True Reason's For Shutting Resources in Boulder

Do you wish Boulder hadn't bought up all the land and made created a greenbelt? It would be sooo much better with another 100,000 cookie cutter houses surrounding the town.

The point is that human beings are the most destructive animals ever unleashed on the earth. They need to be stopped from themselves.

Of course all I talk about is getting is a mountain bike trail alongside the Mesa trail. All these hills and nothing rideable from town.

Those falcons are cool. Long live the falcons!!!

They are so cool, just the other day I saw them play smear the queer in Eldo with a Preble mouse. It looked like good family fun tossing the mouse up and down the Redgarden.

Paul Hunnicutt wrote:Do you wish Boulder hadn't bought up all the land and made created a greenbelt? It would be sooo much better with another 100,000 cookie cutter houses surrounding the town. The point is that human beings are the most destructive animals ever unleashed on the earth. They need to be stopped from themselves. Of course all I talk about is getting is a mountain bike trail alongside the Mesa trail. All these hills and nothing rideable from town.

Paul, I see what you are trying to say here, but there are uninteded consequences.

As a result of the policies, the development still happens, it just happens further away. People still live somewhere, but now we "need" subsidized affordable housing, and people complain about lack of diversity and gentrification in Boulder.

Meanwhile, all those people that built 'somewhere else' because of the green belt drive twice as far to get where they are going- which is NOT green at all. Nor does it really reduce traffic congestion since people are on the road just as much, if not more.

My #1 and #2 villains are of course zoning and tax codes, which are what usually prevents a person or company from running business out of their homes and living truely close to work, but the greenbelt certainly effected supply, demand, availability and pricing.

A green 1/2 belt would have been better, to allow the growth to be in contact with the main on 1/2 of the perimeter, then the town would simply shift its center of gravity rather than be parcelled out. As usual, I am questioning the wisdom of those who think that passing a law will result in the end results desired.

WeBeJammon wrote: wow i am suprised. i hate everyone. as for the original question- do we close climbs due to vultures nesting? not that i have heard of, just raptors. while most people view the vulture as a devious scavenger, a raptor is viewed as a pristine beautiful bird. this is not the case, raptors are just as much scavengers as a vulture is. therefore i agree with pablo, carry up the 12 gauge on every climb, when you come to a good stance build an anchor and work on your target practice. for each bird you take down on a no hands rest your climb gains one grade, if you have to hang to shoot the bird down your climb only gains a half grade.

working toward getting more votes..? {{yawn}}

on the topic of "shutting down resources" I just became aware of the legal legislation of "sprawl" via something know as the "Townsite Act" which basically authorizes the Forest Service the right to sell our public lands off to *sprawl*. As defined by the US General Accounting Office, sent to a US Rep in 2001 (may also be defined in other places):

"The Townsite Act authorizes the Forest Service to sell land in certain western states to local governments for community purposes, upon application.21 The application must be for no more than 640 acres and the land must lie adjacent to the community that has applied to buy it. The Forest Service must determine that the sale will serve community objectives—such as expanding existing economic enterprises, public schools, public health facilities, and recreation areas for local citizens—and that these local objectives outweigh public objectives that may be served by retaining federal ownership. In addition, the agency must receive at least fair market value; under its regulations, this value is estimated through appraisals that meet federal appraisal standards."

WeBeJammon wrote: wow i am suprised. i hate everyone.

When I was little, I think I recall that boys picked on the girls that they had crushes on... I think we have a secret admirer.

I have not seen a good picture of this one, but for some reason I keep picturing the angstful teenage boy in the movie "Little Miss Sunshine."

Tony Bubb wrote: When I was little, I think I recall that boys picked on the girls that they had crushes on... I think we have a secret admirer. I have not seen a good picture of this one, but for some reason I keep picturing the angstful teenage boy in the movie "Little Miss Sunshine."

Yes, but he pretended to be mute for most of the film.

I'm not saying I don't agree with the closures but it is strange to see these birds living, nesting, hunting, and co-mingling with window washers and striving. One of them was just on the corner 2 minutes ago. I don't see regulations saying during nesting periods no window washing will take place in the city as we don't want to disturb the raptors.

Another example would be the water shed. They close this incredibly beautiful resource to everyone. Why, drinking water...yet a good majority of our drinking water is taken from the res where boats, people, cows and other animals defecate right into it. At times they have shut the res due to excess fecal matter in the water.

So one of our very few year round potential ski resource is fully restricted because of why? Human impact? Drinking Water quality? Seems if this is the case then we may as well ban the outdoors in general. If you want to climb all the Indian Peaks then be prepared to accept a $2400 ticket.

WeBeJammon wrote: yeah kirra, i am sick of your childish games, just come out and say you have a crush on me.

I'm not a glutton for punishment... xcept for crack climbing

ben kenobi wrote:Jeff, I understand your frustration with closures. But falcon closures are, in my opinion, among the more necessary of land agency actions regarding the protection of a park's resources. Falcons do nest in large cities, this is true. But Keller's argument is exactly right: when a aerie or fledglings are disrupted during the critical period of nesting, adult peregrines will abandon the nest. Yes, peregrines are no longer an endangered species, but this does not mean the species as a whole is doing great. They have made an incredible comeback since the days of DDT, but there is a reason that land agencies are still paying a decent bit of budget on biological monitoring programs. These birds are an essential and beautiful part of our parks. I can deal with not climbing a route for a few months in order to maintain that.

First let me say I have been a member of Audubon, Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited. I love birds and all things wild. I still want to call BS on the closures. If we were allowed to climb year around the birds would find other places to nest where climber activity was less or non existent. I am with NSFOD that if you cause a few falcons to move to areas where people don't climb as much it is not the end of falcons. They can still nest and fledge young just in a different site. The ravens seem to mess with them more than climbers. They have been recovering and continue to recover despite our infringing on their nesting areas. You and others beliefs that the local agencies in charge of closures do so based on science is wrong. They have a mandate to continue to protect the birds so they continue with closures despite not having any studies on climber impact on the birds. The falcon guys (Biologists) will tell you that as long as you don't climb through the nest itself the birds will generally be fine. I have a fair amount of anecdotal evidence to support that as well. So quit sucking up to "the man" and make them prove (with science) that the no longer endangered falcons will be adversely affected on a macro scale. We are getting pushed around because we are a small user group and we tend to be conservationists that care about our flora and fauna. Use your critical thinking skills and I think you will agree the falcons will continue to recover even if we are causing a few to change there nest sites to less visited cliffs. I am now going to join NSFOD at a meeting!

Damn straight WeBejammin........bring the guns..........imagine all the extra weight, you'd be so strong.......The eye hand coordination, forearm, and shoulder workout, mental work out from multi tasking. Bring the gri-gri and shoot away >>>>

Eric Rhicard wrote: So quit sucking up to "the man" and make them prove (with science) that the no longer endangered falcons will be adversely affected on a macro scale. We are getting pushed around because we are a small user group and we tend to be conservationists that care about our flora and fauna.

Climbers just don't have enough pull as a group to do anything other than to offer their input. The preservationists will jump all over us with media tell the world we're destroying precious natural resources by our presence on the rocks, our unsanitary noisy behavior, and we need to be pushed out of the area so they can take credit for saving the world and get paid for it too. (and enjoy their own publicly paid for private idaho)

Eric Richards said: "If we were allowed to climb year around the birds would find other places to nest where climber activity was less or non existent. I am with NSFOD that if you cause a few falcons to move to areas where people don't climb as much it is not the end of falcons. They can still nest and fledge young just in a different site.

You and others beliefs that the local agencies in charge of closures do so based on science is wrong. They have a mandate to continue to protect the birds so they continue with closures despite not having any studies on climber impact on the birds. The falcon guys (Biologists) will tell you that as long as you don't climb through the nest itself the birds will generally be fine. I have a fair amount of anecdotal evidence to support that as well.

We are getting pushed around because we are a small user group and we tend to be conservationists that care about our flora and fauna. Use your critical thinking skills and I think you will agree the falcons will continue to recover even if we are causing a few to change there nest sites to less visited cliffs."
______________________________________
Okay...again, I sympathize with climbers here, but only to a point. Yes, federal land agencies have a mandate to protect peregrines. Just because they are off of the endangered list does not mean they are doing well. This is a common misconception. The falcons have made an incredible comeback, but to take this as a way to justify your climbing near their nesting sites is ludicrous if you consider yourself in any way a conservationist. I have biologist friends as well. In fact, one of them primarily studies primarily peregrines during the nesting season. And guess what? They don't like people near their nests when fledglings are present. Prime example: a trail in the Maze District of Canyonlands used to head out to a point where there was an aerie. This trail gets visitation on the scale of a few hundred people a year. And who would've guessed it, but the falcons left. The trail has since been rerouted, and the falcons have returned.

The underlying issue here is climbers, in general, believe we should be able to climb just about anywhere, anytime, and we justify this by believing our sport to be relatively environment-friendly. Many situations, it is. In many situations, it isn't. And closing sections of cliffs is something we all should be able to live with. Your access to climbing is frankly less important than a species ability to comfortably survive in its native habitat. And sorry, cliffs are not our native habitat (although they often feel that way).

They were there first. And most areas such as these are managed to protect the resource while offering recreational activities to the public. Too often, the public's demand for recreation is placed above protecting the resource and the resource is negatively affected.

Ben, are there any animals that enjoy other species near their nests when their babies are there? And for some past civilizations like the Anasazi's, cliffs were their natural environment.

Andy, if we truly posed a viable issue to the survival of this species then I would be in favor of the closures but since I find it difficult to believe I'm not on board with the conservationists right now.

Come this Friday when global warming makes it snow in the Indian Peaks I would love to be laying lines on the glacier or come the first few snows of fall. I would also like to fish up there and summit Arikaree Peak which is off limits...so yeah my opinion is that closing our limited resources is bogus. I like jumping the cliff at Gross, I'd like fishing out of a canoe on Barker, and I'd like to use the water shed area, I'd like catching the monsters under Gross Dam and maybe sending some of the rocks down there too.

So as time goes on everything that we have the luxury of using now will continue to be regulated and disappear from legal use.