Mike wrote: They did, he refused for fear of the backlash he would receive. Unfortunately he was correct.

Who did???


This whole mess could have been handle in a different and more mature manner. Climbers historically are a splinter group...that why we get our ass kick in situations like this.

Probably not to hard to figure out if your a local, but he was spot on correct concerning not only the need for climbers to get as much out of this as possible, but on how most locals would react.

The idea of a local doing the research is mute anyway, JS was/is highly qualified to do the job. He has done it respectfully with the utmost concern for the future of AZ climbing. CH as well.

I'm not listening to Kirra or others...taking it all in and making my own opinion.

As to working with government...How do you think we got Shelf Rd and the San Luis Valley...with hiking trails, biking trails, campsites, bathrooms and running water. We worked together to make it happen!

Mike...you still didn't answer my question.

Mike wrote: The idea of a local doing the research is mute anyway, JS was/is highly qualified to do the job. He has done it respectfully with the utmost concern for the future of AZ climbing. CH as well.

I never said he wasn't.


I also know that other climbers (Curt being one) who care and are quite concern about this issue and others in AZ. Hopefully climbers will in the near future pull together like other users groups do for a common cause.

Bob,

Pretty much this entire thread could have been written three years ago--and most of it, in fact, was. One of the main problems is that supporting Tamo (under the current paradigm) leads directly to the loss of Oak Flat. Tamo supporters will say that isn't true--but the way the current legislation reads, Tamo will not happen unless the land exchange taking Oak Flat away from public ownership occurs.

So, each individual climber can basically be in one of two camps:

1) You believe that this new mine is going to happen anyway and therefore we should try to get some decent replacement climbing area, as compensation for the loss of Oak flat.

or

2) You believe that Oak flat is a unique climbing resource that is worth fighting for--and that it should not be traded away for commercial exploitation.

In all fairness, I think supporting either one of these two positions is totally defensible. However, it is completely disingenuous and hypocritical to claim support for keeping Oak Flat and also for creating the new climbing park at Tamo--at least under the current paradigm. If you get one, you will lose the other--it's just that simple and you can't have it both ways.

I wish that weren't true and perhaps there will eventually be some way to "decouple" the creation of Tamo from the RCC land exchange. Perhaps then more climbers would be willing to help lobby the State of Arizona for the creation of the new Park.

Curt

perfect post Curt

carry on ~

I have been following this issue for years and by no means am I an expert on it or even greatly emotionally attached to it.

I consider John a friend and Curt a close one. With that said it would be great to see Oak Flat saved and Tamo (which is public land anyway) open to climbers for daily use. I have seen what can happen (Shelf Rd and Penitente Canyon) when climbers work together for a common cause. In-fighting and name calling does nothing to help our cause and is wasted energy at best.


Good luck and hope that this works out for the best.

Curt,

Well said.

It's another moment of opportunity for us all.

What seems apparent: All want continued access and preservation of the Queen Creek areas. All want as much in return as possible in general for any risk associated to potentially lost recreational opportunities.

Those are great things from which to spring forth.

Perhaps we can forget and forgive the past and move forward together?

Fred

AZ LOCAL HERE: For the Record

Agreed Fred! I feel it is simple, in our heart of hearts our #01 Wish is that Oak Flat is saved and RCC goes away for good. I hope that statement is true. If so I think we can make progress. If our number one wish/goal collectively as a group is to save Oak Flats great.

Last I checked, appeasing climbers through a replacement area, is an intergral part of this Land Exchange. I too think it is wise to cover our asses, however I feel this Tamo/RCC thing took a wrong turn somewhere, there is too much animosity towards each other. Although small in numbers we can have a loud voice, and it can be simple, if you want to make Billions on one of AZ best playgrounds, then be ready to pay. We should shoot for the Sky on this!

AS A LOCAL: I do not feel I should have to pay a dime for this park ever. It should be fully loaded and paid for by RCC for the duration of their minning activity. Not burden the state, and thus me/you with the payments. They want billions, and our land then pay up. That is my AZ LOCAL POINT OF VIEW.

Keep in mind they don't tell you everything. They may give you numbers on cost for these roads and etc but by minning standards, of a company that size it is small potatoes. That road will be a cake walk for them. I WANT MORE: OTHERS SHOULD WANT MORE: YOU ALL SHOULD WANT MORE: A LOT MORE: RIDICULOUSLY MORE: MAKE IT A SERIOUS HEADACHE AND PAIN IN THE ASS: MAKE IT SO THEY WANT TO JUST GO AWAY:

I FEEL OUR POLITITIANS WILL BACK A LOT, Especially Nepalitono who has already voiced serious concerns.

We should be collective on this, But let's make it really hard for them. Let's shoot for the sky, and above all,

ARIZONAN'S SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO PAY...NOT EVEN AN ENTRANCE FEE.

Seriously though, does anyone see my logic, is it feasible. Our is it to far gone and people really just want TAMO.


BTW - Does everyone else agree that a giant hole in Oak Flats, would be a horrible injustice to the area.


Feed Back Please.. (Especially Mike C and Crew, as you are the ones whom have the dialogue with RCC)

My intent in starting this thread was to let people know that we need to support Tamo because interest by RCC appears to be slipping. I am genuinely concerned that we could end up losing OF and get nothing in return. FWIW I haven't been paid to say anything here and haven't been paid at all by WLG in about two years. I would bet that RCC would prefer I keep my mouth shut and let the whole Tamo idea die and save them several million dollars. My hope is that the climbing community will get behind Tamo and get as much as we can from them.

I personally think we deserve even more than Tamo. I probably will regret saying this but Sherman had a great idea for making the whole region into a National Recreation Area for climbing and include some of the other climbing areas like the Homestead, OF, QC, the Drip. My point is that we stand to lose so much at OF that we should try to get as much as possible in return. It is sort of like a wrongful death lawsuit. You can't bring back the dead person with money but getting millions of dollars can make you feel like there has been some retribution.

I hoped we could focus on issues related to why/how we need to support Tamo but apparently some people just don't get it. Here are a couple things to ponder that might help you understand why we need to support Tamo.

The Governor needs the mine but not a climbing park.

The Governor happily signed the bill to create a state park for us at Tamo. Everything was good, people were smiling, and they had a little party. The AZSP financial analysis and agreement with RCC for funding were apparently more than sufficient at that time. Now the Gov. is facing a huge budget problem and suddenly asks for approx. 7 times more money from RCC for the park. Much of it not even directly related to Tamo. Where did that come from? Do you think she cares if we get a climbing park really? She definitely wants the mine because it will generate millions of dollars in revenue for the state and help solve the state's budget problems. But the park would not solve any such problems and if their financial predictions are off could add to the deficit. Unfortunately for us if her demands for more money from RCC backfires on us and Tamo is cut out of the land exchange she wins. More money from the mine and no increase in liability for a new park. RCC would win too because they could go forward with the land exchange without Tamo.

You see I really don't think she cares if we get that park and might even prefer not to have it on the books. She definitely needs the mine and until the value of climbing is greater than the value of the copper below OF she and other politicians have no reason to try to save OF for us and in fact makes the land exchange even more attractive to them.

Here's another one.

Some of you seem to think the San Carlos are on your side trying to save OF. Do you really think they care about climbing? What happens if in their negotiations if RCC decides to make theme happy and give them Apache Leap, Queen Cr. and other lands at OF? Do you think they would still allow climbing? What happened at Seneca? They are looking out for themselves. They didn't give a rats ass about OF and Apache Leap until they smelled the deep pockets of RCC. The whole story about Apache Leap is fiction anyway.

Ian,

I'm asserting we have an opportunity. I don't assert that RCC go away, anymore than visitors have asserted in any organized manner over the years that the historical mining activity to date adjacent to and beneath the Queen Creek areas went away. Generally speaking, mining is consistent with the area and will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future.

Good points about "more."

Fred

Kirra, your silence speaks volumes on the website ownership of SaveQueenCreek.con

Thanks for clearing that up.

CHill, You are a better man than I because my eyes rolled back in my head about half way through the Unaclimber Manifesto.

It is really simple people. It is very likely that at sometime there will be a mine at OF if we don't ask for something in return we won't get it.


There is and never was a divide and conquer strategy. RCC went to several locals before going to Sherman and then HE went to several locals and everybody but me refused to help. I believe we need to cover our butts on this and that it is a very worthy cause. This isn't about egos, greed, selling out, or anything but trying to look out for climbing. If anything the egos that are the problem belong to Kirra, the AF, and maybe some others who feel slighted that they weren't presonally in charge. I have tried to keep my comments directed toward supporting Tamo but since Kirra is trying to divide us into "supporters" vs. "sellouts" I think I have to add a little more.

If the AF hadn't initiated their own divide and conquer strategy we could have negotiated a better deal at OF and Tamo and maybe more. We should have been asking for the moon just like Ian suggests. But THEY divided the climbing community by making people choose sides. Either you support them and their all or nothing approach or you are a labeled a "sellout" if you wanted to look at the bigger picture and try to cover our butts by considering mitigation. The AF has signed off on what looks to me to be a crappy deal at OF and done NOTHING to replace what they gave away. NOTHING! They are not at all worried about replacing the climbing that they AGREED to relinquish. Doesn't that piss anybody off? They signed away access and are now sitting on their hands rather than helping to get something in return. I think they ought to be supporting Tamo to cover their sacrifice of climbing at OF. Why?

So, if you want to get anything in return for the AF's "victory" at OF you are a "sellout"? How about climbers come together to try to make up for what the AF cost us before we get nothing. That's what I'm trying to say. Sherman and our crew, RCC, WLG, AZSP, and others have been working very hard to get Tamo for everybody and everybody is invited to help. If you want to get something back for what the AF signed away at OF then lets come together and support Tamo.

I feel we are selling ourselves short, real short, if we believe Napalitano, and Arizona State Parks will back out if we ask for too much. The letter Napalitano sent to Kyl covers a lot of areas. We can be a collective groupd on this. We can also side with the Tribes of AZ, after all if our main goal is to save Oak Flats and thus Queen Creek, it is in our best interest to align with them, no matter what there motive's may be. It makes the people have a stronger voice.

Then again if we really just want to have a new place to bolt, climb, and show our stuff, then we are at a big loss.

Fred - You are correct, with the amount of research that has gone into the mining operation it will be a hard long fight to protect it forever, but if we (ARIZONAN'S, AND OTHERS) are succesful here we could set a solid precedent for future generations, and Possibly see a day when it is protected forever. If that happens, everyone will have to come to terms with the fact that TAMO was just a pawn in a Chess Game, and let it go.

But for now we should work together to make our Pawn powerful, even stronger. RCC is not naive to this concept. All companies know that the longer negotiations take the more people get involved and the compensations must be made. If we come back stronger with a louder voice of support for TAMO, with the precedent that "HEY WE AREN"T COOL WITH YOU TAKING OUR PLACE AND RUINING IT INDEFINITELY, PEOPLE ARE UPSET. THEY WANT MORE THAN WHAT WE PREVIUOSLY DISCUSSED.

So - What can we do? How can we get the most.

Great!

I'll Start -

1. I want the new state park paid for free and clear for the duration of mining activity. We paid pennies for access to Oak Flats we should pay pennies for Tamo. (Pennies being tax dollars, which I assume was just the Campground host, and maintenance of the Bathroom. The roads haven't been kept up forever.) However this new park must have scheduled road maintenance, paid by RCC) as well as all other amenities. Parking for day use at Highway 177 and parking at the top. Parking at 177 so people can car pool up, and minimize parking impacts on top. If it is to be a State Park it my require a good amount of parking space. This should be researched and accommodated for.

2. Running Water - (Potable) Not necessary but a pain. (They can drill a well, if they can drill 7000ft)

3. Room for festivals and parties, lot's of room. On the scale Oakflats once was.

4. Designated, and maintained trails to all the bouldering that is rumored to be around, as well as areas to park.

5. Guaranteed Access to Atlantis, the Leap, Upper/Lower Devils, the Pond, and any areas of Oak Flats not effected.

6. I second the Beer Garden

7. Everything the Governor has stated in her letter.

8. I think, throwing in the Homestead is not a bad idea either. At least have them grade the steep section of the road in a more gradual manner that it can be accessible by 2WD vehicles. As I feel TAMO JUST STILL AIN"T ENOUGH.

9. An Area to launch paragliders (It would be cool)

10. Possible a back road to the Drip, Accessed from above.

HOW CAN WE BECOME MORE COHESIVE ON THIS

AGAIN I THINK WE ALL ARE IN THE SAME MINDSET -

CJD - we should stop pointing fingers at anyone. (No offense, it's good to discuss this) It does more harm than good. You started this post, let's make it valuable. (I think we can get somewhere) In reality we need the Access Fund, Friends of Queen Creek, AMC, the Tribes, and all others on our side. We can all work together. The objective is to save Oak Flats - Thus Queen Creek - and at the same time cover our ass while making our stance stronger, our voice louder, and asking for the sky.


Let's endorse our friends and become a power to be recogned with. We conquer Mountains for a hobby. That put's us a step ahead of RCC. The can be conquered, and if not they can pay a sh#$ Ton for it.

Does the Access Fund Agree with this. How about the FOQC, and AMC.