On Monday, March 24th, the Queen Creek Coalition will present information and be asking for climber input on issues related to the legislation to privatize Oak Flat and environs for mining purposes.

The Arizona Mountaineering Club has offered to provide stage space at their monthly meeting held at the Phoenix Country Day School in the east-central Phoenix area. All are welcome to attend. The meeting starts at 7 pm.

Details can be found at http://www.queencreekcoalition.com or at the Arizona Mountaineering Club's website, http://www.amcaz.org.

Fred

I'm a very concerned lifelong AZ climber who has been very close to this situation from the beginning so I hope to attend this meeting. I hope lots of others will attend as well.

It would be nice if Sherman could attend since he has info about Tamo and the whole sitution that only somebody in his position can have. I don't know if he would be able to attend, but it seems like having as much info available as possible would help people make informed decisions. Tamo is only one factor in this discussion but it is a big piece of the puzzle. Sherman has a lot of insight into the other pieces as well. Much of what is going on now has already been discussed either in earlier meetings between RCC and climbers or between Sherman, RCC, State Parks, BLM, etc. I think a bit of history from the "inside" and a more open discussion this time around could be very beneficial.

Will there be an opportunity for people who cannot attend this meeting to find out what was discussed and give input?

CJD

Chris,

I will probably post an overview of the meeting here on mp and I'll try to make sure we get something similar on www.queencreekcoalition.com so that those who can't attend can get the info.

We're just now starting to get the word out to the local gyms and other groups and also doing a lot of word of mouth promotion for those not so involved. All climbers are invited so the more the merrier.

The AMC has been very gracious to be our hosts and allow us to step in to their meeting so send good vibes their way.

Thanks,

Fred

I won't be able to make this meeting, but figured I should bump it to the top, just as a reminder. Let us know how it goes.

What happened at the meeting?

We all appreciate the efforts being made to save Queen Creek. Really I mean that.

But putting up a banner, a highway sign, and a parade isn't going to do a damn thing. That's the activist strategy which may work in some arenas but not against a multi-billion dollar mining company trying to get more billions of dollars under Oak Flat. I guess if your goal is to feel better and claim that you tried to save Oak Flat those things will work but as to saving anything or getting something back for what we will lose I'm really disappointed and worried.

I viewed the presentation and find a serious bias against Tamo and believe you guys are being manipulated by RCC to their benefit and our loss.

Are you guys (whoever is pulling the strings for this group) satisfied getting a temporary lease on what's left of Oak Flat and a few other crumbs the mine is willing to give up? I hope not. No matter what happens there is going to be a mine someday and we are going to lose hundreds or thousands of climbs and boulder problems at Oak Flat. What is your plan to mitigate that loss?

Why do you describe Tamo in such derogatory terms when I know several of you have not even climbed there or barely at all. Of the more than a dozen people I know who have climbed at Tamo EVERY SINGLE ONE says they like Tamo better than Oak Flat. Yet your presentation describes it as a killer bee infested choss pile. That is so incredibly wrong. The AMC wrote a letter in opposition to Tamo that was so full of misinformation it is obvious the author had only reiterated some propaganda they had heard. I'd like to see the AMC have an outing up there and see what people think then.

What else besides parades and such are you planning, working on, or negotiating for? Remember there are lots of other climbers interested in this situation and since your group seems to have taken over you are responsible for the outcome. You claim to represent climbers but it appears to me to a bunch of self appointed Oak Flat groupies some with a commercial interest as well. If we don't get something significant like Tamo to offset our losses it will be because you guys let it go.

I've heard that one option talked about is rather than getting Tamo with a chance of a substandard road you guys are negotiating to get road improvements to the Homestead. That sure wouldn't be a great value. Where are the replacement climbs? As has been erroneously said about Tamo many times, "we already own that land."

The mining company, the state legislature, and the governor offered us a state park at Tamo and we should be demanding we get it or at least access. Anything less would be a failure. Right now if this continues the way it is going climbers are going to get so much less than what we were initially offered. It is sad. Climbers from all over the country will lose.

Give me a reason to be hopeful. Give me a reason to believe we won't get screwed. In your presentation it sounds as though you are happy that you successfully got Tamo out of the way so you can start over from scratch. Don't try to say you didn't have something to do with it. Why did the AMC write an illinformed letter specifically claming Tamo to be a bad alternative? If AZ climbers had supported it we would have it and anything else you think you are negotiating for at Oak Flat. So what are we going to get as your group starts over? Don't be so secretive.

If I sound frustrated and pissed it is because I am. I am an AZ native and climber of over 30 years. I have climbed extensively at Tamo and Oak Flat. My opinions represent actual first hand knowledge and mirror the feelings of dozens of other climbers. I have worked hard to try to get something for us and you guys are throwing it away.

Chris,

The "state" followed through with its promise to provide legislation to enable a new state park narrowly focused on climbing.

However and quite unfortunately but very predictably, due to the incredibly poor foresight of the framers of the whole deal, which evidently includes you and your former employer, the "state" has now decided that the deal reeks to high heaven. (This decision making was all done without any input from climbers by the way, so it goes to show you just how much clout "we" have, no?)

If you really want to flog dead horses, let's go back and revisit all the BS of the last 5 years or so OR we can move on with the reality at hand, which includes the lack of resources and political will to carry through with your Tamo deal.

I vote that we move forward together.

Fred

Chris, I have climbed three separate areas at Tamo. I have climbed many more at Queen Creek. I enjoy both but do not think Tamo superior to Queen Creek. I have made this plain to you and John. Tamo is much further, generally shorter, albeit with better rock. The number of routes we could open in just lower devil's canyon and Apache Leap alone would more than double the number of climbs.

Oak Flat appeals to many users: motorcycle trails riders, mtn bikers, hikers (especially in devil's canyon), hunters, 4WD folks, native americans and birders. To me it's more than just the climbing that we are trying to preserve.

I would love to have both places to climb but do not confuse the issue. I think what we have to do is mitigate the loss of any climbing, not trade it away outright as you seem to propose. There are broader issues at play with the potential loss of Oak Flat. Your concerns are valid, your background as a developer at Tamo well known. I can understand your desire to have Tamo become part of the regional dish of climbing. It is an opinion worth noting.

Chris, we have not overlooked Tamo. If you would have seen the presentation first hand you would have heard Marty refer to Tamo as a Mecca of climbing as well as given the opportunity to ask questions and raise topics.

There was a portion of the meeting that discussed Tamo, somebody asked the question is Tamo on the back burner or being forgotton. I answered the question and said no not in the least, Tamo is a very valuable resource, with great rock that was different from tuff of Queen Creek and the surrounding limestone and that it offered great opportunities for the climbing local community to grow. I also added that we had assessed all the areas in the region, just so the community understood that we were not tunnel-visioned with our approach.

I do not know where you got the info that Tamo is thought of or referred to as a bee infested choss pile, but for what it is worth it is not from within the QCC that I know of.

Tamo has become this political football that has not been removed by the climbers or the QCC, but by RCC, who blames it on the governer of AZ.

Mike,

I read the presentation to get that description of Tamo. That's one of the reasons I made my previous post.

Chris, as a concerned AZ climber, why is it that your scrutiny of the QCC's presentation is without scrutiny of RCC presentation to this point. There are serious problems with how RCC has dealt with some key issues. What about scrutiny of the fact that the pedged $1M for a road that by all other expert analysis will cost at least that much per mile (and please correct me if I am wrong)but the climbers of AZ need about 4.5 miles of road to access Tamo per the JS plan, leaving the climbers of AZ about 3.5M short. What about scrutiny of the fact that they want overturn public land (Oak Flat) that is currently protected specifically from mining? What about the scrutiny that the mine has represented to us that Tamo is off the table and blames it on the governer? What about the scrutiny of the environmental impact that will accure if the are allowed to proceed as they plan?

We have climbed at Tamo, we know the possibilities and what kind of climbing resource it is, JS, CH, CD have done a very effective job of not only establishing climbing, but relaying the message. Understanding what Tamo is is a key element in all this. But the 25 years of climbing history at Oak Flat is also and moreso a key element.

To affectively advocate for AZ climbing, IMO a climbers stance should be first to preserve the climbing that exists and then support the creation of new climbing.