|
bvb
Jul 30, 2005, 8:33 PM
Post #401 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
there IS a mt. woodson in AZ. the approach is 16 miles of really, really bad road. donny hardin, sherman, and chris hill went there and did a bunch of stuff, took a bunch of pics. theyy all stayed at my place for a couple of days afterwards when they came to flag to see toots and the maytals. they had plenty of pics, and was just like woodson...as you say, high, scary, blurring the line between boldering and soloing, lots of career-ending landings. typical woodson. and according to all of them, and claerly apparent in the photos, the rock is "flint hard an flawless"
i'm gonna find the fuck out where the place is and go there.
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jul 31, 2005, 12:17 AM
Post #402 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
bvb,
I know the area well. When we spotted it from the air it looked so good we landed the helicopter to take a look. It is primo stuff. I put up a dozen or more really nice FA's there before Sherman took Donny and Chris out there. :wink: It is actually more like 25 miles of bad road so you'd better buy an ATV unless we can get RCC to go for it. Once again a good deal of it is on private land too and the road across the private land has no less than three locked gates as well. If I could figure out how to post pics I'd do it.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 31, 2005, 12:49 AM
Post #403 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Chris,
Why did RCC give up on acquiring this "Woodson of AZ" area?
Also, to put a picture in a thread here, it must be hosted somewhere. You can either host it elsewhere (0friction.com, etc.) and link it--or just submit it here--and then link it to this thread. To post it here, just click on the "photos" option on the menu bar above then select the "submit photo" option. Then just follow the step-by-step instructions. PM me if you have any problems and I'll try to help you out.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Jul 31, 2005, 2:01 AM
Post #404 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
curt -- RCC tried to buy it, but got blown off by the land owner, who has no interest in selling. at any price. crusty old mutherfukker.
chris -- yeah yeah, heard all to stories on the access issues. plus the damage the road is capapble of inflicting on even a tricked-out jeep. i don't give a fuck. you may not have a good feel for my crack addiction. i'll kill anybody who gets between me any my fix.
i' goin'. soon as the temps cool.
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jul 31, 2005, 5:54 AM
Post #405 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
http://img327.imageshack.us/...latingthebean3tt.jpg
Note the climber standing at the base of the left boulder. The Woodsen looking hill is far away in the background.
Here's another angle of the same two boulders. There are tons of great boulders in this valley. Most with flat landings. We had certain criteria (like landing quality, rock quality, the relative amount of features on the rock, etc.) Sherman developed to evaluate areas. This area has it all.
This problem follows a line of holds you can see snaking up and left on this overhanging boulder I called The Bean. You can see how steep it is in the first photo. There are probably 6-10 different problems on this side alone. HIGH BALL.
See you there Bob.
http://img350.imageshack.us/...andthebigbean6hb.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jul 31, 2005, 6:14 AM
Post #406 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
Here's a different area we couldn't get.
RCC was in negotiations with this landowner but since the AF and FoQC wouldn't consider any alternative areas they weren't motivated to push the land owner and spend tons of money if nobody wanted it. I believe that had the AF/FoQC considered alternative areas as part of their negotiations we might have been able to push RCC harder on these. We were told RCC had lots of money set aside to spend for climbers and hoped we could find something before they were forced to spend it on other land. I can't say exactly how much but it was a substantial. Enough to get several areas.
The deal isn't done yet so if anybody thinks we ought to pursue alternative areas as part of a mitigation plan speak up. The Nature Conservancy and other conservation groups got many millions of dollars worth of land. Why shouldn't we? We use Oak Flat more than anybody.
http://img327.imageshack.us/.../7392/akrecon6be.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Jul 31, 2005, 8:19 AM
Post #407 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
pffft. looks like a sit-start prob compared to most of the true highballs i've done.
whatever....DOPE looking area. check out the left arching flake on the bolder next to the bean.
i'm THERE. i'll DRIVE. when u wana go???
|
|
|
|
|
jpdreamer
Aug 1, 2005, 4:35 PM
Post #408 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 232
|
Damn that second pic is beautiful.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 1, 2005, 5:20 PM
Post #409 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
While I applaud the efforts and agree that pictures do look stunning the description of the area specifically the lack of bouldering and rough road make me more motivated to support efforts to KEEP oak flats. Honestly, I don't see how this is a replacement, at best it seems more like a really bad concession.
Right now it takes me an hour to get to Oak Flat from Chandler. I don't need 4wheel drive and I can choose between bouldering in an area with a high problem density and great landings or semi-decent sport climbing. The new option means possibly better sport climbing (which I'm not as interested in) but I'm getting further away, sparse bouldering with bad landings, and a need to buy a new vehicle if I ever want to get there.
Seriously, it just seems like more of a motivation to drive to Flag or Prescott. I appreciate the hard work of Chris and John and others but as the facts about the new area are coming out it is just really upsetting. Is there any update on talks with RCC about maintaining some access to Oak Flats or is that a dead issue now?
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Aug 2, 2005, 1:56 AM
Post #410 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
Sidepull,
The pictures are from other areas that are primarily bouldering not Tamo. We understand that to some people Oak Flat is a bouldering area and to others a roped climbing area so we are looking for both. IMHO Tamo has much better roped climbing than Oak Flat but not as much bouldering. That’s why we have continued to pursue areas like those shown in the pictures which are great bouldering areas if we can get them.
The plan at Tamo and any other area is that RCC will pay $250,000 for improvements etc. (that number could go up) That is already in the bill. Part of the improvements would be to build 2wd roads to the areas. Just finding and buying an area is not the end of their commitment. They must also create or improve access. Road engineers have already been to Tamo to assess and plan access. Things really are happening in a positive direction.
One reason why I protest comments that imply that climbers will get the shaft is that I know what has been done so far towards seeing that we do get something. As has been pointed out several times there is, at this point, nothing in writing to guarantee we will get anything and even when there is the bill must pass and be signed into law. On the other hand I don’t think the AF can guarantee they can save Oak Flat either.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 2, 2005, 4:32 AM
Post #411 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Sorry - I guess I'm a bit confused. I thought the pictures were from Tamo. If not, where are these bouldering areas?
Don't get me wrong. I applaud the effort. Also, don't assume I only view Oak Flat as a bouldering area, it really just depends what my current focus is. My point is that, given the description of Tamo as is, it doesn't really seem to add up to a "replacement" because it doesn't provide comparable climbing or access in many ways. I'm only saying that given the current state of Tamo I'm more motivated to try to preserve access to Oak Flat rather than see it as a lost cause. That doesn't mean I don't applaud your efforts. I'm sure you and John and others have spent a great deal of energy on my behalf and I'm grateful. But I'm also really grateful for the natural resource that I already have and, now that I'm getting a glimpse of the alternative I'm more committed to keeping what we have, even if it's just scraps.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Aug 2, 2005, 5:37 AM
Post #412 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Sorry - I just re-read this page and realized that the pic's were not supposed to be of Tamo. I guess I'll need to get a helicopter . . .
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Aug 2, 2005, 7:04 AM
Post #413 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
sidepull,
check your PM's.
|
|
|
|
|
jpdreamer
Aug 2, 2005, 4:50 PM
Post #414 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 232
|
For anyone who wants to see some pics of Tamo, it looked like there were two accompanying the Climbing article about the land swap.
|
|
|
|
|
rradjc
Aug 2, 2005, 5:02 PM
Post #415 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2002
Posts: 64
|
I'll chime in here.
The website mentioned in the August issue of Climbing magazine, www.climbtamo.com is up and running. It was created by John Sherman and gives some information and a few more photos of Tam O'Shanter.
I have one question, who/why/how did the name Tam O'Shanter come about?
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
ebelay
Aug 2, 2005, 5:38 PM
Post #416 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2002
Posts: 195
|
In reply to: I have one question, who/why/how did the name Tam O'Shanter come about?
Mr. Darr - I believe it's due to the crag's proximity to Tam O'Shanter peak.
|
|
|
|
|
karl_hungus
Aug 2, 2005, 5:45 PM
Post #417 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2003
Posts: 22
|
So let me get this straight, because after looking at the ClimbTamo website I’m a little confused. It appears that the original Mister “Sport Climbing is Neither” was paid by this mining company to find that the best replacement for a fine bouldering destination is a fucking sport crag with “not as great” (read: shitty) bouldering potential?
It appears that after talking shit on sport climbing for the last 20 years Sherman has come to the realization that it’s perfectly acceptable…if you’re being paid.
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Aug 5, 2005, 5:27 AM
Post #418 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
I don't want to deter you from thrashing Sherman but FYI... Tamo has lots of clean and mixed pro trad routes and tons more potential. Look at the guide.
He/we did put up some sport routes because the potential is there and in case you hadn't noticed sport climbing is very popular in the last 20 years. Not to mention the fact that almost all of the roped climbs at Oak Flat are bolted sport routes.
Because we were being paid to create routes for other climbers not for our own satisfaction we even bolted some routes that could be done clean but with X rated fall potential. There was much debate about this among the climbers involved. In case you were worried about Sherman's ethics it was very hard for him to do that. He led several X rated routes clean first in true Verm fashion but was later talked into bolting them for the benefit of more mainstream climbers. So yes, since he was getting paid to serve OTHERS he did put up some sport routes and sacrifice his own fun and sense of accomplishment.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Aug 5, 2005, 5:38 AM
Post #419 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
Folks,
I'm a freelance journalist. I want to make sure your bathroom reading experiences are relevant and educational 8-) I think this is a complex and always-newsworthy topic, but then, I would. How about you?
How much more coverage would you like to see of this issue? What angles would you like to see addressed in the climbing/outdoors media?- What sides do you think haven't been told enough? Told too much? We've seen a few brief news pieces and now the dueling essays, plus AF literature. What else do you think this issue warrants? What would grab your attention?
This inquiring mind wants to know!
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 5, 2005, 6:25 AM
Post #420 of 619
(72174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: I don't want to deter you from thrashing Sherman but FYI... Tamo has lots of clean and mixed pro trad routes and tons more potential. Look at the guide. He/we did put up some sport routes because the potential is there and in case you hadn't noticed sport climbing is very popular in the last 20 years. Not to mention the fact that almost all of the roped climbs at Oak Flat are bolted sport routes. Because we were being paid to create routes for other climbers not for our own satisfaction we even bolted some routes that could be done clean but with X rated fall potential. There was much debate about this among the climbers involved. In case you were worried about Sherman's ethics it was very hard for him to do that. He led several X rated routes clean first in true Verm fashion but was later talked into bolting them for the benefit of more mainstream climbers. So yes, since he was getting paid to serve OTHERS he did put up some sport routes and sacrifice his own fun and sense of accomplishment.
Certainly such selfless philanthropy should be commended.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Aug 5, 2005, 6:47 AM
Post #421 of 619
(72192 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
You asked....
How about a positive spin and consider the potential alternative areas being sought. There really is a positive side to this. We are very close to getting Tamo as a State Park for climbers and more areas are being evaluated. I just spoke with Tom Glass from WLG today about other areas we'd like to get. Get more folks interested in these areas and we might be able to get a better package.
Getting excited about a new area no matter what its origin is fun reading and people want to know what is going on here.
Maybe an objective point of view on Tamo would be good. (Since John and I are not "credible" sources.) I bet I could get you a tour. Go read the Tamo guide (Tamo Sutra) on climbtamo.com and tell me you don't want to buzz up there tomorrow.
Saying this isn't going to make me popular at RCC but I am an AZ climber and want to be fairly compensated for our potential losses at Oak Flat. It is so frustrating knowing what we might have been able to do/get but not getting any support in the effort to do so. We need to strike while the iron is hot and get as much as possible and fair. We already know that nobody wants to lose Oak Flat and FoQC/AF should keep fighting to preserve it. That has been said enough. Let them do what they can. But since they aren't negotiating for alternative areas somebody needs to take up that option. Sherman can't do it all by himself. The support of local climbers would go a long way in pursuing these properties for all of us. We deserve them. Act like it.
Here's another photo for bvb on Mt. Woodson East. Keep your fingers crossed.
http://img194.imageshack.us/...bedofnailssm27dc.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 5, 2005, 6:53 AM
Post #422 of 619
(72192 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: You asked.... How about a positive spin and consider the potential alternative areas being sought. There really is a positive side to this. We are very close to getting Tamo as a State Park for climbers and more areas are being evaluated. I just spoke with Tom Glass from WLG today about other areas we'd like to get. Get more folks interested in these areas and we might be able to get a better package. Getting excited about a new area no matter what its origin is fun reading and people want to know what is going on here. Maybe an objective point of view on Tamo would be good. (Since John and I are not "credible" sources.) I bet I could get you a tour. Go read the Tamo guide (Tamo Sutra) on climbtamo.com and tell me you don't want to buzz up there tomorrow. Saying this isn't going to make me popular at RCC but I am an AZ climber and want to be fairly compensated for our potential losses at Oak Flat. It is so frustrating knowing what we might have been able to do/get but not getting any support in the effort to do so. We need to strike while the iron is hot and get as much as possible and fair. We already know that nobody wants to lose Oak Flat and FoQC/AF should keep fighting to preserve it. That has been said enough. Let them do what they can. But since they aren't negotiating for alternative areas somebody needs to take up that option. Sherman can't do it all by himself. The support of local climbers would go a long way in pursuing these properties for all of us. We deserve them. Act like it. Here's another photo for bvb on Mt. Woodson East. Keep your fingers crossed. http://img194.imageshack.us/...bedofnailssm27dc.jpg
That place looks great Chris, tell 'em to buy it. :wink:
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Aug 5, 2005, 7:25 AM
Post #423 of 619
(72192 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
curt,
You tell them too. That's my point. If you guys want something you need to speak up.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 5, 2005, 7:39 AM
Post #424 of 619
(71907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: curt, You tell them too. That's my point. If you guys want something you need to speak up.
Do you think it would make a difference? I understand that the owner of that particular area was unwilling to sell at any price. If you think that additional pressure by AF or FoQC could result in a different outcome, please let me know.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Aug 7, 2005, 12:25 AM
Post #425 of 619
(71907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
curt,
What I'm saying is that if climbers (AZ climbers in particular) want to get a fair deal to offset potential losses at Oak Flat they need to ask RCC for it. So far I have not heard of FoQC, the AF, or anybody else but us asking for alternative areas and/or quantifying what a fair "replacement" would be.
In my opinion Tamo more than offsets potential losses of roped climbs at Oak Flat (again agreeing that losing any routes is still a bad thing) but I also think that a fair deal would include more bouldering. John and I have been saying this to RCC for months. Unfortunately, if there does not seem to be much local support for this then why would RCC listen to us and spend more money and time to try to acquire these areas? If they think AF and FoQC are happy to settle for saving some of Oak Flat and/or Tamo then that's all we will get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
