I have seen this coming for a while but didn't want to bring it up because I didn't want to stir the pot. The time has come where I have to say something just to say I did and get it out in the open.

I just got off the phone with Sherman and he told me it looks like we are not going to get Tamo. Here's why. A very small but very vocal minority of climbers has been successful in convincing RCC that "we" don't really want Tamo. The Access Fund also made it clear that its leaders had no interest in Tamo a long time ago. What RCC hears the climbers saying is what "we" really want is access to the few boulders and crags at Oak Flat outside the area of mining activities and that is enough.

Now I'm sure some will think this is a great victory but remember. You aren't getting anything more than what RCC offered when this whole thing started. Actually we are getting less because they had always planned on helping us find new rock, acquire it, build roads and campgrounds etc. So, by successfully convincing them that "we" don't want Tamo "we" have saved them at least $3 million dollars and climbers will get no mitigation for the lost climbs at Oak Flat. All climbers, not just the few who have fought it, have lost the 2100 routes and approximately 2000 boulder problems we could have had at Tamo in addition to all the routes we will lose at Oak Flat... for nothing. RCC couldn't be happier because they are off the hook.

Unless there are some serious efforts (and soon) by both local and nonlocal climbers to support Tamo it is dead and we will have lost what would certainly have been one of the most popular areas in the Southwest. I'm just sick about this because I know what a great place we could have had.

Chris, how unfortunate and I couldn't agree more with your disappointment. Amazing that climbers as a community wouldn't just want to keep existing areas but try and secure access to new ones too.

On a personal note, thank you for your efforts and vision.

Incidentally, I was climbing up at the Pond this weekend and came across some propaganda. I picked it up to pack it out as it was litter laying in the dirt completely discarded by someone. Nice card stock, double sided, full gloss photos and a bunch a bunk about not wanting Tamo. After examination I couldn't figure out who sponsored it. Interesting that it doesn't say anything about saving Queen Creek, just that "we" don't want or need Tamo.


~Susan

edit: Scanner issues or I'd post a photo. The card actually does not say we done want or need tamo it reads...

"Queen Creek Canyon has never been closed to climbing"
"the current version of the land exchange bill does not allocate enough money to open Tamo as a state park"
"Tamo is currently on public land"
"The current license agreement with Resolution Copper Company (RCC) allowing access to the Pond and Atlantis is revocable by RCC at anytime"
The state of Arizona cannot fund road construction to Tamo"
"MSHA (Mine Safety & Health Admin) doesn't want climbers on land owned by RCC"

Well, that's pretty interesting, Chris. I don't know anyone here in Arizona who has ever said that they don't want Tamo. Tamo does, however, currently seem to be a bit of a red herring with respect to the ongoing RCC land exchange discussions, as RCC has made its position clear that the state of Arizona should be required to pony-up the needed $8 million or so required to actually create the park, while at the same time the state is running a huge $600 million budget deficit. The money has to come from somewhere. If RCC won't fully fund the park and the state of Arizona can't--then (to me at least) it appears that RCC's offer of Tamo as a viable replacement climbing area to AZ climbers is akin to the Emperor having no clothes.

Curt

Curt,

Remember at the meeting John From RCC said they didn't care if it was a state park but when presented with the possibility the state parks thought it was a great idea. That's why the state park idea got rolling. RCC has been committed to getting us a climbing area no matter who manages it but if we don't really want it (as evidenced by the constant criticism of everything associated it with Tamo) they are happy to back off.

Chris,

Yes, I do recall John Rickus saying that. However, the BLM stated (in their House testimony on the land exchange) that they also can not manage a climbing park at Tamo due to their lack of resources. So again, while I think it would be great to have access to a new climbing area out at Tamo--someone needs to explain (in very clear terms) how this concept can become a reality from a financial point of view. Simply put, who is going to pay for this? Some entity needs to step-up and commit. Until that happens, I think it is difficult for many people to fully get behind an idea that lacks much prospect of becoming real.

Curt

Chris,

So, you are announcing that RCC is taking Tamo off of the table now that the locals have actually begun to be allowed inclusion in the debate? I don't get that and kind of have the same initial response as Curt.

People were pretty clear at the meeting in October about being amenable to Tamo becoming accessible to the public, whether a state park, BLM area, etc. Everybody from our elected officials and federal agencies on down has criticism about this deal (funding especially), that's just part of the process and our tradition of healthy public debate usually leads to an eventual compromise. Expecting everybody to throw their arms around RCC's paradigm without question continues to be rather extreme and one-sided.

As to informational cards detailing the issues with the RCC deal, it all sounds issue based and at least somebody is taking the effort to educate the climbers visiting the area about what is the case, rather than what rumor might be supplying. Doesn't sound like propaganda from what Susan has detailed. Sounds factual and contextual and provides information to people visiting who might be unfamiliar with the legislative details.

Interesting indeed.

Fred

OK, let me play this back. So now suddenly the governor decides she wants to solve her budget problems with money from RCC which they have no reason or obligation to pay so there goes our state park and you guys act all proud for saying there isn't enough money to make a park instead of actually doing something to see that there is enough money. You didn't want a state park anyway right? OK fine. So then you gleefully bring up that the BLM doesn't want a climbing area there either. Fine. So Tamo's dead. Happy?

How about instead of focusing on all the reasons not to get Tamo you start doing something positive to make it happen? Complaining on these forums is not positive.

For example we were told we were going to get a state park by the state legislature and the governor. Now they want to fix their budget problems by asking for RCC to cough up $22 million. RCC had already agreed to pay $3 million (I believe) and the state was happy with that. I believe the state did the financial analysis not RCC. So now you guys jump on RCC for not coming through with enough money to make the park. If I were you I'd be writing letters to the governor demanding they quit goofing around so we can get the state park we were promised and they stick to the deal they made with RCC.

SB 1550: Copper State Park , signed into law June 28, 2006.

Go for it.

Or...how about going to RCC and asking that they do whatever it takes to get Tamo up and running. Instead somebody is leaving leaving anti Tamo propaganda lying around on the ground on RCC property. If you don't ask for it you aren't going to get it. When asking it probably would come across better if you didn't vilify the person you are asking and acted like you really want what you are asking for. They are not REQUIRED to do ANYTHING for us.

What I'm saying is it is time for YOU ALL to start stepping up to support Tamo, if you want it. So far I have not heard much in the way of support. Just complaining about everything. It really sounds like you are ready to accept not getting Tamo. The same thing RCC is hearing. Don't expect Sherman and the rest of us to keep hammering away at RCC and doing all the work with the BLM and state while you guys sit back and take shots at everything we do or say. We can't get much traction with that kind of backup. If you want it then act like it and do something positive rather than continually try to undermine every effort to make it happen.

You guys are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Either you want Tamo or not. If you want it then it is time for climbers to do something to help themselves. Sherman has set the table all you have to do is show up for dinner before the food gets cold and thrown out.

One more thing. This isn't just about the few people posting on this forum. It is about the future climbers who might enjoy Tamo. Try to think about giving something back to the sport.

It was trash when I found it littered on the ground. Nothings changed. Why no ownership of such important statements?

Susan,

Those cards were produced by Steve Dison, a prominent member of Friends of Queen Creek and the owner of Three Ball Climbing. Sorry you view them as trash. Do you have a problem with the factual content?

Curt

1. My name is Steve Dison and I am the creator of those cards.
They were distributed at a publicized meeting with a representative of RCC present.
All who were interested could take a card or ten according to their desire. Everyone at the meeting knew who made them. After all, there is a picture of me on the front! Next time I'll put my name on them. Waaah, Waah!

2. It was never about not wanting Tamo. RCC was offering a dirt road into Tamo. They never offered to maintain it. They also never obtained authority to make the road. Tamo was never theirs to give in the first place.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to trade a nice climbing area for an unmaintained dirt road?

3. Maybe now would be a good time for John Sherman to tell us about the other climbing areas he found that they (RCC) couldn't use as leverage because there are no access issues.

4. It's obvious to me that they picked Tamo because it HAS access issues and they could use that to say "You need us because you can't get access to this area without us." "Oh and by the way, This is the last possible climbing area in the 'Phoenix Area'."

Sorry if I don't have a timely reply to any of your responses. I don't usually post on internet forums. (its not a bad thing, just not my thing) I mainly posted here to take ownership of those nice cards. I have a few more if anyone wants them.

Am I missing something here? Why is everyone arguing about methods and motivations for opening a new climbing area? Why not just let RCC pay for the road as they offered? That's the big access issue, isn't it? Sure it's on public land--we all knew that--but the access is difficult because of a lousy road. What's wrong with letting RCC build us a road? I hear the climbing's pretty good and it's great rock.

Why does the state need to develop it? Surely everyone on this forum has climbed somewhere where there is no development and/or management. What's up?

Mal

Malcolm, RCC won't pay for the road until the land swap occurs. With a road, Tamo would be open to climbers. The existing road has a gate across it part ways up, otherwise, it woulda been developed a long time ago by friends that told me about it. It was found by BB when development of The Drip was going on below it.

It seems to come down to whether you support a state park or support queen creek. It just makes RCC's actions to own the land and avoid the federal studies Kirra mentioned as the motivation for keeping us happy and walking away from queen creek quietly.

I think John and Chris have found and partially developed a nice area. It's no JT or Eldo but nice. Lot of nice areas in AZ and it would be cool to see a climbing state park but who pays? That's a huge issue in today's economy.

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

RCC is not your mother. They are not a climber welfare program. They are willing to buy land, build roads, pay to build campgrounds and give it all to the state, BLM or whomever wants it. They do not need to create an endowment for perpetual management/maintenance on top of that. Be happy they are willing to give anything at all because they don't have to do it.

They are trying to replace what you might lose at Oak Flat with the best area that we could come up with. Why pick an area with access issues? Not for leverage but because the intent was to give climbers something they couldn't have obtained on their own. If we had found an area on FS land with a paved road you would have said that RCC didn't give you anything that wasn't already public property. The same thing some people erroneously keep saying about Tamo. (There is no legal access and much of the climbing is either on private land or blocked by private land.)

Instead of paying to print up fancy cards complaining about what RCC is trying to give you how about you put some effort into helping the process get you what you want in a positive way. This is an amazing opportunity that we are going to lose. I cannot understand why if anybody really supports getting Tamo for us they would approach it in the way some of you have.

Honestly, I think the community seems more supportive of stopping the development of a mine at Oak Flat.

Thanks for clearing that up. Hope you can work out something worthwhile.
Mal

CJD wrote: RCC is not your mother. They are not a climber welfare program. They are willing to buy land, build roads, pay to build campgrounds and give it all to the state, BLM or whomever wants it. They do not need to create an endowment for perpetual management/maintenance on top of that. Be happy they are willing to give anything at all because they don't have to do it.


Robbing Peter to pay Paul. RCC isn't doing anyone a favor unless they benefit from it.

The climbers have largely spoken, not in favor of Tamo, in any shape or form. Basically saying to RCC and everyone who cares, do not do us any favors.

Say Tamo is removed from the legislation, RCC has already gotten the benefit, the claim they offered and climbers refused. Doesn't really change whats going to happen to Oak Flat, just saves RCC a bunch of money and a huge headache. Climbers get less. Much less.

Pretty much summed it up there Mike. It is killing me seeing climbers waste this opportunity.


Bob, You are right. They aren't going to do anybody a favor unless they benefit from it. What is the benefit to RCC of putting out $3 million to get Tamo. I'd say it's PR but who cares? I don't give a damn why they want to do it I'm going to take it because it is way better than nothing.

At our last meeting with RCC John told us this was the first of many meeting to discuss what we want directly with them. It was supposed to be the beginning of an open and direct relationship with them. (RCC & AZ CLIMBERS) Joy took down our email addesses and was supposed communicate with us and arrange another meeting. According to John Rickus it is supposed to be a "climbers working group". He testified to this in front of Congress on Nov. 1st:

"Thirdly, we are in the process of forming a climbers’
working group to discuss ongoing access and climbing issues and to expand and enhance
these opportunities, so long as it is safe to do so."
http://www.resolutioncopper.com/

I haven't received a single email from them since that first meeting. Has anyone else?

On another note,
Fear tactics such as creating a 'Goodbye Tamo' thread are not productive.
I think what John Rickus has in writing carries a little more weight than a Chris's phone conversation.

CJD
Are you paid by RCC, like Sherman?
Does everyone here know that Sherman was put on payroll by RCC as an insider find a substitute and "sell" the idea to the climbing community?

Do you realize that it was always opposition to trading one area for another, so RCC could turn Queen Creek to an open pit mine?

The AF has never opposed Tamo, they opposed the land trade (one for the other), but supported getting both. They were pretty clear about that.

Do you take lessons from Bill OReilly about
"the no spin zone"?

Kenneth,

To keep it correct, RCC has proposed a block cave mine which can cave to the surface and form what is called a "glory hole". To the layperson this looks like an open pit.

Another problem is the vast quantity of tailing (waste) from mining a deposit that is over 98% waste. In other words, if you mine out a cubic km of material, more than that amount (swell factor of breaking rock) will be placed somewhere.

The original intent of FOQC wasn't to oppose the mine but to advocate for a better mining method that wouldn't close the surface to present use (climbing plus). This would mean innovating a new technique that would backfill with waste to prevent subsidence - all on the scale of a block cave. In the past, this has only been done on paper and in concept, but for a deposit as rich as RCC claims, the broad historic use of the area and its location close to metro Phoenix, this isn't an outlandish demand. The deposit isn't going anywhere. The area deserves much review and consideration and in my opinion even a couple of generations worth.

The Land Swap language underplays any notion that this land was set aside by executive order and strives for quick action to change that fact even while not making mention of it. Thankfully, the Coalition of Tribes provided major clout in delaying rash decisions and highlighting Oak Flats' non-mining value. Their thoughts are very important, since they have the oldest interest in the area. The Tribes stance is principled. They won't trade Oak Flat for a hole in the ground and bloated promises. Climbers are natural allies since they seek to keep the land intact as well. They can learn much from the Tribes.

Cheerleading for Tamo, as expressed up-thread, is buying into the RCC agenda which seeks quick outcomes and ignores several important concerns of many other groups.