Route Guide - iPhone / Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New - School of Rock
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Queen Creek Recreational Use Licence Update
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 1 of 3.  1  2  3   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
By Dief
Jun 8, 2012

Summary of Recreational Use License

The parties to the Recreational Use License, Resolution Copper (RCM) and Queen Creek Coalition (QCC), have agreed to keep the License document itself proprietary. However, QCC is offering the following summary of the document and wishes to receive feedback on the general terms from interested members of the climbing community.

In overview, the Recreational Use License allows for rock climbing to continue on RCM’s private land and gives QCC a sum of money to develop additional rock climbing opportunities not in the area of mining activity.

In more specifics, the Recreational Use License does the following:

1. The License will allow for continued rock climbing on RCM’s private land, which includes The Pond and Atlantis. It will also expand what previously had been described as those climbing parcels.

2. The License will provide that the legal access to RCM’s private land for purposes of rock climbing will require anyone wishing to rock climb on RCM’s private property to register with QCC. This process still needs to be worked out but it is anticipated that it could be a simple one time thing for each individual or family. Climbers not registering will not have legal access and will not be covered by the Recreational Use License. They may be subject to liability for any damages that result from their use.

3. QCC will act as agent to educate the climbing community as to the acceptable and prohibited land uses on RCM’s private property covered by the License.

4. The License will cover climbing on Atlantis for an initial Term of Five years and will automatically be renewed for additional one-year terms, subject to additional conditions of the License.

5. The License will cover climbing at The Pond for an initial Term of Five years and will automatically be renewed for additional five-year terms, subject to additional conditions of the License.

6. Depending on what happens with the Land Exchange, the Recreational Use license will cover rock climbing at Oak Flat and the current access to Upper Devils for a time period of One-year with additional one year renewals.

7. QCC will not oppose closing of the areas accessed by Magma Mine Road if such areas are formally designated as an Active Mining Area prior to the Land Exchange becoming consummated.

8. QCC will maintain an agreed upon sum of Liability Insurance to cover the climbing activities on the Licensed parcels.

9. QCC will act as a conduit of information to the climbing community and will assist in any needed education, clean-up, etc.

10. RCM will give QCC a sum of money to be held in Trust for expressed purpose of QCC achieving its mission of maximizing rock climbing in the Queen Creek region and will be expressly linked to the development of climbing access and areas outside of the Mine Zone.

11. QCC will still receive the monetary compensation if the Land Exchange does not occur but RCM proceeds with a valid Mining Plan of Operations to produce ore.

12. QCC will assist RCM with Public Relations, including providing, from time to time, letters indicating the cooperative working relationship between QCC and RCM.

13. QCC will agree NOT to oppose any future mining plan of operations, environmental impact statement (or alternative formulation of environmental oversight) offered by RCM for a period of ten years.


FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Jun 8, 2012
Toofast

Deif and QCC,

Some months ago I resigned from the QCC, primarily because I felt that RCM was not dealing with climbers in good faith.

Because of this, although I consider many of the QCC to be friends, I will not support this agreement in any way.

Just one of many troubling spots for me is item 7; QCC now says it will not contest closure of areas along Magma Mine road (apparently before the land exchage). QCC promised the community in its January update that it would actively oppose any attempt by RCM to close public areas, including Magma Mine road. This complete reversal puts at risk multiple climbing areas such as Lower Devil's, Hackberry Creek, and the newly developed Refuge ... areas that were never supposed to be lost to begin with.

I have many more disagreements with the proposal but will not go into them at this time. Suffice it to say that as a climber, I am not planning to cooperate with any of it.


FLAG
By Dief
Jun 9, 2012

Geir - If the land exchange passes Magma Mine Rd will be relocated. If the land exchange does not pass and RCM mines their existing land they will most likey be able to close parts of Magma Mine Rd. Either way QCC will work to obtain alternate routes to the areas you mention at that time.


FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Jun 9, 2012
Toofast

Dief wrote:
Geir - If the land exchange passes Magma Mine Rd will be relocated. If the land exchange does not pass and RCM mines their existing land they will most likey be able to close parts of Magma Mine Rd. Either way QCC will work to obtain alternate routes to the areas you mention at that time.


Dief,

Thanks, I am glad QCC continues to share this concern. I have three problems with item 7: 1) RCM's intent to close public land prior to the land exchange, 2) that QCC will not oppose this as it said it would in January, and 3) RCM does not guarantee alternate access to Devil's Canyon whether or not the legislation passes.

These are just my concerns with item 7, all of which are dealbreakers. This post does not include any of my other issues with this proposal.

Again, I consider many of the QCC (including you) friends and don't want to make this about personal character attacks. That said, I will not support this proposal nor comply with any of its terms. I feel that RCM is not addressing the needs of climbers and is instead simply trying to brush us away.


FLAG
By manuel rangel
From Tempe, Arizona
Jun 9, 2012
Trying to redpoint The Ugly 11c; steeper than it looks and the rock is scary in spots but good enough.

Geir, I support your concern about reaching Lower Devils Canyon. Dief says there will be access. I'd like to see that in writing. I'd like to see anything in writing that RCM is supposedly promising.

Dief, appreciate the information. I don't suppose we can get more?


FLAG
By ClimbPHX.com
From Mesa AZ
Jun 9, 2012
Final Pitch on Birdland - 5.7 Red Rocks

Dief - My concern with this is again the shallow nature of this "contract" and the fact that they ask you to
"QCC will agree NOT to oppose any future mining plan of operations, environmental impact statement (or alternative formulation of environmental oversight) offered by RCM for a period of ten years."

what happens when they "change their minds" as they have done in years past?

And the bigger question, how is this all possible IF they plan on using Mining techniques as they have in the past that Obliterates the area and makes it unfit for a recreational area at all.
Do you sincerely want to climb above a pit that looks like Ajo?
Not riding you but as I have stated in the past ... this is not
enough - I know you have been working diligently to obtain SOMETHING out of all of this.. but this is so transparent.


FLAG
By ClimbPHX.com
From Mesa AZ
Jun 9, 2012
Final Pitch on Birdland - 5.7 Red Rocks

@ Kirra - Your personal opinions are not at issue here. We are here to educate the public on the issue at hand, and arm ourselves with the information necessary to find the BEST way to conserve our natural lands for future generations. We have all sat ideally by and listened to your insults and attacks and if no one else is going to say it I will. Your continued actions not only disrupt the train of concentration but also display us as an unorganized and petty group with past transgressions and dishonest business arrangements. Whether or not that was done in the past - that is the past. In say 10-15 years this fight will be passed off to my generation of climbers - and I for one don't feel we need the continued diatribe of Us Vs Them Vs What happened in the past. Let sleeping dogs lie.
This is not personal - This is Not constructive - and further I feel it is detrimental to the Voice that is becoming louder. Dief is doing SOMETHING to assist in this regard - Signing petitions is NOT going to bring this to a halt. He has a position that he can use and has further insight that most of us don't have. We all want to feel that we are in this and I support all of us being educated, informed and raising our voice in our fight to maintain the status of the land. But because he is doing SOMETHING as opposed to nothing does not give you the right to attack him.
If you dont have a constructive voice - then maybe a Colorado forum is more to your liking ...


FLAG
By Dief
Jun 10, 2012

Geir, Manny & Shilo
There are no guarantees. RCM owns much of the land we climb on or has rights to mine it – except the campground parcel. No matter what the final form the mine takes climbers will lose access to land they currently climb on. Some areas will be permanently lost and others will require new access routes. It is with this in mind that the QCC formed a “working relationship” with RCM. This puts us in the best position to mitigate any access issues as they arise. As part of this working relationship we have agreed not to oppose the mine. Others are free to pursue a different path but to date direct opposition to the mine has accomplished nothing.
A working relationship with the City of Scottsdale (the landowner) has kept climbing open in the McDowells as the city develops the McDowell Preserve. Climbers lost traditional parking areas and trails but we still have access. Some climbers opposed the new trailhead and got nowhere. I was accused of “selling out” climbers. Just because we have climbed and used an area doesn’t mean we have a right to continue doing so. I learned to climb at the Carefree Boulders almost 40 years ago. It was private property. The 1300 acres around the boulders is now a luxury resort and not open to the general public. Sad, yes, but private property is private property.


FLAG
By ClimbPHX.com
From Mesa AZ
Jun 10, 2012
Final Pitch on Birdland - 5.7 Red Rocks

As I have experienced working with the City of Scottsdale last weekend at the Clean Up - There is a way to assist even when it appears that industrialization is coming to an area. .. Is there going to be a restroom and a visitor's center at the McDowell's soon? - Yes. The days of me hanging out in the McDowelll's alone are gone - But it is inevitable and I feel proud that I have assisted over the last few years to ensure that we are included in the future of that area and it hasn't become a privatized sanctuary for the privileged landholder by involving myself with the area and giving back to maintain my interest as well as the interest of my fellow climbers.
We have fought LONG and HARD to try and obtain what we felt was right - in different ways - im a biology nerd so I started long ago with the intent of finding a medium that would allow us leverage to use to inform the Corporation and the Public that these lands were to be treasured. What I learned over the last 10+ years in this fight is that Private Land is simply that. You cannot force the hand that is not willing to bend. ... I applaud your sensibility and urge you to continue to implore the powers that be to remain vigilant - We seek to MINIMIZE the impact on the surface so that generations following have an area to treasure ... You know this - However the contract on the table DOES NOT ensure this... and that is a concern.
I would almost attempt to give Kirra a secondary thought - but her hatred is despicable in my opinion - and as far as I'm concerned we wont nothing on CLimbPHX that is connected with her thoughtless and consuming ignorance.. Your picture is history. Oh and the email address goes to my cell and is on the site. Thats how my friends reach me. Try using that next time you have something you want to say to me.


FLAG
By agd
Jun 10, 2012
alaska

While I'm not affected by this because I'm in California, I thought I would chime in. Have the parties considered an easement rather than a license? Licenses are generally revocable, regardless of what the writing is. An easement in gross for the benefit of QCC seems like it may be a better way for the climbers to ensure access.

Does QCC have a real estate attorney helping out?


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 10, 2012

Dief wrote:
Geir, Manny & Shilo There are no guarantees. RCM owns much of the land we climb on or has rights to mine it – except the campground parcel. No matter what the final form the mine takes climbers will lose access to land they currently climb on. Some areas will be permanently lost and others will require new access routes. It is with this in mind that the QCC formed a “working relationship” with RCM. This puts us in the best position to mitigate any access issues as they arise. As part of this working relationship we have agreed not to oppose the mine. Others are free to pursue a different path but to date direct opposition to the mine has accomplished nothing. A working relationship with the City of Scottsdale (the landowner) has kept climbing open in the McDowells as the city develops the McDowell Preserve. Climbers lost traditional parking areas and trails but we still have access. Some climbers opposed the new trailhead and got nowhere. I was accused of “selling out” climbers. Just because we have climbed and used an area doesn’t mean we have a right to continue doing so. I learned to climb at the Carefree Boulders almost 40 years ago. It was private property. The 1300 acres around the boulders is now a luxury resort and not open to the general public. Sad, yes, but private property is private property.


Paul,

Given that a person only has a summary of your company’s agreement with RCM it is rather unreasonable to ask a person for honest feedback. True and honest feedback is used to modify; your presentation appears to be a procalamation of what will be, not a negotiable proposal.

Additionally, you seem to gloss over some very important differences between your local land issue experience and the Oak Flat issue. Oak Flat is Federal land, not city or private. Insofar as you assert your group as speaking for a public community, your deal to be quiet potentially impacts the ability of this community to Rightfully address the Federal governement via the NEPA process because the RCM legislation appears to short-circuit this; and you are now tacitly endorsing that legislation.

Pertaining to the details of your agreeement: I have a copy of the prior agreement between the Town of Superior and RCM and the details are quite astonishing. In particular, certain Town Officials were restricted from how they could speak about RCM’s operations, how they could voice their opinion when addressing the public for instance, and how if they spoke ill of RCM that the money would not flow; it triggered a breach of the agreement. (By the way, when the public got wind of details in the agreement positive changes were made for the latest version from what I understand.)

Do you have similar restriction in your agreement? Are you restricted in how you can voice things? Do you see how, by putting your reputation as a community leader in the past out there as a reason to trust you, how the detailed contractual obligations might cause some community concern?

From the limited amount that you’ve put out there, from the details that evidently need to be “worked out yet,” to the unknown amount of cash that you have taken for increasingly vague promises for decreasing access; it just doesn’t add up. It's not too far to imagine that by "register[ing]" with your group to legally access RCM's land that our name will be added to an RCM advocacy list? The devil may be in the detailse here?

I appreciate your reputation, your historical support for local Scottsdale and Phoenix Parks issues but this issue isn’t about you, your reputation, nor a trust in you; it’s about the huge impact of a huge extractive process that to date has only grown in size.

That you promise to “NOT oppose” the unknown (#13) is rather unbelievable, truly astonishing. You and your group have no idea what RCM will propose yet you agree to endorse what they will do regardless of the impact on the community? It wasn't known until just recently for instance that RCM was making plans to possibly dump 12 square miles of waste right next to a dedicated Scenic Byway (US 60); you condone and endorse this, no questions asked?

To me, no amount of money is worth a person’s Voice to speak up for themselves in public matters, their concerns as it relates to society, nor for the future anticipated impacts, for coming generations of citizens. That you and your group appears to do so is very alarming.

It would be best to release your agreement to the public, let us see what you are promising. Only then, once we are informed about what you are truly up to can feedback be considered. Regardless, your private agreement is just that, your own private agreement. If you don't want us to see it, don't hang it out there, don't beg questions that you are unwilling to address or smooth over embarrassing and/or sensitive details with vague notions and appeals to your personal past struggles.


Fred


FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Jun 10, 2012
The loaf

Dief wrote:
Summary of Recreational Use License The parties to the Recreational Use License, Resolution Copper (RCM) and Queen Creek Coalition (QCC), have agreed to keep the License document itself proprietary. However, QCC is offering the following summary of the document and wishes to receive feedback on the general terms from interested members of the climbing community. In overview, the Recreational Use License allows for rock climbing to continue on RCM’s private land and gives QCC a sum of money to develop additional rock climbing opportunities not in the area of mining activity. In more specifics, the Recreational Use License does the following: 1. The License will allow for continued rock climbing on RCM’s private land, which includes The Pond and Atlantis. It will also expand what previously had been described as those climbing parcels. 2. The License will provide that the legal access to RCM’s private land for purposes of rock climbing will require anyone wishing to rock climb on RCM’s private property to register with QCC. This process still needs to be worked out but it is anticipated that it could be a simple one time thing for each individual or family. Climbers not registering will not have legal access and will not be covered by the Recreational Use License. They may be subject to liability for any damages that result from their use. 3. QCC will act as agent to educate the climbing community as to the acceptable and prohibited land uses on RCM’s private property covered by the License. 4. The License will cover climbing on Atlantis for an initial Term of Five years and will automatically be renewed for additional one-year terms, subject to additional conditions of the License. 5. The License will cover climbing at The Pond for an initial Term of Five years and will automatically be renewed for additional five-year terms, subject to additional conditions of the License. 6. Depending on what happens with the Land Exchange, the Recreational Use license will cover rock climbing at Oak Flat and the current access to Upper Devils for a time period of One-year with additional one year renewals. 7. QCC will not oppose closing of the areas accessed by Magma Mine Road if such areas are formally designated as an Active Mining Area prior to the Land Exchange becoming consummated. 8. QCC will maintain an agreed upon sum of Liability Insurance to cover the climbing activities on the Licensed parcels. 9. QCC will act as a conduit of information to the climbing community and will assist in any needed education, clean-up, etc. 10. RCM will give QCC a sum of money to be held in Trust for expressed purpose of QCC achieving its mission of maximizing rock climbing in the Queen Creek region and will be expressly linked to the development of climbing access and areas outside of the Mine Zone. 11. QCC will still receive the monetary compensation if the Land Exchange does not occur but RCM proceeds with a valid Mining Plan of Operations to produce ore. 12. QCC will assist RCM with Public Relations, including providing, from time to time, letters indicating the cooperative working relationship between QCC and RCM. 13. QCC will agree NOT to oppose any future mining plan of operations, environmental impact statement (or alternative formulation of environmental oversight) offered by RCM for a period of ten years.



Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions.

There were some valuable lessons learned by some who ignored environmental policy at their own peril. Many moral dilemmas are dilemmas because of a certain kind of conflict between the rightness or wrongness of the actions and the goodness or badness of the consequences of the actions.

Many thoughts come to mind, the moral conflicts that exist in the late hour between one’s constitution and ego.
One must reconcile the dilemma that is created by acting against one’s moral constitution.
To go to sleep with a clear conscience is one of reward of honoring that constitution and to awaken to greet the community of one’s passion that one is in alignment with is even greater.


FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Jun 10, 2012
The loaf

Dief wrote:
Others are free to pursue a different path but to date direct opposition to the mine has accomplished nothing.


Paul,

In fact, direct opposition to the mine has thus far resulted in no mine.


FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Jun 10, 2012
Toofast

Dief wrote:
Geir, Manny & Shilo There are no guarantees. RCM owns much of the land we climb on or has rights to mine it – except the campground parcel. No matter what the final form the mine takes climbers will lose access to land they currently climb on. Some areas will be permanently lost and others will require new access routes. It is with this in mind that the QCC formed a “working relationship” with RCM. This puts us in the best position to mitigate any access issues as they arise. As part of this working relationship we have agreed not to oppose the mine.


I feel this is not a working relationship. This is coercive relationship in which RCM is calling all the shots. Why else would the agreement have to remain proprietary? Why else would QCC not contest closure of public land as it committed to in January?? Why else would the offers from RCM be whittled away to some cash and no guarantees???

Sorry Dief, I know you guys are doing what you can with a difficult situation, but I can't go along with this.

I think a little civil disobedience is in order.


FLAG
By Dief
Jun 11, 2012

Alex, Easements were discussed over the years but in the end RCM did not want to encumber their land.

Geir, yes, RCM is calling all the shots - they own the land. They have made an effort to work with us. All we can do is ask - we are in no position to demand anything. This is the economic reality of the situation.

The main reason the landswap didn't pass years ago was the Renzi fiasco followed by a change in congress. With the steady progress of the bill thru congress and the activity that is happening on the ground one can conclude the mine is happening.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 11, 2012

Geir wrote:
I think a little civil disobedience is in order.


The Access Fund and The Concerned Climbers of Arizona, while not committing acts of civil disobedience, are aligned in their opposition to the land exchange.

It is my understanding that regardless of whether a few individuals decide to extract some cash for their personal support of RCM's proposal that the opposition from the AF and CCA will prevail and stay steadfast.

If I am incorrect then I would hope that both groups would step in and correct me. I'm still trying to figure out what part of accepting cash in exchange for their voice and carte blanche support of whatever RCM decides to do/say/etc. for the next 10 years is not "selling out?"

As to civil disobedience, I think Kirra is kind of doing that sort of thing in the modern web way. You may not like it, but it certainly has a certain edge to it and it's somewhat effective in the classic Shakespearean Joker way.

Just my view,

Fred


FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Jun 11, 2012
The loaf

Dief wrote:
they own the land. They have made an effort to work with us.


This is mis-informing to the public. Last the public knew, negotiations had failed.


The Renzi ordeal was 2007/2008.
The land swap currently has still not passed because there is clear opposition to the deal. (Last hearing.)

The land owned by RCM is the Pond/Atlantis area and shaft #9 on top of the hill up past Looner Land parking. Some of the other rigs are on property owned by others. They (RCM) do NOT own the land under discussion (involving the exchange) is federally owned National Forest Service Land.

Anyone is welcome to look at the map. I'll bring it to the CCA meeting that is open to the public on Wed night 6/13. 630pm Boulders in Tempe

Everyone has a choice, do not give up your voice without clear education on this land swap.

Linda


FLAG
By agd
Jun 11, 2012
alaska

No wonder you guys can't agree on the best way to resolve this -- you guys are in disagreement about who actually owns the land!


FLAG
By manuel rangel
From Tempe, Arizona
Jun 11, 2012
Trying to redpoint The Ugly 11c; steeper than it looks and the rock is scary in spots but good enough.

Alexdavis, there is no disagreement over who owns Oak Flat. We, the people of the USA, own the land. RCM owns other parcels that are popular climbing areas near Oak Flat. The basic disagreement between QCC and CCA is whether to support RCM's mining plan or not.

CCA opposes the legislative land swap on the basis that RCM plans to leave a huge hole where we now enjoy land set aside for all of us to enjoy. Then they will take the huge pile of earth and set it down near Florence Junction for all to inhale and gaze at as they drive east of Phoenix.

QCC has thrown in the towel and accepted that the land will be destroyed. Simple.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 11, 2012

Dief wrote:
Others are free to pursue a different path but to date direct opposition to the mine has accomplished nothing.


alexdavis wrote:
No wonder you guys can't agree on the best way to resolve this -- you guys are in disagreement about who actually owns the land!


(Alex: Please understand that RCM is extremely well funded and has considerable human resources on its side at all levels of government and in the various communities. Their corporate strategy manifests itself as divide-and-conquer; like any human group the climbing community is susceptible to such corporate intervention. IOW, we're all human and never underestimate RCM's ability to insert, spin, and "negotiate" to their advantage)

Paul,

You and your group are confounding things either consciously as a form of manipulation or simply because you are not taking care to accurately portray the facts.

Firstly, the issue is not about a mine; it's about the loss of protected and designated recreational lands and surrounding US Forest lands that provide one of the closest areas to the Phoenix Metro area for such diverse activities as climbing, hiking, camping, biking, RV'ing, off-roading, horseback riding, worshipping (Native Americans), etc.

Unlike you and your group, the Concerned Climbers of Arizona and the Access Fund have remained steadfast and advocate for a rational compromise that permits responsible mining in conjunction with careful consideration for our public lands from what I understand.

Secondly, you have personally been responsible for the successful delay and opposition to the land exchange until your change of heart and adamant demand for a deal with RCM and a cessation of petitioning Congress on behalf of the climbing public in mid-2010. I was there, I heard it, I heard you make the motion, I had to withstand the vote and the ensuing frivolous lawsuit you instigated over group details as you'll recall.

Up until you colluded with five other members of the then Community- Based, unincorporated QCC and forced the departure of broad-based, diverse respected community members including guide book authors, a local gym owner, and route developers, you added your voice in union to the opposition of the legislation. You flip-flopped in 2010, adding new more malleable and like-minded members to your now-privatized corporate group, creating a single-minded, monolithic clique considerably dominated by Arizona Mountaineering Club members; meeting in secret, making occasional proclamations, and pursuing a single goal; make a deal with RCM while ceasing to represent any oppostion to the legislation to Congress.

To me, you fell victim to the hypnotic, well-financed swagger of RCM; their strategy is well-known and quite effective; split the opposition, create confusion, force a silence out of chaos.

Your actions created a rift and perplexed the national climbing advocates; our Community Voice to Congress momentarily fell silent and allowed for the political opportunists to make hay. In Congressional Hearings the recreational losses weren’t even mentioned as had been previously; the land exchange made progress in the House but, due in large part to the hard work of those who remain opposed and contrary to your assertion, has stalled in the Senate.

Since your hostile takeover and privatization of the Community-Based QCC in 2010 you and your group have had continued internal strife. More of the broad based community members have left (Marty, Geir) and another, probably the most ardent and strident supporter of your strategy, the then-Chair of QCC, Inc., Rick Cecala, left out of disgust over continued internal meddling by fellow member(s) just recently, or so I've heard.

Worse yet, your group flip-flopped last year and proclaimed that you were done trying to make a deal; you opposed the exchange legislation; a new regime at RCM was needed. That must have been so frustrating to change course . . . again.

Meanwhile, after much work talking to Congress and to the Access Fund, the Concerned Climbers and other unaligned passionate individuals, along with many other true stakeholders throughout the US, have continued to be steadfast in the opposition to this legislation which will destroy the climbing and so much more of Public Interest at Oak Flat.

Now, with no regime change at RCM as you had demanded, in another about-face you and your group haven’t just agreed to be quiet but are actually now on the payroll so-to-speak to do the bidding of RCM in its plans to destroy the venerated public lands.

You go too far, I think you protest too much about the opposition and in the end you are just plain factually wrong as history clearly shows.

Fred


FLAG
By Red
From Arizona
Jun 11, 2012
Cobra Kai

Will someone from the QCC please explain this sudden change in stance:

January 16, 2012
"Queen Creek Coalition is and likely will remain opposed to Resolution's proposed land exchange. Further, Queen Creek Coalition will actively oppose any attempt by Resolution to close climbing areas located on public land or to close public roads by which climbing areas are accessed."

Source: theqcc.org

Thank you,

Luke Anaya


FLAG
By David Arthur Sampson
Jun 11, 2012
Slap/Tickle

Well, much has been said but what has been done? I must formally state that QCC does not speak for me. While I thank Dief for posting the contents of that document, I cannot agree with it. Item # 7 and #13 are especially egregious. And, it should bother most climbers that QCC has been paid for their position.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 11, 2012

David Arthur Sampson wrote:
posting the contents of that document, I cannot agree with it. Item # 7 and #13 are especially egregious. And, it should bother most climbers that QCC has been paid for their position.


David,

Did somebody post the actual agreement document somewhere? I was hoping to see the complete text so that I could understand what has really been agreed to. My understanding was that only a heavily edited summary had been allowed to be released?

If there's a link to the doc can you post it up?

Thank you,

Fred


FLAG
By Morgan Patterson
Administrator
Jun 11, 2012
Stoked...

David Arthur Sampson wrote:
QCC has been paid for their position.


Do these guys at the QCC have no shame?


FLAG
By Red
From Arizona
Jun 11, 2012
Cobra Kai

Dief wrote:
Summary of Recreational Use License The parties to the Recreational Use License, Resolution Copper (RCM) and Queen Creek Coalition (QCC), have agreed to keep the License document itself proprietary. However, QCC is offering the following summary of the document and wishes to receive feedback on the general terms from interested members of the climbing community.

A lot to stomach below! I don't like it and oppose it.
Additionally, I personally oppose any land swap before NEPA. I have this stance for the environmental impacts that have not been properly addressed. I also have this stance because RCM has politicians on all levels believing that "climbers have been taken care of". Climbers have NOT been taken care of.

Dief wrote:
In overview, the Recreational Use License allows for rock climbing to continue on RCM’s private land and gives QCC a sum of money to develop additional rock climbing opportunities not in the area of mining activity. In more specifics, the Recreational Use License does the following: 1. The License will allow for continued rock climbing on RCM’s private land, which includes The Pond and Atlantis. It will also expand what previously had been described as those climbing parcels. 2. The License will provide that the legal access to RCM’s private land for purposes of rock climbing will require anyone wishing to rock climb on RCM’s private property to register with QCC. This process still needs to be worked out but it is anticipated that it could be a simple one time thing for each individual or family. Climbers not registering will not have legal access and will not be covered by the Recreational Use License. They may be subject to liability for any damages that result from their use.

How do you expect people to sign something if they don't know what they're signing? Will you post the license in its entirety? How will this be enforced? What about all the Superior locals that climb the rebar ladder to hang out at the pond? What about all the other user groups? Who will educate all the non-climbers of this new license?


Dief wrote:
3. QCC will act as agent to educate the climbing community as to the acceptable and prohibited land uses on RCM’s private property covered by the License.

What is your plan to accomplish this? The majority of the climbing community does not look at MP, nor does it even know the QCC exists.

Dief wrote:
4. The License will cover climbing on Atlantis for an initial Term of Five years and will automatically be renewed for additional one-year terms, subject to additional conditions of the License. 5. The License will cover climbing at The Pond for an initial Term of Five years and will automatically be renewed for additional five-year terms, subject to additional conditions of the License. 6. Depending on what happens with the Land Exchange, the Recreational Use license will cover rock climbing at Oak Flat and the current access to Upper Devils for a time period of One-year with additional one year renewals.

Does this imply that access to Oak Flat and Upper Devils could be gone in as short as one year. What about the rest? Lower Devils, Mine Area, Euro Dog, etc.?

Dief wrote:
7. QCC will not oppose closing of the areas accessed by Magma Mine Road if such areas are formally designated as an Active Mining Area prior to the Land Exchange becoming consummated.

This sure sounds like a "white flag" from QCC!

Dief wrote:
8. QCC will maintain an agreed upon sum of Liability Insurance to cover the climbing activities on the Licensed parcels. 9. QCC will act as a conduit of information to the climbing community and will assist in any needed education, clean-up, etc. 10. RCM will give QCC a sum of money to be held in Trust for expressed purpose of QCC achieving its mission of maximizing rock climbing in the Queen Creek region and will be expressly linked to the development of climbing access and areas outside of the Mine Zone.


That sounds super sticky!!! Who will have the ultimate say how this money will be used? How much money exactly?

Dief wrote:
11. QCC will still receive the monetary compensation if the Land Exchange does not occur but RCM proceeds with a valid Mining Plan of Operations to produce ore. 12. QCC will assist RCM with Public Relations, including providing, from time to time, letters indicating the cooperative working relationship between QCC and RCM.

This is why politicians will continue to believe that climbers have been properly compensated. How much money are they waving in "our, (climbers)" faces?

Dief wrote:
13. QCC will agree NOT to oppose any future mining plan of operations, environmental impact statement (or alternative formulation of environmental oversight) offered by RCM for a period of ten years.

This sure sounds like a "white flag" from QCC!

Why is the QCC acting as the sole representative of all climbers?

Thanks for asking for community feedback, especially since you are representing all of us! I don't recall the QCC asking for feedback over the last couple of years. Please continue to keep the climbing community involved with decisions being made for "climbers". I look forward to seeing your response to my feedback!


FLAG
By David Arthur Sampson
Jun 11, 2012
Slap/Tickle

Fred AmRhein wrote:
David, Did somebody post the actual agreement document somewhere? I was hoping to see the complete text so that I could understand what has really been agreed to. My understanding was that only a heavily edited summary had been allowed to be released? If there's a link to the doc can you post it up? Thank you, Fred


Hey Fred;
No, I was simply referring to the post. Sorry for the confusion.
D


FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 1 of 3.  1  2  3   Next>   Last>>