it, but for those who do, it is still a possiblity.

I don't need to attend your meetings kirra, I know what Resolution Copper is going to offer the climbers, before the the climbers do. Remember? I work for them...

"I don't need to attend your meetings kirra, I know what Resolution Copper is going to offer the climbers, before the the climbers do. Remember? I work for them... "

still smokin' huh chill... They're not "my" meetings but the meetings of the climbing community. If your not a part of those and you work for RCC then your a traitor who would sell his mother for an FA on a piece o'choss

Your braggin now..?? What a tool - fool - idiot..!