theat
Well-known member
Yeah, the forage in the Gravellies does seem to do pretty well with the grazing gong on over there. The Gravelly Range seems like perfect domestic grazing country and not great sheep country like the other two.
MT Wilderness Association piece on domestic sheep grazing
- Thread starter MTGomer
- Start date
Yeah, the forage in the Gravellies does seem to do pretty well with the grazing gong on over there. The Gravelly Range seems like perfect domestic grazing country and not great sheep country like the other two.
BuzzH
Well-known member
How about making the locals operate in the free market instead of subsidizing them?
EWG's Farm Subsidy Database
EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.
farm.ewg.org
Again here:
EWG's Farm Subsidy Database
EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.
farm.ewg.org
Much entitlement going one?
theat
Well-known member
Not sure where you are getting that from. I am all for compromise, but not when a private landowner gets to make the "rules" for what native wild animals can live on public lands including Wildlife Management Areas that were paid for by hunters and are supposed to primary be managed for wildlife. Don't get me wrong, I am all for responsible commercial use of our public lands where it can be done responsibly and not have major negative impacts on habitat and wildlife. I don't have any problem with well managed cattle grazing on WMA's or other public lands, and even domestic sheep grazing in places not considered wild sheep habitat. With our relatively recent increased understanding of how detrimental contact between wild sheep and domestic sheep can be to the bighorns, I feel that it is common sense to ajust how we use sheep habitat.
Over the long history of humanity and our country, people have done many things in search of easy money that over time we have discovered was not good for us or our environment. Once that is discovered, often law/rules are changed to stop these actions. Those laws can often hurt companies/people financially, but they are expected to adapt for the overall good of our country and the people living here. Because it hurt the bottom line, should laws outlawing dumping toxic waste into waterbodies not have been passed? I'm sure outlawing selling cigarettes to children hurt the big tobacco corporations as well as their employees. I know these examples are obviously not the exact same thing, but I'm sure you get the idea. Sometimes people have to make sacrifices when what they are doing to make a living is harmful to others.
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,249
Right, but know humans are being harmed here... unless the thought of not having sheep on a mountain causes you mental anguish... crap... wrote myself into a hole on that one as it actually does really bum me out. Nevertheless point still stands domestic sheep aren’t hurting us, and while big horns are our favorite animal that doesn’t mean that conservation efforts should come at others expense... unless we are willing to cede that there are other groups whose favorite animals are bears and wolves and they would like to see them back on the landscape even if doing so would be inconvenient and economically damaging to others.
I’m not arguing against big horns or defending big sheep operations, I’m just pointing out the irony that this forum you can find about 1/2 a dozen threads talking about poor ranchers dealing with wolves and grizzlies and how it’s all the bleeding heart liberals fault and then another 1/2 dozen about the god damn big landowners destroying sheep herds.
I realize this is not a particularly constructive comment my apologies.
theat
Well-known member
No worries. I see the irony myself. A lot of these kinds of conservation or public lands related issues are a lot more complex than any of us (including myself) are fully aware of or have considered.
I do realize that real people would loose their lease to this area, and that they have depended on that lease for part of their livelihood. I also think that they should be compensated in some way and if possible given the opportunity to "switch or trade" their lease for a more suitable area that doesn't conflict with historic bighorn habitat. I know that most public land grazing lease holders feel that they "own" the lease. It is certainly a major selling point when the private land attached to the lease is sold. Although, I doubt there are too many buyers these days wanting to get into sheep ranching. Kind of seems like a slowing dying industry in the US. It would certainly be better to work together with these lease holders to see if a amicable solution, that keeps bighorns safe, can be reached before anything else. But, in the end it is public land that they are using. It would be great if a truly effective vaccine is developed that covers the many different diseases that domestic sheep carry. Unfortunately, even if vaccines are successfully developed, there are going to be many hurdles to effectively distributing it to wild sheep. I have had the opportunity to work with sheep in a handful of western states and spoken with some of the most knowledgeable sheep biologists. The wild sheep disease situation in the western US is not looking good and I worry for the future of wild sheep.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I prefer Gray's tactful approach.
"A challenge we’ve had in bighorn restoration is finding safe places to put sheep,” said Gray Thornton, of the Wild Sheep Foundation.
Thornton is careful to say that the foundation doesn’t want to harm the domestic sheep industry, but he acknowledges they are part of the reason it’s hard to find places for wild herds. His organization tries to work with landowners on restoration, and he wants the industry’s help in restoring the animal.
And, he said, some ranchers are all for it.
“I’ve spoken to some of the sheep producers that get it,” Thornton said. “They want more bighorns on the landscape. We want more bighorns on the landscape. We don’t want to put the domestic sheep off the landscape.”
Smart approach.
I also like the work that Dr Garrott is doing.
"According to their sampling efforts, Garrott said about 80 percent of bighorn sheep are carriers of the pathogens, but unless the animals are stressed or suffer from poor nutrition, it’s not a problem.
“The protocol right now is we can eliminate die-offs if we keep them separate from domestic sheep,” Garrott said. “That’s created a lot of political pressure to get domestic sheep off of public lands.”
But he said the bighorns have the ability to die all on their own, without commingling.
“Perhaps we shouldn’t be pointing an ugly finger at domestic producers,” he said."
Good advice.
Have you talked with Kurt Alt, theat? He strongly believes that the best chance to come up with a cure to these pathogens is to work WITH the sheep producers and the the agricultural science talent, not against them. I agree with Kurt 100%.
"A challenge we’ve had in bighorn restoration is finding safe places to put sheep,” said Gray Thornton, of the Wild Sheep Foundation.
Thornton is careful to say that the foundation doesn’t want to harm the domestic sheep industry, but he acknowledges they are part of the reason it’s hard to find places for wild herds. His organization tries to work with landowners on restoration, and he wants the industry’s help in restoring the animal.
And, he said, some ranchers are all for it.
“I’ve spoken to some of the sheep producers that get it,” Thornton said. “They want more bighorns on the landscape. We want more bighorns on the landscape. We don’t want to put the domestic sheep off the landscape.”
Smart approach.
I also like the work that Dr Garrott is doing.
"According to their sampling efforts, Garrott said about 80 percent of bighorn sheep are carriers of the pathogens, but unless the animals are stressed or suffer from poor nutrition, it’s not a problem.
“The protocol right now is we can eliminate die-offs if we keep them separate from domestic sheep,” Garrott said. “That’s created a lot of political pressure to get domestic sheep off of public lands.”
But he said the bighorns have the ability to die all on their own, without commingling.
“Perhaps we shouldn’t be pointing an ugly finger at domestic producers,” he said."
Good advice.
Have you talked with Kurt Alt, theat? He strongly believes that the best chance to come up with a cure to these pathogens is to work WITH the sheep producers and the the agricultural science talent, not against them. I agree with Kurt 100%.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Here's a successful effort to buyout a sheep grazing allotment that caused a lot of conflict. Article doesn't state it, but a good chunk of the funding came from wild sheep groups.
billingsgazette.com
Agreement ends sheep grazing in area rife with wolves, bears
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.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Likely because politicians on both sides of the aisle have learned over the years that well fed constituents bitch less than poorly fed constituents.
RobG
Well-known member
I'm told it's the trailing of the sheep through the Notch that prevents the Bighorns from being transplanted to the Snowcrests. Why can't the find an alternative?
Carnage2011
Well-known member
In my opinion this is the biggest issue. The cattle ranchers haul their cows up there, why can’t the sheep herders find an alternative???
So do constituents with the copper, gold, palladium etc to have an electrified home, clean air, electronics, tap water, as well as the ones that have the metals or coal or oil or gas for heat, AC, lights, fabric and raw materials for almost every product and transportation.
But we shouldn’t and never would give those industries (that pay six figure salaries and pay hundreds of millions in taxes) free reign to do to sheep what domestic sheep grazing has done.
I wonder what the percentage of Americans that ate lamb in the last month is? It’s actually one of my favorites and I haven’t had it recently.
jryoung
Well-known member
Of that percentage, how much was lamb raised in America as opposed to NZ.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Montana's Bighorn Sheep Conservation Efforts Challenged By Competing Interests
Below the peaks of the Madison Range, south of Ennis, a herd of more than a dozen bighorn sheep are grazing among snow-covered sagebrush. It’s around…
www.mtpr.org
More interesting comments from Dr. Garrott in this article.
"Robert Garrott, an ecology professor at Montana State University who researches wild sheep, says there’s definitely the potential to have both more bighorn sheep in Montana, and a viable domestic sheep industry. But for that to happen there has to be more acceptance of risk, on all sides.
Garrott joined Montana Wild Sheep Foundation last week in their push for media attention, aimed at garnering public support for the bighorn research and conservation work.
“It’s just going to take collaboration and every now and then we’re going to have to experiment a little bit and maybe take some risks," says Garrott. "Sometimes we're going to win and sometimes we aren't. But we’ll learn from that and with that maybe we can do a little bit better than we've been able to do in the last 80 to 100 years.”
Risk, in this case, is that wildlife managers could look bad if they try to establish a new herd of bighorns, but they end up catching a disease and die, resulting in a lot of time and money going into a failed project.
On the other side, there’s the risk domestic sheep producers have of getting sued if their sheep are blamed for passing a disease on to bighorns, or the risk of being told their flocks must leave the public land they graze on to make way for bighorns."
theat
Well-known member
Here's a successful effort to buyout a sheep grazing allotment that caused a lot of conflict. Article doesn't state it, but a good chunk of the funding came from wild sheep groups.
Agreement ends sheep grazing in area rife with wolves, bears
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.
I am a big fan of how that buyout played out. I have hiked and hunted that country a bunch and couldn't imagine it covered with sheep. Well, I guess I can since I watched that documentary on that sheep flock. Loved the scene where the herder is off camera complaining on the phone profusely about his job and the stupid sheep.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
That's an award winning documentary. City folks ate it up!I am a big fan of how that buyout played out. I have hiked and hunted that country a bunch and couldn't imagine it covered with sheep. Well, I guess I can since I watched that documentary on that sheep flock. Loved the scene where the herder is off camera complaining on the phone profusely about his job and the stupid sheep.
You must be referring to this guy.......
theat
Well-known member
Ha! That is him, although not the scene I was talking about. Sounds like the sheep herders don't even want to be there and hate their job! I go to the wilderness for peace and quite, not to swear my lungs out!
theat
Well-known member
I have met Kurt, but never really talked much with him. I have spent a lot of time working and talking with Garrot on many Montana sheep and some elk projects. I was very impressed with his work and am very glad that there is someone like him working the academic field to try and solve some of these sheep issues.
That, "80% of sheep carry pathogens" quote is about Montana sheep. I handled and tested a lot of those sheep he is talking about. That is what I was talking about when I said that I was worried abut the future of sheep. Understand that many of those 80% are carrying many different kinds of deadly pathogens, not just one variety. Any one of them could lead to an outbreak that kills off that herd. Those pathogens were brought to North American by immigrants bringing domestic sheep over from Europe and Asia. The sheep here never had the opportunity to develop any kind of immunity to those diseases since they were never exposed to them. What stressors will set off the next big die off? One of those stressors, that is suspected in several die offs, is catching a less deadly sickness from domestic sheep leading to weakened immune systems. A drought, a hard winter, a change in forage availability, too much human interference, predators, etc can potentially cause a disease die off. How are hunters going to feel about it when the inevitable happens and the world famous breaks herds die off? Many of those sheep are already infected.
I would love if the ag industry came up with a viable vaccine that could be required for domestic sheep use on pubic lands or anywhere near wild sheep herds. Do you really think, that even if a vaccine is created, that all sheep ranchers will voluntarily inoculate their flocks? I imagine the vaccines will be expensive. There are many different pathogens that lead to pneumonia in sheep. Would need a vaccine or vaccines that work for all of them to really be effective. I just don't see a very efficient or affordable way to vaccinate wild sheep even if a vaccine is developed. Of course some herds would be easier to vaccinate than others, but if you think about sheep habitat and dispersion, it just doesn't seem super viable. Remember, you would need to get each years crop of lambs vaccinated too.
It feels like just about every year we loose a herd or four to a disease related die off. Less and less sheep on the mountain and less tags is where we are and where we are headed with the current state of affairs. Believe me, like I said above, I would rather work with domestic sheep producers, but you know that some of them are just not going to change unless they are forced to. I know he was not really a sheep rancher, but just think about the situation at Gardiner a few years ago with Bill Hoppe. He intentionally used his domestic sheep as a weapon to kill the wild sheep. There are plenty of people with domestic sheep that live near wild sheep herds and could care less about the danger they are putting the wild sheep into. I have talked to several of these types. Many of them have a deep hatred of the government including fish and game agencies. I have been told numerous times that they would rather have all the bighorns die than let anyone tell them what to do with their pet sheep. I just don't see these types voluntarily changing their ways unless there are serious consequences to them.
There is no silver bullet to fixing the wild sheep situation. The disease issue isn't the only thing negatively affecting sheep. Loss of habitat, inedible weeds infesting winter range, vehicle collisions, the increase of human activity in sheep range, an increase in predators, mountain goats competing for limited winter range, and many more issues are not helping the situation any either.
That, "80% of sheep carry pathogens" quote is about Montana sheep. I handled and tested a lot of those sheep he is talking about. That is what I was talking about when I said that I was worried abut the future of sheep. Understand that many of those 80% are carrying many different kinds of deadly pathogens, not just one variety. Any one of them could lead to an outbreak that kills off that herd. Those pathogens were brought to North American by immigrants bringing domestic sheep over from Europe and Asia. The sheep here never had the opportunity to develop any kind of immunity to those diseases since they were never exposed to them. What stressors will set off the next big die off? One of those stressors, that is suspected in several die offs, is catching a less deadly sickness from domestic sheep leading to weakened immune systems. A drought, a hard winter, a change in forage availability, too much human interference, predators, etc can potentially cause a disease die off. How are hunters going to feel about it when the inevitable happens and the world famous breaks herds die off? Many of those sheep are already infected.
I would love if the ag industry came up with a viable vaccine that could be required for domestic sheep use on pubic lands or anywhere near wild sheep herds. Do you really think, that even if a vaccine is created, that all sheep ranchers will voluntarily inoculate their flocks? I imagine the vaccines will be expensive. There are many different pathogens that lead to pneumonia in sheep. Would need a vaccine or vaccines that work for all of them to really be effective. I just don't see a very efficient or affordable way to vaccinate wild sheep even if a vaccine is developed. Of course some herds would be easier to vaccinate than others, but if you think about sheep habitat and dispersion, it just doesn't seem super viable. Remember, you would need to get each years crop of lambs vaccinated too.
It feels like just about every year we loose a herd or four to a disease related die off. Less and less sheep on the mountain and less tags is where we are and where we are headed with the current state of affairs. Believe me, like I said above, I would rather work with domestic sheep producers, but you know that some of them are just not going to change unless they are forced to. I know he was not really a sheep rancher, but just think about the situation at Gardiner a few years ago with Bill Hoppe. He intentionally used his domestic sheep as a weapon to kill the wild sheep. There are plenty of people with domestic sheep that live near wild sheep herds and could care less about the danger they are putting the wild sheep into. I have talked to several of these types. Many of them have a deep hatred of the government including fish and game agencies. I have been told numerous times that they would rather have all the bighorns die than let anyone tell them what to do with their pet sheep. I just don't see these types voluntarily changing their ways unless there are serious consequences to them.
There is no silver bullet to fixing the wild sheep situation. The disease issue isn't the only thing negatively affecting sheep. Loss of habitat, inedible weeds infesting winter range, vehicle collisions, the increase of human activity in sheep range, an increase in predators, mountain goats competing for limited winter range, and many more issues are not helping the situation any either.
theat
Well-known member
Curious as to what you mean by that? Most federal land is not historic sheep habitat, so I imagine you would have to filter out all the domestic herds in non conflict areas to get any meaningful data. I am always interested in hearing any new information about this stuff, even if the data accuracy doesn't satisfy you, I would be curious to hear your thoughts.
