The so-called "Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005" was introduced into both the House of Representatives and the Senate on Wednesday.

You can go here.....

http://thomas.loc.gov

...and do a search for Arizona land exchanges to see the full text of the bill. Unfortunately, due to the vast amount of money and lobbying power that Resolution Copper Company has expended on this bill, our congressional delegation has been snowed and has bought into much of the false information generated by Resolution concerning this mine and land exchange plan.

While some of the parcels that Resolution intends to convey to the Federal government are of ecological interest and value, Resolution is totally dismissive of the recreational and ecological sensitivity of the Oak Flat parcel itself, which has been protected from mining by a 50 year old executive order. Resolution intends to mine the Oak Flat area in a manner that will destroy this unique area forever by caving the entire area into a huge crater.

I suppose this is the world we live in today. Our public lands are given away to foreign corporations who will reap billions of dollars in profits and the average citizens of Arizona who use this area will pay the ultimate price.

Curt

I suppose this is the world we live in today. Our public lands are given away to foreign corporations who will reap billions of dollars in profits and the average citizens of Arizona who use this area will pay the ultimate price.

Curt

There is quite a bit of misinformation on that website. Try this. 269 million recreation generated dollars will be lost because of the mine taking just 3000 acres of land. I'd like to see the calculation on that! Is there a casino there? That is just one of the exaggerations on the website.

Once again the AF is using Oak Flat as a scare tactic fundraising tool for themselves but not actually doing anything constructive in the process. In the end they will try to claim credit for whatever new climbing area(s) and access we get but the truth is they are fighting against a solution where climbers get something in exchange for Oak Flat. The AF should have spearheaded the effort to mitigate the loss of climbing resources by entering into serious negotiations with RCC from the beginning like The Nature Conservancy did. Instead they take an all or nothing losing stance on the issue. Some people are still working for climbers on this issue and the AF is opposed to that. Is that the kind of organization you want to represent you?

AZ climbers,

Too bad everybody who doesn't agree with curt is so stupid that they can be snowed by the copper company spending a bunch of money. Either that or they are a tool of the evil mining company. Just keep calling names and degrading people.

You say you are not opposed to mining but to the method of mining. Are you a mining engineer? How do you think they can mine copper without causing any surface disturbance?

....Those poor ignorant Ph.D. biologists apparently know less about conservation than curt.

The reality is the mine is coming and Oak Flat is going to be around for a few more years then some portion of it will be closed. That is too bad and certainly a loss for climbers but there are options to try to preserve more of it and acquire other areas as mitigation for the loss of the climbing resource. (Queen creek and Apache Leap will remain open and access could be improved if the AF cared to talk with the mine about it. )

Too bad some people are too myopic to see the options and too bad the AF is using Oak Flat as a fund raising tool for them to actually attempt to enter into serious negotiations with the mining company to help climbers.

RCC could have and maybe should have walked away from climbers long ago when FoQC and AF refused to negotiate and began their campaigns of misinformation. Especially since the mine already has the support of much bigger and more important people and organizations. But they didn't They hired one of the most qualified climbers in America as a consultant to help them do what the AF refused to do-look out for the interests of climbers. Let me say that again. Since the Af refused the mine voluntarily hired someone who cared enough about climbers and the future of climbing in AZ to look for something to give us to mitigate our loss when they really didn't need to. Shouldn't the AF be doing that? Instead John Sherman and a small group including myself have been doing the work to find a new area to mitigate the loss of Oak Flat. I'm not bagging on FoQC. I fully support a local group looking out for their interests. I think FoQC is being misled by certain individuals and the AF into thinking they can stop the mine. In doing so the members of FoQC are not being told the truth and are missing out on the opportunity to consider other more realistic options with the risk of getting nothing at all. It seems that the AF, like many other well intentioned organizations, has progressed to the point where they have lost the focus on their original mission and instead have become a self-serving fund raising machine.

In my 30 years of climbing I have NEVER seen any mitigation for lost climbing resources. There is no exact replica of Oak Flat but I think getting a new area helps makes the loss easier to swallow. It is too bad that Oak Flat, or part of it, will be lost but I think we should take advantage of the mine's deep pockets to be sure that we are getting something in return at least.

Otherwise be careful what you wish for. You may get what you want - no land exchange so nothing in exchange for Oak Flat. If that happens climbers can thank you and the AF while they have to drive even farther for quality climbing.

I suppose if your only source of information is RCC and others in their direct employ, that is not surprising.

Curt

Turtle,

You are so right about this being a highly political situation and a "correct" side being hard to identify. But as Sherman says, "Would you rather be right or happy? Sometimes you have to choose." We are NOT supporting the mine we are looking out for the interest of climbers by considering and pursuing other real options-PERIOD.

Something the AF should have done a long time ago. Instead they have taken a very antagonistic and closed minded approach to the situation rendering themselves impotent and irrelevant in the process. AF members need to take a long look at the leadership and the mission and evaluate how well they are really looking out for us. They need to mature as an organization so they can effectively negotiate with the big dogs and get things done rather than appearing as a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum. Look at The Nature Conservancy as a model of a conservation organization that knows how to get thngs done and spend it's money on the ground. The AF could have taken the lead on this and helped climbers. This could have been an AF victory by compromise. (Somtimes when you don't have the big guns the other guy has you have to actually negotiate and make compromises. RCC started off asking AF to work with them but they refused.) Instead it will likely be a huge failure for the AF. If the AF had worked with us we might have been able to do more.

You are also right on about the sensitive negotiations and possible attempts to derail to process. With the low levels already achieved by some individuals opposed to our work this is not at all far fetched.

curt,

I have not seen an official position from the AF that in any way suggested they support alternative areas as mitigation for Oak Flat. I could be wrong on this one since I am no longer a member so please correct me if necessary. Maybe saying their approach is all or nothing is too strong.

The AF and FoQC have made numerous requests that the "replacement" climbing areas that Sherman and others have found be identified and that these areas be included in the language of the land exchange bill--to make up for whatever portion of the climbing at Oak Flat that may eventually be lost to mining operations. In addition, we are asking that as much access to the Oak flat area as possible be preserved. What do you see wrong with that approach?

What other options besides stopping the mine, or miraculously operating a large mine with little no no surface impact has the AF proposed? (BTW the Magma mine is much smaller, shallower, and possibly not even the same orebody that RCC is going after.) Would anything else satisfy them or you? If so they haven't made it too public. The AF appears to think that if the mine happens climbers will be better of with nothing because they (and you) have done nothing to support or encourage our efforts.

You have obviously avoided dealing with many of the meaningful points I've made but instead you divert the discussion while you stoop to trying to discredit and insult me by suggesting I have been bought off and am uniformed. A sad tactic often employed by desperate people without a real answer. Sad.

curt, people often project their value system on others. I think it is telling that you accuse anybody who disagees with you as having been bought off. Is that the way you think people are motivated? Is that the way you try to influence others? Compared to Sherman or myself you are the one chasing the almighty dollar with the greatest gusto. It ain't about the money or our egos it's about looking out for climbers today and future climbers. Giving them an option in the face of almost certian loss. You best not go down that sellout road again because you are flat wrong.

Turtle is right that you know far less about the intentions and activities of us and RCC than you profess. Sherman and I saw and were consulted about the legislation long before it was introduced and know exactly how climbers interests were being considered. Saying it has NOTHING in it for climbers is an outright lie.

Because of your myopic, antagonistic, and egotistical, approach to this issue you miss so many opportunities to learn. One example-The legislation doesn't say that the new areas have to be on public land NOW. Once they are acquired by RCC they can be transferred to the public domain. Just like all the pieces the Nature Conservancy is getting for the public in this deal. Either you didn't understand the process very well or you have been lying to the rest of us. Which is it?

I'm still waiting for you to swear to never climb in areas that were acquired by RCC. You have opposed us at every step, called us sellouts, and accused us of being ignorant. You certainly could not allow yourself to partake in the fruits of our labor.

Curt-

In a highly political situation such as this there is no "correct" side to be on.

You are under-informed on the efforts made by RCC to provide new climbing areas for to AZ climbers.

The reason the land exchange bill has not disclosed the locations of the mutiple climbing areas that it will gain access to is because the negeotiations for these areas is very sensitive. These areas are NOT on public land and untill access has been completely secured they can't be revealed. It is possible that some selfish hater (like yourself) could ruin the months of hard work and effort taken to identify and obtain these areas.

RCC intends to close access to Oak Flat no matter which method of mining they choose to employ for liability reasons. So arguing about "how" they mine the area is irrelevent.

You should also show more respect for your fellow climbers who may not share your opinions. Chris (Azstickbow) is VERY informed on the "discussions" between the AF and the mining interests, and also on the uncooperative stances taken by AF and FOQC.

It does not make sense for you to lose any more friends or make any more enemies over this issue than you already have.

It seems that these people would be the most informed of all.

Think what you want about RCC curt, but their side has not resorted to smearing other climbers names, exaggeration, and promoting ill will against others who do not share their opinions.

While I think there is a middle ground between the almost polar opinions represented in the last few posts - and I hope we seek that middle ground for the shear sake of understanding one another - I disagree with the statement above. I think RCC has done a magnificent job of creating the environment that would lead to said smearing. Think about it, an economic juggernaut like RCC versus a couple of idealistic, unintegrated volunteer groups. All they had to do is buy a couple of them off and it would immediately create the current environment: those who have been appeased are accused to be sell outs and those who haven't sold out are accused of ignorance. So kudos to RCC, they made the groups that should protect the land fight with each other and in the process become powerless. Also, kudos to Curt, he's done so much as far as informing the community, creating an agenda, and trying to generate unity. Kudos to Sherman and others who saw a different approach that might bring us something. Of course, realize that amidst these congratulations, we've all lost something special, not just the land, but perhaps a bit of integrity.

How are these areas currently so sensitive that the AF or FoQC can not see them, but dozens of people who are friends of those working for the mine can go to these areas on a regular basis? Also, how (as we have been told) can hundreds of bolts have been put into these areas if they are "sensitive" and on private land? Something doesn't make too much sense here.

Perhaps those working on finding "replacement" areas should be more respectful of the AF and FoQC in their efforts.

Are you guys also threatening Gill with his potential "loss of friends?"

I don't know much about this situation, but one thing is very intriguing to me about this situation: the replacement area.

Why is it's location such a tightly held secret? Is it because RCC doesn't own it? Are trying to buy it?

I can understand not wanting a lot of people out there during development, but it seems like it would be a nice show of good faith to bring in FofQC to evaluate what's going on out there.

Of course, this assumes there even IS a secret replacement area. It's a lot easier to hide if it doesn't exist. Plus, curts assertion (I haven't read the bills) that a swap isn't even in the current proposed legislation is very troubling.

I suppose this is the world we live in today. Our public lands are given away to foreign corporations who will reap billions of dollars in profits and the average citizens of Arizona who use this area will pay the ultimate price.