Queen Creek Update

Dan Anderson wrote:Dief: Is the latest QCC draft agreement to RCM and maps available to the public? Thanks, Dan

Good luck.

Curt

Hey Dan,

Thanks for your question. In the past we've taken the approach that we send a proposal to RCM, receive their response, and then present it to the community. As we announced in the OP, we drafted a new proposal and have been waiting for RCM's response. We have recently been in contact with RCM and anticipate a response shortly. Once we have received the response we will present it along with our evaluation.

The main reason that we have chosen to continue this stepwise approach is that it gives both RCM and QCC some freedom in the negotiations. Both parties can throw ideas into the mix, think them through, and refine them before the proposal is brought to the community. We are pleased that the Access Fund provided us with valuable feedback to help improve the current draft. Rest assured that we will definitely provide the community with the results of this latest round of negotiations as soon as we are able.

Thanks for your thoughts, Dan. We are updating our FAQ page to further answer your question as well as others that have been brought up lately. Please feel free to look at the FAQ page of our website at theqcc.org.

Thanks for all the hard work and updates Dief! It is greatly appreciated!

-Eddie

Jodie Bostrom wrote: petty attacks, snide remarks, and false statements are being made against an FA in the Stonghold (get my drift?) so, does an organization fall under different rules? just askin'. love to see a cohesive and cooperative effort here and down south, but same players - same result.

Hey Jodie,

I agree that there are people who consider my feelings regarding some of Scott Ayers' routes to be petty. There are also people that do not think so. To the best of my knowledge, however, I have no false statements about Scott in any of my route descriptions, posts, comments, etc. Honestly, it would be great if Scott and I got along as well as we used to - and there have been past efforts on both of our parts to try to accomplish this - but to this point we have failed.

The "same players - same result" argument doesn't square up for me for a couple of reasons. First, I joined the QCC in December, while the remarks directed toward the QCC have been going on for significantly longer. Second, I have made my best efforts to remain positive toward the CCA. I will continue this - there are a couple of members of the CCA that I actually admire quite a lot.

Several months ago I stated that I think there are two groups of dedicated, hardworking people trying to do what they think is best for Queen Creek. Personally, I don't think that it's necessary or productive for these two groups to be in conflict.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts and are in no way meant to be offensive. I am as flawed as anyone else and am daily working to improve that.

Regards,
Geir

To paraphrase the great Rodney King. Why can't we all just get along? These internet squabbles are what is petty. Everybody needs to take a step back and realize that this is all about trying to do something for climbing no matter which point of view you are coming from. Show a little respect for each other and a little restraint before typing the next round of inflammatory remarks. NOBODY here wants to lose climbing areas and is in favor of the mine destroying OF. Different people see this situation differently and have different solutions.

Chris,

+1

CJD wrote:To paraphrase the great Rodney King. Why can't we all just get along? These internet squabbles are what is petty. Everybody needs to take a step back and realize that this is all about trying to do something for climbing no matter which point of view you are coming from. Show a little respect for each other and a little restraint before typing the next round of inflammatory remarks. NOBODY here wants to lose climbing areas and is in favor of the mine destroying OF. Different people see this situation differently and have different solutions.

Chris,

Well put and I can agree with most of what you said. However, when a group states that they are purposefully working towards endorsing the (formerly) current land exchange legislation, and that particular legislation will directly lead to the ultimate destruction of Oak Flat, it is hard to see how they aren't "in favor of the mine destroying Oak Flat." Clearly, some people would like to have it both ways--but unfortunately that's quite impossible.

Curt

Curt, +1 too.

Manny 2+ also

I'm not implying anything. I am stating a fact.

Maybe you do not understand what a conflict of interest is defined as: "Situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional-interest or public-interest" (businessdictionary.com)

Further, Wikipedia states: "A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results."

So you see, I am not saying Marty nor Mike are bad. They are all nice people. Well, except for one poisonous apple but he needs to climb more to keep him from attacking me behind the scenes.

This began when CJD said the QCC was diverse. It is not. They got rid of the divergent opinions. As a matter of fact, it has gotten even less diverse.

If I bolted a bunch of routes there and was a professional guide, would it be in my professional and personal interest to deal with RCM? You bet. Would that conflict with my implied public duty to be impartial and fair? My opinion is that it would. Does it matter? Apparently not because the board does whatever it wants to. There is nobody to answer to. Except you and I. And a bunch of climbers. The people of Arizona too, I guess.

All of this, the conflict of interest, the lack of diversity, one way only, my way or the highway...doesn't really matter. QCC was whittled down to have one unified viewpoint. Erik and Paul won. Just don't tell me that it is diversified or represents anything other than their view.

Manny; I understand what you are saying. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am to mine. Have a good evening.

Jodie Bostrom wrote: you are backing down? no way! i am impressed by your statement.

Just simply what I stated - I understand what Manny is saying; just disagree with it.

Marcy wrote:What we can do without is the petty attacks, snide remarks, and false statements targeted at these groups. It achieves nothing positive and reflects poorly on those making the statements.

transparency and truth of facts can often achieve a positive outcome for both the 'whistleblower/s' and the impacted community

aren't your interpretations of events somewhat biased due to a conflict of interest? Rumor has it a qcc.corp member you are quite close to was recently plopped into a position

sometimes facts are facts, irregardless of how you want to see them and these people are not the QCC. Please refer to them correctly as the 'other' or little qcc.corp to avoid confusion -thank you

Marcy wrote: Just simply what I stated - I understand what Manny is saying; just disagree with it. That has never been an issue.

disagreement established a diversity of opinions in the original QCC (uninc)

If you think you should have a right to your opinion here, should it be any different in a group setting? How can you approve of two people hijaking our local group because they will not let others have a right to their opinion

Man, these QC threads always turn into such a travesty.

Jodie Bostrom wrote:Post here, do NOT send a private message to me to hide your personal agenda.

manuel rangel wrote:Well, except for one poisonous apple but he needs to climb more to keep him from attacking me behind the scenes.

This week, January 24-28th is No Name Calling Week, see: nonamecallingweek.org/cgi-b….

It looks like there are a lot of good books/sources on bullying, what creates them, and how to get over them/it. Probably good reading for everybody, parents or otherwise.

Maybe the attack dog lurky lurk needs to read up on the topic not to get better at it but to get over it?

Fred

Hilarious.

Marcy wrote: It is no rumor - I am completely in love with Geir, who happens to have recently joined the QCC. That said, I have followed the Land Swap issue since 2005 and am quite capable of independent and critical thinking - thank you. Edit – my posts on this thread have expressed my personal viewpoints. To my knowledge, I have not interpreted ‘events’, so I’m not sure what you are referring to.

I love you too Marcy!!!! :)

I love you too Geir :)

XOXOXOX

Jodie Bostrom wrote: Please come to AZ and climb. I must say that AZ has the most days on rock in the US - albeit, NV is one of my favorite places to climb just behind the Cochise Stonghold (THANKS TO SCOTT AYERS). I am TRAD through and through.

Yes, I lived in Phoenix for several years. Nevada climbing is okay. I was never a big fan of Red Rocks, and that accounts for most of the climbing here. Fortunately, beautiful Cali is close by ;).

My commentary is that all the infighting the multiple QC threads seem to promote leaves the larger climbing community in limbo. As your general "climber dude" in that area I never figured out who was who, what was what, never mind what the best course to promote continued climbing in Queen Creek was. Not much unified direction for the troops, it seems.

I suspect the amorphous shape of this debate shows it's a slippery subject with a likelihood of a negative outcome. It's too bad though that it is a polarizing subject leading to much vitriol and rancor between what mostly seem to be good people. I don't know all the personalities involved though. Maybe I'm wrong and y'all are dicks. Or maybe you're all just going to get dicked by the mining company despite all the yelling.

Jodie Bostrom wrote: Yes, hilarious. The drama of relationships on MTN.project kills me. Marcy "I am completely in love with Geir". Please...almost as good as Jersey Shore...but more lame...and that is a stretch. Who are you, Mike Covington? I'm sure I could GOOGLE you, but your profile on MP speaks "nothing". There are so many new names on MP with absolutely no background (like NC Rockclimber or CJD). Transparency? NOT And, then there are those who post sarcasm. For example, I LEAD 3rd and I FOLLOW 3rd (you know who you are). Not really keepin IN LINE with this site. .

from Jodie's mountainproject profile
Personal: Female
Favorite Climbs: none specified
Other Interests: none specified
Personal/Favorite web site: none specified
Likes to climb: none specified
More information:

none