Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat Land Swap

I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Curt Shannon wrote:I say this from the perspective of someone who has probably been following the status of this RCM land exchange legislation as closely as anyone--having made eight trips back to Washington DC over the last five years to attend hearings, meetings with Senate and House staffs, meetings with Agency USDA/NFS staffs and meetings with numerous Congressmen and Senators and their respective staffs. Curt

curt, sincere thanks for your continued time & involvement

Meeting Summary – QCC Board meeting Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Present: Rick Cecala, John Keedy, Fred AmRhein, Curt Shannon, Marty Karabin, Paul Diefenderfer, Greg Opland, and Erik Filsinger

Mike Covington had given his instructions and proxy to Erik Filsinger for the purposes of voting on a new course of action.

Curt Shannon gave an overview of the recent visits with administration and legislative contacts in Washington regarding the Land Exchange.

The discussion covered a wide variety of assumptions and possible interpretations of events. The QCC board members expressed a fairly diverse set of opinions. Among the topics covered were the likelihood of passage of the land exchange, the ability of the opponents of the RCM-backed measure to influence its passage, the importance of continuing to focus on protecting the land surface versus the alternative focus of obtaining the most net rock climbing, and the potential actions consistent with each assumption and opinion.

Paul Diefenderfer moved that: The QCC's goal is to maximize climbing in the Queen Creek region and we seek to accomplish this by agreeing to a deal with RCM that includes access to Tamo and endorsement of the land exchange legislation. The motion was seconded by John Keedy.

Discussion of the proposed motion followed with different members expressing a variety of opinions about the motion, its consequences, and implementation. The stated intent of the motion is to have the QCC draft a new agreement with Resolution upon the execution of which the QCC will be willing to endorse the land exchange legislation.

After a call for the question, the motion carried 6 to 4.

Paul was given the assignment to draft a document that would contain the specifics of the arrangement with RCM. He will get it back to the QCC within two weeks where it will be vetted and voted on.

Dief wrote:Meeting Summary – QCC Board meeting Wednesday, May 19, 2010 Present: Rick Cecala, John Keedy, Fred AmRhein, Curt Shannon, Marty Karabin, Paul Diefenderfer, Greg Opland, and Erik Filsinger Mike Covington had given his instructions and proxy to Erik Filsinger for the purposes of voting on a new course of action. Curt Shannon gave an overview of the recent visits with administration and legislative contacts in Washington regarding the Land Exchange. The discussion covered a wide variety of assumptions and possible interpretations of events. The QCC board members expressed a fairly diverse set of opinions. Among the topics covered were the likelihood of passage of the land exchange, the ability of the opponents of the RCM-backed measure to influence its passage, the importance of continuing to focus on protecting the land surface versus the alternative focus of obtaining the most net rock climbing, and the potential actions consistent with each assumption and opinion. Paul Diefenderfer moved that: The QCC's goal is to maximize climbing in the Queen Creek region and we seek to accomplish this by agreeing to a deal with RCM that includes access to Tamo and endorsement of the land exchange legislation. The motion was seconded by John Keedy. Discussion of the proposed motion followed with different members expressing a variety of opinions about the motion, its consequences, and implementation. The stated intent of the motion is to have the QCC draft a new agreement with Resolution upon the execution of which the QCC will be willing to endorse the land exchange legislation. After a call for the question, the motion carried 6 to 4. Paul was given the assignment to draft a document that would contain the specifics of the arrangement with RCM. He will get it back to the QCC within two weeks where it will be vetted and voted on.

Terrific!!!! This is great news!! Thanks so much to all of you for your hard work!!!

(clapping paws enthusiastically!)

Geir Hundal wrote: Terrific!!! This is great news!! Thanks so much to all of you for your hard work!!!

Geir,

To be clear, I voted against this major change in mission by this group.

I cannot endorse the destruction of a climbing area as those 6 others have.

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote: Geir, To be clear, I voted against this major change in mission by this group. I cannot endorse the destruction of a climbing area as those 6 others have. Fred

In my opinion, this was a truly stunning blunder on the part of the Queen Creek Coalition and effective tonight, I have resigned from its Board. The QCC is no longer an advocacy group, with the protection and preservation of long established AZ climbing areas in mind.

Even more disturbing, the vote on this misguided motion was forced tonight with the purposeful intent of preempting soon to be introduced RCC related legislation in the House of Representatives that will contain language that a vast number of Arizona climbers would be extremely enthusiastic to support. Unfortunately, climbers have now lost an excellent vehicle through which their collective support could have have been expressed.

Curt

Colin Giegerich wrote:Is QCC so firmly placed as the community representative . . . ?

Colin,

This is a good question by itself and what follows is simply my view of events.

As of tonight, I'm still a member of the QCC but I'm really having a difficult time understanding the wisdom in supporting and forcing such a divisive vote by the leadership? (We've never made much use of forcing votes before, usually we operate on consensus, especially on big issues like this)

The ramifications were predictable and it puts the vestige of the QCC in a very awkward situation it seems; especially with the resignation of Curt, the group's Congressional Liaison and a pivotal founding member. No doubt the group could survive without some members, but I'm not sure it's good for the overall community and this is why I pleaded not to take such a vote. Rather than continuing to unite, it obviously divides and the community has been through this all before with Tamo.

The group's internal agreement to never endorse the destruction of an existing climbing area was kind of the glue, as written or just generally held in common, that held the diverse members of the group together; that's pretty clear.

So, it would seem that what the local climbers now have in the QCC if it doesn't reverse course on this idea, is a group still purporting to be a "coalition" even though it is effectively culling out those who don't now fit under the smaller "endorse" umbrella.

In the end, only time will tell how to answer some of the questions you pose.

Fred

PS: The proponents of the motion to endorse did not really seem to care what other concerned groups thought, at least as I heard them say. Surprisingly, this even included what the Access Fund had to say pertaining to this change of stance toward the legislation.

this is bullsh*t --the vote of such an important responsibility has obviously gone to the dogs..

the QCC no longer speaks for me or the Climbing Community

Marty, I can't believe that you voted for this..!!
your missing the *facts* and listening to people giving you fancy promises that will never come through

Thanks to everyone on the QCC board who had to make a difficult decision on whether to form an agreement with RCC or not. I think it was time to get off the fence and stand on one side or the other. Let's save as much climbing as possible.

I am disappointed that board members are taking the stand of “my way or the highway” and are choosing the highway. I thought the Coalition was created to represent ‘all’ of the climbers not just a particular position. Curt, I hope you will reconsider your resignation because you have been an integral part of the Coalition, and your knowledge and insight will be sorely missed. Fred, I am glad to see you are still on the board and hope you will continue to be, even though I know the result was not what you would have wished.

We know the facts. Nothing promised. Nothing back handed. Just hard decisions. And the work continues.

For the record, The Access Fund was adamantly opposed to the QCC taking the vote that it did last night setting the "new direction" for the group. The vote was forced by the QCC in spite of written communication from the Access Fund Policy Director stating this position. Additionally, the Chair of the QCC (Erik Filsinger) intentionally misrepresented the position of the Access Fund Policy Director to the group on this very point.

Jason Keith informed me this morning that he told the QCC Chair no fewer than three times, in no uncertain terms, that this vote should not be taken. Jason also spent considerable time trying to convince the QCC Chair that an outside mediator should be brought in to look over all the available information and suggest a reasonable path forward for the group--in order to preserve the integrity of the QCC moving forward. Not only was this suggestion ignored, the suggestion was not even presented to other members of the board for consideration.

Unfortunately, it appears that the QCC Board has become nothing more than a rogue group representing perhaps little more than their own personal interests.

Curt

Sure sounds like sore losers too me.

Some of you have been trying to take control of the coalition to make it represent your limited and selfish viewpoint but and now when rational minds prevail and you find yourselves in the minority you cry foul and start the name calling. I admire the folks that voted to get something in return for what we stand to lose at OF especially considering the inevitable character assassination that will ensue. Of the three options presented the only one that guarantees that climbers will get something in return for our losses is the "endorse" option. To choose either other option because of your personal stand on the matter would have been a slap in the face to the rest of the climbing community the QCC professes to represent.

If this land exchange happens the QCC will go down as the group that saved part of OF, created better access to other areas, and delivered Tamo to the general climbing community. If QCC does not agree to endorse the land exchange the QCC will go down as the group who dropped the ball so climbers got screwed again. It really is that simple. The legislation is already moving through congress and we need to get on it now or we will be left out.

As an AZ native and 30+ year climber I want to get something for the loss of climbing resources at OF. To me that's what the QCC should be doing. I have never seen a mission statement if there is one but it is absurd to think you can "negotiate" with the mine by demanding that they not actually do any mining. What is the mission of QCC anyway? If it is to prevent RCC from mining at OF then why are you speaking with them at all? They have nothing to gain from that conversation. As I understood it you guys had taken over what Sherman and I were doing, that is to try to negotiate with the mine for compensation for lost climbing resources.

As far a QCC not representing you, I think you are right. They are supposed to be representing the climbing community. It appears to me that the 60/40 vote is actually skewed away from the interests of the climbing community as a whole. It should have been a 90/10 split in favor of the "endorse" agreement because in my conversations with many climbers over the last 6 years the vast majority understand the situation and are in favor of trying to get the most we can out of RCC.

Manny is the one member that I can understand voting no. He has much more history with OF than the rest of us. I feel that he probably shouldn't have been on the committee in the first place because it puts him in an uncomfortable position. The other no votes I suppose I can understand because you are holding true to your principles however irrational they may be.

curt, Why don't you share with us this exciting legislation you were to propose?

CJD wrote:Sure sounds like sore losers too me. Some of you have been trying to take control of the coalition to make it represent your limited and selfish viewpoint but and now when rational minds prevail and you find yourselves in the minority you cry foul and start the name calling.

...says the man on, or formerly on, the payroll of the mining company. As far as the alternative legislation goes, we have provided input to it--but we are not drafting it. I'm not certain exactly when it will become public. But, when it does, I will certainly post it.

Curt

CJD wrote:Sure sounds like sore losers too me.

we haven't lost anything - this attempt to dissuade a *small* part of the community will eventually be mute (again)

CJD wrote:If QCC does not agree to endorse the land exchange the QCC will go down as the group who dropped the ball so climbers got screwed again. It really is that simple.

you've been force-fed this crap by Resolution Copper & fallen for the David Salisbury's hype (RCM's CEO) Yes, it is still really that simple that you have your own personal interests at stake. No name calling necessary, facts are just facts

btw your incorrect about a unadulterated 90/10 split in your favor. Folks usually see things the way they have been *paid* to see them

Mike Covington wrote:We know the facts.

Mike,

Please do not include me as part of your 6 person "we" when posting. At this point, as I see it, you voted to sink Oak Flat at a time when it was not only unnecessary but quite detrimental to the larger climbing community to do so.

As Curt has detailed, last night the QCC's six majority essentially and summarily rejected the Access Fund; the national climber's advocacy group that has supported the local cause for at least 6 years.

It's OK to reject somebody's opinion of course, even the Access Fund's from time to time, but to completely undermine it and mischaracterize their communicated and articulated thoughts is another. Erik made a choice of how to act and what to share about his conversation with them and he chose to malign them and their message.

At this point, I really can't think of why the Access Fund would want to continue being involved with a group that obviously has little use for their critical national support and opinion; not to mention has forced a community dividing vote to destroy an existing climbing resource. The latter seems contrary to their basic mission as I understand it.

And, with all due respect, you were not there at the meeting so your characterization of its process is a little bit less than reliable.

Fred

CJD wrote: delivered Tamo to the general climbing community.

CJD,

As Erik's posts have presented over the last few weeks; the general climbing community can currently get to our public lands that comprise Tamo rather easily. I think you've even made the same case in your posts too.

What else are you representing that will be "delivered" to the general climbing community for the price of Oak Flat?

And, are you still employed by the mining company? Are you still under confidentiality agreements or restrictions on what you can and can't say accordingly?

Fred

David E. wrote:Fred, I am glad to see you are still on the board and hope you will continue to be, even though I know the result was not what you would have wished.

David,

Well, every group needs its voices of reason. One has been forced out and at least 3 others are still hanging in there for the time being as I see it.

It's not about wishing, it's about having critical information and facts and an ability to act on them.

That the QCC will probably no longer be able to use some critical avenues for their voice is to the climbing community's disadvantage in my view at this time.

Fred

Contrary to the inflamed comments herein. My personal agenda has nothing to do with my vote last night and my vote was not to sink Oak Flat. My vote was to work for a better deal in the event of land swap legislation passing. If legislation passes, for losing Oak Flat, climbers deserve way more than even the best deal could produce.

kirra wrote: You have already just lost some of the access to the McDowell Mtns. ...

Kirra, I am not sure what you are talking about here. The trail systems have changed in the McDowell's, but no climbing was lost. In fact, I feel that climbing access is more secure now than it has been in the past few years.