|
fredbob
Jun 25, 2005, 3:32 AM
Post #1 of 18
(8521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
The Forest Service has specifically asked climbers to please refrain from placing ANY signage at the crag or along the trail (or anywhere else for that matter) re: possible nesting falcons. [They will only remove them.]
If climbers wish to voluntarily avoid climbing on Eagles Buttress, fine, but please leave the signs at home.
Thanks,
Randy Vogel
PS: The Forest Service is studying the trail situation at Williamson as well as possible placement of 1 or 2 composting toilets at the crags. These projects will be expensive and require long term climber involvement. Any locals who would be interested in helping start a local climbers organization or helping raise money, please pm me.
|
|
|
|
|
landongw
Jun 25, 2005, 4:07 AM
Post #2 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2004
Posts: 114
|
In reply to: If climbers wish to voluntarily avoid climbing on Eagles Buttress, fine, but please leave the signs at home.
Why won't the FS let us put signs up during nesting? Do they think the signs are more harmful to the ecosystem than disrupting nesting of a rare species? Truthfully it's needed so that people are aware and the falcons can be protected. The forest service should be doing it, what are we paying our adventure passes for again!?
If we don't take care of the falcons it's going to cause us access issues eventually. I think everyone that goes there should pack in a sign and post it, the more the better until the FS gets the point and installs good ones.
|
|
|
|
|
iching
Jun 25, 2005, 7:41 AM
Post #3 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 92
|
It is the classic "Catch-22" that biologist create for themselves and climbers. They can't let climbers know where the Peregrine are but they expect them to know that the area is closed. In other words climbers in the area have been placed on "Double Secrete Probation" (Animal House). In this way biologist are able to ask for an enforcible CFR closure at which time they will post the closure and arrest anyone violating it. As occurred at Acker Rock on the Umpqua.
To counter this insanity people I've spoken to recommend sending a stamped letter directly to the Forest Supervisor politely stating that as a climber visiting the Williamson Area you would like the Forest to be proactive in notifying climbers of all seasonal wildlife closures by visibly posting these closures where climbers will see them.
By using the term "wildlife closure" and not "Peregrine closure" there will be no indication of what species is being addressed, just that a closure is in place.
Also state that you are aware that the Peregrine is no longer Federally Endagered, currently being surveyed for Federal Delisting, and proposed for delisting by the State of Oregon, but that you are interested in helping climbers reduce their impacts to ensitive wildlife in climbing areas regardless of their social or political status.
|
|
|
|
|
iching
Jun 25, 2005, 7:46 AM
Post #4 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 92
|
The last message should say "sensitive" not "ensensitive" wildlife.
Sorry, I was typing too fast.
|
|
|
|
|
iching
Jun 25, 2005, 8:13 AM
Post #5 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 92
|
I just read the message about crowds at Williamson. We may be talking about two different Williamson areas. Williamson in Oregon is a long ways from Pasadena and the only climbing crowds in Oregon are at Smith.
If so, the same recommendation would apply about sending a letter to the Forest Supervisor ASP before the Forest sees the need for a CFR closure because climbers are "unable to regulate themselves". The Federally delisting in the message still applies, but I'm not sure about Peregrine status by the state.
Understand, that the Forest Service has many parts. Biologist will be pushing one direction, Recreation will push another, and the Forest Supervisor or District Ranger will be caught in the middle trying to make an informed decision. You help to empower yourselves and people within the agency who wish to support you by "positively" and openly advocating your position.
Understand too, that every stamped letter asking for signs and asking for a partnership with climbers that will empower climbers to "self-manage" will be heard.
|
|
|
|
|
csgambill
Jun 25, 2005, 1:04 PM
Post #6 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2004
Posts: 607
|
You know what else would solve the problem?
-Kill all the falcons. Freeze some falcon sperm and eggs so we can respeciate years down the road. For now, I don't want birds impeding my climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
iching
Jun 25, 2005, 1:53 PM
Post #7 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 92
|
You might wait until you develop some facial hair before speaking your mind. I'd suggest maybe football may be a more suitable sport for you.
|
|
|
|
|
tripperjm
Jun 25, 2005, 3:25 PM
Post #8 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 10650
|
In reply to: You know what else would solve the problem? -Kill all the falcons. Freeze some falcon sperm and eggs so we can respeciate years down the road. For now, I don't want birds impeding my climbing.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's the same solution a group of us locals came up with too, well except the part about freezing falcon sperm and eggs. Now where is my shotgun, I can never find it when I need it.
I do appreciate Randy's efforts in this matter, however many of us locals, do not trust the forest service. BTW, why did they take down the Williamson parking and trail head sign?
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jun 26, 2005, 5:08 AM
Post #9 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
Very interesting comments, which for the most part are misinformed and way off base.
Fact: There is no seasonal, secret (or other) closure at Williamson.
Fact: If the FS decides to post signs, or institute a closure, it will.
Fact: Showing respect for the FS wishes (to not close or sign) is the best way of avoiding a closure.
Fact: The Williamson area is being closely monitored by biologists for other sensitive species (which are the primary concern). But the FS is working with the climbing community to resolve possible impacts and keep this valuable recreational resource open.
Fact: Thus far, the FS believes that climbers can be viable partners in this process.
But, hey, you guys go ahead a take the less than dubious advice provided above (I am not referring to Jack's sarcastic advice). Go ahead and put up your signs and write your letters. Go ahead and prove to the FS that climbers can't counted upon to work with land managers. Go ahead and help simplify the management process.................
After all, it is far easier and far less expensive to just ban climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jun 26, 2005, 5:18 AM
Post #10 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
In reply to: BTW, why did they take down the Williamson parking and trail head sign?
Actually, the District Ranger wanted the sign removed last year as they were concerned about liability....why it took a year, who knows..
In the FS's view, the sign encourages the general public to take a steep, technical and informal trail as though it were an official trail sanctioned by the FS. If Joe Sixpack were to wander on down and slip off, they are concerned that they would get sued. Frankly, given the propensity of people to sue someone else for their own mistakes, the scenerio is not completely beyond possibility.
There is a real difference between allowing climbers to hike down this way and advertising the trail's existence to every passing motorist.
But this sort of begs the question. To which it can be honestly said: No one is quite sure why the sign was placed in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
iching
Jun 27, 2005, 7:21 AM
Post #11 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 92
|
I'm reading two things.
1) That there are a lot of climbers who are unaware of the peregrine closure. :shock:
2) That the FS is working with climbers to resolve issues. Also that the FS does not want signs posting a Peregrine closure.
There is a major disconnect here some where big guy :roll: .
You state that there is no closure to climbing.
When you talk about the presence of peregrine and no closure I assume you are saying that there is no CFR closure? Because there is not a CFR closure, there is no signing, because it cannot be enforced and would have to be voluntary? That seems to be the average sound track. :!:
So where does working with climbers to resolve issues come in? I'm puzzled. Are you waiting for enough unaware climbers to enter the area to justify the need for a CFR closure so that it is then mandatory, no longer voluntary, and people can be arrested, before it is signed? :?:
Doesn't sound like a "Win-Win" ideology of proactive management to me. Especially when I'm reading that climbers are voicing a need for voluntary compliance and signs to help them self-manage the area. :idea:
You sound like someone who is communicating with the agency as a representative for the climbers. If you are and not considering this latest chatter your representation may not be inclusive of your constituency. :(
|
|
|
|
|
lambone
Jun 27, 2005, 3:07 PM
Post #12 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1399
|
In Oregon the FS asked climbers/falcon monitors not to post signs or notify anyone about the birds beacause they fear poachers will come in and take the chicks to sell on the Falcon market, apparently they are quite valuable and there are people out there who hunt for them.
Maybe this is one concern they have.
|
|
|
|
|
thrmaln
Jun 27, 2005, 4:29 PM
Post #13 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2005
Posts: 160
|
Hello All,
While I understand that Fredbob is trying to work with the proper people and get others to abide by their rules, I find fault with the whole methodology to the falcon issue. No dissrespect to Fred, he is just passing the required information on to us in hopes we will abide by it. However, the fact that they don't want any signage (unless the poaching issue is realy a possibility) seems like backward thinking to me. I have to agree with most of what iching has said. It just seems odd to me that if they are really watching williamson to see if it has wildlife issues in relation to the climbers pressence, then the least they can do is give us a fighting chance to not piss any naturlaists or federal people off. It sucks to know we are being looked at through a magnifying glass, but not be able to do our best to keep those that are unaware of any Falcon issue from causing the powers that be to find fault with our infringement on any wildlife. Just another classic case of a government catch 22; and yes, Fredbob is correct, it is much easier to ban climbing then to work with us. I just wish, the powers that be would step back and see what we are trying to do and maybe they could come up with a method of informing us about closures. Hell, while unsightly, they could drape a net or portion of chain link fence material over the crag with the falcons on it and then it couldn't be climbed until removed once the falcons moved on.
On a side note, I climbed at Williamson for the first time about a month and a half ago. I used the main trail (dont think it was closed then, hope not) and wandered over to the area where the falcons are. If it were not for the sign that was posted by the climbing comunity, I would have never known and climbed the wall. So the sign is working for the most part. However, I did see a few that completely dissregarded it and it PISSED me off and I spoke with the climbers afterward.
Best regards,
Marc Webster
|
|
|
|
|
lambone
Jun 28, 2005, 5:05 AM
Post #14 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1399
|
like I said, I was told directly by USFS Falcon taggers that it is the long standing school of thought in the feild that it is best NOT to inform the public of nesting Falcons. Due to the fact that is may cause more disturbance to the birds.
Sure this doesn't make sense when it comes to climbers, but don't assume the FS views climbers any differently then the general public.
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jun 28, 2005, 11:05 PM
Post #15 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
Lambone is correct, the USFS does not want signs placed because they are very concerned that "a sign will draw more people up there and disturb the birds." Poachers and others are a real concern.
To address the other "comments." There is no closure of the crag and no plans by the FS to close any part of Williamson Rock. Since appears iching was confused about my post(s), I will try to make it more clear. The two sensitive species that are being monitored and upon which we are working with the FS are not raptors [falcons].
And, contrary to the suggestion, this is not an issue of climbers not being able to regulate themselves either. Local climbers (despite the rhetoric) are a pretty responsive lot. In addition, the District Ranger and FS biologists are well aware of the situation.
I am sure you are trying to helpful, but just as I would not seek to intervene or opine about an access issue in your local area (about which I knew nothing), perhaps it would be best to understand the issue first before providing your well intentioned (but misleading and potentially counterproductive) two cents.
iching: feel free to PM me if you have more questions.
Randy Vogel
|
|
|
|
|
iching
Jun 30, 2005, 1:46 PM
Post #16 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 92
|
:lol: Granted, I do bring some baggage to the table that is not Williamson related. This issue is bigger than just Williamson as is be any compromise you are able to develop.
The issue of not signing sensitive seasonal closures when the climbers are asking for them is not new on FS lands when related to Archaeological and Peregrine sites :arrow: .
However, passive language could be (and has been used on other Forests) that does not indicate what the closure is directly related to. i.e. "Notice: The Eagle's Buttress is closed to Technical Rock Climbing until further notice." (include a map of the closure). Partnering with the Access Fund on the sign and displaying their logo can also increase the signs visibility to climbers. :idea:
Finally, realize that the FS can develop a one-size-fits-all "specialist centered" mind-set that becomes difficult to move from. But, this does not mean there is not a valid need or ability for compromise. When I read of climbers trying to place closures signs, I'm reading that there is a need. :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
crackmd
Jul 23, 2005, 2:15 AM
Post #17 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 444
|
I'm finiding this situation very disturbing. I climbed Williamson yesterday and noticed two guys climbing the buttress in question, the Eagles Roost via Being There. It is obvious that word is not getting out via RC.com and there were no signs there to inform them of the presence of the bird. Naturally, the bird was real pissed because of their presence. Unfortunately, the dudes were tools who refused to come down when I told them about the voluntary closure; they did a couple more laps on the second pitch. It seems that spreading the word via RC.com is not real effective. There has to be a way out of this "Catch-22". Let's put our heads together and figure it out.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jul 23, 2005, 3:52 AM
Post #18 of 18
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Dear (everyone),
fredbob is Randy Vogel, as in, the Randy Vogel that wrote your JTree guidebook, the Randy Vogel who ran the Access Fund as its first president, the Randy Vogel who signed up over 1200 people to fight a poorly-thought-out bolting ban in the SBNF, all of this in between putting up some of the classic routes in Josh and all over SoCal.
So mind your fucking manners should you choose to disagree with him. Jack was being sarcastic about blowin' them thur pigeons out the air. Some of the people posting here, I'm not so sure about.
Randy, if there's anything the site can do to help out, let me know. I have been climbing at Williamson on weekdays lately and would be happy to assist in any way I am able. If that means putting a huge blinking banner on the screen of every user visiting from SoCal, then so be it... people need to be (stay) informed. (Some of the partner-search and routesdb changes may also allow us to tailor front-page news so that people rapidly receive notice when something important happens at their local crags; the Access Fund has been working with us on this and will continue to.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
