Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Any support I can get here is appreciated.
What kind of support do you need / want?
If you need people count me in - I promise not to be a jerk..;-)
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
I'll shoot you an email this week on how you can help.
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
This is a picture my brother took of my dad, the one in the background bouldering and myself holstering my dads old Stubai hammer. I was 14 at the time that picture was taken, now 46, and my dad has been climbing at Williamson since the 1960's. I grew up climbing at Williamson Rock and knew it only as Eagles Roost until the first guide was published. I put up routes on lead with that hammer before I learned to drive. Most of the climbing I did was on the main face above the Voices Wall and and Freezer Burn Wall and some exploring on the Sick Wall which we accessed by climbing that rotten crack to the right, I considered the crack as a legit climb in and of itself at the time and still do. Once I started driving I headed up there every weekend dragging unsuspecting friends and cross country teammates and anyone else who would hold a rope for me. In the early 90's I got caught up in the rap bolting deal and put my first Bosch powered route in on the left side of the Generation Wall. After meeting Troy at a climbing comp at Sport Chalet we started heading up 3-4 days a week putting up routes and never seeing a sole for about a year. Things changed fast after that first year climbing with Troy and after the first guidebook was published climbing alone at Williamson was a thing of the past except for a rare quiet weekday. I slowly stopped climbing as I started to immerse myself in kayaking local creeks in the So Cal area to the point of obsession in floating any creek that I could find including the creek that flows at the base of Williamson and Arroyo Secco from below Red Box down to the JPL parking lot. After years of kayaking I slowly started to get back into climbing just as my wife and I had our first child. As a side note, the route Wedding March was put up with my wife just before we were married. After having our first kid I became excited to share the area with my son just as my dad had shared the area with me. Well shortly after he was born the area was closed and the rest is history. To say I am upset about the closure is a severe understatement but i still hold out hope that someday it might open again. Until then I will share my passion with my son and daughter elsewhere.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
This issue highlights an important set of looming problems for the climbing community.
The endangered species act, and others like it, attempt to act in favor of a species which is at risk of becoming extinct by preserving the environment that supports them. It usually affects a larger area because the natural history of frogs is not completely understood. It does no good to preserve just the frog ponds, the frogs use areas around the pond, and the species that they prey on probably occupy a larger area than just the ponds.
The fact is we don't know just how much area is required to support that species.
Now if we think of climbing as an act of taking that away from the frog, even indirectly, and cause the extinction of that species then we've done something irreversible; the frog is no more.
I presume that the reason climbers would provide for doing this would be an exercise in our notional right to climb anywhere we want to without regard to the consequences of our actions. I'm sure there are environmentalists out there who view the fanaticism of climbers in the same negative light that some of the climbers view the environmentalists.
The issues at Williamson Rock are well publicized because it is a "traditional" climbing area near a huge population center. The number of people, and thus the impact, of climbing at Williamson Rock has skyrocketed (as it has in other areas) with the increase in population and the popularity of climbing.
I'd suggest that we have to take a much more sophisticated view of our use of public land, and especially the consequences of that use. And realize that we may be "taking" something in our pursuit of climbing that cannot be returned. I face this conundrum putting up routes in Yosemite Valley, are those routes really worth the destruction of vegetation and the denial of habitat that they represent?
The ecologies of cliffs is not a well developed science. Because of their inaccessibility, they often represent a refuge for plants and animals who have been excluded from other developed areas. Climbing represents the further encroachment of those developments into what is often the last refuge for these species. Climbers who venture there could be a tremendous help to studying those refuges, but there are no strong collaborations that I know of. Largely this is because of fear among climbers that it will bring restrictions to climbing, and a view from the ecologists that climbers are carelessly pursuing their sport for selfish motives and aren't interested in the restricting their climbing.
Understanding what it is we are doing in these environments is important and won't happen without such a collaboration. Working together would strengthen both the access and the understanding of closures and get the two communities together rather than remaining separate in two immiscible advocacy groups.
And it would help climbers "do the right thing" with regard to understanding their impact and the consequences of that impact. Putting up a route, using an area, can be far more consequential than we have traditionally thought. We should understand that.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
The fact is we don't know just how much area is required to support that species.
I'm no frog expert but I've seen a lot of 'em and never very far from water.
As for how wide an area around the water is important to their well being
common sense would suggest not very. If climbers crossed the creek at a
designated spot and stayed away from the creek elsewhere it certainly seems
like a reasonable assumption that the little dears would not be unduly
inconvenienced. I think the real issue here is rather the intransigent
bureaucracy which always looks to propagate itself.
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
PUD.... thanks for your considerable efforts.
Let’s face it, FoW is done as a organization, the ACCESS FUND is worried about stuff in Colorado mostly and has not represented US at all.
We do not have a bulldog lawyer, nor can we afford one because we don’t have an organization to funnel the funds to one.
I know what I’m going to say (write) may ruffle some feathers but I’ll say it anyway;
What if we got like 100 people to go climbing down there, let the NFS know we are going to do it and get arrested!
Do the whole 60’s thing; make it hard for them to enforce the unjust law.
Stay away from the Frogs habitat, easy to do, and just start climbing.
Make it cost $$$$ to enforce the ban.
Heck, our government is starting to look the other way regarding what laws it will and will not enforce maybe a cash strapped NFS, ANF, LA County Sheriff dept will just say F-ck it.
Maybe they will maybe they won’t.
I think the fact that Climbers just rolled over in the first place set a bad precedent.
Guy Keesee
EDIT: ED very well thought out, reasoned argument. It seems to me that very little reasoned thought went into the closure.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Ed have you ever climbed at Williamson or anywhere else in the San Gabriels?
Mt Williamson is a tiny speck, near the road, along a crest which is more than 30 miles long. This crest is surrounded by the rest of the range which extends from interstate 5 on the west to interstate 15 on the east, a distance of over 70 miles, and is traversed by two roads and a few trails.
John Muir himself, a man who knew a thing or two about mountains, pronounced the San Gabriels to be "the most impenetrable range I have seen."
In these rugged mountains, if there is not a trail, or for Batrock a sufficient flow, you are not getting anywhere. Simply put it is a safe bet that well over 99% of this terrain has never and never will be set foot upon by a human.
The reason the frogs have been found at Williamson is not because this area is a unique habitat, it is because it is right next to the road.
|
|
Tfish
Trad climber
La Crescenta, CA
|
|
I like your plan Guy!
I think you should also add some stuff too. Like take down supplies to build a fence to block off the area of the frogs, mark the trails real good so no one goes near the frogs, and weren't they talking about building a bridge or something? Maybe get a wag bag dispenser and some small garbage bags so there's no excuse for people to trash the area too. Basicly just show them that we can climb and the frogs will be ok.
|
|
Tfish
Trad climber
La Crescenta, CA
|
|
The frogs are all over the so cal mountains. If they really wanted to protect this frog they'd post signs and pictures of the warning people not to touch them or take them. Similar to the warning you're in bear country signs posted.
I really think the forest service used the frogs as an excuse to close the area because people were trashing it. I remember I saw a bunch of posts on RC.com about people warning others to pick up their trash and then like a year later they closed it.
|
|
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
I think that violating the temporary closure that is in place right now, or any future closure, will only hurt our access efforts. As I said before, ACSD is actively working on this, and climbers should refrain refrain from hurting relations with the land managers. We have a lot of hope that there will be a resolution that benefits both climbers and the frogs. I've contacted those among the ACSD crowd who are working on this, and I hope to be able to post a very informative update in the near future.
Josh
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
Williamson has been under a “temporary” closure that has been annually renewed since December 2005 due to the endangered Mountain Yellow Legged Frog (MYLF). The Center for Biological Diversity sued US Fish & Wildlife (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) because the agencies’ 2005 Biological Opinions (BioOps) regarding four different National Forest Plans in Southern California (including the Angeles National Forest/Williamson Rock) failed to issue Incidental Take Statements for the MYLF. The Access Fund, Friends of Williamson, and local climbers immediately started working with the Forest Service to re-open Williamson.
In September 2009, the Forest Service proposed a Plan that would have re-opened Williamson to climbing with restrictions meant to protect the critical habitat of the MYLF. Unfortunately, in late August 2009, the Station Fire started and ended up burning much of the Angeles National Forest. The Forest Service decided that given the loss of other MYLF habitat in the Station Fire, Williamson could not be re-opened as proposed.
As part of the on-going lawsuit by the Center for Biodiversity, the Court issued an injunctive Order on June 27, 2011, that required the FWS and NMFS to answer questions posed by the Court, amend the 2005 BioOps, and judicially closed Williamson Rock area until the amended Biological Survey was completed (there was a 6 month deadline from the date of the Order and then 60 days to implement the decision).
On October 19, 2011, due in large part to the Court’s June 27, 2011 Order, Angeles National Forest Supervisor (Thomas A. Contreras) published a Decision Notice instituting a 3-year administrative closure of the Williamson Rock vicinity to protect MYLF habitat. Allied Climbers of San Diego, a local climbing organization and joint member of the Access Fund, administratively appealed the 3-year closure.
On January 26, 2012 and prior to the appeal being decided, the Angeles Forest Supervisor withdrew his decision to close Williamson for 3 years. Thus, ACSD’s appeal was dismissed as moot. However, the one-year temporary Forest closure order based on the Court’s June 27, 2011 remains in effect until December 31, 2012.
The Forest Service requested and received an extension to complete the BioOps and associated land management plan. Thus, the temporary closure will likely get renewed again at the end of December 2012. The Access Fund is working with the Allied Climbers of San Diego to get Williamson re-opened. The Williamson closure is extremely frustrating and moving slower than normal because of the federal district court’s involvement. Unfortunately, there is no quick solution, but we are continuing to work on getting Williamson re-opened.
Please feel free to contact the Access Fund at info@accessfund.org with questions.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
The reason the frogs have been found at Williamson is not because this area is a unique habitat, it is because it is right next to the road.
Exactly!
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
Frogs at Williamson; Peregrines at Summit Rock. Both just pretexts for keeping people out of an area. At Williamson, there's the Center for Biological Diversity; at Summit there's the mysterious Friends of Castle Rock organization (has this now morphed into the Portola Valley and Castle Rock Forum?). Similar lawsuits to limit nearby urban populations from using nearby recreational areas.
Do I detect a larger pattern here?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Ed have you ever climbed at Williamson or anywhere else in the San Gabriels?
I have not climbed at Williamson but I spent my 10-18 years living in Claremont, CA right under the San Garbriels and spent much of that time walking up into those "impenetrable" mountains from my house.
Those were the years 1964-1972. They were years of tremendous change for that part of the San Gabriel Valley. I moved away, and then away from California in 1976 and returned in 1995. In that time the population of the state tripled, and the development boomed.
The whole of SoCal has changed greatly since the 1960s of my youth. And climbing has changed also, especially in terms of the numbers of people doing it. While it may be possible that there are many "unknown" frog habitats in the Angeles National Forest, it is also possible that there are not. And given the limits of the local, state and federal resources devoted to environmental research of the kind that would result in the discovery of additional habitats, it is fairly clear that such habitats are not going to be found anytime soon.
However, this is where we, climbers as interested hikers, could come in, don't you think? We do go to those "impenetrable" places. With some education we might do informal, exploratory surveys of frog habitat. And were the climbing community able to demonstrate your assertion that there are many frog habitats and that the one at Williamson is not unique, perhaps you could have a good effect on the outcome of climbing access.
Were you to find only one or two other sites which were confirmed by wildlife biologists, you may make a stronger case for closure.
The point is, climbers could have some effect on the outcome. They would require more education and work in collaboration with the wildlife biologists of the agencies involved in making the decisions.
I believe that such collaborations would build a positive relationship, but the outcomes may not be what is desired by either of the two participants, that is, sometimes the climbers would aid in work that results in closures, sometimes the biologists would aid in work that resulted in opening up an area... but in either of these cases, both parties had participated in managing a common resource in a rational manner and avoid using the legal system to adjudicate our differences.
Climbers are already concerned that the executive branch of government is involved in their climbing decisions, why would they invite the judicial branch to be involved too?
Cooperation and collaboration is a much better way to go, in my opinion.
As for frogs and ponds, I believe that the frogs range much farther from the ponds than you might observe in the limited times you spy them. Further, the health of the ecosystem of the pond involves an area much much larger than just the pond.
This is part of the issue that climbers could educated themselves on so that they don't sound like fools in front of the biologists and ecologists who are working these particular issues. Further, the climbers would also learn how much is not known. Lack of understanding increases the tendency to make conservative decisions in the issues of species extinction, favoring broad restrictions because of unknown consequences affecting that habitat.
I don't see how bringing in "bull lawyers" fixes the root cause of the problem. It might get you limited access to an area like Williamson Rock, but were the frogs to become extinct in that habitat it would be natural to lay it on the lack of restriction, and that would increase the restrictions elsewhere, not decrease them.
And looking at the bigger picture, is climbing at Williamson Rock right now worth the possible consequence of local species extinction and additional restrictions elsewhere? I don't think that any of you have made a case in this public forum that justifies it.
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
Ed, I thought it was pretty much determined that the die off was due to other frog species carrying a bacteria that was killing the MYLF, nothing to do with climbers impact. Speaking from personal experience the MYLF population in the area below the closure is thriving, not sure about the area immediately surrounding Williamson. Another area of large population of the MYLF is the Sanger Meadow area near Coyote Flat. Last year the stream in the meadow and as it dropped down toward Big Pine was crawling with MYLF's. Obviously these are just two areas but two areas none the less where the population seems to be thriving. The Sanger population specifically was quite impressive.
If giving up the climbing on the London Wall and Stream Wall were to occur, there would be virtually zero impact on the stream and it's inhabitants. A well thought out climbers trail would eliminate any intrusion into the MYLF home. I have fired off a few emails to the frog people at the Center for Biodiversity about getting together to try and work something out that would make both parties happy, not to mention the frogs, but I am not holding my breath that I will be hearing from them anytime soon.
|
|
10b4me
Boulder climber
Somewhere on 395
|
|
It's my understanding that the forest service only closed the area under pressure from the FWS. They did that because that is in their jurisdiction, not because they necessarily agree with it.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I thought it was pretty much determined that the die off was due to other frog species carrying a bacteria that was killing the MYLF
Frogs have been threatened by fungus (I believe) that is brought into the water shed area by humans who have visited other riparian zones where the fungus is found (the fungus is exotic if I recall correctly). Largely this is a problem with wading anglers who may not decontaminate there boots and other gear and travel from stream to stream. Biologists who go in with waders are now very conscious of the threat and do decontaminate their gear so as not to be a part of the problem.
I don't know the specifics of you MYLF population. And the specifics I do know are based on conversations with ecologists, it's not an area of my expertise. However, it does highlight the effects that humans have which are consequential, though extremely difficult to untangle, this one took a long time to figure out.
If you take a lesson from this, it is hard to argue for allowing access. That is, in the history of fishing in the mountains of California, anglers have used boots and waders for a long time. They frequented many mountain streams, and the frogs didn't have a problem. At some point the frogs start dying off, how could it be caused by an activity that has been around a long time?
The fungus spread like an infectious disease (it is a disease to the frogs) as an epidemic would, from a single starting location. The carriers were the humans that frequented those spots, and carried the infecting fungus on their boots, waders, boats, etc... this wasn't appreciated because it hadn't happened before.
This resulted in the large frog die-off, maybe amphibians in general. The climbers likely did not cause this problem, and maybe the management of the Williamson Rock area could avoid such a thing happening, climbers aren't going there to fish and probably wouldn't be a risk for infecting that watershed...
...but you could ask the question: what else could happen? And while that can't be answered, the main issue is the impact that humans have going into these habitats is real, and can result in the demise of the habitat and species in that habitat. To avoid that, caution would dictate that restricting human access is a good way to prevent such inadvertent problems.
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
Ed,
My fear is where does it end? Arguably climbing has had a much more damaging effect in Yosemite Valley on many levels, climbers trails, erosion, trash, birds of prey nesting etc... The list goes on and on and on and can be applied to ANY climbing area in the nation. So, do we just put a blanket ban on outdoor activities because we aren't sure what the impact might be? I realize I have skin in this particular game because it's right in my back yard and I have a long history with the area but I see the same answer over and over again in land management and that is it's just easier to close it and say it's best for species XY&Z. Wild lands and access to wild lands is becoming more and more limited, especially in California. Areas I have frequented for decades in the Saline Valley Death Valley area are now closed with little or no explanation from land managers. Many areas around Bishop, specifically the Coyote Flat Sanger Meadow area now sport huge road blocks and no camping signs. It's been more than a little frustrating to watch happen. It's like the frog in the kettle story, no pun intended, before you know it little by little it's gone and we are left wondering what the heck happened?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
My fear is where does it end? Arguably climbing has had a much more damaging effect in Yosemite Valley on many levels, climbers trails, erosion, trash, birds of prey nesting etc...
I fear that too, at some level, but fear isn't a good emotion to base action on (though it is often the emotion that leads to action).
Yosemite Valley is restricting access, and I believe that the reasons are well known, and certainly one can ask and receive an answer. As I mentioned above, the cliff ecologies are not studied extensively if at all, and much is unknown. So we don't have an idea whether or not we're causing a problem.
Climber impacts start with access to the base of the cliffs and off the tops of the cliff, at the Yosemite Facelift this year there were several trail building projects for climber access, this is one way to provide access that reduces climber impact. How many "braided use trails" are there out there and do they really need to be use trails?
The biologists working in these areas can't be everywhere doing everything. Climbers frequent areas and, if they are aware, can have conversations with the biologists about what they see. These encounters seem to be limited to husband/wife pairs where one climbs and one biologizes... though there are biologists that are climbers. It's not just biologists, though, but a combination of biological specialities including ecology that are required, a team.
It would be wonderful to have a study of the cliff ecologies of Yosemite, to my knowledge no such formal study exists. There was an initial attempt to do this at JT, the results found a mixed reception in the climbing community (as seen in another thread).
But trying to figure out how to be a part of understanding what climbers do to these habitats is something you'd think the climber community would want to be a part of, we do love these places, why doesn't that carry over to trying to understand how best to manage them?
And, climbers are unique in the fact that they spend a lot of time in those cliff habitats. They are observers to places few have been, being an informed observer and communicating those observations would be a good thing.
As an aside, my wife was involved in preservation issues at Pinnacles, the question was what to do about climber impact and many of the participants (none of them climbers) had misconceptions about climbing and climbing routes. So I got the question later that day and was able to shed a bit of light on climber usage. That was a fortuitous encounter... climbers don't publish scholarly articles on route development, etc.. so how would anyone know just what it is we do?
My take is that these encounters should be a lot less fortuitous, for that to happen there has to be an atmosphere of openness and trust among the participants, and a feeling that all sides of the collaboration bring something to the table that helps to obtain the desired outcomes.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
This order was enacted by judge Patel.
It is law. The FWS, USFS, or ANF no longer have jurisdiction over the Williamson Rock closure. It was ordered by the court and until that order is challenged and overturned or rescinded no one can re-open Williamsom.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/forests/southern_california_forests/pdfs/06-28-11_Order.pdf
I completely disagree with Ed's logic.
Many of the facts he refers to support this argument are untrue. ie: humans carrying the Chytrid fungus from other reptiles causing the Yellow Legged Mountain frog to become infected is undeniably false.
It is this type of misinformation that clouds the real issue and makes it difficult to get real and true information to the people making the decisions that affect us all.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!