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

Old lady H wrote: 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

So the studies and science show these birds won't be able to survive on their own because of climbing? The whole premise makes no sense; we are protecting something that no longer needs our protection. To call 8 month cliff closures low hanging fruit is stretching it. Again, it seems that eliminating the pressure from the land managers seems like the overarching solution since they are just caught in the middle of the outdated regulations. I understand your experience from decades ago but times have changed, the population has rebounded and instead of seeing more cliff access its going in the opposite direction. The fact we are seeing more closures with a healthy bird population leads me to believe something is a miss in how we are handling the issue. 

Doug Kinsman wrote:

So the studies and science show these birds won't be able to survive on their own because of climbing? The whole premise makes no sense; we are protecting something that no longer needs our protection. To call 8 month cliff closures low hanging fruit is stretching it. Again, it seems that eliminating the pressure from the land managers seems like the overarching solution since they are just caught in the middle of the outdated regulations. I understand your experience from decades ago but times have changed, the population has rebounded and instead of seeing more cliff access its going in the opposite direction. The fact we are seeing more closures with a healthy bird population leads me to believe something is a miss in how we are handling the issue. 

Ah! What we are protecting isn't just the birds, per se, it's the long term relationships with the parties involved, and our access in general.

It is a wonderful truth that these birds are making a great recovery. This, is the partnership you can point to (if that exists where you are, I know squat about Georgia public lands, are there any?) and use that to move forward. With good policies that all the stake holders agree to accept. As I said, raptors are the low hanging fruit climbers can easily help with. Overcrowding, human waste, homeless camps? Lots harder.

A couple more bird tidbits. Golden eagles are the ones that need the big wild spaces, far as I can tell. Keep them around, you're managing well.

One study I was part of over 25 years ago, was just seeing what disturbed bald eagles. They winter in Boise, along the river. Our greenbelt is right there also. What they found? Stop and stare, off they flew. Keep moving? No threat.

All these years later? This spring, for the first time in my memory, bald eagles are on the Boise River now, early summer. That means they are expanding their breeding territory down toward town. Soon, that knowledge and other studies on nesting balds may be applied to downtown Boise.

And I helped. So can we all. Those condors? I'm hoping they are in Idaho in my lifetime.

These birds are the canaries in the coal mine. Manage for them, do it well enough, and we will all have wild places left for those who follow us.

Best, OLH

Fuck those birds. I need to climb.  Why can’t they just go to another cliff?  Oh wait, there’s a fuck ton of climbers there too. In fact, there are climbers on just about every steep, tall, piece of rock.  Well, fuck those birds anyway.  I need to climb that route!  Today!

Peregrines are protected under the MBTA. One of the provisions of the MBTA states you can not disturb nesting birds protected by it. For Peregrines, that can mean getting within a few hundred feet of their nest site.

So why don't we close forest during the breeding season of robins? Well there are a lot more robins than peregrines. There are a lot more nesting options for robins than for the peregrine. And robins can be bumped off their nest a number of times a day without giving up on the nest. That is not the case for the peregrine. Climbing that disturbs nesting  peregrines will affect the population. This is the reason for the closures.

There is plenty of rock out there to climb that isn't affected by peregrine closures. Go climb it and have fun.

On a more serious note, comparing birds nesting on bridges and city buildings shows the idiocy here.  In the cities, there is constant noise, people, traffic.  This is the constant condition when they choose their nest.  Now, imagine (from a bird’s perspective).  Ah, peaceful, quiet remote rock way up high safe from predators.  No people, no intruders, just quiet for days or weeks while searching for the perfect nest.  Its been cold, snowing or raining. No climbers. Its winter.  It looks like a great place to nest. We lay eggs.  They hatch.  Now we must feed the chicks everyday. Spring arrives.  Now a fuck ton of climbers show up.  Well, guess what the falcons will be doing to ward off this new intrusion. Yep, attacking the climbers when they should be hunting and feeding their young.   And the chicks starve. But, you got your classic route.  Way to go bro. 

Well good luck with your access issues and the gesture to land mgt. that doesn't actually do anything meaningful for the environment. Our access issues actually revolve around cliffs being closed for bird hunting (turkey) so I will ponder that irony while you wait until the primo month of August for the birds to stop nesting.   

Doug Kinsman wrote: Well good luck with your access issues and the gesture to land mgt. that doesn't actually do anything meaningful for the environment. Our access issues actually revolve around cliffs being closed for bird hunting (turkey) so I will ponder that irony while you wait until the primo month of August for the birds to stop nesting.   

Hey sir? I'm gonna try one more time. Got any coal under your Georgia hills? Anything vaguely worth mining? Again, assuming public land. Protect for values other than our own selfish interests and the turkeys might be around in the future. Birds, hunters, climbers, old ladies.... ;-) H.

I live 18 minutes from Madrone Wall.  I'm VERY excited for July.  

In the case of Madrone, I assume due to the fact that it literally just re-opened last year, it may not be a bad idea to give it a couple of years, then go back to the land managers and ask for a sit-down about the falcon closures.  By then we'll have more data to go on as far as how well we (climbers) have been stewards of the new (re-opened) park, which will give us more standing, hopefully, to be taken seriously and have our voice heard.  If it turns out the closures are, in fact, legit, I would be fine with that and having the nesting audited/monitored for changes.  

Have you contacted Keith D. about it yet?  He may have more light to shine on the whole story.

Nate Ball wrote:

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'm not utterly convinced I'm right, I just did the actual fucking work: interviewed every single human involved with the '96 closure, researched the science|law|pollicy|agencies, learned to monitor the Peregrines accurately and objectively for eight years earning five early opens and learned the Peregrine behavior at Beacon inside and out. Over the course of that time I also built working relationships with BRSP, WSP and WDFW personnel which were based on mutual respect, integrity, transparency, win-win objectives, and trust earned over time.

What I didn't do is start with a #1 all-consuming, overriding objective of eliminating the closure by any and all means possible. What I didn't do was wholesale fabricate delusional stories about climber/agency interactions that never happened. What I didn't do is endlessly lie my ass off. What I didn't do was present an oh-so-PC public face to the agencies and their people while endlessly shit-talking them behind their backs. What I didn't do is mount a moronic frontal assault on the agencies and attempt to brow-beat them with expensive FOI requests and outside state politicians. What I didn't do was endlessly break the closure.

So the people I alienated myself from? The denizens of the Beacon Reality-Distortion Field? They're the ones who did all of the above and much more and can go fuck themselves - they have done themselves, Beacon, and climbing as a whole a steady and continuing disservice for decades now.

 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.

No, I'm just a guy who researched the facts, did the work, built the relationships, didn't lie|manipulate|fabricate "facts" and "history", and most definitely am not willing to compromise in any way on an insistence all dealings on climbing management be open, above-board, and built on cooperative working relationships. In other words, I don't claim to have any authority; what I claim are objective facts, a solid working knowledge of the science and policy, and an integrity I'm not willing to compromise for anyone when it comes to climbing even if it cost me so-called 'friends'.

And I'm not "impossible to communicate with", I simply don't and won't mouth the official local distortions and am unwilling to aid and abet people tirelessly shooting themselves in the foot over and over again.

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.

Here are a couple of super-savvy Sales and Marketing 101 tips:

#1: RELATIONSHIPS ARE EVERYTHING - THERE IS NO WAY TO EVADE, SKIRT, SHORT-CUT THEM, OR MATERIALIZE THEM OVERNIGHT FROM THIN AIR - THEY TAKE TIME AND TRUST TO BUILD

#2: DON'T REPEATEDLY PISS OFF AND ALIENATE THE VERY AGENCIES AND PEOPLE YOU NEED TO BUY INTO YOUR IDEAS AND SAY YES TO YOUR PROPOSALS

And "trying nothing new"? There it is again: the man in the white hat who blows into town from far-flung shores to rescue us poor, feeble-minded locals who just don't know what's happened or happening, haven't thought it all through, and haven't weighed and evaluated all the possible alternative measures. Crikey, thank god for heroes with all the new ideas and answers who can drop in to save the day and make it all oh so right - dude, how's that going for you so far?

And "better result"? See #2 above...

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.

Sigh, keep believing and mouthing this sort of nonsense - it is completely misinformed and a classic example of the unfortunately all-too-typical rationalization: "I need to climb so raptors aren't protected and - of course - just not that sensitive". Like that newly-minted molecular biologist who is positive that evolution is bunk, you give yourself and your credibility away from the get-go.

And there is absolutely nothing "massive" about the closures at Beacon, Madrone, Trout Creek, or Smith - all are actually properly scoped and consistent with the law, policy, science and with other similar-scoped targeted closures nationwide (Yosemite, Eldo, Gunks, NRG, etc.) and which no one involved with raptor science and policy at Access Fund national is likely going to go head-to-head with (ask'em).

"Massive closures" are what is done in many parts of the West on large, under-resourced ranges of BLM and NFS lands in places like Southern Oregon, California, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and across the Southwest (and Trump budget cuts will likely generate yet more of them). The unmonitored, large-area, blanket federal closures Orton contends with in Southern Oregon are nothing like the targeted select closures we deal with locally in the Gorge and PDX.

Simply put - it is unhelpful to conflate or intermix limited-scope, targeted closures with large-scale federal blanket closures.

There needs to be at least some reconsideration of these policies from an informed perspective. 

Exactly.

That is why Greg Orton in particular is working on this issue, and I am following his lead. 

Do some small fraction of the work Orton has done on the issue over the years and someday you may be able to "follow his lead"...
 

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. 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. 

The fact you don't know the answer speaks volumes about where you're at in the process and simply reveals your bias and prejudices with the issue. Bummer I know, but you just can't start at "I don't like raptor closures and they aren't legitimate" and hope to get anyone with the authority to amend or lift those closures to take you seriously.

Are we accepting that this is an "ethics" issue and allowing land managers to implement closures based on their interpretation of these ethics?

No. And it's not an "ethics" issue. Hey, it simply doesn't matter how many ways you cleverly attempt to re-frame the issue to fit your starting premise - it's always going to be a transparent non-starter seen exactly for what it is.

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. 

Gosh, now if I could only divine which "best interest" and who "all parties" could possibly be...

Or maybe it means beginning with some incremental changes and seeing how the birds react and quantifying this data over time.

Really, really long and very heavy sigh...

OMFG! How could we have overlooked this one for decades?!!!!!! It's so obvious I don't know why we never thought of it before. Well, that you don't know the answer to this is again more than a little telling about where you're at and coming from.

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... 

Well, of course, how could any of us clearly good and well-met fellows on a such a beloved classic route possibly disturb an obviously oblivious raptor? Why we couldn't possibly! We're all way too nice (and quiet as church mice) and the route is way, way too uber classic to ever bother such obliging and fine raptors as ours.

Well, dude, here's a freebie hint specific to that route: maybe it's not just all about when they're nesting, there are other things that come immediately before and after nesting (ever climb that classic route in the first week after the open? Pray tell, what exactly did you observe?)

Again, you don't have fuckall clue one about my researched conclusions or personal opinions on the Beacon closure  ( yes, those are two very different things).

...but some people just make great curmudgeons.

And others are just completely and utterly sick of mindless bullshit after dealing with decades of infantile behavior and way counterproductive antics. Sadly, it appears that lamentably droning beat goes on - all the best of luck with that.

1. I tend to look at not just 'both sides' of things, but all the area in between, where stuff can get done.
2. Joe is prickly as hell.
3. Joe is not the only one doing the long hard slog.
4. Joe is correct in the broad sweep. The only part that would be different are the particulars for the location.
5. climbers screwed themselves out of access, decades ago, by thumbing their nose at land managers. Repeatedly.
​6. Do not repeat number 5.

So. We have/had many "Joe's" here in Idaho. Morley was known and respected worldwide.​ Please note the date on the linked article, and consider sport climbing history in the west. Morley was 10th mountain division, a true hero, an astonishing man, and I was privileged to have met him. I also 'met' that Colt mentioned. ;-)

Great article, for those who are interested. This is what was going on when most of your crags you take for granted were being bolted. Raptor conservation predates sport climbing, kids.

http://www.eaglefalconer.com/Articles/010_Hero.html

Best, Helen

Old lady H wrote: 2. Joe is prickly as hell.

No, as I said, I'm just worn down and sick from a decades-long torrent of mindless bullshit.

Nate Ball wrote:

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.

Raptors don't really have more protection under the MBTA. They're just more sensitive to nesting disturbance than a lot of other birds so legal activities around one species of bird may not be legal around another species. If nest failure is due to disturbance then yes it is protected under the MBTA regardless of the species. The wording of the MBTA states 

No person may take (kill), possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such bird except as may be permitted under the terms of a valid permit

The key word here is take. If a disturbance at a nest site causes the failure of the eggs to hatch (eggs left unattended too long) or the parents to abandon the eggs or young then a take (death) has occurred which is a violation of the MBTA.

Healyje wrote: No, as I said, I'm just worn down and sick of a decades-long torrent of mindless bullshit.

;-) As I said, a long slog. I've said it before, but I'll add it again: thank you.

Just talk to, and work with, the people who put the really hard work in to get Madrone open. It took years, and a long view to do so. The same is needed to retain access to our climbing, in many, many places.

Why do I care? The raptors, sure, and wildness in general. But....

Here's a list of some of my "home" crags that have access issues or are sensitive (some are permanent closures). West to East:

• Leslie Gulch, Oregon
• Swan Falls, Idaho
• Table Rock, Boise
• Black Cliffs, Boise
• Castle Rocks SP, Idaho
• City of Rocks, Idaho
• Massacre Rocks, Idaho

Ignore our history at our peril. The birds are the easy part.

Best to you, really truly, I know patience is hard. Helen

Thanks for reaching out via email, Helen. It seems a lot of people want to boil this down to "anybody wanting to climb in an area closed due to peregrine presence is a selfish prick." Again, I am not advocating for anyone to climb in a closed area. That is selfish and it jeopardizes relationships and, in the long run, access for everyone. My point is that land managers are not always managing with the best interest of the birds. Allowing clearcutting right up to the base of the cliffs, for example. Ignoring their own language by not having a public meeting before a closure or doing any formal observations, as another. Basing their closure on the threats of a lawyer, as another. I believe that if more climbers were aware of how these closures are used for ulterior reasons then they would be more inclined to get involved in a constructive way. We are a growing community that too often fails to organize and is thus ignored by land managers. I completely agree that we need to be tactful and patient in the way we address it, but I think sitting on our hands and waiting for the anointed relationship-gurus to fix everything for us isn't going to get us anything. These people often aren't even climbers, or worse, they're the climbers who've mastered the rope-solo because they've burned all their bridges in the climbing community.

Nate Ball wrote: My point is that land managers are not always managing with the best interest of the birds. Allowing clearcutting right up to the base of the cliffs, for example. Ignoring their own language by not having a public meeting before a closure or doing any formal observations, as another. Basing their closure on the threats of a lawyer, as another. I believe that if more climbers were aware of how these closures are used for ulterior reasons then they would be more inclined to get involved in a constructive way. 

There have been a couple of random cases of raptor closures being dishonestly used to control non-climbing related issues such as at Summit Rock where I added to the attempts to get an unsupportable permanent climbing ban lifted. But here you are quite disingenuously attempting to paint a picture that such abuse is widespread and land managers, in general, are less than honest in their dealings with climbers when nothing could be further from the truth - so much so it comes off like a bad Trumpian conspiracy theory (and you're really going to win some agency hearts and minds with this approach).

We are a growing community that too often fails to organize and is thus ignored by land managers. 

Well, that's simply not true. Climbing communities in most areas around the country long ago organized to work cooperatively with land managers and the AF on all manner access issues including raptor closures. But of course, these were groups of people who were actually interested in managing the resource.

Washington Climbers Coalition 
Boulder Climbing Community
Action Committee for Eldorado 
Pikes Peak Climbers Alliance 
Yosemite Climbing Association 
Friends of Joshua Tree 
Salt Lake Climbers Alliance
Gunks Climbers Coalition 
New England Climbs 
Rumney Climbers Association
Crag Vermont 
Carolina Climbers Coalition 

Etc., etc.

I completely agree that we need to be tactful and patient in the way we address it, but I think sitting on our hands and waiting for the anointed relationship-gurus to fix everything for us isn't going to get us anything. 

Man, definitely don't wait on me, I washed my hands of it all back in '12. And, hey, you don't have to be a guru to build relationships, you just need objective, honest and forthright people who are interested in cooperative working relationships built on mutual respect and earned trust.

These people often aren't even climbers, or worse, they're the climbers who've mastered the rope-solo because they've burned all their bridges in the climbing community.

Actually, they are all climbers. And dude, I was rope soloing before you were born because I love doing it. And as for burned bridges, I didn't do the burning and I'm really not into hanging with dishonest two-faced people and endlessly incessant whiners so I'm more than ok with the state of both my bridges and relationships thank you.

Anyway, you've clearly now mastered just the kind of carefully tortured rationales, delusionally distorted logic, and manufactured conspiracies necessary for you to become the [latest] point man in the timeless, self-defeating closure jihad that's defined Beacon for decades. So have at it tiger - give'em hell for me as it's now kind of a sadly amusing rerun to watch in that Groundhog Day sort of way. And you've now convinced me you're just the guy to vanquish the evil, soul-sucking closure which has utterly destroyed so many fragile and innocent lives (have they gotten to that part yet?).

Nate Ball wrote:  My point is that land managers are not always managing with the best interest of the birds. Allowing clearcutting right up to the base of the cliffs, for example. Ignoring their own language by not having a public meeting before a closure or doing any formal observations, as another..

Nate, land managers typically do what is within their power. Many do not have the ability to stop a timber sale because the nesting is just one of many factors that go into the decision. And those other factors outweigh the nesting. Regarding your other point, public meetings are not always required, public notices typically are. Further, land managers have broad powers for management and will typically err on the side conservation when they do not have the time, money, or expertise to address an issue. Not always the case. It may seem all backasswards, and in many cases it is but that is the reality one has to work under.

Here is a really good example that I spent years working on and the Access Fund eventually went to court and lost over. The complete closure of the Twins Sisters at the City of Rocks to climbing because climbers being on the rock in the view shed of the Oregon Trail were considered to be a blight. Never mind the fact that there is a road and fencing in the foreground and those coming to see the trail are few and far between. We tried to work various compromises but the SHIPO and the trails people (who were outside of the NPS but had to be consulted) said there are other places to climb. Oh and the Twins Sisters is also home of a nest site. Climbers did not care about that closure as climbers and land managers actively worked through that issue with ease.

The Mazamas, the park manager of Washington state, and the Access Fund all want to take small steps to see how the peregrines at Beacon Rock will react to climber presence during their nesting season.

Here is the actual language of the climbing management plan at Beacon Rock as it pertains to raptor closures:
"The climbing management plan includes a potential closure area and period to promote successful nesting, while balancing climbing access... A closure area will be seasonally implemented on the South Face... to restrict climbing activities if peregrine falcons are determined by State Parks to be nesting... The above general closure area and closure period... may be adjusted based on actual monitored observation of nesting activity... It also includes the possibility of a smaller area of the South Face being subject to closure... As necessary State Parks will consult with state agencies... and may use qualified volunteers to assist in monitoring nesting activity... This includes working with... the Mazamas, the Access Fund, or the Washington Climbers Coalition..." (p2)

And as it pertains to closures:
"Prior to closing any park or park area to technical rock climbing, the director or designee shall hold a public meeting in the general area of the park or park area to be closed to technical rock climbing. Prior notice of the meeting shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area and at the park at least thirty days prior to the meeting." (p6)

The head ranger has told me that the park does not have any of their own staff doing observations and that they do not look at past observation data (he said they don't have any). Maybe this was just a lie because he didn't want to talk to me, but he doesn't seem interested in observations, and thus the language of the climbing management plan. The closure was implemented this year before volunteer observers actually noted signs of nesting. The head ranger is the same guy who has blown off multiple certified arborists (climbers) who have offered to cut down the hanging snag on the NW face (closed for this reason), for which a grant from the AAC has already been secured. There is also AAC grant money waiting to be spent on updated signage, but no collaboration has happened on this front that I am aware of. The head ranger never called a meeting, which is in direct contradiction of the climbing management plan.

Here is the link to the plan in case you think I am quoting out of context. Note that this management plan was approved in July 2017, and yet zero effort was made to reconsider this year's closure. But please tell me more about how paranoid I am.

Mark Thesig:
I have re-quoted from Orton here with emphasis to further illustrate my understanding of the MBTA...
"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."

According to my understanding of these rulings, "take" is not interpreted as meaning "disturbing nesting birds by getting within a few hundred feet of their nest site" (your words) nor is it interpreted as meaning the incidental failure of a nest due to human actions that were not intended to cause direct harm to the birds, their eggs, or their nests.

Allen:
I really appreciate your insight and responses. Hopefully you have read some of what I wrote above. Each situation is unique, mostly due to the personnel involved. I am only actively involved in the Madrone and Beacon closures, but raised this question because of what is happening at places like the Honeycombs, Terra Nova, Rattlesnake, and a bunch of other Southwest Oregon crags. Obviously this is an issue beyond our state as well. Greg Orton is a part of the Southwest Oregon Climbers Coalition, whom I am in close contact with, that is trying to negotiate these closures. As you seem to imply, these closures are not going to change until organizations like SWOC present the resources that allow them to do so. Unfortunately, in other cases, it's either too late (Madrone) or there is still some kind of power dynamic at play (Beacon).

Personal anecdote:
I lived and climbed in Taiwan for five years. There were no peregrine falcons at the Dragon Cave for the first two years. The third and fourth year (2014-15), they were seen flying around but did not nest. In 2016, they nested in the Grand Auditorium, but people did not understand that they were a territorial and sensitive species. One climber actually came right up to the nest before retreating from the hail of talons and screeching that resulted. The chicks were newly-hatched at this time. After this, climbers instituted a voluntary closure of the Grand Auditorium. Both chicks eventually fledged. In 2017, the falcons returned, nested in the exact same location, and raised two chicks that both eventually fell out of the nest. I did not hear about any disturbances, but the nest had become extremely popular with birdwatchers, and people may have flown drones nearby (speculation). In 2018, they returned again, though I have not heard any more about the details. My point in sharing this story is that, although anecdotal and in a different part of the world, peregrine falcons may be more patient and persistent in their nesting behavior than you might think. Yes, a voluntary closure likely had something to do with their success. At the same time, despite disturbances and nest failures, they still return year after year.

Nate Ball wrote: According to my understanding of these rulings, "take" is not interpreted as meaning "disturbing nesting birds by getting within a few hundred feet of their nest site" (your words) nor is it interpreted as meaning the incidental failure of a nest due to human actions that were not intended to cause direct harm to the birds, their eggs, or their nests.

While not directly naming peregrine falcons, what is said here about nests and nesting activities pertains to all birds protected under the MBTA. 

https://www.fws.gov/cno/conservation/MigratoryBirds/BirdNests-final.pdf

One part you may find interesting is...

Even visitation to these rookeries by people getting too close and subsequently disrupting nesting activities, can result in take since young birds may be frightened, leave their nests prematurely, become displaced, and die from starvation as their parents return only to the vicinity of the nest site.

Nate, the problem I, and apparently others, have, is yes, you do very much seem to espouse climbing at the expense of the birds. Part of that appears to be ignorance (meaning simple lack of knowledge, easy to fix). You come off also as wanting what you want, in the time frame you want it in, not so easy to work with you on that one. Apologies for being harsh, but this feels like spitting in the face of those who put entire lifetimes into this.

Closures can, and have, changed with time. Read up on our local areas, starting with the list in my earlier post. COR/Castle, as Allen pointed out above, is a great example. His was only one tiny bit of what went on there. Gym holds were glued on, for starters, lol! Even a hugely climber centric destination like that (85+%?) is still quite sensitive. Parts are private land, the public land use could change on a whim, or a mere budget cut.

Closures here are always​ ahead of the birds arrival. It is well established where they likely will nest. As soon as they settle, the closures are reduced to, again, very well known parameters. And lifted, as applicable. We are down to only a couple small ones now, if that, and, even when all of them were in place, it still left plenty of climbing.

By the way, it isn't just that the chicks need feeding, the parents trade off sitting on the nest to control the temperature. One hunts, the other sits. Flush the one sitting, the eggs/young can be toast. Those tasty tidbits also have to be protected from raiders, although I don't think that happens much, if at all. Peregrine fire power is awesome.

Again, apologies, I do think you are a good guy, but this is the second thread where you strike me strongly as not listening, or, only selectively. This is also the second thread where it appears a bit as you against everyone else. Just saying, okay? Please re read what we've written, and listen to it, at least. Be open to that, if you truly want the optimal long term results. We are, after all, hearing your side. And disagree. With specific examples of why.

That said, I myself frustrate people on here often enough, when they confuse listening (I very much do) and obedience (I make up my own mind). Your opinions are yours, of course, and valid as such. Thanks for conversing, at least. ;-)

Best, OLH (once again putting off mowing the lawn)