Domestic sheep....

[BigHornRam]

Who is getting what done? Be specific.

Helps to read the article TJ. Finding workable places to transplant sheep to (several more sites pending) is getting something done. You think Julie Cunningham is doing a good job for FWP?

Specific enough?

 

[tjones]

Specific enough?

Not really but whatever. Lots of guys think trading jabs on the net is "getting things done".

Be nice to see you really get involved. Lots of FWP related meeting to attend every month.

 

[BigHornRam]

Not really but whatever. Lots of guys think trading jabs on the net is "getting things done".

Be nice to see you really get involved. Lots of FWP related meeting to attend every month.

Nice attitude TJ. And some people wonder why the Bitterroot can't keep a FWP biologist

 

[Oak]

Some hunters are standing up for wild sheep in Montana, working with ALL parties involved, and not by posting biased opinion on the internet. Some sportsmen's groups are actually getting things done.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_f684161c-9608-11e4-9997-8f2d0705b12d.html

I talked to Julie last year about Region 3 mountain goats, and the discussion moved on to sheep. MT FWP has a very good, enthusiastic employee in Julie. Thanks for the good work on this trap and transplant Julie

Good for them finding a place to put more sheep with willing landowners. Are there any commercial sheep producers in the area, or just potential hobby livestock owners? What is the potential for that sheep herd?


What kind of collaborative work is being done with the commercial sheep producers, specifically in areas where they do not already have grizzly and wolf issues? I'm asking because I don't know.

 

[tjones]

Nice attitude TJ. And some people wonder why the Bitterroot can't keep a FWP biologist

You really have no idea what you are talking about, and I have no interest in trading internet jabs with you. Carry on.

 

[Oak]

Not to hijack, but both the WY sheep bills, SF133 and 134 passed out of the Ag committee yesterday. For some reason they were not heard by the TRW Committee???

Very dangerous precedent being set for public wildlife if these bills pass, become law, and are acted on.

Buzz, can you shed some light on why Hicks, a sponsor of the bill, would make the quote below that I bolded?
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regi...cle_5ce9f394-3b06-534b-9466-2f25706211f8.html

Wyoming lawmakers passed an attempt to protect domestic sheep producers in the state from a possible U.S. Forest Service effort to remove them from public land grazing allotments.

Senate File 134 would make law a management plan that state agencies have operated under in Wyoming for more than a decade. The plan clarifies several actions to avoid conflict between domestic and wild sheep in the state.

Sen. Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, said adding the plan to Wyoming statutes will put the state in a better legal position to fight the U.S. Forest Service.

The bill is a response to the Forest Service's decision to limit domestic sheep grazing in Idaho's Payette National Forest. The Forest Service said the move is an attempt to save bighorn sheep populations from diseases carried by domestic sheep in that area.

Truman Julian, a sheepherder from Kemmerer, operates a ranch with more than 130 years of sheepherding history. He stands to lose 10 grazing allotments with the capacity for more than 9,000 sheep in the decision.

"We're an endangered species, sheepherders," Julian said. "It makes me feel better that we're going to do something about this. I may lose allotments, but I'll go down fighting."

Amy Hendrickson, executive director of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, said the potential Forest Service decision could affect more than 30 percent of Wyoming producers.

"We support codifying the plan, but the fact is we aren't certain what the Forest Service plans to do and how effective this plan can be as it reads," Hendrickson said.

Conservation groups involved in the Wyoming working group say they favor cooperation but cautioned legislators.

Neil Thagard, western outreach director for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said in Idaho legislators broke down collaborative efforts by trying to legislate wildlife management.

"I don't think this was designed to be legislation," he said. "It was designed to bring people together and develop a strategy for Wyoming."

The Senate Agriculture Committee also heard a bill that would provide for the removal of bighorn sheep from the Darby Mountain region near Afton.

Hicks joined in cautioning legislators on the effects of passing SF133.

"The last thing we want to do in Wyoming is get in a big fight," Hicks said. "This will result in the physical removal and most likely the death of all of those bighorn sheep. We don't want to embrace that."

The legislation passed committee unanimously with an amendment requiring the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to take actions only considered within the state's sheep plan.

SF134 also passed the committee unanimously.

 

[BuzzH]

Oak,

That is a good question...it looks to me like sf133 is almost identical to the language in the bill that passed regarding the sheep herd near Encampment a few years back.

I had a pretty long conversation with Hicks about that bill, I understood his reasoning, but didn't agree with it.

I may know more about these bills after the reception tonight...I'll give you a shout tomorrow.

 

[teamhoyt]

I'm well aware of the need to graze, mow or burn on public lands. But what I'm not sure of is why these ranchers and advocate groups think they have so much more say what goes on these public lands. Grazing public land I was pretty sure was a benefit to landowners while also allowing the BLM, FS to manage forage and habitat quality. I don't know how these guys could complain if they had to downsize or go out of business because their super low cost per animal unit was taken away to benefit wildlife or for any reason that the management agency saw fit. I'm all for private landowner rights and doing what they want on their lands.

 

[brymoore]

The more I read the more I realize that I will probably never hunt a wild sheep. Unless the stars align and I draw in New Mexico, I will probably never catch up to the point creep in other states and I can't justify the money to go to Canada/Mexico. It is a sad state of affairs that wild sheep face such stiff uphill climbs. Too bad they aren't as tough as feral pigs. You can not kill enough of them to save your life in the wild but walk into a domestic pig barn and cough and you have a calamity on your hands. Thanks for the update Oak. Your dedication to sheep and sheep habitat is admirable to say the least.

You need to apply in Idaho. NM only gives one or two sheep tags to NRs. Idaho gives 10% ~ 9 tags each year.

 

[brymoore]

It just seems like anyone and everyone would want to limit the impact of domestic on wild. I really feel that politics have all but doomed wild sheep in the lower 48. But thanks to those who continue to work through this crap.

Have you paid attention to what is happening in Idaho? We're slowly winning the grazing war. IDWSF is buying back grazing allotments every year. The Payette Decision (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/03/26/3102236/federal-judge-upholds-payette.html) gives priority to wild sheep over domestics on National Forests. The U.S. Sheep Experiment Station is being shut down this year due to conflicts with wild sheep.

This will be a 20+ year battle. The wild sheep flocks in Idaho have pneumonia. Step 1 - separation of wild and domestic sheep. Idaho has 3K sheep today - it should have over 10K.

If you want to hunt wild sheep in Idaho, support IDWSF.

 

[trotsky]

You need to apply in Idaho. NM's odds are suck. I think they only give one or two sheep tags to NRs.

I get what you are saying and two years ago I started applying everywhere. I am a resident in NM so I have a little better odds even if they hover under one percent. Odds went upfor NR sheep in NM this year with the new sheep zones. Still need a guide though to have a better chance. NM has gotten more and more NR unfriendly in general the last few years. Outfitter and landowner tags are handing it to you guys. I guess I'll just have to keep photographing sheep down here because a tag is probably not happening

 

[brymoore]

I get what you are saying and two years ago I started applying everywhere. I am a resident in NM so I have a little better odds even if they hover under one percent. Odds went upfor NR sheep in NM this year with the new sheep zones. Still need a guide though to have a better chance. NM has gotten more and more NR unfriendly in general the last few years. Outfitter and landowner tags are handing it to you guys. I guess I'll just have to keep photographing sheep down here because a tag is probably not happening

Oh, never mind, Definitely apply in NM, then Idaho.

 

[katqanna]

Have you paid attention to what is happening in Idaho? We're slowly winning the grazing war. IDWSF is buying back grazing allotments every year. The Payette Decision (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/03/26/3102236/federal-judge-upholds-payette.html) gives priority to wild sheep over domestics on National Forests. The U.S. Sheep Experiment Station is being shut down this year due to conflicts with wild sheep.

This will be a 20+ year battle. The wild sheep flocks in Idaho have pneumonia. Step 1 - separation of wild and domestic sheep. Idaho has 3K sheep today - it should have over 10K.

If you want to hunt wild sheep in Idaho, support IDWSF.

Wyoming doesnt seem to be faring as well. Effort to protect domestic sheep industry in Wyoming passes Senate panel

 

[BigHornRam]

You really have no idea what you are talking about, and I have no interest in trading internet jabs with you. Carry on.

The new biologist along with one of the old ones was at the Youth Outdoor Expo meeting last night. Didn't see you there. Working with other sportsmen's groups towards a common goal....what a concept.

Carry on.

 

[BigHornRam]

Good for them finding a place to put more sheep with willing landowners. Are there any commercial sheep producers in the area, or just potential hobby livestock owners? What is the potential for that sheep herd?


What kind of collaborative work is being done with the commercial sheep producers, specifically in areas where they do not already have grizzly and wolf issues? I'm asking because I don't know.

It's nice to have some back and forth here without all the crappy attitude. Thanks for a some good honest questions, Oak. I'll try my best to answer them.

No commercial sheep producer's in the area.....at this time. Biggest problem is landowners who are now grazing cattle, want to keep their future options open. It's hard to hold that against them. That's what blew up a potential transplant to the Lewis and Clark Caverns area.

Tom Carlsen is working with the Wool Producers to keep domestics and wild sheep separate and identify workable transplant sites. No one wants here want's a die off. To think otherwise is foolish.

The transplant is from the Hilgard herd which has recover from a past die off to the point where they are ripe for another. They were only moved a short distance, and may very well end up in the same spot near Quake Lake next winter. Probably just buying time till another site can be located. Annual meeting is in March, in Helena, and I will learn more about future plans, then.

Sadly, for what I believe is selfish reasons, we are no longer able to send our excess sheep to other willing states. Hopefully that will change in the future and give us more options.

 

[Oak]

I admit that I have minimal interest in looking for new places to put bighorn sheep, at least in Colorado. I am much more interested in protecting our existing herds, especially indigenous, Tier 1 herds. What we have been met with is an industry that prefers to still argue the science of disease transmission, won't consider alternative AUM's, wants to fight over closure of allotments that have been vacant almost half a century, etc.

From what I can remember off the top of my head, it seems like buyouts in MT and WY have largely occurred since the Payette decision, and in areas where they are also experiencing significant losses from wolves and grizzly bears. Meaning, these are not producers who are coming to the table to work collaboratively on solutions to save bighorn sheep. And while I know they have been very successful, and I am not opposed to buyouts completely, I admit that I do bristle a bit at the idea of having to buy back public lands for native wildlife.

 

[Oak]

Go to the link to read the FS letter, at the bottom of the page.

http://www.wyofile.com/blog/feds-seek-quell-debate-removing-bighorn-sheep/

Feds seek to quell debate about removing bighorn sheep

By Angus M. Thuermer Jr. | February 24, 2015

The U.S. Forest Service said Friday it won’t push domestic sheep off public land in the Wyoming Range due to worries that wild bighorn sheep could catch diseases from them.

Regional Forester Nora Rasure said wild bighorns in the Darby Herd are a “non-emphasis” population, a designation that reduces the need to separate them from disease-carrying domestic stock. Rasure’s statements in a Feb. 20 letter to Gov. Matt Mead brought differing interpretations about the need for two bills that seek to protect stockmen from eviction from their grazing allotments because of nearby bighorns.

Rasure’s letter obviates the need for one of the bills and reduces the importance of the second, Wyoming Wildlife Federation director Steve Kilpatrick said. “We certainly don’t see the need for Senate File 133 (Bighorn sheep relocation) now that the Forest Service has put their intentions in writing,” he said in an email.

Senate File 133 calls for the removal of the Darby Herd of wild bighorns from the Bridger-Teton National Forest if domestic grazing is curtailed. A second bill also is unnecessary, Kilpatrick said.

But the newly stated Forest Service position doesn’t completely protect stockmen and women, Wyoming Stock Growers Association executive vice president Jim Magagna said. Abandoning the bills would leave stock growers vulnerable to the loss of grazing through lawsuits.

Stock growers still want bills passed

“I certainly wouldn’t agree,” Magagna said of Kilpatrick’s call to reject the legislation. Nevertheless, he called Rasure’s letter “good news.” He had not seen the correspondence but reacted to a description of the letter that WyoFile provided during a telephone interview.

At issue are the domestic and wild sheep herds and the potential for wild sheep to catch deadly diseases — principally pneumonia — from domestic stock grazed on public land. Conflicts between the two species are supposed to be worked out according to a plan completed by the “State-wide Bighorn/Domestic sheep Interaction Working Group” in 2004.

Senate File 133 — Bighorn sheep relocation would provide $37,500 to Wyoming Game and Fish Department “for the purpose of removing or relocating the Darby Mountain big horn sheep herd from the Bridger-Teton National Forest boundaries as a result of any federal judicial or agency action requiring the elimination or suspension of any domestic sheep grazing in the Wyoming range of the Bridger-Teton National Forest.” Senate File 134 – Bighorn sheep plan — codifies that Wyoming’s 2004 sheep plan will govern conflicts.

Rasure’s letter says her agency isn’t going to curtail grazing on the Bridger-Teton National Forest because of conflicts with the Darby Herd, leaving potential lawsuits as the remaining threat to domestic grazing.

“We have thoroughly reviewed the Plan and believe it represents an important collaborative effort that serves as a valuable framework to meet our mutual resource management objectives,” Rasure wrote Mead. “The Plan identifies the Darby herd as a ‘non-emphasis’ herd and we do not have any current desire to address risks that domestic sheep may represent to that herd.”

Several other sheep herds in the Bridger-Teton — the Targhee, Jackson and Whiskey herds — are “core native herds” that need to be protected from domestic sheep, Rasure said. As a “non-emphasis” herd in the Wyoming 2004 plan, the Darby population is less important.

Although the 2004 plan has been operating for a decade, recent developments in Idaho have made sheepherders nervous, Magagna said. A lawsuit there led the Payette National Forest to ban domestic sheep grazing on large portions of the federal property to protect native bighorns.

Rasure’s letter recognizing Wyoming’s 2004 sheep plan is important but is not iron-clad protection for stock growers, Magagna said.

“I would not rule out that there could be future litigation that could change that,” he said of Rasure’s assurances to stock growers. “The potential for litigation remains.”

Wyoming’s 2004 plan operates just fine without being codified by SF 134 and without the relocation bill, Kilpatrick said. The relocation bill was amended to put wild sheep removal in the context of the 2004 Wyoming plan. That’s another reason Kilpatrick said it is unnecessary.

State sheep plan seeks room for both species

Wyoming’s 2004 plan seeks room for both species. “It is the goal of the Wyoming Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group to maintain healthy bighorn sheep populations while sustaining an economically viable domestic sheep industry in Wyoming,” the plan says. It also shuns political involvement.

“Existing and/or potential conflicts between domestic and both core native and transplanted bighorn sheep should not be used as surrogate issues to force or effect resource management decisions,” the plan says. “[T]he retirement, reduction, or removal of grazing allotments and management changes should be only on a willing permittee basis, not under a sense of urgency or duress.”

The Senate has passed both bills and the House referred the bighorn sheep relocation bill to its appropriations committee. The House scheduled general file consideration Tuesday afternoon for SF 134, the bill to codify the 2004 Wyoming plan.

Rasure’s letter should quell fears among sheepherders, Kilpatrick said.

“We thank the Forest Service for putting (in) writing that they will not be taking action against domestic sheep producers in the Darby Mountain bighorn sheep herd area,” he said in an email. “We hope this relieves tensions, dispels rumors and allows the interactive working group to get on with the good work they have been doing over the past 15 years. We also hope it reduces the desire for political intervention.”

 

[Oak]

So the two pieces of WY legislation discussed above did pass. Here is an article about their passage that has a title with an interesting spin. I find the parts I bolded particularly amusing/confusing.

http://wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/...ad-disease-between-bighorn-and-domestic-sheep

New Laws Hope To Stop Spread Of Disease Between Bighorn And Domestic Sheep

By Melodie Edwards • Mar 13, 2015

When it comes to the spread of disease from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep, it’s not that different from the arrival of Europeans in the Americas when small pox and other diseases killed millions of indigenous people. Without a built-in immunity, pneumonia can wipe out an entire bighorn sheep herd in no time. And that’s why, last week, the Wyoming legislature passed a pair of historic bills that will effectively keep the two species apart.

Out on the high mountain desert south of Lyman, rancher Shaun Sims calls to his sheep and they call back. It's one of those tricks passed down generations.

“My family history is that John Sims, Sr.,” Sims says, “which is six generations back from me, come to the Evanston area in 1865 and settled there.”

But it hasn’t been easy for the Sims family. Ever since the 1970's, sheep ranching has become almost as endangered as bighorn sheep. New environmental rules barred lethal control of predators and Americans lost their taste for mutton. And that dropped the numbers of sheep from six million at its peak to current numbers of around 300,000. And with so few neighbors raising sheep, ranching is more complicated.

“Slaughter plants for our lambs, the sheering to get the sheep sheered, the trucking industry, the whole infrastructure is shrunk as the sheep industry has shrunk.”

From this ridge, Sims points south at the peaks of the Uinta Range, now dusted in spring snow. It’s here that he moves his herds to fatten his lambs in the summer.

“This is the best summer sheep country in the entire United States, arguably,” he says. “It is a perfect scenario to graze up those mountains and onto those high tops.”

The Uintas, however, are in Utah, not Wyoming. He points out a craggy peak.

“The bighorn sheep are east of that. And they range all the way down to Flaming Gorge.”

It’s a herd transplanted there in the 1980's and it’s migrating close to Sims' grazing allotments. The problem is Utah doesn’t allow sheep to mingle with bighorns because of the threat of spreading pneumonia and wiping out the herd. When sheep graze too close, young bighorn rams often go looking for love in all the wrong places and can wander the countryside for miles, spreading the bacteria. But in Wyoming, transplanted herds like this one are allowed to mingle with sheep. Wild Sheep Foundation director Kevin Hurley says it’s protecting native herds at any cost that’s the basic idea behind Wyoming’s sheep plan.

“In Wyoming, we currently enjoy between six and seven thousand bighorn sheep. The majority of those, 90 percent of those, are in our core native herds in the northwest quadrant of Wyoming,” Hurley says. “And so, ten percent of our bighorns are in other parts of the state in transplant herds.”

For years, the U.S. Forest Service has said if every state would do what Wyoming has done, sheep ranchers and wildlife advocates could resolve their disputes. But Hurley says other states might not have the stamina Wyoming did to reach consensus on some very basic points, like the science behind whether sheep really spread pneumonia to bighorns.

“The science is not absolute,” rancher Shaun Sims says. “There's other stress factors that cause the disease to pronounce itself.”

Hurley disagrees. “The science is real. We've asked for a single peer-reviewed published piece of scientific literature that says they're compatible and they can be fine together. We're not aware of one.”

Chris Iverson is the Deputy Regional Forester for the U.S. Forest Service’s Intermountain Region. He says two of Wyoming’s core native bighorn sheep herds—the Jackson and the Whiskey Mountain herds-- are really struggling.

“Both of these herds declined significantly, about 30 percent or more. And they have not rebounded.”

And he says pneumonia is a likely culprit for their dwindling numbers. In an effort to help bighorn sheep thrive, the U.S. Forest Service is working on a risk assessment study of the Western U.S. that could borrow heavily from Wyoming’s sheep plan. It would protect native herds at any cost and de-emphasize transplanted ones. In fact, last month, Iverson’s office sent a letter to Governor Mead confirming the U.S. Forest Service support. But asked whether it would it work for every state, he says, “each state has to do what’s best for their state under their specific circumstances.”

“Here’s the unfortunate part of that letter,” says Senator Larry Hicks of Baggs who sponsored the bills that put Wyoming’s sheep plan into law. “If the risk assessment came out and even if they used the Wyoming Plan, my anticipation is we will probably still see litigation.”

Hicks says the Wyoming Plan worked perfectly well to keep sheep and bighorns separate for the last decade and he’s disappointed to have to turn what was an old-fashioned Wyoming handshake into law. But he says it’d be worse to see decisions about Wyoming’s wildlife made in the courts.

It’s a sentiment rancher Shaun Sims shares. He says whatever the Forest Service decides about his grazing permits. "I want to see bighorn sheep. There’s a place for the grizzly bear and there’s a place for the wolf. But we as humans also need a place here."

Forester Chris Iverson says the Forest Service plans to complete its bighorn/domestic sheep risk assessment in coming months.