Climbing in "Nature Preserves"

[chossmonkey]

There is a post by the NTONB and it got me thinking, I didn't want to hijack their thread so I started this one.

They are asking for climbers to come out and climb to help raise money for the Nature Trust, which sounds great, and if it is what it sounds like then anyone who can should be jumping on the opportunity to help out and at the same time validate climbing/climbers as a legitimate use/users of ALL public land.

My concern or questioning comes from the fact that every experience I've had was that "nature preserves" and climbing don't mix. Climbing is either completely not allowed or it is so restricted that to me there is no appeal to even climb there. Are they just using climbing as a money raising angle? Or are they truly supportive of climbing. By supportive I don't mean they simply "allow" climbing, but they actually let climbers climb the cliffs without a long list of "you cant's".

I would have put this into the NB area, but access issues and ways to resolve them are an issue everywhere. If they do truly welcome climbers to climb in the "Nature Preserves" with only a few reasonable restrictions then it could be used as a model for other areas where climbing is currently forbidden or heavily restricted because it doesn't mesh 100% with the current management plan.

[martha]

I believe the area in Question is Ministers Face where we only ice climb.. thus there is no conflict...in my opinion anyways .. between climbers and nests etc.

maybe someone in the NBNT could speak up?

[*Chris*]

I'll bite with a few thoughts...

1) To begin, in our part of the world climbers must recognize that they are competing for the use of a relatively distinct feature on the landscape which is in very low abundance; vertical rock. There are a number of plants and critters which also occupy that space out of necessity (in our landscape, they have nowhere else to go). The onus should be put on the climbing community to responsibly use those areas and to prove that our impact is negligible... where/if there is a doubt, we should air to the side of caution. I think easily followed practices (leaving no trace, maintaining reasonable buffers around active nesting sites, etc.) will ensure continued access in the future to most areas. That said, I believe climbing is about as low-impact a use as one can imagine and that for the vast majority of areas, there is no conflict. In many ways, we stand in a unique position to aid the ecological community in monitoring the health of these areas.

2) The NTONB is an orginazation which achieves the protection of sensetive areas in most cases by purchasing the land outright. As the owners of the property... their wishes must be respected.

3) The NTONB has already showed they can be reasonable with climber's access. http://www.naturetrust.nb.ca/pere-rock_ice.php

4) Regarding the specific topic of their post... I'd probably dispute any claim that the simple presence of climbers is disruptive to peregrines. If they successfully nest for multiple years under the Saint John harbour bridge... they can tolerate the racket produced by my set of hexes.

[Fred]

If they successfully nest for multiple years under the Saint John harbour bridge... they can tolerate the racket produced by my set of hexes.

perhaps but...

Most crags I have been to have some areas of cliff closed completely to climbers during nesting season.

I'm actualy glad Chossmonkey brought up this topic. I wanted to say something but didn't have the gaul to start a thread on it. I'm confused why a preservation organization is trying to team with climbers to help increase population of a species which can crowd and shut down our access to cliffs. It doesn't make sense to me. It's sort of like the tobaco industry willingly funding cancer campaigns.

I ask myself two questions:
1) Q: Do I want the peregrins to continue existence?
A: yes
2) Q: Do I want peregrins to occupy Welsford cliffs?
A: I must be honnest and say No in fear of the repurcussions.

[chossmonkey]

It is a bit of a wonder why the powers that be feel they must protect the nesting falcons from climbers. Perhaps they won't nest if people are climbing, but once they nest they will let you know when you get too close and whether you are leading or not you will be feeling the sharp end of things if you get too close. Perhaps when they are better established officials won't feel the need to restrict climbing as much due to the birds.


Devils Tower in Wyoming has a fairly progressive policy for falcon nesting. Of course it could be better, but it could also be a lot worse. When the falcons are nesting they normally nest in two main areas. The park service keeps a close watch on their activity and opens and closes sections of the cliff as the birds move around and prepare to nest. If they don't nest or no chicks hatch they will open the closed areas earlier in the year rather than keep them closed to the end of the nesting season.


The reason I brought it up really wasn't the falcons, it was more just the idea of a type of land manager that normally wants nothing to do with climbers (in my experience) who are asking for climbers help. I feel that climbing is generally a fairly low impact use of public land, but more and more climbers are excluded. I was just wondering what NTONB's angle was. They seem to be fairly reasonable. Perhaps if things go well with the NTONB (an organization dedicated to preserving nature) climbing can be argued as a legitimate use to open areas currently closed or keep areas open that land managers want to close.

[*Chris*]

I definately think it's a topic worthy of discussion here. It is not unlikely that falcons could move in to Welsford given its availability of food, nesting sites, and proximety to existing nests. It's also not unheard of to protect "potential habitats" for species considered threatened, rare, or important; even if those habitats are not currently occupied. Specifically, DND (the landowner) is obligated to act under the federal Species at Risk Act (which lists the P falcon) to protect threats perceived to it, and its habitat.

I still think there is little worry however. I simply think that our local community would have to continue to practice good stewardship at welsford, and volenteer to give up routes within a reasonable and justifiable area.

[granite_grrl]

I don't really mind if a section of a cliff is closed to protect nesting birds. Hell, if there are nest falcons at an area I don't really want to get close to them anyway, I'm sure they would be wuite protective.

What bothers me is the idea of closing entire areas due to nesting birds. It seems too frequently land managers don't want to spend as much time on the problem, its just easier to completly ban climbing at an area.

Living and climbing in around the golden horseshoe drives me crazy. There are so many areas you simply can't climb at, you need permits or be a member of the ACC, or there are at least rules that limit styles of climbing and new routing.

[Joe]

As a wildlife biologist, I've been tracking falcon nesting for the past 15 years. Obviously I've been keeping a watchful eye on Welsford. We do not have any historical evidence that indicates falcons have nested in Welsford. There just isn't adequate prey for them. Recently there have been new nesting pairs along the coastal Bay of Fundy. Good secluded cliffs and tons of shorebirds. And the Nature Trust has been active securing and protecting these properties. Jamie Simpson was instrumental in these projects so climbing was adequately considered. The Nature Trust is obviously trying to work with climbers in a cooperative nature, not conflictive.
Now, I can't guarantee that falcons will never nest at Welsford, but I believe there is better habitat elsewhere. And if they do nest, it won't be the Nature Trust's fault. It's because the population is naturally expanding. The Nature Trusts goal is to protect existing nest sites, not to have nesting falcons in everyones backyard. It's up to you personally if you want to support the Nature Trust and falcon management, but don't use "protecting climbing access" as an excuse.

[chossmonkey]

I still think there is little worry however. I simply think that our local community would have to continue to practice good stewardship at welsford, and volenteer to give up routes within a reasonable and justifiable area.

Exactly

If NTONB is being fairly reasonable about the closures it is a great opportunity to demonstrate that climbers and nesting birds, while perhaps not in the same small section of the cliff, can still use the same areas and cliffs with reasonable buffer zones. Those areas can be used as examples in the future when negotiating access to closed or restricted areas.


The same goes for cliffs that are home to rare plants. If a nature preserve will let climbers climb on cliffs with or near cliffs with rare plants and climbers can demonstrate that rare plants and climbers can use the same cliffs then how can other land managers argue against climbing? The crux there is all the non-rare plants that sometimes need to be cleaned off of routes. Normally all plants are "protected" in a circumstance like that whether they are rare or noxious.


If the NTONB is truly supportive of climbers, climbers can't afford to not be supportive of the NTONB. Even if it does mean some slight restrictions in the future, good relations could open far more cliffs than the restrictions might close.