Access Fund Rebuttal to Summit Rock Year-Round Closure

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 20 of total 34 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Bruce Morris

Social climber

Belmont, California

Topic Author's Original Post - Apr 25, 2012 - 05:13pm PT

Below is a copy of the Access Fund's rebuttal to Dr. Pagel's letter of April 2nd, 2012 to Ranger Don Rocha. As you can see, some progress is being made on lifting the year-round closure of Summit Rock to climbing during the months of September, October, and November. This sounds like real progress!

100 MONTGOMERY STREET
SUITE 2290
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

TELEPHONE: 415-397-6152
FAX: 415-788-5768 E-MAIL: pminault@earthlink.net

April 25, 2011

Joel E Pagel, Ph.D.
jpagel@rocketmail.com

Re: Climbing and Raptor Management at Summit Rock,
Sanborn County Park, Santa Clara County

Dear Dr. Pagel:

This responds to your letter dated April 2, 2012 to Don Rocha of the Santa Clara County Parks Department regarding climbing and raptor management at Summit Rock, a copy of which is attached.

At the outset, I would like to thank you for your suggestion to lift the closure for the months of September, October and November. This would certainly be a step in the right direction. We are open to considering management actions short of a complete lifting of the closure in the non-nesting season in order to begin developing a more refined and informed climbing management program for Summit Rock. We very much welcome your suggestion and look forward to exploring this and other possibilities with County Parks Department staff.

That said, we do have a number of concerns regarding your letter. We firmly believe that when science is brought to a decision to close a park area to the public, great care is required to ensure that the science is based on clear and accurate factual statements, and that the scientific conclusions flow logically and clearly from those facts. We are disappointed that your letter does not meet this standard.

It appears to us that the driving management issue at Summit Rock is the misuse of the rock by groups of youths, who have used the site for decades to party, litter, and deface with graffiti, and that the year-round closure to climbing is largely “collateral damage” resulting from the attempt to address this difficult management issue. How else to explain this closure, which is the only year-round climbing closure in the country, including at small sites like this one? Unfortunately, your letter makes no attempt to distinguish the youth and climbing management issues and in fact conflates them. And by directing your discussion largely toward climbers, you infer that the climbing management issue is even more problematic than the youth management issue. This is unfair and a disservice to the climbing community, which as you acknowledge yourself has an excellent record of cooperation with land mangers in protecting raptors. It is also a disservice to the County Parks Department, since it unnecessarily confuses and complicates the resolution of the management issues at Summit Rock.

We particularly take issue with the facts you cite as the basis for your characterization of the attitude of the climbing community toward peregrine falcons. First, you state that “during my visit I noted rather rude graffiti on one of the known peregrine ledges that stated “f*#k the birds,” and you state that this may be an indication that climbers’ usually positive relationship with peregrines “may not be the case” at Summit Rock. You quote Don Rocha as saying the park has issued “a couple hundred” tickets for violations of the seasonal closure. Then you conclude that because of the number of violations, the “apparent antipathy of the climbers towards the peregrine falcons” and “the vituperative attitude expressed by the climbers toward the birds,” the park should maintain the year-round closure.

Let’s take each of these elements. First, you give no reason why you think the graffiti was made by a climber rather than by partying youths. We think it highly unlikely this was made by a climber. Graffiti is extremely rare or non-existent at climbing areas used largely or exclusively by climbers. It simply isn’t part of climbing culture. In fact, climbers have a good record for removing graffiti from climbing cliffs, where they consider it offensive to the values of their sport. On the other hand, graffiti is very common at areas frequented by groups of youths, such as Summit Rock, the top of which is covered with it. At our site visit in February, we saw a fixed rope and graffiti in a large pocket low on the cliff face that Don said was used as a nest site by peregrines. This was not a climbing rope, and there would have been no reason for climbers to install a rope at this location. If the graffiti was in or around this pocket, it is very likely to have been made by the youths who installed the rope and made the rest of the graffiti at the rock. Nevertheless, you conclude that this single graffiti represents an “apparent antipathy” and a “vituperative attitude” by the entire local climbing community towards peregrines. Second, you infer that the reported “couple hundred” violations of the closure, none of which you report as having been issued to climbers, also reflect climber hostility towards peregrines. Your conclusion that climbers are hostile towards peregrines is simply not supported by the facts in your letter.

We also object to your vague references to sites in the northwest where you say that “climbing pressure appeared to have disturbed the resident birds from large, spacious nest ledges onto smaller, less desirable locations” and your vague mention of “a historic peregrine nest site near Portland that will probably never have peregrine falcons nesting at that location due to regular local climbing pressure.” This is pure innuendo. You don’t say where these sites are so that these statements can be discussed or rebutted, nor do you say whether these sites are subject to public or private management or why the management hasn’t worked. You give no indication whether climbers are aware or have been informed that these sites are potential raptor habitat, and no indication why a seasonal climbing closure to protect nesting peregrines would not be effective at these sites.

Having drawn a picture based on inference, supposition, and innuendo, you then conclude that the year-round closure at Summit Rock should remain in place. This is not science; it is simply personal bias, and that is not a basis for making management decisions on public lands.

We have seen a similar mischaracterization of climber attitudes by representatives of other stakeholders at Summit Rock, and we will address this squarely here. There certainly is climber hostility to the year-round closure at Summit Rock, and justifiably so. It is the only year-round climbing closure in the country, and it was imposed without any democratic or consultative process and with no publicly stated scientific basis. Climbers have every right to be hostile to summary and arbitrary governmental action like this. That climbers are hostile to this action does not mean they are hostile to peregrines, however. Certainly some individual climbers may reflexively express hostility to the birds, but it’s the closure, not the birds that is the real issue for climbers. We will continue to vigorously challenge any assertion that climber hostility to this closure is a reflection of our collective attitude towards peregrines or a reason to keep the closure in place.

In conclusion, we appreciate your suggestion to lift the year-round closure for part of the non-nesting season and we find your assertion that local climbers are hostile to peregrines to be without foundation. Nor do we find your vague statements about peregrine sites in the northwest to be meaningful. We believe there has to be a better way to manage peregrines and climbers at Summit Rock and to address the youth partying problem, and we are committed to working cooperatively with County Parks staff to find a way to do so. If you sincerely wish to cooperate with us in this effort, we would be very pleased to have your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Minault
Regional Coordinator
for Northern California

Encl.

Cc: Robb Courtney, Santa Clara County Parks Dept.
Julie Mark, Santa Clara County Parks Dept.
Matt Anderson, Santa Clara County Parks Dept.
Don Rocha, Santa Clara County Parks Dept.
Conrad Jones, California Department of Fish and Game
Bob Power, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Jason Keith, The Access Fund
R.D. Pascoe, The Access Fund
Joe Sambataro, The Access Fund
Bruce Morris, Climbing guidebook author

Bruce Morris

Social climber

Belmont, California

Topic Author's Reply - Apr 25, 2012 - 05:17pm PT

Below in the full text of Dr. Pagel's letter of April 2nd, 2012 to Ranger Don Rocha:

02 April 2012

To: Don Rocha
Wildlife Biologist
Santa Clara County Department of Parks and Recreation

This is in response to your request for external professional input on the Summit Rock peregrine falcon nest site, located in the Santa Clara Mountains in the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County Department of Parks and Recreation. I appreciated your hospitality during my visit to the site on 13 March 2012; due to my schedule I have only now been able to attend to this matter.

These comments are based on my direct experience with site specific management and research of peregrine falcons primarily on the west coast of the contiguous United States. By way of background, I have been a raptor ecologist for the federal government for almost three decades, and specialize in endangered species recovery, raptor monitoring and nest entry, and effects of anthropogenic activities on birds of prey including Peregrine Falcons and Golden Eagles. My study area(s) on Peregrine Falcons have included the Channel Islands, the Pacific Northwest (specifically northern California, Oregon, Washington), and Yellowstone National Park. My work in this study area has included peregrine falcon nest sites managed by a wide variety of private, county, state, federal and tribal jurisdictions. Please note that I write these comments as an unaffiliated raptor ecologist; the findings and recommendations represented in this letter are my personal perspective, and are not intended to represent the views or recommendations of my past and current research affiliates or employers (including the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

My understanding of the situation at Summit Rock is that peregrine falcons moved from a larger known nest site (Castle Rock) to this location in 2008. While not proven with robust, empirical data, it has been suggested that increased climbing pressure on the pair at Castle Rock induced abandonment of that location, and subsequent use of the Summit Rock site. I was told that productivity from 2008 – 2011 was 2, 2, at least 1, and 2, respectively, with delayed nesting chronology for 2008.
The question which you have posed to me regards management of your site per temporal and spatial restriction necessary to retain peregrine falcons at Summit Rock. In other words, would year-round anthropogenic restrictions protect the peregrines nesting at this location, and is that a defensible recommendation to Park Managers? It is important to note that peregrine falcons were delisted by the federal government in 1999, but still receive protection under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and retain a fully protected status via California Department of Fish and Game.

I have reviewed my colleague/friend Dr. Clayton White’s 03 March 2012 letter to Mr. Robb Courtney, which you supplied to me. I know Dr. White to be highly respected in the raptor community, and an extremely thoughtful peregrine biologist as was shown by his many salient comments. His statements regarding the biology of peregrine falcons generally reflect my experiences and knowledge of the species. With that stated I do not wish to debate the finer points of Dr. White’s letter, and greatly value the comments that he has shared with you.

As noted by Dr. White, site management for this location boils down to an acknowledgement of human values. His statements regarding the facts of peregrine falcon resurgence over the past 40 years are important. As a species, peregrine falcons are no longer rare, sensitive, or vulnerable. Their population in California and elsewhere has rebounded beyond what we believed was possible when we conceived of peregrine falcon recovery efforts in the early 1980’s. I would never describe the species as fragile; except when the thicknesses of their eggs have been concerned. My research and applied management experience suggests that in some locations, contaminants still affect eggshell thinning, which in turn, in some instances, affects annual productivity.
After the organochlorine (specifically DDT/DDE) contaminant situation was addressed, peregrine falcons started a population resurgence. Peregrine falcons could only be described by those who study them as a robust and resilient raptor. Through my own work, I have found them to be capable of nesting in numerous locations highly divergent from our earlier estimations; now at locations that are remarkable (see Pagel et al. 2010).

I have observed peregrine falcons nesting on rock outcrops smaller than the Summit Rock location in the Pacific Northwest at numerous remote (away from human disturbance) locations; one which was only a 40 foot tall cliff in a semi-urban environment. Further, I have banded chicks on easily accessible ledges that can only be described as ‘walk on’ where there was no need to use a rope or any climbing techniques. Since about 1995, I have observed peregrines using smaller nesting cliffs, as the population has expanded and most if not all of the ‘prime’ locations were used by territorial peregrine falcons.

I would also add that I have observed greater pressure on peregrine falcons via recreational rock climbers in recent years. For the most part, climbers revel in sharing habitat with peregrines, and have been incredibly respectful and understanding of seasonal restrictions. However, at Summit Rock, this may not be the case; during my visit I noted rather rude graffiti on one of the known peregrine ledges that stated “f*#k the birds.” You have indicated to me that thus far your law enforcement officers have noted considerable disturbance at the site, leading to ‘a couple hundred’ tickets for violations of the seasonal closure, including citations for nocturnal parties at and near the cliff site.

Per Dr. White, peregrine falcons have a capacity to adapt to disturbances. I have noted that when disturbed from a nest location, they may move to another location where they perceive they will be less disturbed. I am aware of similar small cliffs in the PNW where climbing pressure appeared to have disturbed the resident birds from large, spacious nest ledges onto smaller, less desirable locations. Yet, peregrines can also be excluded from suitable habitat. I also know of a historic peregrine nest site near Portland that will probably never have peregrine falcons nesting at that location due to regular local climbing pressure.

The Summit Rock nest location is a small (ca. 100 ft) limestone outcrop, with the current nest pothole below tree line. Per your comments, the pair appears to be year-round residents, and it is my understanding that they ‘defend’ the site outside of the breeding season. With the above stated, I differ with Dr. White’s opinion in only one respect. It is my opinion that if Santa Clara County Parks Department has determined that breeding peregrine falcons are an important ecological and cultural component within their jurisdiction; they will need to manage their habitat at Summit Rocks in a way that weighs the peregrine falcon nest site above human intrusion. As such, an annual (year round) seasonal closure may be necessary to retain the birds on site. As Dr. White inferred, disturbance the peregrines may experience would be managed by restricting the human pressure at the site. Based on the number of violations during the nesting season which you described to me, apparent antipathy of the climbers towards the peregrine falcons, and the long term use of the site by partiers and climbers, this will be a problematic decision on the part of the Parks Department.

It is my opinion that seasonal restrictions (only) will maintain peregrines at the site for a couple of years until these particular individual peregrine falcons die or leave. After that, it is, again in my opinion, questionable whether or not peregrines will remain on site due to disturbance and Summit Rock being a small nest substrate. If it is a management decision to host peregrines and maintain this particular nest site longer than several years, it is my opinion that a year-round closure of the site may be necessary. A partial restriction may be possible; I suspect that if you lifted the restriction between September and November (only), you have a possibility to retain peregrines in situ beyond the proclivities of the current breeding pair.
Regardless of the decision, peregrine falcons are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and as such should be protected from ‘take’ during the breeding season, if indeed they choose to ‘nest’ at Summit Rock.

Based on my field visit, the current level of anthropogenic activity poses a negative attribute of the site for use by peregrine falcons, and because of the vituperative attitude expressed by the climbers toward the birds, it is doubtful that a simple seasonal closure from January to June will maintain peregrines at the Summit Rock site for more than several years.
As indicated by Dr. White, and reaffirmed by me, this is more a human values decision as to how important peregrines may be on your landscape. If they are important, then based on the information you have presented to me, in addition to my observation of the site, I would recommend that a year-round closure of Summit Rock may be necessary to retain peregrine falcons on such a small nesting substrate.
I would be willing to provide any additional information which you may desire or need for your work. Thank you for your concern with protection of peregrine falcons.

Joel E. Pagel, Ph.D.
Raptor Ecologist
jpagel@rocketmail.com

Literature Cited
Pagel, J.E., R.T. Patton and B. Latta. 2010. Ground nesting of peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) near San Diego, CA. J. Raptor Res. 44:323-325.

Bruce Morris

Social climber

Belmont, California

Topic Author's Reply - Apr 25, 2012 - 05:24pm PT

Despite the apparent progress evinced in the new Access Fund letter, it is still imperative to keep up the pressure on Santa Clara County Parks by clicking on the following Summit Rock Access Alert link and sending a letter to the authorities to protest the year-round closure:

http://www.accessfund.org/c.tmL5KhNWLrH/b.5208267/k.8C84/Action_Center/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=tmL5KhNWLrH&b=5208267&aid=516572

We need to convince the authorities that climbers as a group are really responsible users of County Parks with a vested interest in protecting the peregrines and keeping Summit Rock free of garbage, glass and graffiti. I've been told negotiations are still in progress with Robb Courtney, the Director of County Parks, and that there is still "strong opposition" to a seasonal closure, so continuing to add more letters in favor of our position is still needed.

all in jim

climber

Apr 25, 2012 - 06:43pm PT

Yikes!

Bruce Morris

Social climber

Belmont, California

Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2012 - 02:36pm PT

Anyone looked at this Access Fund letter yet? It's trying to stop this:

County Parks seems to have moved from organic brown to action item red!

looking sketchy there...

Social climber

Latitute 33

Apr 26, 2012 - 02:56pm PT

Email sent.

Take a couple minutes and help obtain reasonable access to this crag.

doughnutnational

Gym climber

its nice here in the spring

Apr 26, 2012 - 03:12pm PT

Well atleast Dr. Pagel doesn't claim to be a geologist, because I'm pretty sure summit rock is not a limestone outcrop.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Apr 26, 2012 - 03:12pm PT

Bump for a good cause.

John

Dapper Dan

Trad climber

Menlo Park

Apr 26, 2012 - 03:29pm PT

"call me when you're serious about this" ???

He's obviously serious dumba$$ , Bruce has been a local and an advocate for Castle Rock climbing for years . His passion for lifting the year round ban is obvious for all to see ...

... The signs are becoming red , not good .

WBraun

climber

Apr 26, 2012 - 03:41pm PT

but he is using the traditional methods and they are not working.

That's right they are not working.

Don'tcha know there's modern advanced methods now a days.

Water boarding, pulling finger nails off fingers, drilling nerve endings in your teeth, electro shocking of the balls, etc etc etc.

And these are the tame methods.

Even faster results are obtained with even more advanced methods not suitable for describing their details here.

Bruce Morris

Social climber

Belmont, California

Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2012 - 03:48pm PT

Yes, traditional means are working, Fatty, as these letters suggest. If you read the first Access Fund letter above, you'll notice that the new Director of County Parks is now offering to open up Summit to climbing for three months (September, October, November) during the non-nesting season. That's a big improvement over a year-round closure of Summit to all public access, isn't it?

By the way, Paul Minault has obviously done a masterly job of meeting County Parks' objections to reopening Summit and should be commended for his work for the Access Fund, which he has undertaken pro bono. And we are carrying a Big Stick, even though it's still locked in the violin case. 'Nuff said!

And if you really want to do something real, why don't your donate a $500,000 to the Access Fund? Reopening Summit Rock is being handled under their auspices both locally and nationally. Paul's number is given above, so why not ask him what you can do to further the cause of reopening Summit? The last thing we need is a reactionary "loose cannon" going in "where angels fear to tread" and making a big mess.

The best, most effective thing anyone can do, is go to the Access Fund site and send more letters protesting the closure to the proper authorities.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Apr 26, 2012 - 03:49pm PT

We also object to your vague references to sites in the northwest where you say that “climbing pressure appeared to have disturbed the resident birds from large, spacious nest ledges onto smaller, less desirable locations...”

I would love to hear any evidence of Peregrines moving to "smaller, less desirable locations" in the NW. I haven't heard of this but I will check with the Washington state raptor biologists to see what they say about it - it certainly isn't the case in Oregon.

[ Edit: On talking with Dr. Pagel, the site referenced is in Oregon and more info may be forthcoming. I do not personally know the circustances involved, but do know and trust some of the biologists involved. Again, hopefully more details will be forthcoming... ]

...and your vague mention of “a historic peregrine nest site near Portland that will probably never have peregrine falcons nesting at that location due to regular local climbing pressure.”

Well, I'm in PDX and have monitored the Beacon Peregrines for seven years and have never heard of any such a crag, case, or incident that would fit this statement. I would very much suggest getting them to come up with data and / or references to back up these two statements.

All in all, my take on Summit is that if the AF were ever going to take the next step and file a lawsuit over a closure, then this would be the one to go after if SCC doesn't come up with more suitable solutions to their youth management issues.

Bruce Morris

Social climber

Belmont, California

Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2012 - 04:11pm PT

I read it as a token offer, nothing substantive.

I think you're right, Fatty, but at least now they're starting to make offers. What I mean about the Big Stick is that the Access Fund, from the very start, began developing their approach from a forensic angle. I've seen the letters on file with the proper authorities, if you know what I mean?

Also, Dr. Pagel only has one publication on peregrines. Prof. Clayton White has over 3,000! In fact, he started peregrine studies in the USA. We have scientific authority on our side. County Parks has a snotty attitude, innuendo and anecdote on theirs. Also, Dr. Pagel's visit to Summit was strictly non-official and initiated by the Environmental Ranger who initiated (and enforced) the closure in the first place. Dr. White's visit was hosted by Santa Clara County Parks.

If push comes to shove, who is the judge going to believe?

Steve Grossman

Trad climber

Seattle, WA

Apr 26, 2012 - 09:52pm PT

After looking into the issue recently, I found out that Peregrines have been de-listed as of a couple of years ago and that many land managers are in the five year "study period" at the moment.

Are these folks keeping to any such time frame?

If Peregrines aren't formally endangered at the end of the follow-up study then these closures really become pretty onerous and indefensible.

Dos XX

Trad climber

Los Angeles, CA

Apr 26, 2012 - 10:30pm PT

Rumour has it that Santa Clara falcons are bringing in outside agitators from other areas to bolster the OCCUPY SUMMIT ROCK movement. Nothing worse than a bunch of a pissed-off Peregrines.

Bruce Morris

Social climber

Belmont, California

Topic Author's Reply - Apr 27, 2012 - 12:57am PT

No, Steve. The whole escapade is just a strategy to shut down Summit Rock all year round. The peregrines there, which have never been banded or studied in any formal scientific way, are merely a convenient pretext for keeping people off of Summit Rock, an excuse if you will. What County Parks is trying to do is to lump rock climbers with the nocturnal partyers and taggers and thereby keep everyone out. However, quite the opposite has been achieved: Now the bottle breakers and graffiti artists have taken over Summit after dark and trashed the place. It's apparent too that several of the other stakeholders at Summit hold climbers as a group in very low regard.

What is extremely dangerous about this unprecedented action is that County Parks has in effect eliminated one half of the outdoor recreational rock climbing opportunities in Santa Clara County without so much as a public hearing. Climbers were never given any opportunity to provide input on this move. One day there were No Climbing signs and a horse ranger telling any climber he encountered to get out of there. No public announcements, just an act of force major. A kangaroo court made and enforced their own rules without any scientific study to base their actions on and without so much as an attempt to solicit public input. All the worst features of overly politicized bureaucratic rule.

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Apr 27, 2012 - 11:46am PT

"I read it as a token offer, nothing substantive. Either a lawsuit or significant political pressure will be necessary."

Another 'Clash of Civilizations' for you, eh, fattrad?

Don't listen to him, Bruce. fattrad believes change only comes at the end of a gun.