|
wetyeti
Dec 22, 2004, 9:10 PM
Post #26 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Posts: 56
|
maybe shermans a puppet, an asshole and a greedy bastard, i don't know. this particiular issue seems to have a different twist to it. rather than the climbers fighting the big companies now some of us are working with them. maybe now climbers are beginning to be taken more seriously or maybe just being used as pawns. this just looks like the beginning of a new era of land management. climbers matter more now.
|
|
|
|
|
md3
Dec 22, 2004, 9:20 PM
Post #27 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 172
|
Are there not other, more expensive ways of mining the ore that would be less destructive to the surface? If so, the place can be saved by making it more expensive for the company to choose the cheaper mining option than to announce a plan that will leave a majority of the surface available for bouldering. I would only advocate legal means of resisting development.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Dec 22, 2004, 9:23 PM
Post #28 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
Chippy sounds pretty intelligent and convicted. Now if only s/he had some sack. Who are you, Chippy? Come on, use your real name.
Sherman's involvment in this is certainly troubling on first blush, no matter how well he justifies it (as relayed 2nd hand, at least) or how clearly Curt explains it. Like Curt said (or at least, how I interpreted it), there was really no way to be on Resolution's side without being villified by the climbing community. Seems like social suicide to me. I still don't understand why Sherman would do it. I'd like to hear straight from him what his intentions are.
|
|
|
|
|
ebelay
Dec 22, 2004, 9:28 PM
Post #29 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2002
Posts: 195
|
In reply to: I think the better question is what impact Sherman's involvement will have on the final outcome of this access crisis.
Yes, it will certainly be interesting to see the final outcome and I truly hope I am wrong. However, from Curt's silence to this point and his note that he disagrees with Sherman's position on the issue, things don't look all that promising.
As for this being an "access" crisis, this isn't an access issue, ultimately, this is a LOSS issue. If Resoution gets their way, Oak Flat, the PBB and one of the best bouldering areas in AZ and the country will be GONE forever.
What a f-ing shame.
|
|
|
|
|
ebelay
Dec 22, 2004, 9:31 PM
Post #30 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2002
Posts: 195
|
In reply to: Are there not other, more expensive ways of mining the ore that would be less destructive to the surface? If so, the place can be saved by making it more expensive for the company to choose the cheaper mining option than to announce a plan that will leave a majority of the surface available for bouldering. I would only advocate legal means of resisting development.
Yes, there are other methods. Resolution, to this point, won't do it.
You can learn more at FOQC: http://www.friendsofqueencreek.com/
|
|
|
|
|
arsenalcrater
Dec 22, 2004, 9:35 PM
Post #31 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 147
|
I'm with the opinion that Oak Flats will not be saved. I just can't see us climbers winning a fight against "Corporate International Dollars for Copper". If I remember correctly, isn't this the largest know deposit on this planet? If the Bush Administration is interested in the prospects of drilling in the arctic preserve, then what is a bunch of desert wasteland? As for a question, if they rip up Queen Creek, will there still be access to Upper and Lower Devil's Canyon?
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Dec 22, 2004, 9:47 PM
Post #32 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
I think it sounds like Sherman is just being pragmatic. I've worked for a lot of mines all over the world and have seen the lengths that folks go through to try to stop them from starting, and the idea that a small group of climbers can stop a very large mine from going in just strikes me as very unlikely to the point of being quixotic. I wish you the best of luck, but not if you stoop to assassinating a guy like John Sherman's character.
All mining is evil? I will pull out the NIMBY card now. Get thee to a cave - without copper, you won't have too much in the way of electronics, electricity, climbing gear, etc. Mines create a vast number of excellent jobs. Mines in the US are also a good thing for the environment in general - our standards here are much stricter than elsewhere in the world, so a huge mine here is probably about the same impact as a small mine in Indonesia or Peru.
|
|
|
|
|
ebelay
Dec 22, 2004, 10:02 PM
Post #33 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2002
Posts: 195
|
In reply to: I think it sounds like Sherman is just being pragmatic. I've worked for a lot of mines all over the world and have seen the lengths that folks go through to try to stop them from starting, and the idea that a small group of climbers can stop a very large mine from going in just strikes me as very unlikely to the point of being quixotic.
Can you explain how a person who is simply being pragmatic and being paid by Resolution would benefit the climbing community? Forgive us for being so romantic in our endeavors, perhaps we should just roll over and shut up.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 22, 2004, 10:05 PM
Post #34 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think the better question is what impact Sherman's involvement will have on the final outcome of this access crisis. Yes, it will certainly be interesting to see the final outcome and I truly hope I am wrong. However, from Curt's silence to this point and his note that he disagrees with Sherman's position on the issue, things don't look all that promising.
Resolution Copper is waging a "divide and conquer" strategy to overcome opposition to a land exchange for the Oak Flat campground area. So, for example, in order to silence the opposition that the Audubon Society has for this exchange, Resolution has found another chunk of land that the Audubon Society would like to gain birding access to.
Similarly, to silence opposition from The Nature Conservancy, they have purchased a piece of land (which will be part of the proposed exchange) that this group has an interest in.
And so on......
By hiring John Sherman, resolution is taking this strategy one step further--and trying to divide the climbing community itself. Resolution will now be able to claim (with John's unwitting help) that the climbing community is not united in their opposition--and that there are indeed other suitable places where we can go and climb, if Oak Flat access is lost. We (The Access Fund and The Friends of Queen Creek) maintain that Oak Flat is a unique and irreplaceable recreational resource--and that nothing comparable exists locally.
Resolution Copper company is also currently trying to "buy" other high profile local climbers to further splinter our position. I guess, in time, we will see how successful they are at doing this.
The amazing thing is that both the Access Fund and the Friends of Queen Creek are not taking an anti-mine position here. We are merely asking Resolution to build the mine in such a way that the surface will not cave-in, so we can still climb there. Our mining engineers tell us that this is indeed possible, in part because the copper deposit is 7,000 feet beneath the surface. However, this would be somewhat more expensive for Resolution to implement so, (i.e. because of greed) this request is falling on deaf ears with them. I find that really unfortunate.
If only Resolution Copper would truly "build a mine for the 21st century," as they claim they want to, they could build something that would be a shining example of how mining interests and recreational interests can coexist. Perhaps they will see the light yet. We are not giving up.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
bill
Dec 22, 2004, 10:07 PM
Post #35 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 1061
|
If I am interpreting Curt's post correctly, Sherman is working as a consultant to help Resolution justify the loss of Oak Flats climbing by identifying other climbing areas around Phoenix. Given the fact that the likelihood of these "new" areas being located on public land is extremely high, I fail to see how this can be spun as helping the climbing community. He's collecting a paycheck and helping Resolution expedite the land swap.
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Dec 22, 2004, 10:47 PM
Post #36 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
In reply to: Can you explain how a person who is simply being pragmatic and being paid by Resolution would benefit the climbing community? Forgive us for being so romantic in our endeavors, perhaps we should just roll over and shut up.
Its pragmatic because this is most likely a lost cause. If he can get the mining company to purchase some private land with climbing on it and do a land swap, that would at least be something when you lose your current climbing when the mine starts.
Keep fighting the good fight and I wish you good luck, even though I think you are already doomed. However, a completely sackless character assassination like the start of this thread is a good way to lose support from people. Complaining about how evil mining is is another good way to lose support - a bunch of climbers make their living from the mining industry, and we certainly all benefit from the products of the mining industry.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 22, 2004, 11:13 PM
Post #37 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Can you explain how a person who is simply being pragmatic and being paid by Resolution would benefit the climbing community? Forgive us for being so romantic in our endeavors, perhaps we should just roll over and shut up. Its pragmatic because this is most likely a lost cause. If he can get the mining company to purchase some private land with climbing on it and do a land swap, that would at least be something when you lose your current climbing when the mine starts.
Andrew,
I am curious why you are so pessimistic? Those of us closest to the issue here, still believe that we may find a way to "have our cake, and eat it too" so to speak. Our compromise approach is being fairly well received by our U.S. Congressmen, Senators and their staffs. After all, in that scenario, resolution could still mine the copper deposit in question and we could continue to climb at Oak Flat.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
ebelay
Dec 22, 2004, 11:14 PM
Post #38 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2002
Posts: 195
|
In reply to: Its pragmatic because this is most likely a lost cause. If he can get the mining company to purchase some private land with climbing on it and do a land swap, that would at least be something when you lose your current climbing when the mine starts.
That sounds very benevolent, but I have a sinking feeling that Curt is right on the mark when he says that this is about dividing the community for Resolution's benefit - no other reason.
In reply to: Keep fighting the good fight
Thanks dude.
|
|
|
|
|
myrmidon
Dec 22, 2004, 11:45 PM
Post #39 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 82
|
Curt,
Not going to happen. It would set too severe a precedent. You, of all people, should know that mining corps are some of the most powerful entities in this country. They will all band together to prevent this from happeneing. They and the railroads companies still hold rights to more land and resources in this country than people could possibly imagine. And, it is their right and priviledge that they have paid for to use the land in the fashion they are choosing to do.
I wish you all the best and I hope you win. I would never give up the fight, even if it is hopeless, and here is why: If nothing else, things will be learned in defeat which could help gather victory somewhere else, at some other time. In the meantime, politicians will use your cause like a political football, but the money of the miners will always be the deciding factor.
Kudos to Sherman for reading the handwritting on the wall, and if he gains personally from it, all the more better for him. But to expect that any individual will ever have the best interests of all climbers at heart is folly. At the end of the day, we all have belly buttons and hiney holes, and we will all do what we need for ourselves to survive. Apparently, he sees this as the best way to "survive".
Good luck, good skill, good climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
veep23
Dec 23, 2004, 12:00 AM
Post #40 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 125
|
Well, I'm glad you put survive in quotes. A man can do anything and give it moral justification by saying he did it to "survive". If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... you know the rest. Sounds to me like Sherman is a sellout. I don't care one lick about how good of a climber he is or what he has given to the community in the past, from my admittedly limited knowledge of the issue (and curt's half hearted attempt at defending his friend), it seems like this ex superhero has gone to the dark side. Remember the evil star trek episode? Does he hav a goatee? That's the only way to know for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
sarcat
Dec 23, 2004, 12:04 AM
Post #41 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
Thanks to curt for his perspective and time to explain how he sees it.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 23, 2004, 12:06 AM
Post #42 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Curt, Not going to happen. It would set too severe a precedent. You, of all people, should know that mining corps are some of the most powerful entities in this country. They will all band together to prevent this from happeneing. They and the railroads companies still hold rights to more land and resources in this country than people could possibly imagine. And, it is their right and priviledge that they have paid for to use the land in the fashion they are choosing to do.
Well, here is the thing about this particular mine site. Resolution Copper does not own the land--we do. That is to say, the Oak Flat campground is part of the Tonto National Forest. It is public land. Additionally, mining has been banned by Presidential Order at Oak Flat for the last 50 years, when President Eisenhower issued Public Land Order (PLO) 1229 in 1955.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
myrmidon
Dec 23, 2004, 12:13 AM
Post #43 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 82
|
I never said they owned the land. They own the rights to what is under the land.
According to most recent court fights revolving around this very issue in other areas, the courts have unanimously sided with mining companies when it can be shown that the mining is for "greater good" of the community, and those rights trump those federal laws set forth by Eisenhower.
As a climber I am on your side. As an American, I think you have no chance.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Dec 23, 2004, 12:20 AM
Post #44 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
How much is the Verm getting paid?
If he really believes in his case, maybe he shouldn't mind saying? :P
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 23, 2004, 12:22 AM
Post #45 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: I never said they owned the land. They own the rights to what is under the land.
You are misinformed. They currently do not.
In reply to: According to most recent court fights revolving around this very issue in other areas, the courts have unanimously sided with mining companies when it can be shown that the mining is for "greater good" of the community, and those rights trump those federal laws set forth by Eisenhower.
Even Resolution Copper knows they can not mine that ore deposit without vacating that withdrawal order--one way or another.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
chippy
Dec 23, 2004, 12:28 AM
Post #46 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 3
|
chippy here.
i have updated my profile so that my identity is perfectly clear. it was not my intention to post my original message anonymously, but just an unfamiliarity with newsgroups--i failed to understand the importance of completing the "optional information" when i joined the group.
"character assasination" was not the intention of my original posting either, and to those who would call my original posting slanderous, allow me to point out that my comments could only be considered slander if they weren't true.
i am not anti-mining, but i believe that the foreign-held mining company (Resolution) is only going to bring temporary menial jobs and mining waste to a beautiful area, while profits and refined materials will go overseas. I believe that Resolution wants to use the "block cave" method to extract this ore because it's the most profitable way for them to operate, while other more environmentally sensitive techniques might not preclude climbers and other recreationalists from using the above-ground resources of Oak Flat. i am a 43 year old resident of Phoenix, Arizona and have climbed here for 30 years. In those years we have won some fights, and we have lost some others, but I will never be able to get behind the idea that we should simply roll over for those who would profit from our lack of tenacity. as for sherman, i don't know him personally, and will continue to base my judgement of him strictly on his actions. anyone helping Resolution at this early stage of the game should not be presumed to speak for arizona climbers or have arizona's climbing interests at heart. if this means i won't be getting a christmas card from some of you this year, then boo hoo, i will try to live with that.
cheers,
chippy
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Dec 23, 2004, 12:39 AM
Post #47 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
As a worst guess, how much time does oak flat have left? I kinda wanted to go check it out, if not at pbb, on my own.
I hope you can save Oak Flat, and if not, invest in Resolution mining. :)
|
|
|
|
|
arsenalcrater
Dec 23, 2004, 12:41 AM
Post #48 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 147
|
I guess I will ask this again. This has probably already been hashed out, but would the destruction of Oak Flats by the Mutli-National Death Corporations have any impact on access to Upper and Lower Devil's Canyon?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 23, 2004, 12:46 AM
Post #49 of 156
(17572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: I guess I will ask this again. This has probably already been hashed out, but would the destruction of Oak Flats by the Mutli-National Death Corporations have any impact on access to Upper and Lower Devil's Canyon?
It isn't the answer you want, but it is too early to say--one way or the other.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 23, 2004, 12:48 AM
Post #50 of 156
(17579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: As a worst guess, how much time does oak flat have left? I kinda wanted to go check it out, if not at pbb, on my own. I hope you can save Oak Flat, and if not, invest in Resolution mining. :)
My guess is that things will be decided sometime in 2005. It is too soon to tell exactly how soon all climbing access will be lost if Resolution should prevail.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
