got it -thanks Christian..!

Christian, "in 2005" refers to a citation given a guide that placed bolts on forest lands; the judge dropped the charges without setting a dangerous precedent. Your fact refers to a climber placing bolts on forest land. I and many others do that often. It does not pertain to the arbitrary bird closures of a climbing area.

Climbers are constantly encroaching into the lands populated by animals. We should be good stewards and respect all life. I like the partial closures idea. A very public and easily monitored area, such as granite mtn in Prescott would help to resolve this issue. I have made comments to that effect and have had no response from the managers of our public lands.

As far as losing Zonerland, it was Fred (a retiree semi-permanently camped nearby) that began the public outcry leading to the bolting ban. In retrospect, we could have done a better job of being inconspicuous and subtle. It became the place to bolt. Remember though that sport was beginning to take off and people came from all over to bolt. It was definitely not treated as a wilderness area and we were wrong. Then everyone went to Queen Creek and was happy.

Whoah guys, I aplogize wholeheartedly for stirring up a 'can of worms' so tyo speak, I guess I was just kinda careless in posting that, didn't really think anybody read those posts or it would have much effect. In actuality we did NOT know about the Falcon closures before we climbed, I thought the dates were later on in the spring, and yes it was stupid to advertise we climbed there, I guess my personal feelings regarding the impact climbers have on raptor nesting interfered with common sense there a bit. I wasn't really thinking about the effects on the larger climbing community in terms of restricting access to such places in the future. You guys are right, regardless of the science/proof behind the bans, we should respect them as such and not climb while they are in effect. Point well taken. Again, sorry guys!! I guess I'm just kind of a dumb kid haha...
Best Regards,
Phil.

You're awesome Phil, humility is more refreshing than beer, and has much fewer calories.

Nice Phil

Okay, okay, I guess I was out of line, too. I am sorry that....uh what the hell am I saying?????

NO MORE CLOSURES!!!!

Well said Phil!

I second what Braxton said! Delete!!!!!!!!

Phil, good post, clear words.

With regard to this part though,

I agree with Greg and say don't delete.

Since when does the strategy of sweeping things under the rug really progress human communication, open new doors, or help different sides understand each other better or come to a better consensus? Never, in my experience....and you can see this doesn't work very well in action all over the world.

HealyJe: Thank you for the insight into the reasoning behind the raptor/falcon closures in climbing areas; I guess I underestimated how fragile and easily disturbed their nests and habitat are. While I may not agree with the closures personally, I do agree that these are amazing creatures and we should make an effort to share the rock with them. You seem to know quite a bit on this subject, it was interesting reading a climber's perspective on this. Thanks for the time to clarify this, I appreciate it.

As for anyone else I've offended, I'm sorry!! Don't know what else to say. Everyone slip's up occasionally I guess. And hey shouldn't we all be out climbing instead of lurking on mountainproject? This is a great website and I think all y'all are good people, but let's not get caught up in the details here so to speak. If I sounded kinda cynical or sarcastic when I responded to 'Eyes of Green''s initial post I apologize.... honestly I didn't mean any harm by it, I guess at the time after having climbed all day there and not seen a sign of a single raptor or falcon it seemed kinda silly, plus we didn't even know it was closed. Let's all get back out climbing and on with life!! :)
Best Regards,
Phil.

Great info Helyje, but what is the scientific proof that climbers nearby will cause the falcons to diminish? I keep hearing the same words almost exactly that a falcon will knock their eggs out of the nest or something like that if a human is nearby. I understand their recovery has taken a lot of work, but where is the proof that my walking or climbing nearby will destroy this wonderful work?

First let me say that I have been a member of the Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited and a few other great organizations.

These closures are BS. I Hate to beat a dead bird but the birds have come back despite the increased number of climbers. The FS people in Arizona just keep having closures despite the fact that the population is so large that falconers are allowed to get permits to remove chicks from nests to use in their hobby/sport.

Healyje you may know of some studies and you wrote it so I believe you, but down here they have no studies that I know of or that they can produce when discussing the issue. So for them to have closures with no science to support it bugs me.

I do not know of any studies that prove climbers cause nest failures. I do know that DDT was the cause of the birds demise and we don't use it anymore. Gotta get my rant out. Wish we could sue them or something.

Even so Phil has the message and will act more responsibly in the future so it is all good.

Okay - understood. However, here's food for thought based on your comment: Wouldn't, then, whoever is reading through this thread come to the conclusion that of the 12 (or so; i didn't actually count) people involved, only one was at fault. And... that *one* person at fault has learned [from this thread] the wrong he has done and has stated that he will be honoring the closures as a result.

I see both sides and feel fairly confident i have a solid understanding of the impact of leaving the thread as well as taking it down. I believe that the benefits of leaving outweigh any damages that may result. IOW, i would jump at the opportunity to get the word out that the [vast] majority of the climbing community are not only conscious and respecting of FS matters but also are a person base that is willing to assist & encourage others in following suit.

Seems to me communications and sharing ideas is the beginning of understanding, not the end. I don't think I've personally read anything here I'd consider detrimental to climbers in the eyes of the FS. The primary deal is everyone piling on one climber for busting the ban (thanks for reconsidering, Phil. You handled the abuse well) with additional discussion concerning the bans, the birds, and how we all feel about it. Climbers have never been fans of the bans. Nothing new there, and maybe the FS will get a better view of what we're thinking.

From all the climbers I've talked to and read here, none of them wish to harm the birds in any way. I think most of us would just like to see a slightly less heavy hand in terms of the coverage of the bans and the possibility of lifting them if no nesting pairs appear on formations during the ban period. I think that would be an okay compromise with most climbers.

Healyje, thank you. It's great to see someone with opinions backed by experience and information. You are a reasonable voice being both a dedicated climber and dedicated falcon enthusiast. I think the message here is that there is evidence that nesting sites are compromised by nearby human activity. You raised an important point, that the more they are disturbed the longer the recovery effort will take and the longer climbers will be faced by nesting restrictions. If we look in the long term we would be better served by supporting the restrictions and working cooperatively with involved agencies rather than applying a hush hush approach and doing whatever we want.
S

I am going to Mt. Lemmon to climb this weekend and I have had to do some digging on the website to figure out which areas are closed. With Granite Mountain there is an access restriction very obviously posted on the Granite Mountain pages. Maybe if the Mount Lemmon areas which are restricted had the same obvious indications on each of the pages if would be more clear. Having never been to Mount Lemmon, my first destination was going to be the Fortress (which has no indication of access issues on the page) until I just happened to wander across a post which mentioned the closed area signs on some other page below many other posts, behind a "beware of leopard" sign.

Many years ago I worked as an assistant range wildlife biologist in the Pacific Northwest. One of our primary duties was to locate and map Great Horned Owl nesting sites with the intent to secure sufficient un-logged area to keep the species viable. We did constant battle with the assistant chief ranger in charge of timber sales. His overtly proclaimed attitude was that "the lazy trees are just sitting on their stumps sapping nutrients from the soil". He was wrong and so is Not so famous old dude who's self indulgent attitude is that he should be able to climb anywhere anytime. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Old dude would have us believe that the birds can just go find another rock. Wrong, wrong, wrong! By extension he would probably believe that we should just go log it all since there are so many other trees out there. We are not talking about pigeons here but rather very sensitive and threatened species. Bother them enough and they will go away, permanently. The truth is there is a lot of rock out there without nesting sites and closures. Respect the closures and climb somewhere else. Educate yourself about the seriousness of these issues. Before it is too late.

Old dude, I know Phil's post probably triggered some anger in you. You love climbing and are protective of it. You must understand that other people feel just as strong about wildlife. The important thing is to try and set emotion aside and focus on a solution. Kids think that in a disagreement one person wins and the other loses. As adults we need to realize that solutions to multiple use issues require compromise for everyone to come out feeling like a winner. I know that human behaviors conflict with the natural world, I, and most biologist recognize that and are not advocating that we go back to living in caves. The directions environmental scientists would like to take is to maintain, as much as possible, the health of ecosystems we currently have. The reasons for this are not because animals and plants are more important than people, this is a common misconception. Yes poeple who like the wild do want to keep it pristine for personal reasons but that is not the most convincing reason. Humans are linked to the biosphere and each little piece of it we loose weakens it's stability and resistance to change. This is not propoganda it is science, it comes from the same scientific process that produces cell phones, space ships, and superlight metal alloys, just science applied to life.
S

That's me in my fancy dead horse beating outfit.

Darryl & Greg,

I respect your opinions. However, I don't like that we're at the mercy of a few individuals who have the power to revoke our climbing privileges/rights on a whim. I really don't like when individuals don't realize or care that their actions can and do affect things for the rest of us. Publicizing your illegal/prohibited actions makes it trivially easy for regulating agencies to justify stricter rules, more enforcement, and harsher penalties.

What's interesting to me about that article is that Potter likely wasn't the first to climb the arch (as there were several rope-notches), he was simply the first to publicize it, which gave the Parks Service every reason to revise climbing regulations.

In the end, it doesn't matter than 99% of climbers either abide by the rules or don't advertise that they break them. It's thanks to that ____ 1% that things get changed for the rest of us.

Anybody know the number for Tucson dead horse removal?