Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Wild sheep and disease

MT FWP has removed at least 5 bighorn rams from the Bonner herd over the years after coming into contact with these weed control sheep, the most recent being 3 in 2015. Too bad they are back after a 7 year hiatus. Amazing that a place like Missoula would stand for that.

So maybe my geography is bad. Mt. Jumbo is just west of the Bonner herd location. The City of Missoula is going to place 800 domestic sheep in the Jumbo/North Hills area for “weed control.”

Will it result in weed control or wild sheep control? Any Missoula folks privy to what is being done, if anything, to not make this a very bad event for wild sheep?

On the surface, given what we know about domestic sheep in close proximity to wild sheep, this weed control action seems to have the interest of wild sheep as a low priority.

If anyone has details, please post them up. Thanks for sharing this @Oak.
 
MT FWP has removed at least 5 bighorn rams from the Bonner herd over the years after coming into contact with these weed control sheep, the most recent being 3 in 2015. Too bad they are back after a 7 year hiatus. Amazing that a place like Missoula would stand for that.

A little more work to be done.

They’re paying him to graze his sheep!
“The project is funded by the 2018 Conservation Lands Mill Levy.”

 

Attachments

  • CPW News Release - cpw.state.co.us.png
    CPW News Release - cpw.state.co.us.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 54
This was Wyoming's cleanest and healthiest bighorn herd, although there are domestic sheep in relatively close proximity.

Devil’s Canyon bighorn sheep herd experiencing disease outbreak

“Since Oct. 14, Game and Fish has documented 37 bighorn sheep mortalities in the Devil’s Canyon herd, which constitutes approximately 10 percent of the population,” said Corey Class, wildlife management coordinator for the Cody Region. “The majority of deaths have occurred in ewes and lambs.”
 
This was Wyoming's cleanest and healthiest bighorn herd, although there are domestic sheep in relatively close proximity.

Devil’s Canyon bighorn sheep herd experiencing disease outbreak

“Since Oct. 14, Game and Fish has documented 37 bighorn sheep mortalities in the Devil’s Canyon herd, which constitutes approximately 10 percent of the population,” said Corey Class, wildlife management coordinator for the Cody Region. “The majority of deaths have occurred in ewes and lambs.”
Yeah, this sucks! I was in there a few weeks ago taking photos of sheep. I didn't see any dead ones but did see a few that were clearly sick. The Bio confirmed what I feared..
 
If you want to get involved in something right now, you can submit comments on the draft GMUG Forest Plan Revision. Comments are due by November 12. Just click the "Submit a Comment" button.

The most important thing for bighorn sheep in this draft plan is that they be included on the Species of Conservation Concern list, which is designated by the Regional Forester. They are currently not on the list, despite ample evidence that they qualify and a pointed letter from CPW indicating point by point why they qualify and should be included on the list.

SCC listing is important because without it, the Forest only has to manage for persistence on the forest. The management hurdle for SCC species is viability. If bighorns are not an SCC species, the forest could write off all but one herd of bighorns on the forest and still meet persistence. As an SCC species, the Forest must consider all individuals on the forest as a single population.

The 2012 planning rule lists the following categories for species that should be considered for SCC listing:


Bighorn sheep meet category c. (CPW lists them as a species of greatest conservation need in their SWAP), category d. (the adjacent Rio Grande National Forest listed bighorns as SCC in their forest plan revision that was just completed last year), and three of the four sub-categories of category f. The CPW comment letter makes a case for bighorns meeting all four sub-categories of category f.

The Forest is contending that because bighorns don't meet sub-category (3) of category f. that they can't be listed as SCC. However, the list above is clearly an "or" list, not an "and" list.

So write your comments and ask that bighorn sheep be listed as a species of conservation concern because the best available science indicates there is concern about their ability to persist over the long term due to the risk of disease transmission from authorized domestic sheep grazing on the forest. From the Rangeland Assessment prepared for this plan revision, in 2016 there were 27,331 domestic sheep permitted to graze on the forest.
I realize that was a mouthful I spouted nearly two years ago, but read it again. The final GMUG Forest Plan Revision and EIS are out today, and bighorn sheep are not on the SCC list. The clock starts today on a 60-day objection period.
Link to all the goods
 
I realize that was a mouthful I spouted nearly two years ago, but read it again. The final GMUG Forest Plan Revision and EIS are out today, and bighorn sheep are not on the SCC list. The clock starts today on a 60-day objection period.
Link to all the goods
Hey Oak, can you hold my hand on this. Where do the make the determination that bighorns aren't on the SCC list? Also, in the final plan documents for 2023, I only see the EIS and the ROD but not the actual plan, am I missing something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oak
Hey Oak, can you hold my hand on this. Where do the make the determination that bighorns aren't on the SCC list? Also, in the final plan documents for 2023, I only see the EIS and the ROD but not the actual plan, am I missing something?
I'll try to add more later, but it's easier to view the docs on Pinyon Public, IMO. If you go to the Final Forest Plan and Documents 2023 folder, and then the Final Forest Plan Documents 2023 folder, you see three volumes of the final EIS, the draft ROD, and the "Final GMUG Forest Plan_Pre-objections Version" document.

The SCC list and process are under Biological Assessment and other Supplemental Material.
 
I'll try to add more later, but it's easier to view the docs on Pinyon Public, IMO. If you go to the Final Forest Plan and Documents 2023 folder, and then the Final Forest Plan Documents 2023 folder, you see three volumes of the final EIS, the draft ROD, and the "Final GMUG Forest Plan_Pre-objections Version" document.

The SCC list and process are under Biological Assessment and other Supplemental Material.
ah yes, the correct document is linked in Pinyon Public.

BA doesn't even discuss bighorns. The grazing plan/policy doesn't mention bighorns, the actual forest plan basically dooms bighorns, there are not meaningful measures being suggested, it's all just lipstick on a pig.
 
The grazing plan/policy doesn't mention bighorns, the actual forest plan basically dooms bighorns, there are not meaningful measures being suggested, it's all just lipstick on a pig.

Spoiler alert!!
 
If you want to get involved in something right now, you can submit comments on the draft GMUG Forest Plan Revision. Comments are due by November 12. Just click the "Submit a Comment" button.

The most important thing for bighorn sheep in this draft plan is that they be included on the Species of Conservation Concern list, which is designated by the Regional Forester. They are currently not on the list, despite ample evidence that they qualify and a pointed letter from CPW indicating point by point why they qualify and should be included on the list.

SCC listing is important because without it, the Forest only has to manage for persistence on the forest. The management hurdle for SCC species is viability. If bighorns are not an SCC species, the forest could write off all but one herd of bighorns on the forest and still meet persistence. As an SCC species, the Forest must consider all individuals on the forest as a single population.

The 2012 planning rule lists the following categories for species that should be considered for SCC listing:


Bighorn sheep meet category c. (CPW lists them as a species of greatest conservation need in their SWAP), category d. (the adjacent Rio Grande National Forest listed bighorns as SCC in their forest plan revision that was just completed last year), and three of the four sub-categories of category f. The CPW comment letter makes a case for bighorns meeting all four sub-categories of category f.

The Forest is contending that because bighorns don't meet sub-category (3) of category f. that they can't be listed as SCC. However, the list above is clearly an "or" list, not an "and" list.

So write your comments and ask that bighorn sheep be listed as a species of conservation concern because the best available science indicates there is concern about their ability to persist over the long term due to the risk of disease transmission from authorized domestic sheep grazing on the forest. From the Rangeland Assessment prepared for this plan revision, in 2016 there were 27,331 domestic sheep permitted to graze on the forest.

Winner, winner....

I have completed that evaluation and identified four additional species to include on the SCC list
for the Forests:
  • Bighorn Sheep (including the two subspecies):
    • Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis) (mammal)
    • Desert Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis nelson) (mammal)
  • Black Swift (Cypseloides niger) (bird)
  • Peculiar moonwort (Botrychium paradoxum) (fern)
  • Naturita milkvetch (Astragalus naturitensis) (flowering plant)
Updated Final List of Species of Conservation Concern for Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Final Revised Plan
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,656
Messages
2,028,677
Members
36,274
Latest member
johnw3474
Back
Top