Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 34 of total 34 in this topic |
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
|
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?
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.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 11:50am PT
|
I think you meant, "an overly environmentalized (Democrat) bureaucracy".
Jeff, did you ever think about the fact that some debates might just be better without that kind of stupid partisan bullsh#t?
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:51pm PT
|
Peeps - just go to the access funds website! There's a great form that will automatically send out emails in your name supporting us!
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 01:13pm PT
|
imply/infer
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 27, 2012 - 02:24pm PT
|
Oh I also get a sense that the rich, respectable folks in Saratoga and Los Gatos don't like to see what they regard as "white trash" climbers invading their territory and depressing their property values. They don't really distinguish between rock climbers, party-ers, taggers and gang-bangers. They regard all of them as equally disreputable and potentially criminal. Of course, who exactly is responsible for the yawning gulf between the rich and poor in the USA? What you're seeing in practice up on the Skyline is not Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in action, but rather Richard Nixon's and Milton Friedman's Republican Neo-Liberal version of America, the one in which rich and poor are pitted against one another and a once solid middle class is evaporating as each subsequent speculative bubble collapses. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the rangers get meaner and meaner.
But here's an idea, Fatty: Why don't you dig into your deep pockets and buy Summit Rock? Make it into into a private climbing park and charge $3 bucks per day admission? Since County Parks obviously hasn't got a budget to patrol the place, why not hire a private security patrol of underemployed climbers to drive the partyers out? Is there a "stand your ground" law in California?
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 02:25pm PT
|
Email sent. Keep up the great work, Bruce and Paul. I worked with Paul in the early days of the Access Fund and he is a very effective advocate, as illustrated by his letter.
Rick
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 27, 2012 - 03:06pm PT
|
Even for us unreconstructed New Dealers, the Republican dream of privatized climbing parks does have its allure. However, when Handley Rock in Redwood City became a public climbing park (except for one Sunday per month), it was donated by the owner, who cut a deal with the County Sheriff about patrolling it and providing security. IOWs: Handley Rock already was a piece of private property. Luckily, the landowner was also a climber. When I went down to the Franchised Tax Board at San Jose City Hall and looked up the history of the property that Summit sits on, I found that it had been transferred to the County some time in the mid-70s.
The irony does not escape me that if Summit was on private property, it would probably be a lot easier to cut a deal with the landowner about climbing access. Probably, but maybe not. However, because Summit sits on public land, the user group that recreates there has been driven off by County Parks backed by the environmental zealots on the Parks and Recreation Commission. IOWs: Because Summit has been set aside for public use, climbers are unable to use it even though Summit Rock has been a common rock climbing venue for nearly 70 years! You'll notice too that there is never a word about climbers or climbing in print in any official publication of Santa Clara County Parks. Even the No Climbing signs refer to "Park Users". The brochure for Sanborn County Parks never mentions climbing or bouldering at Indian Rock or Summit Rock. It's really something that they would rather just disappear.
|
|
Seamstress
Trad climber
Yacolt, WA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 03:40pm PT
|
I think most foks can enthusiastically or grudgingly sign on to regulations that reflect science. Darn frustrating to know that:
Seasonal restrictions to protect peregrine and other nesting raptors have been implemented since the 1970s. As the American peregrine falcon (F. p. anatum) population continued its recovery through the 1990s, the period between 1994 and 1997 saw a 40% increase in the number of new seasonal climbing restrictions, with 58 restrictions implemented in 1997 alone. At the time such restrictions were unusual as a management tool. Guidelines for managing peregrine were published in 1996 by the Peregrine Fund World Center for Birds or Prey and the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group. The following year, in collaboration with the authors of the 1996 guide, The Access Fund published guidelines for managing Peregrine in rock climbing areas.
On August 25, 1999, the American peregrine falcon was removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (64 FR 46541). The plan for delisting called for monitoring peregrine falcons five times at 3-year intervals beginning in 2003 and ending in 2015. 2003 monitoring results were made public by the USF&W Service in 2006. During the 2003 monitoring period the USF&W Service determined there were 3,005 nesting pairs of American peregrine falcons in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, compared to approximately 1,750 pairs at the time of delisting. In 2003, their estimates of the nesting parameters and the additional data from across the United States indicated that the peregrine falcon population is “secure and vital .” The 2006 monitoring results are not yet available. from a memo by Orton discussing various Oregon access issues.
How do we pry the evidence that supports sensible restrictions out of the bureaucrats hands? And how do we ensure that real data is used for regulation? What causes these birds to die before reproducing and what prevents them from reproducing? The decline was due to DDT-related shell thinning, and shooting birds. There is significant evidence that suggests climber/raptor interaction does not lead to reproductive failure.
I'm all for funding and using scientific research that provides intelligent ways to live together. I remain convinced that most of the regulations to protect raptors is a thinnly disguised shield to keep climbers off the land. Tourists in cars and at picnic tables are less threatening to the officials.
I would think it would be less expensive to process and release the darn data about the helath of the population than to enforce regulations to close climbing.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 27, 2012 - 04:16pm PT
|
I'm all for funding and using scientific research that provides intelligent ways to live together. I remain convinced that most of the regulations to protect raptors is a thinnly [sic] disguised shield to keep climbers off the land. Tourists in cars and at picnic tables are less threatening to the officials.
Exactly, Seamstress! Climbers are one group who uses the land that Santa Clara County Parks cannot directly get their hands on and control and, hence, represent another power that threatens their authority. Remember the old maxim: "One power cannot tolerate another power"? That's why adjacent armies "demonstrate" toward each other until a certain flash point is reached (i.e. there's an 'incident') and a shooting war breaks out.
But for the life of me I cannot understand why climbers and County Parks cannot partner together to manage Summit Rock in a mutually beneficial way that helps keep the bottle throwers out while improving the environment for the nesting peregrines. It sounds more like cock-eyed ideology than real science. Afterall, we brought in one of the leading raptor biologists in the world, Dr. Clayton White, and he told them their rationale was unscientific and they're still trying to find ways of wiggling off the hook with bogus arguments that have no basis.
I can still remember back in the early 1990s when there was a dedicated County Parks Ranger for Sanborn-Summit County Park and a guy who drove up there each evening in a truck and emptied the garbage can in back of the rock. Now, there are only No Climbing signs and a locked gate at the trail junction leading to the rock. All the party-ers, gang bangers and taggers just walk on in and do their dirty work without any authority whatsoever out there to stop them. Closing Summit Rock has in effect turned the area into a completely lawless zone. I for one believe that the name change from Sanborn-Skyline County Park to simply Sanborn County Park is indicative of a cost-saving administrative shift.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 27, 2012 - 05:44pm PT
|
No. As the Seamstress points out, it's a 'No People' issue, but the liability stuff probably scares County Parks too. The attitude I've noticed is one of complete contempt for climbers as a recreational user group. Sort of like a bunch of snobs "Kicking the bums out of our little town". Really, it's a whole bunch of things all operating together: budgetary constraints, upstairs-downstairs class suburban elitism, reactionary environmentalism, factional bureaucratic power politics. There's an element of the powerful beating up on the powerless too. What the authorities didn't count on was that today climbers are now more organized and have an organization that will come to bat to protect their interests. Incidentally, they do monitor SuperTopo so know that the Summit Rock access issue is familiar to a lot of people across the whole country. Sure, Summit Rock isn't the greatest crag in the world, but it's one of the best in whole Bay Area, and the principles involved in its closure have far-reaching implications for the sport of rock climbing everywhere else.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 06:48pm PT
|
Seamstress: I remain convinced that most of the regulations to protect raptors is a thinnly disguised shield to keep climbers off the land.
Complete and utter rubbish - I don't have time for complete response until later or tomorrow, but that's just ain't remotely the case.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 27, 2012 - 07:05pm PT
|
That may be so for rational regulations to protect nesting raptors. However, I detect an irrational post-romantic nature myth operating here along with a political subtext that is harder to read. Obviously, County Parks has chosen to lump climbers in with the bottle-breakers as part of a destructive lawless group that must be edited out of the Summit Rock eco-landscape. I know it's really counterproductive because it excludes climbers, which are the one group that has done the most for keeping Summit Rock clean and free of vandalism. I think they're cutting their own throats because of their near-sighted bias.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2012 - 07:12pm PT
|
Don't conflate what's happening at Summit with what's happening nationwide. Summit is a unique situation and while it may not be the only one of its kind it is clear we the few are being punished for the sins of the many. The idea that raptor regulations are designed to deny us the land is patently ridiculous and borders on both arrogant self-aggrandizing and paranoia.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 28, 2012 - 02:54am PT
|
Yes, the situation at Summit Rock is exceptional, in so many ways.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 05:19am PT
|
Let's be clear upfront - first, Peregrines are bad ass - they snatch their food out of thin air at 200mph, lay their eggs on bare rock ledges, and hunker down on them unprotected and out in the open during cold spring storms (not in a cushy portaledges w/ flys like us pussy humans). Second, we're talking about EXTINCT east of the Mississippi in 1970 with a handful of breeding pairs west of it. Third, Peregrines have nested on cliffs in North America for somewhere between 8-2.4 million years until we virtually wiped them out in a blink of an eye. Fourth, cliffs are their favored and most commonly productive reproductive sites.
So, given that quick background, the probable historic number of breeding pairs of North American Peregrines was likely between 4-5,000. So 3,000 breeding pairs in 2003 is a great comeback from just this side of zero (that's roughly one North American Peregrine breeding pair for about every 20,000 U.S. human breading pairs in 2003). But that number includes urban boxed pairs with a high mortality rate, lots of hacked and released birds, and doesn't necessarily reflect a true, self-sustaining rate across their natural range in historic nest sites. I would guess a sustaining natural rate in 2003 was more like 2,500 breeding pairs. But let's not split hairs, they're no longer on the verge of extinction and were properly delisted as such in 1999.
That, however, doesn't address the issue of restoring and maintaining both their historic range and numbers, which is the ultimate goal of the long term recovery efforts and why they are, and will remain, a protected species under state and federal law. I personally believe about all that can be accomplished in that regard will have been accomplished in the 2017-2020 timeframe - a job well done by a crew of people who dedicated their entire lives to accomplishing this remarkable feat and for whom every new, successful nest is just like an FA to us. And remember, climbers - including a bunch here on ST - played an essential role in those recovery efforts which is likely how Dr. Pagel got involved in the first place.
And given both Peregrines and climbers use cliffs as an essential resource the question becomes how do we share that resource over the long haul? And hey, it's not all a one-sided deal either - it's not just all about the reanimation of the Peregrines since 1970 and them now 'taking over our cliffs!' Check out this google map search:
If we're going to be honest we also have to factor in what our own climbing demographic has done since 1970. And what would that google map look like today versus 1970 if you could search on "rock climbing bolt" and see every bolt on the map (and wouldn't bolt placements from 1970-2012 make a fabulous map animation). The reality is our climbing demographic has utterly exploded over the same timeframe it has taken to bring the Peregrines back to within striking distance of their historic range and numbers; so not much of surprise some raptor biologists might view our own demographic growth with a raised eyebrow or two. But again, the question remains - they're back - and how are we going to co-exist on rock with them over the long haul?
One thing that definitely isn't going to 'fly', is the locals at every crag in America saying, "hey they're like rats now and don't need my xyz crag!!!" Hey, forgetaboutit! It flat out ain't gonna happen. The bottom line is there is always going to be protection for nests determined to be steady, successful reproductive sites - i.e. nesting closures - and there is no other way for our populations to co-exist over the long haul without them. Oh, and our small crag outside of PDX is one of those which has long been identified as a steadily producing nest site which, as a climber, sucks on one hand but on the other I'll take the closure over not seeing Peregrines out there when I climb.
The real question going forward is when are closures appropriate in any give stretch of Peregrine range relative to highly successful nest sites and what is an appropriate closure size and duration given the crag particulars and available monitoring resources. From my perspective the most important things climbers can do is not click email links (though that helps), but rather learn something about the Peregrines and establish trusted working relationships with the raptor biologists associated with your area and crag. Learn to monitor them and establish cooperative monitoring sessions (oh, and monitoring and learning to understand exactly what you are seeing isn't necessarily easy and can take 1-3 years to really dial in on it all reliably).
And this is where Summit comes back into the picture - is the closure duration and size appropriate for its role and potential in the overall area's (NorCal) Peregrine reproductive numbers. I think it likely Summit is a marginal nest site in terms of reproductive success and have doubts that a year round closure changes that outcome all that much over a seasonal closure (but I could be wrong on that given I don't know the numbers). It could be that the biologists are taking it county-by-county and seek to protect traditional nests sites in counties with low or even no current count and that may or may not be a reasonable (as opposed to wishful) long-term management strategy.
Based on the cumulative effects of all user groups, Dr. Pagel obviously thinks the year-round closure is necessary. But I personally suspect the even with a year-round closure the site isn't likely to be steadily successful enough to warrant it's imposition (again, just my suspicion). At that point it becomes a matter of perceptions around the overall importance to the Summit contribution to the [long-term Coastal NorCal] reproductive success of the species.
Again, this all boils down to a forty-two plus year effort to restore the Peregrine's historic range and numbers - it's not in any way an effort to "keep climbers off the land" which is utter nonsense. What it is all about is a plain and simple collision of demographics and resource use.
And last:
There is significant evidence that suggests climber/raptor interaction does not lead to reproductive failure.
More nonsense - there is no such "significant evidence". Quite the contrary, the biologists have forty-two years of records of pillaged, trampled, and abandoned nests along with at least limited behavioral research and can trot out 'significant evidence' to the contrary that trumps our amassed anecdotal evidence every single time. And honestly, how many of you have been bombed or harassed by an angry raptor parent? Over the years I know I've had both experiences - Peregrines remaining completely calm nearby and not freaking out, but far more often than not, they've clearly been moderately to highly agitated by my proximity to their nest.
Add it all up, and as someone with some biology, journalism, and political background I personally try to stay objective, honest and realistic when my avocations and environmental interests clash - I love doing FAs and want every possible day I can get on rock, but not at expense of a thing as cool, stout and burly as Peregrines which have lived on bare stone ledges a few million years longer than our species has existed. In PDX we're lucky in that we have a few other options during the closure (when it isn't dumping rain on us which makes for short seasons and is another contributing pain point up this way); others my not, and YMMV with local resources.
My two cents anyway, and I urge folks to remain calm, keep the conspiracy and talk radio rhetoric to a minimum, and just work the issue as Bruce and co. have been doing.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 28, 2012 - 02:18pm PT
|
All of what you are saying is true, healyje (Joe). But local climbers and the Access Fund obviously want to contribute to the success of the peregrine nesting site at Summit Rock by entering into a co-operative relationship with County Parks and whatever organization is going to monitor the breeding pair. The big problem is that County Parks and other stakeholders don't want to allow us to help monitor and protect the site. The real problem for the peregrines at Summit are the hoards of party-ers and graffiti 'artists' who, largely thanks to the blanket closure, are wandering over the site completely unchecked. It's been easier for County Parks to print a few signs and interdict climbers going out there from the Summit Rock Parking Lot on a weekend basis than to get to the real root of the problem and keep the lawless element out of there after dark. It's a typically cosmetic bureaucratic solution to a problem that is largely unsolved. Okay, County Parks can say that they've kept the climbers off the rock and away from the nesting site, only now there are even more people out there painting the rocks and getting drunk and high than there were before the ban. We want to convince County Parks of our good intentions and work with them for a solution that benefits the peregrines and the natural environment out at Summit. And climbing isn't a new form of recreation at Summit at all; it's been going on up there since the 1930s. There have been more people enjoying the recreation rock resources up there since 1990 or so, but I would say that usage has remained about the same since then. Climbers have shown good faith and been doing cleanups at Summit under the auspices of the Access Fund, REI, BayAreaClimbers.com, SheClimbs.com, and Santa Clara County Parks for many years, which seems to show that all concerned can work together to achieve mutually beneficial environmentally-sound goals. This current imbroglio reminds me of a union-management negotiation session where at first mutual suspicion and distrust are so great that there's no hope of a compromise. Now, at least, we do seem to be moving toward a more typical seasonal closure that allows climbing in the non-nesting season in September, October and November. Those are the best months out at Summit anyway when it's not too hot with too many mosquitoes. In fact, that's the best time of the year to be out there climbing.
I notice that Dr. Pagel was told (presumably by Ranger Rocha) that chick productivity at the Summit site between 2008-2011 was something like "2, 2, at least 1, and 2, respectively, with delayed nesting chronology for 2008". Dr. White implied that the delayed chronology had to do with the fact that the Summit eyrie is not a very good site. In other words, the peregrines were still breeding again in September because owls, racoons, rats and other predators were probably eating the chicks hatched earlier since it's a fairly simply matter for them them to crawl up into the crevice where they're nesting. Still, this has to be confirmed by a real study of the site and no one seems to have been doing that. That's in fact where climbers and the Access Fund could really help out.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2012 - 07:06pm PT
|
Bruce, I think we are in complete agreement on Summit. As I said, I don't really see where a year-round closure is going to significantly enhance the breeding success at Summit over a seasonal closure and believe it's being employed as a proxy for managing difficult youth issues at the site. Getting organized to do annual monitoring at the site is definitely the way to go or there'll be no way to really know what's going on...
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 30, 2012 - 12:23am PT
|
I think one idea being considered is to have Glenn Stewart and his Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group at UCSC do the monitoring of the peregrines and their eyrie. Certainly, climbers could help out if County Parks gives them the okay. As you can see from the pics I posted, the peregrines are nesting back in a cleft that is actually between two routes, neither of which run through it. But the eyrie is way back under a roof where the only way for humans to enter is from above on rappel.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 34 of total 34 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!