The following is the "Critical Habitat" designation list which was released August of last year for the designated Sierra BH Sheep herds which actually supercedes the official USFS Williamson/Baxter Closure directive of 1981. It encompasses the Williamson/Baxter closure along with 10 other locations.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... r05au08-10

Designated areas include the following:

1. Mount Warren
2. Mount Gibbs
3. Convict Creek
4. Wheeler Ridge
5. Taboose Creek
6. Sawmill Canyon
7. Mount Baxter
8. Mount Williamson
9. Big Arroyo
10. Mount Langley
11. Laurel Creek
12. Olancha Peak

The highlighted areas have high regular human & vehicular interaction/visitation. Pretty bizzare.

Here is a very interesting comment/analysis within the CH document that is another valid reason to reopen this closure indefinitely to stufy the effects of human interaction....

" It remains unclear how significantly Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep
may be affected by human disturbance (Jones 1950, pp. 71-72; Dunaway 1971, p. 19; Wehausen et al. 1977, p. 31; Hicks and Elder 1979, p. 914; Wehausen 1980, pp. 200-201; MacArthur et al. 1982, p. 356; Papouchis et al. 2001, pp. 579-580). Additional investigations are needed to identify areas of conflict as situations arise where the increased presence of humans could be detrimental to the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep or its habitat. These areas of use could displace Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep from important habitats."

To those who continue to support this closure which denys hikers and moutaineers access to the terrain around Mt Williamson, Baxter Pass, Black and Diamond Peaks but for a few months each year, I would ask the following question. It is not a one liner type of question so you will have to read my pedantic writing.

This closure was put in effect before modern technology made following the movements of these animals easy. Now that we actually know where the sheep are – they are almost entirely in places other than the closure area- how can you justify supporting the closure? If you really believe the sheep should live entirely isolated from mankind, then you should propose that we reopen the closure area and close the rest of the Sierra Nevada range.

Diggler, I read your post twice, but I still am not sure what you are trying to say, anyway I hope you had a nice hike…

As it stands today the Bighorns in the Sierra are doing fine, and as I said earlier it is obvious why they are not in the closure area. It is among the harshest environments in these mountains.

What would be the benefits of opening these lands?

Aside from the tremendous benefits in terms of individual people’s experiences in the mountains, I will argue that since the number of climbers and hikers is pretty much a constant these days pressure will be taken off other over used areas as folks who are interested in doing Shepherd and Baxter passes will avoid Onion Valley and Whitney Portal.

And then of course there is the simple fact that the land is ours and if there is no compelling reason to close it, then a closure is a violation of our rights.

Chief – thanks for your great work in this cause!

email sent

I'm with The Chief on this one. The science doesn't support a continued closure. Here's the e-mail I sent:

I am writing this e-mail to ask that you, as the current District Ranger of the Inyo National Forest, terminate the Mount Williamson/Baxter Sierra Big Horn Sheep Study Closure.

Having just read parts of the 2007 Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, I learned that the most serious threats to the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep are mountain lion predation, disease transmission from domestic sheep and goats, and severe winter weather. But, the Plan says, the effects of human recreation on the sheep 'seem to be minor' (p. 197).

The Mount Williamson/Baxter herds have been studied for over three decades and served as a source of reintroduction stock that reestablished the bighorn sheep in several areas of the Sierra Nevada. Of the reestablished herds on Wheeler Ridge, Mount Langley, Lee Vining Canyon, and Warner Mountains, the Lee Vining and Warner Mountain ones had the most trouble. But not because of recreation. The Warner Mountain population likely died out because of contact with domestic sheep (p. 15). The Lee Vining herd declined because of mountain lion predation, but increased after mountain lion removal.

Recreation was not cited as a threat to reestablishment in any case. The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep population has more than tripled from a 1995 low of 100 individuals. And I can confirm from experience that the Mount Langley and Lee Vining areas see considerable recreational use, and yet the reestablished herds there now seem to be doing well. Park Service rangers have even seen bighorn sheep crossing Tioga Pass Road.

But the Mount Williamson herd was reduced to 10 individuals in 1998 after holding steady at around 30 from 1978 to 1985. The decline couldn't possibly have been because of recreation, since the area is seasonally off-limits. Instead, according to the Recovery Plan, the decline was the result of a lack of winter range. The Mount Williamson herd's suitable wintering habitat was compromised by poor predator visibility in pinyon pine woodlands that began growing in the late nineteenth century because of fire suppression (pp. 50, 141).

Mountain lion predation is repeatedly cited as a cause of bighorn sheep deaths. But a recent study published by the Oregon State University Trophic Cascades group found that in Zion National Park, 'increases in human visitors in Zion Canyon apparently reduced cougar densities, which subsequently led to higher mule deer densities'. Wouldn't the same be true for bighorn sheep? Could areas of increased recreational use in the Sierra Nevada similarly reduce mountain lion densities, thus increasing usable habitat for bighorn sheep?

The report itself states that recreational use is not considered a substantial threat and that 'there appear to be few locations where recreational disturbance has the potential to significantly affect sheep' (p. 197).

The Closure has been useful as a study area and a source for reestablishing herds throughout the Sierra, but science does not justify its continued existence. I ask that year-round access to the current Closure area be immediately allowed and that access be limited only, if ever, when detrimental effects of recreation to the bighorn sheep population be clearly established.

Keep it up.... all of ya's!

Some really awesome stuff being submitted to Ms. Wood.

God it's great to be an American aint it!

I remember when the bighorn sheep closures were imposed in the early 70's. For the first few years nobody took it seriously since it was implemented very poorly. The ranger stations would hand you bad mimeographs of bad maps which were supposed to show you where you could go and where you couldn't. Since the odds of encountering any rangers in these remote areas were small, nobody paid much attention.
I couldn't agree more that the closures are outdated. Getting the federal govn't to rescind a long standing edict, however, is a daunting task. Letters, e-mails and other communications from tax paying citizens mean nothing to the bureaucrats. If you want some response, you need to mobilize input from some 'experts' who the bureaucrats can blame if there is some criticism later.

Another e-mail sent. Thank you for mobilizing us.

Mine's going out in the morning mail. Thanks for organizing the effort, Rick.

sierraman wrote:I couldn't agree more that the closures are outdated. Getting the federal govn't to rescind a long standing edict, however, is a daunting task. Letters, e-mails and other communications from tax paying citizens mean nothing to the bureaucrats. If you want some response, you need to mobilize input from some 'experts' who the bureaucrats can blame if there is some criticism later.

GOT EM! Four Ace's in my back pocket!!!!:wink:

Chief,
Thank you for leading this effort. Sent the email message to designated person.
Let's hope that our efforts will result in opening the area.

Rick - Amen. I will send an email

...Thinking of climbing Barnard's East Pillar this season

I can only image the hoards of people that will head up George Creek if year-round access is allowed in that area.

wingding wrote:I can only image the hoards of people that will head up George Creek if year-round access is allowed in that area.

Be like the first Blue Bird Day after a dump at the hill huh?

NOT!

The Chief wrote:

wingding wrote:I can only image the hoards of people that will head up George Creek if year-round access is allowed in that area.

Be like the first Blue Bird Day after a dump at the hill huh?

NOT!

Probably would just have the same crazy people who slog up there right before the May 15th deadline spread out over the summer. Hey, maybe a better use trail will develop if the area sees more traffic. One solid use trail=fewer side trails scarring the terrain (and fewer "DOHs!"). Oh yeah, maybe folks will stop trying to grow weed up there with more foot traffic as well (not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, though )