Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Leavittator
climber
san diego, ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 7, 2007 - 12:36pm PT
|
Dear Fellow Climbers and Outdoor Enthusiasts,
7 January 2007
A forthcoming U.S. Forest Service decision in San Diego County will set precedent that likely will influence all other similar climbing and recreation areas in the U.S. in the near future. The proposals and maps can be found here: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/projects/seasonal-closures/index.shtml
Specifically, the area known as Corte Madera (a multi-pitch moderate climbing area in the San Diego backcountry) will be seasonally closed due to a policy partly based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Because of the south facing nature of this crag, a seasonal closure of the entire crag system is effectively a year round closure as the climbing season is during the closure period (Dec 1-May 30).
Rock climbing is so awesome because we can experience the great outdoors in such a connected and integral way. As a group, I know we strive to co-exist with our natural surroundings. This proposed closure is over-reaching and scares the heck out of me because it could lead to any crag being closed due to the presence of common birds, like the swallow or hummingbird. For example, if El Capitan were located in a national forest, the entire crag could be closed due to a common bird nesting OR the presence of an eagle nest that hasn’t been used for 15 years OR “other cliff-nesting species” that haven’t specifically been identified. Further, this proposed half mile radius closure could be applied to “alternate nest sites”, not just active nest sites. What exactly are alternate nest sites? Could they be ledges or large cracks?
There are a few facts worth noting that should be considered in this case, as well as similar cases. A national forest is not a national park, monument, or wilderness area. Management decisions need to be made to comply with federal law and for the public good (http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml);. Recreation is a valid use of the national forest. Americans are getting fatter and more physically unfit. The national forest is an area where recreation is promoted. Closing the areas to the general public for a bird (such as the Prairie Falcon) that is not endangered (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf);, not threatened, and has no special U.S. Forest Service protection or status (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/sensitive-species/sensitive-animals.pdf);, is not right. If a species needs special protection, the standard 330 feet as applied to Golden Eagles (active nests) should be applied, not the 1 mile diameter idea as promoted in this situation. Furthermore, the MBTA, which is cited for this policy, is an act that applies to commerce, not passive recreation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sup_01_16_10_7_20_II.html);. Linking all of these issues is a dangerous precedent and one that will undoubtedly lead to future conflicts with user groups in national forest areas. It is interesting to note that if the ½ mile radius (1 mile diameter) around the Corte Madera climbing area were correctly applied, it would inconveniently include the popular Espinosa off-road trail. I suspect the center of the ½ mile radius was moved so as not to include the Espinosa Trail. If the ½ mile radius was correctly placed in the center of the historical nesting sites, the Espinosa Trail would be closed as well. Maybe the public heat would be too much in that case? My point is that ½ mile radius is pretty darn big and onerous. Now you can see how all of a crag like El Cap could be closed due to one nest of a non-threatened species.
I do want to protect birds that need protection. I also believe that reasonable closures as already established elsewhere are appropriate. This new proposal is over-reaching and unwarranted. It is not just climbers that will be affected, but all recreational users. Please be active in your letter writing, donations and involvement. I am especially calling on all of the prominent climbers who spend so much time here on the internet to use your considerable influence to save our climbing areas. A lot is at stake because someday, we’ll look back at “the good old days” when most crags weren’t closed.
Best Wishes,
Randy Leavitt
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Trad climber
the blighted lands of hatu
|
|
wow.
excellent post Randy. thanks.
edit to add :
I don't see a feedback link on that FS website - is the proposal closed to comment already ? I'm guessing it is ?
tom
|
|
T-REX
climber
san diego, ca
|
|
Randy Vogel (jeff brown here),
Please explain what you mean by, "No emails are being allowed, so print out a hard copy, put a stamp on it and send it off". The linked proposals on the Forest Service web-site still state that e-mails are acceptable.
Update: Kirsten Winter confirmed that the Forest Service is still accepting e-mails and that their system can handle as many responses as we throw at em...though I still say a well developed hard-copy letter in one's own words is a better way to respond...though I can't confirm it, I just feel a real letter that arrives on the Forest Service' doorstep carries more weight!
Thanks,
jeff
|
|
Leavittator
climber
san diego, ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2007 - 01:49pm PT
|
If you feel so inclined, please copy the link to this Supertopo post and e-mail it to your friends. It is an easy way to spread the word. By the way, this isn't a personal campaign to save an area I frequent. I've only been to Corte Madera once (a wonderful area for those of us in San Diego). I am weigning in on this issue because it will be coming to a cliff near you.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Trad climber
the blighted lands of hatu
|
|
bumpin...
i too ignored the 'access issue san diego' thread - shame on me ! this could set a huge precedent...
a hand written letter will be off to the FS in the morning...
|
|
furbucket
Sport climber
Las Vegas, NV
|
|
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.
|
|
Leavittator
climber
san diego, ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 8, 2007 - 11:20pm PT
|
Furbucket,
Those are excellent points and I believe the FS know those facts. It is worth noting that Glenn and I met a forest service representative at the trailhead at El Cajon Mountain. While I would not say "he is on our side", I would say he is sympathetic to outdoor recreation uses, as well as the birds. My overall impression of him was very positive. I believe he is the sort of man who would be willing to try to work things out so the birds (that need protecting) are protected and user groups are accommodated as well. He really gets the idea that the national forest is a valuable resource for recreation. Warbler, thanks for your two cents as well. This is really an issue that everyone needs to embrace. Keep posting. Write letters. Spread the word...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Well lem me tell ya. Those birds ain't scared until your twenty feet away from em. Then they get pissed and attack you.
|
|
john hansen
climber
|
|
It's funny that fourty years ago when there wern't many eagles left, they put these protections in place. Now there is no more DDT and the eagles are doing very well. One of the reason's all the racoons, possums, and beavers are doing so well is that no one ever shoots them any more(exept Piton Ron). There used to be traps and sh#t, and almost any human you saw was trying to kill you for your meat or your fur.
Of course our goverment is thirty years behind (as usual).
I say just let those big ole eagles take care of themselves. They will let you know if you get too close.
It would never happen but what if an eagle made a nest on El Cap Tower?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
"........what if an eagle made a nest on El Cap Tower?"
It can't make a nest there, it's forbidden!
|
|
T-REX
climber
san diego, ca
|
|
Hey folks,
Just wanted to commend those of you paying attention and doing your "civic" duty! ;)
Beyond that, just heard from the Access Fund that they now expect to post-up via their "Enews" which is scheduled to come out on January 12th (this Friday).
If your not on their Enews, no worries, I'll be posting their info. here just as soon as I get it.
Thanks again...keep up the good fight!
Jeff
|
|
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
I'm writing my letters! Please everyone do the same!
Josh
|
|
T-REX
climber
san diego, ca
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2007 - 05:49pm PT
|
Update: Kirsten Winter confirmed that the Forest Service is still accepting e-mails and that their system can handle as many responses as we throw at em...though I still say a well developed hard-copy letter in one's own words is a better way to respond...though I can't confirm it, I just feel a real letter that arrives on the Forest Service' doorstep carries more weight!
jeff
|
|
Michael D
Big Wall climber
Napoli, Italy
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2007 - 09:17am PT
|
We're still in Napoli for a couple years, but plan on returning to San Diego. Corte Madera is a splendid area to climb, remote enough to be an adventure, close enough to get a breadbasket in Alpine. I'll have our Club write letters, as this has very far reaching effects.
Here in central Italy, a climbers/land owners/managers agreement is still maintained by handshake. The local guides are responsible for informing and policing the area closures. these closures are what seems best for all parties, a vertical corridor from 'route-x to route-y' is closed for the reasonable nesting season. It works excellent, with respect for all.
Ciao, Michael
|
|
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2007 - 10:48am PT
|
Michael, thanks for posting up. That's awesome you're getting your climbing club in Italy to write in! Let them know that if they're ever in SD I'll take em climbing to the area they will try to save.
It's amazing that National Forest closures to great climbing areas for BS reasons are potentially pending and a retarded thread on Pete Rose and McGwire getting into the BB hall of fame has more responses than this one.
Come on climbers, get your damn priorities straight! Write your letter and post up if you do!
|
|
ladysmith
climber
san diego, ca
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2007 - 03:02pm PT
|
Bump
|
|
Leavittator
climber
san diego, ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 16, 2007 - 06:23pm PT
|
access bump before surf
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!