|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 21, 2006, 3:21 PM
Post #1 of 37
(16423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Yo peeps, time to act. I got this in an e-mail today. I plan on doing my part since this potential closure is bullshit!
Dangerous New Precedent Could Close
Access to Multiple National Forest
Recreational Areas
Stop the Closures…Act NOW!
-- Instructions Below --
Deadline for public comment ends on
January 12, 2007
The Cleveland National Forest in San Diego, California is about to impose access closures to ALL forms of recreational use at four National Forest areas: Corte Madera Mountain, El Cajon Mountain, Rock Mountain, and Eagle Peak. Very alarming is that this information is not available to the public via the Forest Service website, the Federal Register, or SOPA (Schedule Of Proposed Actions) as required within the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969.
These closures will ban ALL human activity within a ˝ mile radius of any current or future golden eagle, prairie falcon, or “other cliff-nesting species” nests, even though these “other” species types are not explicitly identified in the proposed closures. However, given that the closures are in part being based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916, of the over 800 birds listed, many are quite common such as the swallow, hummingbird, and raven. The results could be catastrophic by not only closing local areas, but establishing legal precedent for widespread closures across all U.S. National Forest! These closures affect climbers, hikers, backpackers, mountain-bikers, horseback riders, and off-road enthusiasts alike, setting legal precedent to close off multiple recreational areas within any National Forest!!!
Join this important letter writing campaign (instructions at the bottom) and tell the Cleveland National Forest that you oppose all closures of this type! If no comments are received during the public comment period, the Forest Service will assume that we support their proposals and they will close our recreational areas.
Tell the Cleveland National Forest that you oppose these closures because:
1. These closures are inconsistent with the USFS multiple use mandate, “as set forth in law…to meet the diverse needs of people,” and as such do not adequately take into consideration the unique value of climbing, hiking, backpacking, mountain-biking, horseback riding, and off-roading on forest lands.
2. The Forest Service is misinterpreting its legal authority to use the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), together with the Golden Eagle Protection Act, to close large tracks of our public lands for passive uses, be it hiking, riding, picnicking, or rock climbing. This is a radically extreme method to limit recreational use on our public lands given that the MBTA was initially entered into by congress in 1916 to prevent the over-commercialization of “migratory” birds.
3. In particular, the Corte Madera proposed closure is being based on the “historical” presence of eagles since golden eagles have not nested there for over 15 years. As such, this measure is extreme and onerous and based on unscientific reasoning.
4. The proposed closure limit distances are arbitrary because they are not based on exact nest locations, not accurately depicted from presumed nests on the USFS closure proposal maps, or based on sound scientific evidence.
5. The Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon are not threatened or endangered species and therefore do not need drastic protection measures like these closures to breed successfully.
6. Climbers, Hikers, and other National Forest users have co-existed with wildlife peacefully for decades; therefore, among other factors, changing climate conditions and decline of natural prey populations are more likely to blame for any suspected loss in bird numbers.
7. These closures are inconsistent with bird closure precedent already established nation-wide.
Simply cut-&-paste the above reasons to TWO separate letters (added comments definitely help)
Title each of your letters separately (it is VERY IMPORTANT that the titles are accurate)
First letter -- Comments to proposed seasonal closures at Corte Madera Mountain & El Cajon Mountain
Second letter -- Comments to proposed seasonal closures at Rock Mountain & Eagle Peak
Send directly to the Cleveland National Forest at:
kwinter@fs.fed.us
Kirsten Winter
Cleveland National Forest
10845 Rancho Bernardo Rd #200
San Diego, Ca 92127
(This post was edited by bandycoot on Dec 22, 2006, 10:37 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
esoteric1
Dec 21, 2006, 3:58 PM
Post #2 of 37
(16394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 705
|
where is the access fund? does the southern california chapter really believe in the mission statement? I want to hear straight from the lips why DAVE KENNEDY isnt making this information known, and why he isnt leading the fight here.
|
|
|
|
|
alpinismo_flujo
Dec 21, 2006, 4:23 PM
Post #3 of 37
(16381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2006
Posts: 603
|
He's out climbing....
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 21, 2006, 4:23 PM
Post #4 of 37
(16381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
I just e-mailed Dave Kennedy about it and asked him to send the above information out to his e-mail list. If you want to contact him, his e-mail is:
dpoint@utm.net
He is the regional coordinator (or whatever it is called) for the AF.
|
|
|
|
|
fancyclaps
Dec 21, 2006, 4:36 PM
Post #5 of 37
(16370 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 210
|
Language nazi arrives!
Regarding point #2 in the letter, if you are talking about areas of land, the proper word is "tract" not "track"
Language nazi away!
(This post was edited by fancyclaps on Dec 21, 2006, 4:41 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 21, 2006, 5:22 PM
Post #6 of 37
(16348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Thanks for the bump, if nothing else...
I'm personally going to e-mail and send some snail mail. Thanks to everyone who writes in! Let's keep these beautiful areas open for climbing!
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
ajp
Dec 21, 2006, 6:22 PM
Post #7 of 37
(16325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 6
|
E-mails away!
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
pyrosis
Dec 21, 2006, 9:34 PM
Post #8 of 37
(16288 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 150
|
Whoa.. WTF?? How did you find out about this? If this goes through, from the way you make it sound, it could mean the end of all climbing on forest service lands! I will certainly be sending out letters. Thanks for keeping us informed!
-Tavis
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 21, 2006, 9:58 PM
Post #9 of 37
(16278 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
I found out about it from Jeff Brown and Erik Roed. Jeff Brown was the one who composed the copied e-mail above. I'm not sure what Dave Kennedy is doing about this, if anything, but I feel like the AF dropped the ball on this one for whatever reason. It sounds like the Forest Service was going to try to sneak this one by and didn't advertise it on their web site even. Fucking weak sauce. Please people, put up a fight on this one!
Josh Higgins
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 21, 2006, 10:00 PM
Post #10 of 37
(16276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Here's a sample letter my friend wrote. Remember, you have to send TWO SEPARATE letters for the two pairs of areas. Read my first post if that's unclear.
To: Cleveland National Forecast
From:__________ concerned outdoor enthusiast
Subject: Comments to proposed seasonal closures at Rock Mountain & Eagle Peak
I am vehemently opposed to the proposed closure of Corte Madera Mountain, El Cajon Mountain, Rock Mountain, and Eagle Peak to recreational activities such as climbing, backpacking and mountain biking. These proposed measures are draconian, unfair, undemocratic, and run counter to the spirit of the National Forecast Service multiple use mandate: “to meet the diverse needs of people.
The Forest Service is misinterpreting its legal authority to use the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), together with the Golden Eagle Protection Act, to close large tracks of our public lands for passive uses, be it hiking, riding, picnicking, or rock climbing. This is a radically extreme method to limit recreational use on our public lands given that the MBTA was initially entered into by congress in 1916 to prevent the over-commercialization of “migratory” birds.
In particular, the Corte Madera proposed closure is being based on the “historical” presence of eagles since golden eagles have not nested there for over 15 years. As such, this measure is extreme and onerous and based on unscientific reasoning.
The proposed closure limit distances are arbitrary because they are not based on exact nest locations, not accurately depicted from presumed nests on the USFS closure proposal maps, or based on sound scientific evidence.
The Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon are not threatened or endangered species and therefore do not need drastic protection measures like these closures to breed successfully.
Climbers, Hikers, and other National Forest users have co-existed with wildlife peacefully for decades; therefore, among other factors, changing climate conditions and decline of natural prey populations are more likely to blame for any suspected loss in bird numbers.
These closures are inconsistent with bird closure precedent already established nation-wide. I urge you to reject this ban on recreational activities in the Cleveland National Forest.
Sincerely yours,
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 22, 2006, 4:01 PM
Post #11 of 37
(16243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Dave Kennedy is working on this issue. If you want to receive the Access Fund update from him, go to the Access Fund website and join SANDAC. He said there will be an e-mail coming.
I found out about this issue in an e-mail from a fellow climber. I've e-mailed Dave Kennedy and look forward to his official reply through SANDAC/AF and I've also e-mailed the Cleveland National Forest (CNF) and they told me they would mail me more information.
In addition, here's an update I received:
Sorry about this update, the CNF e-mail server can't handle so many e-mails going to Kirsten's inbox. Please see the update I received below:
Two things...update from me on flyer, and NEW e-mailing instructions from the forest service web-systems-administrator (so please forward this update to everyone you already mass mailed...sorry, but they just called back and said kirsten winter's e-mail won't be able to handle a serious response).
1st -- (important) New flyer with updates, corrections (oops, and instructions.
2nd -- (most important) If you e-mail your response and it kicks back, your comment will not be recognized or counted...if this happens you either MUST send in a hard copy, or forward it to <mailroom_r5_cleveland@fs.fed.us> Attn. Kirsten Winter. This way if her system crashes (I certainly hope it does), all your VERY IMPORTANT comments will be saved, counted, and make a difference!
And hey, if their mailroom server crashes, all the better...annnnnnnd, should this actually happen to you (wouldn't that be great...let's shoot for it), please send in a hard copy letter anyway...I say we run-up the scoreboard on this one!!!
Print tons of copies and pass them out to everyone you see over the holidays!
p.s. personally, I think a hard copy letter mailed in is always better (heard once that agencies equate ten e-mails to one actual letter), but whatever works for you, just please, please, please get those comments in before January 12th!!!
p.s.s and to those of you who've received two "updates", sorry for that too...it's been a very busy week...the forest service printed their draft proposal on Dec. 11th, we received it on the 14th, i've been trying to get answers from them on important question ever since...and just haven't slept all that much!
o.k., thanks again...Happy Holidays!!!
|
|
|
|
|
ladysmith
Dec 22, 2006, 7:04 PM
Post #12 of 37
(16220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 9
|
Some explanation of the 7 points outlined in the opposition flyer:
1. Inconsistency with USFS “multiple-use mandate” = Corte Madera, El Cajon Mtn and Rock Mtn are located on National Forest lands. These are not National Parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges or any other special designation areas, and as such, must be managed under the multiple-use concept. Please note that other public activities allowed on forest service lands include mining, logging, grazing and other much more invasive and harmful activities, yet passive recreational uses (hiking, climbing) are being targeted.
2. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects “migratory” birds from “take”, which includes the killing of birds, destruction of active nest or eggs, hunting, collecting, or shooting of migratory birds. This law does not include harm or harass in the explicit definition of “take”, and therefore; this law does not specifically prohibit activities that could potentially “harm” these birds. The FS is misinterpreting section 715n of the MBTA to enact widespread closures. The MBTA was enacted by congress in 1918. The Forest Service is using ideals, morals, and current thinking and melding them to fit a law that congress never intended to be interpreted this way.
3. Corte Madera has not supported nesting eagles since 1991. The FS is basing this closure on an inactive nest. How can they close an area in our public lands for an animal that does not even exist where they say it does?
4. The closure limits are arbitrary…The historical nest at Corte Madera is located on the cliff face. The center of the closure circle as shown on the FS map, is nowhere near the cliff face, it is shifted north. This was done to avoid closing a portion of the Espinoza Trail which would incite the very powerful off-road community.
5. The Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon are not listed as endangered or threatened by the State or Federal government. Widespread closures are usually enforced by land managers because they are required to protect species under the Endangered Species Act. The prairie falcon population in San Diego County has historically been low and continues to remain stable. The species of concern designation that the falcon receives from California Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service is based on the rapid decline of the raptors in the central valley of California. It is also important to remember that San Diego is at the edge of the range of the prairie falcon, and this will result in a more sparse population than areas in the middle of its range. The golden eagle is fully protected in the state of California, which means you can not hunt golden eagles or destroy their active nests (eggs, chicks, etc). The San Diego population of eagles is declining due to habitat loss. The explosion of development throughout the county has resulted in eagle nesting locations and foraging habitat being lost. The decline in eagles has nothing to do with forest service visitors hiking, biking and rock climbing in large open space tracts.
6. The Forest Service and all land managers need to do more research on the topic of raptor nesting disturbance. Not one of the references listed (of which 70% are more than 20 years old) specifically targets rock climbing as the cause for declines in breeding success. A host of other factors could be responsible for unsuccessful breeding to include: drought conditions, drop in prey populations, increase in predator populations (snakes, turkey vulture, etc), climate change, death of breeding adult (age, incident), aging breeding pair, chemical bioaccumulation, pest or disease, and others. Rock climbers should not take the blame for what is likely a combination of factors that affect raptor breeding. Show me a study that makes a strong correlation, better yet, can defend a causal correlation between rock climbing and the death of incubating eggs, chicks, fledglings or the inability of adults to breed or make nest.
7. This closure is defined as a ˝ mile radius around nests or alternate nest sites to all human activity. Precedent across the country has been a seasonal closure of a 330 foot buffer around each active nest, resulting in protection of the nesting raptors and also preserves some climbing in the area. Examples of seasonal, partial cliff closures using the 330 foot buffer include: Boulder Canyon, CO, Cochise Stronghold, AZ, Whitesides Mtn, NC, Lovers Leap, CA, and Acker Rock, OR. This closure is more than 5 times the size of the widely accepted closures. The Forest Service is not being consistent with precedent and with regional guidelines.
Lets act and let the Forest Service know that we oppose the closure in its current form
(This post was edited by ladysmith on Dec 22, 2006, 10:24 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
hasbeen
Dec 22, 2006, 8:57 PM
Post #13 of 37
(16189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2003
Posts: 543
|
When passing this information on it's important to note that this could happen anywhere. It affects every climber in the USA.
If you're not already sold that this in an important issue or would like more clarification (hopefully not necessary in this group) read my posting here:
http://blog.myspace.com/...f2-af09-3ddad511532a
Like one of my friends said, "We better act now before they tell me I can't climb in my garage because I'm disturbing the termites."
Thanks for taking the time to do this.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 22, 2006, 9:50 PM
Post #14 of 37
(16173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Here's the text of the two closures (there are two distinct potential closures):
http://www.climbingsandiego.com/access/elcajoncortemadera.pdf
http://www.climbingsandiego.com/access/rockmtneaglepk.pdf
The come from this website:
http://www.climbingsandiego.com/forum/
Thanks to everyone who is writing in! If you write in, post up and keep this on the front page. Remember, this could set legal precedent and spread. You don't have to be a San Diego climber to have interest in this one.
Josh Higgins
|
|
|
|
|
pyrosis
Dec 22, 2006, 11:31 PM
Post #15 of 37
(16143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 150
|
*BUMP*
...and...
Its interesting that the whole issue of the threat of bolt chopping up at ECM got so much attention last winter, whereas this, much much LARGER threat, isn't being discussed nearly as much. I admit, not as exciting as some dude going psycho. But still!
Send those letters, dammit!
-T
|
|
|
|
|
blazesod
Dec 23, 2006, 1:54 AM
Post #16 of 37
(16089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 249
|
In reply to: <snip> I found out about this in an email from a fellow climber.<snip>
Hey Bandycoot,
The information trail makes me skeptical. I couldn't find anything about it on the access fund web site. Last update for San Diego mentioned Raptor nesting and Santee Boulders potentially being sold.
Do you have any official public records of this, like news paper articles, RFC or something? I could not find anything on the Forrest service site about it.
Don't get me wrong, I would fully love to raise the banner and get the war machine rolling for everyone. I love the outdoors as much as the next guy. I am just playing devil's advocate... (not the user) on this one.
Cheers,
Dave :)
(This post was edited by blazesod on Dec 23, 2006, 3:00 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Dec 23, 2006, 2:42 AM
Post #17 of 37
(16074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
Made your links clickable.
Hope this helps
Also: Have you guys look into "online petition" ?
Would that be an option ?
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Dec 23, 2006, 3:16 AM
Post #18 of 37
(16062 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
1st time I saw this thread and it jumped out at me.
SD is the official postal abbreviation for South Dakota. Had me really worried for a sec.
But yes, I'm still worried. Our free (our taxes) and somewhat unbridled use of Forest Service land will undoubtedly come under the microscope by some who hold themselves in high esteem. I've watched many other uses and areas of our National Forest analyzed out of existence. One by one they succumb to the will of the Forest Service despite the loud and many numbered wishes of the people. Voices fallen on deaf ears. More land year after year taken away from public use, yet a larger population each year wanting to leave behind the masses and nurture solitude.
The pot of water gets fuller, yet the fire under it intensifies. Something has got to give. 
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Dec 23, 2006, 7:38 PM
Post #19 of 37
(16006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
blazesod wrote: In reply to: <snip> I found out about this in an email from a fellow climber.<snip> Hey Bandycoot, The information trail makes me skeptical. I couldn't find anything about it on the access fund web site. Last update for San Diego mentioned Raptor nesting and Santee Boulders potentially being sold. Do you have any official public records of this, like news paper articles, RFC or something? I could not find anything on the Forrest service site about it. Don't get me wrong, I would fully love to raise the banner and get the war machine rolling for everyone. I love the outdoors as much as the next guy. I am just playing devil's advocate... (not the user) on this one. Cheers, Dave :)
You play Devil's Advocate while the rest of us do something productive for the climbing community. The guy who is much more informed than me is T-REX on supertopo. If you have questions, contact him. A similar thread, where he is responding is found here:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=297228
(sorry it's not active. I highlighted it and clicked the url button but it just deletes the link and it says url in its place. I'm not internet savy.) The proposed closure text was finished on 12/14/06 I believe, and I doubt they keep their website updated daily. It's only been a week. I e-mailed Dave Kennedy and he said an e-mail will be forthcoming, but I haven't heard from him. He is the AF representative. If you doubt that, check their website. The text of the closure is linked here. I'm not sure what else you want. Anyways, just because the AF is silent on the issue doesn't mean that it isn't real. Although I am a member, I realize they aren't god.
If you have any information, or send in a letter to the forest service, then post up! Let's see some support!
Josh Higgins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
furbucket
Jan 8, 2007, 6:43 PM
Post #21 of 37
(15813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2003
Posts: 50
|
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 from the National Environmental Policy Act 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.
Sorry so long and technical. But hopefully this helps people realize that there is a middle ground here that we need to strive for to protect both birds and recreational access.
-Holly
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Jan 9, 2007, 6:22 PM
Post #22 of 37
(15731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Could someone please move this to Access Issues and Closures? Thanks!
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
trex
Jan 9, 2007, 10:39 PM
Post #23 of 37
(15700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 12
|
Linking it to the "Leavittator":
<http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=303688>
o.k., someone help me out here...how do i make the link workable?
(This post was edited by trex on Jan 9, 2007, 10:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sonso45
Jan 9, 2007, 10:40 PM
Post #24 of 37
(15698 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2002
Posts: 997
|
My emails have been sent. I hope we can get a reasonable response from the nat'l forest.
|
|
|
|
|
starboadrshinesgreen
Jan 20, 2007, 6:49 AM
Post #25 of 37
(15576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2007
Posts: 1
|
These guys were hammer drilling into the face of Eagle Peak last March. --That would be during the peak of nesting season. We called to them to stop, but they ignored us. Nine of us were hiking to the top that day. They were photographed and filmed on 28X power. Maybe you can id them. A case where a few ruined it for all of us. Forest Service told me that they were not supposed to be there, but on the flip side of that the FS continues to fail to post clear signage to that effect on the Kiosk at the trail head. I included my complaints about this lack of clarity in my comments to them. It started to rain lightly but they continued to hammer drill and climb for several hours. One thing you might do is ask your representatives to give the FS more money for proper law enforcement and management. Maybe then they wouldnt have to do these sweeping closures. There was a third guy but I don't have him pictured here.
|
|
Attachments:
|
IMGA0193.JPG
(111 KB)
|
|
|
IMGA0192.JPG
(110 KB)
|
|
|
IMGA0196.JPG
(111 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
ladysmith
Jan 25, 2007, 5:13 AM
Post #26 of 37
(3605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 9
|
Before you start criminalizing folks, please understand the issue. Here is actual text from Kirsten Winter last March 2006 (the same month you took these photos). No closure, voluntary or otherwise was specifically targeted to Eagle Peak. Additionally, the Forest service is required to post closures to make the community aware.
"There are no formal closures for raptors at this time. The forest has worked closely with the authors of a couple of rock-climbing guides to help
educate people regarding the need to avoid raptor nesting areas during the
breeding season. The Forest is currently a partner in a Golden Eagle study
which will provide more information. From January 1-May 15 we are asking
climbers not to use the following sites because of known conflicts with
raptor nesting:
1. El Cajon Mt -
2. Rock Mt
3 Morena Butte -
4. Mount Gower -
5. Santa Ysabel Ck. -
6. Corte Madera Mt
7. Bell Bluff"
So please before you start pointing fingers, lets all write our letters to the CNF!
The CNF is looking for an easy way out. Voluntary closures have worked all over the country, even for endangered species..so please keep an open mind and believe that the climbing community is a responsible group of people who care about the environment and wildlife. Formalized closures are not necessary....
|
|
|
|
|
trex
Jan 28, 2007, 6:18 PM
Post #27 of 37
(3563 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 12
|
WE ONLY HAVE THREE DAYS LEFT.
Whether you've sent your letters or not, you owe it to yourselves to read this . . . then pass it on to everyone!
(side-note to climbers: get with the program folks...this is not about local turf squabbles or just about climbing, and though it will close crags, IT IS MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT).
Included within the text are a number of specific links that are very pertinent. For those of you interested in additional legal questions as to the Forest Service' statements that these birds are listed as a species of special concern, check out the info. in my post-script, and blend it with the sample letters provided previously by "furbucket".
The Forest Service now appears to be engaging in a deceptive public relations campaign to promote their unnecessary seasonal bird closure proposals under the guise of "needed protections."
The Cleveland National Forest (CNF) proposals to enact sanctioned regulatory closures for "protection" of raptors from December 1st to May 30th of every year at Corte Madera Mountain, El Cajon Mountain, Eagle Peak, and Rock Mountain are not necessary. Concerned citizens should review the proposals (attached at bottom), comparing them with the Forest Service' press release in the Union Tribune and the The North County Times, and their most recent post on their web-site of 1/10/07 . . . and then READ BETWEEN THE LINES.
Something here is not right!
One example is in their most recent web-site post in which they only mention these closures being implemented for "[the protections of] Golden Eagles and Prairie Falcons." The actual proposals are exceedingly broad and state "as well as other cliff-nesting species". Unless challenged, these proposals will ban ALL human activity within 2,640 feet in all directions of any current or future golden eagles' or prairie falcons' nests, and potentially any "other cliff-nesting species" nest, even though these "other" species types are not explicitly identified. These measures are partly based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (created in 1918 to stop the "indiscriminate slaughter" of migratory birds by market hunters and others) which includes over 800 birds, some as common as the swallow & hummingbird. That's an awful lot of "other cliff-nesting species" . That the Forest Service automatically feels they have the legal authority to invoke the MBTA, an act that applies specifically to commerce, to restrict recreational activities is just one example of the problems with the Forest Service' proposals . . . there are many more!
Union Tribune:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070123/news_1n23forest.html
North County Times:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/22/news/inland/12107193014.txt
Forest Service' recent web-site post:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/news/2007/01/seasonal-closure.shtml
Popular local hiking trails in Jerry Schad's "Afoot and Afield In San Diego County" which will be closed (even though the Forest Service states, "No official trails or roads are within the proposed closure areas. The proposed closure areas are cliff areas and rock outcroppings in the vicinity of recently used and alternate nest sites."):
Corte Madera Mountain (more than just a climbing area):
http://www.sdreader.com/php/roamshow.php?id=20051117
Three Sisters Falls:
http://www.sdreader.com/php/roamshow.php?id=19980702
Other areas affected (sorry no links): El Cap on El Cajon Mountain, and Rock Mountain to the North East of El Cajon Mountain, closing access to many trails and fabulous vistas, including the planned Trans-County Trail, aka Sea-to-Sea Trail which eventually heads East across the San Diego River near Cedar Creek Falls.
Let me explain. Launched on 12/11/06 for a public comment period (scoping process), with a deadline of 1/12/07, these measures were not originally posted on their web-site for the public to see. Only after considerable pressure, did the CNF lengthen the comment period to 1/31/07, and place the proposals on their web-site. And now, in response to negative opposition to these proposals, they seem to be engaged in a public relations battle to seek public approval, even though they didn't at first actively seek the public's opinion.
Neither the latest CNF post of 1/10/07 or their latest press releases openly tell us that these proposals will extend closures to 2,640 feet in all directions from a single nest site, well beyond the already effectively established 330 foot buffer zones for Golden Eagles. It is this measure that will close the popular hiking trails illustrated above, even though the CNF would have us believe no hiking trails will be affected with their statement of not affecting "official" trails. How is this possible? Because of what they also leave out of their public comments. That is, it is the public's right to hike in their National Forest either on a trail or off, UNLESS officially posted otherwise. And the fact is, most of the wonderful trails you've probably been on in San Diego county within your National Forest, though dating back decades in some cases, are simply not "official" trails.
Factually -- As mentioned, if these closures are enacted the very popular hiking trail to the top of Corte Madera Mountain which is identified in Jerry Schad's "Afoot and Afield in San Diego County" hiking guide, even though it is not an "official" trail, WILL BE CLOSED from December 1st to May 30th of every year, and even though this is unnecessary!
http://www.sdreader.com/php/roamshow.php?id=20051117
Factually -- The Eagle Peak closure is approximately two miles long, one mile wide, and encompasses over 1000 acres, including the Three Sisters Waterfalls, another popular area from "Afoot and Afield", and one of the two most popular hikes on twenty miles of Boulder Creek Road, even though this too is an unofficial trail. Two miles of Boulder Creek below the falls are also included in the closure. Additionally, a mile long stretch of Boulder Creek above the falls would then also be closed because of lack of access from upstream due to private property.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/projects/seasonal-closures/closureeagle.pdf
Additionally, as is the case with Corte Madera Mountain (illustrated next), in looking at the maps for Eagle Peak, something is not right! The northern boundary on the map appears to be drawn to avoid including the trail to Eagle Peak proper, yet this boundary line is less than 600 feet from the top and is clearly within the guidelines for the closure which calls for 2,640 feet in all directions from nest sites, making this boundary in conflict with the proposal's standard and therefore arbitrary.
In Corte Madera Mountain's case, if the Forest Service were to have correctly placed their circle-of-closure on the Corte Madera map per a known Falcon nest site (and presumed historical Eagles' Nests) it would clearly have encompassed the popular Espinosa "off-roader's" trail. We should all ask ourselves why this circle was moved back away from the off-roader's trail.
In reviewing the proposal maps in question, one will see the profoundly arbitrary nature of the boundary limits relative to the cliff face where the nests are located (note the densely stacked topo lines on the map which represents the cliff face, and that the Espinosa off-road trail is to the South, below the cliff face):
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/projects/seasonal-closures/closurecorte.pdf
It seems difficult to conclude that restricting an area to passive uses like climbing and hiking in a stated effort to "protect" nesting birds while allowing the frequent weekend off-road activity by noisy un-mufflered ATV's and dirt-bikes to continue unabated within the actual distance of the defined boundary limits in the proposal to be anything other than . . . MISGUIDED AND WRONG!
According to Joan Wynn, spokesperson for CNF, the Golden Eagle's population in San Diego County has plummeted over the last 100 years from an estimated 108 pairs to 53 pairs, and the Prairie Falcon's population is at 20 to 30 pairs, making it one of the county's scarcest birds. But these claims too are very misleading.
These remarks would have us believe the birds are in danger of extirpation, drastic measures being necessary. This is not the case. That the Prairie Falcon population is small in San Diego County is very normal for our area because San Diego is at the Southern fringe of the Prairie Falcon's range. The falcon populations in our region have always been low. The proposals themselves note the Prairie Falcon population within San Diego County to be quite stable. And though the Golden Eagle numbers are low, they too are not in danger. We have to remember that an entire century is a very long time. It would be nice to have more eagles, but it would also be nice to have the undeveloped acreage of 100 years ago as well. The point is, though low in numbers, neither of these birds is identified as being sensitive in the CNF by the USFS: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/sensitive-species/sensitive-animals.pdf
Decreased Golden Eagle populations have not been scientifically linked to recreation, including rock climbing. Population losses are, however, empirically linked to habitat loss due to development, logging, electrocution from landing on power lines, accidental poisoning from eating poison ladened rodents, and disease. What is disturbing, as it relates to the USFS's handling of the Golden Eagle's habitat, is that while they want to heavily regulate what little areas we have left in our National Forest to recreate in peaceful co-existence with wildlife and raptors, they routinely let loggers, miners, and developers remove eagle nesting habitat during non-nesting season, even if an eagle nest was used within this habitat during the very last nesting season. The USFS only requires that the operation wait until the eagle's young have fledged from the nest. Yet they want to close access to recreational use during the same nesting season, even if an eagles nest is not being actively used, year, after year, after year!
In a time when children are becoming less fit and unhealthy, and families are spending less quality time with each other in the real world of nature (due primarily to the commercial exploitation for corporate profits of everyone's already limited time in our busy modern world), we should implore the Forest Service to do the right thing and take these measures off the table. We need to be able to spend time by ourselves and with our families in "the great outdoors". We need to be able to engage our children in outdoor activities such as climbing and hiking, building healthier bodies and stronger bonds that are both familial, and interconnected with our natural world. This is the legacy our Forest Service should leave to future generations . . . the ability to engage in a real world experience with nature, not the alternative of increased usage of video games and reliance on "virtual" reality! What the Forest Service should be doing is working harder to fight off the loggers and developers, while actively promoting passive recreation use on forest lands per their own mandate & mission statement: http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml
Also of interest, in Corte Madera's case, is that though the Forest Service' post says they are only doing this for "recently used" nests, according to Dave Bittner (third reference in proposals), no Eagles' have even nested on this mountain in over fifteen years! According the proposals own data, "Utah Field Office Guidelines for Protection of Raptors from Human and Land Use Disturbances", Romin & Muck, the term active would only apply to nests that have been used at least once in the last seven years.
Furthermore, according to Pete Bloom, ecologist and raptor biologist with Bloom Biological, Inc., an independent raptor consulting firm with an extensive background in research work on Golden Eagle populations and habitat in Southern California, "if [the] eagles haven't nested in [the last] fifteen years, they are not coming back . . . period." Bloom attributes this to what he considers too significant a loss in the eagles support habitat, which, he said, most likely has to do with surrounding housing and other development. Bloom further says that though this sort of development may not be visibly adjacent to an eagles' nesting location, if a previously key foraging area even 10 to 30 miles away is removed or otherwise negatively impacted, the raptors simply move on to better hunting areas in response to that loss. Therefore, the extreme measure of closing this mountain in the hope that Golden Eagles will return . . . seems to be pure folly!
In the Union Tribune article Dave Bittner, Director of the Wildlife Research Institute is quoted as saying "It only takes one disturbance at the wrong time to ruin the entire nesting season," and he implies that this disturbance could come from climbers or hikers. Similarly, Phil Unitt, curator of the birds and mammals department at the San Diego Natural History Museum would have us believe, "One of the primary concerns is people rock climbing, which could bring them very near the nest sites. If people are climbing cliff faces and the birds fly away during that time, then the young could become chilled, vulnerable to other predators . . . or just not get fed enough." In the North County Times piece Tom Stephan of Ramona, acting president of the California Raptor Advancement Group, apparently counters the need to have closures for anything other than actual climbing, saying "People walking down below them at the base of cliffs aren't going to bother them." Though he echoes what the other Proponents in these articles want us to believe, "It's rock climbing that is 99 percent of the problem. They (the birds) demand seclusion. They demand isolation. And they can't get it if people are climbing around their nests."
Yet there really is no problem of climbers climbing into nests and causing unsuccessful nesting seasons and none of them offer a shred of factual evidence for these claims!
Contrary to what they would have the public believe, climbers are one of the most environmentally responsible groups who frequent the forest. They routinely volunteer for trail building and clean-ups on public lands, often footing the bill from their own pockets. And when it comes to actual climbing when the raptors are nesting, their code of ethic dictates that they do not knowingly climb into or too closely around active nests. Simply put, these claims of both climbers and hikers, as well as other rec-users being responsible for ruining successful nesting is often used in arguments by extremists when it is really only speculative conjecture!
All of these so-called "expert" claims appear to evaporate when one does a little digging. In lieu of what the following information suggests, this sort of thing really only applies to botched research and banning practices. When it comes to the general presence of humans and recreation, quite the contrary seems to be true. According to Raptors of Western North America, Wheeler 2003, falcons exhibit little fear of humans during nesting season. Indeed, Scott Weidensaul, The Raptor Almanac, 2000, states, "With Chicks in the nest, adults will sometimes tolerate an astonishing degree of disturbance, including humans climbing into the nest to ban the young. At times, people have moved entire nests out of harm's way without the adults deserting."
Furthermore, the danger to nesting Prairie Falcons that the Forest Service and so-called "experts" would have us believe occurs every time someone waltzes up to a crag, apparently only arises with ornithologist's and biologist's actions during research observations:
Anderson & Squires, "The Prairie Falcon" 1997 -- "If raptors are suddenly frightened and leave the nest site in a panic, they can inadvertently crush or puncture eggs or can eject eggs or young from the nest in their excitement. It is only natural for a person eager to observe a nesting raptor closely to approach the nest site very quietly. However, the raptor may not notice you until you are quite close; this causes the bird to burst out of the nest site, possibly destroying or catapulting the eggs or young. It is far better to let the bird know you are approaching the nest site by making noises, such as clapping, singing, and whistling, or to advance toward the nest in the line of sight. The noise should be slight at first, then become progressively louder when nearing the nest, until the adult leaves the eyrie. The bird then becomes aware of your presence before you are perceived to be an extreme threat."
So what actually seems to be the case is that, unless you are a stealth hiker or climber who quietly sneaks up to a cliff or rock face, never utters a word and engages only in hand signaling during your outdoor activities (never mind climbers with their clanging gear and essential verbal commands of on & off-belay), the likelihood of causing a "disturbance" so severe as to "ruin an entire nesting season" is . . . zilch! In fact, according to Wheeler, Raptors of Western North America, 2003, falcons are actually "quite tolerant of human disturbance during nesting and it is only intense, prolonged disturbance which forces adults to abandon nest sites."
I submit to you that, since large areas of OUR National Forests are already restricted from us by being routinely fenced off for mining, logging, and grazing, ANY discussions prior to a decision to move forward with access closure proposals which would further limit our use for recreation should ALWAYS include ALL recreation users. Furthermore, these types of decisions should draw on a broad base of CURRENT knowledge rather than outdated references, include recommendations from MULTIPLE experts OUTSIDE the Forest Service (certainly more than numerous closed door discussions with just the single subjective consultant voice of Dave Bittner -- see third ref. in proposals), should ALWAYS be done in an above-board manner, and should ALWAYS take great pains to consider the USFS mission statement:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml>http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml
If this had been the case (that the Forest Service included multiple rec-users, current data, and MULTIPLE independent objective expert opinions, etc.), I'm confident REASON would have prevailed, resulting in a responsible and respectful solution having been developed. Most likely, a decision reliant on precedent, established public lands management policy, and sound science [rather than extremism] would have been made. The outcome being proposals establishing seasonal closure buffers of 330 feet for active eagle nests and those that are in-active for up to seven years based on the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act [period...not fifteen years...nothing beyond seven]; posted site "advisories" to general recreation users to avoid active prairie falcon nests from the beginning of February to the end of June; and posted site "advisories" to climbers to refrain from climbing within 300 feet of active prairie falcon nests during the same period (as is the case at The Pinnacles for individually located prairie falcon nests; Gavin Emmons, Raptor Biologist & Jim Petterson, Wildlife Biologist, Pinnacles National Monument).
In closing, it is you, average joe-citizen who needs to decide how to respond to the Forest Service' Closure Proposals. READ THEM CAREFULLY and READ BETWEEN THE LINES . . . something is clearly a miss!
Corte Madera Mountain & El Cajon Mountain:
Proposal - http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/projects/seasonal-closures/descanso.pdf
Map - http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/projects/seasonal-closures/closurecorte.pdf
Rock Mountain & Eagle Peak:
Proposal - http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/projects/seasonal-closures/palomar.pdf
Eagle Peak Map - http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/projects/seasonal-closures/closureeagle.pdf
Rock Mountain Map - http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/projects/seasonal-closures/closurerock.pdf
Thank you!
joe-citizen (jeff brown)
p.s. Following are some specifics about the Species of Special Concern list that the Forest Service seems to feel they are justified in using when explaining their decision to move forward with these "protective" measures.
First off, the "Bird Species of Special Concern" list is a state-by-state list determination by individual state agencies and for California it can be found here: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/ssc/sscbird/sscbird.shtml for the California Department of Fish and Game, which is under the Department Of The Interior, not the United States Department Of Agriculture (USDA), which is the federal agency responsible for administering to the National Forest. (side-not of additional importance: Fish and Game, National Parks, and the BLM come under The Department Of The Interior (DOI), the National Forest falls under the USDA).
The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sensitive Animal Species by Forest can be found here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/sensitive-species/sensitive-animals.pdf and lists only the San Diego Cactus Wren, Greater Sage Grouse, and Great Gray Owl as "Sensitive" within the Cleveland National Forest. Not the Golden Eagle or Prairie Falcon.
Nevertheless, since agencies do look to each other for guidance, a couple of key points from the "Species of Special Concern" list should be noted:
1) As stated by the Dept. of Fish and Game:
* -- "This list is intended for use as a management tool and for information; species of special concern have no special legal status."
[That is correct, "no special legal status". In the case of the Golden Eagle, legal protections relative to recreation are primarily provided due to specific interpretations of the word "take", afforded under the Golden Eagle Protection Act. Prairie Falcons get legal protections, only relative to commerce and out-right killing (as in shooting, etc.), under the MBTA -- see below for links to these acts: # 5 for MBTA, bottom for Golden Eagle Protection Act. Note that these proposals clearly state the Forest Service intends to create these closures, believing they have the ability to do so, under, "legal authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and in accordance with the direction provided in the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005)" -- see attached "Closure Comment Sample Letter" for arguments to the latter.]
* -- "The species of special concern list is divided into three categories: Highest, Second, and Third priorities. These categories are defined on the basis of the urgency of the situation. Species in the Highest Priority category face immediate extirpation of their entire California population or their California breeding population if current trends continue. In several cases, extirpation as breeding species has already occurred. Species in the Second Priority category are definitely on the decline in a large portion of their range in California, but their populations are still sufficiently substantial that danger is not immediate. Species in the Third Priority category are not in any present danger of extirpation and their populations within most of their range do not appear to be declining seriously; however, simply by virtue of their small populations in California, they are vulnerable to extirpation should a threat materialize."
[Recreation, be it hiking, climbing, mountain-bike riding, or horse-back riding is not a "materialized" threat.]
2) Important to note is that the California Gull http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/cgi-bin/more_info.asp?idKey=ssc_tespp&specy=birds&query=Larus%20californicus as well as the Black Swift (cliff swallow), and Coopers Hawk, among others, receives the same status on this list (third priority) as the Prairie Falcon and Golden Eagle because, "Species in the Third Priority category are not in any present danger of extirpation".
3) Also key is that though the Department Of Fish And Game does have a list they refer to as "Bird Species of Special Concern" (again, a management tool which provides "no special legal status" to any species on the list), it is VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE that this same State Agency does not list the Golden Eagle or Prairie Falcon as either threatened or endangered. This determination is only given to those species which the Department Of Fish And Game feels "should have" legal status:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf
4) Simply put, The USDA's Cleveland National Forest is inappropriately utilizing the DOI's Department Of Fish And Game management tool of Bird Species of Special Concern to enact sanctioned regulatory closures under the guise of needed protections for bird species that do not need protections . . . period.
5) Lastly, should the Forest Service go down this road, I feel they will be on very rocky ground not only for misinterpreting their authority to use the MBTA for recreational restrictions when it is clearly an act that applies to commerce <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sup_01_16_10_7_20_II.html>, but also due to their miss-use of the Bird Species of Special Concern list. Also, though not previously mentioned, if one "objectively" researches the Species Of Special Concern list, one will easily conclude that it is not scientifically well-founded and has numerous significant flaws. One very telling example of just such a flaw is the fact that though it lists the seagull, swift, falcon, etc., it DOES NOT INCLUDE the Peregrine Falcon species which is in far more peril, and actually was at one time listed on the "Endangered Species List", only recently becoming de-listed.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sup_01_16_10_5A_20_II.html
(This post was edited by trex on Jan 28, 2007, 6:52 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Jan 29, 2007, 5:26 PM
Post #28 of 37
(3516 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
If you haven't written a letter yet, remember that there are bird enthusiasts who are probably writing letters IN FAVOR of the closure! PLEASE do your part and write in!
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
butofcourse
Jan 29, 2007, 6:42 PM
Post #29 of 37
(3499 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 16
|
This is nuts -- everyone really needs to act!
Soon all we'll be allowed to do on weekends is to drive to the climbing gym in a Humvee.
|
|
|
|
|
butofcourse
Jan 29, 2007, 10:59 PM
Post #30 of 37
(3477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2004
Posts: 16
|
FYI:
KPBS will be discussing these drastic closures this evening on TV in their show "Full Focus".
It airs at 6:30pm and at 11pm.
-Stein
|
|
|
|
|
snoangel
Jan 30, 2007, 1:05 AM
Post #31 of 37
(3460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2004
Posts: 1715
|
This is important to all of us as climbers. There are a few days left to let your voice be heard!!
|
|
|
|
|
snoangel
Jan 31, 2007, 11:11 PM
Post #32 of 37
(3412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2004
Posts: 1715
|
Looks like the email/mail campaign did some good! Thanks everyone for writing in.
In reply to: By Mike Lee UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER 12:04 p.m. January 31, 2007 SAN DIEGO – The U.S. Forest Service is rethinking its proposal to restrict access to four well-known hiking and climbing sites in the Cleveland National Forest because of intense public resistance. Forest officials said Wednesday that they would go through an environmental review of their plan to protect golden eagles and prairie falcons in San Diego County's backcountry. The review is expected to look into using smaller areas for raptor protection than the agency had initially proposed. The areas proposed to be closed are Corte Madera, Rock Mountain and Eagle Peak. The agency was also seeking similar restrictions from private landowners at El Cajon Mountain. Each of the proposed closures covers about 640 acres, according to Forest Service estimates. Initially, the agency said an environmental review was unnecessary. “The public interest was larger than we thought,” Cleveland Forest spokeswoman Joan Wynn said Wednesday. She said officials “wanted to take a real hard look at it, give it a better analysis, look at the area and see if the size is appropriate.” She said the agency received roughly 100 comments on the closures, which were formally proposed Dec. 11 but not publicized until a month later. The no-disturbance buffer around raptor nests was proposed to start annually in December and last through May to protect the birds during their nesting period. Some climbers and hikers started an e-mail campaign to protest the proposal. They say the need for such restrictions is poorly documented and would cut off access to a few prime hiking and climbing sites. Conservationists, however, generally support the seasonal closures as a way to limit disturbances in raptor nesting areas and help bird populations rebound. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Lee: (619) 542-4570; mike.lee@uniontrib.com |
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Aug 8, 2007, 7:16 PM
Post #33 of 37
(3219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Update: The battle is still going on. Since the creation of this thread, a local non-profit group called the Allied Climbers of San Diego was created. If you would like to see more, please go to this website: http://www.alliedclimbers.org. ACSD is working closely with the Access Fund to fight this closure and needs as much help as they can get. If you have the time and money, please join. It's only a $15 membership fee, and ACSD will keep you updated on what you can do to keep your local crags open!
On a side note, ACSD has organized an Access Fund adopt-a-crag that will take place at Santee this Thursday 8-9-07 from 6-8pm. The focus of the adopt-a-crag will be trash removal.
Josh Higgins
(This post was edited by bandycoot on Aug 8, 2007, 7:16 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 15, 2007, 6:46 AM
Post #34 of 37
(3043 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Thanks for keeping people focused on this issue, Josh. If people don't speak up, there is a natural assumption by the powers that be that nobody cares about it.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
norushnomore
Oct 20, 2007, 9:40 AM
Post #35 of 37
(2648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
|
bandycoot wrote: So, you're worried about access to Shuteye eh? ... Currently, I couldn't care less if they closed the roads....
$15 for your local problem while you couldn't care less ...
hypocrite
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Oct 21, 2007, 3:02 PM
Post #36 of 37
(2625 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Personally I could not care less, but I understand it is important to other people. I think it is lame that people keep these crags secret until there are access issues. We almost lost a valuable crag here in SD due to that. I notified 160 people of the potential road closues, what have you done? 
Edit:
Fact: The first ascentionists of Shuteye won't publicize the access the Shuteye, even though the ease of access is threatened.
Fact: I don't know where Shuteye is, and am not going to research it for this potential closure.
Fact: I work to keep access open to areas, AND unselfishly spread information about climbing areas that I know about.
Fact: If someone is going to post about a potential road closure, and not even say what road it is, that is not my problem.
Fact: If he has posted what road it was, I could have included that specifically in my newsletter to 160 people. Instead, I had to tell people to look for roads they use that might be closed.
I'm sure he could get more letters, including mine, if he weren't so selfish. They'd rather risk having the access to the climbing area harmed than let people know where it is.
Have a nice day! 
(This post was edited by bandycoot on Oct 21, 2007, 3:24 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Oct 21, 2007, 4:31 PM
Post #37 of 37
(2603 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
bandycoot wrote: Personally I could not care less, but I understand it is important to other people. I think it is lame that people keep these crags secret until there are access issues. We almost lost a valuable crag here in SD due to that. I notified 160 people of the potential road closues, what have you done? Edit: Fact: The first ascentionists of Shuteye won't publicize the access the Shuteye, even though the ease of access is threatened. Fact: I don't know where Shuteye is, and am not going to research it for this potential closure. Fact: I work to keep access open to areas, AND unselfishly spread information about climbing areas that I know about. Fact: If someone is going to post about a potential road closure, and not even say what road it is, that is not my problem. Fact: If he has posted what road it was, I could have included that specifically in my newsletter to 160 people. Instead, I had to tell people to look for roads they use that might be closed. I'm sure he could get more letters, including mine, if he weren't so selfish. They'd rather risk having the access to the climbing area harmed than let people know where it is. Have a nice day!
OK Josh, here's some replies to your facts (?) from above:
I guess you are assuming that no one else on this site reads the other threads. I have offered to give anyone who contacts me directions to the Shuteye crags, and have done so already to several people. Grahm, myself and others only recently began adding routes there. The group that does not want info posted is the original group of FA climbers from the Valley and El Portal. In an effort to avoid massive infighting among climber groups up there, Grahm agreed to remove his posted directions from the internet. The directions are easy enough to acquire if you only make the effort to ask for them.
Shuteye is in the Western Sierra, just outside of Yosemite National Park. Most of the areas are approached either from Bass Lake or the town of North Fork.
Every post Grahm has made offers direct links to the roads in question. All you need to do is print out the linked page and mail it off to the Forest Service. Pretty easy if you ask me.
Please read my replies above, or in any of the other threads. You're way off base here. Grahm lives up there and makes himself available at the drop of a hat to give tours to folks visiting Shuteye for the first time. He's the good guy in this story. Please stop tweaking the facts of the matter to suit your needs. This is about access pure and simple. Both in San Diego and in Shuteye and elsewhere. As I said before, shoot me an email or PM and I'll gladly give you any Shuteye info you might want. So would Grahm, I'm sure.
Oh, and by the way, we have supported the San Diego access issues and I personally donated a case of Quarry guidebooks to the ACSD for raffle in raising funds for the cause. I also routinely write letters to areas across the country that I've never even seen, much less climbed at. This is the way climbers as a group will make an impact, not by the hypocritical stances that folks like yourselves seem to take.
Let stay focussed on the real access issues at hand and all of us do what we can to support our climbing community in any and all causes. Together we are much stronger.
- Louie Anderson
edit=spelling
(This post was edited by socalbolter on Oct 21, 2007, 5:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
