Chapter 2: Peregrine Falcon Closures in Southern Arizona

I will also be giving Diane Vetter a call.

Yes. I would like to be involved. I would also recommend that you invite John Hayes as well. He has been active in this area and is very knowledgeable on the Peregrine Falcon access issues.

Thanks, Bob

As you are aware we are in the process of reviewing and renewing special closure orders for known Peregrine Falcon active eyrie sites. Enclosed is a list of sites proposed for seasonal closure. We would like to discuss this closure order process with you and how we can most constructively work with climbers and other recreationsits to meet the management needs of the species, but also provide for recreation opportunities. We are including all known eyrie locations, in addition to the current closed areas, because we feel that all eyries are important and susceptible to disturbance. As new eyries are discovered we will consider adding them to the closure order.

As Tom may have told you, Josh Taiz is taking the lead for the Forest for this effort. I am helping him by preparing the needs assessment and enforcement plan as well as the decision memo and proposed order. I will soon be submitting these items for review by Josh. After his review, we will send the draft documents to you to be followed with a meeting for joint discussion.

Robert, we appreciate your interest in this effort and would like to coordinate your review and input also.

Bob and John, please keep this location information confidential until further notice to protect peregrines. Please review the locations for locally common names rather than what we go by. It would be very helpful to have this information to reduce confusion among the climbing community and other recreationists.

[Location information was here - removed by me at Melinda's request above]

And any additional active eyries that are discovered during the period of this order.

Thank you for this information and I will be happy to keep the list confidential until you say otherwise. I don't have a similar list for previous years; but, it appears that as the population of Peregrines becomes more successful, the number of areas that are being slated for closure is growing. If we extrapolate out far enough, it seems possible to imagine reaching a point where all of the mountains of Southern Arizona have to be declared off limits during nesting season. I'm sure that is not your intent, but it does raise the concern that I have heard throughout the climbing community, that there is simply no end in sight for these closures. That concern almost always echos the widely known fact that the Peregrine Falcon has been off the protected list for just over 9 years now. These birds nest very successfully in close proximity to people in many cities throughout the country. In fact, I recently became aware of some climbers who have climbed within 50 feet of nesting birds throughout the season and have watched young birds hatch, be fed and successfully fledge during season without any apparent ill effect from their presence. While I don't condone such behavior, it does further illuminate the fact that the Peregrines became endangered because of the effects of DDT on their reproductive success rates not because of the mere presence of humans.

A couple of years ago, Bob Kerry and I reported on a survey of how other areas handle closures and I believe that was useful for determining a more reasonable closure policy for the Chocise Stronghold that was positively received by the climbing community. My understanding is that in Elderodo Canyon (outside Boulder, Colorado) where they simply close specific areas of a wall rather than wholesale cliff closures, they have maintained very successful raptor breeding activity in relatively close proximity to popular climbing routes. In addition, because climbers in this area live in less fear of having whole areas closed, they are more cooperative with local widelife officials when it comes to reporting new eries and respecting closed areas. I believe that a similarly effective plan could be implemented in Southern Arizona, but we will have to explore that idea after we have had more of a chance to talk.

While Tom Skinner (Forest Service) and some of the other folks from AFAW have patiently explained to me that there is a mandate to ensure that the Peregrines do not go back on the endangered list, it is becoming increasingly difficult to use that reason as a credible eplainantion to the community to discourage climbing activity in many of these locations. Can you help me to understand how long the forrest service will continue to treat the Preregrins as protected? I don't feel that any of the climbers I know have any interest in disturbing nesting birds (raptors or otherwise;) however, most feel that these closures have become unreasonable and that this has become a self perpetuating protection program that makes no sense. Can you help me understand better why you are recommending expanding the closures rather than reducing them (or coming up with a better plan) as these birds become more successful?

Thank you for your help.

I do not understand the reason for closing more areas. The Falcon population is whole and healthy. The threat to the Falcons was DDT. With the elimination of DDT, and through conservation efforts, the Falcon population has completely recovered. The 2003 survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife survey indicates this trend and the 2006 survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service should conclusively show this (note that their report has not been released yet).

My view is that all closures for the Peregrine Falcons should be lifted. There is no data to indicate that in any way, the Peregrine Falcon is a threatened or endangered species inside the U.S. or Arizona. If I am wrong, please show me that data. I have scoured the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service publications and the internet and there is no indication that the Peregrine Falcon populations are anything below their historical levels and not healthy.

Again, I do not understand the justification for keeping the any of the previous areas closed nor do I understand why there are plans for additional closures.

The e-mail by Melinda is especially threatening. In 2008, there were seven closures in southern Arizona. In Melinda's e-mail, there were 35 closures. This rapid increase in the number of closure areas threatens virtually every group that wants to use the National Forest. It is easy to go to special interest groups such as hikers, hunters, etc. and show the history of the closures and how the change in Forest Service policy threatens their right to access in the Coronado National Forest. It is easy to show that climbers have been living with the closures for over ten years and just when it appears that the closures should be lifted, they are increased five-fold. How do you think the hiking groups are going to receive the information that the Forest service plans to close ___ _________?

The thing that strikes me as especially bizarre about the e-mail is that you want to ban climbing on ______ ____. There is a lookout tower on the top of the rock! The way I read this is that building and maintaining a lookout tower doesn't impact nesting Falcon but climbers do? It's a double standard.

The time for closures is over. The Peregrine Falcon population has recovered and is healthy. Nothing indicates this more than the massive number of closures that Josh and Melinda want to implement.

While peregrine falcons have been de-listed from the endangered species list, there is a post-delisting monitoring effort that must be met before the falcon (or any other species) is considered fully recovered. In the case of the falcon, the monitoring effort has been set at every 3 years for a total of 15 years. These rules were not made by us, but we (the Forest Service and the AZGFD) are obligated to follow those rules. In the case of the Forest Service (a federal agency), they are held at a higher standard regarding compliance of the Endangered Species Act, which means that there is usually less flexibility regarding compliance issues. So in essence, we must treat the falcon as if it were listed for the full 15 years of the monitoring schedule. This is very important for you to understand.

Secondly, each nest site is managed on a site specific basis. Sites that are located in urban settings or among large one-sided cliff-faces (El Capitan in Yosemite) may need to be treated differently than those along dome-type structures (like Rockefeller Dome). While it may be appropriate to set a closure on a specific climbing route for some sites, compliance or enforcement may be difficult without closing off a larger area. Sites where monitoring/compliance of the route or nest are routinely performed may not need a larger closure. However, with Rockefeller Dome and many of our sites in Arizona where we do not have enough enforcement personnel to patrol those areas, a larger closure area may be more appropriate. Closing a larger area is sometimes easier to enforce than a specific route. The good thing about working with your group is that we have had some self-policing of these closures, and we have had the opportunity to adjust some of these. However, we are still limited in the number of these types of sites.

As far as additional closures . . . Many of the closures have been in place since before 1998 when I came to Tucson. Compliance and enforcement of those closures may or may not have occurred. Some of the closures may have been placed because of other species (bighorn sheep in Pusch Ridge or spotted owls or northern goshawks). The season of closure may also be different for each species as well. Because peregrine falcons are treated as if they are listed, the Forest Service must assess whether or not their management activities are creating impacts to the falcons. While I agree that this seems like a "catch 22" for your group (every new site is treated with a closure, then why report new sites?), new sites demonstrate that more falcons are out there and strengthens our argument that "recovery" is being met.

As for ______ ____ tower . . . I'm not sure of the number of visitors to the tower or the frequency of visits that occur, but it may be that the route taken to the tower has less impact than a climbing route up the face of the rock. Again, this is something the Forest Service must evaluate. Certainly, the falcons may continue to nest with a tower there, but may or may not with a climbing route that is used during the nesting season.

Bottom line is that the closures are not year-round, only that they occur at a time when Arizona temperatures are conducive for outdoor activities. Please remember that we must treat the falcons as if they are listed for the full monitoring period. We do not have flexibility on this. We certainly have tried and will continue to engage with your group and make modifications to these closures where appropriate. Thanks again for your willingness to meet and continue these discussions.

I greatly appreciate your thoughtful response.

My issue is only with closures, specifically closures on Mt. Lemmon and in the Cochise Stronghold in 2009 and in future years.

I am familiar with the delisting process and understand the monitoring process will go on for a span of 15 years. I have gone through all of the material on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website and have tried to read any and all documents relative to the conservation efforts regarding the Peregrine Falcons. I understand you are obligated to follow the rules of the delisting and I understand that the Peregrine falcon should be treated as endangered specie until the delisting process. I could be wrong, however, but I do not think that the federal mandate on the delisting specifically require closures as a part of the conservation effort. This view is supported by the recent e-mail from Robert Mesta regarding a nation-wide approach to closures. He says that, “There is no nationwide policy, its up to the land managers to determine the need and design. Based on specifics of the territory.

The first question I have is: are closures mandated by the federal delisting process? Can the Arizona Game and Fish and the Coronado National Forest meet the requirements of the Federal delisting program without imposing closures?

The next thing that strikes me as odd when I go through the documentation is that I can’t get any real sense of what the conservation efforts are trying to achieve over time. Specifically, when do you declare victory and feel comfortable that the Peregrine Falcon population has recovered and is self-sustainable? Of my particular interest, when is the Peregrine Falcon population healthy enough that closures are no longer necessary? I get a feeling that time and goals are missing elements in the Peregrine Falcon conservation efforts in Arizona. Perhaps, the conservation effort is a victim of its own success.

If you do not have any targets or goals, then I do not think it will be possible to determine the appropriate action regarding closures. At this time, I believe that the correct goal for the Peregrine Falcon population within the continental United States should be the same number of birds that existed prior to the introduction of DDT. Once the population approaches this level, I do not think that closures are required. This does not mean that I think the bird should not be protected. This does not mean that the bird should not be treated as an endangered specie. It just means that I think that closures are not necessary. Conversely, if the population of Peregrine Falcons is significantly below the target levels or the goals, then it may be appropriate to have more closures or increase protection of the Peregrine Falcon.

Also, I believe that if you do not have targets or goals for the entire population, then the wildlife conservation efforts will be based upon protecting and preserving specific nesting sites and eyries. If the population of the birds is low, this is a perfectly acceptable strategy. However, as the population increases, the number of nests that need protection increase and presumably, the number of closures will increase with them. If you can’t define when the conservation process is a success or define any goals, then this closure process will continue ‘til who knows when. This is a very frustrating cycle if you want access to areas that are closed. As a climber, you hope that as the population increases, the restrictions will be relaxed instead, they are increased because there are more eyries. There appears to be no end in sight.

Based on a limited amount of information, I believe that the Peregrine Falcon population is near or above the level that it was prior to the introduction of DDT. I believe that the Peregrine Falcon population is whole and healthy and closures are not required. My feelings regarding the numbers of Peregrine Falcons are supported by numbers and documentation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service website. A quote from the 2003 survey specifically says that, the data collected in 2003 show territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity of Peregrine Falcons to be at healthy levels in every monitoring region, and show numbers of pairs continuing to increase across the United States.” Because of this, I do not believe that closures are required in 2009 and beyond.

I would like to go through my laundry list as to how the closures have been poorly executed in southern Arizona and how the climbing community, for the most part, has supported the closures – but I will leave that for later.

Again, thanks for your e-mail.

When I read your e-mail, I had the impression that I had misread Melinda’s e-mail about the closures – that some of the closures listed were for Bighorn Sheep, Goshawk, Mexican Spotted Owls, and Peregrine Falcons. However, after re-reading her e-mail, it is clear that there are 35 areas that are being proposed for closure due to Peregrine Falcons.

Last year, there were seven areas in the Coronado National Forest due to Peregrine Falcons. Josh Taiz and Tom Skinner (Forest Service) personally gave me the closure orders for these areas so that I could disseminate them to the climbing community. I scanned the closure orders and made them available on my website:

http://www.climbaz.com/features/closures/closures.html

The five closures in the Santa Catalina district have been in existence since 1991 to 1995. It is unclear when the Rockfellow dome closure started since that closure order was revised in 2006.

I started publishing the closures due to Peregrine Falcons in 2002:

http://www.climbaz.com/news/news.html#falcon

In that year, there were ten closures. So in the span of six years, there has been slow and incremental decrease in the number of closure areas from ten in 2002 to seven last year. As a climber, there was hope that eventually these areas would be progressively eliminated and everything would be open.

Melinda’s e-mail seems to indicate a dramatic change in Forest Service / Game and Fish policy. From a slow decrease in the number of closures over the span of six years, suddenly there is an increase from seven to thirty-five closures. In my view, this dramatic five-fold increase in the number of closure areas represents a dramatic departure in Forest Service / Game and Fish policy regarding Falcon closures.

Doesn’t the Forest Service / Game and Fish have an obligation to the public to explain this change in policy? Although I do not know the details of the new closures, they appear to go beyond the scope of the climbing community. Isn’t there an obligation to the hiking groups, the hunting groups and the businesses that support these groups (as well as the climbing community) to explain the sudden change in policy? A five-fold increase is very disturbing in its own right, but where the hell is this going? Are we going to see a five-fold increase in the number of closures every year?

I have another point of irritation: twenty-eight of these areas are new. I assume that these areas are being closed because they have active eyries. But haven’t these eyries been established without closures? Haven’t the birds learned to cohabitate with humans? Doesn’t the Forest Service / Game and Fish department want to select for Falcons that can cohabitate with humans rather that select for birds that require isolation? In my simple view, things are being done backward. My thought is that for long-term survival of the species, the bird is going to have to adapt to humans and not vice versa.

Anyway, I had to keep writing...