Wandering bighorns may be destroyed
By Perry Backus of The Montana Standard - 03/26/2004
Hamilton-based biologist John Voreand Quentin Kujala, a Sun River biologist and Anaconda native, carry a bighorn to a horse trailer during a recent capture operation near Augusta. The bighorns were later released in the Greenhorn Mountains near Alder. Perry Backus/The Montana Standard
ALDER — Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials have decided that up to seven bighorn sheep that wandered away from their new home in the Greenhorn Mountains last year may have to be destroyed.
That decision has created
controversy.
The bighorns are part of a new
population the state is attempting to build in the Greenhorn Mountains near Alder. Over the last two years, state biologists have captured and moved about 80 bighorn sheep into the area.
Some of those wild sheep haven't stayed put. When they've wandered into areas where they'd have to share the range with domestic sheep, state biologists are required to either attempt to capture the animals or destroy them under an agreement signed before the relocation effort began.
After a couple of failed attempts to capture the group of seven that have set up shop near the Sweetwater Road, officials have decided they'll make one more attempt at tranquilizing the
animals. The ones they can't capture will be destroyed.
That decision has members of the Gallatin Wildlife Association in Bozeman upset.
Glen Hockett, president of the group, said members of are "outraged" that bighorn sheep were slated to be destroyed.
"We're disappointed as sportsmen that our interests don't seem to matter at all," Hockett said. "The sheep
producers seem to be running the whole area."
Hockett said it's time that federal and state land agencies begin to
consider the public benefits of wildlife on public lands. Bighorn sheep
permits have sold as high as $310,000 at auction, he said.
"That's more than all the grazing permits bring in for the BLM's Dillon Resource Area," he said.
If the state is really interested in preserving bighorn sheep and other wildlife species like wolves and grizzly bears, Hockett said people need to consider the benefits the public receives from allowing a few families to dictate how public lands will be used.
But Kurt Alt, FWP's Region 3 wildlife manager, said everyone knew that there would be difficult decisions to made when the state decided to try reintroducing bighorn sheep into the Greenhorn Mountains.
The proximity of domestic sheep in the Gravelly Range and other nearby locations made the decision to put sheep into the area difficult from the beginning, he said.
The state recognizes that bighorn and domestic sheep don't mix. Bighorns that mingle with domestic sheep have the potential of picking up disease. And ranchers worry that bighorn rams could breed their ewes.
"We knew it was going to be a difficult new population," he said.
So the agency compromised with local sheep ranchers — giving them the ability to shoot any rams that wander into their flocks.
"We would have killed them anyway," said Alt. "We don't want them to bring back any disease to the rest of the bighorn sheep."
Alt said the agency attempted twice to capture the seven bighorn sheep being targeted. At a cost of nearly $2,500 a try, the sheep eluded that effort. Now, with domestic sheep being moved into the same proximity, Alt said the agency is forced to take stronger steps.
"That way we look at it, if in five years we have 150 sheep in the Greenhorn and we have to kill five or 10 a year, that's an acceptable cost," Alt said. "Maybe in 30 years from now, things will change and we can allow for some sheep to migrate into some new areas."
Alt said the agency believes people and wildlife need to co-exist.
"This isn't a Yellowstone National Park model. It's a North American model," Alt said. "We're not trying to eliminate people and their livelihoods."
Sheep rancher Joe Helle said woolgrowers and local ranchers signed off on the efforts to bring back bighorn sheep to the Greenhorns because of the compromise agreement.
"All they are doing is trying to follow the procedure set up in that agreement," Helle said.
If landowners and ranchers had vehemently opposed the Greenhorn bighorn transplant, it would probably have never happened, Helle said.
"This was a compromise by us that we felt everyone could benefit by," he said. "It was our concern right from the beginning that the sheep wouldn't stay in the Greenhorns … we felt this compromise would benefit everyone. We could continue to raise sheep and the public would have some more bighorn sheep around."
Helle said his family has spent three generations developing its herd that it sells as good replacement stock to sheep ranchers around the country. They can't afford to have interbreeding with bighorn sheep, he said.
The Gallatin Wildlife Association is "trying to drive a wedge between everyone who has worked together on this project," Helle said. "They are a group of radical environmentalists who are trying to eliminate livestock grazing on public lands … they are not interested in trying to work together or compromise."
Tom Bugni of the Skyline Sportsmen Association in Butte said that group supports the efforts of FWP in trying to manage the Greenhorn bighorn sheep. "If they have an agreement in place, then that's just the way it is," said Bugni.
Bugni said that group knows how difficult it is to get a new herd of bighorn sheep started in the state.
"If people start raising hell about it and not be willing to work with landowners, then it's just going to be that much more difficult the next time around," Bugni said. "These are some good people who have to be able to make a living … we have to be able to get along."
"If we get a sheep hunt in the future in the Greenhorns, then we'll feel lucky that we have another place to hunt bighorns in the future," he said.
— Reporter Perry Backus may be reached via e-mail at
[email protected].
Email this story Print this story
http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2004/03/26/outdoors/hjjfjghdjcfjjf.txt