JosephH

So you've taken up a new sport while raising the kids? WHAT DOES MAGGIE SAY ABOUT THE CLOSURE?

If Kevin were a politician he'd be campaigning with a sign that says "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it any more!" and waving it while standing in the center lane atop the Fremont bridge.

Again, pretty loose with the facts all the way around, Kevin. There is no direct shot into the scrape from above, it's completely protected from heavy thrown debris and tourists throwing light stuff off the trail which can blow into the scrape clearly isn't that significant a threat to birds' breeding success. They've been successful there in years when Big Ledge was covered in glass from broken bottles when checked the day before opening. Every spring the resident Peregrine pair at Beacon compete with outside individuals and pairs to hold onto to their eryie at Beacon. So, regardless of what we do, if Hamilton were a place they wanted to nest they would be competing for it every spring but they don't. And Big Ledge is always their first choice of nest site at Beacon even if they aren't always successful there. But even when they're not, so far they've still been at Beacon somewhere even if we couldn't locate the new nest. Bottom line is they would have to be actively driven off of Beacon to get them to stop breeding there. We get early opens as part of a two-way street of cooperation. Documenting and cleaning out the scrape if necessary at the end of the season is part of that. And that cooperation does and has bought us approximately several months of extra climbing over the past six years. You don't climb there anymore except the odd day once in a blue moon so it's no big deal to you, but every day we open early is to me, so no I won't be stopping it

I wasn't speaking of the Fremont pair in particular but of the effort to introduce and attract Peregrines to breeding boxes placed variously on bridges and buildings in urban settings around the country. High bridges and buildings are places where they don't interact with humans directly in a manner of individual humans deliberately approaching their nests. I suspect some would and some wouldn't. For every anecdotal story you, I and other climbers could come up with relative to seemingly benign climber/Peregrine interactions the biologists can go tit-for-tat with documented incidents of nests being destroyed and eggs and fledges being abandoned. Would love to see any stat on Peregrines v. Redtails. "Shitting exclusively on climbers" - pretty dramatic. A better perspective might be Peregrines nest on cliffs and climbers are the only humans who similarly occupy cliffs and are capable of directly disturbing their nests. I don't in any respect recall saying politics don't enter into the picture - that's specifically the "law and policy" aspects of it. I've counseled just the opposite; I've been suggesting you guys get a clue and a shred of political savvy. Again, no one in a car on a bridge or in a highrise is in a position to directly disturb a Peregrine nest - hence, a closure for the stated purpose of protecting a nest from such a risk is not something any wildlife agency is going to burn political capital for (just like the tourist trail). Unfortunately for us the cliffs we climb are the natural and most productive habitats for Peregrines, so yeah, we're in the crosshairs more than say kayakers. Bummer they don't nest on moutain bike or hiking trails. It's not like we drew a bad draft number and it's some random association of "why me?" - the sad reality is climbers are the only ones capable of threatening and disturbing Peregrine nests, cars on bridges and people in highrises don't - that we climb is why it's us that is singled out. If we didn't climb, or didn't climb cliffs, it wouldn't be us. What you guys CAN'T SEEM TO GET A GRIP ON is perceived unfairness and hypocrisy are completely irrelevant, as are anecdotal stories and personal opinions of climber / Peregrine interactions. I've already publicly stated my personal opinion that we could climb Blownout and everything east of it without causing the Peregrines to fail. But again, my opinion carries as much weight in law as your righteous indignation - none whatsoever. Outside of monitoring for the Peregrines nesting elsewhere or the chicks fledging on such or such a day the only thing that will change the closure is some sort of evidence or argument that a lawyer like Maggie, Bryan, Geoff, or Darryl would go to bat with. No amount of hurt feelings, indignation, unfairness, hypocrisy, stories, or personal opinion (including mine) is going to change the closure. Give me ANYTHING viable which could be used as a basis for proposing a change to the closure and I would be running with it in a heartbeat. And if you have that then you should really be giving it to the AF, lawyers, and agency personnel. In the end, I don't have the time or energy to waste on your hurt feelings around the closure or mine (and I think it sucks as much as any of you), I only care about what will get me more climbing days per year out at Beacon and nothing I've read here or heard so far from you, Jim, Kevin, Andrew, Steve, Kenny or anyone else will deliver that. And so you guys think I'm an asshole and idiot with a weak grip on the 'real facts' - hey totally cool, works for me. Friday night at the pow-wow you'll have at least a couple of lawyers present, how about you all sit down, put your heads together, and show me how the smart guys get it done so I can start getting more climbing in.

Looks like someone ended up perpendicular to the roadway, rolled onto the passenger side and then hood while at the same time rotating until it hit a railing and poles before going very far. Been there, done that (as a passenger once).

I think the difference is that when the decision was made to introduce falcons to urban environments, breeding boxes were placed on tall bridges and building specifically because they were places the Peregrines wouldn't be interacting with humans in any direct way beyond dealing with relatively steady-state visual, auditory and vibration patterns. The introduction decision was also made with the understanding no restrictions of any kind would ever be placed on those buildings or bridges. The program has been successful to a degree, but the successful fledging and survival rate of the urban pairs is lower than that of pairs in natural habitats. Climbers who won't learn the science, law, and policy and refuse to talk to agency personnel don't even make the radar to be considered 'pickens' of any kind. P.S. You are one of the few to actually try and sort things out and talk to agency personnel about the issue, good on you for that.

I'm with you there.

I'll take that as a yes, that it's more a matter of needing more bolts.

Nope. I'm simply a climber trying to get every day of conceivable climbing in I can every year at Beacon and done more to that end than the lot of you put together. Hey, step up if you think you can do any better. Get lawyers, start with your wife, with Bryan, with Geoff, with Daryl, or get LCK to use his influence and position in the WDFW. DO SOMETHING, DO ANYTHING - but stop your incessant wailing and whining. So far I haven't heard a single suggestion from one of you that would stand a remote chance in hell of changing a damn thing. I'm all ears...

And "no climbers within 300 feet of the nest" is completely consistent with all the AF-accepted closures around the country. Got another one that has a prayer of flying that the AF or a lawyer would buy into? How about you Steve? How about answering my question above Kevin? What does Maggie say?

Kevin, your wife Maggie is a lawyer, I listed other climber attorneys - how is it all these years you've whined and wailed inconsolably and yet have never once mentioned a legal recourse to the issue? Why is that? What exactly does Maggie say on the issue? One of your best friends, Bryan, is a climbing environmental attorney. What exactly does he say on the issue? LCK is a Beacon climber who WORKS FOR THE WDFW - what exactly (and officially) has he found out about the issue?

I keep asking you to name a single ground for opening a section of the rock that is based on a sound scientific, legal or policy basis - you haven't come up with one yet, how about right now? I not the slightest bit negative on the issue. I'm simply informed on the science, law and policy - something you and others within the Beacon distortion reality field simply take as negative. From my perspective I'm the only optimist among Beacon local climbers given none of you aside from Justin have done a damn thing to even look into the matter. I do no public slandering, I simply respond to public personal attacks, distortions of fact, and outright lies from people like you who can't be bothered to verify facts and fourteen years of whining without doing anything about it like Kevin.

Bottom line on the size of the closure is the South face is a relatively small rock so the closure is in every respect consistent with AF-accepted closures around the country.

no Ivan, since their reintroduction in the 70's Beacon has been a steadily successful site. In several recent years the traditional scrape itself may not have been successful but subsequent attempts in those years elsewhere on the rock (location unknown) were. There is some debate as to the success of the 2008 season with David thinking they weren't successful and myself believing there was one fledge.

Just trying to figure out exactly what his complaint on the bolt locations is, but maybe it's just how many there are that's the problem.

Well, for someone that expressed a strong opinion that they were in the wrong place I assumed you knew exactly where the right place should be, so yes. On what other basis do you conclude those guys got it wrong with the existing locations?

So you're on a fourteen year whine and obsession to get the tourist trail closed? Because that is the only possible outcome, the climbing closure is not going to be changed.

The line of sight issue is in no way hollow from the perspective of the level of disturbance. It's just that you focus on numerical distance as if every point on the hiking trail broke the plane of the cliff and every point had line of sight to the scrape. At best you would only succeed in closing the tourist trail - you will not change the climbing closure so what's the point? Your wife is an attorney, Bryan is an environmental attorney, Darryl Nakahira is an attorney, Geoff is an attorney. Give up your fourteen year whine and seek either legal or victims' psychology help.

The reason has to do with the original deeding of the land to the WSP and of politics between the WSP and WDFW. If Dave, the biologist, could close the tourist trail he would, but neither he nor WDFW has the ability to force such a closure upon WSP or one of their landmark tourist sites.

The climbers have already been pissed off, the issue is that the closure doesn't include the [concrete] trail tourists (yellow) take to the top. Yellow circles are where switchbacks get closest to the plane of the South face, the scrape location is marked in red.

This factor in isolation is what tortures Kevin, however. And at Beacon in the end it makes all the difference. For much of the entire distance to the top tourists are either on the West face or are in the trees as they approach the South face (where the scrape is). They only emerge from them at two spots where they get anywhere near the plane of the cliff. They are never within line-of-sight of the nest or common perches.

Kevin, so where is it you think those bolts should be?

In that case you are correct, the rock in the entire rock bands at and above the YW bolt in question suck, and while that bolt is in the best rock on that small slab, that ain't saying a whole lot as the whole slab is relatively hollow. The rock to the right isn't all that better and nothing above the mantle is any good. If you don't like that bolt and want pro then figure out the placement just above the bolt and get the bomb #10 HB offset on the left side once you're up.

This is the one Kevin can't quite grasp, that hikers at Beacon never break the plane of the cliff and only get vaguely close to doing so at two points. You should consider elaborating on that remark.

There are two pins which is what I was going up to look at but it given I started up it at 4:30 in the rain, I didn't make it up to them before I had to split. Will probably hit it again Wed.