Goodbye Tamo

First - a bit of history. When RCC first came on the scene their attitude was "we're taking all of Queen Creek so will find you a new area- take it or leave it!" A vast majority of locals didn't want to lose QC. The Access Fund worked on our behalf to secure access to some of the areas for at least awhile thus the creation of the license agreement and the annual $2000 insurance payment that we locals have to pay. Not a great deal but it was the best we thought we could get given that most people thought the trade was a done deal. RCC has mishandled their relations with local climbers from day one. We climbers have basically been reacting to RCC proposals. Not a pretty sight. We have squat to show for it.

It is time for a new deal. Climbers need to come together and determine what we want and then work our butts off to get it. There are two primary factions that need and have to come together - the preserve QC folks the replacement area (Tamo) folks. There may be other factions but these are the two most obvious.

I and others have been in discussion with RCC. We want to form the Queen Creek Coalition. QCC will be climber directed and everybody will be welcome. Our mission - determine what climbers want and go get it. Based on the two factions mentioned above part of the QCC would work on preserving as much climbing as possible in the Queen Creek area and the other part would work on making Tamo a reality. Once we have a "wish list" we will present it to RCC. Then the real work will start.

As evidenced in this and other forums there is a ton of passion on this issue. Climbing wouldn't be what it is with out the passion we all feel. Let's use that passion to make the best of this situation.

Look for a big meeting for ALL CLIMBERS in the first part of 2008.

Anyone ever heard that, 'Politics makes strange bedfellows.'

I'd like to mention that Access Fund is: Since 1991, the Access Fund has been the only national advocacy organization that keeps climbing areas open and conserves the climbing environment. The Access Fund supports and represents over 1.6 million climbers nationwide in ALL forms of climbing; Rock Climbing, Ice Climbing, Mountaineering, and Bouldering. Five core programs support the mission on national and local levels: public policy, stewardship & conservation (including grants), grassroots activism, climber education, and land acquisition. (Not that most of you need reminded of this.)

The issues that are hard to swallow are:
1. One huge international corporation WILL mine out at Oak Flats. Some folks are standing up for access to the areas that will not be mined and we do not want to lose! (What the hell is wrong with that?)

2. Some climbers feel that by climbing and doing FA's out at Tamo, some may think that those climbers are o.k. with losing the previous mentioned access and are good with a swap of all of OF for the new Tamo. (correct me if you think otherwise, this is what I've personally heard of from those invited but declined.)

My question is:
Why are we not standing together to tell RCC (with those that are working directly with RCC) that we're open to this new area Tamo, but HAVE to have access to the areas (Devils canyon, Road area)included in the deal!!!!!!

Look, we all have personalities and some love to debate. (me included.) I just think our energy is better spent on standing together and then we can put our focus on bringing the old climbing contest back or forming a new contest. (I hear Mike C is real good at that kinda stuff.)

Call me a dreamer, I don't mind!
I love climbing and just want this whole damn thing to work out and be done with!!!

question: Why does Tamo need be a 'state climbing park?'
Can't we just get good road access and a bathroom. Like Jack's.
Then we could ask for good road access for the Drip, homestead and anything else we can think of.

Just curious: why does it need be some elaborate, that just means more people around. Maybe I'm just such a lover of isolated crags.

I don't know squat about this issue, but I read in these posts that the state may not want to take on Tamo as an additional responsibility. Sounds like a land grant to place it into the hands of the Access Fund might be an option.

Anyway, the last few threads seem to have cut to the few basic issues. Keep as much QC open as possible, at the same time, get Tamo available to climbers. Working on both makes good sense.

CJD wrote: 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.

In defense of JK, this argument is pretty weak sauce. the rumor is he was flown out to Tamo by a helicopter paid for by RCC to "check out Tamo" then dropped off in middle the desert with only Sherman as a ride back to Phx. At which point Sherman put the camera in is face and told him to climb, with the unsaid message: 'If you want a ride back you will enjoy this and I will document it to show everyone.' Come on.

The AF has never opposed Tamo, they have no position on it officially.
Simply for the reason that support of Tamo is tantamount to giving up on QC/OF. Their position has always been 'Save QC', never 'Oppose Tamo.' Or is that too nuanced for your taste?
Your argue goes: "Support of QC/OF is opposition to Tamo" and that is a false dicotomy.
Of course AF would love to have both. But that's not the deal with RCC.

Linda, the reason Tamo is pushed to the front as a state park is to have the state buy into the swap. Once RCC can show that the local people and their state government have accepted the trade-off, then our federal representatives can say they were only responding to the people. Thus they can sleep at night thinking they did the right thing by handing a foreign corporation carte blanche on our recreational treasure. The reason RCC does not want to use a method that could save the top from sinking is that it would diminish their cash return. Simple economy. Greed.

Deaun Schovajsa wrote:I.....Sounds like a land grant to place it into the hands of the Access Fund might be an option.

I was saying something similar to that effect to a friend just last week. What about transferring the area into a trust of sorts. Some non-profit coalition that could manage it.

Or is that just another huge problem?

charlieB wrote: In defense of JK, this argument is pretty weak sauce. the rumor is ...

So now we're using rumors as facts...

Actually I was there and JK's refusal to climb was pretty pathetic. The route was a 5.9 TR.

charlieB wrote: The AF has never opposed Tamo, they have no position on it officially. Simply for the reason that support of Tamo is tantamount to giving up on QC/OF. Their position has always been 'Save QC', never 'Oppose Tamo.' Or is that too nuanced for your taste? Your argue goes: "Support of QC/OF is opposition to Tamo" and that is a false dicotomy. Of course AF would love to have both. But that's not the deal with RCC.

None of this is acurate either.

Sorry Charlie

Linda White wrote:question: Why does Tamo need be a 'state climbing park?' Can't we just get good road access and a bathroom. Like Jack's.

The AZSP is actually excited to manage Tamo, the BLM is not. Also, why sell ourselves short?

Linda White wrote:we could ask for good road access for the Drip, homestead and anything else we can think of.

Sherman has been working on this for years.

charlieB wrote: In defense of JK, this argument is pretty weak sauce. the rumor is he was flown out to Tamo by a helicopter paid for by RCC to "check out Tamo" then dropped off in middle the desert with only Sherman as a ride back to Phx. At which point Sherman put the camera in is face and told him to climb, with the unsaid message: 'If you want a ride back you will enjoy this and I will document it to show everyone.' Come on.

That's not entirely correct--but it's pretty close. I was with Jason on that trip and prior to visiting Tamo we made it clear to Andy Wiessner (our WLG host on that trip) that we did not intend to climb that day. Instead, we wanted to see as much of the area as possible in the short time available in order to do the best assessment of the area that we could. So, either Andy did not convey to Sherman that we would not be climbing that day--or, Sherman ignored Andy's input and decided that we would indeed climb--like it or not.

Our reasons for not wanting to climb at Tamo that day should be fairly obvious. Since Sherman and crew had their video cameras rolling, this was clearly a "no win" propaganda situation for us. We could climb and then subsequently have the video "evidence" used against us with congress, claiming that even the AF Policy Director and FoQC representative enjoyed the climbing at Tamo immensely--or, we could be filmed declining to climb and subsequently have the videos "prove" that we did not have an open mind with respect to Tamo. Clearly the latter occurred, and Sherman and crew circulated that video of Jason declining to climb at Tamo to what they felt was their best advantage.

I honestly believe that if Sherman, CJD, CHill and others truly want to move Tamo forward, these types of junior high school level antics should be abandoned in favor of a far more positive consensus building strategy. Who knows--if they actually try to build consensus instead of attempting to cram their agenda down the throats of others, they may actually get someplace.

Curt

'Sup Curt,

You know that there was only one video camera at your now famous "visit" to Tamo. Don't exaggerate to make it seem like some kind of PR set up. I'm sure if you would have asked nicely, Sherman would not have filmed you guys, but your visit was clearly hostile from the moment you stepped out of the helicopter. Your minds wern't open when you got there and you know it. There were no "cameras rolling" when you got out of the helicoptor and informed us you "didn't bring any" climbing gear.

Sherman and myself were expecting you guys to come up that day specifically to climb. Climbing is the common ground we all share in this mess. Aren't you guys supposed to be climbers? After all, how can you tell the quality of an climbing area without actually climbing there? I personally spent several hours hiking in extra gear in case you guys wanted to do a trad climb, and we selected some top quality routes (classic 5.9s and 5.10s) for you to do. I guess Andy forgot to tell us that you guys weren't actually interested in climbing. I don't think anyone else who has EVER visited Tamo, didn't want to climb, let alone REFUSED to do so.

Personally I was shocked at you and JK's behavior, and I know Sherman was a little insulted. It was like you went to a resturant to do a review on it, looked around and informed the chef you weren't going to eat anything, but you were still going to give it a bad review.

I'm not sure what agenda of ours you're referring to but during this entire project we have been subject to lies, slander and abuse directly and indirectly from you and the Access Fund.

My goal in participating in this discussion is to try to encourage support for the Tamo project. At the moment Tamo is tied directly to the land exchange as compensation for the loss of Oak Flat. I know that you believe this weakens the position of FOQC, but that is because your position is weak, not because of the existance of Tamo.

Do what you must to save Oak Flat, but don't attack us, we're the back up plan in case you fail.

Folks,

Let's all lay down the weaponry and hurt of the past and gather beneath an umbrella of common cause and move on united.

It's a new day and there are many opportunities before us.

Fred

Damn it!!! We were doing good again and now the personalities are flying.
Please stop!!! We get no where like this.

CHILL - For what it is worth I think it wise to try and understand JS, Curt's point of view. With out being there and not having any consensus on what the true story may be, I feel they made a wise decision that day, how ever it played out. If caught off guard and pressured to climb, I could see how things could get awkward on the spot. However, there seems to have been a lack of communication prior to that trip, they intended one thing, and you intended for another.

That is the point of this thread, at this point, to make sure we don't have situations like that again. So, we need to leave the past alone, forgive and forget, and move forward with 100% open dialogue so the community at large can be united.

This day you all discuss is probably our best example of why we need to take another approach.

AS SEEN IN MANY OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS PEOPLE WANT TO WORK TOGETHER

I think the idea of a Queen Creek Coalition is a great idea. I look forward to seeing it come together.

However, we should get as much dialogue as we can together to figure out how we can be strong on saving Oak Flats, and strong on a replacement area.

We can use this forum to pool ideas. Start talking now instead of later.

Ian F. wrote:AS SEEN IN MANY OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS PEOPLE WANT TO WORK TOGETHER

Ian,

I agree, and I look forward to working with you, Fred, the other productive locals, and even Curt in the near future.

Let's all try to get climbers as much as they can out of a bad situation.

I'm ready to take this 7 page thread out in my yard and bury it. Can we pool ideas somewhere else? Maybe the "wish list" thread or start a new one.

Chris,

OK, I'm personally wiling to accept that there was simply a misunderstanding regarding that JK visit to Tamo. You need to understand that the misunderstanding went both ways, however--and while Sherman may have felt insulted, Jason felt we were ambushed. I suppose that's what happens when the appearance of having adversarial positions exists.

For the record, we did not give the place a bad review--and I have even stated multiple times that I liked the rock and enjoyed the few boulder problems I did there.

Curt

Thanks Curt,

A misunderstanding it was... 'nuf said.

I look forward to bouldering and climbing there with you again sometime.

CHill wrote:Thanks Curt, A misunderstanding it was... 'nuf said. I look forward to bouldering and climbing there with you again sometime.

Sounds good to me, Chris. Have a happy holiday season.

Curt

Russ Walling wrote:Kirra, your silence speaks volumes on the website ownership of SaveQueenCreek.con Thanks for clearing that up.

lol ~ no silence...I answered you, it's just not the answer you wanted to hear ~(:

CJD wrote: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.

Chris ~ Minor correction - There NEVER WAS any $$$ at the time the State agreed to this. Nothing new as Fred & I were trying to tell folks some time ago. This was in the Az State Parks meeting minutes (folks sweating and wondering how they were going to pay for this or ask Gov. for more $$ cause they were already over budget). People party on plastic all the time.

Just a minor correction Kirra, AZSP is excited and WANTS to make Tamo happen regardless of the land exchange. Of course they are sweating the finances. If the land exchange does occur however, they would appreciate as much help as they can get from RCC.