|
ErikF
Apr 6, 2010, 12:20 PM
Post #576 of 619
(5553 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2009
Posts: 41
|
Queen Creek Coalition has received a full response today from Resolution Copper regarding our letter of February 8th of this year.
To see the response in full, click here:
http://www.queencreekcoalition.com/media/RCM_Response_to_QCC>>>>>
If you want to see the letter that the QCC sent on Feb. 8th, that is here:
http://www.queencreekcoalition.com/media/qcc_response_rcm_Fe>>>>>
READ UP ON THIS STUFF!!! REMINDER: TOMORROW IS THE PUBLIC MEETING WHERE YOU CAN BRING UP QUESTIONS AND COMMENT TO THE QCC IN PERSON REGARDING THIS INFORMATION!!!
April 6th, PRG, 6:30pm
|
|
|
|
|
ErikF
Apr 11, 2010, 11:49 PM
Post #577 of 619
(5534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2009
Posts: 41
|
For a summary of the 1st quarter public meeting of the QCC during which the RCM response was discussed, see the forum posted by Dief called Queen Creek Coalition Meeting elsewhere here on RC.com.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...orum_view_collapsed;
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 20, 2010, 6:31 AM
Post #578 of 619
(5490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
UPDATE
There was a meeting of the Queen Creek Coalition Board earlier tonight.
Paul Diefenderfer moved that: The QCC's goal is to maximize climbing in the Queen Creek region and we seek to accomplish this by agreeing to a deal with RCM that includes access to Tamo and endorsement of the land exchange legislation. The motion was seconded by John Keedy.
Discussion of the proposed motion followed with different members expressing a variety of opinions about the motion, its consequences, and implementation. The stated intent of the motion is to have the QCC draft a new agreement with Resolution upon the execution of which the QCC will be willing to endorse the land exchange legislation.
After a call for the question, the motion carried 6 to 4.
In my opinion, this was a truly stunning blunder on the part of the Queen Creek Coalition and effective tonight, I have resigned from its Board. The QCC is no longer an advocacy group, with the protection and preservation of long established AZ climbing areas in mind.
Even more disturbing, the vote on this misguided motion was forced tonight with the purposeful intent of preempting soon to be introduced RCC related legislation in the House of Representatives that will contain language that a vast number of Arizona climbers would be extremely enthusiastic to support. Unfortunately, climbers have now lost an excellent vehicle through which their collective support could have have been expressed.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
ErikF
May 20, 2010, 12:45 PM
Post #579 of 619
(5470 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2009
Posts: 41
|
Meeting Summary – QCC Board meeting Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Present: Rick Cecala, John Keedy, Fred AmRhein, Curt Shannon, Marty Karabin, Paul Diefenderfer, Greg Opland, and Erik Filsinger
Mike Covington had given his instructions and proxy to Erik Filsinger for the purposes of voting on a new course of action.
Curt Shannon gave an overview of the recent visits with administration and legislative contacts in Washington regarding the Land Exchange.
The discussion covered a wide variety of assumptions and possible interpretations of events. The QCC board members expressed a fairly diverse set of opinions. Among the topics covered were the likelihood of passage of the land exchange, the ability of the opponents of the RCM-backed measure to influence its passage, the importance of continuing to focus on protecting the land surface versus the alternative focus of obtaining the most net rock climbing, and the potential actions consistent with each assumption and opinion.
Paul Diefenderfer moved that: The QCC's goal is to maximize climbing in the Queen Creek region and we seek to accomplish this by agreeing to a deal with RCM that includes access to Tamo and endorsement of the land exchange legislation. The motion was seconded by John Keedy.
Discussion of the proposed motion followed with different members expressing a variety of opinions about the motion, its consequences, and implementation. The stated intent of the motion is to have the QCC draft a new agreement with Resolution upon the execution of which the QCC will be willing to endorse the land exchange legislation.
After a call for the question, the motion carried 6 to 4.
Paul was given the assignment to draft a document that would contain the specifics of the arrangement with RCM. He will get it back to the QCC within two weeks where it will be vetted and voted on.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 20, 2010, 1:31 PM
Post #580 of 619
(5464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Wow, given the list of people voting, I'm amazed at the result. Sad, sad.
Things are not going well in AZ these days.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 20, 2010, 4:40 PM
Post #581 of 619
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
For the record, The Access Fund was adamantly opposed to the QCC taking the vote that it did last night setting the "new direction" for the group. The vote was forced by the QCC in spite of written communication from the Access Fund Policy Director stating this position. Additionally, the Chair of the QCC (Erik Filsinger) intentionally misrepresented the position of the Access Fund Policy Director to the group on this very point.
Jason Keith informed me this morning that he told the QCC Chair no fewer than three times, in no uncertain terms, that this vote should not be taken. Jason also spent considerable time trying to convince the QCC Chair that an outside mediator should be brought in to look over all the available information and suggest a reasonable path forward for the group--in order to preserve the integrity of the QCC moving forward. Not only was this suggestion ignored, the suggestion was not even presented to other members of the board for consideration.
Unfortunately, it appears that the QCC Board has become nothing more than a rogue group representing perhaps little more than their own personal interests.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 23, 2010, 7:01 AM
Post #583 of 619
(5345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
roadstead wrote: curt wrote: Unfortunately, it appears that the QCC Board has become nothing more than a rogue group representing perhaps little more than their own personal interests.Curt Knowing Curt and knowing he wants nothing more than to save the climbing and bouldering at QC/Oak Flats. This does not sound very good...at all.  Curt, I hope you were not the only one to walk away from the QCC Board that night!
Thanks, Dave. I guess we'll see. It was an unfortunate and unnecessary outcome either way.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
gecko4
May 24, 2010, 2:45 AM
Post #584 of 619
(5319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 23
|
Greg Opland and I also suddenly felt the need to leave the room. At this point I am still a QCC member, though with the change in fundamental direction and the narrowed focus on the mining company only agenda it's difficult to rationally justify remaining with such a rogue climber's committee.
Fred AmRhein
(This post was edited by gecko4 on May 24, 2010, 2:47 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jbone
May 24, 2010, 4:03 AM
Post #585 of 619
(5308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 463
|
This entire episode since inception has reaked of "Climbers Entitlement."
Mining is way way more important to the human race than climbing will ever be, much closer to mining is conserving the environment which climbing does a poor job of as well.
The most pathetic part of being a Phoenix Climber is having this sense of entitlement constantly being projected from too many climbers here. It is and always will be a privilege to climb on rock.
IMO, Its absurd to assume just because its rock its role is to be available to mankind to be climbed. And for the sins we as climbers have committed there at Queen Creek, it was only a matter of time before it was taken away from us.
|
|
|
|
|
gecko4
May 24, 2010, 1:46 PM
Post #586 of 619
(5281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 23
|
jbone wrote: This entire episode since inception has reaked of "Climbers Entitlement." Mining is way way more important to the human race than climbing will ever be, much closer to mining is conserving the environment which climbing does a poor job of as well.
JBone,
Mining is quite important; and personally I'm an advocate for balancing responsible mining techniques with public recreational use of our public lands.
As it turns out, Oak Flat is actually dedicated to recreational purposes by Public Land Order 1229. So, if one accepts that camping, hiking, and climbing are considered conventional recreational activities, then indeed the public is entitled to participate in them on Oak Flat.
Due to this PLO, there is actually no right or entitlement for a mining company to explore for minerals. It's one of the main reasons why the mining company seeks to have it rescinded via their legislation.
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
jbone
May 24, 2010, 7:49 PM
Post #587 of 619
(5270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 463
|
Without Oak Flats we still have the opportunity to recreate throughout Arizona and the US.
This mining opportunity is specific to Oak Flats so if they tried to go mine out near Crown King then they would go broke.
My point is, there will always be places to recreate but when there is mining it takes priority as it should.
If we truly cared about Queen Creek we probably wouldn't have glued and chipped the place to the state is in now. Its karma that its being taken away from the climbing population, accept your destiny and learn to appreciate what we have while we have it.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
May 24, 2010, 8:44 PM
Post #588 of 619
(5258 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
jbone wrote: My point is, there will always be places to recreate but when there is mining it takes priority as it should.
Are you seriously this big of a dumbass? So if there are valuable minerals in Hueco we should just turn it into an open pit mine, right? El Cap too, right? There's bound to be some minerals in that hunk of granite, grind it to the ground!
If we follow your priorities, eventually there will NOT always be places to recreate.
Idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
jbone
May 24, 2010, 9:01 PM
Post #589 of 619
(5246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 463
|
They are not only my priorities they are mankind's priorities.
I'd be willing to bet you own something that contains the minerals we mine from these projects. Probably some of the computer you use to type here was mined from these very holes. The day you are willing to put down your computer and selflessly leave the world of consumerism then you just may have a chance to save 1 or 2 of these "sacred" recreational area's.
Till then, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
|
|
|
|
|
gecko4
May 24, 2010, 9:14 PM
Post #590 of 619
(5241 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 23
|
jbone wrote: Without Oak Flats we still have the opportunity to recreate throughout Arizona and the US.
JBone,
Certainly this is true in the bulk climbing argument made from a distance.
However, I was speaking to your point about entitlement; a right of sorts.
My point is that Oak Flat specifically, the parcel that comprises about 760 acres and contains the campground, has not only been set aside for your recreational activities, but mining has been prohibited. Additionally, the protection has been upheld in the past in at least two incidences where mining companies attempted to acquire it administratively.
It would seem that society would be sorely disadvantaged if it always put the interests of extraction before other things all the time. (Seems like there's a big mess in the Gulf of Mexico right now that might have been averted had better protocols been in place in several areas?)
I would never wish that another more prominent climbing area be threatened as Oak Flat is, but if this particular legislation is allowed to proceed and the withdrawal is abandoned, then to me it seems that a precedent in no small manner has been set for future loss of similarly situated lands.
Personally, I recognize that maybe some loss is inevitable for eventual mining infrastructure, but a true and modern balance for coexistence seems in order for this close-by, scrappy area. At a minimum, it at least seems like an opportunity to evolve a bit and come up with a solution that is truly 21st century based.
Fred
(This post was edited by gecko4 on May 25, 2010, 4:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 24, 2010, 9:33 PM
Post #591 of 619
(5232 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jbone wrote: They are not only my priorities they are mankind's priorities. I'd be willing to bet you own something that contains the minerals we mine from these projects. Probably some of the computer you use to type here was mined from these very holes. The day you are willing to put down your computer and selflessly leave the world of consumerism then you just may have a chance to save 1 or 2 of these "sacred" recreational area's. Till then, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Says who? The idea that mining and recreation are necessarily mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy. The Magma mine at Oak Flat operated for decades while campers, climbers and other recreational users of the land happily went about their business nearby.
The Greens Creek mine in Alaska was also originally proposed as a block-cave mine, but because of the potential impact to the adjacent Admiralty Island National Monument, another less destructive mining technique was eventually implemented.
Just because RCM says that they "must" block-cave the resolution ore body, doesn't make it so.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
May 24, 2010, 11:26 PM
Post #592 of 619
(5211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
jbone wrote: They are not only my priorities they are mankind's priorities.
You’re an even bigger dumbass than I originally thought.
So now YOU speak for all of mankind, do you?
What is in mankind’s best interest is sustainable resource consumption and balance, not just extracting everything everywhere until it’s all gone and until our natural resources (which are economic generators too, and will be even more so in the future) are destroyed.
jbone wrote: I'd be willing to bet you own something that contains the minerals we mine from these projects. Probably some of the computer you use to type here was mined from these very holes. The day you are willing to put down your computer and selflessly leave the world of consumerism then you just may have a chance to save 1 or 2 of these "sacred" recreational area's.
The above really shows how big of a dumbass you are. That’s a logical fallacy, and you’re not even smart enough to know it, are you.
I’ll explain it to you real simple-like so that your feeble mind can understand.
Just because we have items that are made of a certain material does not mean that we cannot make judicious decisions about how much and where such materials should be extracted. Can your dumbass brain comprehend that?
So, logically speaking, your attempt at an argument was nothing but a big ol’ crapload of stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 25, 2010, 12:22 AM
Post #595 of 619
(5193 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jbone wrote: Its funny when you see someone get so obviously frustrated that the only thing they can utter are pathetic personal attacks...
What about my comments? Don't you honestly believe that "win-win" compromise scenarios can often exist?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jbone
May 25, 2010, 1:02 AM
Post #596 of 619
(5185 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 463
|
I believe the "win-win" is a phase where the eventual needs and demands of the growth of mankind eventually supersede the "win-win."
Right now the demands of the locals who live in Superior and the Globe-Miami region are what define the "win-win."
These people stake their livelihood on the mining that is done in this area and for us as climbers or campers to think that our demands are legitimately comparable to theirs is absurd.
I am grateful that I got the opportunity to climb QC and attend some of the best PBC's the area could offer. But just like life its not forever.
(This post was edited by jbone on May 25, 2010, 1:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 25, 2010, 1:25 AM
Post #597 of 619
(5176 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jbone wrote: I believe the "win-win" is a phase where the eventual needs and demands of the growth of mankind eventually supersede the "win-win." Right now the demands of the locals who live in Superior and the Globe-Miami region are what define the "win-win." These people stake their livelihood on the mining that is done in this area and for us as climbers or campers to think that our demands are legitimately comparable to theirs is absurd...
Well, you've obviously completely misunderstood the definition of "win-win."
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jbone
May 25, 2010, 1:40 AM
Post #598 of 619
(5170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 463
|
I just choose not to stake my faith in "win-win."
I just don't believe there is a balance between mining and climbing that could support any sort of win-win. To me, curtailing the expansion of the human race is just not realistic.
Who are we to say we can have something but others cannot? If we can justify it to ourselves then we justify it to all of mankind. Don't fool yourself for one minute. The human race WILL use every resource this world has to offer in order to sustain our existence.
Balance starts with yourself not with some piece of legislation somebody got paid to pass through a legal body. You can choose to be a consumer and with that choice I believe you lose all available "win-win" scenarios.
I really do believe the choice of preservation is made every time you spend a dollar. Over consumption is the true adversary of the environment. If you don't want mining companies taking over your crags then stop buying their products.
Sadly, none reading this will ever truly be able to accomplish this. Hence the loss of all "win-win" scenarios.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
May 25, 2010, 2:07 AM
Post #599 of 619
(5160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jbone wrote: I just choose not to stake my faith in "win-win." I just don't believe there is a balance between mining and climbing that could support any sort of win-win. To me, curtailing the expansion of the human race is just not realistic. Who are we to say we can have something but others cannot? If we can justify it to ourselves then we justify it to all of mankind. Don't fool yourself for one minute. The human race WILL use every resource this world has to offer in order to sustain our existence. Balance starts with yourself not with some piece of legislation somebody got paid to pass through a legal body. You can choose to be a consumer and with that choice I believe you lose all available "win-win" scenarios. I really do believe the choice of preservation is made every time you spend a dollar. Over consumption is the true adversary of the environment. If you don't want mining companies taking over your crags then stop buying their products. Sadly, none reading this will ever truly be able to accomplish this. Hence the loss of all "win-win" scenarios.
Well, with all due respect, I disagree. I believe there are means by which minerals can be extracted from the Earth without necessarily compromising either the environment or the recreational opportunities that we currently enjoy. That is my definition of "win-win" and I believe that outcome represents the way of the future.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oak Flats.jpg
