|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 28, 2005, 11:30 PM
Post #1 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
NOTE: the site's poll function seems to be uncooperative right now, PLEASE post responses anyway! Thank you so much!
Options:
1) YES, regardless of the future of Queen Creek/Oak Flat
2) YES, but only if and until Queen Creek/Oak Flat is closed off
3) NO
-----------------------------------------------
Hi folks,
As some of you may know, I write for the climbing mags. My recurring assignment has been the issue of Oak Flat/Queen Creek access. Right now, I am working on a lengthy article, covering all sides, for Rock & Ice.
Since John Sherman has released info on Tam 'O Shanter, the new crag he and his associates have been developing as an alternative should access to Oak Flat be impacted (see the current Climbing), I want to know what climbers think of this new offering.
I want to take an informal sampling of climbers to see how interested you are in "Tamo." I realize this is an imperfect system. I may not use this data/source in the end, but I figured it would be worth trying.
I am interested in responses primarily from Arizona climbers, or climbers who regularly visit Arizona, especially the Phoenix area. Feel free to elucidate your response in a post. I may contact you to ask if I can use that as a quote in my story. I don't preclude any associates of John Sherman or the Friends of Queen Creek from responding.
Time is of the essence... I just came up with this idea today and I have a deadline.
The site isn't up as of this writing, but http://climbtamo.com/ promises to include further info on Tamo soon.
Try to keep the flames to a minimum, please. I'm looking forward to a good discussion.
Thanks in advance,
-H.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Jul 28, 2005, 11:38 PM
Post #2 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
odd, whenever I vote it takes me to a "post a reply" page with no link to this thread. I voted yes regardless but that doesn't mean I don't support the preservation of Oak Flat. Maybe I'm just greedy, ignorant, idealistic or some weird cocktail of a combination because I think we can have both.
I'm anxious to get more info on the area and see if it's a logistically viable replacement for Oak Flat for a Chandler-based climber.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 28, 2005, 11:41 PM
Post #3 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
ARGH!!!!!!!! Yes, polls seem to be totally cracked out right now. OK, let's see if we can make this work by just posting a written response and hope things stay somewhat tidy and civilized.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 28, 2005, 11:59 PM
Post #4 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
bump!
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 29, 2005, 12:03 AM
Post #5 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Sure, why not go climb there? Having a new area to climb at is always a good thing.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
oklahoma_climber
Jul 29, 2005, 12:05 AM
Post #6 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 26, 2002
Posts: 204
|
I hope my vote gets counted, because that's what i clicked...
I read all three sections to the Tamo article/debate in Climbing just last night. First off, props to Mr. Sherman and rc.com's own Curt Shannon for well written articles and well presented arguments.
I don't live in Arizona, and I have never climbed there. I've visited PHX for other reasons and loved it and the surrounding area, so I'd love to road trip it sometime soon, but, just for the record, i'm not a local. However, I'm in favor of quality new development everywhere, and I have no doubt in Mr. Sherman's ability to amply supply quality. On that note, I like tamo and, given the opportunity, would gladly climb there without hesitation.
Now, for the sticky issues (and, unfortunately, not the C4 kind of sticky)...
First, if a company has aquired the land legally, it is there right to do (legally) what they want with it. The "legislative exchange" that has apparently been applied for (has happened?) is, however loophole-ish or shady, still legal. Even if you don't like it, that doesnt change its legality.
Unfortunately there's a long list of companies that have done things legally, but, for whatever reason, did not take the previous/present/future uses into consideration when they "developed" the land. Countless acres of crag, forest, wilderness, etc. have been lost because of human devlopment. On the flip side, countless dollars, jobs, products, and lives have been produced and enhanced because of these very same developments. So saying that every crag everywhere that has been lost or changed by development was a complete loss is simply not true. Likewise, saying that every development and industrial endevour ever undertaken was "worth it" in the end is equally incorrect. In other words, try to walk, unbiased, in each side's shoes for a bit.
Having done so myself, as best I could, my conclusions are as follows:
First: Do what is possible (and plausible) to save all of the Queen Creek areas.
Second: If mining/development is inevitable, do what is possible (and plausible) to minimize its effects to save as much of the Queen Creek areas as possible.
Third: When negotiations are presented, regardless of the offer, don't be a collective dueschbag about the whole thing.
Take all options under consideration and rather than just saying "No" to everything that's offered, consider what's been proposed and make a counter offer. Since the mining company seems to have the upper hand anyway, don't get so stuck on "us vs. them" that any compensation options are eliminated.
I applaud Curt Shannon, the Access Fund, FOQC, and all those like them for their persistence and dedication to the crags currently in existence. Furthermore, I think that the irreversible destruction of any of God's green earth is a travesty and should be avoided wherever possible. However, when a loss becomes inevitable, and the party involved offers to do its best to rectify the situation at cost to them, I say take what you can get. All climbing is ideal, but this world (yes, even in the US of A) is not always ideal. So some climbing is better than none... especially when "some" means a climber dedicated, accessible, comparable (or even improved?), new crag.
There's my $.02... matter of fact, you can have the whole shiny quarter.
|
|
|
|
|
phugganut
Jul 29, 2005, 12:16 AM
Post #7 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 648
|
If it's decent climbing then yes, I will probably climb there, but I am very interested in maintaining access to QC.
It is really hard to say for sure, since I have yet to see any info on the new area. No guidebook, no pictures, no beta or anything. I have read a few vague comments about it by people that are paid to do so, but until I get any solid info by an impartial source about the area then it is difficuly to say if I would climb there or not. Am I missing something? I did a search and looked through the routes section. I even googled it and only came up with golf stuff. Maybe if you posted directions and a small bit of beta we could make a more informed decision. -Mike
Edited to remove a brainfart of a comment. I gotta remember to think before posting...
|
|
|
|
|
joshklingbeil
Jul 29, 2005, 1:14 AM
Post #8 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 403
|
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?s=50&size=M&T=1&lat=33.08861&lon=-110.81444 This is a link to the Topo for the area. This place looks like it has a bit of an approach. It looks like it's not to far from Ray mine, Arizona's biggest open pit mine. I think a land swap for this land is a stupid proposal. As everyone knows there is already developed crags in the area. These crags receive less then 1/10 of the traffic that Queen Creek receives. Most climbers don't want to drive an extra hour to climb locally. I wouldn't mind climbing at this area if it looks promising. Either way I don't support the land exchange. And I don't support foreign companies that mines up our land for a profit. Especially when they buy out a famous climber to convince the climbing community they are getting a good deal in the land swap by comparing the rock to a world class climbing destination. I'm also pretty sure Tam O'Shanter Peak is public land. In the end in this world money will always win.
|
|
|
|
|
xclimber
Jul 29, 2005, 2:56 AM
Post #9 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 426
|
In reply to: Sure, why not go climb there? Having a new area to climb at is always a good thing. Curt
Hmmm... I'm a little confused. Your article left me with the distinct impression you were not in favor of the land swap; I guess your above statement doesn't say that you are in favor of the land swap. Can you clarify this statement? Perhaps this is a semantic issue.
Jerry
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 29, 2005, 3:14 AM
Post #10 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: Sure, why not go climb there? Having a new area to climb at is always a good thing. Curt Hmmm... I'm a little confused. Your article left me with the distinct impression you were not in favor of the land swap; I guess your above statement doesn't say that you are in favor of the land swap. Can you clarify this statement? Perhaps this is a semantic issue. Jerry
Jerry,
I am not in favor of trading away an established climbing area, such as Oak Flat, for another area--like tamoshanter. However, 85% of the tamo area is on either AZ state owned land--or BLM land, and climbing is legit there quite independent of any proposed land exchange bill. I am not opposed to checking it out. Please do not read anything more into my comments than that.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
climblouisiana
Jul 29, 2005, 8:49 PM
Post #11 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 506
|
As a local climber, I would not be that interested in driving another half an hour or more to get to a "local" crag. Perhaps the deep pocketed RCC should consider purchasing access to areas in the Phoenix Metro area such as Troon Mountain. Troon Mountain is similar to Tam O'Shanter in its accessibility. Troon Mountain is public land but it is surrounded by private land, thus cutting off access for all users. "Tamo", I have read, is a mix of public and private land, which RCC claims it will purchase for climbers. Unfortunately, the land exchange bill introduced into Congress stipulates that a replacement climbing area will be found on public or forest service land; this language clearly does not provide for any private inholdings.
I think that all climbers should be very wary about RCC's motives. If the legislative land exchange is approved before they purchase access to Tam O'Shanter, they will have no incentive to pursue ownership of the privately owned portions of "Tamo", including "the private land that contains some of the most spectacular walls and blockades access to 85 percent of the climbing".
I believe it is in climbers' best interest to let their legislators know that they disapprove of the land exchange bills S1122 and HR2618. It is possible for RCC to mine the area and maintain permanent access to the Oak Flat and surrounding area.
|
|
|
|
|
dschultz
Jul 29, 2005, 9:10 PM
Post #12 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2005
Posts: 40
|
Well,well...this is quite the subject around the AZ area. As a local who has climbed at Queen Creek about a gazillion times and who has participated in the PHX Bouldering Comp several times my heart is saddened by the potential loss of not only the crags but the "scene" that is Queen Creek. I read the Climbing article and must say that I vote for a land swap after all other options have been exhausted. There are plenty of untapped areas north of the highway from the Magma Mine road and I am sure that there could be some excellent development there. Will the Pond area also be lost? As for the Tamo area I tried the link and as noted the URL is not up yet. I am very interested in the accessibility, quality, and number of routes. Of course I do not want to lose our access to Oak Flats and the surrounding areas but I realize that the towns of Superior/Miami/Globe may benefit tremendously and if it turns out that the land will be lost, let us make sure we get something of quality in return. The environmental issue is a separate issue for me. I must claim ignorance to the "mining process" and its destructive potential. I can only address the land for land swap, and once again I would rather have a quality alternative as opposed to nothing other than knowing I fought the big Corporation.
Dave S
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jul 30, 2005, 5:41 AM
Post #13 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
I know this thread is supposed to be a poll but I saw that it was already hijacked a bit so figured I might as well try to clear this up.
Climblou.,
Please let me shed some light on and clear up some misunderstandings for you.
First try not to be misled that RCC is trying to pull one over on climbers. They definitely want climbers to be compensated for any loss of climbing and would prefer that we are as pleased as possible. Contrary to some portrayals WLG and RCC are very concerned about mitigating any potential loss to the climbing community. Tom Glass from WLG said many times he hoped we could find a Shangri-La of climbing. Why wouldn't they? They have a mine to start.
Even though it has been a common attack point by people opposed to a land exchange the legislation does not call for the new area to be on public land when located. In fact RCC has to buy private lands of equal or greater appraised value than the area at Oak Flat. Then they must transfer it to the public to offset the acres lost at Oak Flat. So the land exchanged cannot be public now but will be converted to public with the signing of the bill. The only land they get "credit" for at Tamo is the private part.
Climbers are, of course, not the only group to be compensated with this appraised value. RCC has already acquired several private parcels of critical riparian and other habitats that are to be exchanged to mitigate the "ecological" losses at Oak Flat. To that end they have, in my opinion as a biologist, more than compensated for the lost habitat etc. There is no way to replace what might be lost at Oak Flat but by preserving even more sensitive and critical habitats that were threatened by development we can feel a little better. This type of land exchange has been going on for a long time so this is nothing new or precedent setting.
Some people also repeatedly claim that if the climbing is on public land then climbers aren't getting anything they didn't already have access to. Although that may be factually correct most of the public land found at Tamo is for all practical purposes in accessible. RCC has made arrangements to buy the private land that has some of the biggest and steepest cliffs, the obvious camping areas, and it blocks legal and/or practical access to most of the public land climbing there. That land is to be transferred to the BLM or State as part of the State Park. I'm not sure which agency will get the land but it is not uncommon for the State to have a park that is on BLM or other ownership.
Another attack is that RCC has not actually purchased any lands yet. Again while this may be factually true (I'm not sure that a deal hasn't already been made so it may not be true anymore) the land exchange bill REQUIRES them to purchase lands. Once again I think people are deliberately trying to scare you into thinking that RCC is trying to trick you. The truth is they are still assembling contracts and agreements for several pieces of land in many areas for many purposes but don't want to pull the trigger on some of them until all the pieces are coming together.
As far as Troon goes we went down that road and many others. It turns out that Troon Mountain is owned by the development/property owners association. So buying access is a moot point since there is no public land to access. Furthermore, nobody can force a private land owner to sell their property so no matter how much money RCC is willing to spend some parcels are just not available. We have looked at several other areas and run into the same problems of unwilling sellers.
Please believe me when I say we (John Sherman in particular) are trying to get as much as possible out of RCC. We know there is no such thing as a "replacement" for Oak Flat but the more we can get from this land exchange the more alternatives you have to make up for your loss.
You may commence polling again please…
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 30, 2005, 6:13 AM
Post #14 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Even though it has been a common attack point by people opposed to a land exchange the legislation does not call for the new area to be on public land when located. In fact RCC has to buy private lands of equal or greater appraised value than the area at Oak Flat. Then they must transfer it to the public to offset the acres lost at Oak Flat. So the land exchanged cannot be public now but will be converted to public with the signing of the bill. The only land they get "credit" for at Tamo is the private part.
Federal law requires that the value of the public land conveyed into RCC ownership be replaced by lands of equal or greater value. That much is true. However, nothing in Federal law, or in this land exchange bill says that RCC must convey land to the public to mitigate the loss of climbing resources at Oak Flat/Queen Creek. The specific language in the bill does indeed say that the Secretary of Agriculture must find a suitable replacement climbing area on public land. You don't have to take my word for this, just go and read the actual language contained in the bill.
In reply to: Some people also repeatedly claim that if the climbing is on public land then climbers aren't getting anything they didn't already have access to. Although that may be factually correct most of the public land found at Tamo is for all practical purposes in accessible. RCC has made arrangements to buy the private land that has some of the biggest and steepest cliffs, the obvious camping areas, and it blocks legal and/or practical access to most of the public land climbing there. That land is to be transferred to the BLM or State as part of the State Park. I'm not sure which agency will get the land but it is not uncommon for the State to have a park that is on BLM or other ownership.
I'm glad to hear you admit that is factually correct--just to set the record straight.
In reply to: Another attack is that RCC has not actually purchased any lands yet. Again while this may be factually true (I'm not sure that a deal hasn't already been made so it may not be true anymore)
Again, I'm glad to see that you admit that we have been accurately representing the substantive facts surrounding this land exchange.
In reply to: ....the land exchange bill REQUIRES them to purchase lands. Once again I think people are deliberately trying to scare you into thinking that RCC is trying to trick you. The truth is they are still assembling contracts and agreements for several pieces of land in many areas for many purposes but don't want to pull the trigger on some of them until all the pieces are coming together.
Once again, Federal law requires that the value of the private lands exchanged for the Federal lands be of equal or greater value for any legislated land exchange. There is absolutely no additional requirement in the law, or in this bill concerning climbing replacement areas. RCC has absolutely no obligation to purchase lands for replacement climbing areas. That, is simply another fact.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jul 30, 2005, 6:56 AM
Post #15 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
While I'm awake I might as well respond to this poll. Let me start by giving you some first hand info. about Tamo. This is going to sound like a sales pitch but it isn’t. I’m not selling Tamo. I just want to describe it for people who haven’t heard anything about it. You will climb there if you like it. Hopefully you will get the chance regardless of what happens at Oak Flat.
I have climbed at Tamo. In fact John and I were together when we "discovered" it last summer. My first impression was, "Holy shit we found a great sport climbing area!" Not being much of a sport climber myself I could have been happier but I was still impressed. Weeks of exploration kept turning up more cliffs. Some looked better than others but it all looked climbable and lots of trad or mixed routes appeared.
We didn't do any climbing until this winter and that's when we realized how good it really was. The rock is unbelievable hard, solid, and with just enough texture to stick but not shred. Some cliffs that looked chossy turned out to be stellar quality. Some of the most improbable lines go free at moderate grades. Clean gear can be found on almost every route including routes that appear to have no cracks. I'd compare the climbing style to Eldorado. Cerebral. I think the routes at Tamo are often more interesting than Eldo though. Sometimes there are numerous edges and pockets at perfect spots and angles. Some others look good but are impossible to use. Like Eldo the clean (trad) routes can be easy to protect or may require a Ph.D in Nutology.
We walked the bases of the cliffs counting lines and discovered that the route density is just about perfect meaning the lines are numerous but not often overlapping. We easily counted several hundred potential routes and there seems to be a good mix of grades and styles. Sherman kept comparing it to Mt. Arapiles in Australia but I've never climbed there. One thing I will say is sometimes a route or wall at Tamo doesn't look that good or climbable but almost every time it turns out way better than it looks. One area that I named The Pig Pen was right next to a trail but we didn’t bother to hike over there for a long time because it didn’t look that good from far away. When we did hike over there we were surprised at how much better it looked up close. Once routes started to go in it was clear that looks are very deceiving. They were really good. Apparently Arapiles is like that too.
Oh yeah, there are also lots of HUGE boulders at Tamo, in fact an aerial photo of them is what led us to it in the first place. As it turned out the boulders are not generally situated in the most user friendly orientations and many are so big they really don’t qualify as boulders. Nevertheless there is plenty of room for development in that arena as well. I would say Tamo will develop to be a more popular roped climbing area than a bouldering area but we’ll see how it goes. I remember when I first went to Hueco with Sherman in the early 80’s we immediately realized its bouldering potential outshined the roped routes. I don’t remember ever uncoiling a rope on that first trip. Tamo is kind of the opposite.
So what about Oak Flat? Almost everybody knows about the climbing there so I’ll spare you my description. I have climbed there at several bouldering contests and only two other times. Like most people I find the rock to be tip shredding. Although the rock at Oak Flat is incredibly featured and climbable I found it not pleasant enough to climb on to warrant road trips from my home in Northern AZ. I think if I lived in the East Valley I would have climbed there much more and just learned to tough it out. I have had some great times there at the PBC and think it is the ideal place for that kind of event; once a year turned out to be enough for me though. For lots of reasons it is still a good area. I definitely understand that some people love it and for others it is just the closest place to get a pump but you want to keep it. I love Gloria's Rocks in Flag but some people even in Flag hate it. I hope we can keep as much of Oak Flat as possible and fully support FoQC in their efforts to do so.
The two areas are not clones so don't expect them to be.
I will definitely be making the drive to Tamo as often as I can. It is an area with something for just about everybody.
I vote, “Go for it.”
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jul 30, 2005, 8:20 AM
Post #16 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
curt,
Why are you so intent on trying to scare climbers into thinking they are being left out? Your statements are like yelling "FIRE" in a theater just because you want a better seat.
I'm happy to help your self esteem by agreeing with you on facts. It is pretty clear, in your own mind at least, that you have never been wrong anyway. You regularly gloss over the points you have been wrong on and insist on ignoring the substance of the issue and instead focus on your own mysterious agenda.
My post was simply giving people another point of view. I'd prefer not to argue with you here so just state your piece and let's get this over with. Let me help you.
Here's another one for you.
YOU ARE RIGHT! :D We might get nothing in the land exchange.
So, what are you doing to prevent that? I know what Sherman and the rest of us are doing.
Here's another one for you. YOU ARE RIGHT! :D The land exchange bill does not specifically say how much, if any, money must be spent on lands specifically for climbers. I'm not sure (since I don't have it handy) that it stipulates that they spend money for any other specific user group either. Are they running around shouting, "The sky is falling!" Not likely. I'm sure you have it memorized so will correct me if I'm wrong. The point for the rest of you is this. Rock climbers are a major user group of Oak Flat. That fact has been recognized by the Forest Service, RCC, WLG, congressmen, the Governor, and anybody else involved so we were included in the mitigation discussion. RCC hired WLG to address mitigation concerns for all of the stakeholders in Oak Flat including climbers. We are being considered and included. We have busted our asses as have the folks at WLG to get something for climbers! Believe me I know way more about what we have done with WLG than curt.
So, what is your point curt!?
Are you suggesting that Sherman, WLG, RCC, etc. are lying?
That we are conspiring to stick it to climbers?
Is it just that you have to be right? Win the battle but lose the war?
Is there something personal here we don't know about?
What do you have to gain from this? Fame? Martyrdom?
How does this kind of agitating benefit climbers, FoQC, or the AF?
Oh wait I can answer the last one myself. The AF needs members. Sort of like the NRA telling us Clinton was personally going to come take your great grandfather's muzzleloader right off your mantle.
Wait a minute you started FoQC right? And you need to have people scared too so they will sign up and you can claim to represent them. OK, now I get it you think by scaring climbers they will sign up with FoQC and then you can actually save QC. Am I on track there?
OK, fine but what if you don't save QC?
So what about the others? How do your scare tactics help climbers?
Please let's just put this to rest now and get your motives out in the open.
Forget the rest of the questions. Please, just answer this.
What are you trying to accomplish by continually insinuating climbers are going to get the shaft in the land exchange bill when it is abundantly clear that everybody else is working to get something for us in it?
Well?
Sorry to the rest of you and sorry about the lame sarcasm. I just couldn't resist. Now, I'm still interested in this poll. Commence polling please. :D
|
|
|
|
|
xclimber
Jul 30, 2005, 3:56 PM
Post #17 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 426
|
Why hide behind a tree azstickbow? Who are you... Your opinions are well articulated, but you could be the CEO of RCC for all we know from your profile.
Jerry
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 30, 2005, 5:35 PM
Post #18 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: curt, Why are you so intent on trying to scare climbers into thinking they are being left out? Your statements are like yelling "FIRE" in a theater just because you want a better seat. I'm happy to help your self esteem by agreeing with you on facts. It is pretty clear, in your own mind at least, that you have never been wrong anyway. You regularly gloss over the points you have been wrong on and insist on ignoring the substance of the issue and instead focus on your own mysterious agenda.
Hey Chris,
Sorry I caused you to go off on another hysterical rant. The purpose of my last post should hopefully be plain for everyone to see. When you said this:
In reply to: Even though it has been a common attack point by people opposed to a land exchange the legislation does not call for the new area to be on public land when located. In fact RCC has to buy private lands of equal or greater appraised value than the area at Oak Flat. Then they must transfer it to the public to offset the acres lost at Oak Flat. So the land exchanged cannot be public now but will be converted to public with the signing of the bill. The only land they get "credit" for at Tamo is the private part.
You clearly implied, in the above quote and in other places in your earlier post that RCC had to buy replacement lands for climbers. That is incorrect (by your own admission now) and I think this important enough that it needed to be clarified, because your statement was very misleading. You also claim that RCC has (or is) buying the private land inholding at Tamo. I truly hope you are right--but please stop stating this as a fact--until it actually happens.
Whatever your agenda is--it will be better served by being more careful, accurate and factual in your postings here. That is how credibility is created. I don't think you are lying here, so please stop telling me what I think. I am merely pointing out factual errors in your post which most likely come from mis-information you got someplace. Don't you think RC.com readers are entitled to factual information?
As to "glossing over the points I have been wrong on," I will be happy to address them, if you can identify any.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
tetons
Jul 30, 2005, 6:31 PM
Post #19 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2004
Posts: 81
|
Please note RC was very happy to let the Indonesian military gun down dozens of locals who were none too pleased with their mine in West Irian. Money, people, money. And on that note I wonder how much Sherman has made, quite an arid pile, I suspect. Nothing like a helicopter to make approaches simpler.
When this deal goes through, RC will walk away from any promise on the table right now, giving the finger to climbers everywhere as well as anyone else interested in public lands and access.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 30, 2005, 6:57 PM
Post #20 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
Hillary:
Yeah, I'd like to check out Tam. And I'd do it regardless of the future of QC. More options = better, in my book.
Tried to fix the poll for ya. It's up, but each option is duplicated... odd.
Anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jul 31, 2005, 12:25 AM
Post #21 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
xclimber,
I posted my identity on the other thread. There are lots of other unidentified posters here though. Ask everybody.
Sorry curt, I'm not taking the bait this time.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 31, 2005, 12:38 AM
Post #22 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Sorry curt, I'm not taking the bait this time.
Excellent choice.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
emjay
Jul 31, 2005, 1:31 AM
Post #23 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2003
Posts: 117
|
I am a Phoenix climber who would mourn the loss of Queen Creek. Of course, I would be happy to climb any new areas within a reasonable distance whether QC continues to be accessible or not.
Please allow a digression . . .
For you non-baseball fans, when the Houston Astros opened their new ballpark, it was named for the corporate entity that bought the rights--hence, ENRON FIELD. After the corruption, greed, lying, and manipulation of Enron was exposed and the whole slimy company went bankrupt, damaging investors, including many honest employees whose entire pension plans were invested in Enron, the Astros decided to change the name. I've always been opposed to corporate names for ballparks like Bank One Ballpark or Pac Bell or (the worst) Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium. But I think this one time there should be an exception. I think that the name Enron Field should be perpetuated as a caution to what happens when you get in bed with the corporate whores.
So to return to the point, yes, I will climb at this new place, but I suggest not calling it "Tam O' Shanter." To memorialize the actions of Sherman et al., I propose calling it "Corporate Whore Cliffs." The routes could be named "Greed is Good," "Thirty Pieces of Silver," or "Sherman's Retirement Plan."
Incidentally, thank you, Curt, for your unstinting efforts and your admirable article in Climbing. As this thread has shown, your arguments are darn near impregnable despite the efforts of the RCC apoligists to obfuscate the reality.
|
|
|
|
|
climbaddic
Aug 4, 2005, 8:26 PM
Post #24 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2003
Posts: 108
|
Guide for Tam O Shanter is out. Check out http://www.climbtamo.com. It is pretty large guide book. 17megs download. Too bad road to the crag isn't there (due to legal issues). I can't wait to climb there.
|
|
|
|
|
climblouisiana
Aug 4, 2005, 9:43 PM
Post #25 of 29
(7014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 506
|
It is also not listed as one of the Non-Federal Parcels in Section 4 of S1122 and HR2618.
Therefore, everyone should write their Congressmen and Congresswomen to let them know that they oppose S1122 and HR2618.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
