Caribou Gear

MT Breaks' Bighorns in the crosshairs?

We are fortunate to have Brian involved. He's a great guy. I hope he can make some progress. The stakes are high, not only for wild sheep, but the tenuous remnants of relations between the sheep industry (and their backpocket legislators) and hunters. This could be the charge that ignites a powder keg like no event we have seen.
 
We are fortunate to have Brian involved. He's a great guy. I hope he can make some progress. The stakes are high, not only for wild sheep, but the tenuous remnants of relations between the sheep industry (and their backpocket legislators) and hunters. This could be the charge that ignites a powder keg like no event we have seen.
Understood.
 
I don't want to stray from the OP, but the last couple sheep threads have brought this snippet from Norman Maclean's, "Young Men and Fire" to mind. In the prelude of the book he has a short story titled, "Black Ghost.", in which he writes about a fire he fought as a young man up Fish Creek in western MT. It is not related to disease, but rather highlights that an antagonistic relationship between domestic sheep and hunters is nothing new. Which I find interesting.

"The Forest Service had issued a permit to a big sheep outfit to graze a flock of a thousand or so on a main tributary of Fish Creek, and you probably know - hunters are sure they know - that sheep graze a range so close to the ground that nothing is left for a deer to eat when the sheep have finished. Hunters even say that a grasshopper can't live on grass sheep leave behind. The fire had been started near the mouth of the tributary, on the assumption, we assumed, that the fire would burn up the tributary, which was a box canyon, all cliffs, with no way of getting sheep out of it. From a deer hunter's point of view, it was a good place for sheep to die."


For sure, the best solution would be an amicable agreement with this individual. Until the next guy comes along.
 
Probably wouldn't be much political interest give the private property concerns, but the Attorney General could try a novel theory of environmental nuisance - a la odoriferous industries.
 
Probably wouldn't be much political interest give the private property concerns, but the Attorney General could try a novel theory of environmental nuisance - a la odoriferous industries.
Interesting thought ... however there likely isn't a neighbor to complain within a twenty mile radius. There's some wide open country up there ... about as dissimilar to Kentucky farms density as can be seen in this country.
 
Interesting thought ... however there likely isn't a neighbor to complain within a twenty mile radius. There's some wide open country up there ... about as dissimilar to Kentucky farms density as can be seen in this country.

I get the sparsity. I meant the AG could bring it on behalf of the public as it will effect the wildlife held in public trust. Unlike an established goat/sheep operation, this ranch is introducing an environmental contaminant onto the landscape that is not consistent with recent historical usage. Might be ripe for challenge.
 
There ain't a fence built that can keep domestic wildlife 100% contained. Trees fall on fences, idiots cut wires, migrating wildlife trample fences, avalanches, etc.

If my dogs escape my fenced yard and run down the public street and kill your dog or kill your kid at the city park then should I be fined or sued?

If my cattle ranch has rainfall carry my cattle's waste into a critical trout habitat, should I be fined or sued?

If my pigs escape onto your property and eat your agricultural crop should I be fined or sued?

If a bald eagle lands on my property and eats a lamb that died from eating poison should I be fined or sued?

If my sheep escape onto public property and transmit a disease to wildlife that are valued in anti-poaching statutes at $10,000s each then should I be fined or sued?

If wildlife travel onto my leased public property and are exposed to a disease from my domestic sheep, goats, llamas, bison, cows or chickens then should I be fined or sued?

If wildlife travel onto my private property and are exposed to a disease from my domestic sheep, goats, llamas, bison, cows or chickens then should I be fined or sued?

Private landowners have liability for things that happen on their property and off their property. Using statues is the only way to clarify and expand that liability so will cover negligence which leads to wildlife death. Statutes arise when people behave badly and the statutes often swing the pendulum much further than if people compromised. Your move, Montana.
 
Unfortunately, I don't see anything being done about this via the state legislature any time soon. I bet that even if all the wild sheep in the breaks and elsewhere in Montana were to die off due to diseases spread by domestic sheep, and there was overwhelming support by hunters to restrict domestic sheep near wild sheep populations, nothing will happen. Our legislature is currently heavily skewed towards ranchers/farmers and large landowners. Any perceived infringement on their "rights" is not going to happen with the current and foreseeable political makeup of this state. I can't wait to see what kind of junk gets passed by our legislature when we loose Bullock out of the governors mansion.
 
Can or would the state or federal government sue the rancher for damages if/when the bighorn herd starts to take a hit due to disease? I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me a pretty easy job to calculate in monetary terms the value of the wild sheep and the loss of revenue to the government. If they can put it in those terms, perhaps he will find that it would not be economically feasible to raise sheep and risk the damages. Seems like outfitters and guides would have a case as well.
 
I'd support preemptive legal action, but I don't know MT environmental laws enough to know if there's a leg to stand on. Heck, even in WA it would be difficult to challenge.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,580
Messages
2,025,820
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848
Back
Top