Peregrine chicks out at the Madrone

[kevbone]

 

The problem is, unfortunately, we live in a place with small local crags as opposed to somewhere like Gunks, Bend, Boulder, or Chattanooga where there are still other open sections or walls during the closures.

 

The south face of Beacon is not small IMO. There is plenty of room for climbers and birds....hell they seem to think there is enough room for thousands of tourist and birds.

[JosephH]

It's not really an 'IMO' sort of deal - the South Face is small relative to closure boundary recommendations which are widely accepted by climbers elsewhere and by the Access Fund.

[JosephH]

But there's a turn in the tourist trail that's within that boundary!

True enough, but the fact that they won't close the tourist trail (the proper action) doesn't mean they're going to grant climbers a second exception to the rule. Our numbers as a 'user group' are wholly irrelevant outside of the injustice of your emotional tumult.

[JosephH]

the necessity for a six-month closure at beacon (and i suppose, now, at madrone, too, if they ever get it open) is still debatable - a three-month closure might be enough...

Wait - you're the biologist - the month-by-mating / behavioral cycles of the Peregrines is the most well known part of the science around raptors. On what basis would you say "three months"? Do you know or can you tell folks here why the closures [behaviorly] start and stop when they do (and many around the country don't end until August 1st or 15th)? There are good reasons why the closures run when they do, it isn't in any way arbitrary.

[King Beatard]

But there's a turn in the tourist trail that's within that boundary!

True enough, but the fact that they won't close the tourist trail (the proper action) doesn't mean they're going to grant climbers a second exception to the rule. Our numbers as a 'user group' are wholly irrelevant outside of the injustice of your emotional tumult.

 

Why not grant a second exception, the first doesn't seem to be doing any harm?

[JosephH]

Well, aside from the fact the existing one was forced on them, the trail basically just grazes overlooking the South Face and no one from the trail can establish themselves out on the face or approach the nest. Climbers on the otherhand, can and do establish themselves on the face proper and are capable of approaching the nest. It's a big distinction between the two and why another exception isn't going to happen.

[kevbone]

Well, aside from the fact the existing one was forced on them, the trail basically just grazes overlooking the South Face and no one from the trail can establish themselves out on the face or approach the nest. Climbers on the otherhand, can and do establish themselves on the face proper and are capable of approaching the nest. It's a big distinction between the two and why another exception isn't going to happen.

 

Face it Joseph. You have no real argument other than “it’s not going to happen”. It will always be a screwed up situation at Beacon. Yes the hikers don’t generally position themselves on the south face….so what. I think the folks in charge should close 300 feet in ALL DIRECTIONS of the nest. Then the trail would have to close. End of story.

 

The simple truth of the matter is the birds do just fine with thousands of tourist hiking up ever day. The trail is about 200 feet from the nest (assuming they are nesting on or around Big Ledge). So logic would have us believe the birds would do just fine with the climbers only climbing the SE corner and over to the right.

 

Why the stringent closure? The rangers are just plain lazy? I don’t get it…….why close the trail down? It is all just too convoluted to even try to understand.

 

[JosephH]

Oh, quite the contrary Kevin, you never have had an argument of any kind other than that the tourist trail should be closed, and I agree with you.

 

Where you have no argument at all is in there being any rationale which makes the logical leap from that fact to an arguable reason why climbers should be allowed to climb as well. The fact that hikers can't position themselves on the face, and that there is nowhere on the South Face proper from where you can see hikers on the trail, are entirely relavant. Your argument is a purely numerical one and not even a good one there as it ignores line-of-sight issues. The birds do fine with thousands of tourists because those tourists never position on the South Face and never even come close to breaking the plane of the South Face. Figure out how to do that when climbing and I'm guessing you'd get your exception.

 

Again, the closure isn't 'stringent' and is very much in line with the norm applied to such closures around the US.

 

The trail is another matter altogether and is closed to both to keep people out from under the East Face roofs and because everytime a car parks down that end of the lot and they suspect someone, particularly a climber, might be on the trail then they have to insure that individual isn't up under the roofs or climbing. That's due to the history of climbers breaking the closure and it means the rangers then have to hit the boat ramp to check the face and possibly hike the trail as well. Bottom line is they don't have the manpower to be doing it so they closed it after having to chase folks (non-climbers) out from under the East Face and check on folks potentially poaching climbs.

 

Of course, you don't go to Beacon to climb let alone walk the trail or base and I suspect Jim and everyone else will somehow survive such a savage deprivation and insult as well. In the end you can simply chalk it up to the long term cost of folks commonly poaching routes during the closure.

 

 

[LostCamKenny]

Wait - you're the biologist - the month-by-mating / behavioral cycles of the Peregrines is the most well known part of the science around raptors. On what basis would you say "three months"? Do you know or can you tell folks here why the closures [behaviorly] start and stop when they do (and many around the country don't end until August 1st or 15th)? There are good reasons why the closures run when they do, it isn't in any way arbitrary.

Well, aside from the fact the existing one was forced on them, the trail basically just grazes overlooking the South Face and no one from the trail can establish themselves out on the face or approach the nest. Climbers on the otherhand, can and do establish themselves on the face proper and are capable of approaching the nest. It's a big distinction between the two and why another exception isn't going to happen.

Oh, quite the contrary Kevin, you never have had an argument of any kind other than that the tourist trail should be closed, and I agree with you.

 

Where you have no argument at all is in there being any rationale which makes the logical leap from that fact to an arguable reason why climbers should be allowed to climb as well. The fact that hikers can't position themselves on the face, and that there is nowhere on the South Face proper from where you can see hikers on the trail, are entirely relavant. Your argument is a purely numerical one and not even a good one there as it ignores line-of-sight issues. The birds do fine with thousands of tourists because those tourists never position on the South Face and never even come close to breaking the plane of the South Face. Figure out how to do that when climbing and I'm guessing you'd get your exception.

 

Again, the closure isn't 'stringent' and is very much in line with the norm applied to such closures around the US.

 

The trail is another matter altogether and is closed to both to keep people out from under the East Face roofs and because everytime a car parks down that end of the lot and they suspect someone, particularly a climber, might be on the trail then they have to insure that individual isn't up under the roofs or climbing. That's due to the history of climbers breaking the closure and it means the rangers then have to hit the boat ramp to check the face and possibly hike the trail as well. Bottom line is they don't have the manpower to be doing it so they closed it after having to chase folks (non-climbers) out from under the East Face and check on folks potentially poaching climbs.

 

Of course, you don't go to Beacon to climb let alone walk the trail or base and I suspect Jim and everyone else will somehow survive such a savage deprivation and insult as well. In the end you can simply chalk it up to the long term cost of folks commonly poaching routes during the closure.

yet again, three more pieces of evidence to show that joseph is never wrong

[JosephH]

Wow, that pithy riposte is your response?

 

Dude, it's your time to shine man, I'm waiting for your dazzling insight and / or devastating critique of any of the above. Come on now, as a biologist whom I assume can do more than count fish and sex geese, please tear that shit up and lay the real facts on me and everyone else here. Folks are pretty much fed up with my shit and you're the perfect guy to set me straight in all this business where I'm clearly in over my head.

 

Go for it dude! What is the real story and what facts should folks know about the Peregrines, the closure, the law, and your agency's policies that keep us from climbing? Exactly why would a three month closure be adequate? What would be the impact of such a change on the birds? Hell, I'm dying to hear it myself...

[denalidave]

But there's a turn in the tourist trail that's within that boundary!

True enough, but the fact that they won't close the tourist trail (the proper action) doesn't mean they're going to grant climbers a second exception to the rule. Our numbers as a 'user group' are wholly irrelevant outside of the injustice of your emotional tumult.

 

Why not grant a second exception, the first doesn't seem to be doing any harm?

Hey it's King B, where ya been, buddy?... "It's good to be king, just for a while, be there in velvet, yeah, give-em a smile"...

[LostCamKenny]

Go for it dude! What is the real story and what facts should folks know about the Peregrines, the closure, the law, and your agency's policies that keep us from climbing? Exactly why would a three month closure be adequate? What would be the impact of such a change on the birds? Hell, I'm dying to hear it myself...

so basically you keep sayin how the birds need a six month closure and that is the way to keep them comfortably breeding (because that is what will get YOU the most climbing out there, according to yer own selfish plan). so in order to make a claim like that one would need to know that a three-month closure wouldn't do the job. here you are asking me how a three monther would be enough and that you are dying to know because you don't know already... wait a minute. so you don't know everything?!?

 

here's the story and i'm sticking to this one and you can respond however you like - as i am sure you will(at length, quoting me and tearing me apart for all the masses to read): NEVER have i claimed that i have the answers. NEVER have i said that i was right or taht my opinions were right, just that they were my opinions. i am a master of my own opinon (as are you - clearly). my whole strategy revolves about talking to as many people as i can and getting as many opinons as i can before i decide that a certain path is the one that should be taken. when you started birdwatching all that time ago did you EVER think to get the opinions of other climbers before you began speaking for everyone? my guess is that you didn't.

 

i really don't know that a three monther would be sufficient but then again you can't say that it wouldn't be. before i go talk to anyone in my agency i am going to have a plan that will consist of my opinion and many others and then with those maybe a workable solution can be found when it is brought to the state park and the wildlife division. my plan will include everyone and will not leave out a single voice that wants to be heard.

 

i'm surprized that you don't work for this harder, yourself, since nine months of climbing is longer than six months of climbing out there, and you have said that you work to get as much climbing as you can get.

 

like i said in that PM, when you want to have a sensible conversation about all this then call me - you know my number.

 

there ya go man... there's my response. now for your retort... quote away, man. i know you're dying to...

[JosephH]

Well there's problem with your whole approach - no one's 'opinion', including mine, counts for squat when it comes to the law, policy, or science relating to the Peregrine closure. So it really doesn't matter a damn if I state my opinion, you state your opinion, or you collect and distill a hundred opinions - the State of Washington and WDFW don't make policy based on opinions.

 

That's why I made the other thread on the off hand chance any of you have anything more than whines and opinions. Ideas, facts, or cogent arguments presented so far that might support dropping, altering, or narrowing the closure - zilch, nada, not a single one.

 

And again, have at any of my statements above you think are incorrect in any way - tear'em dude, or present your own.

[LostCamKenny]

Well there's problem with your whole approach - no one's 'opinion', including mine, counts for squat when it comes to the law, policy, or science relating to the Peregrine closure. So it really doesn't matter a damn if I state my opinion, you state your opinion, or you collect and distill a hundred opinions - the State of Washington and WDFW don't make policy based on opinions.

well before we go to the wdfw and the state parks we need to know what everyone wants to see happen - we need those hundreds of opinions and voices so we know what we are working towards. they might not matter to the lawr or the policy or the science, but first we need to show that the group who is asking for this is not the same group that was blatently violating a closure in the past (sorry andrew, i'm not tryign to single you out or anything). regardless of how you see the science, law and policy (the latter two pretty much being the same) we still need to consult others. that is the first step.

 

you want to talk more then you can call me...

[JosephH]

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

*** YOU - ARE - STILL - NOT - GETTING - IT ***

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

 

It doesn't matter what 'the group' wants (as if we don't already know what the group wants...); what the group 'wants' is irrelevant without some - any - legitimate, reality-based (read legal, policy, or science-based) arguments for why anything should change. There is no point whatsoever in telling any agency 'what we want' unless you can cite and support specific legal and / or policy changes.

 

What we might 'want' holds the same weight as our 'opinions' - i.e. none.

 

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

*** YOU - ARE - STILL - NOT - GETTING - IT ***

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

[hemp22]

Seriously, can you guys please just keep all this drivel in your Columbia River Gorge forum.

It's plenty common for threads to get way off-topic here, but the Access Issues forum should be kept clean so that people can find pertinent information.

[JosephH]

It would be an access issue if there were ever something more substantive than woeful plaintives being discussed.

[LostCamKenny]

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

*** YOU - ARE - STILL - NOT - GETTING - IT ***

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

that's not for you to decide

 

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

*** YOU - ARE - STILL - NOT - GETTING - IT ***

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

[JosephH]

It's pretty obvious at this point given you can't seem to come up with anything remotely approaching an objective fact relative to the Peregrines or the closure. You guys can cry together all you want on pm's, but don't bother 'coming out' until at least one of you is prepared to deal with the adults who manage the rock. They aren't vaguely moved or impressed by your angst, sense of injustice, or what you want - they deal in facts. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think sympathy is going to play any role in the matter, so stow the pleading.

[LostCamKenny]

It's pretty obvious at this point given you can't seem to come up with anything remotely approaching an objective fact relative to the Peregrines or the closure. You guys can cry together all you want on pm's, but don't bother 'coming out' until at least one of you is prepared to deal with the adults who manage the rock. They aren't vaguely moved or impressed by your angst, sense of injustice, or what you want - they deal in facts. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think sympathy is going to play any role in the matter, so stow the pleading.

go fuck yourself joe. you truly are an asshole!

[LostCamKenny]

oh, and no one here is impressed by you either, so i guess that your still in the same boat as the rest of us.

[JosephH]

go fuck yourself joe. you truly are an asshole!

 

oh, and no one here is impressed by you either, so i guess that your still in the same boat as the rest of us.

Jesus, if there were ever two things I'm going to lose sleep over...