Continue with onX Maps
Continue with Facebook
Oak Flat News
|
Thanks Red and Catherine for speaking up. |
 Would you buy a used car from this guy? Here is one of his quotes: I’ve done my due diligence in dialoguing, he says, with all parties involved – citizens of Superior, climbers, Apaches. Due diligence in dialoguing? What the heck does that mean? Followed by: He had talked to everyone, insisted Gosar, and in some areas, “We can agree to disagree.” Really? The problem is that the "disagreement" is not over something trivial. It will forever alter the environment and has major water and economic implications. What’s different? “Apache Leap is off the table,” he said, and some kind of sharing plan is envisioned for Oak Flats. We get to share a big hole in the ground? From what I can tell this guy only dialogs with Mr. Happy and Mr. Cherry. If you're interested you can find these quotes at: coppercountrynews.com/v2_ne… Please write your representatives and your local papers. |
|
I faxed a letter to both of Gosar's offices today. |
BGBingham wrote:One thing to do is to write your Congresspeople and Senator's and ask them why there needs to be Federal action to "swap" land for a project that doesn't even have a plan on where it will place its extensive waste product of mountain or Half Dome sized tailings (20 billion cubic feet). Another is to ask why they would "swap" away land, long ago set aside for protection, to a corporation that doesn't even have a concrete plan for where it will obtain a considerable amount of water (38 million gallons per day) needed to operate. With respect to the employment drumbeat that supporters such as Gosar continue to mention is to note that alternative mine designs would employ more people. Lastly, ask why this project should proceed given that no one has addressed the impact a hole in the ground 800 feet deep and over a mile long will have on the local and regional environment and economy. All these questions should be answered before Federal action is taken.Ah, Brent... You make it sound so easy. There are definitions for mine-able reserves in the SEC guidelines. Reserve status is met by having completed feasibility studies and definition drilling. Resolution has not completed either sufficient drilling or level of study to meet these guidelines yet. Thus they do not have sufficient information to release publicly, or to permit or plan water needs or tailings facilities. My understanding is they need shaft access to conduct this drilling. Secondly, larger "glory holes" exist at El Teniente and Grasberg from caving operations, with minimum impact on the environment and no impact on the economy. I'd think a miner such as yourself would know about these mines. :) |
ClimbandMine wrote: There are definitions for mine-able reserves in the SEC guidelines. Reserve status is met by having completed feasibility studies and definition drilling. Resolution has not completed either sufficient drilling or level of study to meet these guidelines yet. Thus they do not have sufficient information...That is my point. There is not enough information for politicians to be messing with land that has had another use for a very long time. If that use is curtailed for climbers, Apache's and a long list of other users then there is an environmental impact. Thus they don't have "sufficient information" to be wining and dining the politicians and local press about how wonderful and complete the world will be when they have things exactly their way. So you know, water usage, size of "glory hole" and amount of tailings has all been derived from information that RCM has published on their web site. Thanks CaM |
BGBingham wrote: That is my point. There is not enough information for politicians to be messing with land that has had another use for a very long time. If that use is curtailed for climbers, Apache's and a long list of other users then there is an environmental impact. Thus they don't have "sufficient information" to be wining and dining the politicians and local press about how wonderful and complete the world will be when they have things exactly their way. So you know, water usage, size of "glory hole" and amount of tailings has all been derived from information that RCM has published on their web site. Thanks CaMYou say things like "exactly" and "concrete plans"... You should know that without additional drilling, they can't firm up these plans. Additional drilling will, most likely, change the quoted numbers... tonnages, etc. Thus they obviously can't give you or anyone else "concrete plans." You of all people should know this. |
|
They are taking major steps to screw up land that is "protected" from exactly what they are doing - on the ground. Something is wrong with this. What part of an Executive Order over fifty years old is not understood when mining activity is allowed by the Forest Service where it shouldn't be allowed? ClimbandMine wrote:Thus they obviously can't give you or anyone else "concrete plans."Which is exactly why politicians and new Federal law shouldn't be part of the plan. |
|
Are we still talking about PUBLIC land? |
Lindajft wrote:Are we still talking about PUBLIC land?Think so... This guy said it best: Gifford Pinchot , the first Chief of the Forest Service, summed up the mission of the Forest Service—"to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run." This is embodied by the USFS and BLM's multiple use policy. Following along with that thought from Pinchot - how many stores, climbing shops, etc? will be affected by the removal of access to Oak Flat and other proposed areas? How much further will climbers have to drive to reach comparable areas? Sorry - I only follow this issue intermittently... You guys are fighting against a 50-100 year old image of mining. We don't mine with donkeys anymore. We clean up our waste when we are done, too... This is a reclaimed waste dump in Nevada. Bet you wouldn't know it if I didn't tell you.  |
ClimbandMine wrote:We don't mine with donkeys anymore. We clean up our waste when we are done, too...how do we spell 'Mining Responsibility'... S-U-P-E-R-F-U-N-D you mentioned 'intermittenty' checking in- this link exa'mines' some other successful reclamations |
|
Regarding the picture above |
Lindajft wrote:Regarding the picture above My questions are: How many years later is this? Was this originally Public land? Was a thorough NEPA study done first? The question go on and on Tho' Donkeys are not used for mining, the laws that govern mining are old and I'd like to see them updated. (1872) Back to the topic is Oak Flat and the surrounding areas. The issues are numerous: The historical value to Oak Flats native people, the impact the current plan will have vs a revised plan according to a thorough outside NEPA study, the fact that this is the largest land mass loss of public land for climbers that was set aside specifically by the President of the United States from mining, etc. I think most of us climbers are so concerned because this will be the LARGEST land mass loss for climbers ever in the US, maybe even the world. With that in mind, we are standing up 'for the land' and demanding no shortcuts! Again in my perspective and my $.02Linda, you bring up a great point in regards to the executive order that created the special status for Oak Flats. I, like others, have an issue with Executive Orders. This special use for Oak Flats was never voted on by anyone on the state level in Arizona or the Legislative Branch of the federal government. Correct me if I am wrong. The proposed land exchange on the other hand actually does have to be passed through the federal legislative branch. |
Ben Beard wrote: Linda, you bring up a great point in regards to the executive order that created the special status for Oak Flats. I, like others, have an issue with Executive Orders. This special use for Oak Flats was never voted on by anyone on the state level in Arizona or the Legislative Branch of the federal government. Correct me if I am wrong. The proposed land exchange on the other hand actually does have to be passed through the federal legislative branch.Wonder how you'd feel about an Executive Order that was for something you wanted? Modernization of the Mining Law is very much in order but our federal legislators don't seem to have that ability. They'd rather cherry pick their actions to more discreet items that bring in lobbying perks. Way more lofty than an Executive Order? I think not. Oak flat has had sixty years of protected status and many user groups. Buying support doesn't encompass the democratic purity you imply. |
BGBingham wrote: Wonder how you'd feel about an Executive Order that was for something you wanted? Modernization of the Mining Law is very much in order but our federal legislators don't seem to have that ability. They'd rather cherry pick their actions to more discreet items that bring in lobbying perks. Way more lofty than an Executive Order? I think not. Oak flat has had sixty years of protected status and many user groups. Buying support doesn't encompass the democratic purity you imply.I wonder how you feel about the mines that you've worked at? Or about the land you live on? As to the democratic purity, it is what we've got and I will continue to vote my way and make my voice heard. What would you recommend, no vote in the legislature? |
Ben Beard wrote: I wonder how you feel about the mines that you've worked at? Or about the land you live on? As to the democratic purity, it is what we've got and I will continue to vote my way and make my voice heard. What would you recommend, no vote in the legislature?What's to wonder about? I've worked at what I've considered good ones and bad ones. The bad ones generally were controlled by posers who had no idea of what it was like to be at the face. I've never lived in an area under Executive Order. I would recommend honoring both the intent and fact of the Executive Order - which isn't being done. |
Lindajft wrote:Regarding the picture above My questions are: How many years later is this? Was this originally Public land? Was a thorough NEPA study done first? The question go on and on Tho' Donkeys are not used for mining, the laws that govern mining are old and I'd like to see them updated. (1872) Back to the topic is Oak Flat and the surrounding areas. The issues are numerous: The historical value to Oak Flats native people, the impact the current plan will have vs a revised plan according to a thorough outside NEPA study, the fact that this is the largest land mass loss of public land for climbers that was set aside specifically by the President of the United States from mining, etc. I think most of us climbers are so concerned because this will be the LARGEST land mass loss for climbers ever in the US, maybe even the world. With that in mind, we are standing up 'for the land' and demanding no shortcuts! Again in my perspective and my $.02Mining is not only subject to the Mining law of 1872 (which was updated a bit in the 1990's by Clinton, but does need further revision, I agree). The industry is subject to NEPA, the Clean water act, the Clean Air Act, the Mine Safety Acts of 1969 and 1977, and a whole host of others. The photo is of a Newmont property in Nevada (not sure which). Pretty much all of Nevada is public land. The Carlin trend began operation in the '80s so it was subject to EIS and all of thee laws mentioned above. |
|
Thanks for answering my question. |
|
Land exchange hearing scheduled for 14 June |
|
Hi, I am new to this sport and am looking for areas near the city of queen creek for beginning bouldering. Is there ever a time when people meet up at QCC or other areas close by to climb together? I would love for my kids and I to grow in this sport! THANK YOU! |
Ben Beard wrote: I . . . have an issue with Executive Orders. This special use for Oak Flats was never voted on by anyone on the state level in Arizona or the Legislative Branch of the federal government.Ben, Certainly EO's are a mixed bag. For instance, on December 22, 1902, President Roosevelt issued a one sentence EO that took a huge swath of the San Carlos Reservation and put it back into the public domain. A few days later or so, a man by the name of George Chittenden then crossed the Gila River to lay claim to land that eventually became the mining operations related to the town of Christmas (now a ghost town). Chittenden evidently had close ties to many powerful individuals who had the ear of the President at that time. There was no vote by Congress to take the lands from the San Carlos so I'd guess they might concur with your opinion on EO's to some extent. Here's a link to an article that provides some of the story about the town of Christmas and the related history: azcentral.com/arizonarepubl… Here's the text of that EO: "It is hereby ordered that all that portion of the White Mountain or San Carlos Indian Reservation in the Territory of Arizona lying within the following described boundaries be, and the same hereby is, restored to the public domain, to wit: Commencing at the southwestern corner of the reservation where the same is cut by the Gila River; thence in a northerly direction along the western boundary 13 miles to a point; thence due east to the Gila River; thence down the Gila River in a southerly and southwesterly direction to the place of beginning. T. ROOSEVELT Previous to this EO, another single sentence one issued by U. S. Grant on April 27, 1876, took a piece of their reservation to the west of this from them: It is hereby ordered that all that portion of the White Mountain Indian Reservation in Arizona Territory lying west of the following-described line, viz: Commencing at the northwest corner of the present reserve, a point at the southern edge of the Black Mesas, due north of Sombrero or Plumoso Butte; thence due south to said Sombrero or Plumoso Butte; thence southeastwardly to Chromo Peak; thence in a southerly direction to the mouth of the San Pedro River; thence due south to the southern boundary of the reservation, be, and the same hereby is, restored to the public domain. U.S. Grant Again, no vote by Congress. Also, these lands contain what has become known to climbers as The Homestead, El Cap Canyon, The Drip, and portions of Tamo. It's my understanding that the Native American viewpoint related to Oak Flat and the withdrawal that was put in place pursuant to an EO will be presented to Congress tomorrow in the hearing on the bill to privatize the area (HR 1904). Linda has provided a link to the hearing above if you are interested in watching the debate to hear the different points of view. Fred |
