Need all the help I can muster ASAP from ALL SP members.


Been working diligently on this for the past two weeks. I have gotten the NPS, USFS and CAF&G Biologists and many others that have been involved with this issue for a long time, blessings on this and they all say it's time to open it up. They have told me that they have mentioned it within the inter-agencies in the past 3-4 years, numerous times to no avail and that the "Public" needs to make their voices heard to the District Ranger who has the authority to open it up and end this ancient and useless closure.

Call or Write Margaret Wood the Inyo Forest District Ranger and tell her that the 38 year old Mount Williamson/Baxter Sierra Big Horn Sheep Study Closure of 1971, that is no longer of any value to the original premise in isolating the then endangered herd of Sierra Big Horn Sheep in that region, needs to be rescinded and dissolved immediately. That a year round access to the current established USFS Closure Designated Area should be immediately initiated per the guidelines and study results that are within the current Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan that can be found here...

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWeb ... ery?sort=1

Let her know that the original premise for this 38 year old study closure is extinct and no longer a valid one. That the area should now be allowed to be accessed by all and by anyone of the U.S. taxpaying and internationally visiting public that own the land that this closure rests upon. That so many have wanted to reach the summit of Mount Williamson and experience it's majestic beauty but have been prevented in doing so for too long a period by virtue of this extinct 38 year very limited period access old closure.

Contact Margaret Wood at either:

White Mountain Ranger Station 760-873-2500 Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM
Ask for her extension to speak to her personally or leave a message on her voice mail if not available.

or

Email her at:

mwood@fs.fed.us

Or

Letter Mail to:


Margaret Wood
District Ranger Inyo Nat'l Forest
White Mountain Ranger Station
798 North Main Street
Bishop, CA 93514

Please let her know that we all deserve the right to access this area after 38 years of very limited access to a chosen few.

Let's get this hill open and accessible to all, year round, ASAP!

Good work guys;

So we're all on the same page, perhaps you could comment on the points I plan to make in a letter:

1) The Williamson herd is effectively gone; other Sierra herds have grown in compensation. A few individuals roam across the williamson region, but there is no longer a distinct herd. Therefore there is no longer sense to protecting the herd. (Possible counterargument: a claim that since sheep were historically here, this must be a good place to reestablish. Also -- I seem to recall a picture of a bighorn, taken by an SPer, in that region -- say from the last year or two?)

2) The major pressure on the mountain bighorn herds is mountain lion predation, brought on by prop 117. Older human pressures were from hunting and herding of domestic sheep, and not from wilderness travel. (One possible counterargument : I see an indirect reference to studies by Wehausen (1979 and so) that human contact may drive off the sheep. I don't have access to the original articles, so I don't know what the original evidence was, and if was misrepresented.)

One problem I face is that the literature quotes arguments from years ago, and it is important to recognize that some of the arguments are probably no longer relevant. For example, it was previously argued that the Willimason herd, of all in the Sierra, was the most diverse genetically. But as near I can tell, the evidence is that the herd may have been extirpated by 2003, and the last prior count of the herd was 1 ram and 6 ewes-- not a recipe for maintenance of diversity.

MoapaPk wrote:Good work guys;

So we're all on the same page, perhaps you could comment on the points I plan to make in a letter:

1) The Williamson herd is effectively gone; other Sierra herds have grown in compensation. A few individuals roam across the williamson region, but there is no longer a distinct herd. Therefore there is no longer sense to protecting the herd. (Possible counterargument: a claim that since sheep were historically here, this must be a good place to reestablish. Also -- I seem to recall a picture of a bighorn, taken by an SPer, in that region -- say from the last year or two?)

2) The major pressure on the mountain bighorn herds is mountain lion predation, brought on by prop 117. Older human pressures were from hunting and herding of domestic sheep, and not from wilderness travel. (One possible counterargument : I see an indirect reference to studies by Wehausen (1979 and so) that human contact may drive off the sheep. I don't have access to the original articles, so I don't know what the original evidence was, and if was misrepresented.)

One problem I face is that the literature quotes arguments from years ago, and it is important to recognize that some of the arguments are probably no longer relevant. For example, it was previously argued that the Willimason herd, of all in the Sierra, was the most diverse genetically. But as near I can tell, the evidence is that the herd may have been extirpated by 2003, and the last prior count of the herd was 1 ram and 6 ewes-- not a recipe for maintenance of diversity.

Great points MoapaPk!!! I have highlighted those that I pressed hard on during my face to face investigation and thus receiving the blessings for ending this closure from those that took part in these highlighted findings.

The counter arguments you post are logical but from my talking to the individuals involved in this study, find really no basis for either as I also presented them with basically the same points.

These are certainly the primary reasons for rescinding this Study Closure and to allow year round access!

Thanks again!

And I ask that as folks read the Recovery Plan and see other important valid reasons to insist on M. Woods immediate attention on this matter and ending the closure asap, to please post them!

Why is it the only bighorns I have ever seen on the E Side were on the Silver Canyon road in the Whites? This was herd of ~4 females and 4-5 lambs. I can't see how limiting climbing access to Williamson is having an impact. Will send an email. Thanks, Chief.

Don't you think it would benefit the sheep to see a few more humans struggle in their environment? Besides, those of us making the trek would only treat them with reverence.

Email sent to M.Woods. Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I cobbled together a letter from yours and MoapaPks posts. Lets hope it works!

Here is a copy of the letter I sent:

Dear Maam,
I am writing this brief letter asking that you, as the current District Ranger for the Inyo National Forest, rescind and put a permanent end to the current 38 year old extinct Study Closure that has been in effect for Mt. Williamson and Baxter for far too long and no longer serves any purpose.

The premise for this closure no longer exists. Per the current Recovery Plan that took effect last February, 2008, the Sierra Big Horn are located in and are thriving in many different areas of the Eastern Sierra. I know for a fact that there are well over 50 plus sheep that range between the western slopes of Wheeler Ridge (Tamarack Lake, Broken FInger Pass and the eastern slopes of Morgan South) to behind my back door in the upper reaches the of Hilton Creek drainage, the eastern slopes of Morgan North and over to McGee Creek Canyon all the way up McGee Creek to Red & White Mountain. And there are many more herds that are thriving all along the Eastern slopes of the Sierra from Mt. Langley to Mt. Conness that are not protected by any closures.

The original herd that existed in the late 60's and early 70's in what is now the Williamson & Baxter Study Closure area, no longer exists and have disbanded per the analysis in the current Recovery Plan, several years ago. Thus the premise for the closure no longer exists.

Please rescind the current closure mandate and allow open access to the entire area in question, ASAP. You have the power to authorize an indefinite extended unlimited open access in both the George Creek and Shepard's Creek T/H affected areas, on the upcoming annual access opening dates in April. Allowing this temporary indefinite open access on the 15th April is a great opportunity to analyze and conduct an impact study maybe in 3-5 years down the road to see if any human visitation in the area has caused any ill effects on the stray sheep that migrate through there to there current habitat on the western slopes into the Kern River Basin below.

I have personally spoken to several key individuals involved with this issue, Tom Stevenson, Mary Beth Hennessy, Richard Perloff and Gary Guenther, and they all shared with me that they agree this closure no longer is necessary per it's original premise.

Please consider this request, do what is right and open this area up immediately so that we, the public and owners of this land, can once again visit this beautiful and majestic area indefinitely at any time in the year. You have the power to end this 38 years closure that serves absolutely no purpose ASAP. Please do it.

Thank you for your time.

Good work Chief. Email sent.

Chief, thanks for posting this. I especially appreciate the link to the Recovery Plan. I'm sending an email. Hey Bob- later George Creek outing, maybe?

Let's reemphasize the fact that the Sheep have proliferated in a healthy manner and expanded into many areas along the Eastern Sierra, since this study closure was introduced in 1971.

Several herds have actually settled down in areas quite close to human settlements i.e. West of Wheeler Ridge in the Tamarack Lake basin/West slopes of Morgan North, Rock Creek (Finger Lakes Basin) and right above the community I live in, Hilton Creek, in the upper reaches of the Hilton Creek drainage on the eastern & western slopes of Nevahbe Ridge, Morgan North well into the McGee Creek Drainage. All this WITHOUT any closure restrictions to protect them.

They are even roaming and can be seen on occasion on the eastern slopes of Tioga Pass right above Lee Vining Canyon where they have actually setteled over into Lundy Canyon. I spoke to a local yesterday who recently retired as a Backcountry USFS Ranger in the area and has observed them numerous times, crossing Tioga Pass Road, 120 just below the Green Bridge which is located 1/2 a mile below Ellery Lake.

Point... they are flourishing in numerous areas with abundant human interaction and are doing just fine. Why continue to have one isolated closure "protection" area where their numbers have decreased dramatically, and, that will have less potential of human contact, than all the rest????

OH YEAH!!! Many of the areas that they have expanded into that are not within the NPS boundaries, are authorized DEER HUNTING areas. That's right! Deer Hunters can access many of the areas that the BH Sheep now reside in. What kind of logic is that???

Another area where the sheep are doing very well is to the south around Langley.

Rick does your appeal include the Baxter Pass, Black and Diamond pks etc.? I think that is all part of the same deal.

If you have ever hung out up around Williamson and Tyndall there, or done the Black-Diamond travrese you will understand why the sheep left. It is rock wilderness, little or nothing to eat...

Yes Kris and great point!!! The Williamson Closure includes the Mt. Baxter area as well.

Thanks also for mentioning the Langley/Tuttle Creek Herd. After speaking to CAF&G rep last week, he mentioned in depth that this just so happens to be the biggest known herd. Ironically, he also shared that they seem to like and frequent the area just below the SF of LPP and Red Baron Tower more than the southern aspect and branch of Tuttle Creek in the Langley area. *They have been tracking all the herds as they have collared many individual sheep in all the known herds with sat link gps transmitter devices which are very similiar to the "SPOT". In doing so, they can keep a really good tabs on all the herds and their movements. I observed many fresh BH indications and scat evidence on my several visits there last summer.

*Another valid reason why this closure no longer is needed.

THE wild sheep ranks highest among the animal mountaineers of the Sierra. Possessed of keen sight and scent, and strong limbs, he dwells secure amid the loftiest summits, leaping unscathed from crag to crag, up and down the fronts of giddy precipices, crossing foaming torrents and slopes of frozen snow, exposed to the wildest storms, yet maintaining a brave, warm life, and developing from generation to generation in perfect strength and beauty. -John Muir

Mt. Williamson bighorn sheep ([b]2008[\b])


In 1971, Inyo National Forest established sanctuaries totaling about 16,500
hectares (41,000 acres) for the Mount Baxter and Mount Williamson herds of Sierra
Nevada bighorn sheep and called them the California Bighorn Sheep Zoological Areas
(Wehausen 1979; Inyo National Forest 1988). Those sanctuaries were designated to
regulate human use in some areas (Hicks and Elder 1979), and reduce domestic
sheep/wild sheep interaction by constructing a fence below the winter range of the Mount
Baxter herd along the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management boundary
(Wehausen 1979). Adjacent summer range on National Park Service land also was
designated to reduce human disturbance (Wehausen 1979), and those restrictions
continue.


...Thus, small population effects alone made these bighorn
sheep vulnerable to extinction.

The U.S. Forest Service became active in the management of Sierra Nevada
bighorn sheep in 1971, when the Inyo National Forest created two Bighorn Sheep
Zoological Areas (Mount Baxter and Mount Williamson Units) for the two surviving
native herds (Dunaway 1971). These areas, totaling 1,823 hectares (4,505 acres) outside
designated wilderness areas, were created to give top priority to the requirements of the
bighorn sheep through protection and maintenance of their habitat and through the
regulation of human use in certain sections of the bighorn range to minimize human
disturbance.

The access limitations were initiated with the goal of preserving this fragile herd. While this access limitation is a pain in the ass for us climbers who would love to climb this magnificent peak whenever we want for recreation purposes, it exists to protect a NATIVE creature that lives there (i.e. doesn't come from far away to have fun there, then leave again).

While there are numerous things that are threatening this species, I think that any biologist would agree that humans encroaching on their habitat stresses them out, & them being stressed out contributes to their survival being threatened. I've seen large herds of these creatures on the side of the highway in Colorado, where they are not in a struggle for existence (& would love to see this in the Sierra, or at least on the side of a mountain). I've also seen one at 14,000 ft, in the barren alpine zone near the summit of Williamson's East Horn (see above photo), & it's been one of the most moving & unforgettable experiences (of many) that I've had in the mountains- while they are so adapted to their harsh, unforgiving environment, they are being affected by circumstances beyond their control, many of which are directly attributable to humans.

In short, they need human intervention & assistance to survive, & to hopefully flourish once again. Unlimited access to our outdoor playground in the Sierra is great, but that access restriction was put in place by scientists for the reason of protecting these animals.

This rule should was grounded in science, its existence should remain grounded in science (i.e. if it is beneficial to these animals, it stays), & should not be influenced by people who write in to insist on removing it because it's restrictive to their playtime. Besides, there is enough time to go out & enjoy the mountain anyway- if it's that important to go up the mountain, then make it a priority to schedule it in during the allowed time!!

While writing in to some ranger should not effect a rule meant to protect an endangered species, I'm going to do it anyway to offer my own $.02. Now I'm going to actually go outside & enjoy the day by hiking, not writing about being outside on my computer all day. Peace.

Diggler wrote:In short, they need human intervention & assistance to survive, & to hopefully flourish once again. Unlimited access to our outdoor playground in the Sierra is great, but that access restriction was put in place by scientists for the reason of protecting these animals.

This rule should was grounded in science, its existence should remain grounded in science (i.e. if it is beneficial to these animals, it stays), & should not be influenced by people who write in to insist on removing it because it's restrictive to their playtime. Besides, there is enough time to go out & enjoy the mountain anyway- if it's that important to go up the mountain, then make it a priority to schedule it in during the allowed time!!

While writing in to some ranger should not effect a rule meant to protect an endangered species...

You raise a great point Diggler!

That is the premise on which many are questioning this particular closer.

If they need protection from human's and their potently negative influence, why then aren't the other 16-22 known herds , the habitat areas where they are currently abundantly thriving which range from Langley to Mt. Whorl and possibly all the way up to Ebbetts Pass, not in any closure mandate in order to protect them? Many of those unrestricted herds are far larger and in many cases are co-existing with human's.

Even Wehausen himself, the original author of this closure, believes this closure is outdated with the incorporation of today's precise sat tracking technology.

Sent mine just now. Text is as follows:

Dear Ms. Margaret Wood...

I have been a regular visitor to the Inyo National Forest for the past 25 years. While traveling in the area, I have seen groups of Big Horn sheep - groups as small as 2 and as many as 20 - in locations ranging from lower Cottonwood Creek in the south to Taboose Creek in the north. I have also seen signs of sheep in a wider range, as far south as Ash Creek, and as far north as Coyote Flat.

My sightings of sheep have been rather frequent, and most often in the area south of Mount Whitney, in the Tuttle Creek and Cottonwood Creek drainages. I have photographs of a small herd of 15-20 sheep on the east ridge of Mount Langley, and more photographs of 5 sheep within 200 yards of the road-end in lower Cottonwood Creek. I was once shadowed by 4 sheep while relaxing at a small campsite at the mouth of Tuttle Creek canyon, on the southeast corner of Lone Pine Peak.

The signs of the presence of sheep have been even more frequent. While hiking in the remote and rugged Ash Creek, I have seen many sheep trails and a few skulls. I once found a nearly-intact sheep skeleton high on a ledge about 1 mile south of Taboose Pass.

Considering the wide area and relative frequency of these sightings, I feel that the seasonal closure in the Mount Williamson area may have outlived it's usefulness. The sheep seem to be flourishing in the eastern Sierra Nevada!

Though I would love to be able to visit the Mount Williamson area during periods of better weather (say, August?), I have concerns outside this personal selfishness about the effects of the closure on the way in which wildlife is 'managed' in such regions. I feel that the closure fosters the belief that a species has a known range or habitat, and that such a restricted area is all that is needed to keep a healthy population.

I hope that some kind of settlement can be made with regard to the seasonal closure, and that such a settlement would not kill research of wildlife in the eastern Sierra Nevada, and neither would it unduly preclude a reasonable level of access to a beautiful and seldom-visited region of the range.

Thank you very much for allowing citizen input on this important issue.

Best regards...

Tom Kenney
123 Some Street
Anytown, CA 99999