Kirra, a second reading of the statement you qouted says that the AMC board will remain independent of an outside agency. No where in that statement is there cause for you to state that the AMC board has "disconnected or unraveled from its membership".

In this public forum lies the need to reach out to our public, the climbers. You are correct in pointing out the hazards we meet when trying to put forward our common goal, to save oak flat. It is very harmful to our cause to misinterpret and misread your own quote as the basis for questioning AMC's position.

Our battle with RCM to preserve rock climbing at Oak Flat is continuing and a lot of it is done in this forum. Letters and calls to our legislators are very positive assistance. I would like to see more of this.

I propose that new posts take into account that our side isn't the only lurker looking for divisiveness and weakness to exploit. I'm not asking you not to question but to remember that if you have any question about me, the QCC or even AMC you could ask us for clarification then post away. Let's keep working together. It is easier to divide and conquer; focus on the mission: save oak flat.

Kirra, I'm not going to speculate on AMC's position or actions. I know you want to save Oak Flat. I want to keep as much as we can, as clean as it can be.

Personally, I follow the line Geir and others have proposed on this thread. I write emails to my legislators and others. I try to do my part by occasionally attending meetings of the QCC (generally long and complicated but not really hush hush since we usually publish meetings, notes etc that we have discussed and debated to find a consensus on this complex subject). Oh, and occasionally I do attend fellow non-rockclimber advocacy groups meetings to express what rockclimbers want. I can recall seeing you at a parade in Superior a couple years back.

"...organization attempts to speak for the community at large without first consulting the community, then there is a disconnect of that democratic process IMO" I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, maybe McCain does too as he showed up to do that in Superior. Thanks to those of you that were there representing us. Does that mean Senator McCain can now claim to have concluded the democratic process since he consulted the community? The QCC has had one open meeting where we discussed any and all topics on this matter of saving Oak Flat. Since then, nothing much has fundamentally changed our mission. Bills have come and gone. They keep coming. We keep trying to pursue our agenda with RCM and our legislators. Another open meeting is a good idea. I agree that we need to listen to our community and maybe it's time.

You originally used the word "disconnect" in refernce to the AMC and it's Board. You use your allegation as a reason to continue this discourse here? Can't stop you. If you are a member of AMC, which I'm not, do you plan on questioning the board at the next meeting also? That might be more helpful.

I would rather not focus on the "negativity (within our community)" on this thread. Unfortunately it seems as though we are headed that way. I do enjoy a good debate.

Technically, the QCC had two open meetings. One at an AMC Meeting (Aug. '08?) and one at the Phoenix Rock Gym (March '09?). Neither was tremendously well-attended by the climbing public, but there were people there and we did get some good questions and feed back out of them.

As far as the QCC goes, we do feel a responsibility to the climbing community to get this right. Input from the climbing community is both desired and encouraged, even as we have wrestled with the best way to make that happen. I know public meetings are a pain to get to some times, so if you have questions or comments, this is a good place to post them up. I guarantee you they will be read and someone will attempt to answer whatever questions you might have. The benefit of a public forum like this one is that everyone gets to see both the question and the answer. Communications is important and the more informed people we have, the better (at least IMO).

As Manny has pointed out, the AMC board, in the passage quoted by Kirra, is merely reserving the right to act in its members’ best interest. There is nothing controversial in that.

The October 2009 AMC newsletter advises members that Resolution Copper Mining has offered to the Queen Creek Coalition the framework of an agreement that would secure a number of climbing opportunities in Queen Creek canyon. That is no secret. QCC has held two public meetings (both advertised well in advance), specifically to seek input from the “climbing community.” QCC has made public, on its website, the details of the RCM proposal.

Two years ago, AMC took a position formally opposing the land-swap legislation. At the time, it was the correct strategic position. That position has not changed, to my knowledge. Circumstances, however, do change.

AMC publicly recognizes, in its newsletter, that there may come a time when climbers are able to reach an agreement with RCM that will preserve a substantial portion of the area’s climbing and even enhance climbing opportunities in the region in some respects. As I read the AMC position statement, AMC simply recognizes that a proposed agreement with RCM may at some point be sufficiently beneficial that acceptance of the RCM offer should be considered. AMC reserves the right to either support or oppose such a proposed agreement. This also ought to be uncontroversial (unless you have a personal grudge against AMC and are simply determined to keep attacking that organization’s leadership in this forum). It is inconsistent to insist that all climbers should have a say in the outcome while criticizing AMC for reserving the right to speak for itself.

As a member of QCC, I understand and support AMC’s position. The best thing we as climbers can do is to remain flexible, rational and creative. Sniping at one another in public is the wrong path. I can assure you that the AMC – whose Past President and Land Advocacy Chair are QCC members – has exactly the same goal as QCC: to preserve as much of the Queen Creek climbing experience as possible and to seek the best outcome for climbers possible under the circumstances.

The topic of confidentiality is complex. It is neither possible nor practical to carry out sensitive negotiations in public. RCM understandably does not want its tentative proposals and “what-ifs” to be attributed to it publicly. If we insist that everything we hear or say must be shared, they will not talk to us. On our side, it would be impractical and unwise to discuss our positions on certain matters in public. Resolution can and presumably does monitor these websites. It is not a case of us trying to be a cabal; it is the only way we can be effective.

We have gone public to ask what is important to climbers and to tell them in broad terms about the nature of the discussions we have had with Resolution. We are happy to share all non-confidential information. We have discussed making our internal meetings open to the public, at least as to non-confidential matters. We want to be inclusive, but we also want to be effective. There is no chance that QCC would make a deal with Resolution without first making the proposed deal public and seeking public input.

Rick Cecala

Folks,

I've been meaning to update people with some information.

I attended meetings last week with the heads of the BLM, BIA, and local Tonto NF leaders.

In a nutshell, what is clear from the BLM and BIA interaction is that there are real and continuing concerns relating to the Environmental and Native American facets of the proposed mine. This is truly a national issue for the Native Americans, as they have been stating all along. The Native Nations are standing together and against the proposal as it stands. There doesn't appear to be any change on that. The environmental and policy issues (federal land withdrawal of 1955) remain also.

The meeting with the FS was fruitful in that we local climbers were able to begin a dialogue in broad terms about our concerns with the local Tonto Forest Service Supervisors who manage the lands where we recreate.

One outcome of that meeting that provides a sliver of hope for any lands transferred from private to public hands is that we now have an understanding of how that might be better handled than is currently written in the legislation. This applies primarily to the issue related to The Pond land transfer. Time will tell if we can effect any change though and this is one reason that contact with those in congress who control the legislation is so important.

The details are kind of mind numbing, and many of the multitude of problems remain, but on this one aspect it looks like there may be some hope of fruition if things get handled to the climbing public's advantage.

Thanks,

Fred

wow, lots of posts....
so happy to see so much passion for the activity that we all love ............CLIMBING!

I'm too tired to try to wrap my brain around all this but I do want to say thank you to all for putting your heart into such a great goal....
I really appreciate the notes Greg, Manny, Rick, Fred, Kirra, Allison, Red......etc
EVERYONE!

good night

Linda

• ***********I need help doing the petition*****(luckily I got a job with a lot of work hours) Geir...Marcy...Red?

Wow - lots of new stuff here. Cool! I've been a bit swamped but hopefully will catch up on what's new here.

Linda - I sent you an email regarding the petition :)

Folks,

The focus on the facts and the issues is appreciated.

Something that is an important distinction for some, and something that is easily glossed over here in the recent discussions, is a somewhat technical, though significant distinction that has been touched upon in a couple of posts.

There is a statement made by some that reflects the desire to “save Oak Flat.” This is often uttered by many climbers, sounds great, and is a unifying cry heard repeatedly.

Alternatively, a different but similar sounding version of the passion for the area that is often articulated is the desire “to keep as much as we can” as Manny has stated above.

They don’t say the same thing and when put to practical use, may indeed result in different things.

Perhaps many already know, but “Oak Flat” as detailed in the Public Land Order that set it aside from appropriation under the mining laws (the federal “protection” that many refer to) in 1955, is the approximately 760 acre parcel that contains the Oak Flat campground. In fact, the “Oak Flat” parcel was set aside specifically as a campground and picnic area.

This parcel is a significant part of the approximately 2,400 acres of public land, much of it easily accessible climbing terrain such as the Oak Flat climbing areas (Shark Wall, etc.), all of Euro Dog Valley, etc., that the mining company will own if the land trade goes through. (At this point, the public may receive 95 acres of similarly accessible, publicly owned climbing terrain in return, The Pond. That’s a potential 90%+ loss in terms of climbing terrain impacted by the trade!)

Anyway, pardon my statistical digression. As most are aware, the Queen Creek Coalition (QCC) published a proclamation last year (June, 2008) that encompasses the group’s understanding of what the climbing public “wants” if forced to accept mining activity that might affect Oak Flat and the nearby public climbing terrain (The Statement of Understanding, SoU).

First and foremost, in its bulleted list the group states that it desires “A mining technique that is consistent with and abides by existing protections, maintains surface integrity, complies with all environmental regulations, and respects multi-cultural traditions.”

It’s fairly clear here that this statement leaves the door open to literally “save Oak Flat” as many in the community would like to see.

Unfortunately for Oak Flat at this point, the mining company continues to aggressively pursue a path that would in all likelihood sink Oak Flat into the void of an underground cavern if allowed to use its preferred block cave mining technique. Estimates of the subsidence, no little amount and over a large area, was estimated to be on the order of 200-300 feet in some places as detailed by Mr. John Rickus, the former President of Resolution at the time.

If one presumes the mining company’s position prevails, then indeed this could be taken as a probable fact to consider in developing a strategy related to compensation for the public’s loss.

For some it’s a technical distinction only, but it’s important to understand that a “deal” with the mining company as conceived at this time does not “save Oak Flat.” For better or worse, these are the facts in the current environment.

Accordingly, it’s clear that the recently published position from the Arizona Mountaineering Club (AMC) in the October issue of their newsletter starkly and vividly sets the stage for a time when it may decide to act in what it views as the best interest of the larger climbing public with respect to climbing in the area. That group, like any other person or entity, is entitled to its opinion.

Also, and just as importantly to keep in mind, for many others, “Oak Flat” is what it is, a special place set aside from mining in 1955 for camping and picnicking purposes and is indeed very worthwhile saving.

These are only two limited views of how things could proceed to accommodate all of the needs/wants of the parties involved and as things evolve as they continue to do, time will tell what will truly happen to the 760 acre parcel known as “Oak Flat.”

I'll try to take some time to put together an updated version of the comparison between the "deal" and the qcc's desires and post it up here soon.

Fred

Fred,

Thanks, as usual, for your well-written, clarifying perspective.

My thoughts:

If the AMC board wishes to change/qualify their position as the circumstances change, that's fine. I think it's intelligent and admirable to re-evaluate one's position in response to new environments.

Thanks to the QCC for all the hard work you've been doing. I have been in contact with several members of the QCC, and they have solicited my input as well as been very forthcoming with their activities. I feel that my concerns are being well addressed. If any of the climbing community desires to contact them with a concern, do so and I think you will find the same.

It's clear the QCC is working to preserve as much as possible. I think most of us will find that's a cause we can support. As they do their work, I think we can do a few things to help:

1) Write. Contact information for most of the major legislators can be found earlier in this thread. Tell them the needs of the climbing community have not been met, and that you'd appreciate their efforts in working with the QCC.

2) Stay involved with the QCC. Attend their open meetings, and periodically stay in contact with a few of their members to catch up on current events.

3) Present a united front. Folks, regardless of whether you agree on all the details or not, the QCC is busting their asses to save as much as they can. If there's something you disagree with, ask thoughtful questions, offer constructive insights, and then get on board and support them wholeheartedly.

One final thing: if you're not doing at least one of the above, please consider doing so. In the long run your efforts will help everyone that climbs here, including yourself. :)

Thanks for posting that Fred. I've casually followed this story from the beginning but it's been difficult keeping it all straight, especially since I don't personally know any of the people involved (except maybe Curt).

All I know for sure is that Oak Flat is a great place and it'd be a shame to see it become off limits.

d.

Doug,

Good to hear that the out-of-state "locals" hold Oak Flat in such high regard and continue to have high hopes for an eventual solution.

Here's an update of the overview of what the qcc said it wanted on behalf of the climbing public and what appears to be the current status of the item. Since it was first put together there have been some significant and provocative developments. Please keep in mind that these are all moving items and things often change and that this is what I've been able to gather from things.

If it helps to keep things in perspective, the land swap applies to just over 2,400 acres that contain just about 2,000 climbs at this time (Oak Flat bouldering, Euro Dog Valley, some of the Mine area crags, etc.). The total similarly accessible, climbable terrain in the legislation at this time that will be turned over to the public is the 95 acre Pond parcel with just over 100 climbs.

Hope it helps.

Fred

• *****************************************

Fred, thanks for taking the time to list all of these important details. The current legislation doesn't sound like a good one for climbers, how can anyone (or any organization) support it ?

Good morning all,

This getting up @ 4am is kicking my butt, hence the lack of me being on here or anywhere. Grateful to have a job, tho'.

Once again, thank you to the QCC group. I know the process is grueling and I just want to thank you for representing 'us'. (The Climbing Community) I look forward to the public meeting, so some of 'us' can thank you personally!!!!!!

In response to your questions and post...ALLISON
It is my understanding that the AMC Board came out with a policy statement. (I hope it helps clear up some things)

btw, I am no longer a member of AMC, so if you have any questions, we need to direct them to it's board....which I know a few folks on that board.
.......................................
Policy Statement on Queen Creek
Arizona Mountaineering Club Board of Directors
September 15, 2009

The representatives of the Arizona Mountaineering Club have been closely involved with the proposed Mine and Land Exchange in the Queen Creek area since January 2004 when our Land Advocacy Chair first began alerting its members. We participated with the Friends of Queen Creek when it was formed in April of 2004, and our representatives worked diligently with other members of the rock climbing community to negotiate with Resolution Copper.

At that time, the President of Resolution was adamant that rock climbing could not co-exist with the mining activities, and the draft legislation put forward was slanted very much against long term rock climbing. Rock climbing at the Mine Area and nearby crags would be closed either immediately or within two years after passage of the legislation and limited other rock climbing was subject to a 5-year climbing license that was unilaterally revocable by Resolution. Many historic rock climbing areas would have been lost as soon as roads were closed.

Because that arrangement was so one sided, the AMC lead the fight to re-open the negotiations, and working with the Friends of Queen Creek, formed the Queen Creek Coalition in January of 2008, four years after the AMC began to fight for climbers.

Working within the QCC framework, representatives of the AMC began new negotiations with Resolution, and through the shift of new Resolution management and new legislative drafts, we improved our position for the rock climbing community and laid out a series of working points of the elements we wanted to obtain for climbers. The current efforts aim to secure regional rock climbing elements that would provide a true climbers destination for future generations.

We have an offer on the table from Resolution that contains many promising elements for continued rock climbing at Queen Creek. Below please find a comparison of what the Climbers have asked for and what Resolution has offered. While the arrangement has many details that will need to be worked out, the AMC Board recognizes that under current arrangements and without the Land Exchange bill rock climbing is far from secured. Such areas as the Pond and Atlantis occur on lands owned by Resolution Copper. Indeed, the Mine Area could even be closed by Resolution under their use permits for USFS lands. Rock climbing access to Devils Canyon climbing areas is currently dependent on roads that Resolution has a hand in maintaining, and could be closed unless we reach a good long term agreement.

The AMC Board, through its role to establish club policy, holds that we should continue the negotiations with Resolution to secure long term rock climbing access at Queen Creek and the larger region. If a satisfactory arrangement could be secured for long term rock climbing, it may even be prudent to consider a position of Non-Opposition to the Land Exchange.

Further, the AMC Board holds that we should widen our negotiating stance to include any and all land owners and managers who could play a role in securing long term regional rock climbing resources. Our perspective should be to begin discussions with the local communities, with the USFS and other local land managers, along with Resolution, to enhance the overall recreational opportunities at Queen Creek and around the region surrounding Queen Creek. This Grand Strategy will be our guiding policy orientation, that is, to secure the most rock climbing possible through positive interchange and dialog with the land owners and managers.

Current Status of Negotiations with Resolution Copper

QCC asked for in letter of Understanding RCM Response

1.Maintain surface integrity (no subsidence) No
2.Comply with Environmental regulations Presumably
3.Respect Multicultural traditions Working w/Tribes
4.Green Belt RCM to facilitate
5.Fee simple transfer of Pond Yes
6.Fee simple transfer of Atlantis No – license ‘til 2060 +
7.Fee simple transfer of other privately held lands
Apache Leap South End Yes
Dripping Springs (near Tamo) Yes
8.Fully fund Tamo as State Park Governor shot down
9.Roads and infrastructure for Land of the Lost, After mine approval,
Steamboat Mt.,The Drip & Homestead RCM will assist efforts.
10. Access and Infrastructure for Inconceivables, Yes RCM giving $1.25M
Pond, Upper Pond and Chill Hill
11.Relocate boulders and vegetation RCM & QCC will discuss
12.Coexistance Agreement Yes

Additional items not in original QCC Letter of Understanding but with RCM offered

a. RCM will work w/ F.S. and climbers to “turnkey” and pay for access and facilities to the Pond and Upper Pond prior to land exchange.
b. License Central Oak Flat, Eurodog Valley, Mine Area and areas of Apache Leap owned by RCM until 2019 with renewal option.
c. RCM will grant permanent easement to Apache Leap through Cross Creek
d. RCM will grant permanent easement to Devils Canyon along Power Line road.
e. RCM will license Magma Mine and Drill roads to Lower Devil Canyon until F.S. road available.
f. RCM will donate $1M after land exchange for Tamo.
g. RCM will pay $50K into hardware fund to maintain and develop climbing routes.
h. RCM will pay for or self insure liability insurance for licensed areas.

btw, I'd like to send a message to QCC group members. How could I do that for the whole group to see it?

I know some of your emails....and some I do not know.

Can someone pm with suggestions.
or better yet email me....

lindajft@gmail.com

Linda White

info@queencreekcoalition.com

If you send it there, I will pass it along to everyone else.

Kirra, you have a good point. Climbers should be working together right now. I understand your confusion. You ask why the AMC chose to adopt a "non opposition" stance now? It was in response to the QCC's choice between a rock and a hard place, no pun intended. We steadfastly support no subsidence of Oak Flat. RCM wants our endorsement in exchange for a deal. As a pragmatic matter the QCC has proposed a solution that would take care of climbers by not opposing the current legislation rather than endorsing it. This info is on the QCC website. AMC followed QCC on this, working together. No "personal viewpoint" here.

Our illustrious senators, not congress, have stated "the climbers have been taken care of". I am sure it was a purely ignorant remark coming from our busy legislators. QCC subsequently sent a letter to our congressional representatives to remove that ignorance by explaining that climbers had not been taken care of; also on QCC website since May 2009.

Personally I would fight this mine to the bitter end and roll all the dice working to "save Oak Flat" but what if the roll went against us? We would be left with very little if any climbing. This position was reached by consensus through the QCC board meetings. It is a tough pill to swallow as an individual but one I can see as a board member.

Why is it so important to you to publicly try to cause controversy where none exists? We are trying to move forward in a united front. I sincerely believe you want to do the right thing. Many of your questions could be answered by myself via a phone or email. Whose team do you want to "pinch hit" for?