This may be a surprising story. It begins with a working group trying to save the last native bighorn sheep of Idaho’s and Wyoming’s Teton Range. Last fall it reached agreement after years of effort.
The coalition recommended closing just over 20,000 acres of high-country public land during the winter. The proposal was a compromise, balancing the survival needs of the bighorn with the “stoke” desires of backcountry skiers.
The sheep would get about half of the high-quality winter Teton range; skiers would lose access only to about 5% of what they had identified as prime skiing terrain.
It seemed as if the skiers came out on top in the deal, and a majority of the backcountry skiing community accepted the compromise without complaint.
That is, until a handful of vocal skiers lashed back, launching a campaign to convince federal land managers to preserve all access, bighorns be damned.
The unwillingness to give up even a sliver of terrain to help a nearly extinct herd of wild animals reeks of the access-greed that puts the “wreck” in wreckreation. It’s also a prime example of what you might call the public land paradox: The growing belief that because all Americans are part-owners of the public lands, we all are entitled to do as we please on those lands, regardless of impacts.
Bighorn sheep were once abundant across the Mountain West, migrating for miles to follow the forage. Habitat destruction, fragmentation of migratory paths, disease, climate change, competition from non-native and domesticated ungulates, and, well, humans in general, have shrunk their range and winnowed their numbers.
The Teton Range’s bighorn sheep, hemmed in by humanity, stopped long-distance migration eight decades ago. The last remaining herd, numbering just 100 to 125 animals, is on the edge of dying out. That’s why, in the 1990s, state and federal wildlife agencies, biologists, and advocates formed a working group to figure out how to save the herd.
In the decades since, a growing number of recreational users have penetrated farther and farther into the backcountry – and into the bighorn’s winter range. “Quiet,” non-motorized forms of recreation were once considered benign, but a growing body of research suggests that even hiking and skiing can have a deleterious effect on wildlife. In 2014, a University of Wyoming researcher found that bighorn sheep avoided backcountry recreation areas, resulting in a major loss of their habitat.
Findings like that might warrant closure of all of the Teton bighorn’s remaining winter range. In the spirit of collaboration, the working group instead suggested the skier-friendly compromise.
But even that, a Driggs, Idaho, skier said in a public meeting, was a “tough one to swallow.” A social media commenter added: “Smells like old people and communism to me.”
This sense of entitlement is widespread. In my hometown of Durango, the Bureau of Land Management shuts down a few areas for the winter to give wildlife a seasonal respite from humanity. And each year a few handfuls of hikers, runners and mountain bikers violate the closures, even though hundreds of miles of nearby trails remain open.
The mere suggestion of a trail closure to protect peregrine falcon nesting areas draws gearhead jeers, and the International Mountain Biking Association pledges to “actively oppose new wilderness and other designations that would negatively impact revered mountain biking opportunities.”
In 1995, the National Park Service banned rock climbing — voluntarily for individuals and mandatory for commercial guides — on Devils Tower, held sacred by Indigenous peoples, during the month of June to keep it free of humans during solstice-related ceremonies.
The outfitters not only balked, they also hired the Mountain States Legal Foundation — the litigating branch of the Sagebrush Rebellion and Wise Use movement — to sue the federal government. The Park Service backed down on the outright ban and asked people to refrain from climbing in June. Yet each year hundreds of people climb it.
In many ways, the access frenzy is a modern-day echo of 19th century colonialism, when white settlers seized Indigenous lands and ran roughshod over the public domain because, well, it was public. What they didn’t understand then, and many modern-day recreation-colonists don’t understand now, is that access to these lands is a privilege, not a right.
Yes, we do all own a little share of the public lands. But ownership comes with a responsibility of stewardship, not outright entitlement. Bighorn sheep have a right to live in the West, too.
Jonathan Thompson covers Western issues and is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West.
100%
We need more articles like this. This sense of entitlement, especially with the MTB crowd, of which I belong, is unfortunate. A lesson in environmental ethics should be required before recreating in nature.
As a mtb nut, I agree entirely.
What’s wrong is that the wussie officials in charge, who have the expertise and power to make the correct decision, don’t have the balls to back it up and not back down.
Fear of job loss, and pressure from DC, especially from republican legislators who rule most western states!
Great writing but could have just had a landing page with the words “Tragedy of the Commons” and we’d get it. Unfortunately humans are going to human. I also am starting to firmly believe that the current generation of “x-treme” athletes are getting more or at least equal stoke from how many instagram followers they have versus their desired pursuits. It really feels like crap living in the social media age. Rotten to the core.
“Humans, going to Human” that says it all. My Senior Qoute was from Calvin and Hobbes “ The problem with people is, they’re only human” lastly and I’m not sure who said it “People Suck!”
Humans are a sexually transmitted disease!!! We can’t leave one damn thing alone to live in peace, not even each other. A useless lot we are. We serve no ecological niche!!!!
As Edward Abbey said: “I like individuals, but I hate people.”!
Humans do sh!tty things, yes, humans do dumb things, yes, but they also do great things, caring things, wonderful things. That’s what makes them…wait for it…human. Go out to some of these public lands and smell the fresh air and go for a walk, you’ll feel better.
So unfortunate.
Ahhh, the scourge of social media. Where we once just demanded to be heard we now demand obedience. Anything that ‘stokes’ the 2-year old narcissist trapped inside the adult body is fair game. How DARE you not get me!
I appreciate your article! There is a similar issue in my area of the White River National Forest. Any efforts to protect Wild Lands is met with extreme resistance. What is the issue behind such “entitlement?” As a psychologist, I wonder if there is a prickly, unconscious aversion to the potential loss of autonomy? That fear is so unconscious that the very thing they seek out to enjoy, they destroy.
Very sad. I always thought part of the reason for these public lands was to maintain an area for wildlife to roam. Their needs and those of the indigenous people should always be considered before those of the recreationist on, especially on wilderness designated lands. As the author pointed it, it is a privilege to have access to public lands.
Great read – I remember hearing about this issue when it looked like the sheep would get their winter habitat sans skiers. Just shared with my wildlife biology grad school colleagues.
So sad that so many never learned to share the planet. The consequences for the future of our children and humanity are terrifying
Hear hear, great piece. There are approximately 7 billion too many humans on the planet at present, and far too many of them do not realize that what THEY want does not matter. There are simply too many of us. Wilderness exists for its own sake, not ours, and in a sane and rational world the preservation of intact ecosystems and bioregions (the few we have left) should be prioritized so far above ‘wreckreation’ that their voices should hardly matter. It is one of the great sadnesses of the modern age that those who should be the most vocal advocates for the wild (backcountry skiers, climbers, hikers, etc.), really just view it all as a stage and a playground. No true connection to the wild, or wildness, for so many. Just ‘stoke’ and flashy gear and instagram likes. Twenty, thirty years ago the abovementioned groups would be the staunchest advocates for wilderness preservation. Now…. it’s just pathetic, so many “conservation” groups only interested in public access (at huge ecological cost) for their ultra-privileged ultra-white supporters. Colonialism at it’s finest, still going strong. And yeah, we’re all on Native Land.
Hayduke lives.
Actually, Wilderness (the capital-W version) is for preserving these lands for the recreation of humans – it’s written directly into the preamble of the Wilderness Act. The lower-case-w-wilderness is for its inherent value, but there is no public alignment on that, and as more voices join the Wilderness mix, the opportunity for unification and shared ethics will be annihilated. Unfortunately, the industrialization of recreation, the extreme sports trends, and the total reveal of all outdoor spaces by the geotagging features of social media are the end of wilderness as a space with inherent value and for something other than human needs.
Is there anything we can do to prevent further Winter usage? Thanks for he article
This is one of the best things I’ve read on here. Truth! Thank you.
Who speaks for the trees?
I wonder…
If we armed and trained the Big Horns for an “open season” on Scofflaw Sphincters on Skis that, feeling their own lives at risk, they might learn some empathy for the Big Horns that they are invading? Nah. They’ll just post the corpse.
How do we effectively defend wildlife when even our presence as guards disturbs them?
Could a drone with a laser burn off the tips of their skis so they’d have to walk back down?
Could their vehicles be seized and towed from the prohibited incursion site?
At the least, heavy penalties might be the only thing to get their attention. That’s an incredibly small herd! Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Thank you for well-written news!
For the tech folx out there, could something be built to auto scan the social posts for out of bounds locations? Didn’t they catch those guys who pushed over a hoodoo that way?
Humans on this continent wouldn’t be here if not for that push to the horizon embedded deep in our genes. So I feel it too and do understand the urge to go further. But our impact has completely exploded since those days and we have to moderate our urges.
The article is very biased in favor of the research about the Teton bighorn herd.
I’ve read the primary research and supporting documents. It isn’t at all clear that the proposed restrictions will benefit the herd, which is extremely fragmented and has been in decline since the valley was settled, primarily because the winter range on the valley floor is now human habitat.
Short of restoring migration corridors and winter range on the valley floor, the herd will in all likelihood continue to decline. The very minimal and infrequent human incursion in many of these areas seems like almost the least important factor, and there isn’t any proof at all that the restrictions will have any benefit.
Please look up and read the primary research and sources. This isn’t about social media, it’s about feel good measures and virtue signaling and it’s very doubtful that any benefit to the herd will result.
It’s especially telling that there is no proposal to review the restrictions in 10 or 20 years to see if there has been any benefit.
The article is clearly labelled “Opinion.” It’s an editorial and so will contain bias. But bias is not the issue. And is isn’t about “feel good measures and virtue signaling,” whatever the hell that millennial-speak means. Misinformation, ignorance, and entitlement are the issues. How else do you explain the fact that under the compromise, skiers would lose only five percent of access to what they consider prime terrain? Ninety-five percent is not enough? And if there really is “very minimal and infrequent human incursion,” then how are so few people able to crumble a land-use compromise that provides us a chance to help wildlife survive? Why would we think that’s okay? Nearly every big game herd in the West is “extremely fragmented” and in decline. It is our responsibility as public land owners to reverse that trend. “Isn’t at all clear,” “isn’t any proof,” “very doubtful” of benefit? Maybe in your mind, but not in the minds of wildlife biologists who’ve spent their careers studying these animals. We should take their advice, instead of catering to the clueless. There is plenty of proof that setting aside critical winter range habitat benefits game herds. That’s why we do it all over the West. Wildlife are a natural resource equal to or, in some cases, more important than recreation.
Frequently, benefits are not know until the change is made and there has been time to observe.
A partial sentence quote from Happy:
“It isn’t at all clear that the proposed restrictions will benefit the herd…”
This does NOT equate too:
The restrictions will not benefit the herd.
It’s possible maybe even reasonable that the measure could benefit the herd EVEN MORE than the biggest proponents suspect.
Self-centered greed, guess there’s some in every group!
I think Agent Smith said it best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp2adrUaiyI
It’s always about what I want is best for me. So sad when we have so much.
Thoughtful article and comments. Humans have not considered themselves part of the natural world for a long, long time. “Nature” is something to take pictures of, cut down, and kill.
and eat….don’t forget eat.
To be fair, the cultural and wildlife closures I can think of are pretty effective. People seem to take raptor and falcon closures seriously, same with desert bighorn areas in Canyonlands. And folks who climb Devils Tower in June are called out on social media. Just my observations.
Agreed 100%!!! But it won’t be long before we’re gone. The sad part is we are taking every conceivable species with us. Humans be damned!!! There are way too many of us, but we keep right on breeding!!! We are a sexually transmitted disease, and we just can’t leave one damn thing alone to live in peace. We really are a useless lot that serves no ecological purpose!!!!
I have been part of the Teton Bighorn Sheep Working Group conversation from the beginning. As an avid Teton backcountry skier and someone who wants to see the Teton Bighorn Herd survive and thrive I can say this article is lacking in nuance particular to this situation. My offense is primarily with the statement “skiers would lose access only to about 5% of what they had identified as prime skiing terrain”. This is something that is just not true. Please take a look at the proposed closures at https://www.tetonsheep.org/winterzonesmap and you will see yourself. Prime skiing terrain is different to different people. Humongous swaths of seldom travelled Wilderness on the west side of Jackson Lake will be permanently closed in winter. Many of these areas see very little traffic in winter. High value high-elevation South Facing couloirs in Avalanche Canyon also may face closure. Current closures for Bighorn sheep (over 20 years) have produced NO DATA on the success or failure of those closures. Many people believe that the study does little to support the hypothesis that skiers pose a grave threat Teton Bighorns. Teton Skiers primarily seek out deep snowpacks, couliors and open faces whereas bighorns tend to stick to wind-scoured scree fields and south facing rock ridges.
Some other items of note:
It is Teton Skiers who carried the GPS trackers from which biologist Aly Courtemanch derived much of her data
GTNP is actively killing Mountain Goats so that they don’t inhabit / outcompete sheep in the Tetons and bring pneumonia to the Teton Bighorn Herd.
In between the time that the BSWG stopped taking public input and new closures were announced JHMR was allowed (By USFS (BSWG)) to double the number of skier guided days South of the resort (Bighorn Winter Range)
Currently under review (By USFS (BSWG)) is a major expansion of Grand Targhee Ski resort into the South Fork of Teton Canyon (Bighorn Winter Range).
It is easy to say that Teton backcountry skiers should quietly accept major sweeping closures to vast Mountain Wilderness if you package it as “skiers would lose access only to about 5% of what they had identified as prime skiing terrain”. Unfortunately, digging a little deeper into the issue will only reveal that it is not so simple.
Thanks for a bit of the other side of the story. A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, right? Unfortunately the compromises in cases like this generally result in more loss of habitat for endangered species. Idk the answer.
It seems as though Adventure Journal is censoring comments to make it seem like everyone is in agreement
We’re a small team and unable to moderate comments 24/7. If there’s a delay before your comments post, that’s why. We have zero reason to censor comments unless they’re rude.
Perfect, Thank You!