Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Oak Flat News
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 2 of 13.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3  4  5   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By ClimbandMine
Jun 5, 2011
BGBingham wrote:
That is my point. There is not enough information for politicians to be messing with land that has had another use for a very long time. If that use is curtailed for climbers, Apache's and a long list of other users then there is an environmental impact. Thus they don't have "sufficient information" to be wining and dining the politicians and local press about how wonderful and complete the world will be when they have things exactly their way. So you know, water usage, size of "glory hole" and amount of tailings has all been derived from information that RCM has published on their web site. Thanks CaM



You say things like "exactly" and "concrete plans"... You should know that without additional drilling, they can't firm up these plans. Additional drilling will, most likely, change the quoted numbers... tonnages, etc. Thus they obviously can't give you or anyone else "concrete plans." You of all people should know this.

FLAG
By BGBingham
Jun 5, 2011
night ice
They are taking major steps to screw up land that is "protected" from exactly what they are doing - on the ground. Something is wrong with this. What part of an Executive Order over fifty years old is not understood when mining activity is allowed by the Forest Service where it shouldn't be allowed?

What don't you understand about my desire to not have this land status changed before they "know" what they have and the proper evaluation of this knowledge by those who have interest in this land? Evaluation that is subject to media tourism, political lobbying and other well funded huckster methods is not valid.

ClimbandMine wrote:
Thus they obviously can't give you or anyone else "concrete plans."


Which is exactly why politicians and new Federal law shouldn't be part of the plan.

FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Jun 5, 2011
The loaf
Are we still talking about PUBLIC land?

FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 6, 2011
Lindajft wrote:
Are we still talking about PUBLIC land?


Think so... This guy said it best: Gifford Pinchot , the first Chief of the Forest Service, summed up the mission of the Forest Service—"to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run."

This is embodied by the USFS and BLM's multiple use policy.

Following along with that thought from Pinchot - how many stores, climbing shops, etc? will be affected by the removal of access to Oak Flat and other proposed areas? How much further will climbers have to drive to reach comparable areas?

Sorry - I only follow this issue intermittently...


You guys are fighting against a 50-100 year old image of mining. We don't mine with donkeys anymore. We clean up our waste when we are done, too... This is a reclaimed waste dump in Nevada. Bet you wouldn't know it if I didn't tell you.


FLAG
By kirra
Jun 9, 2011
ClimbandMine wrote:
We don't mine with donkeys anymore. We clean up our waste when we are done, too...


how do we spell 'Mining Responsibility'...

S-U-P-E-R-F-U-N-D

you mentioned 'intermittenty' checking in- this link exa'mines' some other successful reclamations

FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Jun 9, 2011
The loaf
Regarding the picture above
My questions are:

How many years later is this? Was this originally Public land? Was a thorough NEPA study done first?

The question go on and on

Tho' Donkeys are not used for mining, the laws that govern mining are old and I'd like to see them updated. (1872)


Back to the topic is Oak Flat and the surrounding areas. The issues are numerous: The historical value to Oak Flats native people, the impact the current plan will have vs a revised plan according to a thorough outside NEPA study, the fact that this is the largest land mass loss of public land for climbers that was set aside specifically by the President of the United States from mining, etc.

I think most of us climbers are so concerned because this will be the LARGEST land mass loss for climbers ever in the US, maybe even the world. With that in mind, we are standing up 'for the land' and demanding no shortcuts!

Again in my perspective and my $.02


FLAG
By Ben Beard
From Superior, AZ
Jun 10, 2011
roo, my only son, the stare that takes down a herd of 'stock
Lindajft wrote:
Regarding the picture above My questions are: How many years later is this? Was this originally Public land? Was a thorough NEPA study done first? The question go on and on Tho' Donkeys are not used for mining, the laws that govern mining are old and I'd like to see them updated. (1872) Back to the topic is Oak Flat and the surrounding areas. The issues are numerous: The historical value to Oak Flats native people, the impact the current plan will have vs a revised plan according to a thorough outside NEPA study, the fact that this is the largest land mass loss of public land for climbers that was set aside specifically by the President of the United States from mining, etc. I think most of us climbers are so concerned because this will be the LARGEST land mass loss for climbers ever in the US, maybe even the world. With that in mind, we are standing up 'for the land' and demanding no shortcuts! Again in my perspective and my $.02


Linda, you bring up a great point in regards to the executive order that created the special status for Oak Flats. I, like others, have an issue with Executive Orders. This special use for Oak Flats was never voted on by anyone on the state level in Arizona or the Legislative Branch of the federal government. Correct me if I am wrong. The proposed land exchange on the other hand actually does have to be passed through the federal legislative branch.

FLAG
By BGBingham
Jun 10, 2011
night ice
Ben Beard wrote:
Linda, you bring up a great point in regards to the executive order that created the special status for Oak Flats. I, like others, have an issue with Executive Orders. This special use for Oak Flats was never voted on by anyone on the state level in Arizona or the Legislative Branch of the federal government. Correct me if I am wrong. The proposed land exchange on the other hand actually does have to be passed through the federal legislative branch.


Wonder how you'd feel about an Executive Order that was for something you wanted?

Modernization of the Mining Law is very much in order but our federal legislators don't seem to have that ability. They'd rather cherry pick their actions to more discreet items that bring in lobbying perks. Way more lofty than an Executive Order? I think not.

Oak flat has had sixty years of protected status and many user groups. Buying support doesn't encompass the democratic purity you imply.

FLAG
 
By Ben Beard
From Superior, AZ
Jun 10, 2011
roo, my only son, the stare that takes down a herd of 'stock
BGBingham wrote:
Wonder how you'd feel about an Executive Order that was for something you wanted? Modernization of the Mining Law is very much in order but our federal legislators don't seem to have that ability. They'd rather cherry pick their actions to more discreet items that bring in lobbying perks. Way more lofty than an Executive Order? I think not. Oak flat has had sixty years of protected status and many user groups. Buying support doesn't encompass the democratic purity you imply.


I wonder how you feel about the mines that you've worked at? Or about the land you live on?
As to the democratic purity, it is what we've got and I will continue to vote my way and make my voice heard. What would you recommend, no vote in the legislature?

FLAG
By BGBingham
Jun 10, 2011
night ice
Ben Beard wrote:
I wonder how you feel about the mines that you've worked at? Or about the land you live on? As to the democratic purity, it is what we've got and I will continue to vote my way and make my voice heard. What would you recommend, no vote in the legislature?


What's to wonder about? I've worked at what I've considered good ones and bad ones. The bad ones generally were controlled by posers who had no idea of what it was like to be at the face.

I've never lived in an area under Executive Order.

I would recommend honoring both the intent and fact of the Executive Order - which isn't being done.

FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 11, 2011
Lindajft wrote:
Regarding the picture above My questions are: How many years later is this? Was this originally Public land? Was a thorough NEPA study done first? The question go on and on Tho' Donkeys are not used for mining, the laws that govern mining are old and I'd like to see them updated. (1872) Back to the topic is Oak Flat and the surrounding areas. The issues are numerous: The historical value to Oak Flats native people, the impact the current plan will have vs a revised plan according to a thorough outside NEPA study, the fact that this is the largest land mass loss of public land for climbers that was set aside specifically by the President of the United States from mining, etc. I think most of us climbers are so concerned because this will be the LARGEST land mass loss for climbers ever in the US, maybe even the world. With that in mind, we are standing up 'for the land' and demanding no shortcuts! Again in my perspective and my $.02


Mining is not only subject to the Mining law of 1872 (which was updated a bit in the 1990's by Clinton, but does need further revision, I agree). The industry is subject to NEPA, the Clean water act, the Clean Air Act, the Mine Safety Acts of 1969 and 1977, and a whole host of others.

The photo is of a Newmont property in Nevada (not sure which). Pretty much all of Nevada is public land. The Carlin trend began operation in the '80s so it was subject to EIS and all of thee laws mentioned above.

FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Jun 11, 2011
The loaf
Thanks for answering my question.

Good morning all,
I'm writing letters to the House Natural Resources Committee in opposition of Hr1904. Anyone else? Contact me if you want a copy of what I am faxing to them.
602-570-6588

Linda

FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Jun 11, 2011
The loaf
Land exchange hearing scheduled for 14 June

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands will hold a hearing on our bill (H.R. 1904) on Tuesday, 14 June at 7 a.m. Arizona time. Those delivering testimony on behalf of Resolution Copper include RCM vice president, Environment, Legal and External Relations Jon Cherry, Pinal County Supervisor Bryan Martyn and Town of Superior Mayor Michael Hing.

Live streaming of the hearing will be available on the naturalresources.house.gov/Liv...

FLAG
By Sara88
Jun 13, 2011
Hi, I am new to this sport and am looking for areas near the city of queen creek for beginning bouldering. Is there ever a time when people meet up at QCC or other areas close by to climb together? I would love for my kids and I to grow in this sport! THANK YOU!

FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 13, 2011
Ben Beard wrote:
I . . . have an issue with Executive Orders. This special use for Oak Flats was never voted on by anyone on the state level in Arizona or the Legislative Branch of the federal government.


Ben,

Certainly EO's are a mixed bag.

For instance, on December 22, 1902, President Roosevelt issued a one sentence EO that took a huge swath of the San Carlos Reservation and put it back into the public domain. A few days later or so, a man by the name of George Chittenden then crossed the Gila River to lay claim to land that eventually became the mining operations related to the town of Christmas (now a ghost town). Chittenden evidently had close ties to many powerful individuals who had the ear of the President at that time.

There was no vote by Congress to take the lands from the San Carlos so I'd guess they might concur with your opinion on EO's to some extent. Here's a link to an article that provides some of the story about the town of Christmas and the related history: azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/...

Here's the text of that EO:

"It is hereby ordered that all that portion of the White Mountain or San Carlos Indian Reservation in the Territory of Arizona lying within the following described boundaries be, and the same hereby is, restored to the public domain, to wit: Commencing at the southwestern corner of the reservation where the same is cut by the Gila River; thence in a northerly direction along the western boundary 13 miles to a point; thence due east to the Gila River; thence down the Gila River in a southerly and southwesterly direction to the place of beginning.
T. ROOSEVELT

Previous to this EO, another single sentence one issued by U. S. Grant on April 27, 1876, took a piece of their reservation to the west of this from them:

It is hereby ordered that all that portion of the White Mountain Indian Reservation in Arizona Territory lying west of the following-described line, viz: Commencing at the northwest corner of the present reserve, a point at the southern edge of the Black Mesas, due north of Sombrero or Plumoso Butte; thence due south to said Sombrero or Plumoso Butte; thence southeastwardly to Chromo Peak; thence in a southerly direction to the mouth of the San Pedro River; thence due south to the southern boundary of the reservation, be, and the same hereby is, restored to the public domain.
U.S. Grant

Again, no vote by Congress.

Also, these lands contain what has become known to climbers as The Homestead, El Cap Canyon, The Drip, and portions of Tamo.


It's my understanding that the Native American viewpoint related to Oak Flat and the withdrawal that was put in place pursuant to an EO will be presented to Congress tomorrow in the hearing on the bill to privatize the area (HR 1904). Linda has provided a link to the hearing above if you are interested in watching the debate to hear the different points of view.

Fred

FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Jun 14, 2011
The loaf
Sara88 wrote:
Hi, I am new to this sport and am looking for areas near the city of queen creek for beginning bouldering. Is there ever a time when people meet up at QCC or other areas close by to climb together? I would love for my kids and I to grow in this sport! THANK YOU!



Sara, I sent you a personal message on here.
Welcome to the vertical world.


Linda

FLAG
 
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Jun 15, 2011
The loaf
I found the 'STATEMENT OF Mary Wagner' (ASSOCIATE CHIEF US FOREST SERVICE) very interesting. Pages 3-5

The STATEMENT OF Marcilynn Burkef (Deputy Director Bureau of Land Management Department of the Interior) Pages 2-3

All of 'Roger Featherstone' (Director Arizona Mining Reform Coalition) I count climbing mentioned 4 times in his statement.

Looks like this is not over....
Thanks to all who faxed and emailed letters!

FLAG
By Red
From Arizona
Jun 15, 2011
Cobra Kai
AZ Central 6-15-11

FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 15, 2011
So, the USFS and the BLM, the Oak Flat land managers that are involved, do not support the legislation as it is written for broad, principled reasons.

Also, see Roger Featherstone's revelation about the possibility of waste product being stowed on lands not too far from Gold Canyon, the Superstition Wilderness area, and the future Superstition Vistas development (near the curve at Florence Junction as US 60 swings east toward Superior). They have a rail line that could easily spur off to dump waste onto State Trust lands, or so it has evidently been proposed?

Wow, imagine the view from the kitchen windows of all the retirees, the dust on the elevated tee boxes at the area golf courses and the impact on the view from the tops of the ridges in the Superstition Wilderness Area.

Interesting indeed.

In their own words and in plain public view:


Mary Wagner
Associate Chief
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture

"[T]he Department [of Agriculture] cannot support the Bill as written . . . [t]he principal concern is that the Bill would require the agency to prepare an environmental review document under NEPA after the land exchange is completed.

Statement of
Marcilynn Burke
Deputy Director
Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior

"The Department [of the Interior] has several concerns with the bill and cannot support the bill as written.

Written Testimony of Roger Featherstone
Director
Arizona Mining Reform Coalition

"[N]ew information is pointing to a Rio Tinto plan to move ore and waste from their proposed mine out under Apache Leap through an existing tunnel, and perhaps new tunnels, through the town of Superior and then disposing of the tailings to the west near the proposed Superstition Vistas housing development.

He continues and points out that the recreational impact on the economy is not small (that's us climbers, hikers, campers, birders, bikers, etc.)

"A recent report on the economic value to Arizona from human-powered recreation (birding, climbing, hiking, etc.) shows that human-powered recreation in Arizona provides more than 86,000 annual jobs and provides 12 percent of Arizona's retail economy. It also shows that more than 1 out of 4 Arizonans climb, hike or canyoneer.

Here's a link to the report he references: accessfund.org/site/apps/nlnet...

A relevant excerpt:

"[The] study . . . shows that more than 87,000 Arizona jobs and $371 million in state tax revenues are supported by “human-powered recreation” such as climbing, hiking, mountain biking and camping.


Fred

FLAG
By Ben Beard
From Superior, AZ
Jun 15, 2011
roo, my only son, the stare that takes down a herd of 'stock
Silver Belt
Apparently all this great recreation money has forgotten the people of Superior and San Carlos. 80% poverty and 70% unemployment in San Carlos, 15% in Pinal County. Maybe mining and "human powered" recreation are not mutually exclusive. Tamo is a great place to climb, even if you can see Ray mine and the tailings.

FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 15, 2011
Ben Beard wrote:
Maybe mining and "human powered" recreation are not mutually exclusive. Tamo is a great place to climb, even if you can see Ray mine and the tailings.


Ben,

The unemployment issue is a very bad one, no doubt, and has been for many generations; mines or no mines.

I agree with you, as history has shown, recreational activities can take place at Oak Flat alongside and above active mining operations.

Unfortunately, in my view, the current proposal does not respect the coexistence of a majority of the historical stakeholders, as the USFS, BLM, Native American, and environmental advocates have pointed out in their testimony.

Also, to me, there is a difference between occasional recreational visitors to Tamo looking out over the vestigial waste piles and pits near Winkelman or Ray and proposing that homeowners on the edge of the Valley of the Sun who now either look out over open desert or other residences embrace the possibility of square miles of new mining waste piles towering in the not too far distance?

If you do the math and take the words of Mayor Hing to heart, he suggests that "copper concentrate" can easily be shipped from Superior by rail; you have to ask yourself just how much "non" concentrate goes to those waste piles? After all, approximately 98% of the ore body will be waste, so eventually only about 2% becomes marketable product. In the past, the waste pile has been characterized as being of the order of Picketpost Mountain just west of Superior. (See Hing's testimony, item #3 discussing the rail line: naturalresources.house.gov/Upl...

Potentially some or all of this may be done without public oversight given the rather complicated and perhaps lacking NEPA provisions in the bill?

I read Roger Featherstone's point to be that by taking the land private and by working with the cooperation of a very willing state administration, local communities, and organizations that are desperate for the possibility of tax revenue, jobs, cash to administer, etc., that the mining company may be able to circumvent our evolving environmental protocols; and this would be bad for the greater community.

Just my reading of course.

Fred

FLAG
By BGBingham
Jun 15, 2011
night ice
Ben Beard wrote:


Ted Lake the writer of the article fits well into the category of "tourist journalist". His articles always manage to reflect the interests of RCM rather than exploring the issues and concerns of all stakeholders. His past articles on Apaches are downright insulting IMO.

Interesting as well is that in his article he leaves out the contrary opinions of the land managers from the FS and BLM.

FLAG
By Ben Beard
From Superior, AZ
Jun 16, 2011
roo, my only son, the stare that takes down a herd of 'stock
BGBingham wrote:
Ted Lake the writer of the article fits well into the category of "tourist journalist". His articles always manage to reflect the interests of RCM rather than exploring the issues and concerns of all stakeholders. His past articles on Apaches are downright insulting IMO. Interesting as well is that in his article he leaves out the contrary opinions of the land managers from the FS and BLM.


Actually he does quote the position the USFS, from Mary Wagner, concerning the land exchange. He also quotes Roger Featherstone. As the headline reads, the main story for the first half of the article is about a San Carlos former tribal leader in support of RCM. But I am sure you can think of some way to slander that guy too.

FLAG
By BGBingham
Jun 16, 2011
night ice
Ben,

I stand corrected on his mention of Wagner.

Lake's reporting seems to take a consistent position that economic concerns and predictions as described by RCM trump all other concerns. I would wager he wouldn't disagree. At least it isn't reflected in his writing. That isn't slander. It is an observation.

For instance. A good reporter would note that RCM describes, on their website, how they have been banking CAP water. Here is the quote:

RCM wrote:
Each year, we purchase enough water to meet approximately two to three years' worth of mining production requirements. Total water purchased and banked for 2006, 2007 and 2008 was approximately 120,000 acre feet. An additional 94,500 acre-feet are being purchased in 2009. (An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons.) This equates to nearly five years of mining production requirements.


So lets see. The first sentence says that each year they acquire two to three years worth of water. Then they describe four years worth of doing so and then brag on having gotten "nearly" five years worth (not the 8 to 12 years the first sentence implies). This is basic math done wrong.

Lake spreads this happy tale with this bit of reporting:

Lake wrote:
I am pleased to hear that Resolution Copper has been banking water and will have secured the entire water supply for the life of the project before the first ounce of copper comes out of the ground,remarked Pinal County Supervisor Bryan Martyn who appeared before the subcommittee. Additionally, Resolution Copper has already spent literally millions of dollars on water studies in the area to date. These studies have indicated that there will be no impact on the water supply of Superior, Globe-Miami, San Carlos or any other community. It is because of this that I am certain that the future of the regional water supply is secure, Martyn said.


No problem! BTW, Using basic math you can calculate from RCM's quote above that the mine water usage will be equivalent to that of the city of Tempe, or 38 million gallons per day.

FLAG
 
By kirra
Jun 16, 2011
RCM J. Cherry must be proud of his recent efforts to exploit one of the Apache against their own. Apparently Harrison Talgo is no stranger to flipping sides for personal gain

In a story about Mt. Graham ~Whole Earth No. 91, W'1997

..."Tribal Chairman Harrison Talgo ran for office defending the sacredness of Mt. Graham, then lost his re-election. Disappointed, he accepted a University offer to become a crew foreman at the telescope site. The University had another Apache who proclaimed that "sacredness" was passé, an obsolete fossil of pre-modern Apaches..."

FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 2 of 13.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3  4  5   Next>   Last>>