JoseCuervo
New member
Once again, the Republican Party and their members have shown their true colours, that they are NOT friends of hunters, but, instead, committed to working to end hunting in the West.
Republican Governor and Legislature to Kill Big Horn Sheep to Protect Range Maggots
- Thread starter JoseCuervo
- Start date
Why am I not surprised? 
Thought these kind of moronic deals were only a MT problem. Guess not.
Thought these kind of moronic deals were only a MT problem. Guess not.
Calif. Hunter
Active member
Yeah - keep the domestic sheep off the bighorn ranges! How's that for an agreement?
How do you define 'bighorn ranges'?? Historic? Currently occupied?
The article's a bit misleading, in that not all 'federal grazing lands' are closed to the presence of bighorn sheep. No domestic sheep are allowed in ranges occupied by wild sheep or where sheep are being reintroduced. So what is your suggestion in this scenario: sheep move to an area 10+ miles away from where they currently are, but that are occupied by domestic sheep?
No domestic sheep on historical ranges that are still otherwise suitable for bighorn sheep.
JoseCuervo
New member
Keep the Gawd Damn domestic sheep of My Public Lands. End of problem.....
A-con
New member
Jose ! get with the 21st century man.
You can't just keep your sheep barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen !
That's a realistic/constructive suggestion...
What are some factors that determine suitability? I'm guessing your suggestion was meant to apply to federal lands. So would you consider a range with large acreages of private land owned my sheep operators 'suitable'?
You've done some NEPA, do you see any problems with writing a decision to close a sheep permit?
Don't forget, that to close permits will more than likely require compensation to the permittee.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Nice us vs. them attitude, Jose.
Here's an example of domestics being PAID to graze public land within spitting distance of a wild sheep herd. http://www.missoula.com/news/node/1458 Throw in the bleeding heart factor of one of your amigo's getting paid dirt wages to do it, and it makes for many front page Missoulian stories last year.
Here's an example of domestics being PAID to graze public land within spitting distance of a wild sheep herd. http://www.missoula.com/news/node/1458 Throw in the bleeding heart factor of one of your amigo's getting paid dirt wages to do it, and it makes for many front page Missoulian stories last year.
So, are you upset that there are domestic sheep allowed that close to wild sheep or that they are being paid to remove noxious weeds? I do know that sheep can be very effective means of controlling certain species.
PS- Urban interface areas are a big problem for sheep in UT. There's been a high enough mortality along the Wasatch that sheep hunting was closed for this year.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I'm just pointing out Pointer, that domestic vs. wild sheep issues are complex, and Jose's typical stupid inflamitory comments only make the conflicts worse. Nice to see you trying to keep him honest as well.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Why do you HATE your hard working hermano so much Jose?
Job pays $2/hour plus room and board
By KEILA SZPALLER
Missoulian
The man herding sheep on Mount Jumbo makes a little more than $2 an hour, by one estimate.
Enrique Marquez Banda, a cowboy from Mexico, said the $800 a month he earns isn't much by his country's standards either, but it's hard to find work down there. Marquez herds some 600 sheep as part of the Missoula Parks and Recreation Department's noxious-weed control program.
The seasonal shepherd wants more money, but it looks like he'll have to wait. Mayor John Engen said he doesn't understand the economics of sheepherding, but he's happy to look at the issue for next year.
"Maybe there are other ways that we can approach this. Yeah, it's not much dough, that's for sure," Engen said. Other city officials say the contract is with rancher John Stahl, and not with Marquez. And Stahl, who does understand the economics of sheepherding, says the business is more complex than people know. At the same time, he agrees that Marquez isn't raking it in.
"By the United States' standard, it's not very much," Stahl said.
Minimum wage in July went to $6.35 an hour, said city human resources director Gail Verlanic. She can't say for sure how many people are on subcontracts because they don't all land on the HR desk.
The lowest-paid city worker is a clerk, with a starting salary of $19,996 a year, she said. That's roughly $9.61 an hour. The top-paid job is that of chief administrative officer, which starts at $84,940.
Here, even interns and work-study students make more than Marquez. Verlanic said they usually earn $7 to $10 an hour.
City Attorney Jim Nugent said the less-than-minimum wage looks legal, too. That's because the Montana Legislature makes many exceptions for farming and ranching jobs.
Marquez also gets room and board, and Stahl said the U.S. Department of Labor monitors the hire. He said the herder receives a $200 food stipend, and he doesn't spend that much on food and also sends money back home.
Stahl pays $300 a month in workers' compensation and wishes he could pay that money directly to Marquez, but he can't.
Regardless, that line of work isn't generally lucrative. Most herders make $750 a month plus room and board, Stahl said.
"To be honest with you, he's getting paid more than the average herder," Stahl said.
Because the sheepherder works long days seven days a week, the rancher said he tries to get Marquez off the mountain at least once a month for some rest. They go to the rodeo, and maybe they'll head up to to Flathead Lake soon.
"I understand that herding those sheep up there is like watching a bunch of 2-year-olds, and he needs a break every once in a while," Stahl said.
At the same time, fuel prices, the economy, coyotes and last year's drought have been putting the hurt on the business of sheep. Stahl said he just held a family meeting about what to do with the ranch. The consensus was to "shut her down," though he said he'll make the final call. If commodity prices don't rise to match the hike in fuel costs, business won't be great.
"It has nothing to do with is it the right thing to do for the human. It's the economic forces that we're working with. There's a lot more going on behind the scenes than the average Missoulian understands," Stahl said.
On the mountain, the job isn't easy. and Marquez said he has asked for more money. He said he knows some peers in the same line of work make $1,000 a month plus room and board. Marquez said he also doesn't have health insurance in the U.S. And some herders don't work alone, as he does.
Marquez said he works each day starting at 7 a.m. and doesn't rest until late, 9 p.m. Even if he were working a 12-hour day for 29 days, he'd be earning $2.30 an hour.
"Yo no tengo descanso," Marquez said. "I don't have rest."
While the money isn't much, he keeps coming back because jobs are hard to come by back home. But the natural and economic forces putting the hurt on Stahl are stretching Marquez in Mexico, too. He keeps a small herd of cows, but the land is dry and his brother tells him the cows need more food.
Published on Thursday, July 10, 2008
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Poor Enrique
I don't think he will be coming back to work in Missoula this summer...... http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/03/29/news/local/news02.txt
Back to good old fashioned chemical weed control on Mount Jumbo.....at least until the FOTFE (friends of the f...ing earth) file suit.
I don't think he will be coming back to work in Missoula this summer...... http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/03/29/news/local/news02.txt
Back to good old fashioned chemical weed control on Mount Jumbo.....at least until the FOTFE (friends of the f...ing earth) file suit.
I'm not going to argue hypothetical situations with you. Obviously each case warrants evaluation on its own merits. But the idea of retiring grazing allotments where there are conflicts with wildlife is not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy that doesn't stand a chance in the pratical world. It happens relatively frequently. Here are some examples:
http://www.nwf-wcr.org/SpecificAllotments.htm
http://www.nwf-wcr.org/SpecificAllotments.htm
Never did say that retiring an allotment isn't a valid alternative. Conversion of sheep permits to cattle is another one as well (I'm in the process of doing exactly that on two allotments for bighorns).
I know you do not want to address the hypothetical, but in one case surrounding the proposal of the law in ID it isn't hypothetical. Some wild sheep have moved out of an area (IIRC they were reintroduced) to an area without them, but with domestic sheep. Do you have any suggestions on how to mitigate that? The killing of a few wild sheep may be required to prevent them from returning to the herd and infecting more and killing more sheep. IMO, that is what the law is intending to provide; the ID F&G the authority to do that. It's not like all federal grazing lands require the removal of all wild sheep.
Looking at the link you provided, the cases that I looked all involved an agreement to retire the permit or to suspend the livestock grazing. Which is a valid alternative to solving the issue. Where it becomes tricky to do so is in situations where an agreement isn't, or can't be, reached. Ending a previously permitted action, at both the activity and land use plan level, is a very difficult and tricky thing to get accomplished.
I know you do not want to address the hypothetical, but in one case surrounding the proposal of the law in ID it isn't hypothetical. Some wild sheep have moved out of an area (IIRC they were reintroduced) to an area without them, but with domestic sheep. Do you have any suggestions on how to mitigate that? The killing of a few wild sheep may be required to prevent them from returning to the herd and infecting more and killing more sheep. IMO, that is what the law is intending to provide; the ID F&G the authority to do that. It's not like all federal grazing lands require the removal of all wild sheep.
Looking at the link you provided, the cases that I looked all involved an agreement to retire the permit or to suspend the livestock grazing. Which is a valid alternative to solving the issue. Where it becomes tricky to do so is in situations where an agreement isn't, or can't be, reached. Ending a previously permitted action, at both the activity and land use plan level, is a very difficult and tricky thing to get accomplished.
This I definitely agree with!!! Our views on this issue are probably closer than either of us would publicly admit...
The proposed law in Idaho removes the opportunity for collaberation to save bighorns, because it requires that bighorns be killed. That's a solution to the problem, so what's the point of working on other alternatives? Sheep ranchers are not going to sit down at the table and compromise if they don't have to.
Siddoway is no friend of hunters and wildlife. I find it very ironical that the Siddoway family chose to high fence 11,000 acres of their private property, located in crucial mule deer and elk winter range, in order to offer high fence elk and bison hunts. Meanwhile, they graze their sheep on public land and demand that wild ungulates be killed in order to protect the welfare program that allows them to stay in a business that is otherwise not sustainable. Maybe they should raise their sheep in the area where they've chosen to exclude wildlife, and leave the public lands to the public wildlife.
Yeah I know. (Oak gives 1_p a two-finger Stooges eye poke)
Siddoway is no friend of hunters and wildlife. I find it very ironical that the Siddoway family chose to high fence 11,000 acres of their private property, located in crucial mule deer and elk winter range, in order to offer high fence elk and bison hunts. Meanwhile, they graze their sheep on public land and demand that wild ungulates be killed in order to protect the welfare program that allows them to stay in a business that is otherwise not sustainable. Maybe they should raise their sheep in the area where they've chosen to exclude wildlife, and leave the public lands to the public wildlife.
Our views on this issue are probably closer than either of us would publicly admit...
Yeah I know.
(Oak gives 1_p a two-finger Stooges eye poke)I guess my reading of the law was a bit different. I thought that the killing of bighorns was only after they had come into contact with domestic sheep. I can't see any other alternative in that scenario. IMO, that doesn't preclude other alternatives to prevent the interaction or those that would allow for more bighorns on the mountain.
FWIW, there's a range in NV that DOW wants to put bighorns on, the permittee is willing to run cattle instead of sheep. However, the BLM is hesitant to issue the decision converting the class of livestock due to threats of litigation from a certain NGO. So, it seems that in the instance above isn't not only Republican ranchers that don't want more bighorns on the mountain...
FWIW, there's a range in NV that DOW wants to put bighorns on, the permittee is willing to run cattle instead of sheep. However, the BLM is hesitant to issue the decision converting the class of livestock due to threats of litigation from a certain NGO. So, it seems that in the instance above isn't not only Republican ranchers that don't want more bighorns on the mountain...
