FWP Seeking Applicants for Bighorn Sheep Advisory Group

[bigsky2]

Haven’t seen this posted here. Hopefully some from the HT crowd throw their names in.

“Restoration projects for bighorn sheep face many challenges, especially in areas dominated by private land. To help identify these challenges and potential solutions Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is creating the Bighorn Sheep Restoration Advisory Panel.  

“Many private lands around the state offer excellent habitat potential for bighorn sheep and can provide important restoration opportunities,” said Quentin Kujala, FWP’s chief of conservation policy. “We’re looking for a diverse group of passionate individuals to help us create ways to evaluate private land restoration projects and solve challenges we may encounter.”

We’re always talking about how demand for sheep tags is increasing while available tags are continually decreasing over time. There’s a decent amount of suitable sheep habitat in eastern MT and I hope this means FWP is going to take a serious look at possible introductions in places like the lower Yellowstone River breaks.

FWP accepting applications for a bighorn sheep advisoryâ¯panelâ¯â¯

content.govdelivery.com

 

[antlerradar]

I can think of several places that would be great for sheep in eastern MT, but Domestics are going to be an issue is some places. The quote below does kind of get my radar up. Hate to cynical, but with the GG administration sometimes it is just being prepared. Sure hope there is not a Rams for Billionaires thread in HT's future. Plenty of places with good public access where I would look first.

“Restoration projects for bighorn sheep face many challenges, especially in areas dominated by private land. To help identify these challenges and potential solutions Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is creating the Bighorn Sheep Restoration Advisory Panel.  

“Many private lands around the state offer excellent habitat potential for bighorn sheep and can provide important restoration opportunities,” said Quentin Kujala, FWP’s chief of conservation policy. “We’re looking for a diverse group of passionate individuals to help us create ways to evaluate private land restoration projects and solve challenges we may encounter.”

FWP accepting applications for a bighorn sheep advisoryâ¯panelâ¯â¯

content.govdelivery.com

 

[DFS]

Haven’t seen this posted here. Hopefully some from the HT crowd throw their names in.

“Restoration projects for bighorn sheep face many challenges, especially in areas dominated by private land. To help identify these challenges and potential solutions Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is creating the Bighorn Sheep Restoration Advisory Panel.  

“Many private lands around the state offer excellent habitat potential for bighorn sheep and can provide important restoration opportunities,” said Quentin Kujala, FWP’s chief of conservation policy. “We’re looking for a diverse group of passionate individuals to help us create ways to evaluate private land restoration projects and solve challenges we may encounter.”

We’re always talking about how demand for sheep tags is increasing while available tags are continually decreasing over time. There’s a decent amount of suitable sheep habitat in eastern MT and I hope this means FWP is going to take a serious look at possible introductions in places like the lower Yellowstone River breaks.

FWP accepting applications for a bighorn sheep advisoryâ¯panelâ¯â¯

content.govdelivery.com

Domestics need to go. All of them.

Sheep live there in spite of us.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I can think of several places that would be great for sheep in eastern MT, but Domestics are going to be an issue is some places. The quote below does kind of get my radar up. Hate to cynical, but with the GG administration sometimes it is just being prepared. Sure hope there is not a Rams for Billionaires thread in HT's future. Plenty of places with good public access where I would look first.

Domestics limit location significantly, as do other concerns. Talking with some FWP Bios, some have said they're short on public land that can host them for translocation, or that disease issues complicate augmentation of existing herds, etc. The politics of sheep make things more difficult as well: In 2013, SB83 was a response to a proposed sheep transplant. It was caused by a proposed transplant where one adjacent landowner was unhappy with the proposal, so he asked his legislator to do something about it. That something would have effectively strangled the agency's ability to do any transplants. In 2016, MTWSF and The MT Woolgrowers signed their cooperative agreement that helps qwell some of those concerns. I do think it makes sense to get a protocol in place for private land transplants so that a process is well delinated and everybody understands what is expected of them in terms of obligations, etc.

As far as rams for richies, I don't see that happening for a few reasons:

1.) That takes statutory changes to provide for the tag, and honestly I don't see the political will of the people nor the votes in the legislature for a 454 style program for sheep, goats or moose and I don't think that changes with a new governor in 2029.

2.) The people who you are worried about can afford to purchase any of the transferable auction or raffle tags out there. If it's just about killing a sheep, those folks have those tools at their disposal as well as many other states to achieve this goal.

3.) The amount of time it takes to grow a herd to the point where hunters will have an opportunity is measured in 5-10 year spans rather than 1-2 year spans. That's playing an incredibly long game for something they have the ability to purchase already.

I hope folks from HT apply. This could be a significant improvement in sheep numbers and some solid representation from the public land hunting community would be needed to help keep the process well rounded.

 

[bigsky2]

Domestics limit location significantly, as do other concerns. Talking with some FWP Bios, some have said they're short on public land that can host them for translocation, or that disease issues complicate augmentation of existing herds, etc. The politics of sheep make things more difficult as well: In 2013, SB83 was a response to a proposed sheep transplant. It was caused by a proposed transplant where one adjacent landowner was unhappy with the proposal, so he asked his legislator to do something about it. That something would have effectively strangled the agency's ability to do any transplants. In 2016, MTWSF and The MT Woolgrowers signed their cooperative agreement that helps qwell some of those concerns. I do think it makes sense to get a protocol in place for private land transplants so that a process is well delinated and everybody understands what is expected of them in terms of obligations, etc.

As far as rams for richies, I don't see that happening for a few reasons:

1.) That takes statutory changes to provide for the tag, and honestly I don't see the political will of the people nor the votes in the legislature for a 454 style program for sheep, goats or moose and I don't think that changes with a new governor in 2029.

2.) The people who you are worried about can afford to purchase any of the transferable auction or raffle tags out there. If it's just about killing a sheep, those folks have those tools at their disposal as well as many other states to achieve this goal.

3.) The amount of time it takes to grow a herd to the point where hunters will have an opportunity is measured in 5-10 year spans rather than 1-2 year spans. That's playing an incredibly long game for something they have the ability to purchase already.

I hope folks from HT apply. This could be a significant improvement in sheep numbers and some solid representation from the public land hunting community would be needed to help keep the process well rounded.

This is what I was told by a FWP bio also. My first thought was that I’d rather have sheep on the landscape that can’t easily be hunted rather than to not have sheep on the landscape at all. Then I realized populations in eastern MT would probably need to be managed through hunting since they seem to thrive more than populations in the mountains. I can’t remember the exact number, but a biologist told me that sheep herds are much more susceptible to disease once the population gets above something like 150-200 animals.

The Terry Badlands WSA seems like an obvious spot to introduce a herd. There’s plenty of public land and it seems like sheep traditionally do well in river breaks. Another place would be Makoshika State Park. Makoshika would be more limited by a lack of water and might need supplemental water like guzzlers put in. I don’t know if those areas are in close proximity to domestic sheep or not though.

It’s not all that uncommon for me to get pictures of rams wandering through those areas every few years. I’m not sure if they are removed by FWP or if they just naturally leave when they can’t find any ewes. The herd right across the state line in ND is doing well so it’s frustrating that we can’t find a way to have some resident sheep in that part of the state.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the Bighorn Sheep conservation strategy from 2010. The translocation section starts on page 59. Not sure if the agency has updated it since then?

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/wildlife-reports/bighorn-sheep/bighorn-sheep-conservation-strategy-2010-web.pdf

 

[Randy11]

Man, I'm having a hard time believing they've run out of places on public to put them.

There are so many giant chunks of land in Region 1 and 2 without sheep.