Bighorn sheep euthanizations

[1_pointer]

hank4- You must not like mule deer to have that kind of animosity towards sheep...

I degress,I raised some for the weaver I lived with for 20 yrs. Mohair,from some
Had friends that raised sheep for cheese too.....the best I ever had.

My 1st love is mule deer & hunting them,with a in my face focus on elk the last 10 yrs.
I don't get the not like mule deer part?
I just still see the damage they do overall,for a long time.
I also see way to much overgrazing on public lands by cattle ranchers these days. The rancher/cattlemen I learned from and respect would be appalled at this ruination of the rangelands .

It's a bit of a joke. But, sheep and deer have quite a bit of dietary overlap. Oversimplified, but make it a good place for sheep and it's likely gonna be a good place for mule deer.

PS- Bad grazing management is just that regardless of the critter doing it whether that be cattle, sheep, or elk!
PPS- IME, sheep are much easier to manage than cattle.

 

[Oak]

I'd think an EA would be way more appropriate than an EIS.

Here's a map I put together of the area. Yellow is overall range of a Tier 1, primary population of bighorn sheep (highest conservation value as rated by CPW), with 8 of 16 BLM allotments that are being analyzed in the EIS overlaid. The Grizzly Gulch allotment is the one that was held in non-use for over a decade. Four other allotments are vacant, 3 are active.

 

[npaden]

I didn't realize sheep producers were such a large industry with over $500 million of direct sales a year but I also read something that just 5% of the producers are responsible for something like 92% of that overall revenue. That would leave the other 95% of the sheep producers with $40 million of revenue. I was hoping that most of the sheep would be somewhere like Texas or Florida, but the #1 county in the US for sheep is in Colorado. (Weld County wherever that is) Texas is the #1 state but Colorado is #2. Even setting aside 100% of the proceeds from auction tags on Bighorn Sheep isn't going to make much of a dent with those kind of revenues. The problem isn't just the price of the grazing allotments, it's that the producers probably don't want to give up significantly below market grazing opportunities that they have on USFS and BLM land. They also get significant farm subsidies as well based on the number of sheep they have. It's a lot more difficult issue than just coming up with the scratch to buy out a 10,000 acre lease at $1.73 per ANUM or whatever the current rate is.

Oak - Thanks for all you do for wild sheep!

 

[2ski]

So I'm just going to throw this out there......but wolves would solve this grazing of sheep stuff. Just saying. lol. If CO had more wolves, they'd learn pretty fast how easy domestics are to eat.

Wolves...the friend of Bighorn sheep...the enemy of everything else.

 

[Oak]

So I'm just going to throw this out there......but wolves would solve this grazing of sheep stuff. Just saying. lol. If CO had more wolves, they'd learn pretty fast how easy domestics are to eat.

Wolves...the friend of Bighorn sheep...the enemy of everything else.

There is quite a bit of truth to that, as many of the areas where allotment retirements have been successfully negotiated are areas where producers were taking a heavy toll from wolves and grizzly bears.

 

[1_pointer]

Here's a map I put together of the area. Yellow is overall range of a Tier 1, primary population of bighorn sheep (highest conservation value as rated by CPW), with 8 of 16 BLM allotments that are being analyzed in the EIS overlaid. The Grizzly Gulch allotment is the one that was held in non-use for over a decade. Four other allotments are vacant, 3 are active.

Analysis of 16 allotments is different than talking about 1 permit which I assumed was for 1 allotment...

PS- Not having seen the particulars of the agreement, sounds to me like the guy's getting a reach-around...

 

[Oak]

PS- Not having seen the particulars of the agreement, sounds to me like the guy's getting a reach-around...

You sound like range staff.

Do you have any thoughts about how MS 1730 will facilitate BLM staff in making grazing management decisions that benefit bighorn sheep?

 

[TheTone]

Buying the permit/preference/herd, does not and should not IMO close an allotment...

I had to deal with a situation where a permittee made concessions for a bighorn sheep transplant. The bighorns then moved outside of where they were intended to be to another portion of a range, different allotment, where the same permittee had a permit. How would you suggest situations like that be dealt with?

How about just don't put sheep on public land? Other than eating an occasional lamb shank and buying a few pieces of wool I've got about no use for sheep.

 

[1_pointer]

How about just don't put sheep on public land? Other than eating an occasional lamb shank and buying a few pieces of wool I've got about no use for sheep.

That is certainly an option. Don't confuse me with "range staff" that think grazing is the highest use of public lands.

 

[1_pointer]

You sound like range staff.

Do you have any thoughts about how MS 1730 will facilitate BLM staff in making grazing management decisions that benefit bighorn sheep?

As you know I once was. Has that not been of help to you or the group you do work for?

MS 1730 was after my tenure as "range staff"...

 

[TheTone]

That is certainly an option. Don't confuse me with "range staff" that think grazing is the highest use of public lands.

No confusion on my part I'm just a dreamer that wants to see native wildlife given priority on public lands. (and also would like to hunt bighorns someday).

I always learn things from your postings.

 

[Oak]

As you know I once was. Has that not been of help to you or the group you do work for?

MS 1730 was after my tenure as "range staff"...

You know I appreciate your help. But you made posts insinuating that you oppose one of the few "win-win" solutions to the issue that have been found to work. If you oppose incentives to waive, offer up an alternative. If you don't oppose them, it sure sounds like you do. With the vehement opposition of agency staff to making any meaningful changes to domestic sheep grazing permits, the only alternative besides incentives to waive available to bighorn sheep advocates is litigation. I don't think either side wants that, but it's coming.

 

[Oak]

There are 42 BLM domestic sheep allotments and 52 USFS domestic sheep allotments in Colorado that overlap occupied bighorn sheep range. There are another 91 BLM and 41 USFS allotments within 9 miles of at least one bighorn herd. It is a huge issue in the state that is not currently being resolved through the NEPA process due to the unwillingness of agency staff to make decisions that negatively impact permittees. Solutions?

 

[1_pointer]

You know I appreciate your help. But you made posts insinuating that you oppose one of the few "win-win" solutions to the issue that have been found to work. If you oppose incentives to waive, offer up an alternative. If you don't oppose them, it sure sounds like you do. With the vehement opposition of agency staff to making any meaningful changes to domestic sheep grazing permits, the only alternative besides incentives to waive available to bighorn sheep advocates is litigation. I don't think either side wants that, but it's coming.

If you go back an re-read what I've posted on this thread, the only thing I oppose is what I think are improper interpretation and application of BLM grazing regulations. Please note, I've gotten domestic sheep off an allotment and helped trap the bighorns that were introduced there...

As for the reach around comment, if either party of an agreement is not upholding their end of the deal, then I do think someone's getting screwed. I'd apply that logic to an agreement over permitting a lemonade stand as well as to one involving a grazing permit.

 

[1_pointer]

There are 42 BLM domestic sheep allotments and 52 USFS domestic sheep allotments in Colorado that overlap occupied bighorn sheep range. There are another 91 BLM and 41 USFS allotments within 9 miles of at least one bighorn herd. It is a huge issue in the state that is not currently being resolved through the NEPA process due to the unwillingness of agency staff to make decisions that negatively impact permittees. Solutions?

Prioritization, workable solutions, data.. Prioritization because odds are you are not going to get domestic sheep off all of those allotments. Workable solutions are those that do not always result in a zero sum "remedy". Data collection, especially that which is required for permit renewal/issuance, notably that which deals with standards determinations. Models, IMO, are not data.

If you have to testify during the litigation, be sure to wear a tie. Maybe a turquoise bolo to really confuse folks.

 

[Oak]

If you have to testify during the litigation, be sure to wear a tie. Maybe a turquoise bolo to really confuse folks.

Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks!

 

[brymoore]

Good luck on your fight, Terry. This will take years but the tide will turn for wild sheep.

 

[Oak]

Agency's politics override responsibility

The state wildlife agency has trust responsibilities on behalf of all residents of the state. In short, they are to be the guardians of our wildlife. This is a long held trust that the Colorado Division of Wildlife takes seriously, except when politics rears up its ugly head and trumps the biologists.

 

[Oak]

If you have to testify during the litigation, be sure to wear a tie. Maybe a turquoise bolo to really confuse folks.

I love the smell of a defense motion to remand to the BLM in the morning. Smells like....


(it actually smells like more delays....)