Qcc latest letter to congress about Oak Flat Land Swap

Marty said: "RCM stated that they are going to mine the area if the surface subsides or not. They still are pushing for the land swap and want to obtain the land in their ownership. Once they have the ownership and mining production starts the climbing will be eliminated in the area for the next 60+ years to whenever they finish their underground explorations." RCM has already stated there will be a hole the size of Meteor Crater where Oak Flat stands today. Climbing, walking, gathering acorns, everything else too, will be impossible on the surface.

Did I read correctly Marty? RCM is going to build us roads to thousands of boulders and climbing? As far as I recall I only heard a statement from David Salsbury that they could look into providing alternate access to Lower Devil's Canyon and they once promised to bulldoze a road to Tamo direct from Kearney. A road that would be maintained by nobody; probably be useless after a few rounds of monsoon storms. The road to Tamo wasn't even on the list last I read it.

A fellow climber and former miner in Superior tells me that the fracture zones in this volcanic area are so unpredictable, something he personally learned by experience, that the maps suggesting potential fracture zones will not reach Gaan Canyon (aka Devil's Canyon) or Apache Leap are pure speculation. Who do you think gave us those maps? Look at what happened in the block cave mine in San Manuel. The subsidence was far greater than the mine's predictions. What does it serve a mining company to actually be honest in the potential environmental harm, thus sinking their stated efforts to extract billions for their profit. If I owned RCM I'd produce tons of documents saying, it'll be fine, trust me.

I'll bet the folks of Louisiana and the southern coast would have liked a say in what a foreign company planned when it went looking for energy where it is.

I am a climber that wants the mine to go forward in a way we can all coexist. If the state makes money on taxes and a few folks from Superior are employed, wonderful. Is that a worthy trade-off? Is gaining access to some more climbing really worth the potential disaster this mine may turn out to be?

Well, that's certainly the best post in this thread so far.

Curt

Geir Hundal wrote: Michael- I don't feel this way. The QCC still speaks for me, and it seems that a large percentage of those posting on this forum feel similarly.

Geir, Queen Creek Coalition is dead - you just haven't realized it yet. Besides, a coalition is certainly not what it is. The vote of early May saw to that.

To keep its acronym, may I suggest Queen Creek Club.

Ben Beard wrote:BGBingham, I wouldn't take the Copper Country News as a reputable news source.

Ben if you look closely you'll notice it is a letter to the editor. It is not news.

I feel the need to talk once again about subsidence.

If the land trade goes through and RCM becomes owner of the Oak Flat land with a non subsidence mining method, RCM can plow the entire surface down to a parking lot and this will still be considered non subsidence. There will be no climbing, recreating or acorn collecting on their property unless RCM allows it.

Is there any agreements stating that when RCM is finished mining the land that they will allow pedestrian use again on their private property?

The old Magma Mine allowed climbing on the land since the climbing is located in the Tonto National Forest. So take away the Tonto National Forest land and now turn it into private mining land and what do you think will happen in the long run. How fast do you think the fence will go up around RCMs property?

I think if you wanted to keep what is there now climbers should have been fighting for the mine not to happen. Fighting for non subsidence still gets the surface destroyed and gets the pedestrian use eliminated from the area.

The QCC has signed no paperwork, no endorsements and the process to reach that signature could take a long time. The QCC is working off of QCCs list of concerns paperwork, which was created by all of the QCC members, past and present.

Rock on!

Marty

Until now, I have chosen not to participate in this discussion, which I find on the whole distasteful. But because Curt Shannon has so thoroughly crossed the line, and shows no sign of reigning himself in, I feel compelled to respond.

In referring to the Queen Creek Coalition as a group of “rogue” climbers who have made an “epic blunder,” and by choosing, as part of his ongoing tantrum, to disclose confidential communications without permission, Curt Shannon has said more about his own character than that of the QCC. Though his personal attacks and self-righteousness bother me, it is Curt’s ongoing attempt to mislead this community that begs for refutation. Since Curt has cast himself as the hero and the QCC as the villain, there are some things he left out that you should know.

It is not just sloppy thinking (or sloppy writing) that is behind Curt’s habit of treating “Oak Flat” and “Queen Creek” as though they were synonyms. Curt is part of a tiny minority of Queen Creek climbers whose use of the canyon is limited to bouldering at Oak Flat. This is a key point: a deal with Resolution, since it cannot realistically include a “no-subsidence/permanent climber access to Oak Flat” provision, cannot benefit Curt personally.

Whether out of self-interest or flawed reasoning, Curt Shannon nearly ruined Queen Creek climbing for us all in 2005-06. In his position as a principal of Friends of Queen Creek, Curt devised and implemented the brilliant strategy of playing hardball with the mine (if he was sincere, then he wildly overestimated our bargaining position), with the idea that if circumstances changed, climbers could change their strategy. Anyone with any reasonable degree of intelligence can see the obvious flaw in this reasoning (hint: under what circumstances would climbers ever have better information than that available to Resolution about what is happening with Resolution’s land exchange in Washington?). It is tempting to conclude that Curt knew all along this “strategy” was a fantasy, but realized that if he could sell it to gullible climbers, it would have the effect of killing any attempt to make a deal while there was any chance that the legislation would not pass (remember, no deal – ever – is what you want if “Queen Creek climbing” means “Oak Flat climbing” to you).

Circumstances did change, and for a while bill passage suddenly looked imminent. Curt tried to change course and Resolution, unsurprisingly, decided that it was its turn to play “hardball.” We would have received nothing but for the fact that scorched-earth is not Jon Kyl’s style. In response to some last-minute groveling, we were thrown a bone: a crappy license agreement, revocable at will by Resolution, pursuant to which we had to pay a portion of the premiums for the insurance required under the license agreement – a pretty clear slap in the face.

In order to obtain the license, the Access Fund, the licensee, had to endorse the land exchange legislation. You read that right. Access Fund endorsed a prior version of this very exchange, in order to keep you climbing at the Pond and Atlantis after Curt had maneuvered us into a corner. Whereupon Curt surely accused the Access Fund of being a rogue organization that had forsaken climbers and established a terrible precedent by endorsing “the eventual destruction of the entire Oak Flat area,” right? Wrong. Curt took to the internet chat boards and told everyone how, thanks to his skillful negotiating, we had achieved this great result.

Fast forward a few years. Ever since QCC started meeting, Curt has tried to force us down the same path. His response to every development has always been the same: “I don’t think passage is imminent; we don’t need to do anything right now.” Most of us realized that he was wrong, but we allowed him to keep us from moving forward; in retrospect, I think there were various reasons for this, including our desire that those few who exclusively boulder be represented through him and to give some deference to a man who had given a lot of time and energy to the cause. But in 2010, in the face of dwindling influence and dwindling options, we finally realized that enough is enough.

One of the key moments for me personally came last December when Curt reported, after the Senate bill went from stalled to done deal in about 15 minutes, following closed-door meetings between Sen. McCain’s staff and committee staff, that a Senate staffer had told him, “You guys should have made a better deal while you had the chance.” Because Curt seems to hear only what he wants to hear, he interpreted this as, “You guys should have been in our face more.” This is also fantasy. Climbers are bit players who are given occasional courtesy interviews in Washington but do not have a seat at the table. This report brought home to me that: 1) letting Curt stall us for so long had materially diminished our options; and 2) Curt just doesn’t get it (or perhaps he intentionally chooses not to get it): we have to choose action over inaction while we still have something that Resolution wants.

Here is a hypothetical: Suppose the Friends of Queen Creek had decided in 2005, “Let’s make a deal with Resolution, now, before our backs are to the wall, so that if this thing passes we’ll have something to show for it.” The Access Fund still would have endorsed the exchange in 2006, but we likely would have had a better license agreement and maybe other things as well. Now perhaps you can understand why Paul, to his credit, chose in 2010 to force the issue rather than to allow Curt to procrastinate the QCC into irrelevance.

Curt has claimed that this is terrible timing, since Rep. Grijalva is said to be preparing alternate legislation that might be more “climber-friendly” (by which he means, of course, Oak Flat climber friendly). It is actually good timing, for that very reason. If the exchange is a done deal (or at the other extreme if it has no chance), then Resolution does not need us. Uncertainty makes our signature more valuable. It would only make sense to wait on this alternate bill if it had any chance of becoming law. There are good reasons, known to Curt, to conclude that it does not. Again, Curt will always have in hand an excuse for stalling. This is just his latest excuse.

Manny’s concerns deserve some consideration, because Manny climbs throughout Queen Creek Canyon, and because, apart from a hostile initial post, he has made his points without name-calling and insults. But in voicing his concerns about the impact of the proposed mine on the area, Manny is talking about environmental concerns, not rock climbing access (which is the focus of the QCC, a climbers’ advocacy group). There are more important things than climbing, certainly, and if we thought our voice could change the outcome, then I might agree that we should consider the bigger picture in deciding whether to cooperate with Resolution. But we can’t alter the outcome, which makes the decision much easier. We are only being offered a little for our signature, and that is because no one involved is under the delusion that our signature is likely to make a material difference. (Note in this regard that the Access Fund's 2006 endorsement of the land exchange did not lead to its passage.)

Here is another hypothetical: suppose we were outcome-dispositive; that whether Resolution could obtain and block cave Oak Flat was up to us. Suppose further that we decided the risk of this mine’s adverse impact on the environment was too great to justify supporting the exchange, and that we knew that as a consequence of thwarting their land exchange, Resolution would bar us forever from The Pond and Atlantis – in fact would tear the places up out of sheer spite. In effect, we would be in the position of knowingly taking action that would lead to the destruction of two climbing areas, yet I doubt that either Manny or Curt would object.

Here is yet another hypothetical: Imagine that John Muir, in the midst of the doomed Hetch Hetchy fight, had been offered the entire giant redwood forest as a National Park, in exchange for the Sierra Club’s endorsement of the Hetch Hetchy dam and reservoir. If he knew – as he surely did at some point, given the political climate of the day – that Hetch Hetchy would be dammed whatever he did, then logically the best move would be to take the deal. Hetch Hetchy would still be flooded but we would have a lot more giant redwoods. Would he have taken that deal? I can’t imagine it. But it would have been the right decision, in terms of the best outcome.

I make the call differently. I want to have the redwoods. I wish I could have both, but I know that wishing doesn’t make it so. [Save your breath about how we’re only being offered three trees; any deal is better than no deal, if there is no material downside to making the deal, and Oak Flat is not Hetch Hetchy.] If we can endorse some better version than the bill that has been reported out of the Senate committee, I am all for it. If we can do an endorsement that is something less than an express and unqualified endorsement, I am all for it. But at the end of the day, I will take the redwoods. That does not mean, of course, that I really want the dam (as Geir has observed, and any intelligent person ought to realize).

P.S. to “TDog” (whoever you are): Thanks to the Sierra Club, THE WHOLE GLEN CANYON IS A LAKE!!!!!! (They had their reasons.) There obviously is a lot that you don’t know.

^^^^^

Normally I don't like to engage with the masses since I occupy such a lofty position, but I really can't stomach boulderer's. They are all rift raft and rather coarse. They shouldn't be listened to as they will pervert your mind. Evil I say. Now, let me line out my wisdom for all of you.

My thoughts are perfectly logical and follow from one simple thing. It is in your best interest because as everyone knows, climbers really, at root, are sycophants. Forget all you've heard of their independent drive to do the impossible. They really like mucking around for crumbs.

Back to that one simple thing - the mine is going to happen and they will cave the surface. Now, tell yourself this five or six times a day while looking upward in supplication and dream about all the wonderful things that will flow your way if only you get in there and deal. Master of the Universe style.

Oh, and forget the meaning of "coalition". It has nothing to do with what you think.

Rick,

Absolutely brilliant post. Thank you.

It was especially interesting to read the history which has lead to this current point, particularly that the Access Fund itself endorsed the legislation in 2006.

I am truly happy that you're with the QCC.

QCC folks: please continue to move forward to secure as much climbing as possible. You guys are doing an awesome job under very challenging circumstances, thank you all for your efforts.

^^^^^^

Dear Queen Creek Club,

It is all so wonderful I can hardly contain myself. You guys really know how to get things done. Forget about building a coalition of allies. We got bigger fish to fry. Why we may even get a new route between the head-frame and the site sewage treatment plant. Think of the possibilities!

Whee!!1

If he knew everything; It would be T-GOD.

I am only human.

Precedent will be the word of the day. Don’t always have to make a trade to get what you want. If you do it will be expected in the future.

Where is the environmental impact statement (EIS)?? Mining might not get very far without this sign off.

There is years of lawsuits ahead of this mine.

Even if QCC made a deal to get a BILLION dollars and endorse the land swap at the very start, the legislation would be in the same place it is today. And the money would still be in the hands of RCC.

Sierra Club might have dropped the ball on GLEN CANYON DAM and LAKE POWELL. But they learned their mistake. Sierra Club did not have the sole power in that decision. Really.

David Brower has said (on video) that this was his worst mistake EVER and that it haunted him to the grave.

Where are those big trees????

I checked and have even been to:

Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoia - 1864, Yosemite Grant
Sequoia National Park (1890) – Second National Park
Yosemite National Park (1890)
Sequoia National Forest (1908)
Redwood National Park nps.gov/redw/index.htm
Giant Sequoia National Monument
Redwood State Park – CA
Muir Woods National Monument (a forest named after J Muir)

It is well theorized that John Muir died of a broken heart over the loss of Hetch Hetchy.

Hetch Hetchy and O'Shaughnessy Dam was not a lost fight entirely. Yes that dam was built but the FULL, NO COMPROMISE FIGHT led to” stirred the public into action on behalf of national parks. Future debates over dams and restoration clearly demonstrated the burgeoning strength of grassroots environmentalism”.

Take all the hypothetical and file it in the circular file. (Round trash can for those that don't know.)

Here we are in a time of current events that include major extractive industry screw-ups such as BP's oil spill and the Massey coal mining blast. Fundamental to these events is lip service being played to the concept of sustainable.

What better time to come together with other stakeholders (such as the Apache's) to work for true sustainability with respect to Oak Flat/Queen Creek. Climbers have joined together in the past, not to oppose the mine, but to demand true sustainability and innovation so as to mine the deposit without collapsing the surface. This would allow the excluded and surrounding area to mostly remain in their natural or current state.

RCM has never backed down from its position that this is impossible and goes forth in its efforts to conduct mining activities in a place that has been "protected" from such activity. The fact that they continue to conduct these activities is certainly "thumbing their nose" at the law. Their obstinacy has polarized the political landscape when it could have been otherwise.

So in this time, I'm disappointed that a club of fellow climbers goes shuffling, hat in hand to see what trinkets they can get from RCM. That is bad enough, but to do so with all sorts of rationalizations as to how smart they are is embarrassing.

Geir Hundal wrote:Sure Kirra, I'll discuss that. Without asterisks or accusations or bold letters or sarcasm and flames from either of us....Better yet: how about both of us commit right now to constructive dialog...without flames...or anything but the facts. What do you think? ...Please post an image if you are able.

geir -thanks for the follow-up. Yes -o.k. let's try to move forward without the xtra 'personal' stuff *good idea*

I will post up the maps that I have -here soon..

Geir Hundal wrote:Rick, Absolutely brilliant post. Thank you. It was especially interesting to read the history which has lead to this current point, particularly that the Access Fund itself endorsed the legislation in 2006. I am truly happy that you're with the QCC.

(note-highlights meant as reference only -no flames etc)

not really brilliant -just an opinion, imo (but we can agree to disagree for right now -np)

Rick is (technically) no longer part of the Queen Creek Coalition right now if he steps out in this way. If he was to contuinue on (with these personal plans) you could (probably) be assured a continued atmosphere of partial-disclosure defended a few pages back. The entire history of this story (winter 05-06) is not being told (fact) There were a few more people around to possibly sort that out -hopefully be along soon..

episteme wrote:There obviously is a lot that you don’t know.

there was a lot going on that many people didn't know. That is why this thread kept going (if anyone remembers a few pages back) -some folks wanted to continue to operate in *secrecy* -and some wanted full-disclosure. The QCC is going through a bit of a whizzing-match right now imo. I'll be happy when it sorts itself out and we can move on and forward w/something constructively positive -next..

I am not interested in "net climbing" if the "matrix" is not going to be taken seriously
(hahah)

(bold meant to 'focus expression' -not anger)

If we are going to continue to pick random keywords to describe our goals then may I suggest (along similar lines) -- gross climbing -- not that it's gross of course, just a suggestion after all aren't we supposed to be trying to get the *most climbing* not the crumbs..?

michael, thanks for the circular file definition. I originally though it similar to an 'endless-loop' (arghh..)
great idea -now I can get my weekend going a little sooner (woohoo!!)

later, cheers~

episteme wrote:...Fast forward a few years. Ever since QCC started meeting, Curt has tried to force us down the same path. His response to every development has always been the same: “I don’t think passage is imminent; we don’t need to do anything right now.” Most of us realized that he was wrong, but we allowed him to keep us from moving forward; in retrospect, I think there were various reasons for this, including our desire that those few who exclusively boulder be represented through him and to give some deference to a man who had given a lot of time and energy to the cause. But in 2010, in the face of dwindling influence and dwindling options, we finally realized that enough is enough...

Rick, there is so much factual inaccuracy in your post that it's hard to know where to begin--but I guess I'll begin here: It is simply a fact that all of the work I have done with the Friends of Queen Creek--and later the Queen Creek Coalition (over the last six years) was endorsed 100% by both of those groups and by the Access Fund as well. To say otherwise is utter bullshit and you are obviously full of that.

The long-standing QCC position of "no endorsement if there will be subsidence" was supported by the QCC by consensus--which, by the way, included you. It's not surprising that you are now trying to revise history to justify your wacky new position, but, as President Obama has said several times, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts."

To further jog your clearly failing memory, here is a direct quote from an article in the High Country News:

"The [Oak Flat] Executive Order didn't say, 'Protect until a bunch of ore is found', it said, 'Protect from mining' -- PERIOD."

- Jason Keith, Access Fund

Additionally, the Access Fund mission has been clearly stated to both RCM and to me (by Steve Matous, past Executive Director) that their mission is to "protect access to threatened climbing areas" and not to horse-trade away existing climbing areas for new areas that may also have climbing potential.

Of course, the QCC obviously doesn't give a damn what the Access Fund thinks anymore, or the vote that was taken a few weeks back would have never happened.

Curt

BGBingham wrote:Here we are in a time of current events that include major extractive industry screw-ups such as ... the Massey coal mining blast. Fundamental to these events is lip service being played to the concept of sustainable.

If you would like to discuss the Massey event, and have a full understanding of the cause of the event - feel free. You start.

I'd love to know what sustainability and a methane explosion in Boone County, WV have to do with each other, while you are at it. Please note the Watts of power used while making your post. :)

Dave Loring wrote: If you would like to discuss the Massey event, and have a full understanding of the cause of the event - feel free. You start. I'd love to know what sustainability and a methane explosion in Boone County, WV have to do with each other, while you are at it. Please note the Watts of power used while making your post. :)

Mines that kill 29 people are not operating in a sustainable way. Take the CEO of Massey's own comment:

“We complied with MSHA safety orders even when we strenuously disagreed with them and believed them to be detrimental to the health and safety of the mine,” Blankenship told lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor. “They forced us to ventilate backwards by not approving [our] plan.”

This is a clear admission that health and safety was compromised. He then proceeded to shift blame away from himself to MSHA. Creating a safe work environment has everything to do with sustainability. The devastation to the community by the loss of those 29 will never be made up.

Innovation in design and the efforts of individuals to stand up to bottom line management has greatly diminished mine deaths. Look at the Lucky Friday in Idaho for an example.

Sorry, you can't guilt me about using watts. Most everyone on this globe uses electrical power and that fact doesn't mean you cut corners, create messes, play blame games and compromise health and safety. I'm sure the clean air and clean water act brought on protests similar to yours but look at all those employed by technologies that give us a much cleaner environment.

BGBingham wrote: Mines that kill 29 people are not operating in a sustainable way. Take the CEO of Massey's own comment: “We complied with MSHA safety orders even when we strenuously disagreed with them and believed them to be detrimental to the health and safety of the mine,” Blankenship told lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor. “They forced us to ventilate backwards by not approving [our] plan.” That is a clear admission that health and safety was compromised. Then he proceeds to shift blame away from himself to MSHA. Creating a safe work environment has everything to do with sustainability. The devastation to the community by the loss of those 29 will never be made up.

So are you saying that Massey was operating sustainably in your eyes the day before the accident at UBB? No one had died... You had no knowledge of their safety record until it was publicized after the accident...

" “They forced us to ventilate backwards by not approving [our] plan.” That is a clear admission that health and safety was compromised." Here you are making a blanket assumption that MSHA inspectors, reviewers, and tech support are more knowledgable about a ventilation system than the mine's own engineers who are there every day. Inspectors are not generally engineers. How is this statement by Blankenship an admission of anything? It is merely a statement of fact, true or not - we'll find out when the investigation is complete.

Coal mines are required to submit their vent plans to MSHA for approval and MSHA can make them change it. If it is found that the statement by Blankenship is true and the change required by MSHA contributed to the accident, how will that change your opinion? MSHA was found to be complicit in the Crandall Canyon accident in Utah.

BGBingham wrote: Innovation in design and the efforts of individuals to stand up to bottom line management has greatly diminished mine deaths. Look at the Lucky Friday in Idaho for an example.

I don;t know what you mean about standing up to bottom line management, but companies can mine coal and metals safely, and I agree that deaths and injuries are unsustainble and quite frankly unforgivable.

BGBingham wrote: Sorry, you can't guilt me about using watts. Most everyone on this globe uses electrical power and that fact doesn't mean you cut corners, create messes, play blame games and compromise health and safety. I'm sure the clean air and clean water act brought on protests similar to yours but look at all those employed by technologies that give us a much cleaner environment.

I agree, you can't cut corners and compromise health and safety in this day and age. good operators don't - and there are good operators. But, when things like this happen we have the public screaming and Obama putting moratoriums on drilling (which will affect energy prices and availability), and not addressing the real problem - essentially a lack of good technical training within the agencies that are supposed to do the regulation, and a system of oversight that does not fully and truly take the long term safety of people to heart. Email me if you want an explanation of this.

Thank you again QCC for your efforts. Manny and Rick, thank you both for helpful and constructive posts as well.

There's a lot of unnecessary noise on this thread and so I generally stay quiet -- that is NOT to say that my strong desire to continue climbing in the area is waning, or that my interest in this topic is waning. I find the name calling and vitriol counterproductive. We are a climbing community and we all want to do what we can to continue climbing in that area.

Distilling the topic down to its simplest state, we as a climbing community can choose between four actions:

1) oppose; 2) negotiate more; 3) non-oppose; 4) endorse

I believe that opposing and endorsing gains us nothing. We either negotiate more with RCC to fine tune the agreement and get commitments in writing or we decide to non-oppose. Given the progress made with the RCC commitments, continued negotiation makes sense.

Two key issues need resolution and further discussion:
1) Likelihood that the land swap will pass Congress and be signed into law.
2) Whether RCC will follow through on its commitments (much yelling above on this topic, but no facts and no real insight into what RCC will actually do -- full disclosure, I'm a staunch environmentalist and don't trust industry for a second, but do trust putting agreements in writing that will hold up to legal scrutiny).

The only situation where we’re best served by agreeing to “Non-oppose” at this stage are if the land swap is about to happen AND their commitments are credible. If the land swap doesn’t pass this year, or if RCC commitments aren’t credible, then we are better off with more negotiation.

Thoughts on the likelihood of passage of the land swap:

This land exchange has been introduced in Congress as the “Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act” ever year since 2005. This year, the Senate bill (S.409) finally made it out of committee and is on the Senate Legislative Calendar for a full vote. It seems clear that the Arizona Senators see this as a major priority and are putting their full weight behind it.

That said, in order for this land exchange to go through, it also has to pass in the House and be signed by the President. The original House bill (H.R.2509) has stalled, as the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands is chaired by Rep. Grijalva, who opposes it. The re-vamped House bill (H.R. 4880), which frames this as a jobs issue, may have a greater chance of passage, but I really don’t know how to evaluate this (most bills never make it out of Committee, and Kirkpatrick doesn’t have even a single co-sponsor on this one, but on the other hand, jobs are a hot issue this year, and there are issues about how this could help shore up Kirkpatrick’s seat).

As for the Obama administration, it has in the past expressed serious reservations about the land exchange and there's no telling how this oil spill will impact such deals with potential great environmental impact.

Personally, I am not convinced that this is a done deal this year, but that’s just my opinion, and I don’t know all the politics surrounding the bills. Continued negotiation with RCC is sensible to help us get something legally binding in writing.

I'll go back to being quiet again.

arjunmh wrote:...The original House bill (H.R.2509) has stalled, as the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands is chaired by Rep. Grijalva, who opposes it. The re-vamped House bill (H.R. 4880), which frames this as a jobs issue, may have a greater chance of passage, but I really don’t know how to evaluate this (most bills never make it out of Committee, and Kirkpatrick doesn’t have even a single co-sponsor on this one, but on the other hand, jobs are a hot issue this year, and there are issues about how this could help shore up Kirkpatrick’s seat)...

H.R.4880, which mirrors the current McCain-Bingaman compromise bill in the Senate and replaces H.R 2509, is currently in Rep. Grijalva's subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and is unlikely to get a hearing. Calling this bill a "jobs" bill is irrelevant and it will still have to go through Grijalva's subcommittee--because it involves the exchange of public lands.

Kirkpatrick has already tried to bypass the subcommittee and get a hearing in the full committee on Natural Resources, but the Committee Chairman (Rep. Rahall, D-W VA) has denied this request. Rep. Grijalva has made public the idea that he will offer his own alternate bill and hold hearings on that bill, if any RCM related legislation is to move in the House at all.

Curt

episteme wrote:...It is not just sloppy thinking (or sloppy writing) that is behind Curt’s habit of treating “Oak Flat” and “Queen Creek” as though they were synonyms. Curt is part of a tiny minority of Queen Creek climbers whose use of the canyon is limited to bouldering at Oak Flat. This is a key point: a deal with Resolution, since it cannot realistically include a “no-subsidence/permanent climber access to Oak Flat” provision, cannot benefit Curt personally...

This is a real gem, too. First of all, many, many people choose to boulder out at Oak Flat. It was in fact the location of the world's largest climbing competition for quite a few years. Secondly, Rick is conveniently (speaking about sloppy thinking and writing) omitting to mention the 300-odd bolted, trad and toprope routes that currently exist in the immediate Oak Flat vicinity. Contrary to Rick's erroneous assertion, I've actually done quite a few of these routes--a number of them multiple times. Apparently by Rick's bizarre logic these routes (some 80 feet long) also constitute Oak Flat "bouldering" but I had hoped that he might care about their preservation anyway.

Curt

Rick,

Some other forces that were in play in recent history:

• The State Legislature was in the throes of forming and passing enabling legislation for a State Climbing Park.
• Though this legislation passed, and primarily because it is and was an unfunded venture, the Park concept came under significant criticism and is now defunct.
• A well-known climbing community figure and his friends were hired by the mining company and were actively pursuing and promoting a "replacement" area for Oak Flat.
• This "replacement" area concept split the community and created much disarray both locally and nationally.
• The State Park's administration was actively pursuing a State Park for the "replacement" area. This dovetailed effort with the mining company's climbing consultants added energy to the splitting of the community. (The climbing park failed primarily because the funding detail was left to a later date; good faith and a good working relationship between the government and the mining company dissolved into finger pointing with the public climbing community left in limbo)
• The Governor at the time was actively advocating for solutions to various concerns and had promoted the "working group" concept in order to assist in getting the mining company's project up and going.
• The mining company had not really explicitly detailed the massive amount of surface effects of its planned operations.
• At the time, the extent of the subsidence was considered minimal, not the Meteor Crater now understood.

Not that any of these pushed anything any one which way, but in fact there were many unknowns and many political parts in motion then that are no longer in play, and vice versa.

Fred