BHA Wild Sheep Policy Statement

[Oak]

Last month BHA adopted the attached policy statement, Reducing Conflict Between Wild Sheep and Domestic Sheep and Goats on Public Lands.

 

[Bluffgruff]

Good to see this.

 

[bisblue]

I like all of this except, it's hard to support banning pack llamas when there is no scientific evidence to show they carry any diseases that can be transferred to wild sheep. Horses and mules are closer genetically and could also hypothetically transfer diseases, why not ban them as well?

Alaska fish and game and Wyomng fish and game declined to support banning pack llamas recently because there is no actual scientific data to support it.

The camelid ban stems from a 2003 report written by a BLM biologist who hypothesized they could carry diseases that affect bighorn, then it was just cited as fact by the wild sheep foundation.

 

[ScottP]

I like all of this except, it's hard to support banning pack llamas when there is no scientific evidence to show they carry any diseases that can be transferred to wild sheep. Horses and mules are closer genetically and could also hypothetically transfer diseases, why not ban them as well?

Alaska fish and game and Wyomng fish and game declined to support banning pack llamas recently because there is no actual scientific data to support it.

The camelid ban stems from a 2003 report written by a BLM biologist who hypothesized they could carry diseases that affect bighorn, then it was just cited as fact by the wild sheep foundation.

I believe the camelid research came out of BC. Here is the report Camelid disease carriage

The take home is that we need to understand what the disease profile is for our pack stock species, and the transmission risk to BHS whether that’s through animal to animal contact or contact with contaminated feces.

Certainly given what we currently know, llamas present much lower risk than domestic sheep and goats.

 

[bisblue]

I believe the camelid research came out of BC. Here is the report Camelid disease carriage

The take home is that we need to understand what the disease profile is for our pack stock species, and the transmission risk to BHS whether that’s through animal to animal contact or contact with contaminated feces.

Certainly given what we currently know, llamas present much lower risk than domestic sheep and goats.

"risks from camelids to wildlife in British Columbia remain hypothetical after this risk assessment, as no direct evidence was found to implicate Camelids as sources of significant disease in wildlife in BC or elsewhere"

This from page 5. Based on this logic, it seems you could say the same for traditional pack stock (horses and mules).

I just dislike a policy that picks one user group with no scientific validation and singles them out to be limited from public access compared to other groups. If the science says something solid I'm totally interested. I have $8,000 more invested in pack llamas than goats because of this reason.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Yeah.. I wonder if the Baty's are going to have second thoughts about continuing their BHA support?

 

[nontyp]

I don’t see anything that says ban llamas. It says lets keep some separation until we have better data. It would really suck to learn after the fact that llamas are vectors for sheep disease and wipe out a population and millions of dollars worth of conservation work.

“BHA encourages states, provinces, territories, sovereign tribal entities, First Nations, and federal management agencies to establish management practices and policies that create spatial and temporal separation between camelids, including pack llamas, and wild sheep until further research into potential pathogen transmission can provide additional direction.”

 

[bisblue]

I don’t see anything that says ban llamas. It says lets keep some separation until we have better data. It would really suck to learn after the fact that llamas are vectors for sheep disease and wipe out a population and millions of dollars worth of conservation work.

“BHA encourages states, provinces, territories, sovereign tribal entities, First Nations, and federal management agencies to establish management practices and policies that create spatial and temporal separation between camelids, including pack llamas, and wild sheep until further research into potential pathogen transmission can provide additional direction.”

But there is no data to suggest they do in the 40 years people have been packing with llamas in North America. Do we need to wait 100 years, or will we just continue this policy forever? So should we not ask for separation for horses and mules too, fair is fair, and while there is no evidence to say horses do transfer diseases, we can't say that they don't? "We can't say they don't" is scientifically impossible to prove.

Separation in land management language is generally a ban from being in that area. And often those bans are not for specific zones but rather for national forests or BLM districts that have sheep. So in effect it is a ban.

Both Wyoming fish and game and Alaska fishing game have written a letters stating that they don't support separation because there isn't any scientific foundation to support that decision. Alaska Fish and Game litterally said there is so little evidence to support this theory they will no longer spend money on the issue unless something changes, as they helped fund the BC research paper (see excerpt and full letter).



So if a bird species that also lived in sage grouse habitat was struggling, we would be willing to ban dogs and bird dogs in those habitats, in case they contributed diseases to those birds, even though there is no data or scientific evidence that they do so? Would you be willing to stay out of elk habitat unless you hold a valid tag, until we understand the implications of human powered recreation on wildlife populations, "until we know more?" Because the latter issue has actually been proven to have negative effects, like shed hunting.

I will be the first person to keep my pack llamas out of habitat, as soon as there is a shred of evidence it's needed. I apologize if I come off as aggressive towards anyone's comments, I just feel like the lets just wait longer comment, isn't warranted in this case. Why is the Wild Sheep Foundation making this issue a cornerstone of their spending and campaigning when the science just isn't there?

 

[nontyp]

But there is no data to suggest they do in the 40 years people have been packing with llamas in North America. Do we need to wait 100 years, or will we just continue this policy forever? So should we not ask for separation for horses and mules too, fair is fair, and while there is no evidence to say horses do transfer diseases, we can't say that they don't? "We can't say they don't" is scientifically impossible to prove.

Separation in land management language is generally a ban from being in that area. And often those bans are not for specific zones but rather for national forests or BLM districts that have sheep. So in effect it is a ban.

Both Wyoming fish and game and Alaska fishing game have written a letters stating that they don't support separation because there isn't any scientific foundation to support that decision. Alaska Fish and Game litterally said there is so little evidence to support this theory they will no longer spend money on the issue unless something changes, as they helped fund the BC research paper (see excerpt and full letter).

View attachment 178039

So if a bird species that also lived in sage grouse habitat was struggling, we would be willing to ban dogs and bird dogs in those habitats, in case they contributed diseases to those birds, even though there is no data or scientific evidence that they do so? Would you be willing to stay out of elk habitat unless you hold a valid tag, until we understand the implications of human powered recreation on wildlife populations, "until we know more?" Because the latter issue has actually been proven to have negative effects, like shed hunting.

I will be the first person to keep my pack llamas out of habitat, as soon as there is a shred of evidence it's needed. I apologize if I come off as aggressive towards anyone's comments, I just feel like the lets just wait longer comment, isn't warranted in this case. Why is the Wild Sheep Foundation making this issue a cornerstone of their spending and campaigning when the science just isn't there?

I don’t know what the data currently says. I would be interested to know what exactly they are concerned about. It would be a good question for the national board. I’m certainly not anti llama, I’m considering getting some myself. The questions you presented are good questions for those organizations, not for me. if you get some responses from them I would be interested to hear them.

 

[idelkslayer]

I agree with Bisblue. I have read through all of the studies linked in this thread and several others. No study has found a link between camelids and disease transmission to wild sheep. Several studies have found that camelids are incapable of carrying M. Ovi. The British Colombia study hypothesized that there is a possibility that a disease variant could arise that would spread from Camelids to wild sheep. That same reasoning could be applied to horses, mules or dogs for that matter. Llamas are getting picked on because they look like long-necked domestic sheep. Looks are deceiving, llamas a very genetically distant from both wild and domestic sheep.

 

[bisblue]

I don’t know what the data currently says. I would be interested to know what exactly they are concerned about. It would be a good question for the national board. I’m certainly not anti llama, I’m considering getting some myself. The questions you presented are good questions for those organizations, not for me. if you get some responses from them I would be interested to hear them.

I agree with Bisblue. I have read through all of the studies linked in this thread and several others. No study has found a link between camelids and disease transmission to wild sheep. Several studies have found that camelids are incapable of carrying M. Ovi. The British Colombia study hypothesized that there is a possibility that a disease variant could arise that would spread from Camelids to wild sheep. That same reasoning could be applied to horses, mules or dogs for that matter. Llamas are getting picked on because they look like long-necked domestic sheep. Looks are deceiving, llamas a very genetically distant from both wild and domestic sheep.

I think llama packers are just a small group without much lobby power. Groups like Wild Sheep do amazing work, and their focus is on their issue, if it's unfair to a smaller group for the "greater good," meh too bad. That's just how the politics of the big system works. BHA is probably taking their lead from Wild Sheep Foundation. I highly doubt the lawyers would let the national board respond to me. I am a member and local bighorn group member and have done multiple water improvement projects here in Nevada.

I just like to educate people to lack of scientific voracity as I assumed wild sheep foundation was using the best available science when I first started researching my pack stock options 4 years ago.

I'm assuming my best bet is contacting BHA.

 

[WyoWoody]

Last month BHA adopted the attached policy statement, Reducing Conflict Between Wild Sheep and Domestic Sheep and Goats on Public Lands.

Unfortunately, the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and their BOD and leadership have made a gargantuan mistake with this paragraph:

“BHA encourages states, provinces, territories, sovereign tribal entities, First Nations, and federal management agencies to establish management practices and policies that create spatial and temporal separation between camelids, including pack llamas, and wild sheep until further research into potential pathogen transmission can provide additional direction.”

Not sure of who crafted this paragraph and slipped it in, probably unknowingly to many at both the membership and BOD, but we will address this swiftly with their BOD and membership.

Spatial and temporal separation is defined by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies-Wild Sheep Working Group (Recommendations For Domestic Sheep and Goat Management in Wild Sheep Habitat-2016):

"Effective separation is defined as spatial or temporal separation between thinhorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats. Reducing the potential for association between those taxa and the likelihood of transmission of pathogenic organisms or parasites between species is critically important. Maintaining effective separation is presently the only meaningful tool available for minimizing pathogen transfer and the risk of respiratory disease."

https://www.packllamas.org/pdf/akban/2016-thinhorn-sheep-conservation-challenges-and-management-strategies-for-the-21st-century.pdf

The “taxa” are domestic and wild sheep and goats. Not only are camelids NOT in the same sub family (Caprinae) nor family (Bovidae), they aren’t even in the same suborder (Runinatia). Just like the horse, the taxa separation of species is significant, which is why llamas have no endemic diseases in their population that are a threat to wild sheep or wildlife. Probably more so than horses.

But don’t take my word for it, or numerous state and federal agencies who have routinely debunked this misinformation through resource management planning, take this 2020 position statement from the American Association Of Small Ruminant Practitioners (AASRP), over 1000 veterinarians strong:

“Policy Statement Concerning Camelid Ban in National Parks”

“There exists concern that the entry of camelid pack animals (llamas, alpacas) onto public lands poses a potential risk of disease to resident endangered or threatened ungulate populations including Boreal Caribou, Northern Mountain Caribou, Central Mountain Caribou, Southern Mountain Caribou, Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Goat, Dall’s Sheep, Stone’s Sheep and Roosevelt Elk. The diseases of concern by National Parks and wildlife managers include: Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae, Mannheimia haemolytica, Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis, Mycobacterium bovis, Pasteurella spp., contagious ecthyma, bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), and bluetongue virus. Transmission of pathogens from cattle and sheep to wild ungulates under natural conditions has been well documented in the literature. Examples include respiratory disease and fatal pneumonia following contact between domestic and bighorn sheep (Schommer & Woolever, 2008), M. bovis from cattle to elk in Riding Mountain National Park (Garde et al., 2009), and BVDV from cattle to deer (Passler & Walz, 2010). However, there have been no peer-reviewed publications documenting pathogen transmission from camelids to wild ungulates or to domestic sheep and goats for the pathogens of concern. The American Association of Small Ruminant Practitioners is opposed to banning camelid pack animals on public lands until there is scientific justification for this action. Revised February 2020” (attached)

I’m saddened as a member of the BHA that they did not research this issue and posted this misinformation which is arbitrarily harmful for our public lands access, they so profoundly tout.

There is much more detailed information and agency EIS’s and posted research at https://PackLlamas.org

 

[WyoWoody]

I believe the camelid research came out of BC. Here is the report Camelid disease carriage

The take home is that we need to understand what the disease profile is for our pack stock species, and the transmission risk to BHS whether that’s through animal to animal contact or contact with contaminated feces.

Certainly given what we currently know, llamas present much lower risk than domestic sheep and goats.

That research from 2003 you posted has been completely debunked. If you read further on that same site https://packllamas.org you will find out why and more up to date research and credible work. Don't take my word for it take the multiple agencies through their EIS process and researchers and scientists who have looked at this.

 

[WyoWoody]

I think llama packers are just a small group without much lobby power. Groups like Wild Sheep do amazing work, and their focus is on their issue, if it's unfair to a smaller group for the "greater good," meh too bad. That's just how the politics of the big system works. BHA is probably taking their lead from Wild Sheep Foundation. I highly doubt the lawyers would let the national board respond to me. I am a member and local bighorn group member and have done multiple water improvement projects here in Nevada.

I just like to educate people to lack of scientific voracity as I assumed wild sheep foundation was using the best available science when I first started researching my pack stock options 4 years ago.

I'm assuming my best bet is contacting BHA.

You would have an incorrect assumption that the Wild Sheep Foundation used the best available science on this issue. They did not, it's politics. Been doing this for 35 years, way before WSF or BHA were around. And we will be contacting the BHA and their membership.

 

[WyoWoody]

Yeah.. I wonder if the Baty's are going to have second thoughts about continuing their BHA support?

Great question....I think I know?

 

[bisblue]

You would have an incorrect assumption that the Wild Sheep Foundation used the best available science on this issue. They did not, it's politics. Been doing this for 35 years, way before WSF or BHA were around. And we will be contacting the BHA and their membership.

Perhaps I worded that incorrectly, I was trying to highlight lack of scientific voracity of the WSF, and was disappointed that in their efforts to pursue an issue that is without scientific merit. However, at first I assumed the WSF was using the best available science, which I now believe they do not.

 

[Oak]

The BHA policy statement is made out of caution, as is the position of WSF. Existing data on the subject is compiled in the RISK ASSESSMENT ON THE USE OF SOUTH AMERICAN CAMELIDS FOR BACK COUNTRY TREKKING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. Based on this risk assessment, BC made the decision to ban camelids from thinhorn sheep range in northern BC. I hope all take the time to at least read the Executive Summary of the risk assessment. The decision was made because camelids carry some pathogens that can be harmful to wild sheep. They acknowledge that there is no evidence that transmission has or can occur, but also that there has been little research on the topic. It's easy to say there is no evidence when there has been no research.

As someone pointed out above, the policy statement does not call for banning the use of camelids. It calls for keeping them out of occupied wild sheep habitat until better information is available. My personal belief is that some sort of health screening/certification program may be all that is needed.

 

[bisblue]

The BHA policy statement is made out of caution, as is the position of WSF. Existing data on the subject is compiled in the RISK ASSESSMENT ON THE USE OF SOUTH AMERICAN CAMELIDS FOR BACK COUNTRY TREKKING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. Based on this risk assessment, BC made the decision to ban camelids from thinhorn sheep range in northern BC. I hope all take the time to at least read the Executive Summary of the risk assessment. The decision was made because camelids carry some pathogens that can be harmful to wild sheep. They acknowledge that there is no evidence that transmission has or can occur, but also that there has been little research on the topic. It's easy to say there is no evidence when there has been no research.

As someone pointed out above, the policy statement does not call for banning the use of camelids. It calls for keeping them out of occupied wild sheep habitat until better information is available. My personal belief is that some sort of health screening/certification program may be all that is needed.

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.

 

[ScottP]

That research from 2003 you posted has been completely debunked. If you read further on that same site https://packllamas.org you will find out why and more up to date research and credible work. Don't take my word for it take the multiple agencies through their EIS process and researchers and scientists who have looked at this.

Not sure what you mean by "debunked". Canadian veterinarians were looking at disease prevalence in stock animals, you're saying they didn't use appropriate testing protocols? I made no statement about the risk assessment itself, maybe that's what you're referring to, and was only providing the material that was originally labeled as "hypothesized by a BLM biologist" in another post. Don't shoot the messenger.

Here is the link to the publication version, which includes DS and goats: Dall's sheep and domestic risk assessment

Right from the paper:

Conversely, contact between llamas and wild Dall’s sheep or goats may result in disease in wild species, but there is insufficient data available to clearly assess the role of camelids as a source of disease at this time (for additional information see “Communicable Diseases Risks to Wildlife from Camelids in British Columbia).

I have not seen any recent peer-reviewed literature that has directly addressed the risk that llamas pose to BHS, like has been done for domestic sheep and goats. But yes, llamas host diseases that can harm bighorns, but so do cattle....

 

[bisblue]

Not sure what you mean by "debunked". Canadian veterinarians were looking at disease prevalence in stock animals, you're saying they didn't use appropriate testing protocols? I made no statement about the risk assessment itself, maybe that's what you're referring to, and was only providing the material that was originally labeled as "hypothesized by a BLM biologist" in another post. Don't shoot the messenger.

Here is the link to the publication version, which includes DS and goats: Dall's sheep and domestic risk assessment

Right from the paper:

Conversely, contact between llamas and wild Dall’s sheep or goats may result in disease in wild species, but there is insufficient data available to clearly assess the role of camelids as a source of disease at this time (for additional information see “Communicable Diseases Risks to Wildlife from Camelids in British Columbia).

I have not seen any recent peer-reviewed literature that has directly addressed the risk that llamas pose to BHS, like has been done for domestic sheep and goats. But yes, llamas host diseases that can harm bighorns, but so do cattle....

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.