BHA Wild Sheep Policy Statement

[Oak]

Oak, just curious what do you see when you read the first sentence of paragraph 3 and then last sentence from paragraph 6, from the report you mention?
Also what do you think about the stance of Alaska fish and game? Because my reading is that there is not enough or any indication for them to continue spending money on the idea of camelids spreading disease to wild sheep.
Many people are also critical of WSF role in writing the BC report without appropriate scientific backing for their assertions, as I believe it had been pulled from the WSF website for this reason.

I see assertions that support my last post.

The AK F&G took the stance they thought was appropriate.

The report is still on the WSF site. I'm not sure about the assertions you are referencing. The report (as you pointed out) concludes there is no evidence that transmission has occurred between camelids and wild sheep. It notes that camelids can carry pathogens that are detrimental to wild sheep populations. It concludes that separation is appropriate until better science is available.

Just because a pathogen already exists in the environment doesn't mean that there is no risk from introducing livestock that carries the same pathogen. For example, many, many bighorn sheep herds in the West test positive for the Mycoplasma ovipneumniae bacteria, but can still suffer catastrophic die-offs when a new strain of the bacteria is introduced. That's pretty common knowledge.

 

[bisblue]

I see assertions that support my last post.

The AK F&G took the stance they thought was appropriate.

The report is still on the WSF site. I'm not sure about the assertions you are referencing. The report (as you pointed out) concludes there is no evidence that transmission has occurred between camelids and wild sheep. It notes that camelids can carry pathogens that are detrimental to wild sheep populations. It concludes that separation is appropriate until better science is available.

Just because a pathogen already exists in the environment doesn't mean that there is no risk from introducing livestock that carries the same pathogen. For example, many, many bighorn sheep herds in the West test positive for the Mycoplasma ovipneumniae bacteria, but can still suffer catastrophic die-offs when a new strain of the bacteria is introduced. That's pretty common knowledge.

I would agree, where we differ is that I don't see any research to suggest evidence that camelids carry any diseases down to be "catastrophic". Should we not ban ( spatially separate) horses and mules utilizing this same logic?

 

[Oak]

Should we not ban ( spatially separate) horses and mules utilizing this same logic?

Do horses and mules carry pathogens potentially detrimental to wild sheep?

Would you support a health screening/certification requirement for using llamas in occupied wild sheep habitat?

 

[Lilhowie83]

Do horses and mules carry pathogens potentially detrimental to wild sheep?

Would you support a health screening/certification requirement for using llamas in occupied wild sheep habitat?

I would absolutely support it, when I cross state lines with my horses, I have to carry a health certificate with me at all times, so why not make other livestock users do the same. I would be in favor of having to carry a health certificate in my own state as well.

 

[bisblue]

Do horses and mules carry pathogens potentially detrimental to wild sheep?

Would you support a health screening/certification requirement for using llamas in occupied wild sheep habitat?

I would say horses and mules are in the exact same scenario, they carry some diseases but not the major ones that are considered a serious threat to bighorn sheep just like llamas. Also I don't know what the research shows but there is nothing to indicate that camelids can or have transferred any diseases to Big Horn. All of this is basically hypothetical.

Also if you're following the normal state rules just like horses and mules you would have a letter from your vet to cross state boundaries with your llamas.

The major difference is that one animal is highly romanticized as a symbol of the West and would get a significant amount of pushback if you tried to restrict their access.

 

[ScottP]

Scott,
Alaska fish and game who partially funded the BC report, recognized there were issues with the report. See the last three sentences of paragraph 2 from this letter from Alaska fish and game. As well as their assertion that the issue is not worth spending more of their money on, without a major change in the data.

Right, I get that. Point taken. although it doesn’t say what the issues are, I’m guessing it’s in the risk assessment side of the report vs disease surveillance in domestic animals in the first half.

 

[bisblue]

Right, I get that. Point taken. although it doesn’t say what the issues are, I’m guessing it’s in the risk assessment side of the report vs disease surveillance in domestic animals in the first half.

And I think that's part of the frustration, it seems like the most damning report that is always used, is the one that has the most issues...

I've had a biologist that works with sheep in a western state, basically tell me there's no evidence to show that they transmit any disease that would affect wild sheep, but everything seems to kill them so we might as well ban them (spatially separate) and just be safe.

That's fine and dandy, And I totally want to keep the sheep safe, I'm just not a fan of banning things because it's convenient but doesn't have any scientific validity, and is based on hypothesis. Imagine they ban hunters in an area because they hypothesize it could cause an issue, but there's no actual scientific evidence to support an effect on wildlife.

Yes like every animal on Earth llamas can have diseases, however in no instance has it ever been shown that they could transmit anything to wild sheep that has a negative impact, just like horses and mules.

To be honest the opinion I'm most interested in would be Randy Newberg. He likes llamas supports Beau Baty, seems to have a lot of intelligence and common sense and knows lots of biologists. But I'm not sure if this is too hot a topic...

 

[Big Fin]

And I think that's part of the frustration, it seems like the most damning report that is always used, is the one that has the most issues...

I've had a biologist that works with sheep in a western state, basically tell me there's no evidence to show that they transmit any disease that would affect wild sheep, but everything seems to kill them so we might as well ban them (spatially separate) and just be safe.

That's fine and dandy, And I totally want to keep the sheep safe, I'm just not a fan of banning things because it's convenient but doesn't have any scientific validity, and is based on hypothesis. Imagine they ban hunters in an area because they hypothesize it could cause an issue, but there's no actual scientific evidence to support an effect on wildlife.

Yes like every animal on Earth llamas can have diseases, however in no instance has it ever been shown that they could transmit anything to wild sheep that has a negative impact, just like horses and mules.

To be honest the opinion I'm most interested in would be Randy Newberg. He likes llamas supports Beau Baty, seems to have a lot of intelligence and common sense and knows lots of biologists. But I'm not sure if this is too hot a topic...

Not too hot of a topic. Just on the road right now. And, my opinion is just that, opinion. Wish I was trained in the sciences to know more, but I'm not.

As for me and llamas, Beau always has them tested and vet inspection certificates with us for all the llamas. I've been checked before and the inspector was impressed with the organization of the paperwork and degree Beau has things dialed in.

As it relates to wild sheep and llamas, I'll do whatever is best for wild sheep. If science says separation is needed, that's what I'll do. I've asked my vet, also an avid hunter, what more can be done with the llamas we use. He says he can do nasal swabs to check for exposure to M.Ovi. He said I would then need to keep the llamas from any other livestock that might have been exposed. I would gladly do that.

He owns horses and mentioned some comments about the possibility of horses, maybe even cattle, having exposure and being vectors that nobody is really talking about. Not that such is known to be the case, but if exposed they could be vectors we are not managing as we have implemented for domestic sheep and goats. He had not heard of camelids being a disease vector risk any more than domestic livestock. But, he did say this is such a fine specialty in the narrow science of animals disease that it is best left to experts of that narrow specialty.

Whatever science shows is best for wild sheep, count me in. Seeing the lack of protocols followed by many domestic sheep grazers, it makes it hard to ask owners of pack goats, now maybe llamas, for self-imposed modification of pack animal use, when known disease vectors of domestic sheep are not being managed/controlled as tightly as promised.

For me, whatever is best for wild sheep, I will make that accommodation.

Again, I wish I knew more. Even when my vet explains it to me, I still feel uninformed. It is complicated, for sure, and even further complicated when politics takes precedent over science.

 

[ScottP]

And I think that's part of the frustration, it seems like the most damning report that is always used, is the one that has the most issues...

I've had a biologist that works with sheep in a western state, basically tell me there's no evidence to show that they transmit any disease that would affect wild sheep, but everything seems to kill them so we might as well ban them (spatially separate) and just be safe.

That's fine and dandy, And I totally want to keep the sheep safe, I'm just not a fan of banning things because it's convenient but doesn't have any scientific validity, and is based on hypothesis. Imagine they ban hunters in an area because they hypothesize it could cause an issue, but there's no actual scientific evidence to support an effect on wildlife.

Yes like every animal on Earth llamas can have diseases, however in no instance has it ever been shown that they could transmit anything to wild sheep that has a negative impact, just like horses and mules.

To be honest the opinion I'm most interested in would be Randy Newberg. He likes llamas supports Beau Baty, seems to have a lot of intelligence and common sense and knows lots of biologists. But I'm not sure if this is too hot a topic...

Interpretation of these reports is paramount. They present data documenting camelids to host pathogens that are harmful to BHS. Beyond that, the assessment was speculative, as we have yet, to my knowledge, study these specific disease pathways between llamas and BHS.

Your friend is correct, there is no evidence on the quantitative risk of transmission between llamas and BHS for any of the documented pathogens in that report, simply because nobody has conducted the appropriate experiments. So we don't know one way or the other. But it is certainly less risk than DS and goats.

Pneumonia-related dieoffs in BHS have rarely been traced to a known source of infection. Sources are often speculative in nature based on observation of contact between BHS and domestics. There has been a significant body of work lately in genomic epidemiology, identifying different clades of Mycoplasma ovipnuemoniae hosted by different sheep and goat species in differing geographies. However, a large band of domestic sheep can host many strains of the bacteria, so a very large sample would often be required to 'prove' a transmission event. What I'm getting at is even with the outbreaks we've had, there isn't ever really a smoking gun.

I am in no way anti-llama. Heck, I've wanted them for a long time. We just need to be thoughtful and careful when we take stock animals into wild sheep habitat. There is certainly no need to implement any restrictions outside of bighorn habitat.

With a bit of education, some expanded disease testing, and some adjustments to our animal husbandry, we can certainly be more confident we aren't sending pack stock into the wilds with the most lethal of bugs. Randy's perspective is spot on.

 

[Cick1000]

The Canadian hypothetical risk scenarios (that are being cited by Wild Sheep Foundation, etc. as a basis to advocate the prohibition or restriction of pack llamas) have not been peer reviewed and the following link should adequately address why leading camelid experts and have "debunked" these hypothesis.

Scientifically Illiterate America

Citizens must have a basic knowledge of science to understand today’s policy issues.

www.hoover.org

09

The real crux of the problem is that pack llamas are being held to a different standard than horses. No credible evidence that quantifies the risk of llamas being a higher risk to wild sheep, etc. as compared to horses has been presented. So if anyone wants llamas to be tested, studied more than they already have, restricted, prohibited, etc. then the same requirements must be applied to horses also. If you ask a veterinarian or a wildlife bioligist what they think, keep in mind that they may not be an expert in wildlife disease epidemiology. They might even suggest that you should test your llamas for Movi even though it has never been documented to occur in llamas. Or they might suggest that you test your llamas for MAP even though it is extremely rare in llamas and far more prevalent in humans. Anyone that thinks horses are safer than llamas in wild sheep habitat needs to read the expert testimony in the ANWR hearing transcript (May 2020).

So many ignorant comments about a perceived pack llama disease threat are coming from hunters and hunting organization leadership along the lines of "guilty until proven innocent." Hunters should be the champions of civil liberties. By trying to eliminate a legitimate user group by rumor mongering (no scientific basis) you really show disresepect for your fellow hunters civil liberties. Here is a website that might provide further information if you care to be informed and objective.

www.alaskallamas.com

 

[bisblue]

Not too hot of a topic. Just on the road right now. And, my opinion is just that, opinion. Wish I was trained in the sciences to know more, but I'm not.

As for me and llamas, Beau always has them tested and vet inspection certificates with us for all the llamas. I've been checked before and the inspector was impressed with the organization of the paperwork and degree Beau has things dialed in.

As it relates to wild sheep and llamas, I'll do whatever is best for wild sheep. If science says separation is needed, that's what I'll do. I've asked my vet, also an avid hunter, what more can be done with the llamas we use. He says he can do nasal swabs to check for exposure to M.Ovi. He said I would then need to keep the llamas from any other livestock that might have been exposed. I would gladly do that.

He owns horses and mentioned some comments about the possibility of horses, maybe even cattle, having exposure and being vectors that nobody is really talking about. Not that such is known to be the case, but if exposed they could be vectors we are not managing as we have implemented for domestic sheep and goats. He had not heard of camelids being a disease vector risk any more than domestic livestock. But, he did say this is such a fine specialty in the narrow science of animals disease that it is best left to experts of that narrow specialty.

Whatever science shows is best for wild sheep, count me in. Seeing the lack of protocols followed by many domestic sheep grazers, it makes it hard to ask owners of pack goats, now maybe llamas, for self-imposed modification of pack animal use, when known disease vectors of domestic sheep are not being managed/controlled as tightly as promised.

For me, whatever is best for wild sheep, I will make that accommodation.

Again, I wish I knew more. Even when my vet explains it to me, I still feel uninformed. It is complicated, for sure, and even further complicated when politics takes precedent over science.

Anything in particular Beau has his llamas tested for?
I'm pretty lucky that my vet also specializes in camelids, so when I get a health certificate it's just a general health certificate.

 

[Cick1000]

If Beau is having his llamas tested it might be because he is crossing state lines with his llamas. Just guessing but maybe he is testing for something like bluetongue or TB (as required by a state vet to meet the requirements of a particular state that he is entering with his llamas). Outside of that, to test for these particular diseases of concern (that Wild Sheep Foundation, etc. is pointing to) is a very different matter. Testing for at least some of those WSF identified pathogens could be a very slippery slope indeed for any llama owner to unwittingly agree to. It involves too many issues to even begin discussing here. Just ask the Alaska Farm Bureau what happened to them when they unwittingly agreed to Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF) demands for testing a couple of years ago. It caused a huge riot in Alaska and legislators backed off. To date, no one has presented any credible evidence that quantifies the disease risk posed by llamas to wild sheep, etc. as greater than the risk posed by horses. So there is no reason to test llamas for pathogens of concern to wild sheep unless they require horses to be tested also. Since they are not proposing to test horses then there is no point in even discussing a testing protocol for pack llamas. If they ever did try to impose such testing requirements on horses this would be very unpopular with hunting guides that use horses. Needless to say this would create a very bad scene for WSF. It is alot easier for sheep protectionists to pick on little old ladies wearing fur coats than it is for them to pick on Hell's Angels that wear leather. As stated in earlier comments on this forum, the Canadian hypothetical risk scenarios offered by the WSF in support of their position to ban pack llamas has been "debunked" in writing by wildlife disease experts such as the American Association of Small Ruminant Practitioners (aasrp.org policy statement representing approximately 1000 veterinarians) and also the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to the llama association in a letter of public record. Also, recognized camelid experts such as Dr. Murray Fowler and Dr. Larue Johnson "debunked" (in writing) these Canadian hypothesis used by WSF as justification for banning llamas.

Then there is Dr. Michelle Kutzler (Oregon State University) statement in the public record (Google the May 2020 ANWR hearing transcript) that addresses the myth that llamas are a greater disease risk to wild sheep than horses.

Here again it all boils down to WSF and some other wild sheep protectionist groups proposing to hold pack llamas to a different standard than horses without any credible evidence to support their position.

 

[Cick1000]

Not too hot of a topic. Just on the road right now. And, my opinion is just that, opinion. Wish I was trained in the sciences to know more, but I'm not.

As for me and llamas, Beau always has them tested and vet inspection certificates with us for all the llamas. I've been checked before and the inspector was impressed with the organization of the paperwork and degree Beau has things dialed in.

As it relates to wild sheep and llamas, I'll do whatever is best for wild sheep. If science says separation is needed, that's what I'll do. I've asked my vet, also an avid hunter, what more can be done with the llamas we use. He says he can do nasal swabs to check for exposure to M.Ovi. He said I would then need to keep the llamas from any other livestock that might have been exposed. I would gladly do that.

He owns horses and mentioned some comments about the possibility of horses, maybe even cattle, having exposure and being vectors that nobody is really talking about. Not that such is known to be the case, but if exposed they could be vectors we are not managing as we have implemented for domestic sheep and goats. He had not heard of camelids being a disease vector risk any more than domestic livestock. But, he did say this is such a fine specialty in the narrow science of animals disease that it is best left to experts of that narrow specialty.

Whatever science shows is best for wild sheep, count me in. Seeing the lack of protocols followed by many domestic sheep grazers, it makes it hard to ask owners of pack goats, now maybe llamas, for self-imposed modification of pack animal use, when known disease vectors of domestic sheep are not being managed/controlled as tightly as promised.

For me, whatever is best for wild sheep, I will make that accommodation.

Again, I wish I knew more. Even when my vet explains it to me, I still feel uninformed. It is complicated, for sure, and even further complicated when politics takes precedent over science.

So what does "whatever is best for wild sheep" mean? Horses, llamas, and humans all present some risk of disease transmission to wild sheep. So that could mean banning all of the above because that is what is best for the wild sheep.

 

[silasd]

Imagine they ban hunters in an area because they hypothesize it could cause an issue,

You know . . . there is A LOT of evidence that hunter interactions with wild game are often fatal...

But seriously, I am puzzled by the "no evidence but let's ban them until there is" approach...yet I get it and can't say it's completely unsupportable...

 

[Big Fin]

So what does "whatever is best for wild sheep" mean? Horses, llamas, and humans all present some risk of disease transmission to wild sheep. So that could mean banning all of the above because that is what is best for the wild sheep.

Yes, they all pose some risk. I disagree with your statement that banning those is what is best for wild sheep. I can't connect two dots as far apart as what you say it "could mean."

What is best for wild sheep, as with all species, means measuring risk, benefits, confidence levels, and other multi-factor considerations that go into every management decision. Would be nice if it was a simple A-B test and "problem solved," but it's not.

And like I said, I'm an accountant. I don't pretend to be a wildlife vet or a wildlife disease specialist. I consider their professional opinions to be far beyond my own, however much that professional opinion might require adjustment to my activities. If they decide spatial separation between camelids, domestic goats/sheep, livestock, horses, or whatever, is what is best for wild sheep, I'll change my activities to help the cause of wild sheep.

I don't lay in bed at night worrying that they will say humans represent a disease risk to wild sheep to some degree that we should be kept out of sheep country. I know enough specialists in the wildlife sciences to see them as a quality group of folks who are interested in the best outcomes of the wildlife they study. And they understand the importance of hunting and human involvement for the long-term conservation of these species such that they're unlikely to go off the deep end in the manner you are supposing in that comment.

 

[Fremont15]

Just curious is there any actual evidence that pack goats have transmitted disease to wild sheep?

 

[MTGomer]

Just curious is there any actual evidence that pack goats have transmitted disease to wild sheep?

There are studies that prove goats have and can transmit to wild sheep. Whether these are ‘pack’ goats or if it matters, I’m not sure.
They did transmit to wild sheep at a lower rate than domestic sheep did, however.

I’ll try to dig it up. If I recall, they were captive, nose to nose contacts performed in a study.

 

[Cick1000]

Yes, they all pose some risk. I disagree with your statement that banning those is what is best for wild sheep. I can't connect two dots as far apart as what you say it "could mean."

What is best for wild sheep, as with all species, means measuring risk, benefits, confidence levels, and other multi-factor considerations that go into every management decision. Would be nice if it was a simple A-B test and "problem solved," but it's not.

And like I said, I'm an accountant. I don't pretend to be a wildlife vet or a wildlife disease specialist. I consider their professional opinions to be far beyond my own, however much that professional opinion might require adjustment to my activities. If they decide spatial separation between camelids, domestic goats/sheep, livestock, horses, or whatever, is what is best for wild sheep, I'll change my activities to help the cause of wild sheep.

I don't lay in bed at night worrying that they will say humans represent a disease risk to wild sheep to some degree that we should be kept out of sheep country. I know enough specialists in the wildlife sciences to see them as a quality group of folks who are interested in the best outcomes of the wildlife they study. And they understand the importance of hunting and human involvement for the long-term conservation of these species such that they're unlikely to go off the deep end in the manner you are supposing in that comment.

Right. I agree with you in that I don't think walk in hunters or hunters on horseback have much to worry about. I also agree with you that what I said about banning horses, humans, and llamas is really going off the deep end. I'm glad we agree on that. I mean that sincerely. Nothing personal intended.

 

[ScottP]

There are studies that prove goats have and can transmit to wild sheep. Whether these are ‘pack’ goats or if it matters, I’m not sure.
They did transmit to wild sheep at a lower rate than domestic sheep did, however.

I’ll try to dig it up. If I recall, they were captive, nose to nose contacts performed in a study.

There was an pneumonia outbreak in hells canyon caused by a domestic goat strain of Movi. That occurred while a domestic sheep strain was still in circulation. Theres some evidence suggesting goat strains may not be as virulent as the domestic sheep ones.

 

[idelkslayer]

Dr. Thomas Besser at WSU did some studies with goats that showed that Wild sheep did contract disease from the domestic goats but it was a more mild reaction. It would have been interesting if he followed that up with a study that then exposed those same sheep (now recovered from the goat exposure) to domestic sheep with M. Ovi. to see if the goat exposure provided any immunity.

Several closed pen studies going back to 1994 have demonstrated no transmission of disease between llamas and wild sheep.