Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
dberdinka

The rhyme and reason behind falcon closures?

Recommended Posts

Sorry Joseph. I have to call bullshit on this. As climbers, with friends like you at Beacon, we don't need more enemies. There are very good grounds for opening a section of the rock that is no where near the falcom nesting.

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?

 

Your constant negativity and public slanderage of the climbing community all the while coming off as a climber certainly do not contribute to this effort however. That IS one indisputable fact.

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Sorry Joseph. I have to call bullshit on this. As climbers, with friends like you at Beacon, we don't need more enemies. There are very good grounds for opening a section of the rock that is no where near the falcon nesting.

Your constant negativity and public slanderage of the climbing community all the while coming off as a climber certainly do not contribute to this effort however. That IS one indisputable fact.

 

JH....the party of no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

How about no climbers within 300 feet of the nest?

 

Those words are the words of the biologist in charge a few years back.

 

Scientific because most other closures have boundaries. Legal because they can do what ever they want (kind of like cops). Policy because, just like legal, they can write how they seem fit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to extend my curiousity on the issue, and show my ignoranace of the history; have the birds been consistently successful fledging young from this site?

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.

yeah, i didn't read that question right at all - thought it was asking if they were good at shitting out their progeny and getting them off the damn ledge well before the july 15 date - sure wish they'd be more reliable on that! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the rub......if the powers that be really wanted to make sure the birds are protected at all costs....they would close the trail. Plain and simple. But like you said....it might disrupt their landmark tourist sites. So it is also plain and simple that the birds and their welfare are not high on the list of firsts for the WSP.

 

This is certainly the case with the interstate bridge (i-405, the Fremont Bridge) . There have been a nesting pair there for a long time. Often they have been unsuccessful in breeding. Certainly a car accident at the wrong time would be devastatingly disruptive....and you've got massive diesel spewing trucks, noise, abrupt honking and huge car traffic on it daily, yet they never once closed it to the thousands of commuters....why? Easy to see why. Because it would be a bad move politically. Once you piss off that many people, the endangered species act would have been overturned by a march of half crazed Suburban and Expedition yuppie drivers the likes of which this country had never seen. LOL!

 

Climbers are comparatively easy pickens:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Well...sure there is "law and policy" facts to learn for many, and I agree that not talking to the agency at all: but simply bitching online exclusively is way off kilter and unproductive: but as far as facts go, you don't have a lot of "facts" in your post by way of a response to me.

 

As I understand it, the pair I posted about, the ones on the Fremont bridge, just showed up. They were not hacked (planted) there as you seem to believe. We're not talking about a building in Pittsburgh or Frisco, I brought up the Fremont bridge specifically. You are saying this pair was hacked and even hacked knowing that they would be in a higher risk environment with the understanding that they would not have the protection which Fish and Wildlife was offering to other nesting pairs? I think that this is make believe on your part. They just showed up one day with no human intervention of any sort. That's how I remember it and the story still goes.

http://audubonportland.org/issues/endangered-species/peregrine-falcon/portland-peregrines/fremont and

http://www.peregrineaa.com/peregrine_falcons.asp

Back then they were much much rarer. So precious that they showed up in the city. So you're saying what there? That I'm wrong?

 

Furthermore, do you think climbers, some of whom were responsible for fetching eggs and being directly responsible for the regeneration of this species when big industry trashed it, would have agreed to hack boxes and closures forever on their very climbing routes had they known that those spots would be later closed during the prime climbing season forever due to their actions? I've talked directly to some of these very guys who rapped down and recovered those oh so rare, valuable and precious eggs and I can answer that for you. Or that they'd have agreed to a closure in violation and in opposition to what they had actually saw with their own eyes and believed about climber/Peregrine interactions capability? Their routes closed even after the birds had well recovered to the point of being taken off the Endangered species list and appeared to be more common than Red Tail Hawks in those areas? You think they would have believed they would have done this had they known they would have been exclusively shit on for eternity for doing this kind deed? OK, they would have done it anyway because it was the right thing to do then when the species was an eyeblink of disappearing off the face of the earth, but the government isn't doing the right thing now for them or the birds by shitting exclusively on climbers and allowing the bridge to stay open all those many many years when the bird were oh so rare and precious. Long term there will be resentment and anger that will pressure change not in the way these agency folks would want. That the numbers in opposition to them are not huge makes it seem more manageable for now. Yet build against them and change it will.

 

You should reevaluate what you "think" the facts are JH. They didn't close the Fremont bridge in violation of their own policy's and laws because of political pressure. Furthermore, the belief that fish and wildlife has about space Peregrines need is continually not agreed to by those who are actually having the interactions, that F&W doesn't study it further is certainly on more reason for the angst you mention that you dislike so much.

 

Political pressure. Period. That's why.

 

By no ones account were Climbers responsible in any way for the near extinction of that species. The reverse is true. It was climbers who rapped in and brought back those so very rare and precious eggs. And the bottom line is that many climbers to this day, who are still getting shit on, needlessly according to most except for yourself perhaps, carry anger and resentment over it. THIS IS WHAT YOU DON'T APPEAR TO UNDERSTAND. Kevin happens to be one of the rare ones haranguing online on a single note. What I say goes for many many more.

 

For myself, I'm happy for the birds recovery. I strongly dislike the blatant agency hypocrisy I pointed out up there, but I can understand it. This kind of a compromise which the agency makes, or the trail example which Kevin brings up, is very smart to achieve what is really important in the long term. Still, being singled out and shit on is still the reality and much harder for some. I do have the joy of having the birds being recovered. That is the bottom line of importance. Yet we are left with this: Climbers think the closure is unfair BECAUSE IT IS. This is a bigger issue for some climbers and less for others....to non-existent even for some, yet like a rat turd in the sugar bowl, it remains. For climbing, I can go elsewhere. But then, so could the cars on the Fremont bridge.

 

Cheers! :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

I have not read all of this thread so I may have missed where this was discussed but I once heard a presentation from a biologist who was addressing that Fremont Bridge pair, and he explained how the birds were fine with thousands of cars going by, very close, but completely freaked out when a film crew of some kind set up near, but not even in sight of and maybe not even closer to, their nest. I don't remember the details, but it was a compelling tale.

 

The take away I got from that lecture was that these birds are cool, they deserve protection, and that the measures needed to protect them are not necessarily intuitive.

 

I bet you could find out about this with a minimal amount of research. I think the guy was from Audubon, and based in Portland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. The point I got was that the birds get used to "background" conditions and a change in those conditions really freaks them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like opening day at Beacon. They are unused to climbers, so they are squaking and sqeaking and freaking for a few days, and then they settle down. If climbers climbed on Beacon, but away from the nest out of sight to the East, it would be far more normal and less traumatic for the birds and the young ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. The point I got was that the birds get used to "background" conditions and a change in those conditions really freaks them out.

 

 

so really at one point they were used to the climbers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the problem is that you gotta be out there every day in March or whenever it is that they scope the nest. Then, as I understood it, they'll pick their current site according to "conditions" as they perceive them.

 

Hey wait: didn't Pink post that the answer to his plight at Beacon would be to drive cars by there all the time? I was talking about "background," andI think that was the point of the biologist story. Not that climbers who enter the scene after "background" is established are easy to cope with.

 

I'm not a biologist, and birds are not even my thing. I don't know about all of this, but the only point I have is that these questions are complicated and I believe the biologists and the land managers are trying to do the "right" or "good" thing.

Edited by mattp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they were actually used to the climbers, i remember them landing 5 ft away from me and just chill. oh well, i don't live there anymore :)

Edited by pink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like opening day at Beacon. They are unused to climbers, so they are squaking and sqeaking and freaking for a few days, and then they settle down. If climbers climbed on Beacon, but away from the nest out of sight to the East, it would be far more normal and less traumatic for the birds and the young ones.

 

I totally agree. The birds get used to us then bam....we are gone for 6 months...then BAM...we are back. Totally freaks them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biologists would agree that the birds can get used to climbers. The Audubon guy who I saw give a presentation on this topic did not directly state this but he did say that the birds are adaptable and really quite perceptive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yup, when i got caught climbing out there during the first closure, i got charged with "harrassing an endangered species to wit". the court appointed attorney thought it was so outrageous he fought it to the end for free. he compared it to deers walking right up to people in stevenson and how they were used to people. i was very grateful and lucky that he saw our side, to be quite honest i thought they were gonna throw the book at us. i guess it was a bogus charge. turned out one must posses a weapon to threaten an animal, either that or a bug sprayer full of DDT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, Mr. Pink. I agree with you in the respect that over the years I've heard dozens and maybe more stories where protective birds were glaring at climbers passing their nests with no interruption in nesting activities but I am not ready to conclude that the concerns are bogus - if that is what you are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×