Goodbye Tamo

Kirra wrote:Sorry if I missed something here, who was the AZ climber that was asked first...was it Jim W..? Backlash he would receive..?? - Maybe whomever this person was, actually SAW the 'Bigger Picture' (that most of you have missed and may still be missing) and that is why he bowed out. I honestly don't know his reasons, have never had that conversation with the guy and so I can not say. (his identity is probably irrelevant anyway at this point)

I never said who this person was and purposely did not name him. If you din't have a conversation with this person then why are you commenting about his reasons? Just to set this record straight, I did have conversations with him and your assumptions are incorrect, as are many of your assumptions/conclusions about my actions.

My point was that there was an effort early on to use a local person. I feel the person they hired was the correct person for the job because of his experience in geology and his experience in the climbing community. He did reach out to the locals, but encountered a wall of resistance, this was encouraged by the access fund.

CJD wrote: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.

Chris, I don't know what they are telling you, but from my perspective it is very simple.
They are never going to remove Tamo from the Land Swap. If they did there would be nothing to keep us from banding together and fully opposing their new bill.

I'm pretty sure they don't want us to be united against them. It's in their best interest to keep us divided.

If Tamo was not in their next bill, would you support the bill or would you oppose it and put your effort into protecting Oak Flat?

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.

Ian F. wrote: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)

I agree with you, the mine should be put to task, it was the plan all along. Climbers stand to lose a dear resource, I hope they don't. If they do, the mine should pay, alot.

When this thing started the position was appose the mine because OF is protecte land, that mining is distructive, tailing issues, water issues, et. Brent Bingham has been steadfast and I respect his position. the only time we here abut apposing the mine in those terms is when BB chimes in.

What climbers are saying now is we appose the mine, they always have, but what is different now from the position three years ago is they feel the need to assure (now they are talking to RC,) as much access to areas within Queen Creek, just in case RCCs effort are successful. They feel the need to negotiate the whatifs now, but it stops at Queen Creek?

Why should we negotiate for pennies when we can negotiate for dollars? Many dollars. JS has operated from the beginning to put the mine to task. We still have a huge opportunty to do just that. Lets put them to task, lets tell them we want the sky. Hell we stand to lose Oak Flat. If we do they should pay and pay alot. But we have to demand it, direct it and participate in the process.

My actions have not been prompted by anyone but me. I am not an puppet nor am I a hypocrit, I am a local climber, my kids are local climbers, I would like more climbing resources. ACCESSIBLE climbing resources. I have and will continue to unite the climbers to one voice

In the face of losing one resource I see opportunity to gain more. This hasn't ever been the case. The AZ climbing community has lost much climbing without even a thought. If RC fails we've lost nothing, yet. If RC succeeds, we stand to gain much.

Ian F. wrote: "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.

Exactly! And one of the things we are asking for is Tamo. Lets make sure we get at least that and in a form we can support. If you want a paved road then lets ask for it. Sherman really just wants a beer garden. If more locals can get behind it and start participating who knows what we can get but otherwise you will just get what he can pry out of them.

Mike C has been kind enough to host an initial meeting. I'd like to see another one soon and this time keep the focus on Tamo and what we want. What do you say Mike? I'm trying to get Sherman to come back but I think he's shacked up with another toothless hillbilly woman.

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

CJD wrote: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.

Chris,

If there is any "divide and conquer" strategy at work here, it certainly wasn't put in place by the Access Fund. As I mentioned in my post above, the very conditions required for the creation of Tamo have put climbers in an unfortunate position of having to choose sides. It is inherent in the very structure of the deal that climbers must give up one place to get the other. Further more, there is only one entity that could have possibly put climbers in that position--and that is clearly RCC.

Curt

CJD wrote: 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. .

Chris- You couldn't be farther off base on that rant. It is quite ovbivous to everyone who is doing the propaganda. Sherman (and I assume you) have financial gains wrapped up in this and now that it looks like the whole thing is going the other way, due to a democratic congress, you are sounding the alarm bells. Just let go trying to make the AF look like the bad guys.

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.

Here, here! Well said Ian.

Ian, Your points 1 & 2 (really all of them) are excellent. I smiled at your remark about their ability to drilling a well - funny! The idea of a parking/staging at the 177 junction is also an excellent idea and something I hadn't put any thought to previously but would fully support.

Kenneth, If you think that Sherman has financial gain working on Tamo you are way off base. He has personal reasons and satisfaction in protecting climbing areas, but financial gain is not the motivation. The man has a profession that works him hard and pays appropriately. One could argue that his working on the Tamo project is fiscally irresponsible.

~Susan

Ian,

Nice posts.

When on topic there seems to be agreement. Post mortem microscopic examination of yesteryear's actions and a person's perceived motives don't seem to help. Let the past go.

Fred

Pet clean up station like in Red Rocks. It encourages for dog owners to be responsible for their pets.

Doing our part to stay green..... recycling trash centers/cans like in J-Tree.

Emergency Basket/Litters at the various key areas. Like Owens River Gorge.

~Susan

Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Chris- You couldn't be farther off base on that rant. It is quite ovbivous to everyone who is doing the propaganda. Sherman (and I assume you) have financial gains wrapped up in this and now that it looks like the whole thing is going the other way, due to a democratic congress, you are sounding the alarm bells. Just let go trying to make the AF look like the bad guys.

Obvious? Huh? Why do some of you people always assume there is some underlying sinister motive behind everybody that you disagree with? Is that the way you operate? Both Sherman and I are professional scientists. We believe in open, honest, objective discussion (sometimes outright arguments). We are neither salesmen or politicians. We are not plotting, scheming, or conspiring to achieve anything. We are openly trying to do exactly what we have been saying all along. To get some compensation for potential losses at OF.

Neither I nor Sherman have any financial interest in this at all. Sherman has walked away from his previous career for this project and has LOST about $90,000 in income differential in the process. Nobody that I know of except RCC, climbers, and local economies have anything to gain financially. I have a real job and have no current or future financial interest in Tamo. I was paid by WLG to search for potential "replacement" areas on a part time basis for about a year in 2004-2005. I haven't even climbed at Tamo in almost a year. I just get involved because I know what a great resource we have at Tamo and I want to make sure that if we lose a climbing area at OF that we will get something in return. Sherman could walk away at anytime and be better off but he also sees this as an opportunity to give something back to climbing.

The current status of the land trade legislation has very little to do with the current leaders in congress. There have been all kinds of problems political and otherwise along the way though which is not uncommon for such deals.

Ian,

I have tried to refrain from pointing fingers or calling people names but in the face of constant attacks I think it is important to point out some important things that people may have not considered. My comments about the AF are not name calling but certainly meant to call them out. Why don't all you AF members ask your leaders to get you something back for what they signed off on? They signed away so much at OF and just left us sitting here. Tell me how I'm wrong? They aren't the bad guys but sure as heck aren't helping you out. RCC was letting you climb on their land already and intended to let it continue. So what exactly did the AF get for us there?

I agree that we should try to stick together but alliances fail unless all parties have something to gain and there is incentive to stay together. The US and USSR were allies against the Germans in WWII but it didn't work out too well after the war when they didn't need us anymore. I think we need to first and foremost stick together as climbers to get the best deal we can. After that I think we need to be careful who we align ourselves with.

curt,

Why does the AF not support Tamo or some other plan to compensate climbers for what they have given up for us at OF? Can you give us a clear answer to that? I honestly want to know because it has always been frustrating me that it appears they just "cut and ran".

Is the fact that we are not being compensated for the 100's of routes and boulder problems that we stand to lose under the agreement even on the AF radar? If the AF will stand up and ask for some mitigation I'd have a lot more faith that they are doing something for me the average climber.

It seems that in many cases where the AF gets involved we only lose some access. I guess not losing it all is a "victory" but why not take advantage of the offer from RCC in this case and try to get something back? That would be a real victory and a first. Instead Sherman is doing all that work and getting slammed for it. It looks to me that the AF essentially conceded defeat by signing off with RCC on OF and then walked away with money on the table.

Russ,

I don't really want to say this in public but I think it is time for some intervention... Sherman has grown a heart in his old age. He is currently working on some shoe companies to start making a high-top ankle saving bouldering shoes. He is also trying to get pad companies to change their designs to lessen the number of broken/sprained feet/ankles. He has become an old softie. He has always cared a lot about the sport of climing but now he actually cares about the people too.

For those of you that know him you will be shocked to know that he was proposing that we need to get kids to wear helmets when bouldering. He used to hate kids! Now he wants them to be safe. Next thing you know he will be passing out condoms in grade schools.

CJD wrote: My comments about the AF are not name calling but certainly meant to call them out. Why don't all you AF members ask your leaders to get you something back for what they signed off on? They signed away so much at OF and just left us sitting here. Tell me how I'm wrong? They aren't the bad guys but sure as heck aren't helping you out. RCC was letting you climb on their land already and intended to let it continue. So what exactly did the AF get for us there? I agree that we should try to stick together but alliances fail unless all parties have something to gain and there is incentive to stay together. The US and USSR were allies against the Germans in WWII but it didn't work out too well after the war when they didn't need us anymore. I think we need to first and foremost stick together as climbers to get the best deal we can. After that I think we need to be careful who we align ourselves with. curt, Why does the AF not support Tamo or some other plan to compensate climbers for what they have given up for us at OF? Can you give us a clear answer to that? I honestly want to know because it has always been frustrating me that it appears they just "cut and ran". Is the fact that we are not being compensated for the 100's of routes and boulder problems that we stand to lose under the agreement even on the AF radar? If the AF will stand up and ask for some mitigation I'd have a lot more faith that they are doing something for me the average climber. It seems that in many cases where the AF gets involved we only lose some access. I guess not losing it all is a "victory" but why not take advantage of the offer from RCC in this case and try to get something back? .

So the question is really what has the Access Fund done for AZ climbers and whose side are they on? What have they done for us lately? Are they for saving QC/OF or are they just against Tamo?

Well since 2005...
accessfund.org/regions/stat…
climbing.com/community/acce…
accessfund.org/pubs/en/e-ne…
accessfund.org/pubs/en/e-ne…

There is quite a bit more, if your still interested in calling them out.

CJD wrote:curt, Why does the AF not support Tamo or some other plan to compensate climbers for what they have given up for us at OF? Can you give us a clear answer to that? I honestly want to know because it has always been frustrating me that it appears they just "cut and ran". Is the fact that we are not being compensated for the 100's of routes and boulder problems that we stand to lose under the agreement even on the AF radar? If the AF will stand up and ask for some mitigation I'd have a lot more faith that they are doing something for me the average climber. It seems that in many cases where the AF gets involved we only lose some access. I guess not losing it all is a "victory" but why not take advantage of the offer from RCC in this case and try to get something back? That would be a real victory and a first. Instead Sherman is doing all that work and getting slammed for it. It looks to me that the AF essentially conceded defeat by signing off with RCC on OF and then walked away with money on the table.

Chris,

I'd be happy to try and answer your question--but I truly don't understand it. What is it specifically that you believe the AF has "given up" at Oak Flat? As I have stated before, there is no "agreement" that currently exists between the AF and RCC--except for the license agreement that allows us to continue using the Pond and Atlantis climbing areas; areas that are already on RCC's private property.

The AF has actually taken no position one way or the other regarding the current land exchange bills--and they are waiting for guidance from AZ climbers (and that means you, me and the rest of us) before they do so. If you want the AF to support Tamo more aggressively, you and John should discuss this with Jason Keith.

Curt

Well, I have not heard one peep from anybody that would lead me to believe that AF is waiting for anything or has any interest in seeking mitigation for the climbs that might be lost. My question is why haven't they done anything to secure access to replacement climbing since there has been so much made of the efforts? It is not like it is a secret that RCC has offered millions of dollars for mitigation.

Could you post a link to the letter that was sent to RCC about the land exchange/lease agreement? I know I saw it once but have no idea where. I honestly don't remember what it said.

Would that be the same Jason Keith that I heard refused to check out the rock at Tamo when you two were given a tour? Apparently Sherman has him on video saying something like, I'm not going to let you force me to climb here. He wouldn't even give it a try. I don't think he is very receptive to the idea of supporting Tamo. I know you were there too so maybe you have a different take on it. I commend you for giving Tamo a try and admitting that the rock is pretty good at least.

CJD wrote:Well, I have not heard one peep from anybody that would lead me to believe that AF is waiting for anything or has any interest in seeking mitigation for the climbs that might be lost.

CJD,

I have personally communicated with Jason Keith months ago w.r.t. my own concerns pertaining to the Access Fund's involvement to date.

As I understand it, the Access Fund will move and speak based on what the locals request, not the other way around. So, perhaps you should start a dialogue with the local organizations and work within that system to further address your grievances. Better yet, call Jason and talk directly to him or send him an email. I've always found him responsive, even with confrontational stances (as mine was initially).

I see that you are willing to move ahead with Tamo brainstorming as I did back in October (good idea and much more productive this time), maybe you should also be willing to forgive and move forward in a positive manner toward the Access Fund. It's a new day.

Fred

I'm trying to prod anybody I can into moving forward. That's why I started this thread and have suggested that YOU guys to put pressure on the AF. That's what I said in a previous post.

Based on Sherman's direct experiences with Jason and my own observations I haven't had any reason to believe there would be anything productive to come from us contacting the AF directly. Maybe the situation is different now.

One problem we may encounter is that the AF really alienated themselves from RCC with their previous tactics. I think we might be better off approaching RCC as a grassroots local organization independent of the AF.

I've been home sick all day which is why I've had so much time to make so many posts. I think I'm going to give this forum a break from me for a while.

Keep up the good work.