More Bird Closures

[Lambone]

has this been posted on cc.com yet? could we get it in the access forum?

 

message copied from here:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=297228

worth a read

 

Dangerous New Precedent Could Close

Access to Multiple National Forest

Recreational Areas

 

Stop the Closures…Act NOW!

-- Instructions Below --

 

Deadline for public comment ends on

January 12, 2007

 

The Cleveland National Forest in San Diego, California is about to impose access closures to ALL forms of recreational use at four National Forest areas: Corte Madera Mountain, El Cajon Mountain, Rock Mountain, and Eagle Peak. Very alarming is that this information is not available to the public via the Forest Service website, the Federal Register, or SOPA (Schedule Of Proposed Actions) as required within the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969.

 

These closures will ban ALL human activity within a ½ mile radius of any current or future golden eagle, prairie falcon, or “other cliff-nesting species” nests, even though these “other” species types are not explicitly identified in the proposed closures. However, given that the closures are in part being based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916, of the over 800 birds listed, many are quite common such as the swallow, hummingbird, and raven. The results could be catastrophic by not only closing local areas, but establishing legal precedent for widespread closures across all U.S. National Forest! These closures affect climbers, hikers, backpackers, mountain-bikers, horseback riders, and off-road enthusiasts alike, setting legal precedent to close off multiple recreational areas within any National Forest!!!

 

Join this important letter writing campaign (instructions at the bottom) and tell the Cleveland National Forest that you oppose all closures of this type! If no comments are received during the public comment period, the Forest Service will assume that we support their proposals and they will close our recreational areas.

 

Tell the Cleveland National Forest that you oppose these closures because:

 

1. These closures are inconsistent with the USFS multiple use mandate, “as set forth in law…to meet the diverse needs of people,” and as such do not adequately take into consideration the unique value of climbing, hiking, backpacking, mountain-biking, horseback riding, and off-roading on forest lands.

2. The Forest Service is misinterpreting its legal authority to use the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), together with the Golden Eagle Protection Act, to close large tracks of our public lands for passive uses, be it hiking, riding, picnicking, or rock climbing. This is a radically extreme method to limit recreational use on our public lands given that the MBTA was initially entered into by congress in 1916 to prevent the over-commercialization of “migratory” birds.

3. In particular, the Corte Madera proposed closure is being based on the “historical” presence of eagles since golden eagles have not nested there for over 15 years. As such, this measure is extreme and onerous and based on unscientific reasoning.

4. The proposed closure limit distances are arbitrary because they are not based on exact nest locations, not accurately depicted from presumed nests on the USFS closure proposal maps, or based on sound scientific evidence.

5. The Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon are not threatened or endangered species and therefore do not need drastic protection measures like these closures to breed successfully.

6. Climbers, Hikers, and other National Forest users have co-existed with wildlife peacefully for decades; therefore, among other factors, changing climate conditions and decline of natural prey populations are more likely to blame for any suspected loss in bird numbers.

7. These closures are inconsistent with bird closure precedent already established nation-wide.

 

Simply cut-&-paste the above reasons to TWO separate letters (added comments definitely help)

Title each of your letters separately (it is VERY IMPORTANT that the titles are accurate)

First letter -- Comments to proposed seasonal closures at Corte Madera Mountain & El Cajon Mountain

Second letter -- Comments to proposed seasonal closures at Rock Mountain & Eagle Peak

Send directly to the Cleveland National Forest at:

 

kwinter@fs.fed.us

Kirsten Winter

Cleveland National Forest

10845 Rancho Bernardo Rd #200

San Diego, Ca 92127

 

[Lambone]

Quote from somebody on Supertaco:

 

1. Inconsistency with USFS “multiple-use mandate” = Corte Madera, El Cajon Mtn and Rock Mtn are located on National Forest lands. These are not National Parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges or any other special designation areas, and as such, must be managed under the multiple-use concept. Please note that other public activities allowed on forest service lands include mining, logging, grazing and other much more invasive and harmful activities, yet passive recreational uses (hiking, climbing) are being targeted.

 

2. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects “migratory” birds from “take”, which includes the killing of birds, destruction of active nest or eggs, hunting, collecting, or shooting of migratory birds. This law does not include harm or harass in the explicit definition of “take”, and therefore; this law does not specifically prohibit activities that could potentially “harm” these birds. The FS is misinterpreting section 715n of the MBTA to enact widespread closures. The MBTA was enacted by congress in 1918. The Forest Service is using ideals, morals, and current thinking and melding them to fit a law that congress never intended to be interpreted this way.

 

3. Corte Madera has not supported nesting eagles since 1991. The FS is basing this closure on an inactive nest. How can they close an area in our public lands for an animal that does not even exist where they say it does?

 

4. The closure limits are arbitrary…The historical nest at Corte Madera is located on the cliff face. The center of the closure circle as shown on the FS map, is nowhere near the cliff face, it is shifted north. This was done to avoid closing a portion of the Espinoza Trail which would incite the very powerful off-road community.

 

5. The Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon are not listed as endangered or threatened by the State or Federal government. Widespread closures are usually enforced by land managers because they are required to protect species under the Endangered Species Act. The prairie falcon population in San Diego County has historically been low and continues to remain stable. The species of concern designation that the falcon receives from California Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service is based on the rapid decline of the raptors in the central valley of California. It is also important to remember that San Diego is at the edge of the range of the prairie falcon, and this will result in a more sparse population than areas in the middle of its range. The golden eagle is fully protected in the state of California, which means you can not hunt golden eagles or destroy their active nests (eggs, chicks, ect). The San Diego population of eagles is declining due to habitat loss. The explosion of development throughout the county has resulted in eagle nesting locations and foraging habitat being lost. The decline in eagles has nothing to do with forest service visitors hiking, biking and rock climbing in large open space tracts.

 

6. The Forest Service and all land managers need to do more research on the topic of raptor nesting disturbance. Not one of the references listed (of which 70% are more than 20 years old) specifically targets rock climbing as the cause for declines in breeding success. A host of other factors could be responsible for unsuccessful breeding to include: drought conditions, drop in prey populations, increase in predator populations (snakes, turkey vulture, etc), climate change, death of breeding adult (age, incident), aging breeding pair, chemical bioaccumulation, pest or disease, and others. Rock climbers should not take the blame for what is likely a combination of factors that affect raptor breeding. Show me a study that makes a strong correlation, better yet, can defend a causal correlation between rock climbing and the death of incubating eggs, chicks, fledglings or the inability of adults to breed or make nest.

 

7. This closure is defined as a ½ mile radius around nests or alternate nest sites to all human activity. Precedent across the country has been a seasonal closure of a 330 foot buffer around each active nest, resulting in protection of the nesting raptors and also preserves some climbing in the area. Examples of seasonal, partial cliff closures using the 330 foot buffer include: Boulder Canyon, CO, Cochise Stronghold, AZ, Whitesides Mtn, NC, Lovers Leap, CA, and Acker Rock, OR. This closure is more than 5 times the size of the widely accepted closures. The Forest Service is not being consistent with precedent and with regional guidelines.

[kevbone]

 

These closures will ban ALL human activity within a ½ mile radius of any current or future golden eagle, prairie falcon, or “other cliff-nesting species” nests, even though these “other” species types are not explicitly identified in the proposed closures.

 

I wish this was true when is comes to how the Washington Fish and Wildlife actually administrates “bird closures” at Beacon State Park. They have stated they don’t want “ANYBODY’ within 300 feet of the nest. As we point out that there is a trail that over 600,000 people walk up every year that is 200 feet from the nest, by there own rule, they should close the entire rock. When reminded of there own policy, they change the subject. I call bullshit. Close the entire rock and I would support that. Bitching gets me nowhere, but it feels good.

[Lambone]

dude, do you have any idea what the scope of a precident like this could look like?

 

Many crags in Southern Oregon are closed in the spring now due to Perigrine nesting. But this new policy basically says they could close crags for ANY migratory bird.

 

Think of all Oregon Crags and many in Washington I'm sure being closed during nesting season (most of spring and summer).

 

think before you spout off on this, and be careful what you wish for.

 

 

[kevbone]

But this new policy basically says they could close crags for ANY migratory bird.

 

 

Your right that would be bad.

Sorry, you’re also right, I was spouting off. I was venting specifically about Beacon. I will read more carefully next time.

 

Sorry fellow bone.

 

[Lambone]

no worries, I hear what you are saying about making the standards equal for all user groups.

 

hopefully if this happens the effects are limited to the crag in San Diego...

 

write a letter....and honestly I have never written a letter to the NFS before, but this time I am going to.

 

Here is another thread started by well respected Ca and Yosemite climber Randy Leavitt:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=303688

[Lambone]

Cross-post of some more good points:

(not mine!)

original post here, by furbucket:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=303688

Protection of raptors and other bird species is important. However, the Forest Service is just taking the easy way out by ordering arbitrary seasonal closures. Golden eagle, prairie falcon, and other cliff nesting species are not at the brink of extirpation or extinction, either in San Diego County or nationwide. The Forest Service needs to take the time to do the proper analysis and determine where these species are actually nesting, and then implement seasonal closures if necessary around active nest sites.

 

Here are some points that I don't think have been made yet:

 

1. Immediate action is not necessary. There is time to come up with a reasonable solution that will benefit all parties. The status of these species and the true causes of any declines, both in San Diego County and nationwide, should be considered. Golden eagles and prairie falcons are not listed under the Endangered Species Act. Prairie falcons have a stable population with San Diego County and are considered a species of least concern by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources because of their wide habitat range and over 5,000 pairs nationwide. The golden eagle is declining in San Diego County, but is increasing elsewhere. The decline in San Diego County is attributed to factors other than recreation, such as development of habitat and urban sprawl. The golden eagle has a wide range throughout North America. The status of these species should be taken into account when considering the drastic measure of closure. These species are not on the brink of extinction, not even close, and actions that would allow for recreational activity should be considered. Banning all recreational activities for a species that may or may not be nesting within the recreational area and is not on the brink of extinction is completely unnecessary.

 

2. The Forest Service’s own plan requires conservation education before closures. Part 3, Appendix D of the 2005 Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan requires that Conservation Education be implemented before any Perimeter Control unless immediate measures are needed. These species are not at the brink of extinction and do not require an immediate seasonal closure. In fact, there is no proof that there is a conflict between golden eagles, prairie falcons, and other cliff-nesting species at these locations. The Forest Service should adhere to their management plan and implement Conservation Education along with any needed monitoring and studies before resorting to Perimeter Control measures such as seasonal closures.

 

3. Migratory birds are not protected by law from mere disturbance under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act specifically protects migratory birds and nests from possession, sale, purchase, barter, transport, import, export, and take. Take is defined as means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempts to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (50 CFR 10.12). Recreational uses, such as hiking and rock climbing, would not result in any of these activities. Recreational uses have a remote possibility of disturbing migratory birds during their nesting period, however, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not consider disturbance to be take and, therefore, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not provide the legal authority for this closure. The Forest Service should examine mining, logging, grazing and other high impact uses that could actually result in take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

 

4. The only species protected by law from disturbance is the golden eagle. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) does include “disturb” within its definition of take. This definition of take would only apply to bald and golden eagles, not to other raptor species such as prairie falcon. It is also important to note that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has not defined “disturb” and recently released a draft environmental assessment to define “disturb” under the BGEPA. Currently, the preferred alternative is to define disturb to require both an effect to individual eagles and a biological impact, such as nest abandonment. FWS may also define disturb to require an action directed at one or more eagles that results in death or injury of the eagles. It is unlikely that recreational activities, including rock climbing, will meet either definition of disturb as proposed by the FWS. Keep in mind these are large recreational areas. What are the odds of coming across a nest during a hike or climb?

 

5. There are no studies out there that demonstrate that climbing is causing the decline of raptor species. The decline in raptor numbers can be attributed to development of habitat and increased urban sprawl, not recreational activities. In particular, golden eagles are electrocuted by power lines, caught in hunting traps, and poisoned by private landowners. Although it has been shown that golden eagles may abandon nests if they are disturbed, closing down entire areas because golden eagles, prairie falcons or other raptors may nest there is too drastic and goes against the priority goal of the Forest Service to “provide high-quality outdoor recreational opportunities on forests and grasslands, while sustaining natural resources, to help meet the nation’s recreation demands.”

 

6. A reasonable buffer around active nest sites would protect species and allow recreation to continue. Monitoring should be conducted as proposed in the December 11, 2006 scoping letter and closures implemented as necessary for specific nest sites. There is no reason to close an entire area for nesting activity that may or may not occur. If nests are observed, a reasonable 330-foot buffer should be enforced. One-half mile is an impractical and unnecessary buffer. The 330-foot buffer requirement has been implemented for golden eagle in the past and is proposed for bald eagle as part of the Draft National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. A 330-foot buffer around an observed nest would not significantly curtail recreation activities while still providing adequate protection for raptor species to rear their eggs and fledge their young.

 

7. If the closure proposal goes forward, an environmental document needs to be prepared! As proposed, this closure would go beyond short-term resource protection and should not be considered a routine administrative action, as stated in the December 11, 2006 scoping letter. There is no indication that this closure will be short-term in either the scoping letter dated December 11, 2006 or the Schedule of Proposed Actions posted January 2, 2007. A categorical exemption would not be appropriate for a long-term, seasonal closure of this magnitude. Closure of these large recreational areas would indeed have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, diminishing the quality of life for people who use these recreational areas. The closure also directly conflicts with the mission and requirements of the Forest Service. We need an opportunity to comment on at least an environmental assessment that would give us the reasoning behind such a closure and allow recreational users the opportunity to propose a compromise.

[kevbone]

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=303688

 

Wow, go Randy!

[Jim]

What a hoot (no pun intended)! The amount of misinformation being tossed around on these sites is amazing. Interpretations of the MBTA and NEPA (isn't Randy a lawyer?) show a complete lack of familarity with these acts and their implementation through public land management. Quite a bit over-blown I'd say.

 

The proposed rules could use some clarification and it's good to write in to voice your concerns - but don't cut and paste any of these knee-jerk reactions posted on discussion boards. These would just get eye rolls.

[Lambone]

Just passing on info for the sake of awareness. People can draw their own conclusions from there...

 

Here is the only info I could find related to access issues posted on the Access Fund website:

http://www.accessfund.org/regions/news/CA

El Cajon Mountain

Through many meetings and letters, the USFS has rescinded a slated seasonal raptor closure of El Cajon Mountain. The meetings have consisted of relationship building, familiarizing USFS staff with climbing and the climbing community, and remaining patient. A decision regarding other crags with raptor nests is forthcoming. To continue to build on these relationships, a San Diego Alliance of Climber’s Adopt-a-Crag is scheduled for Nov. 11, when climbers will clean the El Cajon Mt. trailhead and possibly do some trail work. In addition, the climbing community has united against unilateral removal by one individual of placed bolts (which has occurred here in the past). The climbing community believes that once bolts have been placed they should not be removed unless there is consensus among the local climbing community favoring their removal. We will work very hard to ensure that this standard is practiced by all in the San Diego climbing community.

[Ducknut]

What a hoot (no pun intended)! The amount of misinformation being tossed around on these sites is amazing. Interpretations of the MBTA and NEPA (isn't Randy a lawyer?) show a complete lack of familarity with these acts and their implementation through public land management. Quite a bit over-blown I'd say.

 

The proposed rules could use some clarification and it's good to write in to voice your concerns - but don't cut and paste any of these knee-jerk reactions posted on discussion boards. These would just get eye rolls.

 

I find this a really interesting interpretation by FS. I wonder what the real motive is. As a bird biologist and climber, I see no hope for the FS to prevail with this interpretation of MBTA. Nothing in MBTA gives FS the ability to prohibit disturbance or harassment. Climbers should express their opinion but I would not get too concerned.

[pink]

these bird's could give a rats ass if we are there. sounds like another validated goverment position opening up.

 

i do know that ddt was the cause of perigrines near extinction, but we still produce it in this country and sell it to third world countries. those bird's get it in their system and migrate north in the summer. the perigrines eat those bird's and still the same problem. the government doesn't want to go to the root of the problem, some ugly ass lazy government worker might loose their cush job.

 

set your sticks on womp boy's.

[Alasdair]

these bird's could give a rats ass if we are there. sounds like another validated goverment position opening up.

 

i do know that ddt was the cause of perigrines near extinction, but we still produce it in this country and sell it to third world countries. those bird's get it in their system and migrate north in the summer. the perigrines eat those bird's and still the same problem. the government doesn't want to go to the root of the problem, some ugly ass lazy government worker might loose their cush job.

 

set your sticks on womp boy's.

 

The perigrine clearly does not have the same problem or I would not have seen one take on a flicker in my neighbors yard last week on Phinny Ridge. Peregrines are becoming quite common.

[kevbone]

Peregrines are becoming quite common.

 

Yes they have, unfortunately that does not matter. Climbers will still be scapegoats at Beacon. If the Bird bioligist were true to there word about closing bird nesting sites down then the Freemont bridge and some of the bank towers in down town Portland would close. Of course this will never happen.

 

signed: bitter

[Alasdair]

I agree, but i am definatly not bitter about perergine nesting closures. THey are a good thing, and they are not going to change no matter how much you bitch about it. Live with it and enjoy plenty of other climbing areas that are open. Now if the forest circus does as is being proposed in this thread then just ignore the rules, because they dont have enough funding to enforce it anyway.

[kevbone]

I agree, but i am definatly not bitter about perergine nesting closures. THey are a good thing, and they are not going to change no matter how much you bitch about it. Live with it and enjoy plenty of other climbing areas that are open.

 

Yes, they are a good thing when handled correctly. When they are not, we/climbers become bitter about it. If the Perergine's are not endangered anymore? Why close the rock? To preserve what?

 

Keep in mind, I am ONLY bitter at the situation a Beacon. Other than that, for the most part I support the closures.

 

[Alasdair]

One reason to close the area is to protect us from being total dumb shits. It is not unheard of for birds of prey to protect their nests themselves. Also there are a hell of a lot of people who have no idea where nests are since they are often very hard to spot. Pulling over a ledge and finding a peregrine nest would not be good.

 

[kevbone]

One reason to close the area is to protect us from being total dumb shits. It is not unheard of for birds of prey to protect their nests themselves. Also there are a hell of a lot of people who have no idea where nests are since they are often very hard to spot. Pulling over a ledge and finding a peregrine nest would not be good.

 

Yes that would be bad. Obviously by reading your response, you don’t know the situation out at Beacon. The climbers are scapegoats and this probably wont change. My friend (pink) rapped into the nest a few years back and pulled out of the nest a snickers bar rapper and a Pepsi can. Climbers do not usually carry either of these items. These things got there by pedestrians throwing there trash off the trail that is only 200 feet from the nest. So, in my opinion, the hikers are much more of a threat than the climbers. There are about 200 hundred climbers that visit Beacon every year. About 600,000 people climb up the trail to the top of Beacon every year. You tell me which user group has a better chance in spoiling the nesting season?

 

The Beacon situation is unique to its own. We have been working with the rangers for years to resolve it. Its very touchy.

 

[pink]

I agree, but i am definatly not bitter about perergine nesting closures. THey are a good thing, and they are not going to change no matter how much you bitch about it. Live with it and enjoy plenty of other climbing areas that are open. Now if the forest circus does as is being proposed in this thread then just ignore the rules, because they dont have enough funding to enforce it anyway.

 

where is your local crag?

 

i actually got caught climbing during a closure. they tried to charge me with harrassing an endangered species. just so happened my court appointed attorney didn't care for the federal agents who caught me. it also turned out that it was a bogus charge. you have to possess a weapon in order to harrass an animal. then they charged me with 1st degree trespassing, can't tresspass in a state park. then they charged me with 2nd degree trespassing. i got off with a $150 plea bargin. perigrine closure are bogus, and what kevbone say's is true. i found glass and all kind's of crap in the nest, but what would beacon rock state park be without that trail. it would be a couple rangers out of a job . 600,000 people is alot of people to dissapoint. disapointing 200 climber's is i guess in their eye's pretty easy to swallow. animals get used to people, and that was what really won my case. if a deer walks across a main road do they close it? no because when there is revenue to be had the buerocrats will always side with the revenue. look out in river, ton's of boats and jet skis spewing gas and oil into the water. obviously they can do without the climbers. climbers are like dead head's, they show up and they hang out, and rarely do they stimulate the economy. it's all about money, and that is what you have to live with. on this planet, whoever has the most money usualy wins.

 

whatever anybody does, don't climb during a closure. it was a stupid idea, and it made the community look bad. i was young and thought i would push the civil disobedience envelope. this guy doesn't know what he is talking about. the feds have plenty of our money to spend on enforcing the rules. i am living proof.

 

fortunately everything turned out in my favor. the fed's were dishonest giving me bogus charges, so it came back to bite them in the ass.

 

i love climbing and i love nature. nature is why i climb, so don't say that the closures are a good idea because it's just another validated government position. wait till all the crags are closed. we will all be gym fags.

Edited January 10, 2007 by pink

[Alasdair]

For the record... I would never climb in an area closed for birds. Mostly because I agree with bird closures.

[Jim]

Boids

 

It's simple. If there is a bird closure, keep off the rock. Check the ego at home already. Without getting to deep into the issue it's pretty clear from the literature that climbers are much more of a potential disturbance to nesting raptors than most, if not all, recreation activities because of the potential close proximity climbers to get to cliff nesters. I don't know the situation at Beacon but if the trail is out of sight from the nesting area it's less of an issue. Trash being tossed from the top is another story.

 

Back to the original subject - if you feel the need to comment take a good critical eye at the proposed regulations and make some logical comments. I've been on both ends as an ecologist, assisting with legislation and reviewing it. Wacko comments are passed around for chuckles.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Jim

[kevbone]

:It's simple. If there is a bird closure, keep off the rock. Check the ego at home already.

 

It’s not about ego. And like I said Beacon is unique to its own. It is not like other closures. The trail is the most visible thing at Beacon. Besides the trees. Climbers are able to stay farther than 300 to 400 feet from the nest, were the trail never moves.

[pink]

Boids

 

It's simple. If there is a bird closure, keep off the rock. Check the ego at home already. Without getting to deep into the issue it's pretty clear from the literature that climbers are much more of a potential disturbance to nesting raptors than most, if not all, recreation activities because of the potential close proximity climbers to get to cliff nesters. I don't know the situation at Beacon but if the trail is out of sight from the nesting area it's less of an issue. Trash being tossed from the top is another story.

 

Back to the original subject - if you feel the need to comment take a good critical eye at the proposed regulations and make some logical comments. I've been on both ends as an ecologist, assisting with legislation and reviewing it. Wacko comments are passed around for chuckles.

 

 

what is your local crag?

[Jens]

A biologist told me that peregrines are everywhere now and the population is booming. Perhaps we should readdress some of the closures due to the number of pergrines being threatened.

Midnight Rock in Leavenworth comes to mind. With the closure, you only have about a 6 week season for the crag to send anything hard. July, August, and Sept. are to hot. We only rock climb on about .001% of the steep clifs in the state of Washington.

[chirp]

For the record... I would never climb in an area closed for birds. Mostly because I agree with bird closures.

 

Me too, I support ANY environmental closure. It's kind of a nice karmic heads up and a trade for having access to so many non "challenged" areas. Just like the Devils Tower June climbing ban "for native religous beliefs", I think its a reasonable deal in this day and age. If you disagree, please send me a PM and I will tell you you are an asshole.