WanderWoman
Well-known member
Gotcha, yeah I agree that 9 miles doesn’t give you 100% insurance by any means. I think it’s better than nothing, and when addressing the ‘real world’ situation (including hobby farms, Bobby’s 4H lamb, etc.) it’s a more realistic/reasonable expectation that comes with caveats.
70 miles sounds awesome, but how many places are there that meet all of a sheep population’s needs (including supporting X number of sheep) that are for certain 70 miles from the nearest domestic? Some, but not many.
If you wanted to take it further/safer than 9 miles you’d look at the available collar data and determine the furthest distances traveled from a home range core and maybe start there, with the understanding it may apply to that sheep on that day under that situation. Yes—the further the better. But that’s not even a guarantee as some pneumonia outbreaks aren’t related to commingling/exposure to domestics. They can come from introduction (or wandering) of other wild sheep carrying a different bacteria or strain, or a member of the population can already have been exposed but some factor (poor health, stress, etc.) can cause a new outbreak.
I also feel like as soon as you say, “oh it’s X miles,” a young ram will wander along and say “hold my beer and watch this.”
Tough stuff. Every time biologists learn something new about it, it also unravels new questions and conundrums.
Last edited:
