BHA Wild Sheep Policy Statement

Not sure what the point of these posts are and how that relates to this discussion. I thought this was a hunting website. If this offends you maybe you should redirect your campaign toward horse hunters and hunters on 4 wheelers, in boats, etc. At least a hunter with pack llamas has to walk in as opposed to riding in on horseback or driving in.

My only point is that it's fine to have multiple points of view on an issue and to discuss them in a respectful manner.

The only thing that offends me is you hurling insults at people who put a lot of time and effort into conservation.

Did you clink the links? The last 2 years I killed elk using llamas.
 
WSF represents the guiding industry. It's all about money. So that would make WSF way more politically motived than ADF&G. ........

I would venture to guess that the majority of WSF and BHA members, especially guides, would like to see pack llamas eliminated (because they see hunters with pack llamas as competition) or they simply don't care because they are not personally affected by a pack llama prohibition or restriction.
That post is either intentionally misinformed, unintentionally uninformed, or pointedly personal axe grinding.

I'm not a guide and not in the guiding industry, though I feel WSF and their state affiliates represent me very well on sheep issues. I disagree with your statement, based on my decades of seeing WSF and their state affiliates in action..

"I would venture to guess" that you've not conducted many polls with the majority of WSF and BHA members to arrive at the conclusion you have. Many here are members of one, or both, and I've never heard any of them say they see hunters with llamas as competition or that they don't care.

It's OK to have discussions on this topic and ask that we all to stick to science. Un/misinformed BS like that, which comes across as personal axe grinding, seems pretty far off that path.

FYIY, I use llamas many times each year. I own a llama and will likely own 4 or 5 before it's all done.
 
That's not exactly what I said.


Herds that have been previously exposed to Movi but have somewhat recovered can suffer a die-off if exposed to a different strain of Movi. Check out the attached peer-reviewed paper.
Thanks, I hadn't read that study before. I saw it while finding the studies I linked and saved it for later reading. In order to comment on it I skimmed through just now. I'll have to do a full reading later.

I didn't intend to disparage you with my question about the prevalence of M. ovi in healthy herds, hopefully you can understand my question from your use of the phrase "many, many". I can certainly agree that many herds currently carry M. Ovi resulting in years and even decades of lamb mortality and suppressed herd numbers. I think the distinction that bridges the gap between our comments is that I was referring to healthy herds without a prevalence of M. Ovi and you were referring to all herds in general of which many do continue to be disease suppressed by the continual presence of M. Ovi. It remains to be seen if a natural immunity will become more prevalent than it is currently or if complete removal and then restocking is necessary like what Montana is doing in the Tendoys.

This study points out
"M. ovipneumoniae was the only pneumonia agent detected more frequently in the lungs of adults that died of pneumonia than in the upper respiratory tract of healthy adults before and after the outbreak"

Again, to the original point of this thread, llamas can not carry M. ovi. so it doesn't matter how many strains arise, llamas won't be a vector for that disease agent.
 
That post is either intentionally misinformed, unintentionally uninformed, or pointedly personal axe grinding.

I'm not a guide and not in the guiding industry, though I feel WSF and their state affiliates represent me very well on sheep issues. I disagree with your statement, based on my decades of seeing WSF and their state affiliates in action..

"I would venture to guess" that you've not conducted many polls with the majority of WSF and BHA members to arrive at the conclusion you have. Many here are members of one, or both, and I've never heard any of them say they see hunters with llamas as competition or that they don't care.

It's OK to have discussions on this topic and ask that we all to stick to science. Un/misinformed BS like that, which comes across as personal axe grinding, seems pretty far off that path.

FYIY, I use llamas many times each year. I own a llama and will likely own 4 or 5 before it's all done.
Note that i qualified my guess with "or they don't care" because they are not personally affected. I stand behind that guess.
 
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.
This is true, and to be clear, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Wild Sheep Working Group posted the CCH-17 (we call it) on the front end of their web site, and immediately took it down once they realized it had serious development and content credibility. As did many agencies, chose not to use it in their final land management plans in the USA. It was the prodigy and making from the Wild Sheep Foundation, and of course they put it up their web site. It was a card played by a few individuals within the WSF, and it failed, as it should have. Even the managing author has publicly said (outside of the CCH-17 document) it should not be used for risk assessment decision making in land management plans.

Llama packers don't have to prove anything? How do you prove a negative? No more than horses or humans or dogs? Heck, the WSF has funded gazing allotments to convert domestic sheep to cattle? Cattle are in the same family as domestic and wild sheep? Why are Pack Llamas being arbitrarily picked on? Llamas do NOT "host" pathogens that are a threat to wild sheep or wildlife. Do you think it's possible this is because they are not in the Bovidae family, nor even in the Ruminatia sub-order? And finally, those that say they're not banning llamas, but only in wild sheep habitat? Well, that weak argument represents huge swaths of our public federal land with publicly owned wild sheep in core wild sheep habitat.
 
I dont hunt the western states as much as I would like being I live in Pa but I also would follow what ever help the wild sheep and the WSF guide lines lots of folks get their panties in a wad over things like this
But think of the days when their were 1,000,000 of them across our country and how big the effort and $ to keep the population growing the way it is now,The few times I ran into them when elk hunting I just sat and watched em as long as I could and called it a great day!!!
Oh and I love it when someone askes OAK what studies show this or that and he links 10 or more that guy has prob forgotten more about wild sheep than most of us will ever know lol
 
This is true, and to be clear, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Wild Sheep Working Group posted the CCH-17 (we call it) on the front end of their web site, and immediately took it down once they realized it had serious development and content credibility. As did many agencies, chose not to use it in their final land management plans in the USA. It was the prodigy and making from the Wild Sheep Foundation, and of course they put it up their web site. It was a card played by a few individuals within the WSF, and it failed, as it should have. Even the managing author has publicly said (outside of the CCH-17 document) it should not be used for risk assessment decision making in land management plans.

Llama packers don't have to prove anything? How do you prove a negative? No more than horses or humans or dogs? Heck, the WSF has funded gazing allotments to convert domestic sheep to cattle? Cattle are in the same family as domestic and wild sheep? Why are Pack Llamas being arbitrarily picked on? Llamas do NOT "host" pathogens that are a threat to wild sheep or wildlife. Do you think it's possible this is because they are not in the Bovidae family, nor even in the Ruminatia sub-order? And finally, those that say they're not banning llamas, but only in wild sheep habitat? Well, that weak argument represents huge swaths of our public federal land with publicly owned wild sheep in core wild sheep habitat.
Not really a response, but for folks reading, I had to bust out a tax chart myself thought it might be helpful to others.

Bos Taurus = Cattle

Ovis aries = Domestic Sheep
Ovis Dalli = Dall sheep
Ovis Canadensis = RMBS
Capra Hircus = Domestic goats

Llama Pacos = alpaca (llamas are over there though with the other camelids

Equus caballus = Horses

1617315447923.png
 
Not really a response, but for folks reading, I had to bust out a tax chart myself thought it might be helpful to others.

Bos Taurus = Cattle

Ovis aries = Domestic Sheep
Ovis Dalli = Dall sheep
Ovis Canadensis = RMBS
Capra Hircus = Domestic goats

Llama Pacos = alpaca (llamas are over there though with the other camelids

Equus caballus = Horses

View attachment 179142
Yes, Bovidae is a very big family which resides in the Ruminatia sub order. Equids (horses) and Camelids (llamas) are not in the Bovidae family nor Ruminatia suborder. Pathogens tend to be species specific. And it the rare cases of cross over, the species tend to die very fast, and are not hosts or reservoirs for those pathogens.
 
Do you own llamas?
Although some of the concerns may be well intended, it seems to me that the goal among many of these "sheep protection advocates" (with respect to the pack llama issue) is to skirt around the fundamental issues and distract everyone
That includes llama owners and regulators. They are definately reaching out to the internet and citing support for their cause by using so called "science" that has long ago been discredited by peers. You can't deny that recognized camelid and wildlife disease experts are saying that it doesn't pass the "sniff" test (i.e., CCH-17 still out there on WSF website.)
 
So the llama lobby is fun.
It's a matter of survival. Freedom isn't free. You have to fight for it. And you also have to believe that truth will eventually prevail. I would have been dead in the water a long time ago if I had rolled over and played dead on this issue. I know it's worth it because I'm still enjoying the llamas and still hunting with them. You can see an impressive list of "wins" on this issue for the pack llama user group because of their involvement in the public process. Yes, we're stacking up a lot of wins with various public land management agencies.
www.alaskallamas.com
The other way I see this is that some day, some young person will get interested in llamas and benefit from this by getting some excercise instead of becoming absorbed in their smart phone.
 
It's a matter of survival. Freedom isn't free. You have to fight for it. And you also have to believe that truth will eventually prevail. I would have been dead in the water a long time ago if I had rolled over and played dead on this issue. I know it's worth it because I'm still enjoying the llamas and still hunting with them. You can see an impressive list of "wins" on this issue for the pack llama user group because of their involvement in the public process. Yes, we're stacking up a lot of wins with various public land management agencies.
www.alaskallamas.com
The other way I see this is that some day, some young person will get interested in llamas and benefit from this by getting some excercise instead of becoming absorbed in their smart phone.

I'm always curious why various outdoor groups push back when it's pointed out their actions have potential negative impacts on the resource they so cherish.

If an elk herd is in decline, why demand the last tag should be yours instead of, how do I build back up the herd.

In this case, instead of demanding freedom from regulation, why not ask experts what can we do to mitigate and eliminate sheep exposure. Proximal limitations, sure that is a solution, but what else. Vaccination?

I will be in Anchorage for a month this fall visiting family, would love to buy you a beer and hear your perspective.
 
I'm always curious why various outdoor groups push back when it's pointed out their actions have potential negative impacts on the resource they so cherish.

If an elk herd is in decline, why demand the last tag should be yours instead of, how do I build back up the herd.

In this case, instead of demanding freedom from regulation, why not ask experts what can we do to mitigate and eliminate sheep exposure. Proximal limitations, sure that is a solution, but what else. Vaccination?

I will be in Anchorage for a month this fall visiting family, would love to buy you a beer and hear your perspective.
The other thing that drives me is the incredible support that our user group has been getting from the scientific community (including experts in wildlife disease epidemiology and camelid experts). AASRP for example and their recent policy statement. It is not the hunters or hunting groups that the pack llama user group needs to convince. It's the regulators that we need to convince. We are having incredible success with that. So the only reason I am spending a very small amount of my time on this forum (relative to the amount of time I spend with the scientists and regulators) is to encourage fellow hunters to use some critical thinking skills. Also to reveal issues with the WSF BHA pack llama prohibition/restriction proposals that they may not be aware of. Sheep hunting is turning into a sport for the elite and the wealthy. That is not a good thing. Just look at history of what happened in Europe, for example. Why do you suppose that is continuing to happen here right now in the US? Where I live there is some remaining opportunity to hunt sheep with an over-the-counter tag. But I have seen a huge erosion of that opportunity over the years even though (according to ADF&G) there are fewer sheep hunters than there used to be. If you are a man of simple means are you somehow unwittingly contributing toward the trend of turning sheep hunting into a sport for the wealthy? Always remember that the sheep are a public asset. Who is it that is continually trying to gain a greater share of those assets and why? Does it have anything to do with money? If so, who is getting that money? Again, fellow hunters, BHA leadership, and WSF leadership are not who I need to convince on the pack llama disease issue. Of course I don't want disease introduced to wild sheep and I don't know of any sheep hunters that use horses that would want to either.
 
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.
There is a huge difference between an interstate transportation health certificate, which by the way, most states require for camelids, and a series of lab tests created by a protocol designed by the WSF, simply to access public land ( and I've seen these, have you?). Its cost prohibited, and that's the goal. And even if you did, it needs to be applied equally and fairly to horses, llamas, cattle, dogs, and humans. That's probably an over reach by a special interest group for one specie on public land.
 
Also since you are visiting family in Anchorage this fall, encourage them to join Resident Hunters of Alaska if they haven't already. Not only do they support the use of pack llamas in wild sheep habitat up here but they are working very hard to curb the tide of Alaska hunting turning into a sport for the elite and the wealthy. They are a relatively new organization but their membership is growing at a surprising rate. Their leadership knows me very well. I've had the pack llama perceived disease threat conversation with their leadership on the telephone. They did their own research on the perceived pack llama disease issue before I even knew that their organization existed. It was very refreshing to hear this and that they had come to this conclusion about pack llamas. Their mission is very different from that of the WSF.
 
Back
Top