Here's another photo for bvb on Mt. Woodson East. Keep your fingers crossed.

http://img194.imageshack.us/...bedofnailssm27dc.jpg

OAK FLAT PERSPECTIVE

The September issue of Climbing Magazine [Off the Wall, September, page 44] contains articles discussing the issues surrounding Oak Flat. Resolution Copper Company (RCC) employee John Sherman provided an article that lacked accuracy in its portrayal of the Access Fund and Friends of Queen Creek, honesty in its intentions, and sadly conviction on the part of Sherman to truly make the climbing community stronger. Further, the article did not discuss the cost associated with his work: a reduction in the ability to save Oak Flat.

Access Fund Executive Director Steve Matous has written a letter to the editor which will appear in the next issue of Climbing addressing the article. However below is a detailed response to the accusations Sherman made in this article regarding the Access Fund.

Sherman in Italics
AF Responses follow

Imagine a climbing area where the land is managed with climbers as the number one user group. Imagine being invited and encouraged by land managers to climb on some of the best rock in America. Imagine such a climbing park becoming a success and a model for other such parks in the future.

That sounds like an ideal situation for the climbing community and already exists at a number of locations, on both public and private land. For example, one of the "new" climbing areas that the Access Fund had a direct role in opening is Castle Rock State Park in Idaho (adjacent to the City of Rocks) where, although being a multiple use state park, accommodates climbers as the primary user group. The Access Fund and local climbers were invited to have a direct voice in establishing climbing management policies at Castle Rock. Jamestown in Alabama is an example of a private area purchased by climbers with financial support from the Access Fund and has climbers as its primary user group.

First off, know that I'm not keen on the idea of losing access to any climbing area and I don't support any land exchange for Oak Flat that does not include equal or greater climbing resources in return. That said, the economic and political reality of the Oak Flat situation cannot be ignored.

We are encouraged that Sherman is not in favor of losing access to any climbing area, including Oak Flat. However, his economic and political analyses are not shared by many Arizona climbers, or the mining engineers we have consulted, or our political alliances and own evaluation.

Since first protected for recreation in 1954 the Forest Service has effectively rebuked any attempts by mining companies to either gain access to or create a land swap for the Oak Flat parcel. For Sherman to not consider the possibility of fighting the loss of Oak Flat and not speak to the local Arizona climbing community or the Access Fund about opposing legislation was shortsighted at best.

While the AF began the process of organizing promising grassroots activism, meetings with Senators, Congressman and the Governors office who have influenced the results, Sherman concluded that all was lost over 1 ½ yrs ago.

The most important point to remember is that Sherman's employment by RCC comes at an identifiable cost; the dilution of the AF/FoQC's ability to be effective politically in preserving some level of access at Oak Flat. Losing Oak Flat will result from a land exchange bill in Congress that is subject to much lobbying by RCC and their consultants the Western Land Group (WLG). RCC and WLG have been very effective at conveying the point that "Arizona climbers are taken care of" and "are comfortable with losing Oak Flat" because "a well known climber" is working with them to find replacement areas. This comfort level came as a surprise to the Arizona climbing community especially since they were not asked whether this strategy best serves their interests.

The strategy of the Access Fund and FoQC has always been driven by the preferences of the local Arizona climbing community. The AF has hundreds of members in Arizona, has 5 affiliated local climbing organizations in the state, and has continually been open with local climbers about our strategy all the while asking for their perspective. Moreover, over 1,000 climbers have signed up as members of the FoQC and we've gotten over 1,400 signatures on a Save Oak Flat Petition in support of our position.

Nine of Arizona's 10 congressional representatives (including both senators) are cosponsors of the land-exchange legislation and the governor supports it too.

While this statement is true, both sponsors of the Southeast Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005 have told RCC they expect RCC to work with local community and climbing groups to preserve as much Oak Flat access as possible in addition to providing for replacement climbing areas. Senator Kyl stated "I have included a placeholder in the bill for such additional climbing provisions if agreed to."

Resolution Copper Company (RCC) has made it clear that, regardless of mining method employed, they may need to close access to the surface for public safety within a few years.

True, and that's why RCC has always promoted the idea that climbers should simply go elsewhere to climb. The AF and FoQC early on decided that Oak Flat was important and worth saving. Instead of giving up, we tried to convince RCC and Congress there has to be some middle ground, some continued access to Oak Flat. It goes against our mission to give up on an area and eagerly agree to swap it out for an unidentified (at the time) climbing area. It is our obligation to fight for what's already ours and not give in no matter how deep the pockets of our opponent. The Access Fund continues to assess our chances politically regarding saving Oak Flat, and these opinions result not from RCC's PR materials, but from many conversations and meetings with political advisors, public land law and mining industry experts, but most importantly the political offices, at the federal, state and local levels, who will make the final decisions in this issue. Our numerous direct meeting include Senator Kyl and Congressman Renzi who introduced the Oak Flat land exchange bills.

RCC may be planning a "mine for the 21st Century," but they're stuck in the liability laws of the 20th Century.

Actually, Arizona's Recreational Use Statute was last amended in 1998. That law provides that a public or private landowner owner is not liable to a recreational user except upon a showing that the owner was guilty of willful, malicious or grossly negligent conduct which was a direct cause of the injury to the recreational user, so long as a fee is not charged for the recreation. See ARS § 33-1551. Months ago the AF provided RCC an extensive memo that outlined the various issues related to recreational access and private landowner liability, in addition to highly detailed maps of Oak Flat noting all of the important bouldering areas, and have led site inspections of the Oak Flat area for WLG staff.

RCC offered to retain someone to explore Arizona in the hopes that an area or areas could be found that climbers would rather go to than Oak Flat Friends of Queen Creek (FOQC) and the Access Fund (AF) both refused to cooperate in such a search.

The AF and FoQC are not opposed to the replacement climbing areas. Our collective political assessment - which turned out to be true - was if climbers eagerly jumped on the concept of replacing Oak Flat with another area, RCC would trumpet such to all that would hear including politicians at the federal, state and local levels, and the result will be to neutralize the strength of the climbing community's voice in preserving some access to Oak Flat.

We all look forward to visiting this newly developed climbing area on public lands, though wonder why its location was kept a secret until now? WLG was never clear whether there was any private land involved, apparently due to the intransigence of the private seller. The most recent statement is there are indeed 160 acres of private land potentially involved, some of which has quality climbing but is primarily necessary for easier auto access-which we absolutely support-to the main crags.

Believing it would be a mistake and a shame if the climbing community didn't explore all its options, I accepted the position and assembled a team of open-minded climbers including native Phoenician and 30-year Arizona climbing vet Chris Dunn.

While we understand that a number of Sherman's friends feel as he does, his mistake was keeping his project within his circle of friends and acquaintances. His error was not including the established local climbing community and the AF (whether he likes us or not) in his decision because this decision was bigger than just John Sherman, it impacted everyone who has or would enjoy Oak Flat. Those of us involved in trying to preserve Oak Flat can speak from personal experience that the replacement area efforts have damaged the chances of saving Oak Flat or parts thereof. This divisiveness was apparent in nearly every Congressional office we met with on the issue.

Phoenix climbers who don't have a full day to climb at Tamo will be happy to learn there's nothing in the legislation that will close climbing at Queen Creek Canyon, Apache Leap, and Devil's Canyon.

There is also nothing in the bill that will keep The Pond, Atlantis, Apache Leap (all three currently owned by RCC), and Devil's Canyon (state trust land) open. This is what the AF is working on. The fact that RCC currently owns, and could close, some of the most accessible climbing in the area has been part of FoQC/AF strategy from the beginning. Accordingly, our negotiations with RCC regarding Oak Flat access have included securing formal public access to the privately-owned areas as well.

All of this has been accomplished without a single shred of help from FOQC or AF. These organizations have portrayed this as a while hat/black hat issue, painting me not as an ally fighting for access on a different front, but as a dupe and a sell-out...On an issue this serious I feel climbers should tackle the problem on all fronts and find which option will yield the best result. White hats all around.

We take issue with Sherman's contention that he is working in the interest of climbers, and the Access Fund is not. If no climbers had opposed the Oak Flat land swap, there would be no concessions to the climbing community. It is opposition by the climbing community -- represented by groups such as Friends of Queen Creek and the Access Fund -- that prompted RCC to hire Sherman in the first place. Employing Sherman provides RCC with the opportunity to convince key politicians that the climbing community is divided and perhaps OK with losing access to Oak Flat.

1 ½ years ago climbers were faced with losing all of Oak Flat with some very vague assurances that RCC "would never think of taking from climbers without giving back." Our opposition to losing Oak Flat now promises the possibility of formal access to RCC's private climbing properties, some continued access to Oak Flat and environs, as well as the newly developed area. Nonetheless, given the fact that Sherman has long been disdainful of Oak Flat's quality and has taken a paycheck from RCC there is a clear conflict of interest. Tackling this issue "on all fronts" would have required Sherman to speak with the AZ climbing community, not just his friends and ask them if his strategy was in their interests. For our part, the AF and FoQC have always been steered and informed by the preferences of the local climbing community in AZ.

Repeatedly the AF has entreated climbers to ignore "rumors" and join in lockstep to 'maintain a unified voice' (theirs). They have engaged in misinformation campaigns, including grandly inflating the number of climbs that might be closed and claiming the replacement area is wholly on public land. We don't need our access organizations lying to us because they're afraid we'd make informed opinions if we had the facts.

It's true that strength comes in numbers, and on a political stage the likes of Washington, DC climbers need all the help they can get. What they don't need is someone unilaterally taking issues upon themselves and pursuing a political strategy in relative isolation irrespective of what the larger group thinks and wants. We have always maintained the loss of Oak Flat will result in losing over 2,000 boulder problems and 200 roped routes. These numbers are taken from referencing the land exchange map and overlying that with Marty Karabin's Queen Creek guidebook. Those numbers are real and would result in the largest loss of climbing ever.

Despite the AF's antics, I offered to take their General Counsel and former board member Chris Archer climbing at Tamo to judge the scope and quality of the resource so the AF could determine whether this was an option worth pursuing. Days later Archer relayed to me that the AF's policy director Jason Keith refused the offer on the grounds that the Access Fund is not in the business of acquiring access to new areas. Say what?

This quote is incorrect. In fact, Sherman sent Chris Archer an apology following the publication of the Climbing article for making these false quotes and misrepresenting the AF position: "Chris was talking to me as a friend, not as the General Counsel of the Access Fund, therefore any communications I attributed to him don't necessarily reflect the official stance of the Access Fund."

Misinformation? Not only is Sherman's credibility at issue for falsely quoting Chris Archer, he obviously doesn't know what the Access Fund does. Although many of our issues involve preserving access to and conserving the climbing environments of established climbing areas, the AF has a long and proud record of working to gain access to new climbing areas. Castle Rock Ranch, Idaho; Quartz Mountain, Oklahoma; and Jamestown, Alabama are just a few of the many examples.

The AF will argue that trading one area for others sets a bad precedent. But really, how often does a situation occur when climbers are offered a new area or areas in return for one they might lose? In my experience, that is unprecedented. Acceptance of this deal only sets the precedent that climbers won't settle for less than they deserve.

This "precedent" cuts both ways. To many, including the AF and FoQC, it might mean that climbers are all too willing to give up their threatened climbing areas so long as there's another crag waiting in the wings. Climbing areas are unique and that's what makes them interesting. We can never replace the climbing at Oak Flat, nor the experiences that countless climbers have had there over the years. It is our responsibility to be smart about our decisions and political chances of prevailing when faced with an issue like Oak Flat, and it is very important that we fight to maintain what we have and preserve access to and conserve the climbing environment of areas across the country.

In the past couple of months, I've listened to a number of Phoenix climbers and I hear a common theme: they don't want to lose Oak Flat, but if they do, they don't want to come up empty-handed. As one local told me, "We just want somewhere to climb."

Phoenix area climbers will have the new area to climb at (although they'll have to drive farther) - that we know. Remember, the land exchange bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture, not RCC, to identify and provide new replacement areas. What's at play here is the level of continued access to Oak Flat and environs.

It's my opinion that the AF is just using Oak Flat as its fundraising poster child. I've heard Phoenix locals echo this opinion.

This statement reflects a total misunderstanding of what the Access Fund does, and how it gets financial support. Advocacy on an issue such as Oak Flat is an expensive endeavor which requires extensive AZ and Washington, DC lobbying in addition to intensive local organizing. Our support comes from the climbing community both on a personal and business level and our audited financials are public record. Over 82% of our funding goes directly to pay for our advocacy efforts; a very high % for any non profit.

AF's refusal to even explore the options shows a reprehensible disregard for Arizona climbers. As climbers we deserve a better Access Fund.

The Access Fund and Friends of Queen Creek are working tirelessly with Arizona climbers, members of Congress, their staffs, committee staffs, the outdoor industry and other interested parties to reach a far better deal for climbers than merely allowing ourselves to be ushered off to some new climbing area and saying goodbye to Oak Flat forever. Would you rather have your climbing access organization give up so easily, or fight for what's yours?

This is not an all-or-nothing access situation and it shouldn't be treated as such.

We agree this issue should be pursued on all fronts, including involvement of the local climbing community. We have never characterized this as an "all-or-nothing" access issue, in fact, it's quite complicated. There are private, state and federal lands at issue here; state trust land, US Forest Service property and BLM resources; roped climbing, bouldering and traditional routes; climbers, birders, hunters, Native Americans, environmentalists, conservation groups, economically depressed local communities, and progressive mining action groups all have an interest in Oak Flat. Because of these complexities the AF and FoQC have sought a balanced approach that endorses economically feasible mining that doesn't completely destroy that valued public resource found at Oak Flat.

FOQC/AF is adamantly opposed to the exchange that would allow you to climb at Tamo.

You can climb at Tamo today and will be able to go there in the future. Conversely, Sherman's work with RCC/WLG may have already impacted your chances to ever climb at Oak Flat again though the AF and FoQC are doing all we can to save it.

Net Present Value and contain net worth of the rock are two very different things, Curt. You should know that by now.

A while back I calculated a rough (really rough since I'm not involved and don't know design parameters) NPV for block caving of around $1 billion over 30 years. It was very easy to get negative NPV for other methods. IE, other methods would be uneconomic.

Who sherman works for is not irrelevant - there's a huge difference between an employee and a consultant. Consultants are independent and don't necessarily have the best interests of the company at heart.

Who sherman works for is not irrelevant -

No one is projecting $1.70 copper to last long. LME stocks have doubled their recent lows and hedge funds have been reported selling. Today's copper price is a lot more irrelevant than anything else being discussed. My model may have shown a stoping method could make money at over $1.20, give or take. The assumptions were dubious since I hadn't talked anyone about how much it'll cost to build at the time. It was just two years ago copper was at $0.65.