|
|
|
|
ladysmith
Jan 25, 2007, 5:13 AM
Post #26 of 37
(3611 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
(3569 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
(3522 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
(3505 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
(3483 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
(3466 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
(3418 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
(3225 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
(3049 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
(2654 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
(2631 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
(2609 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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
