|
henri
Jun 8, 2005, 10:51 PM
Post #351 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 8, 2005
Posts: 1
|
Turtle wrote: "Also, John Sherman is very qualified to represent us in this situation, sorry if you felt left out."
Representatives must have the authorization of the represented, and Sherman has no such authority.
Moreover, Representatives don't get paid by the other side to "negotiate" with them.
|
|
|
|
|
theturtle
Jun 8, 2005, 11:50 PM
Post #352 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 122
|
In reply to: Representatives must have the authorization of the represented, and Sherman has no such authority. Moreover, Representatives don't get paid by the other side to "negotiate" with them.
Actually, in this case, you're totally wrong, it's not a "democratic" process at this level.
John was hired to represent climbers, not to "negotiate." Believe me, he is a "climber" first, it is his way of life and he does not take the position lightly.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jun 9, 2005, 12:02 AM
Post #353 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Chris-thanks for keeping it civil. I know both Jim & John and feel that they think they are doing the right thing. I also know Curt and feel that he is doing the right thing. Name-calling and insults will only lead to hard feeling no matter what happens. I rather take the high road on this cause. I bouldering at Oak Flat for a day and thought is was a great area with some excellent problems.
I don't know all of the politics of the area or the riff between the different fractions. From an outsider who would love to return and boulder there I would like the area to be open for climbers and other people to recreate.
Climbers for the longest time have fought amongst each others while other users group stand united for their common cause. That is why we are almost alway on the short end of the stick.
Hope all is well and take care, Bob
|
|
|
|
|
steezy
Jun 21, 2005, 4:49 AM
Post #354 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2005
Posts: 92
|
F*ck George Bush, what an as*hole. I love queen creek and want to be able to climb there forever. If they mine it, the boulders will get sunk in and ruined. How horrible. I love the PBC. I want to camp at Queen Creek when I am 60. God danm AZ politics. Arizona's legislature is right out of the wild west. Land of Many Uses is Arizona. Bunch of conservative right wing gun toting cowboys in the capitol building. Big box stores and urban sprawl every six feet. Look at the Phoenix Valley. Look at Yavapai County. AZ's legislature is dominated by right wing special interest lobbying groups. The queen creek closure is one of the saddest things I can think of. It makes me want to cry. Please do all you can people.
|
|
|
|
|
dief
Jun 22, 2005, 6:41 AM
Post #355 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 91
|
Hello Friends of Queen Creek,
Please read the following plea.
Write and mail your letters today!
or.....
Bring (or send) them to the Kill the Bill Rally to be held at the Phoenix Rock Gym on June 26th at 7pm for a chance to win cool prizes. You need not be present to win so make sure your name and return address are on your letters.
Oak Flat, Arizona Land Exchange Bills Introduced
A Few Minutes of Your Time Could Save Oak Flat.
On May 25, 2005, Arizona's Senator Kyl and Congressman Renzi introduced identical land exchange bills into Congress moving Resolution Copper Company (RCC) one step closer to destroying the publicly-owned Oak Flat area East of Phoenix resulting in the single largest loss of climbing ever.
These bills value the profits of a foreign mining company and discount a more responsible approach to environmental, as well as the recreational and health concerns of Arizonans and the many others who recreate at Oak Flat. Despite many promises of compromise these bills will allow RCC to push ahead with the destruction of Oak Flat and surrounding areas if they are passed without revision.
Don't wait for Oak Flat to be destroyed to voice your opposition. A loss of climbing in Arizona is a loss of climbing no matter where you live.
Your voice WILL make a difference and must be heard to stop these dangerous precedent-setting bills from passing unamended.
There is a blank "placeholder" provision in the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005 (SECTION 8(b)(4)) meant to address the preservation and replacement of climbing resources. Call Congress and tell them that provision must provide for the protection of climbing resources. Deficiencies concerning the lack of a recreational easement and omission of discussion of federally-protected land in these bills make it clear that compromise will only come by applying pressure to our elected officials.
Find Senate version S. 1122 here
Find House version H.R. 2618 here
Deficiencies and omissions in the bills:
There is no language maintaining any public access to the Oak Flat area.
The bills fail to specifically identify any "replacement" climbing areas.
The bills only direct the US Department of Agriculture to identify and develop alternate climbing sites on public land . Anyone could at anytime develop these public areas.
Despite much discussion and promises from RCC, the bills fail to require RCC to provide any "replacement" climbing areas. Nonetheless, RCC has hired climbers to develop as-yet unidentified replacement climbing sites without any climbing community input.
The land exchange bills provide no acknowledgement that Oak Flat has been federally protected from mining for over 50 years by executive order. This order - PLO 1229 - is still as valid today as it was in 1955. Oversight of this fact shows that the profits of a foreign mining company (RCC) outweigh recreation loss, environmental impact, and community interest.
The bills were drafted through a closed process showing disregard for the public interest.
There is no statement of water resource use, acquisition or disposal for the proposed mine at Oak Flat.
No discussion of the enormous environmental and recreational loss, mountains of mining tailings, and associated pollution caused by this mine.
The bills fail to require any environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act which could consider the long-term implications of this massive proposed mine.
NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.
There is still time to make a difference. Over the next several weeks Congress needs to be convinced to specifically address this enormous loss to the climbing community, the environment, and other recreational users.
Let your elected officials know that the loss to the environment and the community will be the legacy of all politicians that vote for this version of these bills.
Write US Senator Kyl (R-AZ), US Representative Rick Renzi (R-AZ), and your Congressional representatives today ( to find yours click here ) and urge them to require Resolution Copper Company (RCC) to work with the Access Fund and Friends of Queen Creek to mitigate the loss of the unique public recreational resource at Oak Flat. For talking points addressing the bills' many problems, a Congressional letter-writing template, and the addresses of your US Senators and Representatives, click here . Make sure to reference the bill number (S. 1122 for Senate communications and H.R. 2618 for the House) and emphasize the following points for insertion into the blank placeholder
The land exchange bill must include language that conserves climbing opportunities at Oak Flat and environs; and
The land exchange bill must specifically identify any replacement climbing areas.
The Access Fund and Friends of Queen Creek have consistently pushed for responsible mining techniques at Oak Flat that will allow RCC to make a profit while still maintaining some public access to Oak Flat and environs.
Help make the case to Congress and write them today - you won't get another chance to help Arizona climbers conserve central Arizona's most extensive climbing area.
For more information contact the Access Fund's Policy Director Jason Keith at jason@accessfund.org
If the above links do not work, copy and paste below URLs:
Senate version S. 1122: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ query/z?c109:S.1122:
House version H.R. 2618: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2618:
http://thomas.loc.gov/ and enter S. 1122 for Senate bill and H.R. 2618 for House bill in Search window
Letter writing template and talking points: http://accessfund.org/ display/page/AA/5
Congressional addresses: http:// www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/?lvl=L
Access Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
email: af-enews@accessfund.org
phone: 303-545-6772
web: http://www.accessfund.org
|
|
|
|
|
okielady
Jun 23, 2005, 10:27 AM
Post #356 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2004
Posts: 11
|
Please do post the addresses to which we may write about this seizure of Queen Creek/Oak Flat AZ areas. I live in Oklahoma, retired school teacher, have climbed in that area for over 15 years with Rich and Marty. The Devils Canyon, both upper and lower have beautiful quality rock. (What's with the guy who says it doesn't?) It is my understanding that all of this will become closed. Apache Leap is one of Ax's outstanding places. Why aren't the Indian's raising Cain about possible desecration of this area? Seems they have lots of political clout when it comes to preserving their special places. Seems that EXECUTIVE ORDER is just meaningless. Wonder what in the USA isn't for sale??? I would like for my new Great Grandson to someday be able to enjoy the diversity of our land. I had a student tell me a few years ago that the USA was becoming like England of the days of Robin Hood. Those with $$$ could do anything, the regular person was going to become a peasant just working to make the rich richer. I told him the government was of the people by the people and for the people. His reply to me was "Only the people with money" Sad comment from a 17 year old. I wonder if he is going to end up being right. I will gladly write a lot of letters protesting the setting aside of the EXECUTIVE ORDER which was intended to preserve this area for public use.
|
|
|
|
|
pheenixx
Jul 5, 2005, 2:38 PM
Post #357 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2004
Posts: 478
|
In reply to: Please do post the addresses to which we may write about this seizure of Queen Creek/Oak Flat AZ areas. I live in Oklahoma, ....
Here is the info. for your local rep that will be on the committee reviewing this bill. Thanks so much for your support...! :lol:
OKLAHOMA RESIDENTS – write ans/or fax to:
The Honorable Dan Boren
United States House of Representatives
431 West Broadway, Muskogee, OK. 74401
OK. fax: (918) 686-0128 – DC. fax: (202) 225-3038
Email: http://www.house.gov/boren/contact.html
Please remember/note that it would be best due to the URGENCY of this matter that you should write to your local address and fax to DC. (mail is delayed due to security screening in Washington, DC)
|
|
|
|
|
theturtle
Jul 5, 2005, 6:27 PM
Post #358 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 122
|
In reply to: The Devils Canyon, both upper and lower have beautiful quality rock. It is my understanding that all of this will become closed. Apache Leap is one of Ax's outstanding places.
Most of Devil's Canyon is unaffected by the proposed Land Exchange, as is Apache Leap.
|
|
|
|
|
climblouisiana
Jul 5, 2005, 7:45 PM
Post #359 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 506
|
Access to Devil's Canyon will be affected by the road ownership.
Apache Leap is a part of the "Conservation Easement". It is up to RCC and the US Government to provide "appropriate nonmotorized access to and use of" the easement area and to "determine whether it is desirable to provide additional public access" to the easement area. RCC "shall not be held liable for any damage" or "failure of any tunnel or other underground mining works" established on or before the date of conveyance.
It is unlikely that the scenario below ever comes to fruition.
Apache Leap and access to surrounding areas will be closed to protect the public from mine shafts (not installed by RCC) under or in close proximity to the easement area.-by order of the US Governement and your favorite foreign owned mining company, http://www.resolutioncopper.com/images/common/logo.gif.
|
|
|
|
|
chimein
Jul 5, 2005, 8:57 PM
Post #360 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2005
Posts: 1
|
Count me In.
I work for an environmental consulting firm and may be able to provide some beta on such things as the environmental regs.
|
|
|
|
|
gecko4
Jul 12, 2005, 11:53 PM
Post #361 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 23
|
I spoke to a climber who visited the Mine Area at the end of the Oak Flat road to climb the other day and he encountered "Private Property, No Trespassing" signs along the road on both sides near the usual parking area.
It has been known for a long time (see US Forest maps) that there are many parcels of private land near these climbing areas, but there has never been any posting of private property that I know of in this area. Does anybody know who posted these and when?
According to the most recent maps that I can find, much of Lower Looner land and the Magma Gardens lie on US Forest Service land. While there are relatively new mine claim markers in the area, I have not found any land transfers to a private entity on record.
Does anybody know the precise current disposition of these areas? (i.e., public or private?)
I suppose we simply need to know the exact location of the public's property lines and then just duck between the barbed wire along the road?
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 24, 2005, 3:43 AM
Post #362 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
The latest issue of Climbing magazine is out, complete with side-by-side essays by John Sherman and myself on the topic of Oak Flat and the proposed land exchange. Obviously, our perspectives are somewhat different. Those interested may want to have a look.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jul 26, 2005, 7:59 AM
Post #363 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
Yes, please read what Sherman has to say about your new State Park. It is a great area with great rock and hundreds of potential routes. It will have a new road and new campground and be managed for climbing. Sure it isn't a replica of Oak Flat (many climbers will think it is a better area) but it's a whole lot better than nothing. There may be more too. Sherman and the rest of us worked very hard to identify and acquire the best "alternative area" to mitigate the loss of Oak Flat and were successful in pulling it off. Besides the tremendous effort on the ground there were even more political and financial difficulties that had to be overcome to get to this point. Sherman deserves a big thank you rather than an article questioning his motives.
That’s right once again, curt suggests that we were, "Bought and Paid For" in the title and body of his article. Why?
In case you don't get it curt, that is an insult to HONEST people.
Well curt was right about one thing, RCC bought and paid for a climbing area that is going to be developed into a State Park for climbers. While the AF had their heads in the sand and refused to even consider other options we were looking at the big picture and doing something positive. The AF wouldn't even visit the new area because, as they said, they are only interested in access to existing areas! WTF? While curt claims the AF was getting place holder language in the land exchange bill we were already developing the area to be put there. We were told in a meeting last fall how it would be included in the bill. Scooped on that one too eh?
Our position has always been that we don't want to lose Oak Flat, but since that is extremely likely we should pursue all options and be sure that if/when it is lost we get something in return. Well, we got something. Something the AF should have been considering all along.
Now that the deal is done read the articles and compare the FACTS Sherman presents to the scare tactics the AF and curt have been telling you and answer this question.
Who's looking out for you?
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jul 26, 2005, 4:06 PM
Post #364 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Stickbow -- who are you? Why hide behind the veil of anonymity? Curt, the Access Fund, FoQC, John Sherman, Jim Waugh, and many others have been working dilligently for many months to attain the greatest good for the climbing community in the face of this problem. Not all of them have been pulling in the same direction, but your divisive commentary and slamming of Curt is a great example of how we, the climbing community, should NOT be handling the situation.
The only goal Curt and others working with FoQC have had from the out set was to try to convince RCC to mine the area responsibly and in a way that would preserve the recreation area. I realize that you and others have given up on the possibility that this could happen, but not everyone has and it would be nice if people like you would stop kicking sand in the face of those who are still trying to convince the mining company to not permanently ruin a valuable recreational resource for the climbing community.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
areyoumydude
Jul 26, 2005, 4:08 PM
Post #365 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 1971
|
Cheers to John and all you guys that got sh*t done. John showed me the pics to that place and it looks great.
To bad the Accsess Fraud spent more time trying to slander John than get something for the land exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 26, 2005, 4:11 PM
Post #366 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: Sherman and the rest of us worked very hard to identify and acquire the best "alternative area" to mitigate the loss of Oak Flat and were successful in pulling it off.
Well, I'd say that's pretty subjective. But I like to congratulate myself all the time too. :P
Was this new climbing area already public land, or was it purchased by RCC for the state? It is still shrouded in mystery...
|
|
|
|
|
areyoumydude
Jul 26, 2005, 4:24 PM
Post #367 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 1971
|
In reply to: The only goal Curt and others working with FoQC have had from the out set was to try to convince RCC to mine the area responsibly and in a way that would preserve the recreation area. Ed
They and the AF have been smearing John Shermans name. He's been called a sellout by some troll that has never posted again. Hmm, who was behind that? The FoQc? The AF?
John invited the AF to see the new area and they refused. WTF
I wish Foqc sucsess in their fight. If you don't win at least John has secured an area that has quality routes and plenty of room for more.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 26, 2005, 5:04 PM
Post #368 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Yes, please read what Sherman has to say about your new State Park. It is a great area with great rock and hundreds of potential routes. It will have a new road and new campground and be managed for climbing. Sure it isn't a replica of Oak Flat (many climbers will think it is a better area) but it's a whole lot better than nothing. There may be more too. Sherman and the rest of us worked very hard to identify and acquire the best "alternative area" to mitigate the loss of Oak Flat and were successful in pulling it off. Besides the tremendous effort on the ground there were even more political and financial difficulties that had to be overcome to get to this point. Sherman deserves a big thank you rather than an article questioning his motives. That’s right once again, curt suggests that we were, "Bought and Paid For" in the title and body of his article. Why? In case you don't get it curt, that is an insult to HONEST people.
Pointing out that you guys are on the payroll of Resolution Copper Company is merely a statement of fact. If you feel it is an insult, perhaps you aren't really all that proud of your actions. It should be clear that Resolution's ability to suggest there are other adequate climbing areas nearby Oak Flat helps them enormously in their desire to exclude climbers from Oak Flat. Congratulations, you guys should really pat yourselves on the back.
In reply to: Well curt was right about one thing, RCC bought and paid for a climbing area that is going to be developed into a State Park for climbers.
Another outright lie. As of today, RCC has not purchased one square inch of land for climbers to use. Of course, that's just another pesky fact you chose to ignore.
In reply to: While the AF had their heads in the sand and refused to even consider other options we were looking at the big picture and doing something positive. The AF wouldn't even visit the new area because, as they said, they are only interested in access to existing areas! WTF? While curt claims the AF was getting place holder language in the land exchange bill we were already developing the area to be put there. We were told in a meeting last fall how it would be included in the bill. Scooped on that one too eh?
Then why today, almost a year later, is there absolutely nothing in the land exchange bill(s) about this area? I can tell you one good reason--the area you are developing is already on public land. What a joke. You pretend like RCC has "bought" or gotten something for climbers, when in reality we all already have the right to climb in this area. Nice try. The only thing you have accomplished is giving RCC valuable PR to use against the climbing community. Pat yourselves on the back once more.
In reply to: Our position has always been that we don't want to lose Oak Flat, but since that is extremely likely we should pursue all options and be sure that if/when it is lost we get something in return. Well, we got something. Something the AF should have been considering all along. Now that the deal is done read the articles and compare the FACTS Sherman presents to the scare tactics the AF and curt have been telling you and answer this question. Who's looking out for you?
Yes, please read both essays and then decide who is actually working for the climbing community and who is working for Resolution Copper Company.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 26, 2005, 5:12 PM
Post #369 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Sherman and the rest of us worked very hard to identify and acquire the best "alternative area" to mitigate the loss of Oak Flat and were successful in pulling it off. Was this new climbing area already public land, or was it purchased by RCC for the state? It is still shrouded in mystery...
It is on National Forest Service land and BLM land; in other words, already owned by the public--and legal to climb on today. Supposedly there is a single (approx. 160 acre, I'm told) in-holding of private land that RCC is trying to purchase. Actions speak louder than words, however, and as of today they have not purchased the private parcel.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Jul 26, 2005, 5:32 PM
Post #370 of 619
(69195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Curt - do you know where the parcel of BLM land is? I'd love to go check it out and see what the "alternative" looks like.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jul 26, 2005, 7:16 PM
Post #371 of 619
(69150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
In reply to: In reply to: The only goal Curt and others working with FoQC have had from the out set was to try to convince RCC to mine the area responsibly and in a way that would preserve the recreation area. Ed They and the AF have been smearing John Shermans name. He's been called a sellout by some troll that has never posted again. Hmm, who was behind that? The FoQc? The AF?
Who has been "smearing" John's name? There are people on both sides who have gotten into name calling, but to the best of my knowledge Curt has never called John a sell out. Curt has stuck to presenting the facts. Please show me one instance where someone was speaking as a representative of FoQC or the Access Fund and called John a "sell out."
Much concern has been expressed by FoQC and others about the deal John and Co. are trying to strike up with RCC. Curt has gone on record severals times indicating he disagrees with John's approach but believes he is doing what he thinks is best for the climbing community. Maybe I haven't kept up with all the in-fighting lately, but if this has changed then I'm unaware. It just seems like a lot of the arguing, name calling, and unconstructive bickering is coming from the "land swap" camp.
Stickbow's post above is a great example of targeting Curt as the bad guy in this campaign when all Curt has done is bust his ass to try to save the Queen Creek climbing area. Curt, as do many of us, believes that the deal that is being reach with RCC with the help of John Sherman is counter-productive to the efforts of FoQC and the Access Fund. This really doesn't need to get so damn personal with the finger pointing, does it?
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jul 27, 2005, 6:12 PM
Post #372 of 619
(69150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
OK, let me explain this to you. curt has continually tried to suggest that because we have been paid to do a job that our opinions and knowledge are not to be trusted. I know curt will try to say he never said those words exactly just like he says he never called Sherman a sellout. To paraphrase a famous President... it depends what "is" is. Go read the "Sherman sells out AZ climbers" thread and tell me if you think he was suggesting that even though he never used the word "sellout." He was riding herd on that thread making sure everybody stayed on topic smearing John's name. He has repeatedly suggested that because we have been paid by RCC we cannot be trusted.
Furthermore curt is the one who is divisive by suggesting we are somehow working against AZ climbers. Well, make the decision yourselves but were it not for our work there would be no alternative and we would still lose Oak Flat. The Governor and all but one of AZ's members of Congress supported the bill transferring Oak Flat to RCC without any alternative climbing area or provisions to preserve climbing access to OF. What does that tell you? Do you think they are suddenly going to say, "STOP we must save Oak Flat!"? This deal was going to happen with or without any provisions for climbers. It is clear that they were not going to stop it or force RCC to somehow mine below OF without disturbing the surface and allow unlimited climber access to an industrial mining site. That's the reality of it. We were given the opportunity to get something for our loss. We jumped on it. I'm very proud of the work we have done. Had the AF helped we could have done more. That’s my beef with the AF. We could have used some help pressuring RCC to acquire additional areas for example. Instead the AF apparently chose to use Oak Flat as a fund raising poster child at the risk of getting nothing for climbers.
What we take offense to are curt's continued efforts to vilify us and suggest that we are paid off so are somehow your enemy. He continues to carefully suggest that we are not to be trusted. That is the only reason why I bother to respond on this thread. I take great offense to being called a liar, cheat, or sellout. curt carefully never uses those words but his intentions can be clearly seen between the lines. If curt and chippy had not started the "Sherman sells out...” thread I would have never felt compelled to comment on this issue at all.
curt says, "Another outright lie. As of today, RCC has not purchased one square inch of land for climbers to use. Of course, that's just another pesky fact you chose to ignore. "
Another scare tactic. RCC has made arrangements to acquire the remaining private land at the new area and transfer it to the BLM and State Parks. Why would the State Parks Board vote to create a new state park if there was no land to put it on? Furthermore there are some other areas that we have identified that RCC has attempted to acquire and is still working on.
Then curt says, "Then why today, almost a year later, is there absolutely nothing in the land exchange bill(s) about this area? I can tell you one good reason--the area you are developing is already on public land. What a joke. You pretend like RCC has "bought" or gotten something for climbers, when in reality we all already have the right to climb in this area. Nice try. The only thing you have accomplished is giving RCC valuable PR to use against the climbing community. Pat yourselves on the back once more."
Yet another smear and scare tactic. Give it up curt, you are sounding desperate. Don't prove your ignorance. The land is a mix of State, BLM, and private with the tallest and steepest cliffs being on the PRIVATE land. Campground and parking will also likely be on the private land. Furthermore without the private land there would be no legal access to 90% of the climbs. None of the climbing is on USFS land. Even if there was no private land involved at all do you think the AF could convince the BLM to allow them to build a road to this area then spend several hundred thousand dollars to build it? Not likely. This area would never have become anything were it not for RCC paying us to find it.
Again curt suggests that we are lying to you. Why? Why must you attack us and suggest we are trying to pull one over on climbers? It is your negative comments that are dividing people's opinions on this.
I have never said anything against FoQC because I believe we are all friends of Queen Creek. I support FoQC trying to negotiate with RCC to preserve as much access as possible at OF. Unfortunately, comments from people like curt and the smear tactics presented by the AF have been noticed by RCC so have not created a very good atmosphere for negotiating with RCC and RCC holds all the cards. FoQC and the AF need to rethink their position and tactics on this fight. I suggest the membership of both organizations contact their representatives and demand more.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 27, 2005, 6:24 PM
Post #373 of 619
(69150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Chris,
As per epic_ed's post above, the only attempts at character assasination over this issue have been your attacks on me. Keep it up; I'm confident most people can see right through you.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 27, 2005, 6:27 PM
Post #374 of 619
(69107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Interesting post. I think you might be a little too thin skinned for what you are doing. If you're getting paid to do something, I think people have every right to question your motives.
You are overly focused on the 'name smearing' aspect here. If you believe in what you're doing, maybe you should be able to take a little heat when people don't agree with you.
Now, your last post is very interesting. It seems some of the acrimony stems from the two sides not communicating very well.
However, it does seem like curt has you well pegged in that your goal is NOT to save climber access to queen creek. You may think that you're being realistic and making the best of a bad situation. However, that does not preclude the possibility of saving queen creek, which you seem to regard as impossible.
Fact: By doing what you are doing, you are working against climbing in the future at queen creek. And you are getting paid to do that.
But who knows, maybe the new area is 'better.'
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jul 27, 2005, 6:31 PM
Post #375 of 619
(69107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
Here's a quote from curt the "sherman sells out... thread."
"Regarding the original topic (and trying to undo my own hijack of this thread) I would encourage anyone with an opinion on John Sherman's involvement in this issue to post here. I told him several months ago that I believed he had gotten on the wrong side of this issue--and that sooner or later the climbing community was going to villify him for this.
So, whether you think Sherman is right or wrong in helping out Resolution Copper Company--please say so here. If you also feel this makes Sherman an asshole, feel free to say that too, although I don't personally think that myself. I merely accept the fact that we are on opposite sides of this issue. "
That's nice curt. Encourage people to call your "friend" and asshole. Your words there. nobody else said that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
