Tetons, closing to humans

Excellent letter Greg.  Thanks for going to bat.

The Teton Climbers Coalition is having a Happy Hour next Wednesday.

Mees wrote: the same organization that promotes closures like this to save the sheep,  also sells permits to hunt and kill them? FWIW , I'm not against hunting just the hypocrisy. If they really want to save sheep perhaps quit selling licences to kill the most robust individuals in their gene pool.  they tried to pull this in the south fork ice area , saying ice climbers were stressing the sheep in their "winter habitat" .  In fact one visit to the SF in winter, revealed what Greg mentioned.   the sheep were not stressed at all by the non threatening slow moving climbers. sheep might get up and move 100 feet if you were walking near them.   they should do the GPS study during hunting season, might get some interesting data. it's difficult to imagine goats not living in GTNP in the past. 

Mees:

It's not total hypocrisy, really. Sure, Wyoming G&F wants to save the bighorns so they can kill more of them. The only way to do that is to increase the healthy herd size. Same reason they feed wild elk like farm animals. They don't kill bighorns in Teton County if the population numbers are too low. Skiers seem all too happy to endanger the bighorns, however, no matter the low population numbers. They are not trying to save bighorns, only save a playground. It surely appears that some backcountry skiers are willing to deny the science if it doesn't fit their narrative. If the science turns out to be true and skiers like Greg are putting the lives of bighorns at risk, like your hunters, then all you get is threatened bighorns, and more closures and less hunting. Obviously, the skiers want to call the science into question. Nothing wrong with that. Would any of them accept any scientific evidence that proves beyond a doubt that skiers are endangering the bighorns? Would any support closures to protect bighorns? Seems unlikely. We all want to enjoy the backcountry. Including hunters & bighorns.

You gotta figure that if they shipped mountain goats and wolves into the GYE, they could ship in more healthy bighorns.

neil grimaldi wrote: Teton Climber,

GTNP, or at least the Bighorn sheep working group, is absolutely seeking public comment on closures. They will be breaking out the map and feeling it out (in their own words "specific locations") on Thurs, 3/5/20 in the Snow King Grand room at 6pm. I would ask all Teton climbers and skiers that have an opinion on new sheep closures to please show up and speak your voice. I, for one, am not in favor of new closures without more science. I am having a hard time believing some of the conclusions of the study and, like Greg, agree that it will be harder to roll back closures than it is to prevent them in the first place. The winter-closure of one of the most historically significant areas for ski-mountaineering in the lower 48 would be a huge loss for ours, and future generations.

Yours truly,  Neil Grimaldi

"GTNP, or at least the Bighorn sheep working group, is absolutely seeking public comment on closures. "

Please don't say or imply that GTNP is seeking public comment or has any plans for closures unless you have proof. So far, there is no proof that any closures are planned by GTNP. That doesn't mean one doesn't need to be on guard for such actions or shouldn't have a plan to counter unreasonable closures.

Gee Dubble wrote:
Gee Dubble says:
Grand Teton National Park will enact a 4 month annual closure. You will be prohibited from climbing. You will not get these peaks opened retroactively.
Closures will not help Sheep.
It will be signed by an interim Superintendent during the elbow season.

But what does the Park say?  Where/what is your source?  On the GTNP website re: winter closures https://www.nps.gov/grte/planyourvisit/winter.htm, this is what is current: 

 "Areas Closed to Protect Wildlife
Winter closures include the Snake River bottom from Moose north to Moran Junction, Buffalo Fork of the Snake River in the park, Kelly Hill, Uhl Hill and Wolff Ridge (December 15 through March 31). Closures for the protection of bighorn sheep include: Static Peak, Prospectors Mountain and Mount Hunt including peaks 10,988, 10,905, and 10,495; all areas above 9,900 feet (3000 m) and southfacing slopes on Mount Hunt above 8,580 feet (2600 m) (December 1 through March 31); the Banana Couloir is open."

At least the Static Peak closure has been in effect for over 30 years.

Gee Dubble wrote: TETON BIGHORN SHEEP AND WINTER RECREATION COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
Agenda for Workshop #3 of 4
March 5, 2020
6 – 9 pm
Snow King Hotel, Jackson, Wyoming
 
Purpose: How can we have excellent winter recreation opportunities while also allowing bighorn sheep enough undisturbed winter habitat to survive in the Tetons?

Gee Dubble says:
 Grand Teton National Park will enact a 4 month annual closure. You will be prohibited from climbing. You will not get these peaks opened retroactively.
Closures will not help Sheep. It will be signed by an interim Superintendent during the elbow season.

Greg,

Providing the bighorns with "enough undisturbed winter habitat to survive", and protecting our favorite winter climbing & powder stashes is certainly worth pursuing. Is that your agenda? Are all your sources from the Teton Sheep Working Group sessions? I see a GTNP employee as part of that project. Have they tipped their cards?

I don't know if anything you say related to closures is grounded in fact because you haven't presented any evidence. However, I can certainly see the park moving in that direction. The park won't be moved by a small group of climbers and skiers. They ignored everyone when it came to killing the mountain goats until WY Gov Mark Gordon pulled strings at the federal level and slammed the interim Superintendent from all directions. It takes that kind of power. And even more backing if people think you're risking, possibly, the wellness of wildlife such as the bighorns. Grand Teton National Park really doesn't give a damn what the public thinks about anything unless the public has politicians and powerful people behind it. Public comments are just window dressing on scoping documents.

All the graphics are from the Teton Sheep Working Group's documents..... https://www.tetonsheep.org/process 

https://www.nps.gov/grte/learn/management/wildlife-closures.htm

"Not climbed Armed Robbery on Cloudveil in Winter, yet?......"

Still open. That's worth noting.

 If bighorns are still on Static, etc, seems logical to extend the closure. It may be that the park wishes to find out if keeping it closed changes sheep behaviour (perhaps it keeps them off other peaks like Cloudveil).

Did you ask for specifics? They do answer the phone.

As for those who insist that gps tracking is the be all, end all, of great field science, I would agree that it has its limits. Good for many things but not all things.

Extending the closure may have no real benefit for bighorns. Favorite playgrounds aside (at this closure area), the vast majority of the backcountry still remains open, including Armed Robbery. 

The park has issued plenty of new front country / side country closures so anyone heading out needs to check what is open. 

Big Horn Sheep Proposed Winter Recommendations

October 20th Meeting Agenda

Hello Collaborative Process Participant,  

If you would like to join the virtual meeting by phone:

Dial by your location

+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)

+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)

+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)

+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)

+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)

+1 646 876 9923 US (New York)

Meeting ID: 831 8428 8165

Passcode: 507479

Looks like Greg has left the building.

It is important to note, however, that no decisions to implement these recommendations have been made yet and each agency retains the authority to determine its own path forward.  

The working group would probably prefer to shut down the entire range to skiing. They know that's not politically feasible. Their compromise still seems like an overreach. 

Of course, it is often the case that one asks for more than one thinks is politically feasible in order to look like they are compromising later should the political winds against them become stronger. 

If history is any guide, the park service will be more inclined to follow the working group's suggestions than new demands from skiers and mountaineers who won't move the political needle in the park service's calculations.

Thanks for the update to the old thread.

I recommend that Jay Pence, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Chip Jenkins, Superintendent, Grand Teton National Park and Todd Stiles, Bridger-Teton reject the Working Group’s  unnecessary and illegal recommendations. Ban Bighorn Sheep hunting, work on migration corridors, kill wolves and lions, ban domestic grazing and dogs; because implementing these illegal and unnecessary recommendations will not help Bighorn Sheep and will result in Federal lawsuits, non-compliance and will be ruled illegal. Help the sheep or pay the consequences. No one can close Federally designated Wilderness to humans. Try making it harder to reach.

The proposed recommendations include closure of the Snaz and Caveat Emptor as well as, like I originally said; Armed Robbery. It is too late for the free food buffet, however.

Gee Dubblewrote:

I recommend... Ban Bighorn Sheep hunting, work on migration corridors, kill wolves and lions, ban domestic grazing and dogs; because.... (their) recommendations will not help Bighorn Sheep and will result in Federal lawsuits, non-compliance and will be ruled illegal. Help the sheep or pay the consequences. 

I get a chuckle reading that. If they "will be ruled illegal", what are you worried about? 

Call into the zoom meeting. That should be fun. 

Killing wolves, lions, and mountain goats to get the skimo orgasm on a peak? Good luck with that argument. It needs to be framed in such a way as to make it seem as if you're not solely interested in killing wildlife for personal financial goals and pow days. I don't know how that is done but open up your thinking. Maybe add some social justice key words like Black Backcountry Skiers Matter, etc.

Teton County actually considers the ecosystem as more valuable than human life so any argument that goes against the grain like killing wolves, goats, lions will get pushback. Especially if it is because you want access to places that most people never see when dry, or snowed in. Limited shared interest means limited support for your efforts.

But, yes, it is an overreach. So hammer at that idea.

EDIT: The working group's pdf file of final recommendations lacks high guality graphics. Their website has more information and some higher quality graphics of impacted areas. I didn't see, upon first glance, all the graphics in the pdf file on their website.

This is from the PDF file. This image is easily readable. Avalanche Canyon is the shaded bluish area on the left side of the image. While mostly closed on the south aspect, some ski lines from Garnet Canyon are retained. Garnet Canyon is fully open for skiers and mountaineers. Most of the smaller front country peaks to the east are still open to skiers. That includes Moran. Lots of the remaining backcountry, true backcountry, is proposed for closure but it does look like they made efforts to retain the most popular skimo/skiing destinations.

I originally said, they want to close a lot of peaks. Grand Teton, original route.

Teton Climberwrote:

it does look like they made efforts to retain the most popular skimo/skiing destinations.

So lets pile everyone on top each other instead of letting those willing to go further and explore the less traveled lines, do so? Proposing Four Hour Couloir and two lines off the South as the only objectives going south into Avalanche Canyon open just seems like a recipe for trouble. They've also proposed closures on potential access points to different popular lines that would remain open, creating more confusion, congestion, and less alternate plans to tackle winter objectives, where the safest/best access can change by the day. For example, no access up the south facing terrain of Wister, but the NE snowfields remain open. Hell, they have the Cody boot pack right on the edge of the proposed closure line.

Do small human powered groups in the high peaks have a bigger impact on this historically migratory herd? Or is it the ever expanding ski resorts and human interaction in the valley corridors that have shut-down their migration routes and forced them to winter in the harsh alpine environment? A section of the proposed closures of Teton Canyon is in a zone that has already been approved for Grand Targhee to expand, I believe. 

In the research they used for this proposal, the researcher claim the mere sight of humans can negatively affect the sheep (causing more energy expenditure/stress), and the working group planned that into some of their proposed closures -- closing sightlines that the sheep might have. While also using this as a supporting point for closure: "This proposed closure combined with the planned habitat treatment are expected to increase bighorn sheep use of this area, which would provide excellent bighorn sheep viewing opportunities for the public from the Teton Canyon groomed trail." 

Ill be interested to see how this meeting goes down on Wednesday. I'll be there (virtually).

Benton:

Pointing out the fact that the majority of popular ski lines are still accessible does not mean I think more distant or obscure lines have no value. Had you read my post, you would see that I felt their final recommendation was an overreach. 

The fact remains that bighorns benefit from protected habitat. Your ski porn is not necessary for your survival. However, some protected habitat for Bighorns may necessary be for their long-term survival.

Like Greg, I like access. And, I question the science to a degree but I also pull for the bighorns to live the bighorn life.

As to crowds, if you can't find an empty line in the Teton's side/front or backcountry, try harder.

Greg: 

I saw Dartmouth Basin was shut down and the western aspects above it. Do I care that was the original route? No. I can certainly see value in traveling through it for pleasure.

As I said before, access is worth protecting but the argument can't be all about your financial needs or your need to call every peak a domain for your pleasure. 

The park hasn't decided anything. The feds call the shots. They have probably grown tired of skiers making bad calls in the backcountry so that may play a part in their decisions, too.

Have you drawn up a map of what should be the domain of skiers and mountaineers during the winter? Plenty of public effort went into the working group's plan. Where is yours?

Closing the Grand Teton aside;

I would ask the questions:

Ally Courtmarch, why have you decided to go with a disproven biological method of; no humans and a few fires instead of supporting the current rebound of the Targhee herd by eliminating domestic grazing, hunting sheep during migration and predation, while adding genetics and working on migration corridors. This is a risk to Wyoming Game and Fish department. 

Dr Jessica Weston, why the disingenuous process ? You are inviting lawsuits and a diminishing the reputation of the Ruckleshaus Institute.

And if Todd Stiles, Jay Pence, and Chip Jenkins are listening, will this recommendation weaken the Widerness Act? Please stay with the proven methods and reject these recommendations as illegal, unfounded and biased, without backing field science, or data from inside a 23 year closure. Chip; listen to retiring ungulate biologist Sarah Dewey. Enacting these recommendations, closing the Jeddiah Smith wilderness and Grand Teton’s Director order #41 surveyed wilderness to humans is likely illegal and will attract the attention of Wyoming’s Federal representatives in Washington D.C.

Greg, 

In all sincerity, I hope they clearly address the issues you bring up. But I doubt you will get answers you like.

Also, I don't know if this will actually help but instead of saying someone is doing something disingenuous, try saying it felt disingenuous to you. If you want them to consider your position, attacking the individual seems to be of limited value. Attack the science with science. Attack bad policy with better policy. Offer up solutions. 

Good luck

Teton Climberwrote:

Benton:

Pointing out the fact that the majority of popular ski lines are still accessible does not mean I think more distant or obscure lines have no value. Had you read my post, you would see that I felt their final recommendation was an overreach. 

The fact remains that bighorns benefit from protected habitat. Your ski porn is not necessary for your survival. However, some protected habitat for Bighorns may necessary be for their long-term survival.

Like Greg, I like access. And, I question the science to a degree but I also pull for the bighorns to live the bighorn life.

As to crowds, if you can't find an empty line in the Teton's side/front or backcountry, try harder.

Grand Targhee, Snow King, and JHMR continually expanding is not necessary for any human's survival either. Yet, two out of the three are planning to expand, or have already done so (in/adjacent to sensitive wildlife areas -- not just the bighorn sheep) with approval from some of the same agencies that would support these closures.

I've never had trouble finding empty lines in the Tetons -- winter or summer, but appreciate the slightly condescending advice. Expressing concern over crowding on lines isn't out of selfish want for open coulies, powder fields, and "ski porn" as you call it. Like you said, there's no shortage of those to be found if you walk a little further (and respect all closures...).

I also pull for the bighorns to live the bighorn life. I'm not sure where we are disagreeing. 

Nothing about this will get done on MountainProj forums, though. We'll know more on Wednesday. 

The resorts are guided by federal regulations which are very permissive. The hands of the forest service aren't fully tied but they face bigger obstacles to saying no to expansions. 

If I wanted to build affordable housing on Forest Service lands, non starter.

Snow King is sorry state of affairs, pushed by bets on real estate and tourism. That defines Jackson. 

Zoom meetings lack punch.

Gee Dubble wrote:

If u found a silver Gri Gri in Teton Canyon back on Labor Day, it is worn sharp as a razor. Throw it out soon. Keep the little blue Metolius screw gate. 

The zoom meeting is pretty much a wrap on the working group's efforts more than another breakout session. I assume you were at every working group event giving input. Wednesday seems a little late to the party if not.

During the last 1.5 years since your original post, (2 years since the issue got traction), opponents could have worked on real solutions which favor your objective that are backed by science and/or policy, within a legal framework. And gathered support.

Did any of this happen?

Unlike access to the local Palisades Wilderness Study Area which was maintained after major pushback from recreational users, I haven't seen major pushback to the working group's current plans. 

Or, perhaps the Bighorn Coalition saw what happened with the PWSA and suckered skiers in. Then they used them as defensive pawns. The Bighorn Coalition probably got everything they wanted while looking like they compromised. Not being in the cabal, I wouldn't actually know.

Zoom meeting is tomorrow. Didn't see any reason to attend but it's like rubber necking at this point so maybe I will sneak a peak at the carnage.

_______________

"You are invited to join the Teton Range bighorn sheep working group and agency managers from the National Park Service, US Forest Service, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department for a virtual meeting on October 20 from 6:00-8:30 pm to review and discuss the working group’s recommendations stemming from the public meetings that took place February - June 2020."

_______________

The next battle is with the Feds.