Dear Fellow Climbers and Outdoor Enthusiasts,

7 January 2007

A forthcoming U.S. Forest Service decision in San Diego County will set precedent that likely will influence all other similar climbing and recreation areas in the U.S. in the near future. The proposals and maps can be found here: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/projects/seasonal-closures/index.shtml
Specifically, the area known as Corte Madera (a multi-pitch moderate climbing area in the San Diego backcountry) will be seasonally closed due to a policy partly based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Because of the south facing nature of this crag, a seasonal closure of the entire crag system is effectively a year round closure as the climbing season is during the closure period (Dec 1-May 30).

Rock climbing is so awesome because we can experience the great outdoors in such a connected and integral way. As a group, I know we strive to co-exist with our natural surroundings. This proposed closure is over-reaching and scares the heck out of me because it could lead to any crag being closed due to the presence of common birds, like the swallow or hummingbird. For example, if El Capitan were located in a national forest, the entire crag could be closed due to a common bird nesting OR the presence of an eagle nest that hasn’t been used for 15 years OR “other cliff-nesting species” that haven’t specifically been identified. Further, this proposed half mile radius closure could be applied to “alternate nest sites”, not just active nest sites. What exactly are alternate nest sites? Could they be ledges or large cracks?

There are a few facts worth noting that should be considered in this case, as well as similar cases. A national forest is not a national park, monument, or wilderness area. Management decisions need to be made to comply with federal law and for the public good (http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml). Recreation is a valid use of the national forest. Americans are getting fatter and more physically unfit. The national forest is an area where recreation is promoted. Closing the areas to the general public for a bird (such as the Prairie Falcon) that is not endangered (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf), not threatened, and has no special U.S. Forest Service protection or status (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/sensitive-species/sensitive-animals.pdf), is not right. If a species needs special protection, the standard 330 feet as applied to Golden Eagles (active nests) should be applied, not the 1 mile diameter idea as promoted in this situation. Furthermore, the MBTA, which is cited for this policy, is an act that applies to commerce, not passive recreation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sup_01_16_10_7_20_II.html). Linking all of these issues is a dangerous precedent and one that will undoubtedly lead to future conflicts with user groups in national forest areas. It is interesting to note that if the ½ mile radius (1 mile diameter) around the Corte Madera climbing area were correctly applied, it would inconveniently include the popular Espinosa off-road trail. I suspect the center of the ½ mile radius was moved so as not to include the Espinosa Trail. If the ½ mile radius was correctly placed in the center of the historical nesting sites, the Espinosa Trail would be closed as well. Maybe the public heat would be too much in that case? My point is that ½ mile radius is pretty darn big and onerous. Now you can see how all of a crag like El Cap could be closed due to one nest of a non-threatened species.

I do want to protect birds that need protection. I also believe that reasonable closures as already established elsewhere are appropriate. This new proposal is over-reaching and unwarranted. It is not just climbers that will be affected, but all recreational users. Please be active in your letter writing, donations and involvement. I am especially calling on all of the prominent climbers who spend so much time here on the internet to use your considerable influence to save our climbing areas. A lot is at stake because someday, we’ll look back at “the good old days” when most crags weren’t closed.