Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 03:29pm PT
|
If that face is eleven pitches tall then it shouldn't be all closed. And by now the Peregrines pair are on their nest if they are in fact nesting there. It shouldn't take too long some morning or later afternoon with a pair of binoculars to figure out where they are nesting.
Closing the entire rock for a month or two early in the spring (Feb-Mar) while they decide on a nesting site is reasonable, but if it's a long established nest then they're probably reusing it every year.
Maybe they've closed the entire rock because they don't have the resources available to monitor it. Rather than bitching and spraying the usual bullshit it would be way better and more useful for someone to monitor a few times in late April / early May and pin down the nest site for a localized closure or determine they aren't nesting there. It might also be useful to try and locate anyone who in the past has monitored the Peregrines out there and get some history from them.
|
|
mooch
Trad climber
Old Climbers' Home (Adopted)
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 03:39pm PT
|
Great.....be on the look out for nesting humans. Dingus is "hatching" a plan to keep us "feather brains" away from the rock.
I'm sure there are plenty of nesting pairs elsewhere...all throughout the state
|
|
mooch
Trad climber
Old Climbers' Home (Adopted)
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 03:43pm PT
|
Like the pair on P #2 of Red Tail....
Finger on the trigger.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 03:45pm PT
|
Actually Dingus, if they decide that they can close an entire crag the size and significance of Moro Rock due to a single pair of birds (this appears to be the case here?) then they can just as well decide to close all rocks in the park for the same reason.
I think it should be incumbent on the park to determine where the birds are nesting (perhaps by enlisting the help of climbers) so an appropriate closure can be determined.
The logic that "since we cannot determine the location of the nests(s?) we will close the entire area" sets a bad precedent.
I know this is a tricky subject, and questioning falcon closures is often viewed as at least politically incorrect and sometimes as heresy, but I can see where this kind of policy making could lead to a bad end for climbing access while making little or no real difference to the birds.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 04:01pm PT
|
Kris,
As usual, you are a voice of reason here. I'm saddened, but not surprised, to see posters opine without knowledge of the area of the circumstances faced by both local climbers and local NPS and/or Forest Service personnel.
I'm sorry, but I found most of the posts neither hysterical nor bullsh#t. I should mention, too, that the picture shown is of the west face. The south and east faces also have significant climbs, and the rock itself is a signficant climbing objective both from the General's Highway and from parts of the San Joaquin Valley itself. All of this is closed for now.
I did, however, find the characterization of this as some kind of power trip that we need to resist rather an exaggeration. Eddie, who's done some of the burliest FA's there, gives us the best solution: Find where the nest is, and talk to the folks in charge. I've found over the years that if I assume there will be a fight, I might actually provoke one. In contrast, if I assume I am talking to someone reasonable, I most often reach a reasonable result.
John
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 04:13pm PT
|
As I have stated at other times when this comes up I read all the literature
I could find in the mid-80's when I was busted. It was pretty much literature
as there is precious little, if any, rigor to this 'science'. The most
compelling pieces were from England and Australia where less hysterical heads seem
to prevail. One cliff in particular in England, I forget where, had a long
history of voluntary closures which seemed to work nicely for all involved.
As I recall, the boids were quite happy as long as the wankers kept 100' away
horizontally. The boids were even more tolerant of activity above as long as
there was a sizable overhang to shield them; out of sight, out of mind as it were.
At a smallish cliff in Australia they were non-plussed by heavy earth-moving
equipment at the base because it was some 200-300' below and even a bird-brain
knows that Caterpillars can't fly.
Sadly, the bureaucratic brain does not function so rationally. It sees a brave
new world of job security very nicely safeguarded by the luxury of not having
to actually provide any scientific proof for their arbitrary decisions. What a life!
|
|
Radish
Trad climber
SeKi, California
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 04:14pm PT
|
And, you would think that a rock like this with easy access and way easy down climb...stairs, would see tons of climbers lining up on the routes. But, Moro is lucky to see even a handful of climbers all year! How many of you have even climbed there I wonder??
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 04:21pm PT
|
Sorry, but the first page is filled with the usual 'climbers don't bother Peregrines' and 'Peregrines don't mind climbers' tripe and that sort of bullshit does nothing but add to the problem and further contribute to these blanket closures.
I think it should be incumbent on the park to determine where the birds are nesting (perhaps by enlisting the help of climbers) so an appropriate closure can be determined.
It should be and would be if they had budget, out there I'd be stunned to find out they're not running way under the budget they really need to run the place, hence no monitoring resources, likely ditto for the US Fish & Wildlife in the area if involved. In state parks the parks don't have anything to do with it, it's all the jurisdiction of C/DFG.
Again, locals should jump in, establish a relationship with whomever the relevant biologist is, monitor to find the nest, and then work with them to setup a partial closure.
|
|
nutjob
Gym climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 04:42pm PT
|
In the absence of resources, and no specific corporate interests, I suspect park managers will make decisions that err on the side of caution. Consider that for every climber who wants to climb in a spot, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who, without detailed consideration and no real stake in the decision, would support the stance of the park if they make the cautious decision. If I were a park manager, I'd rather piss off a climber than all the other hordes of people.
It seems the best remedy to this is as ec pointed out... take initiative to identify where the nests are and recommend partial voluntary closures so the park managers can demonstrate to the public that they are taking appropriate actions.
Bigger picture, if folks really think that climbing near or through a nest doesn't impact raptor survival, then these observations need to be backed by scientific literature that demonstrates the fact. Simply sharing anecdotes will not be useful in changing public perception or park policies.
Radish: I climbed on Piece de Resistance a few years ago, but didn't get anywhere near high enough for anyone or any creature to notice.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 05:06pm PT
|
Bigger picture, if folks really think that climbing near or through a nest doesn't impact raptor survival, then these observations need to be backed by scientific literature that demonstrates the fact. Simply sharing anecdotes will not be useful in changing public perception or park policies.
I think that the extent to which climbing activity affects raptor survival varies a great deal from one climbing area to another. That is why it is so important to determine the location of the nest site to determine an appropriate closure.
An ideal solution would be the one Eddie proposed, and volunteer work by a climber or small group of climbers would eliminate the argument re "lack of resources." Personally I can volunteer to participate in such an effort, with the caveat that I am not local and have limited time so I would not be the right person to lead the effort. I do have good binocs and I know what a falcon looks like... ;-)
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 05:15pm PT
|
I'm not particularly experienced at differentiating pergrines from other raptors, but I have a good telescope with a 390mm apeture and an image erecting eyepiece, so I could certainly do some looking, and will do so if I can coordinate with those who know.
John
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 05:20pm PT
|
if folks really think that climbing near or through a nest doesn't impact raptor survival, then these observations need to be backed by scientific literature that demonstrates the fact. Simply sharing anecdotes will not be useful in changing public perception or park policies.
Peregrines have incredible vision for aerial hunting and are essentially 100% visually driven animals - as such most of their stressors are visual. They will progressively more reluctantly abandon nests, eggs, and chicks in that order when sufficiently stressed. There is no real 'science' around this because they are bad-ass birds not amenable to capture or behaving 'normally' if rigged with the type of gear that would be required to capture stress events in a 'scientific' manner. That said, every raptor biologist out there with any experience can reel off a litany of abandonments they've seen and documented year in year out.
|
|
nutjob
Gym climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 05:36pm PT
|
I agree that a classical control/experimental based research or anything to demonstrate a proven causal relationship would be quite a challenge or nearly impossible. But, one could more easily quantify a "human disturbance index" that measured sound levels, density or proximity of frequent human contact, etc... and then attempt to correlate this with nest abandonment. Perhaps show a statistically significant difference between human disturbance index in areas with abandoned nests versus areas with occupied nests. Perhaps further quantify this with some ANOVA-like approaches, attempting to show whether different environments are more permissive of higher disturbance indices in areas with nest occupation. One could also get more fine-grained by defining different disturbance indices based on distance (e.g. 10m disturbance index, 100m disturbance index, 1km disturbance index, etc...)
The overall point is, policies are changed when you can present published research that supports your point. Any ornithologist climbers out there take note! Here's a good dissertation topic.
|
|
mooch
Trad climber
Old Climbers' Home (Adopted)
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 05:38pm PT
|
How many of you have even climbed there I wonder??
You know my status Rene.
Not to appoint liasons or suggest a front man but I know a specific person on this forum who works directly with Sequoia NP who takes a valid interest in the matter.
*Cough.....cough*
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 05:48pm PT
|
I don't think anyone is trying to argue that climbing through a nest will not have an effect on raptor survival. That would be an absurd position to take. How close is a gray area which as you say should be somehow determined scientifically, and with this info we could have reasonable closures which err on the side of safety for the birds.
I do think that the interaction between climbers and falcons varies greatly from one area to another due to the topography of the rock. I know one climbing area (let's not mention names here) which has a large healthy population of raptors who live undisturbed by climbers because their aeries are well away from where the climbers go. Other areas where there are not such features may find the birds nesting on or near a route which of course poses another kind of issue.
edit: Yes I am hoping a front person will step forward. If so, and help is needed I will happily contribute a couple of days to the effort.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 05:51pm PT
|
I would say it's a matter of line-of-sight distance. My personal opinion (not worth much) is that 100-150ft line-of-sight to either side should be fine.
|
|
Tork
climber
Yosemite
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 31, 2011 - 06:10pm PT
|
My personal opinion (not worth much) is that 100-150ft line-of-sight to either side should be fine.
Tell that to the birds.
As Kris stated above it varies from area to area.
I've notice that in areas that see little traffic the birds get stressed easier. A couple of my favorite out of the way areas have nesting perigrines. In both cases 150 is no way near enough.
The birds will tell you when you are to close...respect them.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 06:21pm PT
|
I would agree on a crag that sees little to no climbing then you probably need to give them a wider berth - but at an established crag with a lot of climbing traffic [imho] 100-150ft either side line-of-sight should be fine.
P.S. As far as telling them from other raptors, the silhouettes below are what you'll most commonly see. In particular you should note the mid-span articulation in the wing and the pointed wing tips.
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 06:24pm PT
|
Kris states
How close is a gray area which as you say should be somehow determined scientifically, and with this info we could have reasonable closures which err on the side of safety for the birds.
Couldn't agree more, especially with the final part of his comment.
g
|
|
Send
climber
Earth
|
|
|
May 31, 2011 - 09:02pm PT
|
About a month ago I did the south cracks into south face route on Moro. Saw some young falcons (2) before the climb and again from the last pitch. They seemed to be soaring around the jungle ledge, which is on the south face. Pretty far from climbs on the east & west faces.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!