Peregrine Falcons, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Public Park Closures

A little local crag called the Madrone Wall was reopened last year after 20 years of bureaucracy. The Madrone Wall Preservation Committee, a local group that works with the Access Fund, were the primary driving force behind all of the maintenance required to make it a park. Thanks to them, there is now an additional (and much needed) crag to disperse the ever-growing throngs of climbers in the area.

Unfortunately, it has been closed since February due to initially "potential" peregrine falcon nesting. According to observers with the MWPC, a nest has been confirmed, and so a potential early opening has been nixed. On a related note, I was out at a nearby cliff (Carver) this weekend and saw that there is a raven nest in the middle of the wall. The parent(s) came and went, and we could even see and hear the little ones. They seemingly weren't disturbed in any way by our presence, even while we climbed within 100' of their active nest. I've seen swallows and vultures also nesting at crags. None of these birds are endangered (falcons were de-listed nearly 20 years ago) but all of them are listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which is the law cited to justify raptor closures in most instances.

[deleted reference]

This got me thinking... are falcon closures based on the fact that they aggressively defend their nest? Or is it a result of the "sensitive" designation within Oregon? The MBTA only applies protection against willful killing or removal without a permit. Ducks and geese are also protected under MBTA but they can still be hunted legally. I'm still struggling to understand how this could be the basis for closing an entire park. What if there were ravens, or vultures, or swallows nesting at Madrone? Would this also justify a closure? Why are certain management agencies instituting blanket closures without any attempt to find a balance between raptor breeding success and climber access? I know this isn't the case in all areas; Smith Rock State Park does a wonderful job of observing and updating closures based on the birds' activity. However, far too often here in the Pacific Northwest the closures of yesteryear haven't changed and management agencies maintain their unnecessarily strict and rigid perspective.

Can anybody shine more light on why raptors (usually golden eagles and peregrines) get special protection over all these other bird species? And maybe why management agencies refuse to adapt to the changing times? And what we can do to pressure them into a more climber-conscious strategy?

I am glad someone brought this up. If a map of climbing areas with bird closures could be developed I think it would be very telling as to how much this has unnecessarily grown. It *seems* like it started in Western areas of the country and has since made its way East. A pessimistic point of view is the bird closures are an excuse to keep climbing out of some areas for 8 months a year but in some areas I think there is some truth behind that tactic. I am ready to support any sort of movement here to lift restrictions due to bird nesting and hopefully we can come up with a solid proposal that doesn't trip the line of being poor stewards of the environment.

Nate Ball wrote: A little local crag called the Madrone Wall was reopened last year after 20 years of bureaucracy. The Madrone Wall Preservation Committee, a local group that works with the Access Fund, were the primary driving force behind all of the maintenance required to make it a park. Thanks to them, there is now an additional (and much needed) crag to disperse the ever-growing throngs of climbers in the area.

Unfortunately, it has been closed since February due to initially "potential" peregrine falcon nesting. According to observers with the MWPC, a nest has been confirmed, and so a potential early opening has been nixed. On a related note, I was out at a nearby cliff (Carver) this weekend and saw that there is a raven nest in the middle of the wall. The parent(s) came and went, and we could even see and hear the little ones. They seemingly weren't disturbed in any way by our presence, even while we climbed within 100' of their active nest. I've seen swallows and vultures also nesting at crags. None of these birds are endangered (falcons were de-listed nearly 20 years ago) but all of them are listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which is the law cited to justify raptor closures in most instances.

Greg Orton has provided some great language for understanding the situation in this draft. A great excerpt:
"When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service down-listed Peregrine from Threatened and Endangered to Sensitive with a 15-year monitoring plan in 1999 the Peregrines became protected, along with every other migratory bird, under the less restrictive Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Agencies have since removed Peregrine from their “sensitive species” lists. As a migratory bird, Peregrines continue to be protected against “take” under Migratory Bird Treaty Act (US Congress 1918). However, the MBTA protection does not include “harassment”, “incidental take”, or protection of its habitat (US District Court 1991, 1996, 1997), and therefore, is less restrictive than protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).  New challenges to past rulings were further put to rest under a December, 2017 memo issued by the U.S. Department of Interior upholding limits of the MBTA to “only direct and affirmative purposeful actions that reduce migratory birds, their eggs, or their nests, by killing or capturing, to human control” that is “limited in relevant part to affirmative and purposeful actions.” For climbers and other outdoor recreation advocates this means we should expect to have a greater role in how our recreation is being managed."

This got me thinking... are falcon closures based on the fact that they aggressively defend their nest? Or is it a result of the "sensitive" designation within Oregon? The MBTA only applies protection against willful killing or removal without a permit. Ducks and geese are also protected under MBTA but they can still be hunted legally. I'm still struggling to understand how this could be the basis for closing an entire park. What if there were ravens, or vultures, or swallows nesting at Madrone? Would this also justify a closure? Why are certain management agencies instituting blanket closures without any attempt to find a balance between raptor breeding success and climber access? I know this isn't the case in all areas; Smith Rock State Park does a wonderful job of observing and updating closures based on the birds' activity. However, far too often here in the Pacific Northwest the closures of yesteryear haven't changed and management agencies maintain their unnecessarily strict and rigid perspective.

Can anybody shine more light on why raptors (usually golden eagles and peregrines) get special protection over all these other bird species? And maybe why management agencies refuse to adapt to the changing times? And what we can do to pressure them into a more climber-conscious strategy?

Short answer? People are idiots.

Long answer? It took decades of effort (my entire life, basically) for raptors to be protected and to recover. That's more than half a century. "Pressure" them into it, is the wrong attitude and you risk throwing away the hard work and years of effort it took to get Madrone open at all. This is not just your local crag, this is the same story all over the west, including a whole bunch, if not all, of Idaho climbing. Not just bird closures, but every bit of it.

That said, there is a half century of partnerships now. Talking, finding out how climbers can help preserve both raptors and climbing, and yes, being very, very, patient and seeing the long view, is what will keep what we love available for our kids.

Peregrines have adapted very well to people, when the people are on the ground.  ​They nest about three blocks from the Idaho statehouse, and on the "cliffs" of many cities. However. As you noted, they very aggressively defend their nests. This is a trait of raptors that you forget, or ignore, at your peril.

Ravens are smart. Very, very, smart. Swallows have lived with humans for a very long time and simply don't give a fuck. Leaving their nests alone, and giving them some space, is simply common courtesy.

Raptors are mostly creatures of the wild, even if some are partially adapted to our Urban and suburban areas. They need wild spaces, for the most part.

So do I. Please don't promote messing this up. Find out how you can help.

Best, Helen

This would be pretty difficult to "mess up" considering its already messed up. These birds don't know choss from splitter and there are plenty of other places for them to nest.

Are peregrines endangered? (No)

When they were endangered was it because climbers drove them to the brink? (No, pesticides)

I just find it unnecessary to shutdown activity at an entire climbing areas for 8 months a year for a bird that isn't endangered and the reason for its initial population decline had nothing to do with climbing.

Old lady H:

Madrone opening had nothing to do with peregrines. The closure was a condition set by an outside agency that scared the county into creating it before there were even any legitimate observations done. Now the entire park is closed for a majority of the year without any plan for determining to what degree peregrines and climbers can coexist.

Many areas out here in the West are open for clear-cutting and are otherwise managed without any regard for healthy ecosystems or public recreation. This is incongruent with the stated intention of preserving a non-endangered species. Many of the experts working for the federal and state agencies are not being consulted and disagree with how the land managers institute their closures and/or the language they use to justify them.

I am in complete agreement with you about being diplomatic and working through established channels. Unfortunately these are usually singular individuals who do not want their relationship jeopardized because they already get what they want, which isn't what the greater community wants. The general climbing population is unaware of the legal basis for these closures, the extent of the issue, and what (little) is being done about it. Raptors may be more sensitive than swallows, vultures, ravens, flycatchers, ducks, geese, and all the other hundreds of birds protected by the MBTA, but their sensitivity does not equate to legal protection. Most climbers will manage themselves because we love what makes these places wild and we want to protect that. This is far more motivating, and thus effective, because it happens from within the community rather than from a management agency which, looking at their own language, is only vaguely aware of how climbing and species preservation even works. It's almost like they just want to do as little work as possible. Yes, there will be idiots who try to climb in the Monuments area at Smith during the golden eagle closure, but other climbers will call them out, and this is far more effective than some signs telling them not to do it.

Again, I am not advocating for "messing anything up". I am fully aware of how this may be viewed by certain individuals in positions of authority. But there are precedents for how to manage public areas in such a way that doesn't put hundreds (sometimes thousands) of climbers' access secondary to two non-endangered birds' mating success. Smith Rock. Yosemite. Squamish. Zion. Devil's Tower. The list goes on. But then there are areas with unnecessarily large closures without any protocols for integrating climbers and raptors. Madrone is one of them. Beacon Rock is another. There are dozens of smaller cliffs effected just in Oregon.

If there is language out there written with the intention of informing climbers about how the land managers are trying to balance climbers' access and species preservation, I'm all for it. These will likely be in places where closures are minimal and based on actual observation by trained professionals, thus change year-to-year based on the birds' actual behavior. If I am missing something aside from "leave the birds alone because they used to be endangered" and "some people are working really hard to establish relationships" - like actual language or actual people - then please point me to it and I'd be happy to qualify my statements. Otherwise, I still think that climbing communities should be informing themselves of the legal language and the experts' observations and asking hard questions of those who manage the public land we would have access to if not for the nesting of some non-endangered birds.

Nate Ball wrote:
Can anybody shine more light on why raptors (usually golden eagles and peregrines) get special protection over all these other bird species? And maybe why management agencies refuse to adapt to the changing times? And what we can do to pressure them into a more climber-conscious strategy?

Well, off the top of my head I'd say you could instead inform yourself before going off on yet another way less than productive anti-raptor screed. To land managers, these uninformed diatribes make climbers look incredibly self-centered and intolerant of anything that gets in the way of their chosen entertainment. This is pretty much up there with complaining about not being able to forge illegal MTB trails wherever we damn well please. Also, it's not like the folks at the Access Fund don't know a raptor from a Robin and been asleep at the wheel for the last twenty years - they are informed, work the issue relentlessly, and have built cooperative relationships with land managers across the country. Concerned climbers at local levels would do well to learn about the biology, policy and local management resources (or lack thereof) wherever and whenever possible.

Healyje wrote: Well, off the top of my head I'd say you could instead inform yourself before going off on yet another way less than productive anti-raptor screed. To land managers, these uninformed diatribes make climbers look incredibly self-centered and intolerant of anything that gets in the way of their chosen entertainment. This is pretty much up there with complaining about not being able to forge illegal MTB trails wherever we damn well please. Also, it's not like the folks at the Access Fund don't know a raptor from a Robin and been asleep at the wheel for the last twenty years - they are informed, work the issue relentlessly, and have built cooperative relationships with land managers across the country. Climbers at local levels would do well to learn about the biology, policy and local management resources (or lack thereof) wherever and whenever possible.

I have spent a lot of time informing myself, as suggested by the Orton reference. Did you read it?

Just because I don't rappel down cliff faces with haulbags full of pea-gravel to build an ideal raptor nesting site doesn't make me anti-raptor. My comments aren't "a forceful and bitter verbal attack" on anyone or anything. I fail to see how the analogy of visually-impacting a natural area through illegal cutting and clearing of vegetation (mountain bike trails) is the same as advocating for evidence-based raptor nesting policies. In the case of Beacon Rock, everyone is on-board with opening up sections of the South Face during the nesting season except you and the head ranger. The F&W folks are out of the picture for good reason. The Access Fund, the Mazamas, and even the Parks Manager for the state of Washington have been trying to make it happen for awhile now. Most of realize it's not "science" keeping the South Face closed.

On a semi-related note, how's the clearing of that dead tree on the NW face going?

Doug Kinsman wrote: This would be pretty difficult to "mess up" considering its already messed up. These birds don't know choss from splitter and there are plenty of other places for them to nest.

Are peregrines endangered? (No)

When they were endangered was it because climbers drove them to the brink? (No, pesticides)

I just find it unnecessary to shutdown activity at an entire climbing areas for 8 months a year for a bird that isn't endangered and the reason for its initial population decline had nothing to do with climbing.

Doug, your attitude is self centered and knowledge of the issue is grossly lacking. What you fail to understand is that falcons are are still protected. Climbers may not have been directly responsible for their decline, they are partially responsible for their continued recovery. So in the same vein, there are plenty of other places for you to climb, go climb somewhere else. There are gyms in Atlanta. 

Nate, your best course of action is to jump into the bureaucratic mess and contact the county to request a meeting between climbers, biologists, and them to work on a plan. The biggest problem is counties have little experience with environmental plans. Having local examples such as Smith Rock will be your best hope to show how this can be actively managed so the the closures are reasonable.

Finally let me sort of answer your question. At then end of the day, land managers who often lack the expertise and money to manage an issue are forced to take a conservative approach which is to say no or close an area to protect it.

Nate Ball wrote:  Most climbers will manage themselves because we love what makes these places wild and we want to protect that.

You just said it. MOST. It only takes one self centered fool to fuck it up for all of us. Hey, the sandstone may be wet, but I WANNA CLIMB NOW!

 This is far more motivating,

Again, sadly, it's not. We have devolved into a state trying to regulate and legislate stupid, self serving, 'me first, fuck the rest', populace.

 and thus effective, because it happens from within the community rather than from a management agency which, looking at their own language, is only vaguely aware of how climbing and species preservation even works. It's almost like they just want to do as little work as possible. Yes, there will be idiots who try to climb in the Monuments area at Smith during the golden eagle closure, but other climbers will call them out, and this is far more effective than some signs telling them not to do it. 

And yet again, what you imply is that we self regulate, self police. Ever asked nicely for someone to stop doing what they are doing because it is stupid, dangerous, illegal, putting our access in jeopardy? 

Again, I am not advocating for "messing anything up". I am fully aware of how this may be viewed by certain individuals in positions of authority. But there are precedents for how to manage public areas in such a way that doesn't put hundreds (sometimes thousands) of climbers' access secondary to two non-endangered birds' mating success. Smith Rock. Yosemite. Squamish. Zion. Devil's Tower. The list goes on. But then there are areas with unnecessarily large closures without any protocols for integrating climbers and raptors. Madrone is one of them. Beacon Rock is another. There are dozens of smaller cliffs effected just in Oregon.

If there is language out there written with the intention of informing climbers about how the land managers are trying to balance climbers' access and species preservation, I'm all for it. These will likely be in places where closures are minimal and based on actual observation by trained professionals, thus change year-to-year based on the birds' actual behavior. If I am missing something aside from "leave the birds alone because they used to be endangered" and "some people are working really hard to establish relationships" - like actual language or actual people - then please point me to it and I'd be happy to qualify my statements. Otherwise, I still think that climbing communities should be informing themselves of the legal language and the experts' observations and asking hard questions of those who manage the public land we would have access to if not for the nesting of some non-endangered birds.

As Helen said, it has taken us 50+ years to get these once endangered birds back on their wings, STS. Let's not screw it, and them up, with what you have to admit is nothing more than, for those of us who don't make a living at it, a passionate past time.

A short story. I was developing a line a couple of years back, 11 pitches, 1,000+ feet. It takes a full day to get to the 5th pitch (car travel, hike, climb, etc.), where i found  A very pissed off peregrine falcon. I went home. End of story. The belay there is now called the "Peregrine Perch". And we do not climb the route in nesting season, much to my chagrine, as it is the best, and sometimes only, time to climb it.

Respect the birds, it's their home and future.

Congrats on getting the wall back open. That is a HUGE success.

Obviously, there are still some kinks to be worked out.  Seems like you need to continue to work the land managers. "Adaptive management" is the catch phrase that might resonate with the managers.

Show them multiple areas where the peregrine closures are not simple blanket closures (Yosemite, Boulder Flatirons, Rumney, etc). Instead biologists close areas likely to have nests and leave other nearby areas open, typically areas out of sight of the nest. And then, if the the peregrines nest there that year, the place stays closed till august. If they don't nest, they sometimes open them early.

It's probably fine they are a little conservative on the peregrine issue at first. Then refine the plan. Hopefully you all get along well enough for this.

one last thing...I think we forget how bad things used to be for some environmental issues. The eagles and peregrines coming back is super sweet. The clean water in (most) rivers is super awesome. When my dad was a kid, no way would he see a raptor at the nearby cliff. And forget even going near the polluted rivers.

Nate Ball wrote:
Can anybody shine more light on why raptors (usually golden eagles and peregrines) get special protection over all these other bird species?

Seriously? 

Allen Sanderson wrote:

Doug, your attitude is self centered and knowledge of the issue is grossly lacking. What you fail to understand is that falcons are are still protected. Climbers may not have been directly responsible for their decline, they are partially responsible for their continued recovery. So in the same vein, there are plenty of other places for you to climb, go climb somewhere else. There are gyms in Atlanta. 

Nate, your best course of action is to jump into the bureaucratic mess and contact the county to request a meeting between climbers, biologists, and them to work on a plan. The biggest problem is counties have little experience with environmental plans. Having local examples such as Smith Rock will be your best hope to show how this can be actively managed so the the closures are reasonable.

Finally let me sort of answer your question. At then end of the day, land managers who often lack the expertise and money to manage an issue are forced to take a conservative approach which is to say no or close an area to protect it.

How much longer will they need to be monitored for before they are no longer protected (18 years since removed from endangered species list...)? I should not have to climb anywhere else because of a bird that's not endangered and is at pre-pesticide usage population levels. This isn't a big deal in the southeast but its starting to crop up here and there. I have a gym membership but prefer to climb outside, thanks for the Atlanta gym availability information though. Please tell me what else I fail to understand because on the surface the whole thing seems very unreasonable to continue protecting something that doesn't need protection and those resources could be better spent on a different environmental issue.

Doug Kinsman wrote:

How much longer will they need to be monitored for before they are no longer protected (18 years since removed from endangered species list...)? I should not have to climb anywhere else because of a bird that's not endangered and is at pre-pesticide usage population levels. This isn't a big deal in the southeast but its starting to crop up here and there. I have a gym membership but prefer to climb outside, thanks for the Atlanta gym availability information though. Please tell me what else I fail to understand because on the surface the whole thing seems very unreasonable to continue protecting something that doesn't need protection and those resources could be better spent on a different environmental issue.

What you fail to understand is that the protection is not based being endangered but by being a special class that has been carved out for them, namely through the MBTA. There are numerous special classes for flora and fauna. For instance, the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 which is now a bane for western range lands.

Nate Ball wrote:

I have spent a lot of time informing myself...

I met a solid young climber a couple of years ago who was getting his Ph.D. in molecular biology, but it turned out he was only getting it in order to bolster Intelligent Design and 'debunk' evolution. There's a big difference between openly and objectively informing yourself and arming your biases and pre-existing objectives.

Just because I don't rappel down cliff faces with haulbags full of pea-gravel to build an ideal raptor nesting site doesn't make me anti-raptor. 

Monitoring the Peregrines, retrieving post-fledge nest contents, photographing the nest, and, yes, hauling fresh pea gravel into the nest was part of a deal with WDFW which resulted in five early opens for climbers between 2005 and 2012 (the earliest was June 23rd). How many early opens has the crew produced since then? What was that? Right, none.

I fail to see how the analogy of visually-impacting a natural area through illegal cutting and clearing of vegetation (mountain bike trails) is the same as advocating for evidence-based raptor nesting policies.

It's not an analogy, it's another example of myopic, self-concerned behavior (you know, like breaking the closure).

In the case of Beacon Rock, everyone is on-board with opening up sections of the South Face during the nesting season except you and the head ranger.

Well, that's complete and utter bullshit and by 'everyone' you mean the local residents of the Beacon Reality-Distortion Field - got it, but you are just so, so late to the game.

P.S. You clearly don't have the remotest clue as to what my opinion on closure and its scope are.

The F&W folks are out of the picture for good reason. The Access Fund, the Mazamas, and even the Parks Manager for the state of Washington have been trying to make it happen for awhile now. 

Sigh. WDFW is not in any way 'out of the picture'. What has happened is raptor biologist David Anderson retired and turned the reins over to a replacement who has a lot to come up to speed on and has a priority around EIS work for wind projects. As for the Access Fund and the Mazamas, that's the same local person and someone who I suspect is smart enough to not get thrown under the bus and burned by all this a second time. And the south face closure is consistent in every way with other closures the Access Fund agrees with. As for the 'Parks Manager' in Olympia, Randy is open to discussion which is great given how much damage locals have done with the agency since the 2012 resuscitation of an antagonistic version of the BRCA 110% focused solely on the closure versus even a pretense of an interest climbing management.

Most of realize it's not "science" keeping the South Face closed.

Most are completely ignorant of the "science", the "law", the "policy", the "history", and the "management" of the resource other than the self-serving delusions they keep chanting over and over to themselves, year in year out hoping upon hope for a different result.

On a semi-related note, how's the clearing of that dead tree on the NW face going?

I offered my services several times, never heard back.

Dude, as I suggested a couple of years ago, you might want to throttle back on the accelerator a bit and not buy so readily into decades of bullshit, slander, and lies as you're still tracking pretty hard in the exact footsteps of several of us who have already gone down that path...

Allen Sanderson wrote:

What you fail to understand is that the protection is not based being endangered but by being a special class that has been carved out for them, namely through the MBTA. There are numerous special classes for flora and fauna. For instance, the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 which is now a bane for western range lands.

OK, so its based in bureaucracy and not common sense. Thanks for helping me understand. So to influence what is done going forward do we have to perform a bunch of expensive studies that show it doesn't make sense and then lobby like crazy to relieve land mgt. from the regs?

Doug Kinsman wrote:

OK, so its based in bureaucracy and not common sense. Thanks for helping me understand. So to influence what is done going forward do we have to perform a bunch of expensive studies that show it doesn't make sense and then lobby like crazy to relieve land mgt. from the regs?

It is not based on bureaucracy ... though the result is bureaucracy.

Dude, as I suggested a couple of years ago, you might want to throttle back on the accelerator a bit and not buy so readily into decades of bullshit, slander, and lies as you're still tracking pretty hard in the exact footsteps of several of us who have already gone down that path...

All I have in response to you Joseph is that nobody listens to you for a reason. You are utterly convinced you are right, and regardless of how right you may be on the details, you've completely alienated yourself from a lot of people. I've appreciated the effort you've made to educate me about the local history, but you're not someone who has any authority on this issue because you're so impossible to communicate with.

The reason I posted this is because I have tried to contact everybody who is doing anything about this. Every time I try a new tact I just get pointed back to the same people. They are the ones building the relationships, yes. And that's where this conversation ends every time. "Don't be pushy because that won't get us anything." But trying nothing new will get us nothing as well. Relationships are important, absolutely, but so is trying new things for the sake of getting a better result. Raptors are amazing and I don't want to lose them, but maybe they aren't as sensitive as these massive closures suggest... they nest on bridges and skyscrapers in big cities after all.

Madrone is likely to have a full closure as long as the peregrines are nesting there. That's just an unfortunate fact. There are so many other examples around here - Beacon Rock, Cape Horn, Rattlesnake, Terra Nova, many other crags in the Oregon Cascades - of closures that are simply a blanket coverage. That is why Greg Orton in particular is working on this issue, and I am following his lead. There needs to be at least some reconsideration of these policies from an informed perspective.

Nobody has pointed to any legal language that protects raptors over any of the other birds on the MBTA. They are listed as "sensitive" in Oregon, but are listed as "least concern, population stable" by most agencies. Only raptors get special treatment under the MBTA. What is the basis for this interpretation? If it's nest failure, that isn't protected by the MBTA. Aggressive behavior? Climb at your own risk.

Are we accepting that this is an "ethics" issue and allowing land managers to implement closures based on their interpretation of these ethics? I'm not trying to imply that the preservation of a beautiful creature isn't an ethical consideration; just that land managers may not always apply their regulations (closures) solely for the purpose of enforcing these ethical considerations. And therein lies the issue... how to convince land managers to take another look at their policies so that we can come to an understanding that is in the best interest of all parties. Maybe that means keeping the closures as they are. Or maybe it means beginning with some incremental changes and seeing how the birds react and quantifying this data over time.

Somehow I doubt even the most bird-fancying climbers (I'm one of them) will be upset about the opening of a classic route if it's determined that climbers on it don't disturb the nesting raptors. Well, I guess somebody might be upset... but some people just make great curmudgeons.

For the record, I absolutely DO NOT endorse climbing during a raptor closure. I have never and would never do that. I have called out people who have and explained to them why it's such a shitty thing to do.

Hobo Greg wrote:

Pray tell, how do we get the birds to nest where it's convenient for us? Give them a topo of the area? That has to be one of the most conceited, human-centric sentences I've ever read. 

Pretty simple, allow people to climb in their general vicinity and they will leave because of the human traffic. At least that is what the protection implies and is what the whole issue is about. 

Nate, south of Boise is the World Center for Birds of Prey. Where a good deal of the peregrines out there were hatched out before being hacked into the wild. "Hacking", in this case, predating our use of it for computers by decades. They are now raising condors, and have been doing raptors for many, many years. The studies are at least thirty years old, I remember participating in some of them in Boise, before my son was born. Plenty of science is there.

South of that? The Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area. 25 years, this year. Many, many years of struggle before that to establish this. Almost half a million acres, and the largest nesting concentration of raptors in the U.S., perhaps the world.

The people who have worked on this have done so for lifetimes. Many are, or were, my friends. A great many groups had to sign off on all of this. This is the history in a great many places besides Idaho.

In fact, raptor conservation predates much of sport climbing. Let that sink in. The people who are working on this (either/both sides) have been at it longer than many of you have been alive. Please, I understand your position. Just understand we fossils know what we are talking about when it comes to working with access in the western public lands. IT IS DICEY. STILL. Birds are just a piece of it. All of the climbing in my end of Idaho had, has, or will be facing access restrictions if climbers aren't willing to be smart about this, development, erosion...on and on. Helping with the raptors is one way climbing coalitions can "side" with the land managers, often just one or two bodies who have to manage a bazillion acres with no budget. Climbers can be hugely helpful. Or not. Helping with raptor closures is low hanging fruit, to maintain good will. All you have to do is rein in your self interest a little.

Beyond that? Be humble, and ask how to help. Yes, it is the same few people. Over and over.. Shake their hand, buy some coffee, listen, and help.

To those who are not willing to do that? At least stay away. Climb elsewhere, so we will still have a where to climb.

Best, Helen

Doug Kinsman wrote:

Pretty simple, allow people to climb in their general vicinity and they will leave because of the human traffic. At least that is what the protection implies and is what the whole issue is about. 

I am having trouble trying to phrase it, so...the attitude​ you advocate would be the actions of a self centered ass who cares nothing about preserving climbing access.

Such a person is a menace.

Best, OLH