Forums: Climbing Information: Access Issues & Closures:
ACCESS ISSUE in SD - Could Spread to you
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Access Issues & Closures

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


bandycoot


Dec 21, 2006, 7:21 AM
Post #1 of 37 (8408 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

ACCESS ISSUE in SD - Could Spread to you  (North_America: United_States: California: San_Diego_County)
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yo peeps, time to act. I got this in an e-mail today. I plan on doing my part since this potential closure is bullshit!

Dangerous New Precedent Could Close
Access to Multiple National Forest
Recreational Areas

Stop the Closures…Act NOW!
-- Instructions Below --

Deadline for public comment ends on
January 12, 2007

The Cleveland National Forest in San Diego, California is about to impose access closures to ALL forms of recreational use at four National Forest areas: Corte Madera Mountain, El Cajon Mountain, Rock Mountain, and Eagle Peak. Very alarming is that this information is not available to the public via the Forest Service website, the Federal Register, or SOPA (Schedule Of Proposed Actions) as required within the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969.

These closures will ban ALL human activity within a ½ mile radius of any current or future golden eagle, prairie falcon, or “other cliff-nesting species” nests, even though these “other” species types are not explicitly identified in the proposed closures. However, given that the closures are in part being based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916, of the over 800 birds listed, many are quite common such as the swallow, hummingbird, and raven. The results could be catastrophic by not only closing local areas, but establishing legal precedent for widespread closures across all U.S. National Forest! These closures affect climbers, hikers, backpackers, mountain-bikers, horseback riders, and off-road enthusiasts alike, setting legal precedent to close off multiple recreational areas within any National Forest!!!

Join this important letter writing campaign (instructions at the bottom) and tell the Cleveland National Forest that you oppose all closures of this type! If no comments are received during the public comment period, the Forest Service will assume that we support their proposals and they will close our recreational areas.

Tell the Cleveland National Forest that you oppose these closures because:

1. These closures are inconsistent with the USFS multiple use mandate, “as set forth in law…to meet the diverse needs of people,” and as such do not adequately take into consideration the unique value of climbing, hiking, backpacking, mountain-biking, horseback riding, and off-roading on forest lands.
2. The Forest Service is misinterpreting its legal authority to use the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), together with the Golden Eagle Protection Act, to close large tracks of our public lands for passive uses, be it hiking, riding, picnicking, or rock climbing. This is a radically extreme method to limit recreational use on our public lands given that the MBTA was initially entered into by congress in 1916 to prevent the over-commercialization of “migratory” birds.
3. In particular, the Corte Madera proposed closure is being based on the “historical” presence of eagles since golden eagles have not nested there for over 15 years. As such, this measure is extreme and onerous and based on unscientific reasoning.
4. The proposed closure limit distances are arbitrary because they are not based on exact nest locations, not accurately depicted from presumed nests on the USFS closure proposal maps, or based on sound scientific evidence.
5. The Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon are not threatened or endangered species and therefore do not need drastic protection measures like these closures to breed successfully.
6. Climbers, Hikers, and other National Forest users have co-existed with wildlife peacefully for decades; therefore, among other factors, changing climate conditions and decline of natural prey populations are more likely to blame for any suspected loss in bird numbers.
7. These closures are inconsistent with bird closure precedent already established nation-wide.

Simply cut-&-paste the above reasons to TWO separate letters (added comments definitely help)
Title each of your letters separately (it is VERY IMPORTANT that the titles are accurate)
First letter -- Comments to proposed seasonal closures at Corte Madera Mountain & El Cajon Mountain
Second letter -- Comments to proposed seasonal closures at Rock Mountain & Eagle Peak
Send directly to the Cleveland National Forest at:

kwinter@fs.fed.us
Kirsten Winter
Cleveland National Forest
10845 Rancho Bernardo Rd #200
San Diego, Ca 92127


(This post was edited by bandycoot on Dec 22, 2006, 2:37 PM)


esoteric1


Dec 21, 2006, 7:58 AM
Post #2 of 37 (8379 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 705

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

where is the access fund? does the southern california chapter really believe in the mission statement? I want to hear straight from the lips why DAVE KENNEDY isnt making this information known, and why he isnt leading the fight here.


alpinismo_flujo


Dec 21, 2006, 8:23 AM
Post #3 of 37 (8366 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 603

Re: [esoteric1] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

He's out climbing....


bandycoot


Dec 21, 2006, 8:23 AM
Post #4 of 37 (8366 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [esoteric1] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I just e-mailed Dave Kennedy about it and asked him to send the above information out to his e-mail list. If you want to contact him, his e-mail is:

dpoint@utm.net

He is the regional coordinator (or whatever it is called) for the AF.


fancyclaps


Dec 21, 2006, 8:36 AM
Post #5 of 37 (8355 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 210

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Language nazi arrives!

Regarding point #2 in the letter, if you are talking about areas of land, the proper word is "tract" not "track"

Language nazi away!


(This post was edited by fancyclaps on Dec 21, 2006, 8:41 AM)


bandycoot


Dec 21, 2006, 9:22 AM
Post #6 of 37 (8333 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [fancyclaps] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks for the bump, if nothing else...

I'm personally going to e-mail and send some snail mail. Thanks to everyone who writes in! Let's keep these beautiful areas open for climbing!

Josh


ajp


Dec 21, 2006, 10:22 AM
Post #7 of 37 (8310 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 6

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

E-mails away!

Aaron


pyrosis


Dec 21, 2006, 1:34 PM
Post #8 of 37 (8273 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 150

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Whoa.. WTF?? How did you find out about this? If this goes through, from the way you make it sound, it could mean the end of all climbing on forest service lands! I will certainly be sending out letters. Thanks for keeping us informed!

-Tavis


bandycoot


Dec 21, 2006, 1:58 PM
Post #9 of 37 (8263 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [pyrosis] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I found out about it from Jeff Brown and Erik Roed. Jeff Brown was the one who composed the copied e-mail above. I'm not sure what Dave Kennedy is doing about this, if anything, but I feel like the AF dropped the ball on this one for whatever reason. It sounds like the Forest Service was going to try to sneak this one by and didn't advertise it on their web site even. Fucking weak sauce. Please people, put up a fight on this one!

Josh Higgins


bandycoot


Dec 21, 2006, 2:00 PM
Post #10 of 37 (8261 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Here's a sample letter my friend wrote. Remember, you have to send TWO SEPARATE letters for the two pairs of areas. Read my first post if that's unclear.

To: Cleveland National Forecast
From:__________ concerned outdoor enthusiast
Subject: Comments to proposed seasonal closures at Rock Mountain & Eagle Peak

I am vehemently opposed to the proposed closure of Corte Madera Mountain, El Cajon Mountain, Rock Mountain, and Eagle Peak to recreational activities such as climbing, backpacking and mountain biking. These proposed measures are draconian, unfair, undemocratic, and run counter to the spirit of the National Forecast Service multiple use mandate: “to meet the diverse needs of people.

The Forest Service is misinterpreting its legal authority to use the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), together with the Golden Eagle Protection Act, to close large tracks of our public lands for passive uses, be it hiking, riding, picnicking, or rock climbing. This is a radically extreme method to limit recreational use on our public lands given that the MBTA was initially entered into by congress in 1916 to prevent the over-commercialization of “migratory” birds.

In particular, the Corte Madera proposed closure is being based on the “historical” presence of eagles since golden eagles have not nested there for over 15 years. As such, this measure is extreme and onerous and based on unscientific reasoning.

The proposed closure limit distances are arbitrary because they are not based on exact nest locations, not accurately depicted from presumed nests on the USFS closure proposal maps, or based on sound scientific evidence.

The Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon are not threatened or endangered species and therefore do not need drastic protection measures like these closures to breed successfully.

Climbers, Hikers, and other National Forest users have co-existed with wildlife peacefully for decades; therefore, among other factors, changing climate conditions and decline of natural prey populations are more likely to blame for any suspected loss in bird numbers.

These closures are inconsistent with bird closure precedent already established nation-wide. I urge you to reject this ban on recreational activities in the Cleveland National Forest.

Sincerely yours,


bandycoot


Dec 22, 2006, 8:01 AM
Post #11 of 37 (8228 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Dave Kennedy is working on this issue. If you want to receive the Access Fund update from him, go to the Access Fund website and join SANDAC. He said there will be an e-mail coming.

I found out about this issue in an e-mail from a fellow climber. I've e-mailed Dave Kennedy and look forward to his official reply through SANDAC/AF and I've also e-mailed the Cleveland National Forest (CNF) and they told me they would mail me more information.

In addition, here's an update I received:

Sorry about this update, the CNF e-mail server can't handle so many e-mails going to Kirsten's inbox. Please see the update I received below:

Two things...update from me on flyer, and NEW e-mailing instructions from the forest service web-systems-administrator (so please forward this update to everyone you already mass mailed...sorry, but they just called back and said kirsten winter's e-mail won't be able to handle a serious response).

1st -- (important) New flyer with updates, corrections (oops, and instructions.

2nd -- (most important) If you e-mail your response and it kicks back, your comment will not be recognized or counted...if this happens you either MUST send in a hard copy, or forward it to <mailroom_r5_cleveland@fs.fed.us> Attn. Kirsten Winter. This way if her system crashes (I certainly hope it does), all your VERY IMPORTANT comments will be saved, counted, and make a difference!

And hey, if their mailroom server crashes, all the better...annnnnnnd, should this actually happen to you (wouldn't that be great...let's shoot for it), please send in a hard copy letter anyway...I say we run-up the scoreboard on this one!!!

Print tons of copies and pass them out to everyone you see over the holidays!

p.s. personally, I think a hard copy letter mailed in is always better (heard once that agencies equate ten e-mails to one actual letter), but whatever works for you, just please, please, please get those comments in before January 12th!!!

p.s.s and to those of you who've received two "updates", sorry for that too...it's been a very busy week...the forest service printed their draft proposal on Dec. 11th, we received it on the 14th, i've been trying to get answers from them on important question ever since...and just haven't slept all that much!

o.k., thanks again...Happy Holidays!!!


ladysmith


Dec 22, 2006, 11:04 AM
Post #12 of 37 (8205 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 9

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Some explanation of the 7 points outlined in the opposition flyer:


1. Inconsistency with USFS “multiple-use mandate” = Corte Madera, El Cajon Mtn and Rock Mtn are located on National Forest lands. These are not National Parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges or any other special designation areas, and as such, must be managed under the multiple-use concept. Please note that other public activities allowed on forest service lands include mining, logging, grazing and other much more invasive and harmful activities, yet passive recreational uses (hiking, climbing) are being targeted.
2. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects “migratory” birds from “take”, which includes the killing of birds, destruction of active nest or eggs, hunting, collecting, or shooting of migratory birds. This law does not include harm or harass in the explicit definition of “take”, and therefore; this law does not specifically prohibit activities that could potentially “harm” these birds. The FS is misinterpreting section 715n of the MBTA to enact widespread closures. The MBTA was enacted by congress in 1918. The Forest Service is using ideals, morals, and current thinking and melding them to fit a law that congress never intended to be interpreted this way.
3. Corte Madera has not supported nesting eagles since 1991. The FS is basing this closure on an inactive nest. How can they close an area in our public lands for an animal that does not even exist where they say it does?
4. The closure limits are arbitrary…The historical nest at Corte Madera is located on the cliff face. The center of the closure circle as shown on the FS map, is nowhere near the cliff face, it is shifted north. This was done to avoid closing a portion of the Espinoza Trail which would incite the very powerful off-road community.
5. The Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon are not listed as endangered or threatened by the State or Federal government. Widespread closures are usually enforced by land managers because they are required to protect species under the Endangered Species Act. The prairie falcon population in San Diego County has historically been low and continues to remain stable. The species of concern designation that the falcon receives from California Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service is based on the rapid decline of the raptors in the central valley of California. It is also important to remember that San Diego is at the edge of the range of the prairie falcon, and this will result in a more sparse population than areas in the middle of its range. The golden eagle is fully protected in the state of California, which means you can not hunt golden eagles or destroy their active nests (eggs, chicks, etc). The San Diego population of eagles is declining due to habitat loss. The explosion of development throughout the county has resulted in eagle nesting locations and foraging habitat being lost. The decline in eagles has nothing to do with forest service visitors hiking, biking and rock climbing in large open space tracts.
6. The Forest Service and all land managers need to do more research on the topic of raptor nesting disturbance. Not one of the references listed (of which 70% are more than 20 years old) specifically targets rock climbing as the cause for declines in breeding success. A host of other factors could be responsible for unsuccessful breeding to include: drought conditions, drop in prey populations, increase in predator populations (snakes, turkey vulture, etc), climate change, death of breeding adult (age, incident), aging breeding pair, chemical bioaccumulation, pest or disease, and others. Rock climbers should not take the blame for what is likely a combination of factors that affect raptor breeding. Show me a study that makes a strong correlation, better yet, can defend a causal correlation between rock climbing and the death of incubating eggs, chicks, fledglings or the inability of adults to breed or make nest.
7. This closure is defined as a ½ mile radius around nests or alternate nest sites to all human activity. Precedent across the country has been a seasonal closure of a 330 foot buffer around each active nest, resulting in protection of the nesting raptors and also preserves some climbing in the area. Examples of seasonal, partial cliff closures using the 330 foot buffer include: Boulder Canyon, CO, Cochise Stronghold, AZ, Whitesides Mtn, NC, Lovers Leap, CA, and Acker Rock, OR. This closure is more than 5 times the size of the widely accepted closures. The Forest Service is not being consistent with precedent and with regional guidelines.


Lets act and let the Forest Service know that we oppose the closure in its current form


(This post was edited by ladysmith on Dec 22, 2006, 2:24 PM)


hasbeen


Dec 22, 2006, 12:57 PM
Post #13 of 37 (8174 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 16, 2003
Posts: 543

Re: [ladysmith] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

When passing this information on it's important to note that this could happen anywhere. It affects every climber in the USA.

If you're not already sold that this in an important issue or would like more clarification (hopefully not necessary in this group) read my posting here:

http://blog.myspace.com/...f2-af09-3ddad511532a

Like one of my friends said, "We better act now before they tell me I can't climb in my garage because I'm disturbing the termites."

Thanks for taking the time to do this.


bandycoot


Dec 22, 2006, 1:50 PM
Post #14 of 37 (8158 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [hasbeen] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Here's the text of the two closures (there are two distinct potential closures):

http://www.climbingsandiego.com/access/elcajoncortemadera.pdf

http://www.climbingsandiego.com/access/rockmtneaglepk.pdf

The come from this website:

http://www.climbingsandiego.com/forum/

Thanks to everyone who is writing in! If you write in, post up and keep this on the front page. Remember, this could set legal precedent and spread. You don't have to be a San Diego climber to have interest in this one.

Josh Higgins


pyrosis


Dec 22, 2006, 3:31 PM
Post #15 of 37 (8128 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 150

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

*BUMP*

...and...

Its interesting that the whole issue of the threat of bolt chopping up at ECM got so much attention last winter, whereas this, much much LARGER threat, isn't being discussed nearly as much. I admit, not as exciting as some dude going psycho. But still!

Send those letters, dammit!

-T


Partner blazesod


Dec 22, 2006, 5:54 PM
Post #16 of 37 (8074 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 247

Re: [pyrosis] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
<snip> I found out about this in an email from a fellow climber.<snip>

Hey Bandycoot,
The information trail makes me skeptical. I couldn't find anything about it on the access fund web site. Last update for San Diego mentioned Raptor nesting and Santee Boulders potentially being sold.

Do you have any official public records of this, like news paper articles, RFC or something? I could not find anything on the Forrest service site about it.

Don't get me wrong, I would fully love to raise the banner and get the war machine rolling for everyone. I love the outdoors as much as the next guy. I am just playing devil's advocate... (not the user) on this one.

Cheers,
Dave :)


(This post was edited by blazesod on Dec 22, 2006, 7:00 PM)


tradrenn


Dec 22, 2006, 6:42 PM
Post #17 of 37 (8059 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 15, 2005
Posts: 2990

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bandycoot wrote:
Here's the text of the two closures (there are two distinct potential closures):

http://www.climbingsandiego.com/...cajoncortemadera.pdf

http://www.climbingsandiego.com/...s/rockmtneaglepk.pdf

The come from this website:

http://www.climbingsandiego.com/forum/

Thanks to everyone who is writing in! If you write in, post up and keep this on the front page. Remember, this could set legal precedent and spread. You don't have to be a San Diego climber to have interest in this one.

Josh Higgins

Made your links clickable.

Hope this helps

Also: Have you guys look into "online petition" ?
Would that be an option ?


moose_droppings


Dec 22, 2006, 7:16 PM
Post #18 of 37 (8047 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3352

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE in SD - Could Spread to you [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

1st time I saw this thread and it jumped out at me.
SD is the official postal abbreviation for South Dakota. Had me really worried for a sec.

But yes, I'm still worried. Our free (our taxes) and somewhat unbridled use of Forest Service land will undoubtedly come under the microscope by some who hold themselves in high esteem. I've watched many other uses and areas of our National Forest analyzed out of existence. One by one they succumb to the will of the Forest Service despite the loud and many numbered wishes of the people. Voices fallen on deaf ears. More land year after year taken away from public use, yet a larger population each year wanting to leave behind the masses and nurture solitude.

The pot of water gets fuller, yet the fire under it intensifies. Something has got to give. Unsure


bandycoot


Dec 23, 2006, 11:38 AM
Post #19 of 37 (7991 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [blazesod] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

blazesod wrote:
In reply to:
<snip> I found out about this in an email from a fellow climber.<snip>

Hey Bandycoot,
The information trail makes me skeptical. I couldn't find anything about it on the access fund web site. Last update for San Diego mentioned Raptor nesting and Santee Boulders potentially being sold.

Do you have any official public records of this, like news paper articles, RFC or something? I could not find anything on the Forrest service site about it.

Don't get me wrong, I would fully love to raise the banner and get the war machine rolling for everyone. I love the outdoors as much as the next guy. I am just playing devil's advocate... (not the user) on this one.

Cheers,
Dave :)

You play Devil's Advocate while the rest of us do something productive for the climbing community. The guy who is much more informed than me is T-REX on supertopo. If you have questions, contact him. A similar thread, where he is responding is found here:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=297228

(sorry it's not active. I highlighted it and clicked the url button but it just deletes the link and it says url in its place. I'm not internet savy.) The proposed closure text was finished on 12/14/06 I believe, and I doubt they keep their website updated daily. It's only been a week. I e-mailed Dave Kennedy and he said an e-mail will be forthcoming, but I haven't heard from him. He is the AF representative. If you doubt that, check their website. The text of the closure is linked here. I'm not sure what else you want. Anyways, just because the AF is silent on the issue doesn't mean that it isn't real. Although I am a member, I realize they aren't god.

If you have any information, or send in a letter to the forest service, then post up! Let's see some support!

Josh Higgins


moose_droppings


Dec 23, 2006, 12:39 PM
Post #20 of 37 (7983 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3352

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

here's that url:

http://www.supertopo.com/...html?topic_id=297228


furbucket


Jan 8, 2007, 10:43 AM
Post #21 of 37 (7798 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2003
Posts: 50

Re: [moose_droppings] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Protection of raptors and other bird species is important. However, the Forest Service is just taking the easy way out by ordering arbitrary seasonal closures. Golden eagle, prairie falcon, and other cliff nesting species are not at the brink of extirpation or extinction, either in San Diego County or nationwide. The Forest Service needs to take the time to do the proper analysis and determine where these species are actually nesting, and then implement seasonal closures if necessary around active nest sites.

Here are some points that I don't think have been made yet:

1. Immediate action is not necessary. There is time to come up with a reasonable solution that will benefit all parties. The status of these species and the true causes of any declines, both in San Diego County and nationwide, should be considered. Golden eagles and prairie falcons are not listed under the Endangered Species Act. Prairie falcons have a stable population with San Diego County and are considered a species of least concern by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources because of their wide habitat range and over 5,000 pairs nationwide. The golden eagle is declining in San Diego County, but is increasing elsewhere. The decline in San Diego County is attributed to factors other than recreation, such as development of habitat and urban sprawl. The golden eagle has a wide range throughout North America. The status of these species should be taken into account when considering the drastic measure of closure. These species are not on the brink of extinction, not even close, and actions that would allow for recreational activity should be considered. Banning all recreational activities for a species that may or may not be nesting within the recreational area and is not on the brink of extinction is completely unnecessary.

2. The Forest Service’s own plan requires conservation education before closures. Part 3, Appendix D of the 2005 Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan requires that Conservation Education be implemented before any Perimeter Control unless immediate measures are needed. These species are not at the brink of extinction and do not require an immediate seasonal closure. In fact, there is no proof that there is a conflict between golden eagles, prairie falcons, and other cliff-nesting species at these locations. The Forest Service should adhere to their management plan and implement Conservation Education along with any needed monitoring and studies before resorting to Perimeter Control measures such as seasonal closures.

3. Migratory birds are not protected by law from mere disturbance under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act specifically protects migratory birds and nests from possession, sale, purchase, barter, transport, import, export, and take. Take is defined as means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempts to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (50 CFR 10.12). Recreational uses, such as hiking and rock climbing, would not result in any of these activities. Recreational uses have a remote possibility of disturbing migratory birds during their nesting period, however, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not consider disturbance to be take and, therefore, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not provide the legal authority for this closure. The Forest Service should examine mining, logging, grazing and other high impact uses that could actually result in take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

4. The only species protected by law from disturbance is the golden eagle. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) does include “disturb” within its definition of take. This definition of take would only apply to bald and golden eagles, not to other raptor species such as prairie falcon. It is also important to note that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has not defined “disturb” and recently released a draft environmental assessment to define “disturb” under the BGEPA. Currently, the preferred alternative is to define disturb to require both an effect to individual eagles and a biological impact, such as nest abandonment. FWS may also define disturb to require an action directed at one or more eagles that results in death or injury of the eagles. It is unlikely that recreational activities, including rock climbing, will meet either definition of disturb as proposed by the FWS. Keep in mind these are large recreational areas. What are the odds of coming across a nest during a hike or climb?

5. There are no studies out there that demonstrate that climbing is causing the decline of raptor species. The decline in raptor numbers can be attributed to development of habitat and increased urban sprawl, not recreational activities. In particular, golden eagles are electrocuted by power lines, caught in hunting traps, and poisoned by private landowners. Although it has been shown that golden eagles may abandon nests if they are disturbed, closing down entire areas because golden eagles, prairie falcons or other raptors may nest there is too drastic and goes against the priority goal of the Forest Service to “provide high-quality outdoor recreational opportunities on forests and grasslands, while sustaining natural resources, to help meet the nation’s recreation demands.”

6. A reasonable buffer around active nest sites would protect species and allow recreation to continue. Monitoring should be conducted as proposed in the December 11, 2006 scoping letter and closures implemented as necessary for specific nest sites. There is no reason to close an entire area for nesting activity that may or may not occur. If nests are observed, a reasonable 330-foot buffer should be enforced. One-half mile is an impractical and unnecessary buffer. The 330-foot buffer requirement has been implemented for golden eagle in the past and is proposed for bald eagle as part of the Draft National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. A 330-foot buffer around an observed nest would not significantly curtail recreation activities while still providing adequate protection for raptor species to rear their eggs and fledge their young.

7. If the closure proposal goes forward, an environmental document needs to be prepared! As proposed, this closure would go beyond short-term resource protection and should not be considered a routine administrative action, as stated in the December 11, 2006 scoping letter. There is no indication that this closure will be short-term in either the scoping letter dated December 11, 2006 or the Schedule of Proposed Actions posted January 2, 2007. A categorical exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act would not be appropriate for a long-term, seasonal closure of this magnitude. Closure of these large recreational areas would indeed have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, diminishing the quality of life for people who use these recreational areas. The closure also directly conflicts with the mission and requirements of the Forest Service. We need an opportunity to comment on at least an environmental assessment that would give us the reasoning behind such a closure and allow recreational users the opportunity to propose a compromise.

Sorry so long and technical. But hopefully this helps people realize that there is a middle ground here that we need to strive for to protect both birds and recreational access.

-Holly


bandycoot


Jan 9, 2007, 10:22 AM
Post #22 of 37 (7716 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028

Re: [furbucket] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Could someone please move this to Access Issues and Closures? Thanks!

Josh


trex


Jan 9, 2007, 2:39 PM
Post #23 of 37 (7685 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 12

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Linking it to the "Leavittator":

<http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=303688>

o.k., someone help me out here...how do i make the link workable?


(This post was edited by trex on Jan 9, 2007, 2:43 PM)


sonso45


Jan 9, 2007, 2:40 PM
Post #24 of 37 (7683 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2002
Posts: 962

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE - San Diego County [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

My emails have been sent. I hope we can get a reasonable response from the nat'l forest.


starboadrshinesgreen


Jan 19, 2007, 10:49 PM
Post #25 of 37 (7561 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 19, 2007
Posts: 1

Re: [bandycoot] ACCESS ISSUE in SD - Could Spread to you [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

These guys were hammer drilling into the face of Eagle Peak last March. --That would be during the peak of nesting season. We called to them to stop, but they ignored us. Nine of us were hiking to the top that day. They were photographed and filmed on 28X power. Maybe you can id them. A case where a few ruined it for all of us. Forest Service told me that they were not supposed to be there, but on the flip side of that the FS continues to fail to post clear signage to that effect on the Kiosk at the trail head. I included my complaints about this lack of clarity in my comments to them. It started to rain lightly but they continued to hammer drill and climb for several hours. One thing you might do is ask your representatives to give the FS more money for proper law enforcement and management. Maybe then they wouldnt have to do these sweeping closures. There was a third guy but I don't have him pictured here.
Attachments: IMGA0193.JPG (111 KB)
  IMGA0192.JPG (110 KB)
  IMGA0196.JPG (111 KB)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Access Issues & Closures

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook