The Chief wrote: It will culminate with an open public meeting to get the public's voice, which she admitted she already knows where the majority stand on this issue, "Open it Up Now!!!" and then she will send her blessing to her boss who then clears her to officially rescind the 38 years old order to open it up.

Sounds good, Rick. Did she mention when this public meeting might take place? Wouldn't want to miss that!

RyanSpaulding wrote:Sounds good, Rick. Did she mention when this public meeting might take place? Wouldn't want to miss that!

Nope... it is part of the timely "Administrative" process.

But she promised me that I will be kept in the loop and trust me, I will let everyone know when it is scheduled!!!

Just sent my letter to Ms. Wood. If you haven't done it, folks, now's the time.

Thanks Chief for taking the point once again. Kudos to Kris Solem for posting this topic on the Taco.

Looks like I may finally get a shot at Mt. W as early as this year.

gm

Tom Kenney wrote:

Bob Burd wrote:If Carl Heller says it's 3rd class, then dammit, it's 3rd class.

Dammit, Bob! Why did you post the pic? Now I have to wipe the drool off of my keyboard!

See what I mean?

Federal beauracrats are armorplated from below but they are vulnerable from above. If you really want action from a fed you need Congressional support. G-man hates nothing more than Congressional scrutiny. If you can get Buck McKeon, who represents the 25th Congressional District in California (Inyo County), on your side, your golden. He is a property rights Republican, so he would be sympathetic to stopping the federal beauracrats from infringing on the publics right to use public lands. What would be really effective is to get some voter registered residents from his district invovled. Believe me, one phone call from a Congressman is worth 1,000 e-mails and letters from tax paying citizens.

sierraman wrote: What would be really effective is to get some voter registered residents from his district invovled. Believe me, one phone call from a Congressman is worth 1,000 e-mails and letters from tax paying citizens.

Already been done!

This is a closed case....they lost and the People have won!

Coincidentally, I was looking through some of my archives last weekend and I found an original bighorn sheep closure map I picked up at the ranger station in Lone Pine in 1973. Guess I should hold onto that as an historical artifact, eh!

That's good news Rick! Thanks again for your effort. I wish the LVC matter was as easy as this was...

Steve Larson wrote: I wish the LVC matter was as easy as this was...

Sorry Bro...

That is Private Property. I am still working on it and will continue to do so until we can come up with some kind of compromise that is a viable and win-win deal for everyone.

Liability is the biggest issue here. Unfortunately, the fact that there are folks out there that will sue if they bust their ass on SCE prop is their primary concern. Can ya blame em?

Forgive me for not gleaning it from earlier posts but, does lifting the Williamson enclosure affect the Mt. Baxter closure zone?

Yup!!!

This includes both Williamson & Baxter aspects of the current Zoological Study Zones.

The entire area will be open year round with an over night trail quota which all Wilderness Designated Trails currently maintain. The administrative process to ascertain what the parameter will be commences next week and takes anywhere from 45-120 days to determine and then implement.

That is all according to Margaret Wood, the District Ranger.

Here are relevant excerpts from the US Fish and Wildlife Service "Final Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep" of Feb. 13, 2008 (at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/080213.pdf)

From "ECOLOGY"

Leopold (1933) considered bighorn sheep to be a wilderness species because they fail to thrive in contact with urban development. Human disturbance has been suggested to be detrimental to bighorn sheep in a variety of situations (Graham 1980, MacArthur et al. 1982, Etchberger et al. 1989, Papouchis et al. 2001). Similarly, Dunaway (1971) postulated that disturbance of bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada by humans was a factor limiting populations. Results of subsequent research did not support that hypothesis (Wehausen et al. 1977, Hicks and Elder 1979, Wehausen 1980). Bighorn sheep have habituated to human activity in many places in the Rocky Mountains, and occasionally in desert habitats. Any conclusions about the effects of human disturbance, however, must be limited to the situations studied. Thus, the question should be revisited as situations change in a direction that suggests disturbance could be detrimental, such as increased presence of humans in bighorn sheep habitat.

From "National Park Service ... Historical Management"

Following the lead of the U.S. Forest Service, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in the early 1970s closed “the female/lamb range of the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep . . . to all pack animals and to off-trail travel by humans [in the national park].” This closure was later codified in the Superintendent’s Compendium. The associated map identified an area representing the known range of females and lambs within King Canyon National Park. Because off-trail travel by pack stock is impractical along the crest of the Sierra Nevada and the occasional use by mountaineers and climbers does not pose a significant threat to bighorn sheep, and because the areas used by bighorn sheep will be in a state of flux for the indefinite future, the permanent closure was terminated in 2001.

from "OUTLINE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS"

Manage human use locally where it is found to cause bighorn sheep to avoid important habitat and thereby compromises survivorship or reproductive success. This action will take place only if research (see Task 6.4) results in a recommendation to limit human use in some areas; at present there appear to be few locations where recreational disturbance has the potential to significantly affect bighorn sheep. Focused research on effects of human activities on bighorn sheep will determine whether any limitations on human use are required. If it is concluded that limitations will be beneficial, appropriate actions should be taken to limit human use that is found to be detrimental. Disturbance by humans (or possibly by off-trail domestic dogs) will be significant to bighorn sheep if nutrient intake of a herd is compromised by avoiding key foraging areas because of human activity. Both quality and quantity of forage vary greatly across the landscape, and bighorn sheep visit key locations where more nutritious forage is available. If bighorn sheep are regularly displaced from such areas and cannot procure equivalent nutrient intake at an alternative site, population parameters of the herd will be negatively affected. If they frequently flee encounters with humans, there may also be an unnecessary waste of energy that can have population-level effects.

From "Initiate or continue needed research."

Investigate and analyze human use patterns relative to habitat use patterns of bighorn sheep. Earlier investigations of hypotheses concerning human disturbance (Dunaway 1971) dismissed it as not important for the Mount Baxter herd, but possibly a factor for the Mount Williamson herd (Wehausen et al. 1977, Hicks and Elder 1979, Wehausen 1980). Bighorn sheep have been reintroduced to three additional areas since the earlier studies, but these new herds have not been investigated to determine the possible impacts of human disturbance. There is a need to investigate patterns of use by humans and domestic dogs including intensity, trends, and types of use in and near existing bighorn sheep habitat to identify areas of possible conflict. If areas of concern are identified, intensive studies to investigate whether human disturbance may be displacing bighorn sheep from favorable habitat can be initiated. Potential reintroduction sites also should be investigated to identify areas of possible conflict.

From "APPENDIX J COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT PLAN"

Comment: Some commenters were concerned that the study of human/recreational impacts, including impacts from dogs, is only a low priority.

Response: Actions to ameliorate the effects of human/recreational use were not given high priority in this plan because we do not currently consider recreational use, including the activities of dogs, a significant threat to Sierra Nevada bighorn. If information indicating recreational use is having an effect on recovery becomes available, appropriate actions will be recommended.

Comment: One commenter was concerned that the plan indicates the potential need for future restrictions on recreational users, but fails to specify what those actions might be.

Response: The recovery plan states that any actions limiting recreational use will take place only if research results in a recommendation to limit human use in some areas. At present, there appear to be few locations where recreational disturbance has the potential to significantly affect sheep. Because the research needed to address this issue has not been completed, it would be premature to speculate about these actions.

Comment: One commenter believed the potential effects of off-trail recreation and mountain climbing on new herds that have become established and proposed future herd ranges have not been adequately addressed in the plan.

Response: Although we recognize the potential of recreation to impact bighorn sheep, these impacts seem to be minor. However, the recovery plan calls for continued monitoring of the compatibility between recreational use of bighorn sheep habitat and bighorn sheep recovery

Thanks for the post!

All this has been presented to Margaret Wood. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE including the NPS BIOLOGISTS involved with every EI for the past twelve years for both the CHAD's and RECOVERY PLAN are all in favor of this CLOSER GOING AWAY!

Please see the following new Thread for startling new info....

http://www.summitpost.org/images/original/195696.jpg

Langenbacher wrote:Response: Although we recognize the potential of recreation to impact bighorn sheep, these impacts seem to be minor. However, the recovery plan calls for continued monitoring of the compatibility between recreational use of bighorn sheep habitat and bighorn sheep recovery

Does this mean the access restrictions will stay in place, or am I reading this incorrectly?

wingding wrote:

Langenbacher wrote:Response: Although we recognize the potential of recreation to impact bighorn sheep, these impacts seem to be minor. However, the recovery plan calls for continued monitoring of the compatibility between recreational use of bighorn sheep habitat and bighorn sheep recovery

Does this mean the access restrictions will stay in place, or am I reading this incorrectly?

That response is from more than a year ago, before The Chief started his fervent quest, so I'm guessing it doesn't reflect current plans.

Reminds me a bit of the film "Ikiru" (though we don't have the terminal cancer case...).