|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Jun 1, 2005, 11:51 PM
Post #301 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: I suppose this is the world we live in today. Our public lands are given away to foreign corporations who will reap billions of dollars in profits and the average citizens of Arizona who use this area will pay the ultimate price.
Well, not that this world you just seem to be noticing is new, but yes, sadly, it is open season on our public lands right now. I saw thumpers (oil exploration) at a trailhead in Colorado 2 weekends ago, not that that was any big deal because the area was being logged (or, excuse me, cleared of "dangerous forest fire fuels") at the same time. The commons are up for grabs, and we know who is responsible, don't we?
So, Curt. I'm curious. Have you made the connection in your brain between this situation and voting for Republicans? You conservatives seem to be all for big business raping of resources when it doesn't effect you personally. Kinda sucks when it hits home in an area that you value, doesn't it?
I feel for you, and I wish you success, but I don't think you have anyone to blame but yourself and your fellow conservatives. You got exactly what you've been voting for. You should try changing the way you vote and maybe next time the ears of your representatives will be more likey to be open to the voices other than that of big business.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 2, 2005, 12:14 AM
Post #302 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: I feel for you, and I wish you success, but I don't think you have anyone to blame but yourself and your fellow conservatives. You got exactly what you've been voting for. You should try changing the way you vote and maybe next time the ears of your representatives will be more likey to be open to the voices other than that of big business.
Perhaps or perhaps not. Arizona Governor Napolitano (Democrat) is also fully supportive of this mine because of the few hundred jobs it will create. It doesn't really seem to me that either party is tremendously sensitive to environmental issues concerning public lands these days.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jun 2, 2005, 12:16 AM
Post #303 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Hey, Pedro, keep the divisive political shit out of the post. This situation is the result of a lot of different factors and we're all dealing with it the best we can. Keep the political commentary in Community.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jun 2, 2005, 12:34 AM
Post #304 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Curt-thanks for all your hard work on this issue. I also think that if there is an area like Oak Creek/ Queen Creek in the area that it already would have been discovered.
Bob Murray was like a witching-stick when it came to finding bouldering area and I think in all his travels around the Phoenix area he would have found any area that was in the same league as Oak Flat.
Curt- keep up the good work. Later, Bob
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jun 2, 2005, 1:13 AM
Post #305 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Curt:
Yeah, what Bob said.
P.S. Come to Flag this weekend for some climbing, and you can tell me more about this issue.... I'm camping at the same spot as the gathering last Sept., and will be there Thur-Sun. BYOB, cause I ain't providing for everyone again.
|
|
|
|
|
ahwatukian
Jun 2, 2005, 1:29 AM
Post #306 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 19
|
In reply to: Allowing federally protected land to be swapped sets a dangerous precedent for any public land. I think most people would agree that a land swap of Oak Flat would greatly devalue the meaning of "federally protected land".
I couldn't agree more!
Unless your state's US senators and representatives think that it's worth it... guess who authored the bill? Yup, Jon Kyl. You can be sure that JD "My stomach is stapled" Hayworth will be backing the same measure in the house.
Anyone know where McCain stands on this? Due to his stance on CO2 emissions (global warming legislation) and other environmental issues where he's crossed party lines to hold more of a left-of-center position, I wonder where he stands in regards to this? Anyone know? :?:
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 2, 2005, 3:57 AM
Post #307 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Allowing federally protected land to be swapped sets a dangerous precedent for any public land. I think most people would agree that a land swap of Oak Flat would greatly devalue the meaning of "federally protected land". Anyone know where McCain stands on this? Due to his stance on CO2 emissions (global warming legislation) and other environmental issues where he's crossed party lines to hold more of a left-of-center position, I wonder where he stands in regards to this? Anyone know? :?:
McCain is a co-sponsor of this bill in the senate with Kyl, although he is basically following Kyl's lead. Thusfar, unlike Senator Kyl, McCain has declined to meet with us personally. I think this issue simply doesn't rise to the level of the other major issues McCain has to deal with on a day-to-day basis.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Jun 2, 2005, 2:58 PM
Post #308 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: Hey, Pedro, keep the divisive political s--- out of the post. This situation is the result of a lot of different factors and we're all dealing with it the best we can. Keep the political commentary in Community. Ed
Hey Ed,
I was resonding to a political comment by the OP, so bite me.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
gecko4
Jun 2, 2005, 3:41 PM
Post #309 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 23
|
With its engineering prowess, the copper company is going to ensure the safety and preservation of the Apache Leap area. Given their self-stated abilities, they can also ensure the access and safety of our public Oak Flat area. It is just one more engineering parameter within which they must operate. Liability and safety are important, but do not dictate that they take title to our land.
Jobs, copper, etc., are also important. Those same jobs, copper (and other) ores, etc., will be had when the mine goes in and we still own and have access to our public lands. The ore body is rich enough to support jobs, access, engineering for safety, profit, etc., while maintaining access to our land. This is truly a compromise and creates a real "win/win" scenario. Again, though, it does not dictate that they take title to our land.
The issue at the heart of the matter for those of us as citizens is one of principle, not money or being "happy." The land has been set aside in written form from mining purposes for generations before us. They were wise to do so and our current generation has an obligation to continue this tradition of preservation. The land orders did not protect it until somebody found ore beneath the land, until somebody needed to use it for their mining equipment, etc., etc. Practical considerations do come into play of course. However, it should not be to the public's detriment where loss of a unique area is at stake. It is the copper company on the other hand that has the obligation and responsibility to ensure that the public's rights are maintained.
The issues for the mining concerns, municipalities, and many politicians are those of money (profit) and power (votes) (relatively short term thinking). For many climbers in these postings and in the general population it seems the issue is one of having a climbing area where one can be happy (again, relatively short term thinking). These pragmatic, practical paths, while seemingly innocent and common sensical, completely undermine the foundation for creating secure public lands that future generations can visit and enjoy. (no pun intended)
By assuming that the only solutions are those proposed using this type of pragmatic rationale, we lose sight of the principles and ideals that are the true issues. This is not judgemental, nor does it force one person's values upon another. By placing the importance on our rights as owners, our right to defend our land, our right to defend the continued federal protection of our land, we gain a clearer view of why we are doing what we are doing.
By attempting to minimize risk in condoning the acts and actions of the copper company, by accepting unwritten promises, and by acquiescing to a certain mind-set about money and jobs, we endanger the future not only of Oak Flat but of many other fine and wonderful public places that we think are currently protected.
We are the owners of the land, not Governor Napolitano, not Senator Kyl, not Representative Renzi, not Senator McCain. Only when we stand up and start acting like the true landowners will we be able to convince the political gate-keepers that they must act for us as citizens to maintain our rights.
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
gecko4
Jun 2, 2005, 4:45 PM
Post #310 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 23
|
Other local areas that have been either partially or totally lost over the last 30 years or so such as Pinnacle Peak, Troon Mountain, The Boulders Resort area, etc., were either private or state trust lands.
While sad to lose, these areas were never really “public” lands. Private lands are always a risk and Arizona state trust lands are held by the state for eventual sale to the public at auction by our state constitution. They are not public at all so there is no real surprise that they have been lost to us as climbers/hikers/birders, etc.
Oak Flat on the other hand is set aside specifically from mining and for the public’s use. The distinction is very important in terms of what our rights as citizens are.
We should mourn our loss of these other beautiful places and from these losses, gain wisdom and confidence as we work to maintain our established rights of ownership and access where they have been clearly defined.
Oak Flat has clearly been defined as a public place with established protections. We should act accordingly.
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
areyoumydude
Jun 2, 2005, 5:48 PM
Post #311 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 1971
|
Where does Jim Waugh stand on this issue?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 2, 2005, 6:08 PM
Post #312 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Where does Jim Waugh stand on this issue?
Jim is currently in Thailand. Prior to leaving Arizona, he assisted Sherman in develpoment of some of the so-called "replacement" climbing areas. His current position on the land exchange, potential value of the replacement areas, etc. is currently not known to me.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
md3
Jun 2, 2005, 8:49 PM
Post #313 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 172
|
From what I gather the exchange will go through and then it will be a question of challenging it. Who will pay for that?
The trade is for these areas, which to my knowledge, have some environmental value, but no climbing (please correct me if I am wrong on this):
(c) Resolution Copper Land Exchange - Simultaneously with the receipt of title to the Federal land under subsection (a), Resolution Copper shall convey to the United States--
(1) title acceptable to the Secretary of Agriculture to--
(A) the approximately 147 acres of land located in Gila County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled `Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005-Non-Federal Parcel-Turkey Creek', dated January 2005;
(B) the approximately 148 acres of land located in Yavapai County Arizona, depicted on the map entitled `Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005-Non-Federal Parcel-Tangle Creek', dated January 2005;
(C) the approximately 149.3 acres of land located in Maricopa County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled `Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005-Non-Federal Parcel-Cave Creek', dated January 2005; and
(D) the approximately 266 acres of land located in Pinal County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled `Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005-Non-Federal Parcel-JI Ranch', dated January 2005; and
(2) title acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior to--
(A) the approximately 3,073 acres of land located in Pinal County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled `Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005-Non-Federal Parcel-Lower San Pedro River', dated January 2005; and
(B) the approximately 1031 acres of land located in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled `Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005-Non-Federal Parcel-Appleton Ranch', dated January 2005.
(d) Conveyance of Land to Town-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days before carrying out the land exchange under subsection (a), on receipt of a request from the Town, the Secretary of Agriculture shall convey to the Town, for a price equal to market value, as appraised under section 5--
(A) the approximately 30 acres of land located in Pinal County, Arizona, occupied on the date of enactment of this Act by the Fairview Cemetery and depicted on the map entitled `Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005-Federal Parcel-Fairview Cemetery', dated January 2005;
(B) the reversionary interest of the United States in the approximately 265 acres of land located in Pinal County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled `Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005-Federal Reversionary Interest-Superior Airport', dated January 2005; and
(C) on receipt of a request from the Town, any of the 7 parcels of land totaling approximately 100 acres, located in Pinal County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled `Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005-Federal Parcel-Superior Airport Contiguous Parcels 1-7', dated January 2005.
The promise to rock climbers is only this:
(b) Rock Climbing-
(1) REPLACEMENT ROCK CLIMBING AREA-
(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of consummation of the land exchange under section 4, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, Resolution Copper, the Town, local climbing organizations, and other interested parties, shall identify and provide a replacement rock climbing area or areas (including public access thereto) on National Forest land or public land .
(B) CHARACTERISTICS- The replacement rock climbing area under subparagraph (A) shall possess, to the maximum extent practicable (in the sole discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture), the general characteristics of the rock climbing area on the Federal land .
(2) COSTS OF REPLACEMENT- Resolution Copper shall pay any costs incurred by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior in studying, accessing, and developing the replacement rock climbing area or areas under this subsection, not to exceed $250,000.
While the word “shall” should mean they have to do it, its unclear to me how it can be meaningfully enforced. Also, the replacement spot has to be found on public land and they will provide access if necessary which might mean leasing an easement or buying some private property for access, although in many areas $250,000 won’t buy much. How much of that has already been spent on flying around and locating the place, etc..?
Ted Gartner wrote:
In recognition of Oak Flat's unique value, Public Land Order 1229 was issued in 1955, to set aside Oak Flat as a Forest Service campground and withdraw it from mining.
Although the mining industry has made many attempts to wrest Oak Flat from the public, the Forest Service always has rejected them.
Now Resolution Copper has bought the old Magma Mine next to Oak Flat and is trying to make an end run around the Forest Service by seeking a congressionally legislated land exchange.
Such methods usually are used when proponents know the exchange won't pass the "smell test" of public opinion.
RCC's exchange proposes what Public Land Order 1229 sought to prevent - destruction of Oak Flat by mining.
If profit motives can revoke Oak Flat's protection, then no recreation area, wildlife refuge or national park is safe.
I have read that the exchange is supported by The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Arizona and the Sonoran Institute. Climbing resources probably donÂ’t mean much to the people in those organizations, but perhaps the support of climbers does. I donÂ’t understand why they are endorsing this sort of land exchange and the elimination of this areas special protection. It seems like a bad precedent for all conservation efforts. Could someone from The Nature Conservancy provide some information?
Jason Keith has written:
“Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005”
Prepared by Jason Keith, The Access Fund:
Climbing Lost
• In exchange for destroying the publicly-owned Oak Flat, and resulting in the single largest loss of climbing and bouldering ever, in the land exchange bill Resolution Copper Company (RCC) gives nothing back to climbers that they don’t already own.
o Climbers get nothing. While the land exchange bill directs the US Forest Service (“the Secretary of Agriculture”) to “identify and provide . . . a replacement rock climbing area” (with associated public access), this replacement area is to be located on “National Forest System or public land” – in other words, at a location or locations that the public already owns! This is a long way from RCC’s declaration that “they would never think of taking from the climbing community without giving back.”
Presumably, then, RCC would only assist in providing access to these areas yet the land exchange bill obligates them to financing at most the equivalent of a few miles of road (at most $250,000 for the “studying, accessing and developing” of “replacement rock climbing areas”). This is an exceedingly small benefit to climbers especially when considering the exceptional qualities of the rock climbing found at Oak Flat.
o The exchange could be permanent before replacement areas are identified and provided. The land exchange bill fails to identify replacement climbing areas to replace Oak Flat. The determination that the “replacement rock climbing area” in fact “approximates . . . the general characteristics” of Oak Flat will be in the “sole discretion” of the US Forest Service after consultation with RCC, the Town of Superior and local climbing organizations. Only the climbers that use the current public land at Oak Flat are qualified to assess and recommend whether the replacement area rises to the standard of Oak Flat. Neither RCC nor the Town of Superior have the requisite expertise or interest in Oak Flat to consult and advise the US Forest Service as to the quality of any replacement area.
Moreover, these replacement areas are to be identified and provided within one year of the exchange – what happens if the US Forest Service cannot identify a replacement area with the “general characteristics” of Oak Flat within a year – or ever? At that time the exchange will already be final and climbers will be left with either (1) nothing new, or (2) a low quality replacement area.
Because identifying and providing for these new areas will become the responsibility of the US Forest Service, RCC will not be obligated to ensure that climbers ever get anything in exchange for the destruction of Oak Flat. Further, the land exchange bill provides no funding or staff resources to the US Forest Service to fulfill its obligations.
o No possibility for a recreational easement. The land exchange bill leaves open no possibility that a recreational easement could remain on Oak Flat, even if RCC never mines the copper ore body located 7,000 beneath the current campground. Instead of giving away the massive wealth underlying Oak Flat to a foreign-owned corporation, Congress should require either (1) a permanent recreational easement on Oak Flat, or (2) a recreational easement until mining activities make public access unsafe (if an unsafe condition ever occurs this determination should be made by an objective third party).
o RCC’s minor financial obligation provides little benefit to climbers. Under the land exchange bill RCC is obligated to “pay any reasonable costs” (up to $250,000) incurred by the US Forest Service in “studying, accessing and developing” replacement climbing areas. It is not clear whether this $250,000 includes money already spent by RCC to retain “climber-consultants” to find replacement areas (plus helicopter flights and luxury golf resort accommodations). Helicopter costs add up fast – and by RCC’s own account one “climbing consultant” has been on their payroll and helicoptering around Arizona for over six months. Accordingly, most of RCC’s $250,000 obligation may have already been consumed. Even if the $250k is for future expenditures (the bill does not state either way), this sum will provide for little in the way of meaningful public access to climbing (again, that is located on public land).
o What happened to the 50-year old executive order protecting Oak Flat fro mining? The land exchange bill provides no acknowledgement that Oak Flat has been protected from mining for over 50 years by executive order. This order – PLO 1229 – is still as valid today as it was in 1955. RCC cannot replace the unique qualities of Oak Flat by simply offering numerous properties in exchange. Further, the land exchange bill proposes to do exactly what PLO 1229 sought to prevent – the destruction of Oak Flat from mining. Records clearly show that the federal government specifically withdrew Oak Flat from mining knowing that this specific conflict may occur. If financial motive can revoke the protective order at Oak Flat no recreation area, wildlife refuge, or national park is safe from a similar action.
Additional problems with the land exchange bill:
• The details of the land exchange bill were not openly negotiated. Although RCC shared the details of the land exchange bill with the special interests it wanted to gain support from, public interest groups (notably, the Friends of Queen Creek and the Access Fund) with a direct connection to Oak Flat have been denied the same information. Even the Tonto National Forest (in which jurisdiction Oak Flat lies) was unable to obtain details of the land exchange bill until it was leaked to the Friends of Queen Creek and the Access Fund. This bill was drafted through a closed process that does not serve the public interest.
• Environmental Impacts Ignored:
o No environmental consideration. While the land exchange bill provides several parcels of land to exchange for Oak Flat, it fails to address the broader environmental impacts of the massive mining project that will as a result occur on Oak Flat. The land exchange bill neglects to condition the exchange on any environmental analyses (under the National Environmental Policy Act) that would consider the affects of mining Oak Flat on the areaÂ’s special status resources such as:
 Engendered species – the Arizona hedgehog cactus has its range at Oak Flat.
 Cultural resources associated the Apache Tribe are found at or near Oak Flat, at least one of which may be eligible for listing on the National Registry of Historic Places. It is unclear that the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office has ever been consulted about this exchange or the subsequent mining activity that would impact the area’s cultural resources.
 There is no statement of water resource use, acquisition or disposal for the proposed mine at Oak Flat.
 There is no notice of the massive amount of mine tailings that would result from the land exchange and the proposed mine at Oak Flat and where these tailings will be eventually located.
• Appraisal Oversight:
o Weak appraisal oversight. “In order to save administrative costs” to the United States, the land exchange bill gives RCC the “responsibility” for hiring all contractors associated with the appraisal of the lands to be exchanged. This obvious conflict of interest lets the “fox watch the henhouse” – it is obvious that RCC’s appraisal contractor will deliver an appraisal to RCC’s satisfaction, but likely not serving the public interest.
• Subsidence:
o The land exchange bill makes no acknowledgement that Oak Flat and environs will be destroyed if RCC is allowed to mine as they intend. The enormous hole in the ground, mountains of mining tailings, and associated pollution caused by this block-cave mine will be the legacy of all politicians that vote for this bill.
o The land exchange bill requires that RCC place a conservation easement on Apache Leap to prevent its destruction, however the land exchange bill also absolves RCC from any liability if they actually destroy Apache Leap through their mining activity under Oak Flat. The bill acknowledges that mining activities may occur on land adjacent [i.e., Oak Flat] to the easement area [Apache]” but that “the easement area may be underlain by tunnels and other underground workings from mining activities that occurred . . . prior to its transfer to Resolution Copper. Resolution Copper shall not be held liable for any damage to [Apache] caused by the future use or failure of any pre-existing tunnels or other underground workings.
In other words, RCC cannot impact Apache Leap but they also cannot be held liable if they do somehow destroy the landform. To actually hold RCC accountable for this obligation under the land exchange bill, there must be a survey done of existing tunnels so that in the future the residents of Superior can know how and why Apache leap collapsed (despite RCCÂ’s assertion that they had nothing to do with it and cannot be held responsible in any event).
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 2, 2005, 9:05 PM
Post #314 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: From what I gather the exchange will go through and then it will be a question of challenging it. Who will pay for that?
Legislated land exchanges can not be challenged. In effect, congress passes a law ordering that the lands in question be exchanged. The only laws that can be challenged are those deemed to be unconstitutional.
In reply to: The trade is for these areas, which to my knowledge, have some environmental value, but no climbing (please correct me if I am wrong on this)
You are correct.
In reply to: I have read that the exchange is supported by The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Arizona and the Sonoran Institute. Climbing resources probably don’t mean much to the people in those organizations, but perhaps the support of climbers does. I don’t understand why they are endorsing this sort of land exchange and the elimination of this areas special protection. It seems like a bad precedent for all conservation efforts. Could someone from The Nature Conservancy provide some information?
This is misleading information, put into the public domain by Resolution Copper Company. The Nature Conservancy is actually neutral on this land exchange and Maricopa Audubon opposes the exchange.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jun 2, 2005, 9:11 PM
Post #315 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
That's an excellent break-down of the bill, MD3. Thanks for taking the time to list the glaring short-comings of the proposed exchange.
A suggestion -- I think an exchange proposed is an empty solution, at best, but in the worst case scenario if RCC gets their way, what if FOQC insist as part of the agreement that a re-opening of the development in the Superstitions be allowed as part of the exchange? This is a case where the climbing community has abided by the bolting ban and demonstrated good faith in preserving the resources in the Supes for years. This may be an area where we can encourage a little give and take.
Not that this is the most favorable outcome, but it may be something we can discuss in the negotiating process.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
gecko4
Jun 2, 2005, 9:24 PM
Post #316 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 23
|
In reply to: Where does Jim Waugh stand on this issue?
Isn't it best for us to analyze and decide for ouselves where we stand?
Jim Waugh and Mr. Sherman have made their personal decisions to take employment with the copper company. That they did has been much discussed and debated. Their motivations have been explained and rationalized repeatedly by others (and evidently to a select few by themselves also).
An analysis of it all is pretty simple: Get something or get nothing in light of the inevitable loss of Oak Flat. The political moons are aligned, the pockets are lined, and the skids are greased. How can the trade ever be stopped?
It is best if we all explore our own hearts and thoughts on the subject and act accordingly.
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
ahwatukian
Jun 2, 2005, 9:33 PM
Post #317 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 19
|
In reply to: Not that this is the most favorable outcome, but it may be something we can discuss in the negotiating process.
Uhhhhh... you'll be extremely lucky if there's a negotiating process. Congress will say "yea" and then RCC will pull a turd of a climbing area out of their rear main shaft and that will be that. Seriously, do you really think there will be negotiations on this? :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 2, 2005, 9:39 PM
Post #318 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
The following comments were read on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, May 25, 2005.
In reply to: ...Mr. Speaker, I will be remiss if I do not recognize concerns raised by the climbing community on their potential loss of recreational use caused by this exchange. I am still hopeful that Resolution Copper will continue a productive dialogue with the climbing community. I have included placeholder language on page 20 of the legislation entitled ``Additional Rock Climbing Provisions.'' This language represents my firm commitment to address this issue before this legislation moves forward. The legislation does include language that requires Resolution Copper to pay up to $250,000 to access and develop a new climbing area. Resolution Copper is in the process of identifying these new climbing areas. I am hopeful that Resolution Copper will include the climbing groups in this important process.
These comments made by Congressman Renzi (the bill's sponsor in the House) and the placeholder language he mentions are a direct result of the access advocacy being done on behalf of climbers by the Access Fund and Friends of Queen Creek. I am still quite optimistic that we will reach a compromise with RCC that will be agreeable to all parties.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jun 2, 2005, 11:22 PM
Post #319 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
In reply to: Uhhhhh... you'll be extremely lucky if there's a negotiating process. Congress will say "yea" and then RCC will pull a turd of a climbing area out of their rear main shaft and that will be that. Seriously, do you really think there will be negotiations on this? :lol:
As long as there are discussions about what will and will not be included in the bill, then yes, we are negotiating. I can't emphasize enough that there is no reason we shouldn't demand with one unified voice that RCC mine the deposit in a manner that preserves the Oak Flat recreation area. If not, and the proposed "land swap" is the only way we're going be able to hold RCC somewhat accountable to the climbing community for the resources we will lose, it only makes sense to discuss access to areas that have real meaning a climbing potential for the climbing community. The Superstitions is one such area that we may be able to include in the bill. Sure, once the bill is up for a vote then it's too late. But this kind of give and take happens with legislation of all magnitude on a daily basis up on the Hill.
That said, I have no idea who the governing body is who controls the access for the Supes. It may be that other federal land management agencies have to be brought in to the process, or it may be that the bill can simply over ride any current restrictions in place by what ever agency controls the Supes. I dunno know. I'm just tossing ideas out there for discussion and hoping for the best possible outcome.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jun 3, 2005, 6:07 AM
Post #320 of 619
(68892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
Sorry this is so long.
It is refreshing to see some new ideas and realistic views being presented here. I can shed some light on a few of the points made.
Let me say again that nobody thinks there will be an exact replacement for Oak Flat. We know that no matter what area we get climbers will still have suffered a loss. We also know that we could deliver Yosemite and some people would still be unsatisfied. We are hoping to get something that will offset the loss in a significant way and we have been pushing RCC hard everyday to get as much as we can. We may be getting paid by them but we are working for climbers and they know it.
There has been something in the bill for climbers since the beginning so saying there isn't is a lie. As you all can see in the earlier post there is consideration for climbers but it is not specific. See below for an explanation.
As I have said before the proposed alternative area(s) does not have to be on public land when identified. In fact it was our and Western Land Group’s hope that we could find something on private or otherwise totally inaccessible land so we really would be giving climbers something you didn’t have before. Areas will be transferred to the public domain once acquired. So once again saying the public already owns it is not quite true.
The reopening of the Supes is a great idea but one that does not fall in the realm of RCC and our work. We were not allowed to consider areas within designated wilderness as possible alternative areas. Maybe some of it isn’t. I suggest that the AF and FoQC work directly with Tonto NF on that one. I'd get on it quick while the iron is still hot.
The $250,000 is not for acquiring the land but development. Like a campground and roads for example. The money spent searching for and buying any private lands is separate and being paid by RCC through Western Land Group.
BTW. As far as the golf resort…. When you were playing golf with Sherman on RCC’s tab curt, how many times did you tell Sherman that if he could do a deal that included access to Lost Canyon in CO that you would sign off on it? (For those who don’t know Lost Canyon has several famous Gill problems that curt wants to have access to.) Sherman called me that day and told me he couldn’t believe it. He said you brought it up again later a couple times. I guess you really meant it. You called him a “sellout?”
Claiming that the language Renzi put in the bill is due to negotiations with the AF and FoQC is a real stretch. The main reason why the language in the bill for climbing areas was not specific in the earlier drafts was because we are still looking. Since last summer we have had meetings with people from WLG and RCC to keep the process going and extend our deadlines so we could do a quality job. RCC and WLG have been very accommodating and positive in supporting our efforts. We saw the first draft of the legislation several months ago made suggestions and were advised as to how climbers would be included even after the deadline for dropping the bill in congress. Keep in mind at this same time the AF and FoQC continued to attack RCC and would not consider alternative areas. I have no doubt that Renzi listened to the AF and FoQC but don’t flatter yourselves, the plans for including climbing in the legislation were in place long before anybody in the AF saw it. The bill was dropped in congress the same day Jason Keith was to have a meeting with the AZ representatives to put more pressure on them. The bill was presented, maybe not so coincidentally, BEFORE those meetings with Jason making them irrelevant. Apparently Jason didn't have much pull. Let’s face it the AF is losing membership (last I heard had only 7000 paid members) How many of them are from Renzi’s congressional district in AZ and how many would have voted for a republican (besides curt) anyway?
Of course had AF and FoQC negotiated with RCC from the beginning instead of attacking them (Over 100 anti Rio Tinto links on the FoQC website for example) the process might have begun much sooner and could have been more open and inclusive. There could have possibly been specific language addressing climbers in the earlier drafts. Maybe some more creative solutions could have been reached. Instead the AF adopted what for all practical purposes, amounts to an antagonistic all or nothing stance with no contingency plan so no way out. Fortunately for climbers WLG and RCC did not just turn their backs on us but instead found qualified people to look for new areas. Several AZ local climbers were asked to take part in a search. All but one refused. Jim Waugh did not get involved until very recently when he realized the AF wanted him to cancel (sacrifice) the Bouldering Contest so they could use that as another fund raising tool. That is what he told me anyway. He made it very clear that the contest was cancelled due to lack of support from the climbing community (sponsors) and had nothing to do with RCC. RCC even considered supporting the contest financially and allowing use of the area for several more years.
I saw this one coming. Now curt says he's optimistic that a compromise can be reached with RCC that will be agreeable to all parties. I assume you mean changing the mine plan of operations. Don't even try to spin this and take credit for our work for climbers by making it sound like the AF and you have anything to do with alternative areas. Let me make this perfectly clear. The AF and curt have made NO CONTRIBUTION whatsoever to mitigation efforts for climbers. In fact they have opposed those efforts and made our job more difficult. They are why we had to keep a lid on our work.
The AF dropped the ball on this one potentially leaving climbers holding the bag. Why? Even late in the process (a few weeks ago) an AF representative was invited to visit the proposed new area(s). If they are so interested in evaluating possible alternative areas why didn't anybody come? Ask them. You won’t believe their answer to that one.
curt, if you, the AF and FoQC are successful in getting the mine to adjust its operations so that Oak Flat will not have to be closed I'll tip my hat and buy you a bottle of good scotch. I would be elated if you are successful. In the mean time we are trying to get what we can just in case you fail.
I invite all climbers and FoQC members to take advantage of the sad situation and with an open mind visit (hopefully) at least one new area. Whatever we get will not be a direct replacement for Oak Flat but it is better than the alternative the AF would have left you holding.
Sorry I have to go on like this but curt and some other posters would have you believe we are the enemy. That we sold out to the evil mining company etc. We take offense to that. Sherman has devoted himself 24/7 to this project and deserves thanks. Other climbers on the project have also made significant personal and professional sacrifices to try to get something for climbers out of this deal. Hopefully I have at least partially set the record straight and you all see that there are two sides to the story.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 3, 2005, 6:23 AM
Post #321 of 619
(68893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Chris,
I have never called Sherman a "sell out" and I defy you to find one instance where I have done so. The placeholder language in the current senate and house bills (S1122 and HR2618) was indeed placed there because of the efforts of the AF and FoQC. If you don't believe me, please ask Lucy Murfit of Senator Kyl's staff or Joanne Keene of Congressman Renzi's staff. If they tell you otherwise, I will apologize for my error here, right on this site.
I am truly puzzled by your continued antagonistic posts here because I believe that fundamentally we want basically the same thing. We have always wanted to maintain as much access to Oak Flat as possible (as you do) and we also have told Renzi's office, Kyl's office, RCC, WLG and anyone else who cared to listen that we would love to have the so-called "replacement" climbing areas identified and included in the land exchange bills.
If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 3, 2005, 6:38 AM
Post #322 of 619
(68893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: BTW. As far as the golf resort…. When you were playing golf with Sherman on RCC’s tab curt, how many times did you tell Sherman that if he could do a deal that included access to Lost Canyon in CO that you would sign off on it? (For those who don’t know Lost Canyon has several famous Gill problems that curt wants to have access to.) Sherman called me that day and told me he couldn’t believe it. He said you brought it up again later a couple times.
I would personally vote for it. It's a great idea. However, as you failed to mention here, Sherman proposed the "Lost Canyon" access effort to me as a totally seperate endevour--involving Colorado state funds to acquire that land. I offered to help him on that project--and I still would. Nice try at spinning things in a totally irrelevant direction, though. I haven't enjoyed intellectual discourse on this level since grade school; please keep it coming.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
gecko4
Jun 3, 2005, 2:25 PM
Post #323 of 619
(68893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 23
|
In reply to: We may be getting paid by them but we are working for climbers and they know it.
Pardon me, but you are working for the mining company. Perhaps, more accurately you are in the employ of somebody in an effort that you think will benefit "climbers."
Frankly we don't know it. While I admire your passion for your "side," some of us in the climbing community consider your "side" to be acting with good intentions but using questionable strategy.
The facts for many of us are simple. The land at Oak Flat is ours, protected at the federal level and supporting a land exchange/trade/etc., is bad policy.
In reply to: Areas will be transferred to the public domain once acquired.
You are evidently privy to some sort of written document about how all of this is to transpire. There is nothing written that I see that obligates any entity to hand over any lands into the public interest with guaranteed public ownership/access as related to a climbing area.
Where is the good faith in writing so that we may truly analyze the subject?
In reply to: This includes the golf that I played none of.
Everybody, please stop being petty about golf, etc. The perqs of any job are irrelevant. We stand to lose too much to be distracted by these smaller issues.
In reply to: Claiming that the language Renzi put in the bill is due to negotiations with the AF and FoQC is a real stretch. The main reason why the language in the bill for climbing areas was not specific in the earlier drafts was because we are still looking.
Who did what is irrelevant. Many of us have been quietly doing our part to let our political leaders know how we feel. It isn't just a small band here on the web that is doing stuff. Perhaps the pressure from the non-elite little people is having an effect?
This issue is much bigger than just about climbing. It seems that many in the climbing community can't quite get their minds around that fact that this is a very dangerous strategy and threatens much more than climbing.
In reply to: Of course had AF and FoQC negotiated with RCC from the beginning instead of attacking them
Focus on the fact that our federally protected land, specifically set aside for the public's use is being attacked. Any landowner that has any sense of value for their property will protect it and point out who is attacking. We own it and have the right to protect it. I don't think that the AF or the FoQC have been all that nasty. They have been direct and have the obligation to be tough and adversarial, as they should be.
In reply to: The AF and curt have made NO CONTRIBUTION whatsoever to mitigation efforts for climbers. In fact they have opposed those efforts and made our job more difficult.
Focus on the fact that our public lands are about to be taken away. Focus on the fact that many of us have been quietly recreating out there, near our homes, jobs (yes, some of us actually have been contributing to the local economies as employees, families, etc., for years), etc.
Seems to me that in this process to get the copper company their few hundred to a thousand or so jobs many of us who already live here and either work or provide employment for others have been discounted and considered second class citizens, even if the company is paying some climbers to find a replacement area.
In reply to: The AF dropped the ball on this one potentially leaving climbers holding the bag.
As far as many of us are concerned, those of you in the employ of the copper company are contributing to much of the confusion over the issue. I don't think any bag was dropped. This deal has been quietly working its way amongst the powerful and connected and the public has been notified relatively late in the game.
In reply to: curt, if you, the AF and FoQC are successful in getting the mine to adjust its operations so that Oak Flat will not have to be closed I'll tip my hat and buy you a bottle of good scotch.
This is not about your personal kudos. Please focus on the real issue. Continued access and owership of our lands is the real reward.
In reply to: Whatever we get will not be a direct replacement for Oak Flat but it is better than the alternative the AF would have left you holding.
The alternative that we stand up and fight for our rights? Why is it that it is so wrong to fight for something that is right? Being "happy" does not in any way justify giving up your rights as an owner of the land.
In reply to: Sherman has devoted himself 24/7 to this project and deserves thanks.
Mr. Sherman is getting a good paycheck. Good for him. By putting his weight behind this issue in the manner that he has contributes to an incredible amount of confusion and second guessing. While he may be seen as a visionary at some point, right now we should reserve our thoughts on thanking anyone.
There is too much at stake to start patting any backs.
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 3, 2005, 5:11 PM
Post #324 of 619
(68825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ......Now curt says he's optimistic that a compromise can be reached with RCC that will be agreeable to all parties. I assume you mean changing the mine plan of operations. Don't even try to spin this and take credit for our work for climbers by making it sound like the AF and you have anything to do with alternative areas. Let me make this perfectly clear. The AF and curt have made NO CONTRIBUTION whatsoever to mitigation efforts for climbers. In fact they have opposed those efforts and made our job more difficult. They are why we had to keep a lid on our work.
I'm not sure what you think you gain by simply repeating false information over and over again. Do you think by telling a lie enough times it becomes truth? Exactly how have we "opposed" your efforts? We hope you are successful, and that good "replacement" climbing areas can be identified and included in the language of the land exchange bill. We have said this time and time again. Why do you not get it? However, that doesn't mean that we are willing to let all of Oak Flat go without a fight--in spite of RCC's position that this must happen.
In reply to: The AF dropped the ball on this one potentially leaving climbers holding the bag. Why? Even late in the process (a few weeks ago) an AF representative was invited to visit the proposed new area(s). If they are so interested in evaluating possible alternative areas why didn't anybody come? Ask them. You won’t believe their answer to that one.
Another false statement. No representative of the Access Fund has been invited to see these areas. A former board member of the AF, with no official position in the organization any longer, is NOT an "AF representative."
In reply to: curt, if you, the AF and FoQC are successful in getting the mine to adjust its operations so that Oak Flat will not have to be closed I'll tip my hat and buy you a bottle of good scotch. I would be elated if you are successful. In the mean time we are trying to get what we can just in case you fail.
So, you claim to hope that we succeed--and we have also stated that we hope you succeed. Why then do you continue to pursue a course of curt and AF bashing? You must have some other hidden agenda.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Jun 3, 2005, 5:27 PM
Post #325 of 619
(68825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: Sorry I have to go on like this but curt and some other posters would have you believe we are the enemy. That we sold out to the evil mining company etc. We take offense to that. . .
azstickbow, I think it's pretty easy for long-term members of this site to examine your posts with a skeptic's eye simply because you have only posted 9 times and provide no identifying information on your profile. If you want to create more confidence in your opinions please make yourself more transparent. I think there's been more than enough Curt bashing by people such as yourself who are pretty anonymous to the rest of us and frankly it looks bad. I don't know Curt but I do know that he's been a long time contributor to this site and for the most part offers opinions and critiques that are fair and reasonable. I care a lot about this issue and seems like Curt has done a lot to create awareness. On the other hand you claim to be doing a lot too. Let us know who you are, make yourself more transparent, and let's make this a conversation between people not e-identities. I applaud efforts on both sides so let's be civil with each other - the climbing circle is small enough that one day I'll probably be asking you for a spot.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
