What do You Think About This Sheep Grazing Buyout?

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
14,152
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
Deal takes sheep off grazing allotment
By MIKE STARK
Billings Gazette Saturday, March 18, 2006



BILLINGS, Mont. -- Domestic sheep don't mix well with grizzly bears and wolves.

Now they won't mix at all on more than 70,000 acres in the Absaroka-Beartooth wilderness.

A 74,000-acre sheep grazing allotment south of Big Timber in the Gallatin National Forest has been permanently closed and the ranchers who used it for generations have been paid to move their sheep elsewhere, according to a deal that was to be announced Thursday.

The agreement is the eighth -- and second-largest -- in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem in recent years that has led to the retirement of about 300,000 acres from grazing.
"Ultimately, this is going to be one of the most effective solutions we have to deal with chronic conflicts between wildlife and livestock," said Hank Fischer of the National Wildlife Federation, one of the groups that helped organize the deals.

The latest involves the Ash Mountain and Iron Mountain allotments used for generations by the Allestad family of Big Timber. The land is adjacent to the north boundary of Yellowstone National Park in an area frequented by grizzlies, wolves, bighorn sheep, elk and other wild animals.

Between 1999 and 2003, bears and wolves killed more than 100 sheep on the allotment.

According to the agreement, the National Wildlife Federation will pay the ranchers $130,000, and the Allestads then waive their grazing privileges back to the Gallatin National Forest. Forest officials have agreed to permanently close the allotment.

The decision wasn't an easy one.

Elaine Allestad said the family had been grazing sheep in that area since the late 1920s. In recent years, the family had been permitted to have a maximum of 1,200 sheep on the allotment.

But wolves and grizzlies took a heavy toll on their ewes and lambs. A few years ago, grizzlies killed 60 sheep, she said.

While it made sense to take their sheep somewhere farther from wild carnivores, it was difficult to say goodbye to a tradition several generations old of raising sheep in the backcountry.

"It was a very sad decision to make because of the history," she said.

But the decision will pay dividends to the wildlife in the area, said Chris Smith, chief of staff for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Not only does the deal cut down on conflicts between sheep and the big predators, it also reduces the risk that domestic sheep might pass diseases to bighorn sheep, Smith said.

"All the way around it's a very positive development," Smith said.

Conflicts between livestock and carnivores can be thorny for everyone involved. Ranchers lose animals and money, and as a result wolves and grizzlies that cause problems often are killed by wildlife managers.

Chris Servheen, grizzly recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the sheep allotment was adjacent to some of Yellowstone's highest density bear populations.

There's a lot of talk and controversy surrounding grizzly bears and the latest proposal to remove them from the endangered species list, but there are too few projects like the Ash Mountain/Iron Mountain deal that open up grizzly habitat and pay immediate dividends for wildlife, he said.

"That's the kind of applied positive conservation that really makes a difference for grizzly bears," Servheen said. "It's a feather in their cap, and I take my hat off to them."

The deal also could provide more room for wolves, including the Slough Creek pack, one of the most-watched packs in Yellowstone National Park lately.

Fischer said his group isn't intent on shutting down grazing operations on public lands or putting any ranchers out of business. So far, every rancher involved in the deals has used the incentive payment to find a new area to graze livestock.

"We aren't getting rid of grazing; we're redistributing where it occurs: away from core wildlife areas near national parks and wilderness areas and closer to low-conflict areas," Fischer said.

The latest allotment retirement ends an era for sheep grazing in that area.

"The history of sheep grazing in the Absaroka Mountains is a storied one that will be missed by many but not forgotten," Ken Britton, district ranger for the Gallatin National Forest, wrote in a letter to the Allestads. "The Allestad name will always be tied to those memories."
 
Cracks me up....on an "ignore" list but answers (sort of) his question....

Ithaca- isn't the whole premise behind having someone on your, self-proclaimed, idiot list not having to view/respond to them in the first place??? I think this is kind of like driving by a wreck for you...don't wanna look, but just have to peek anyway!

As others here would say....unbelievable ;) :D
 
BigHornRam said:
Deal takes sheep off grazing allotment
By MIKE STARK
Billings Gazette Saturday, March 18, 2006

According to the agreement, the National Wildlife Federation will pay the ranchers $130,000, and the Allestads then waive their grazing privileges back to the Gallatin National Forest. Forest officials have agreed to permanently close the allotment.

The decision wasn't an easy one.

Elaine Allestad said the family had been grazing sheep in that area since the late 1920s. In recent years, the family had been permitted to have a maximum of 1,200 sheep on the allotment.

While it made sense to take their sheep somewhere farther from wild carnivores, it was difficult to say goodbye to a tradition several generations old of raising sheep in the backcountry.

"It was a very sad decision to make because of the history," she said.

Don't be too sad, get paid $130,000 for getting rid of a privilege.:rolleyes: I could care less about the sheep predation, price of doing business at $1.56 an AUM.:D Removing a disease cocern from wild sheep populations is a big yippee in my opinion.

Thanks for the read. Good day for MT wildlife. Who gets the blame...er credit (depending which side of the fence folks are on), conservatives or liberals.:D :D
 
BigHornRam said:
Thank's for reading the post Ithaca and for the well thought out response! Anyone else like to comment?

It is funny that BigHore doesn't even offer up his opinion on his initial post nor on his second post, but merely comments on Ithica, who likely is correct in light of BHR's usual anti-fishing, anti-hunting posts.

It is funny that BHR isn't bright enough on his own to form an opinion on it.

The Allsteads had 1200 animals, or less which is 240 AUMs, or less.
The FS got 1.56 per AUM or $374 per MONTH to allow the range maggots to spread disease to Wild Sheep, ruin fishing, and cost taxpayers money. If the rancher left the sheep out for 5 months, that is still less than $2000 per year the FS got from this rancher, perhaps WAY less than $2000.

THe guy was paid $130k, or 65X his annual payment to the government to go to a DIFFERENT FS location and pay the government the $0.31 per month for his sheep to eat on Public Lands. It is pretty amazing that you can't buy pet food at Wal-Mart to feed the house cat for $0.31 per month, but ranchers can pay the Feds $0.31 per month to feed livestock/private profit generators on public lands.

Again, how can BHR not have an opinion that this would be good for wildlife, good for the rancher, and bad for the taxpayer? (Let me guess, he will claim he was just trying to bait others into his thread....:rolleyes: )
 
Paul- I don't remember where I read this (I know....note myself as chastised for posting information without a recallable source :rolleyes: ) but I think the avg. reimbursement for predation killed stock is something on the order of $235/animal. Given that they lost, on average, 25 sheep a year between 1999-2003- that would equate to $5,875/year in reimbursements. At a buyout price of $130k it would have taken (under the $235 scenario) 22 average years of losses to come up with that dollar amount (no forward discounting for cash included) - financially would have been seemingly cheaper to keep the allotment as is so I doubt that it was as much a $$ consideration as it was they just wanted the sheep folks outta there. I think that the wildlife will/should benefit by the move and that far outweighs the cost of the relocation....course I'm not into sheep as much as some here ;)
 
Regarding predation compensation (for those who might know) is it true that the Govs. role is limited to inspection/verification that the predation actually occurred and that compensation is funded mostly through non-governmental trusts??

Again, trying to "recall" info read from years ago...
 
"he will claim he was just trying to bait others into his thread..." (Quote Jose)

And it worked.

Agree with your math...disagree with your pithiness...you're "ignoring' that his initial post had no editorial content. Paul & Ithaca are, in theory, talking to the wall... wouldn't you say?
 
Marv,

Defenders of Wildlife actually cuts the checks on the documented predation losses. To date, the amount paid is pretty small in the grand scheme of things, and for some, the ranchers have got way above market rates for their losses.
 
NHY,
Why would a hunter, and one that pretends to be a sheep hunter and "active" in FNWAS not have an opinion on this issue and need to ask others for what his opinion should be? Some would say BHR is a complete idiot and I don't think I can agree to that, let's just leave it that he is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree....
 
Finally had time to look some of it up...

Defenders of Wildlife, a non-government organization, Wolf Compensation Trust was created in 1987 to pay compensation when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and the Northern Rockies. The Trust fund of $100,000, started by donations from individuals interested in wolf recovery, pays the market value of livestock verified by federal investigators as killed by wolves. Payments were expanded in 1995 to cover the reintroduction of wolves to Arizona and New Mexico.

According to Defenders of Wildlife, in the 13 years from the Wolf Compensation Trust's inception to 2000, it has paid $136,627 to 129 ranchers for 529 depredation incidents (for at least 167 cattle, 338 sheep and some dozens of other animals including pigs and fowl). This amounts to an average of $235 dollars per animal lost to wolves. The Trust also provides guarding dogs, fences and other depredation prevention measures for livestock ranchers.

Thanks Jose, didn't know if that was the case still today (post 2000).
 
Washington Hunter said:
Maybe the Defenders of Wildlife should compensate the states for the loss of deer and elk as well.
...or maybe the states should pay the insurance companies for deer/vehicle collisions.;)
 
I think the big thing that everyone is missing is how they are trying to move livestock around rather then manage the problem. This is just another idea to postpone a hunting season on Griz. and wolves. But moving the livestock is not the answer to the problem they will just go to the next ranch and feed there.
 
Cathunt MT said:
I think the big thing that everyone is missing is how they are trying to move livestock around rather then manage the problem. This is just another idea to postpone a hunting season on Griz. and wolves. But moving the livestock is not the answer to the problem they will just go to the next ranch and feed there.
Cat, do you think the buyout was a bad idea? Do you think by leaving sheep on the mountain with some getting eaten is getting us closer to a hunting season on wolves/grizz? What do you mean by "going to the next ranch"? I would guess you mean fee and not public? Is that a bad thing?
 
No government money was used to close this allotment. It came from a collaboration of sources including NWF, Multiple Wild Sheep groups, and multiple pro preditor wildlife groups including DOW. A lot of groups with sometimes conflicting interests came together to do some good. This is some of the most spectacular high country in Montana and home to several unlimited herds of wild sheep. Many of them winter in places above 10,000 feet and the grass that will now perminantly be available to them will make a huge difference in the carrying capacity.

It is also right to realize that the grazing allotment of around 100 years was of value to the Allestads and paying them to retire this made it all possible. Win/win IMO!

And hunters gained one other important thing. NWF cleared up their position on the GYE grizzly delisting issue. All the other preditor groups are still opposed. It's still going to be an up hill battle, but at least with NWF on the hunter's side there is hope that delisting and a limited hunting season will happen!
 
BigHornRam said:
This is some of the most spectacular high country in Montana and home to several unlimited herds of wild sheep. Many of them winter in places above 10,000 feet and the grass that will now perminantly be available to them will make a huge difference in the carrying capacity.

What a looney tune!!! How many domestic sheep graze in places above 10,000 feet? Dude, get some education before giving your analysis. And learn how to spell....
 
GOHUNT Insider

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,587
Messages
2,026,119
Members
36,239
Latest member
cprsailor
Back
Top