Beacon Rock: Closed until July 15th...

[JosephH]

Beacon Rock closed February 1st and remains closed for Peregrine nesting until July 15th. Early opens have happened in some prior years, but that does not mean there will be one this year. Such openings are driven purely by year-to-year observation, are entirely resource dependent, and only authorized by the Wash. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife - no other agencies of record for Beacon Rock has authority to grant an 'early open'.

[billcoe]

Beacon Rock closed February 1st and remains closed for Peregrine nesting until July 15th. Early opens have happened in some prior years, but that does not mean there will be one this year. Such openings are driven purely by year-to-year observation, are entirely resource dependent, and only authorized by the Wash. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife - no other agencies of record for Beacon Rock has authority to grant an 'early open'.

 

Does this mean that the groundhog saw his shadow today? Err, I mean, knowing that you went to Beacon today to observe if there were birds and locate a nest, that you saw the birds nesting ?

 

 

[JosephH]

Bill, no. BRSP has just been getting calls and some of them fairly impolite and insisting it's opening early when in fact no such discussion has ever taken place. Each year is entirely unique with regard to such decisions. The WDFW Raptor biologist is very busy doing studies for the various Eastern WA wind power projects and so the whole process is fairly resource constrained this year.

[billcoe]

Bill, no. BRSP has just been getting calls and some of them fairly impolite and insisting it's opening early when in fact no such discussion has ever taken place. Each year is entirely unique with regard to such decisions. The WDFW Raptor biologist is very busy doing studies for the various Eastern WA wind power projects and so the whole process is fairly resource constrained this year.

 

Of course.

 

But I do wonder where the birds went.

[kevbone]

Ahh shit.....another Beacon thread.

[JosephH]

Still there.

[kevbone]

I wonder if the rangers will watch my cat....they are about as endangered as the birds.

[BachelorTravis]

:noway:

 

Seriously!?!?! Beacon rock closes in the winter!!! Well that sure is news to me!

 

:rolleyes:

[billcoe]

As I was out today, it came to me that it seems like whats being said is that although there are no birds, the Dept of Fish and Wildlife guy is too busy to get to it to determine the acuracy of that: so deal with it and don't call the Beacon Rangers cause it's the fish and wildlife guys job and he's too busy to bother.

 

It seems like a better standard would be to start the year by determining that there are birds at Beacon Rock, and where they are located. As opposed to closing it every year no matter what the true facts are.

 

If there are no birds, which seems to be the case here, then it does not close.

[JosephH]

Bill, no. BRSP has just been getting calls and some of them fairly impolite and insisting it's opening early when in fact no such discussion has ever taken place. Each year is entirely unique with regard to such decisions. The WDFW Raptor biologist is very busy doing studies for the various Eastern WA wind power projects and so the whole process is fairly resource constrained this year.

 

Of course.

 

But I do wonder where the birds went.

 

Bill, I have no idea how you've come to the conclusion the Peregrines have gone anywhere from what I said. At no point, anywhere in my statement above or in my original post did I say the Peregrines aren't at Beacon Rock. It was entirely devoted to emphasizing the dates of the closure, that the BRSP has been getting some less than cordial calls (which does nothing to contribute to our cause), and that the biologist doesn't have the time to devote to Beacon he might otherwise contribute in the spirit of mutual cooperation.

 

The Wind Power projects have clear and obvious priority at the moment, WDFW has no obligation to do the monitoring for our purposes, and the biologist has only done so in the past out of a desire to see the relationships between all parties improved. In each of the past two years it was repeatedly stated those early opens in no way guaranteed one in subsequent years - each year is an independent event.

 

As I was out today, it came to me that it seems like whats being said is that although there are no birds, the Dept of Fish and Wildlife guy is too busy to get to it to determine the acuracy of that: so deal with it and don't call the Beacon Rangers cause it's the fish and wildlife guys job and he's too busy to bother.

 

That is not at all what I said, implied, or meant. At no point have I or anyone else stated "there are no birds". The Peregrines are at Beacon Rock, I was monitoring there both Saturday and Sunday (in fact, I saw more falcons at Beacon yesterday than concerned 'Beacon locals' [though I did pass 15 cars at the PRGO]). And the "Dept of Fish and Wildlife guy" is charged with oversight of a lot of wind projects and EIS work this year and is only one human being - the innuendo that "he can't be bothered" is unwarranted, off-the-mark, and counter-productive.

 

It seems like a better standard would be to start the year by determining that there are birds at Beacon Rock, and where they are located. As opposed to closing it every year no matter what the true facts are.

 

Beacon Rock is closed annually on February 1st so the Peregrines choice of nesting sites is undisturbed and uninfluenced by human activity. This happens because Beacon Rock has been and is a proven productive nest site both prior to their being decimated and after their reintroduction. The Peregrines did nest on Big Ledge in April last year and failed; they then nested elsewhere and succeeded with two chicks. Monitoring (and a lot of it) did not identify where 'elsewhere' was. The standard you are proposing might be a valid one to apply if it can be shown that the Peregrines don't even attempt to nest on the South face for several years running. So far that count is zero.

 

If there are no birds, which seems to be the case here, then it does not close.

 

Again, I have no idea whatsoever how you came to this conclusion - not from me or any wording in my original post. The only reason there have been early opens has been an attempt on all sides to re-establish and promote a more productive relationship between climbers and the BRSP, WSP, and WDFW. Climbers calling up and bitching at the staff of the BRSP or simply speculating about the status of Peregrines without the facts does nothing to further anyone's goals - certainly not mine, which is to simply to get back on the rock at the very earliest opportunity possible.

[JosephH]

I wonder if the rangers will watch my cat....they are about as endangered as the birds.

 

It has been a bit since this was last discussed, but here it is again from 1/10/07:

 

================================================================

 

 

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.

 

At about roughly 1.5 chicks per nesting pair, "booming" would be descriptively over the top, but the North American recovery program has been having steady successes. The results from the first nationwide monitoring effort to measure the peregrine falcon's recovery in 2006 put the number of nesting pairs in North America at 3,005. This includes estimates of 400 pairs in Canada, 170 pairs in Mexico, approximately 1,000 pairs in Alaska, and the rest (1,435 pairs) distributed among 40 of the lower 48 states. For example, last year in Ohio, 18 nesting pairs of peregrine falcons resulted in the successful hatching and fledging of a record 57 young falcons (with an anticipated loss rate of 65% in the first year).

 

This is a fairly typical recovery chart (not from Ohio); note that a lot of chicks doesn't necessarily translate into a lot of nesting pairs due to a fairly high natural mortality rate of young birds (Great Horned Owls, Coyotes, cars, etc.). And also be aware the stability of the overall population is more a function of adult mortality (we lost a female this year on rte. 14 just west of Beacon) and that the number of nesting pairs and successful nests rises only incrementally regardless of the number of chicks:

 

 

The estimated historic North American numbers are approximately 4-4,500 pairs so we are roughly 3/4's of the way there and there will be three more post-delisting surveys in 2009, 2012, and 2015. At some point along that time line it is possible some state protections will be lifted - but, even that doesn't necessarily mean individual historic nest sites won't still be protected under some form of state and federal laws or rules. That's because each known-productive, historic [anchor] nest site (like Beacon, Midnight, etc.) only serves a single nesting pair, are a one shot deal each year, and are key in the overall recovery effort. It would be different if sites hosted multiple pairs, but that's just not how they are.

 

Keep in mind this historic recovery is one of the iconic successes of the overall environmental movement from the '70s and has been hard fought for thirty years by small groups of dedicated individuals who will have forty years into it before they are done. This is their legacy and is not all that different than our collective forty year legacy of routes on El Cap or elsewhere. And we are not talking pigeon-like numbers here, these are still relatively spartan numbers due to the size of the ranges of individual pairs. We should very much appreciate what has been accomplished by this dedicated group of folks. These are the fastest, burliest birds alive and fellow cliff-dwellers - if we can't share the vertical realm with them it says volumes about how consumptive, self-centered, and jaded we've become.

 

Anyway, these are the best facts available, and as far as I'm concerned, Beacon wouldn't be Beacon - or half as alive - without the Peregrines (or the trains)...

 

[ And Kevin and Andrew, I agree with many of your comments about the trail and its impact, but that's another story altogether and more one of political and legal realities than of targeting climbers per se as 'scapegoats'. Take it as you will, but I just don't agree that closures are bogus in the context of the overall recovery and sustaining requirements. As you said, Beacon is unique, but unfortunately easily accessible and has a long, convoluted, and storied history stretching back before Lewis and Clark. Far better it were obscure, buried in the forest somewhere and a trek to get to - but then it wouldn't be Beacon. ]

 

===========================================================================

Here's some recovery history and stats from the late '90s that contributed to the Federal ESA delisting...

===========================================================================

 

ALASKA: Surveys conducted between 1966 and 1998 along the upper Yukon River demonstrated increases in the number of occupied nesting territories from a low of 11 known pairs in 1973 to 46 pairs in 1998. Similarly, along the upper Tanana River, the number of occupied nesting territories increased from 2 in 1975 to 33 in 1998. The recovery objective of 28 occupied nesting territories in the two study areas was first achieved in 1988, with 23 nesting territories on the Yukon River and 12 on the Tanana River.

 

PACIFIC STATES: By 1976, no American peregrine falcons were found at 14 historical nest sites in Washington. Oregon had also lost most of its peregrine falcons and only 1 or 2 pairs remained on the California coast. Surveys conducted from 1991 to 1998 indicated a steadily increasing number of American peregrine falcon pairs breeding in Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. Known pairs in Washington increased from 17 to 45 and in Oregon from 23 to 51. The number of American peregrine falcons in California increased from an estimated low of 5 to 10 breeding pairs in the early 1970s to a minimum of 167 occupied sites in 1998. The increase in California was concurrent with the restriction of DDT and included the release of over 750 American peregrine falcons through 1997.

 

ROCKY MOUNTAINS/SOUTHWEST: The Rocky Mountain/Southwest population of the American peregrine falcon has made a profound comeback since the late 1970s when surveys showed no occupied nest sites in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming and only a few pairs in Colorado, New Mexico, and the Colorado Plateau, including parts of southern Utah and Arizona. Surveys conducted from 1991 through 1998 indicated that the number of American peregrine falcon pairs in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest area has steadily increased. In 1991, there were 367 known pairs; in 1998 the number of pairs increased to 535.

 

EASTERN STATES: The eastern peregrine population has a unique history and complex status under the Act. Peregrine falcons were extirpated in the eastern United States and southeastern Canada by the mid-1960s. Releases of young captive bred peregrines have reestablished populations throughout much of their former range in the east. In 1998, there were a total of 193 pairs counted in five designated eastern State recovery units. The number of territorial pairs recorded in the eastern peregrine falcon recovery area increased an average of 10% annually between 1992 and 1998. Equally important, the productivity of these pairs during the same 7-year period averaged 1.5 young per pair, demonstrating sustained successful nesting.

[billcoe]

Bill, I have no idea how you've come to the conclusion the Peregrines have gone anywhere from what I said. At no point, anywhere in my statement above or in my original post did I say the Peregrines aren't at Beacon Rock.

 

 

I misunderstood, my entire post up there had this one question: "Does this mean that the groundhog saw his shadow today? Err, I mean, knowing that you went to Beacon today to observe if there were birds and locate a nest, that you saw the birds nesting ?"

 

Your reply was:

Bill, no. BRSP has just been getting calls ............blah blah blah

 

It was your reply which started "Bill, no."... and then off to another subject which caused me to think you answered my question above about there being no birds. Had your reply to my question about sighting birds had been "Bill, Yes..." I would have understood it differently.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

BTW, forgot to say: thanks for both spending the time to confirm birds were present, but also giving us all a heads up the other issues as well.

Edited April 30, 2007 by billcoe