Queen Creek - Oak Flat Petition from FOQC

Paul Dief and The Friends of Queen Creek (FOQC) have announced the decision to circulate a formal petition. This will address concerns with the recent submissions of the 2007 Land Swap bills. FOQC Petition

text below
===================================

Petition of Concern

With regards to the Oak Flat Land Exchange Legislation (House Bill 3301 and Senate Bill 1862) we, the rock climbers of Arizona, have the following concerns:

The current license agreement with Resolution Copper Company (RCC) is revocable by RCC at anytime. Recent concerns of the Mine Safety and Health Administration about public recreation on private mining lands have cast a shadow on the long term viability of the license agreement. We want permanent access to the climbing areas know as Atlantis and the Pond – no strings attached.

If Oak Flat Campground is closed to the public as will occur under the current version of the land exchange bill we will lose reasonable access to Upper and Lower Devils Canyon and Apache Leap. We want RCC to guarantee that they will work with the appropriate agencies to create reasonable access to these climbing areas in a reasonable time frame.

As recently addressed by Governor Napolitano, in addition to needed environmental safeguards related to mining in Arizona, the current version of the land exchange bill does not allocate enough money to open Tamo as a state park. RCC needs to work with the Arizona State Parks Department to determine the actual costs and guarantee to fund these costs in full so that the financial burden does not fall to Arizona citizens.

===================================

Please feel free to print, sign and circulate. This opportunity will allow climbers to be heard along with the Governor, who due to many of our efforts, has decided to re-examine all of the issues in depth.

Details of recent events and documents referred to herin, can be found at SaveQueenCreek.com

Many thanks to everyone for your efforts and concerns toward preserving access in this historical Climbing area.

Thanks Kirra, I'm glad to see this info posted.

I'm glad to see that you folks have changed your position and now are getting behind creating a state park at Tamo? Why the change of heart?

Who is going to be receiving these petitions once signed?

No real "change of heart". The #1 mission of Friends of Queen Creek has always been to preserve as much climbing as possible in Queen Creek Canyon. That is why we agreed to pay $2000 a yer for RCC required insurance to climb at the Pond and Atlantis. The petition is to alert people to problems with the land swap bill as curently written. The state of Arizona does not think the amount of money RCC has pledged to open Tamo is enough. It would add insult to injury if we lost Queen Creek and Tamo failed to materialize.

We have been blasted by a few climbers about the $2000/year for insurance. Please kkep in mind that Tamo will be a state park. There will be an entrance fee. Collectively climbers will be paying a lot more that $2000 to climb at Tamo.

We will continue to lobby to preserve climbing at Queen Creek and welcome any one who wants to help.

Paul Dief - Friends of Queen Creek.

Chris,

As Paul says, there is no real change of heart. Having Tamo as a climbing park would be a good thing for Arizona. Keeping access to Oak Flat would also be a good thing for Arizona. I don't know any climber who would disagree with those two statements.

There are a number of issues however (some of them raised in Gov. Napolitano's letter to Congress) concerning the current versions of the land exchange bill. Those issues involve both the fragile nature of the access license in the Queen Creek area and also the completely inadequate levels of funding for the creation and maintenance of the new state park.

The petitions will be sent to our Congressional delegation in the hope of getting all these issues remedied.

Curt - Friends of Queen Creek

I agree guys. I think the previous suggestions by some people here to decouple Tamo and OF was unrealistic.

I just wish we had had more support for Tamo earlier. It would have made our efforts to get these things in order much easier. Who knows what could have happened.

I agree, but I think it is important to remember that it isn't a done deal yet and there is much that can be accomplished. Common ground, however it's found, would be a huge positive for the climbing community.

Petitions are available to sign in the local climbing gyms, SolidRock North: Deer Valley, SolidRock West: Estrella Mountain, and the Phoenix Rock Gym (Tempe). Chime in with any other locations.

I have heard there are going to be a couple of meetings soon. I know some of you have been invited. I hope you can come with open minds and some good ideas. You have to work WITH the parties involved (RCC, State, BLM, Sherman, etc.) to gain ground. Stonewalling and demands do not go far in big boy politics.

CJD wrote:You have to work WITH the parties involved (RCC, State, BLM, Sherman, etc.) to gain ground. Stonewalling and demands do not go far in big boy politics.

Neither do those SAME type of techniques work with regards to hijaking foreign lands (even though rcc is trying a subliminal approach from within to divide and conquer).

Climbers do not have to work with RCC or Sherman to gain ANY ground. This is how climbers lost their ground from the beginning...!!

RCC needs to go home -- Back to the U.K. & AuzzieLand from where it came. Oak Flat is NOT for "sale" at any price. You missd the entire point Chris. It's NOT about you...(-:

CJD wrote:I have heard there are going to be a couple of meetings soon. I know some of you have been invited. I hope you can come with open minds and some good ideas. You have to work WITH the parties involved (RCC, State, BLM, Sherman, etc.) to gain ground. Stonewalling and demands do not go far in big boy politics.

This sort of condescending stuff continues to frustrate the "process" that you so much want to control and gets us nowhere. "Open minds" accept opposing "good ideas" in an effort to come to a consensus in a public conflict. It's good public policy to do so and this is after all a very public matter.

Governor Napolitano, certainly a very effective and important player, and a fine woman by the way, in your "big boy politics" is also now resolved (your spin: stonewalling) and critical (your spin: demanding) of the written agreements that detail this issue at this time.

And, are you meaning to say that the Native American communities in opposition to the loss of Oak Flat are also just "stonewalling" and making "demands" and are therefore closed minded with no good ideas? It's interesting to note that when they say "NO" everybody seems to listen.

The one publicly announced meeting where everybody is invited is by the FoQC in October. I believe it is October 14th, a Sunday evening at the Phoenix Rock Gym in Tempe. Perhaps the date is not in concrete yet, but they've always been pretty public about when they are getting together to discuss this public issue.

Kirra wrote: Neither do those SAME type of techniques work with regards to hijaking foreign lands (even though rcc is trying a subliminal approach from within to divide and conquer). Climbers do not have to work with RCC or Sherman to gain ANY ground. This is how climbers lost their ground from the beginning...!! RCC needs to go home -- Back to the U.K. & AuzzieLand from where it came. Oak Flat is NOT for "sale" at any price. You missd the entire point Chris. It's NOT about you...(-:

yeah, this sounds like an open mind.

Kirra makes a good point. RCC has practiced "divide and conquer" as a foundation piece set by Bruno.

The coalition of Native Americans has drawn a line in the sand. Every time I've listened to a representative I've heard - Oak Flat is not for sale.

In other words, the time for consensus appears to have expired. The actions of RCC have led to this state of affairs. Some examples..

-Little to no mention of the withdrawn status of Oak Flat by executive order in the land swap dealings.

-Very little mention or revelation of how RCC will dispose of tailing. Since this represents over 98% of the rock mined and RCC claims to be so environmentally aware, this seems weird.

-Using Oak Flat as if the Executive Order didn't exist. The order states that no mining activity will take place on the withdrawn area, yet I have personally witnessed mining activity in the form of road usage, claim stakes, geophysical surveys and water pipes in the Executive Order area. Makes me wonder if the core holes don't angle underneath this area too.

-Threatening to go away (with all their big bucks) if they don't get exactly what they want (which doesn't include a new mining technique, thank you). Controlling the agenda is high on their list.

Other stuff of note:

-It is kinda amusing that shady dealings wiped out one congressman (Renzi) already. Is Pastor next?

-The local "newspapers" (Globe and Miami) only report happy horseshit about the project. There is no mention of Napalotano's letters, Apache sentiment or Superior City Council actions. However, there are a lot of big RCC ads. That is why I call the local rag the Copper Country and RCC Fish Wrap.

-BTW, Asarco found a deep deposit just east of this one a few decades ago. I wonder if RCC has plans to go in that direction too? A public company should go public as that would make even a larger hole in the ground. Seems to me that there is a lot of copper down there. In this modern age, we don't want to saddle our children with a big mess, it is time to come up with a new mining technique that doesn't cave to surface and respects the status of the land.

IMO, Apaches and friends have it right.

Brent

There is a meeting open to all regarding the current status of Queen Creek, the Land Swap, etc on Sunday October 14 at 7pm. To get on the Friends of Queen Creek email list email info@friendsofqueencreek.com.

Thanks
Paul Dief - FoQC

OK Fred, you are right, I probably shouldn't have said "big boy politics" but I think you misinterpreted my intent. What I mean is climbers need to start acting like the other more powerful and experienced groups that have negotiated with RCC. Like the Nature Conservancy etc. These groups get respect and results because they know how to play the game. If climbers continue to act like pissed off activists instead of a legitimate player we will get screwed.

That's all.

we're "pissed off activists" because one of our member (J.S.) went off and 'sold out' the climbers.

I understood what you meant Chris - but on the note of "decoupling Tamo with Oak Flat".....
It's not unrealistic - IT IS A NECESSITY

Tamo needs to be freed from the land X-change to have any chances of survival. The land x-change and the License is a bad deal.

This petition is one way for the climbers to come together in an organized and orderly manner.

Kirra wrote:we're "pissed off activists" because one of our member (J.S.) went off and 'sold out' the climbers. I understood what you meant Chris - but on the note of "decoupling Tamo with Oak Flat"..... It's not unrealistic - IT IS A NECESSITY Tamo needs to be freed from the land X-change to have any chances of survival. The land x-change and the License is a bad deal. This petition is one way for the climbers to come together in an organized and orderly manner.

That license is a bad deal.

I'm a bit confused, this petition you support, is supporting the governor, who basically supports the landswap. She's just putting the mine to task because of budget shortfalls. What happened to Oak Flat is not for sale? What happened to protected lands should stay protected?

If the mine says yes and pays the state off (about $20 million) the governor goes away.?

The demands for access would have more strength years ago, in the form of cooperation and communication. Which those following the AF refused to do. Instead they were backed into a corner and signed off on a bad deal.

I think your anger (and anger in general) is scewing judgement here. Climbers might be being "sold out", but it isn't by JS.

There is common ground here, we can accomplish plenty. But not by being a "pissed off activist."

Going over the past hasn't helped anybody here so far: RCC, WLG, AF, JS, state parks board decisions, etc.

Moving on.

As to the petition, as I read it, the first paragraph applies to obtaining permanent access to RCC owned lands at the Pond and Atlantis, nothing to do with Oak Flat at this time. Also, note that the second paragraph of the petition is a conditional, "If Oak Flat is closed" and that in the third paragraph "in the current version" of the legislation.

There is plenty of time for things to be separated, modified, etc. The petition applies in this fluid world.

Times have changed, best to consider that money is a big problem (see front page of Az Rep today) and no, the money won't make the problems at Oak Flat go away. Playing the "what's your price game" doesn't seem to get the "activists" off their seats. Perhaps somebody should take notice of this?

The concepts and visions proposed to date have not gained support for obvious reasons (privatization of protected and revered land)
"in exchange for" lots and lots of other land and a bunch of money. Again, maybe somebody should take notice.

The privatization is the main problem and perhaps that needs a good going over by all the "big [and little] boys [and girls]" involved.

There seems to be a real resolve to keep Oak Flat as protected public property and perhaps it's time to really think about that, regardless of the hoops the lawyers and engineers might have to jump through.

Fred AmRhein wrote: ...Governor Napolitano, certainly a very effective and important player, and a fine woman by the way,...

What exactly is your relationship with the Governor's office Fred?

The license agreement is a bad deal???????

Without the license agreement there would be no climbing at Atlantis or the Pond. Period! RCC owns these two areas outright. They basically said "no license - no climbing". Even if RCC decided to abandon this project they still could require us to keep the insurance policy FoQC and the Access Fund have/are paying for. Or they could kick us out. We are at the mercy of RCC. RCC has a waiver that they want every climber to sign when climbing at these two areas but they have not installed the sign-in boxes yet.

Maybe so. IMO, the deal was a necessity because of the need for RCC to control the agenda. Before the opposition front that was put up so fiercely, there was no need for a license. AF cut what they thought was the best deal. I think the deal could have been much better if it was developed in the spirit of cooperation rather than squelching opposition.

I still believe that cooperation rather than opposition will yield a better climbing future for the area and the state.