HikeArizona.COM

Ok, summer has started and I am going to start my same rant as last year and the year before and the year before that and the year before that, etc. I have had several PMs about it this year so far and decided it's time for a new thread about it. Apparently no one has read anything I wrote this spring or last summer, either. Grrr. I am frustrated because I would like my acquaintances on HAZ to enjoy the summit, but there is still a lot of misinformation about it.

There is no reason you should not summit Baldy if you are climbing it. Ignore the FS Springerville office--they never go there and their info is old, ignore what you have read in the past, ignore whatever it says on the original write-up here on HAZ, too! Just go to the summit! It has a huge cairn, you can't miss it.

Hundreds of other hikers are summiting every year, so why not HAZ members? Why would you want to miss out, after you put the effort in? There is no one going to stop you, and plus, the "white man's" summit is in the NF!! Hike up the steep rocky trail thorough the bald grassy spot to the big huge cairn, about 6 feet tall. Don't go any further than the big cairn, or you will make the Apaches mad. They don't care too much if you go to the first summit, though, and they will not bother you. There are usually a couple hikers' registers at the big cairn if you're inclined to sign such things. I have almost never had the summit to myself, (except in fairly cold weather in the fall) because there are always other hikers coming up.

Whew, gotta admire that troop for doing their 20-miler for the Hiking Merit Badge on Mt. Baldy!! Some troops find the flattest ground they can to do that particular 20-mile requirement!

chumley wrote:Here's the funniest thing about the whole thing in my opinion: The east trail CLEARLY crosses tribal land for an extended period on the slope below Mt. Thomas. Apparently hiking on this tribal land is just fine even if you are not a member of the tribe! The whole thing is silly, and I personally think hiking up a big mountain only to turn around a few feet from the peak is very anti-climatic.

Ain't that the truth! It does cross, ridicuous. I feel the same way about Mt. Graham...

Hahahaha. Yes, Mt. Graham is another great one. Especially now that its been proven that the "endangered" Mt. Graham Red Squirrel is thriving in the lower elevations ... despite all the people that camp and hike down there. At what point do the the "deciders" realize that closing the top of the mountain has not affected te-wa's cousins and just open it up so we can all enjoy it again?

That had to be one of the dumbest "environmental" battles ever fought, making all environmentalists look like a bunch of idiots. A relative of mine worked at the U of A at the time that whole thing went down, and they were having their teensy little protests there. He called them the "scope mopes" in reference to the telescopes, which were, of course, part of the controversy. He happened to work security, so he had to go talk to them, (mostly all Earth Firster/Rainbow Family/don't-believe-in-baths types.) His job was to tell them which campus areas they could use for the protest, etc. So then they were all in his face, telling him what an important protest this was, etc. "look at all the people who showed up!" they said. (It was less than 100 as I recall.) But my relative, being an old Vietnam war protester, retorted, "You call this a protest? I've been to protests in Washington DC that had over a hundred thousand people!"

Then the Apaches got into it, tried to convince all of us honky apologist do-gooders that Mt. Graham had always been "sacred" to them, and because we are all so ashamed of how "we" treated them 150 years ago we allow ourselves to be duped into believing them. What a crock. (The Navajos may truly have sacred mountains. When it comes to other tribes, I think it's often political convenience to say that they do. After all if the Navajos have them, why not all the rest of them?)

Another aspect of this case that came to my attention at that time is that these little environmental organizations such as Center for Biological Diversity (which do more to make the public hate, loathe and despise anything "environmental" than they do to actually SAVE anything in the environment) have learned they can hang frivolous lawsuits on the Endangered Species Act, a federal law. Thus, they have all of you convinced there was a problem with that squirrel. There wasn't a problem with the squirrel, but they could find some biologists to show evidence that the squirrel was:
A) A unique species unto itself, (which of course, was debated furiously)
B) Is actually endangered by the telescopes and by hikers.

This mis-use of the Endangered Species Act is one reason a big segment of the population wants it repealed. It's sad, because there are many animals that actually do deserve protection, that actually are endangered species. The people who wrote the law didn't realize that "new" species would be created in order to create ways to file lawsuits.

So the public is now convinced that the Mt. Graham issue was about squirrels.

They were similarly convinced by the mainstream media that the Amphi School District's Ironwood High School issue with pygmy owls was about the owls. It wasn't. It was about some rich people who lived next to the high school property who hired environmental lawyers (Center for Biological Diversity again) to prove that the pygmy owls nested there. That's what that was about, but the media (other than the very savvy Tucson Weekly) never caught on. Thus, most people in Tucson were duped, and again, they think those horrible environmentalists caused the controversy, when actually it was rich landowners who didn't want a football field next to their properties.

OPEN MT. GRAHAM! Yes, it's high time. I think the gubment is afraid to open that can of worms again, though, and just wants to let sleeping dogs lie. With good reason, I might add.

EAGAR.

I can pretty much agree with most of what you just wrote. But both sides of the Mt Graham controversy were guilty of pulling whatever tricks they could to get their way.

Back in the day... I lead a weekend carcamp for SAHC on the mountain (6-7 Sep 1986). We did dayhikes to many of the higher peaks in the range. The first we crossed over was Emerald Peak. While admiring the non-existant view the fellow that the UofA managed to 'plant' on my trip (He was an astronomer working for the UofA and also a SAHC member.) explained about how this was an ideal location for a major telescope... It was high, on the leading edge of an escarpment having no other mountains nearby to disturb the wind (thus the seeing), and the summit area was flat enough to encourage development of scientific instruments.

Later that day we met a representative of the Mount Graham Coalition. When I mentioned to him that we had been to Emerald Peak he stated that while what the other fellow said might well be true Emerald Peak was outside the 'final' study area presented by the UofA in all of it's documents requesting use of the mountain. I applied for and received copies on the different govewrnment documents (impact statements and such) and this was all true. Emerald Peak was well outside the study area.

And while there were many things said and done about the 'scopes on the mountain this point was never mentioned or changed by those pushing for the telescopes. BTW. The very first telescope erected on the mountain went up on Emerald Peak.

White man speaks with forked tongue!

And remember. The project got it's congressional approval due to some midnight legislation that disregarded any and all objections from whatever quarter.

Mike Coltrin
Tucson

very interesting, mikehikes...thinks for shedding a little more light on that squirrely story ;)

Well, I must say, I was never totally in favor of the telescopes up there. But the efforts to stop them quickly became dominated by people I wouldn't want to have anything to do with. If you recall, Mike, several universities and the Vatican pulled out of the project, but the U of A went ahead with it anyway. I think a lot of us did hope that with those others pulling out that the UA would desist.

I wonder now how good those telescopes are? During one part of the controversy I remember that even some astronomers said there was too much wind shear up there, and that there was too much snow in winter, making it difficult to keep the road open.

This is getting to be as popular a topic as the Naturist/Nudist Thread!
Does anybody have any Naked Mt. Baldy stories?

I've seen some bald guys on Mt. Baldy, but no naked ones! ;)

Years ago my wife and I did a baldy backpack loop. Dropped our packs and headed for the summit. This was my wife’s first backpack and as she got to the summit she started to cry and swear that if we took one more step she would leave me. Just then we noticed a 400 lb Apache woman carrying a full cooler over her shoulder approaching the peak. I looked at my wife and we both had a good laugh at how wimpy we were. I asked my wife to throw my backpack over her shoulder on the way down. no such luck. There must be a road close by?

Secondly, is it just me or does No Whites aloud seem a bit like reverse racism. I’m sure if a white group banned Indians from there property the ACLU would be on it like dogs on a bone. Just stirring the pot .

BrettVet wrote:Secondly, is it just me or does No Whites aloud seem a bit like reverse racism. I’m sure if a white group banned Indians from there property the ACLU would be on it like dogs on a bone. Just stirring the pot .

It is technically their own country. The American Civil Liberties Union doesn't really have sway there.
And another note, more of a peeve really. I've never liked the term "reverse racism". Racism is discriminating against someone based on their race. Period. It is not a white person discriminating against another race. Meh...

BrettVet wrote:Secondly, is it just me or does No Whites aloud seem a bit like reverse racism. I’m sure if a white group banned Indians from there property the ACLU would be on it like dogs on a bone. Just stirring the pot .

Seems fairly justified to me. Last time I checked, the whites owned a hell of a lot more property than the Native Americans.

yeah, I don't like it...it doesn't seem very considerate to me...but I'd rather have them do that than figure out how to steal my land away from me, and kill me if I protest, saying that my race is uncivilized ;)

And breaking the law just because I don't like it and don't think I'll get prosecuted doesn't sit right with me either, at least that's my two cents. My hope is that future generations will see the Apache as well as other races now in the USA mend fences and put an ugly past behind us. Hurts like that take generations...African Americans received their freedom in 1865 and only now do the newest generations of blacks and whites have the most success in being "colorblind". That was 150 years ago...if we apply that to the Apache, and the Navajo, we still have a generation or two to go.

In my work on the Navajo Nation I still see bitterness, skepticism, etc., among their equivalent "boomer" and "builder" generations, but thankfully many of the youth are questioning that and asking what those sorts of feelings do to benefit anybody.

Trespassing on their land and thumbing our nose at their laws doesn't help build bridges with them for the future, it only helps to justify their bitterness and skepticism even further.

OK, sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. I'll get off my soap box now.

My wife and I did the backpack over 30 years ago when it was just sacred, not exclusionary. At least there were no signs and the only ones were forest service signs directing the way to the peak.. It would be interesting to find out when and why they decided to close the peak. That said, no race that I am aware of has bridged the barrier of racism by being exclusionary.. Yes they have the right to exclude anyone they want, it is their country. Would it help if we excluded them from parts of our country? Which is really their country too, which is getting confusing. The bottom line is that is just plain rude and does nothing to promote race relations.

Sorry, I have done the Baldy loop several times since then and not gone to the peak. It still pisses me off and I'm one of the good guys.

Maybe I need to learn to take things more personally, but it's not like there's signs saying "get away white devil". The peak is sacred to them and they'd prefer to keep it that way. Baldy is a popular trail and they probably don't want a bunch of jerks up there geocaching random junk and leaving beef jerky bags laying around. I know I say all kinds of four letter words and talk about some unsavory stuff when I'm hiking with my friends, and I can't blame them for not wanting that kind of disrespect on what they would consider a sacred peak. If we had sacred places we'd probably understand, but we don't. I'm sure churches are sacred for many people, but we don't build them where people want to recreate, so we don't run into that issue.

But if you read this whole thread you'll see that a lot of us have been up there, both recently and over the past 10 years or so, have been at that big cairn in FULL VIEW of Apaches, and have not had them harass us. They can see us, we can see them. And there are no signs saying you can't go there. Maybe they'll put one up again sometime, but for the time being, I plan to do the whole hike if I am up there.

And I don't for a minute believe that the peak has always been "sacred" to them. They didn't even live in this region until General Crook forced them to live here.

.

I have mixed feelings about the telescopes on Mount Graham. On one hand I don't like to see a mountaintop taken over to the exclusion of the rest of us. However, on the other hand part of the compromise to get the 'scopes built was an ending of logging in the Pinalenos. On balance I think that the mountain is better off with the telescopes with no logging.
Disclosure: I helped design the power management system for the Emerald Peak facility, and the Steward Observatory at the U of A put a lot of bread on my table back in the day. I also did a lot of work with Raytheon up in Tucson, and I'm not pro-war by any stretch of the imagination.
Unfortunately those of us who want to preserve as much wilderness as possible can't have it both ways.

During the Mt. Graham controversy, various facts and good science were skewed by the various factions. It is a shame they still have never opened up some of the areas, even now, to hikers. It's a shame they let the Apaches make that specious claim about Mt. Graham being a "sacred peak." The Earth Firsters put them up to that idea. It's a shame they used bad science to make the claims about the so-called red squirrels, etc.

Funny thing, too, that all the other universities, and the Vatican, pulled out of the project. Maybe because of the controversy, but also perhaps because they came to realize that maybe Mt. Graham wasn't the best site for that observatory after all. Too much snow, plus wind shear problems and clouds creating bad visibility, etc. But the U 0f A bullied its way through and bulldozed the mtn. top and built the thing. I sure hope it has been worth it for the astronomers, whom I have nothing against, by the way.

My husband worked for the campus police during all the teensy, silly little demonstrations on campus. (He called those folks "the scope mopes" and laughed at them when they told him "this is an important demonstration!" He said, "You call this a demonstration? Where are all the people? There's no one here! I was at the ant-Vietnam War rally in Washington in 1969, with half a million people!" The media must have been pretty desperate to call those gatherings "demonstrations" for all the top billing they gave them at the time.