Word is around. From what I see, the information on the trees has apparently been known for a decent amount of time. Per this:

http://www.escarpment.org/_files/file.php?fileid=fileQZNQsAz...

Research on this began in 1989, quite a long time ago. So there's been a lot of awareness for a while. Most of the web pages on Niagara Escarpment nature activities already mentions this old forest (one example is here: http://brucetrail.org/pages/about-us/the-niagara-escarpment).

However, you are right to worry -- apparently in this case the worry is that this area gets a lot of rock climbers, and there does seem to be a significant concern about rock climbing's impact on the trees (and other fauna). Yes, some actions are being done to protect them too. This article goes into some of the detail.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2249972-loving-it-to-death...

> there does seem to be a significant concern about rock climbing's impact on the trees (and other fauna).

Nitpick, but trees are flora, not fauna, so that parenthetical should probably be stated differently, perhas as either "(and other flora)" or "(and fauna)".

Hmm, maybe "(and other biota)" might be the best phrase.

One of the concerns was the impact on lichen for instance; I think lichen is neither considered flora or fauna.

Rock climbers in Ontario tend to be taught quite well in their training about the environment. At least I was. We tend to be quite strict about it to the point of instructing others if their actions are having a negative impact on the environment. It requires some education but that's one thing Canadians tend to be good at.

Though I won't deny we have some gung-ho climbers who don't care. Those guys tend to be shunned by the climbing community and are the kinds of people who have and cause accidents.

Just wanted to second this. When I climbed in Ontario, the cedars were pretty common knowledge and avoiding them at all costs was one of the tenets of being a good climber. Like any group, undoubtedly there's people who don't care; my experience was that most did.

It is already a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ec...

And protection of it is pretty pathetic. I live in an area that seems to have free license to build new subdivisions on it (Waterdown bypass, Waterdown rd expansion, 'Waterdown south' developments).

That said, I believe rock climbing is forbidden @ Rattlesnake point and surrounding area where these trees I believe are located.

The cliffs sound small enough and difficult enough to scale that you wouldn't have "tons" of tourists, and it's possible that those areas are already protected.

Look what happened to Mt. Everest: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/02/travel/feat-mount-everest-... -- there's no "small enough" or "difficult enough to scale" (or "protected") when it comes to tourism.

I grew up five minutes away from the escarpment, near Guelph. I used to climb those cliffs as a kid. For the most part, respectful use is encouraged. Not a lot has changed since I was a kid with respect to these cliffs or the nature in and around them so I guess that is good. If you are curious what is being done, check this out: http://www.greenbelt.ca/

I grew up in the area and have known about the age of the trees since the mid-90s. For the people who go hiking here, it's already common knowledge.