Check out page 10 of this Access Fund article from last summer.

http://www.accessfund.org/atf/cf/%7B1F5726D5-6646-4050-AA6E->>>>>

"Oak Flat is still there in part because climbers stood up and decided to fight a multibillion dollar, multi-national mining company head on."

Good stuff.

I concur with the separating the 'climbing' issue, because as of now, nothing has been settled or approached with the new bill regarding climbing! While some of the 'other important' issues as what Shiloh brings us has been a concern for those upper politicians. (ei: Native land, environment, etc)

Also, me too Marcy. I began climbing in 2003 and the issue was already on the table for that big ol' vain of copper. I think some folks have either gotten tired of the challenge or let personalities stop them from being involved...it is unfortunate.

We have to continue the good fight!

grateful to be part of...

climb on

What QCC meeting? Did I miss it?

AMC is not chiming in on this...where are they?

Kirra - I agree that letters would hold more weight. Just thinking that a petition may be a good option for those people who just won't get around to writing letters. So letters plus a petition...not instead of. Just throwing it out there. Maybe not a good idea at all. I dunno.

Linda - there was a closed QCC meeting last night. I had expressed interest in sitting in on it or future meetings. Fred indicated that he would bring this up for future meetings.

Marcy

marcy-

is your avatar a blueberry lizard? looks familiar. :)

Yup, not to be confused with the rare bilberry lizard, which is slightly smaller and darker.

Anyway the "Don't Sink Oak Flat" picture (see pg. 2 of this thread) could become the front page photo for the QC area...at least until this issue is behind us...maybe even with a note of potential loss of access (not taking anything away from the cute javelina currently on the front page)?

Might help raise more awareness & get more people involved...

I can get the "Don't Sink" photo to be the first one on the Queen Creek main page, but only if Kirra submits it to that page as a photo.
Once/if she puts it up there, I'll move it to the first location.


In the mean time, minutes of the Queen Creek Coalition meetings have been added to the QCC web site in order to give everyone more (and better) information on what the QCC is up to. Bear in mind that the minutes are abbreviated to some degree so that sensitive or strategic information is not available to those not sympathetic with our climbing cause.

Here's the page where you can go to see the minutes as they are posted:

QCC Meeting Minutes

Edit: Photo posted on main QC page.

Thanks, Greg.

Sorry it took so long to get back.

Here’s what Secretary of the USDA, Mr. Thomas J. Vilsack, stated in his July 13th 2009 letter to Senator Wyden, Chair of the Senate subcommittee where the Swap Deal is right now on the Senate side (S 409):


“USDA is concerned about the recreation-related liability issues, and the access and facilities needed to manage [The Pond] parcel. Acquiring this parcel is not in the public interest, and we request that the provision mandating the conveyance of this parcel to the United States be dropped from the bill.”

Furthermore pertaining to the replacement campground:

“Because the Forest Service cannot find a suitable replacement for the Oak Flat Campground, USDA recommends that if the bill provides [$1,000,000], the provision be amended to provide for the funds to be used to improve the capacity and quality of the existing campgrounds on the Tonto National Forest.”


Evidently our beloved sport isn’t even in the public interest, or so implies the Nation's top-level person overseeing your (who’s is it?) public Forest Lands. So, your 1,000’s of acres of easily accessible climbing terrain, with over 1,000 developed climbs on it already, are all set to go down the tubes (actually most of it will sink into the underground cavern created by the mining operation), not to mention that you won’t have a place to pitch a tent like you can now!

Where’s the public interest in this?

I’m not sure how this would all fit into a petition, but after 5 years of watching deals get tossed out through no fault of the climbing community's actions here are some points:

• Contrary to what Secretary Vilsack has said, Rock Climbing is a legitimate recreational activity on FS lands. The sport is in the public interest and it should be encouraged and supported in order to flourish, not set up for eradication.

• A huge negative impact to our community is in the wings if the 1,000’s of acres of easily accessible climbing terrain (rare to come by so close to a metropolitan area) with over 1,000 established climbs are given to the mining company for a net loss to the public in return. The Oak Flat and nearby FS lands are a valuable climbing asset to the public and should be valued as such.

• Climber’s concerns have obviously not been attended to in any sort of deals. This is contrary to the testimony of Senator Kyl or those in the employ or working in concert with the mining interests. We must be allowed to address our concerns directly using our own voices.

Other thoughts?

Fred

Kirra,

The simple answer from the legislative viewpoint is: Yes, The Pond is gone and no, there will not be any camping near Oak Flat anymore. (If you take into account that the the administration's party is also the majority in both the House and Senate . . . )

However, more realistically for The Pond anyway, the answer is more complicated. It's still there and people will probably still get to climb there. It'll just be subject to a revocable license agreement with the mining company, if a private agreement ever results. (Similar to the Atlantis area just down the highway)

The campground answer though is a bit clearer if you take the USDA/FS at their word: Yes, the campground will be gone.

But they're more than happy to take the money that the bill provides and use it for some other purpose in the Tonto NF at their discretion.

The campground issue kind of hinges on the use of the term "suitable" in the letter. What is suitable to climbers isn't necessarily suitable to the USDA/FS.

The qcc has told the FS several times that it would like "primitive" campgrounds up above The Pond (straddling both private and public FS land in the Hanging Valley above it) and down and south of Superior near the Inconceivables bouldering area. These "primitive" camping areas might be similar to something like the Shelf Road camping areas: 2WD dirt/gravel road, loop(s) with tent sites, trailhead(s) to climbing/hiking, but no running water or electricity. At least it seems like most climbers would be ok with that. (Thoughts here?)

Anyway, these two areas evidently aren't "suitable" for the FS. Seems that "suitable" for the USDA/FS usually means RV's, running water, power, etc.

Fred

Kirra,

It's my understanding that the Access Fund is very aware of Secretary Vilsack's opinion in that letter and is perhaps working on getting a better feel for the USDA's stance.

Hopefully during this process somebody in a position to do something will hear the message that the Oak Flat area comprises thousands of acres of easily accessible, climbable terrain on mostly federal property with thousands of already developed climbs lost . . . and the public's interest is best/better served by the government advocating to make sure that it gets preserved to the greatest possible amount and/or the public is similarly (and adequately) compensated.

Fred

Kirra/Fred-

I'm finishing up a letter to Secretary Vilsack regarding this, and also in the process of getting some others involved. Will keep you posted.

Hey there you all,

Fred, sounds like the USDA/FS is thinking of others...not just us climbers or campers that like to rough it. Maybe they are considering a bigger picture from what they see as a whole for camping. (KOA RV's) (I don't know, just trying to think out of the box.)

So, what I'd like to know is how can I help? I've got some time and am willing to do letters or whatever... Please lead me in a direction.

BTW I am curious. Didn't the AMC take a different stance on this recently? If so, why is Eric listed on the QCC. I am not meaning to be argumentative but it would seem a conflict of interest. Am I wrong on that?

Linda
602-570-6588
Willing to help

This ruling might be good news for all the groups who are trying to get the powers that be to do the NEPA (environmental) study on the proposed mine and it's technique BEFORE any land swap is done. We can hope anyway. Interesting that Western Land Group is involved in this swap as well, and hoping to appeal their way out of this ruling.

http://www.wnep.com/sns-ap-us-land-trade-suit,0,810464.story

Linda,

Yes, based on what the USDA/USFS has said, in their opinion/definition there is no satisfactory area for a replacement campground near Oak Flat/Superior, regardless of the level of services provided. So, nobody will get a replacement campground near Oak Flat and if they are forced to take money, they'll use it for maintenance of other campgrounds, etc., someplace else within the Tonto FS boundaries.

As to the Mountaineering club's stand and a conflict:

The qcc is a coalition of a diverse crowd and each member brings a different opinion to the table. It appears that the Arizona Mountaineering club's view is that there is a very good deal on the table with the mining company and they are primarily focusing their energy on that deal because it represents somewhat of a good thing in their opinion.

That their leadership brings this to the qcc meetings doesn't really seem like a conflict, it's just one point of view of about 9 or 10 others.

Many different views abound in the qcc, much like one finds in the general climbing community, so I'd say that there is good representation for the public in the group.

Regardless, over the last few years what seems truly important is for all of us interested in the OF area to understand that it's what is in writing (the boring black and white) that will really stand the test of time, not a sub-group's particular view of things. (Thus, pay attention to what is written in the guiding legislation/private deals, not what is promised or what somebody is trying to sell you on!)

At this point, based on the legislation as written, the administration's opinion that the climbing items in the bill are not judged to be in the public interest and should be removed or gutted, and the lack of a real agreement with the mining company, people in the climbing community should be concerned. Sure, I know it's been that way for 5 years, but if climbers don't stay diligent, then our interest will definitely not be served.

The qcc and the AF are doing what they can to bring this to the attention of those in control of things. Your individual efforts assist in this and are greatly appreciated.

Fred

Great info Fred. Sorry I missed the last QCC meeting. I'd like to emphasize that I am grateful for all your hard work.

Kirra, every time someone asks me what they can do to help I direct them to contact their legislators in any way they feel comfortable: phone, email or letter. I believe that our wording on point no. 8 may be misleading. Nobody is more concerned about people taking action than Erik and the rest of the QCC members. We're just not asking for pitchforks and torches yet. If we had enough climbers as interested and actively involved as you, we would definitely be further ahead in our attempt to be considered part of the "public interest". To that end, we need to follow your example and stand up to be heard.

I like Linda's "think outside the box" suggestion and we are open to all. Contacting us as individuals is great, sending an email via the website ( http://queencreekcoalition.com/ ) is just as good.

Marcy, thanks for showing a great interest in the workings of the QCC. Call me if you'd like to get my take on it. We have a lot to get done.

Linda (and everyone else who is actively supporting the QCC's efforts by writing)-

I think there's two things that can be done right away. First, I think it's important that individuals (in addition to the efforts of the QCC and AF) write to some of the key people mentioned above and indicate that climbing IS important to you, and as such the provisions in the bill for the climbing community should NOT be removed.

I am writing such a letter and intend to send it to Vilsack, McCain, Kyl, Wyden, and Kirkpatrick.

For those concerned about environmental issues, a second letter could be sent to some of these folks to highlight an excellent point Vilsack made - that the environmental impact assessment required by NEPA before any mining begins should take place BEFORE the land swap legislation should pass. As the legislation is currently written, this assessment would happen AFTER the land swap. Why would we give the land to the mining company before we know it's suitable to be mined? The legislation is written to expedite the swap - something that is important to the mining company, but not us.

Hey all of ya'all,

First, I'd like to apologize if I directed a slant view toward Eric. After some research, I now know that he does a lot regarding our movement and I was wrong in misinforming anything other then that...point taken. (Grateful to friends with the facts!) Thanks for all your work Eric, Fred, Manny, Greg, Marcy, Kirra, etc.

2nd I've sent in my letters a few weeks ago and while doing so realized since my new house purchase, 'I'm a Pinal County resident.' I think it may weigh more...or not...we'll see.


3rd GEIR, thanks for the awesome campsite instruction @ Mt Lemmon!!! Stellar!

o.k. that's my 2cents for today...

Linda