|
|
|
|
chippy
Dec 22, 2004, 5:27 PM
Post #1 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 3
|
As access issues at Queen Creek, Arizona have heated up, representatives of Resolution Copper Company (who wish to permanently block public access to the Oak Flat portion of Queen Creek) are adopting a "divide and conquer" approach towards eliminating access for climbers & boulderers. Access Fund staffers and local climbing groups, such as the Friends of Queen Creek and the Arizona Mountaineering Club, have been working together to present a unified message in the battle, while out-of-state climbing celebrity John Sherman is being paid by Resolution to report a view in contrast to the local's position . Worse, it is feared that a few leading Arizona climbers may further weaken the majority’s efforts, by also lining up for handouts from the foreign-owned mining company.
As readers of this forum already know, mining interests are hoping to win private ownership of the Oak Flat area through a legislative land exchange, so that they can extract ore from the area using the "block cave" mining method. Block cave mining of the ore body under Oak Flats would likely result in permanent destruction of the surface features, and we are being told by Resolution that this is how they intend to extract the ore (many suspect that this is simply the most lucrative option for the company). It is Resolution's position that there is nothing unique about Oak Flat, and that swapping this area for some other nearby jumble of rocks should satisfy all parties, and it's toward these ends that Sherman is being wined, dined, and ferried about in the corporate helicopter.
The outstanding nature of Oak Flat has long been recognized by outdoor enthusiasts, and has been protected by presidential decree since the Eisenhower Administration in 1955. Climbers began visiting the area in the early 70's, but it was not until the Phoenix Bouldering Contest moved to Oak Flat in 1989 that massive route development occurred. Many Arizona climbers may recall meeting John Sherman at one of the Phoenix Bouldering Competitions that have taken place at Oak Flat annually since '89. Regarding his recent dealings with Resolution, Sherman may tell us that he is doing us a favor--that mining interests are going to win this fight, and that he’s at least getting something in exchange for Arizona climbers--perhaps access to an alternative, not-yet-developed area. Concerned parties should consider how convenient that position is for someone on the mining company’s payroll! For local activists, the loss of Oak Flat is far from a forgone conclusion, and while Arizona climbers have a reputation for hospitality, they can be a cantankerous bunch when riled. Shame on John Sherman, and anyone else who selfishly sells Arizona's climbing activists out to corporate interests during the early stages of this fight, in spite of the interests and opinions of the majority of local climbers! Cutting a secret deal with the mining company will most certainly cement your place in Arizona climbing history
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Dec 22, 2004, 5:30 PM
Post #2 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
sucks big time :(
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Dec 22, 2004, 5:49 PM
Post #3 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
Not sure who you are or how to interpret this information. Can some of the folks that have been actively involved in the Queen Creek issues comment on this post?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 22, 2004, 5:50 PM
Post #4 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Loss of access is, of course, not something that should ever be taken lightly. But the accusation that you make, namely that Sherman and others have been bribed to change their opinions, is every bit as serious. Do you have evidence that they are being paid by the company to reshape their opinions?
I hope you understand that, to some of us, you're only an anonymous username making its first post to the site. You aren't exactly a reputable source... yet. Until you become one, you might as well post that John Sherman eats babies, since you've presented as much evidence for it as you have for bribery.
Still, I'll hear you out, especially if some the more well-known-'round-here AZ climbers offer supporting opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
myrmidon
Dec 22, 2004, 5:52 PM
Post #5 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 82
|
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
The unfortunate reality is that mining companies (as evil as you may think of them) have done more good for the 294 million residents of this country than have climbers.
I also think there is more to the story than you have choosen to articulate.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 22, 2004, 6:15 PM
Post #6 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
I was hoping to keep out of this particular aspect of the fight over the Oak Flat campground area, because John Sherman has been a good friend of mine for 20 years, and I am also a Director and founder of The Friends of Queen Creek.
John Sherman has indeed been hired by the Western Land Group, a group that consults and helps other entities structure land exchanges. In this case, the "other entity" is Resolution Copper Company. While there is nothing factually incorrect in the post by "Chippy" above, I think the tone is a bit harsh. Sherman genuinely believes that this new copper mine is going to be built, exactly the way Resolution Copper Company says it will be built--and that there is absolutely nothing we climbers can do to alter Resolution's approach, which will involve permanent loss of the Oak Flat climbing and bouldering area. That being his belief, he thinks he is doing the AZ climbing community a service by locating some alternative areas for us to climb, when Oak Flat is closed.
Unfortunately, what John does not appreciate is that the mine is far from being a "slam-dunk" for Resolution Copper. And, by helping Resolution Copper demonstrate that there may be other areas where we can climb near Phoenix, he is indeed making our task of saving Oak Flat more difficult. I totally reject the premise that Sherman is not doing this with good intentions, however. I merely think he got suckered into the wrong side of this issue.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
anothertucsonclimber
Dec 22, 2004, 6:15 PM
Post #7 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2003
Posts: 149
|
That's a BOLD statement....!!!!!!!
Hope you can back it up.
**Thank's Curt, posting at the same time**
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Dec 22, 2004, 6:16 PM
Post #8 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
I think it's complete BS that you are implicating John Sherman as working with the mining company and against the climbing community without proividing us with a single FACT about what it is the John is doing. How about giving us some evidence, ie. a stament from John, and memo from Resolution, about his official position on this issue? What you just doled out about may or may not be true, but I'm certainly not going to just take your word for it.
I'll wait to see what Curt has to say; he climbs with John on occasion and would surely be able to provide some insight.
Ed
**Curt posted as I was writing. Never mind...**
|
|
|
|
|
ontario_guide
Dec 22, 2004, 6:16 PM
Post #9 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Posts: 526
|
[rant]
In response to myrmidon post:
Have they? Define good. If you mean by mining hard rocks on Federal Land such as gold and then shipping them out of country without paying fees as has been allowed since the 1872 Mining Law which results in an estimated loss to the Treasury of 500,000,000 per year! If you also mean by causing heavy metals such as arsenic and cynaide to leak from tailings ponds into river systems, than ya, you're right. Yea for mines.
[/rant]
In response to the original post, I think that is called slander in most places. Show me the proof.
|
|
|
|
|
areyoumydude
Dec 22, 2004, 6:17 PM
Post #10 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 1971
|
Hey chippy, slandering Sherman under an anonymous usename is chicken shit. Step up or shut up.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 22, 2004, 6:24 PM
Post #11 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: I was hoping to keep out of this particular aspect of the fight over the Oak Flat campground area, because John Sherman has been a good friend of mine for 20 years, and I am also a Director and founder of The Friends of Queen Creek. John Sherman has indeed been hired by the Western Land Group, a group that consults and helps other entities structure land exchanges. In this case, the "other entity" is Resolution Copper Company. While there is nothing factually incorrect in the post by "Chippy" above, I think the tone is a bit harsh. Sherman genuinely believes that this new copper mine is going to be built, exactly the way Resolution Copper Company says it will be built--and that there is absolutely nothing we climbers can do to alter Resolution's approach, which will involve permanent loss of the Oak Flat climbing and bouldering area. That being his belief, he thinks he is doing the AZ climbing community a service by locating some alternative areas for us to climb, when Oak Flat is closed. Unfortunately, what John does not appreciate is that the mine is far from being a "slam-dunk" for Resolution Copper. And, by helping Resolution Copper demonstrate that there may be other areas where we can climb near Phoenix, he is indeed making our task of saving Oak Flat more difficult. I totally reject the premise that Sherman is not doing this with good intentions, however. I merely think he got suckered into the wrong side of this issue. Curt
I thought it would end up being something like this. Thanks, Curt.
|
|
|
|
|
sandbag
Dec 22, 2004, 6:27 PM
Post #12 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 1443
|
In reply to: [rant] In response to myrmidon post: Have they? Define good. If you mean by mining hard rocks on Federal Land such as gold and then shipping them out of country without paying fees as has been allowed since the 1872 Mining Law which results in an estimated loss to the Treasury of 500,000,000 per year! If you also mean by causing heavy metals such as arsenic and cynaide to leak from tailings ponds into river systems, than ya, you're right. Yea for mines. [/rant] In response to the original post, I think that is called slander in most places. Show me the proof.
just a point of accuracy: if youre going to villify the mining industry, at least be aware of what it is youre berating, Cyanide is a CN triple bond and not a heavy metal, and yes it is toxic. Im a dick, but i try to post with accuracy none the less. I encourage you to do so also.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingpride
Dec 22, 2004, 6:34 PM
Post #13 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2001
Posts: 571
|
I feel like all of this is part of some bad Captian Planet episode, minus the super powers.
I did not know Sherman would do such a thing. That really hurts our cause.
|
|
|
|
|
barc
Dec 22, 2004, 6:42 PM
Post #14 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 116
|
Although we've only seen two posts containing any information. My (obviously limited) view is booo on Sherman.
Elliott
|
|
|
|
|
ontario_guide
Dec 22, 2004, 6:49 PM
Post #15 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Posts: 526
|
In reply to: In reply to: [rant] In response to myrmidon post: Have they? Define good. If you mean by mining hard rocks on Federal Land such as gold and then shipping them out of country without paying fees as has been allowed since the 1872 Mining Law which results in an estimated loss to the Treasury of 500,000,000 per year! If you also mean by causing heavy metals such as arsenic and cynaide to leak from tailings ponds into river systems, than ya, you're right. Yea for mines. [/rant] In response to the original post, I think that is called slander in most places. Show me the proof. just a point of accuracy: if youre going to villify the mining industry, at least be aware of what it is youre berating, Cyanide is a CN triple bond and not a heavy metal, and yes it is toxic. Im a dick, but i try to post with accuracy none the less. I encourage you to do so also.
You are absolutely correct. I added cynanide in after I typed the sentance and forgot to say heavy metals AND .... Thanks for the correction.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 22, 2004, 6:55 PM
Post #16 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Minus the superpowers? But Curt is on the good side! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 22, 2004, 7:03 PM
Post #17 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Minus the superpowers? But Curt is on the good side! :lol:
http://www.digitalface.co.uk/curt.jpg
Indeed. Hahahaha. My thanks to "Tradman" for the artwork.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 22, 2004, 7:11 PM
Post #18 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Kevin Spacey is going to play Superman? Bad choice.
|
|
|
|
|
knol
Dec 22, 2004, 7:42 PM
Post #19 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2003
Posts: 81
|
as a local, i feel for those who climb at qc... i did sign a petition that was handed out at the last pbb...
but, im sorry to say that i too believe big money will win this fight...
qc is a beautiful place... and as far as the pbb is concerned, will it live on at another location?.. i doubt itll go back to beardsley... 2005's pbb might very well be the last...
what an impact the closing of the pbb will have on us all...
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 22, 2004, 7:47 PM
Post #20 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Regarding the original topic (and trying to undo my own hijack of this thread) I would encourage anyone with an opinion on John Sherman's involvement in this issue to post here. I told him several months ago that I believed he had gotten on the wrong side of this issue--and that sooner or later the climbing community was going to villify him for this.
So, whether you think Sherman is right or wrong in helping out Resolution Copper Company--please say so here. If you also feel this makes Sherman an asshole, feel free to say that too, although I don't personally think that myself. I merely accept the fact that we are on opposite sides of this issue.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
myrmidon
Dec 22, 2004, 7:53 PM
Post #21 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 82
|
In reply to: [rant] In response to myrmidon post: Have they? Define good. If you mean by mining hard rocks on Federal Land such as gold and then shipping them out of country without paying fees as has been allowed since the 1872 Mining Law which results in an estimated loss to the Treasury of 500,000,000 per year! If you also mean by causing heavy metals such as arsenic and cynaide to leak from tailings ponds into river systems, than ya, you're right. Yea for mines. [/rant] In response to the original post, I think that is called slander in most places. Show me the proof.
Current civilization can easily exist without climbing. I do not think it could be maintained without mining.
Last time I checked, the aluminum used to make climbing gear came from bauxite, which I do not think grows on trees....ropes, made from petroleum products, etc.....
Ontario: Please....I do not say mining is angelic. Only that it serves the greater good of far more people than does climbing. I am sorry that I do not share your demonstrated ability of looking at everything through a monochromatic lens. Perhaps life is less stressful when everything is a black or white issue?
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 22, 2004, 7:53 PM
Post #22 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Curt/Tradman that picture is damn funny. I laughed for a while.
I sounds like J Sherman's not doing anything out of spite. Maybe the company conviced him that the mining interests will win no matter what and he thinks what he is doing is best. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. It's a tough topic, and one to easily get pissed off about.
In the end, I really hope that the Friends of Queen Creek are successful in preserving this great resource. I had the privledge of climbing there with Curt over Thanksgiving weekend and had a blast! I've also attented a PBC years ago. It would be a tragic loss to the climbing community if this resource were lost.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
myrmidon
Dec 22, 2004, 7:56 PM
Post #23 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 82
|
In reply to: So, whether you think Sherman is right or wrong in helping out Resolution Copper Company--please say so here. Curt
Sherman is a pragmatist.
|
|
|
|
|
ontario_guide
Dec 22, 2004, 8:07 PM
Post #24 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Posts: 526
|
In reply to: In reply to: [rant] In response to myrmidon post: Have they? Define good. If you mean by mining hard rocks on Federal Land such as gold and then shipping them out of country without paying fees as has been allowed since the 1872 Mining Law which results in an estimated loss to the Treasury of 500,000,000 per year! If you also mean by causing heavy metals such as arsenic and cynaide to leak from tailings ponds into river systems, than ya, you're right. Yea for mines. [/rant] In response to the original post, I think that is called slander in most places. Show me the proof. Current civilization can easily exist without climbing. I do not think it could be maintained without mining. Last time I checked, the aluminum used to make climbing gear came from bauxite, which I do not think grows on trees....ropes, made from petroleum products, etc..... Ontario: Please....I do not say mining is angelic. Only that it serves the greater good of far more people than does climbing. I am sorry that I do not share your demonstrated ability of looking at everything through a monochromatic lens. Perhaps life is less stressful when everything is a black or white issue?
I do have a problem with mining per se. My issue is with mining done the way it is done in many areas. A company comes into an area, strip mines it and then the mine goes broke. I have seen to many examples of local, now unemployed, people being left with ecological devistation after a mine closing. Mining is essential, I agree. However, there needs to be more effort put into protecting the area that is being mined. Originally I was commenting on the the statement that mines have done a lot of good for the country. They have, but there are also responsible for a lot of people getting sick and in some cases, dying.
What value does the area in question have? From a health perspective, we are converting an area that is currently used by many people to work out and turning into a mine. What do you think will be left when the mine leaves? I'm sure it won't be a bouldering area.
|
|
|
|
|
ebelay
Dec 22, 2004, 8:54 PM
Post #25 of 156
(33131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2002
Posts: 195
|
You can try to justify this all you want, but from a business perspective, there is absolutely no reason for Resolution to pay somebody like Sherman unless they are directly benefitting from his involvement. When you say that he's doing "what is best" for the climbing community, don't forget for a moment that in the end, Resolution's Gain = Our Loss.
If Sherman has been brought in to help define "alternative" areas, as has been stated here, that's simply throwing a bone to the climbing community and an indication to the non-climbing community that Resolution has helped to resolve the loss of Oak Flat issue by defining other areas. This would be nothing but a feeble attempt to put a PR band aid on the situation with Sherman as their puppet "Subject Matter Expert" for the media when the inevitable push-back from the climbing community gets hot.
Thing is, local climbers like Curt, Brent Bingham, Greg Varela, Manuel Rangel, Marty Karibin and a host of others have been scouring the area in and around QC for decades so if Resolultion really wanted to know if there were "alternative" areas, they'd ask the real locals. Then again, none of these guys would sell out their friends for cash.
If all of this is true, maybe we should change the V Scale to the "S" Scale with "S" for Sellout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
