|
sonso45
Apr 20, 2006, 6:36 AM
Post #501 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2002
Posts: 997
|
nothing's decided about what wil be open because the matter is still unsettled in congress. Right now, everything is available for climbing. It could change any day. The problem is that nothing is resolved or set in stone yet.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 23, 2006, 1:57 AM
Post #502 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
There will be a hearing on senate bill S.2466 (the latest revision) on Wednesday, May 24th at 2pm in the Public Lands and Forests subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Resources committee.
The Access Fund has successfully negotiated and executed a license agreement by which climbers should be able to maintain long-term access to many of the climbing areas in the general Oak Flat / Queen Creek area.
I'll post more after I get back from DC.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jabtocrag
May 23, 2006, 2:05 AM
Post #503 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 476
|
Good to hear Curt.
|
|
|
|
|
slip
Jun 23, 2006, 3:17 AM
Post #504 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 49
|
Any updates Curt?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 23, 2006, 5:43 AM
Post #505 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
I'm sorry for not posting something sooner. The following are two recent announcements made by The Access Fund and The Friends of Queen Creek on the curent status of Oak Flat and Queen Creek climbing access.
QUEEN CREEK CLIMBING AGREEMENT WITH RESOLUTION COPPER COMPANY
From: THE ACCESS FUND
The Deal - It was a specific condition of RCC that it negotiate with the Access Fund rather than the Friends of Queen Creek (FoQC). Because Oak Flat will likely be acquired by RCC in the next year (or sooner), and the mining exploration and development RCC plans may pose safety and other conflicts at Oak Flat requiring the eventual exclusion of the public, last month the Access Fund executed a recreational use license with RCC to maintain at least some continued climbing/bouldering access at Oak Flat and Queen Creek Canyon.
The purpose and need for the deal reflected both: 1) the potential loss of public rock climbing, bouldering, and hiking opportunities on the Oak Flat parcel; and 2) liability concerns and the need to formally license rock climbing, bouldering and hiking on RCC’s existing private lands in Queen Creek Canyon (Atlantis and The Pond). The terms of this agreement reflect the reality that the climbing community had very little negotiating capital, especially once the AZ governor, entire congressional delegation, and all the local government leaders (Superior, Gila County, etc) endorsed the land swap (except US Rep. Grijalva).
Still, we did manage to force the Tamo development (which is written into the land exchange bill) and maintain climbing access to Oak Flat for a 5-year term, and possibly longer if RCC never mines the area. We also secured climbing access to Atlantis and The Pond in Queen Creek Canyon where RCC had significant concerns related to liability and several times had threatened that those areas could be closed to the public The Queen Creek Canyon areas are very likely to be licensed beyond 5 years because RCC has no plans to mine there.
The License – The terms of the license reflect 2+ years of work by the Access Fund, the Friends of Queen Creek and other Arizona locals and represent one of the AF’s largest advocacy efforts in the past several years. This license will: 1) allow for the continuation of rock climbing, bouldering and hiking (“permitted uses”) on portions of the 3,025 acre Oak flat parcel (where most of the bouldering is found) for 5 years; and 2) to authorize such uses on RCC’s existing private lands known as The Pond and Atlantis, also for 5 years. The license agreement for all of these areas may be revoked at any time by RCC, or RCC may close all or portions of Oak Flat (probably not Queen Creek Canyon) to public recreational use on a temporary and/or permanent basis to accommodate their mining exploration and development plans. RCC will make “good faith efforts” to keep the areas open for the 5-year term (and beyond) unless they determine an area unsafe due to: 1) health or safety concerns; or 2) if all or a portion of Oak Flat is needed on a temporary or permanent basis for mining or mining related activities.
Lost Climbing - Once the land exchange bill is signed, The Mine Area, Eurodog Valley and the Magma Mine Road will be RCC’s private land and closed to the public. Although the initial land exchange bill allowed some of these areas to remain open for up to 2 years, the fact that they are close to RCC’s existing mine shaft and the likely future center of expanded mining exploration and operations RCC insisted these areas be closed to the public immediately. The Access Fund lobbied hard to maintain access to these areas for as long as possible, if not indefinitely, but evidently these areas are the primary target for RCC’s future plans and we were not able to convince either RCC or Congress to maintain climbing at these locations. We had to take what we could get and that was most of the Oak Flat bouldering in addition to Atlantis, The Pond and Tamo (if you haven’t already, see www.climbtamo.com).
Details and Conditions - The license requires annual meetings between the parties to talk about any access concerns, to organize clean-ups, and ensure liability insurance payments and appropriate signage. The FoQC, other AZ climbing locals and the Access Fund, should share this role and we anticipate active participation by local climbers in all details of the deal’s implementation. RCC will place sign in/sign out boxes and information materials at entrances to all the licensed climbing areas and these will contain disclaimers of responsibility, statements of assumption of risk and hold harmless in favor of both The Access Fund and RCC. Everyone using the licensed parcels must sign-in prior to entering -- any person failing to sign in, (or using alcohol or controlled substances) will be considered a trespasser.
An express condition of the license is that the Access Fund maintain a general liability policy to protect RCC against lawsuits. Obtaining this policy was extremely difficult and the only option cost nearly $25,000 annually. RCC agreed to pay most of this policy but the climbing community will be required to contribute $2,000 annually. The local Arizona climbing community will be expected to pay the entire $2,000 in future years, however to make sure the deals gets done the Access Fund will contribute towards the first year. The sustainability of this license depends on continued activism, of the local climbing community.
There are additional details that need to be discussed and implemented (for example, access into the Oak Flat parcel will eventually be rerouted to a different entrance located further east).
___________________________________________________________
From: THE FRIENDS OF QUEEN CREEK
The recently executed license that will allow climbers continued access to many parts of Queen Creek Canyon and Oak Flat was negotiated between the Access Fund and Resolution Copper Company with the full blessing of the Friends of Queen Creek. The primary reason that the AF negotiated this agreement on behalf of the Friends group is because this license is a legal and binding document that needed to be executed between two well established and stable entities. Clearly, the local climbing community has every right to ask whether or not entering into such an agreement will ultimately benefit AZ climbers. Here are a few answers, in our group's opinion:
Q: Why did FoQC and the Access Fund drop its opposition to a new mine at Oak Flat in favor of settling for the license agreement?
A: Actually, we never advocated an "all-out" opposition to a new mine at Oak Flat, Our initial position was that mining and climbing could potentially coexist in the Oak Flat area. While we still believe this to be true, FoQC and the AF came to understand that we would not be successful in any demand that a coexistence doctrine be written into the land exchange bill.
Q: How did the idea of a climbing license come about?
A: It was the next best thing. Both the AF and FoQC groups desired to maintain ongoing climbing access to as much of Queen Creek and Oak Flat as possible--for as long as possible. When we first raised the idea of such a license with Resolution Copper Company, it was not warmly received. However, intensive ongoing lobbying with Congress and continued negotiations with RCC resulted in an access license that we now endorse.
Q: Is this really a good deal for Arizona climbers?
A: Only time will tell--but we believe so. The most likely alternative to result from maintaining a "hard line" AF and FoQC position, would have been that climbers would get nothing more than access to a new "replacement" climbing area--and ALL access to Queen Creek and Oak Flat would have been gone forever, after a couple of years.
Q: But, access to The Pond and Atlantis areas were never at risk, were they?
A: That is false. Resolution was very reluctant to maintain climbing access to even those areas not directly impacted by any new mining activities, due to liability concerns.
Q: So, what do we climbers get out of this deal--and what must we give up?
A: The access license gives climbers ongoing access to The Pond, Atlantis and virtually all of the bouldering areas located on the Oak Flat parcel. Sadly, if this land exchange bill becomes law, access to The Mine and Eurodog climbing areas will be lost, due to their physical proximity to Resolution's planned mining operations. However, to partially offset this loss, Resolution Copper company will work with the State of Arizona to establish a new climber's park at Mt. Tamoshanter.
On balance, the FoQC and Access Fund believe that our hard work over the last two and one-half years has resulted in a negotiated outcome that is favorable to climbers, while also accommodating all of the other competing interests. We hope you will continue to support the ongoing efforts of The Access Fund and FoQC.
The FoQC Steering Committee
Please keep in mind that the climbing license will currently only apply to the Atlantis and Pond climbing areas--as they are already on RCC's property. Until and unless the land exchange bill is signed into law, all other access to climbing at Oak Flat and Queen Creek remain open.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
lindajft
Jun 23, 2006, 2:45 PM
Post #506 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 68
|
thanks for the info
|
|
|
|
|
md3
Jun 23, 2006, 3:30 PM
Post #507 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 172
|
Just curious as to why the mining company would be so worried about liability given this AZ statute:
In reply to: § 33-1551. Duty of owner, lessee or occupant of premises to recreational or educational users; liability ; definitions A. A public or private owner, easement holder, lessee or occupant of premises is not liable to a recreational or educational user except upon a showing that the owner, easement holder, lessee or occupant was guilty of willful, malicious or grossly negligent conduct which was a direct cause of the injury to the recreational or educational user. ... 4. "Recreational user" means a person to whom permission has been granted or implied without the payment of an admission fee or any other consideration to travel across or to enter upon premises to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, ride, exercise, swim or engage in similar pursuits. The purchase of a state hunting, trapping or fishing license is not the payment of an admission fee or any other consideration as provided in this section. A nominal fee that is charged by a public entity or a nonprofit corporation to offset the cost of providing the educational or recreational premises and associated services does not constitute an admission fee or any other consideration as prescribed by this section.
I understand that statutes which limit common law liability have to be construed narrowly, but do their lawyers think climbing wouldn’t be considered a recreational pursuit that is similar to those that are listed? Is anyone aware of any case law from other states finding that climbing was not covered under similar statutes? Ours has withstood constitutional scrutiny. If climbing can be expected to be covered, why bother with a liability waiver which is usually ineffective against willful, malicious or grossly negligent conduct? From what I understand, the consequences of such conduct are not normally insurable either.
|
|
|
|
|
azstickbow
Jun 25, 2006, 6:29 AM
Post #508 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 44
|
I think I'm going to puke even though I saw this coming several weeks ago when I first read the letter the AF wrote in support of the land trade.
The AF got their asses handed to them in this deal but still claim they helped get a good deal for climbers. Well, I guess when you consider that they totally ruined their negotiating position through their sophomoric media campaign and refusal to even consider any alternatives I'm surprised we have any access to Oak Flat at all. Good job guys.
|
|
|
|
|
allarounder
Jun 25, 2006, 2:19 PM
Post #509 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2003
Posts: 174
|
xxx
|
|
|
|
|
dief
Jun 25, 2006, 4:02 PM
Post #510 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 91
|
Considering that at first Resolution Copper wanted to close the entire Queen Creek area to climbing in exchange for a new area (Tamo) I think we did as good we could. With only one state rep against the trade we didn't have much to work with.
For those of you who think we could have done better: 1) where were you when we were asking for help & support and 2) please hop on a plane to Washington and show us how it should be done. I for one will kiss your golden ass if you can do a better job!
Dief - proud founder of the Friends of Queen Creek
The people who do the least bitch the most.
|
|
|
|
|
areyoumydude
Jun 25, 2006, 6:10 PM
Post #511 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 1971
|
In reply to: Considering that at first Resolution Copper wanted to close the entire Queen Creek area to climbing in exchange for a new area (Tamo) I think we did as good we could. .
First time I heard that one. Please let me know where I can find this info.
My understanding is that the areas that the AF and Foqc claimed they helped to keep open were never in danger in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
dief
Jun 25, 2006, 10:05 PM
Post #512 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 91
|
[quote="areyoumydude]First time I heard that one. Please let me know where I can find this info.
My understanding is that the areas that the AF and Foqc claimed they helped to keep open were never in danger in the first place.
Your understanding is wrong. When Resolution first approached climbers via Jim Waugh that was the deal they wanted. That is why I got involved. New climbing areas are great. But I want to keep as many of the existing areas as possible. Basically Resolution owns the entire canyon. They wanted to close off all their land to the public. We (AF & FoQC) negotiated the license agreement to allow continued access to the areas not directly affected by the mine. Not sure who is saying otherwise but I would have to say they weren't at any of the meetings with Resolution that I was at.
|
|
|
|
|
rgbscan
Oct 20, 2006, 9:43 PM
Post #513 of 619
(81867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2003
Posts: 106
|
I don't know how I feel posting this as I'm not normally a political wacko or anything. But For those of you still a little sore about this whole Queen Creek issue, I'd like to remind you that Senator Kyl is up for re-election this year. Might be a good time to read up on his competition. See his site at http://pederson2006.com/
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 24, 2007, 4:01 AM
Post #514 of 619
(18041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Most recently, the primary sponsor for the RCC land exchange bill in the U.S. House of Representatives (Rick Renzi) has gotten himself into some pretty hot water...
http://online.wsj.com/...3NzI3MDAyODAwWj.html
It's unclear if or how this may impact the land exchange in question--but I suppose it might.
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on Apr 25, 2007, 5:46 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
lindajft
Apr 24, 2007, 4:31 AM
Post #515 of 619
(18029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 68
|
now is a good time to start writing Janet our Govenor AGAIN!!!!!!!
thanks Curt for your persistence on updating us.
Linda
|
|
|
|
|
mikej
Apr 24, 2007, 5:14 AM
Post #516 of 619
(18012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2006
Posts: 210
|
no good can come of this. Thanks Curt. Was curious to see what if any conclusions were/are being made about the land trade. At the least, seems this will slow down the process a bit. Unfortunate for all he had to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
sed
Apr 24, 2007, 5:30 AM
Post #517 of 619
(18004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
I'm with you Dief. When your hand is poor and the other guy has a stack of chips taller than your head a bluff will be called and you will probably loose. In a land of capitalism we got more than our market share, I'm surprised they gave us anything at all.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
pheenixx
Apr 25, 2007, 5:31 AM
Post #518 of 619
(17950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2004
Posts: 478
|
Letters need to go instead to the Congressman - RCC will be fishing for a new sponsor. This is not currently a State-Gov issue.
Important people are - Raúl M.Grijalva - (he's never supported the land-swap bill. send your thanks & encouragement for continued support)
http://www.house.gov/grijalva/contact.html
Harry Mitchell - (newly elected last Nov, and has been open to letters and comments against the Bill)
http://mitchell.house.gov
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 25, 2007, 5:54 AM
Post #519 of 619
(17938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
The statements below appeared in some blog and were e-mailed to me late tonight, so I haven't yet been able to confirm the content.
renzi wrote: "For several weeks, I have been the subject of leaked stories, conjecture, and false attacks about a land exchange. None of them bear any resemblance to the truth." "So that no one can question the motivation behind the land exchange, which I and other leaders from both parties have argued is critical to the future of Arizona, I have spoken to Congressman Pastor who will introduce a new version of the Resolution Copper land exchange. In addition, I will take a leave of absence from all my committee assignments. I will continue to focus on important district work and issues critical to my constituents."
If true, however, Congressman Pastor will obviously be playing a key role in moving this land exchange legislation forward.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
pheenixx
Apr 26, 2007, 1:44 AM
Post #520 of 619
(17892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2004
Posts: 478
|
renzi wrote: "So that no one can question the motivation behind the land exchange, which I and other leaders from both parties have argued is critical to the future of Arizona
~ there are many who STILL QUESTION the motivation regardless ~(-:
CRITICAL to the future of Arizona..???? yeah -- and so are lawns..
Thanks curt ~ let's put him on the list anyway. http://www.house.gov/...IP293466554.148.1454
They make the em contact a bit tricky - perhaps we should all just bombard the office with calls ~ District Office - 411 North Central Ave., Phx.(602) 256-0551
(This post was edited by pheenixx on Apr 26, 2007, 1:49 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 26, 2007, 2:51 AM
Post #522 of 619
(17866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Interestingly, in reference to the Renzi quote above, Arizona Congressman Ed Pastor today said:
Pastor wrote: "I did meet with Congressman Rick Renzi and he spoke to me about the importance of the bill. He said it had a fair amount of support in Arizona, including an editorial in The Arizona Republic and support from state officials," Pastor said in a statement. "I said I'd look at it. And if I do introduce something, it would be a new version of the bill, obviously. But it is not anything I will be doing immediately."
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
lindajft
Apr 26, 2007, 3:57 AM
Post #523 of 619
(17836 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 68
|
thx pheenixx
for a nicer read, try
http://www.silverbelt.com/articles/2007/04/25/apache_moccasin/apache01.txt
|
|
|
|
|
pheenixx
Apr 26, 2007, 3:58 AM
Post #524 of 619
(20091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2004
Posts: 478
|
Pastor wrote: "But it is not anything I will be doing immediately."
great..! Maybe sometime next year ~(-:
Curt - can I get a public source for that? I'd like to send in a letter in response. Thanks..!
|
|
|
|
|
pheenixx
Apr 26, 2007, 4:09 AM
Post #525 of 619
(20087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2004
Posts: 478
|
thanks lindajft ~ cool stuff...
|
|
|
|
|
|
