MT Wilderness Association piece on domestic sheep grazing

Big horn sheep in the Wyoming wilderness east of the park have all the pathogens that cause die offs. That area was overrun with domestics in the 1800's. Garrott has some good theories on why those sheep are doing ok.



"One herd outside of Montana that has done extremely well and may provide some clues about why most of Montana’s herds are failing to thrive lives in the eastern Greater Yellowstone Area — a region stretching from the Beartooth Plateau across the eastern boundary of Yellowstone National Park. That Wyoming herd numbers around 4,000 animals.
“They have all of the pathogens that cause problems, yet they are doing really well,” Garrott said.
That goes against most institutional knowledge that says bighorn herd numbers should be kept relatively low to avoid big die-offs that have dogged larger herds in Montana. The idea being that more animals gathered together creates a greater chance that one sick bighorn will infect many others. So why isn’t that theory holding up in the Wyoming herd?
That may be because “the (GYA) animals display a tremendous amount of variability in how they use the landscape,” Garrott said. Generally it’s normal for other ungulate species like elk or deer to migrate from low-lying wintering grounds to the mountains in springtime and summer, yet this Wyoming bighorn herd has some animals that live at 9,000 feet year-round. Others live in low-lying areas all year. Some migrate 18 to 25 miles while others migrate to higher ground in the winter.
“They all have the same physiological constraints, but you don’t see that in restored populations. Many are nonmigratory,” Garrott said. “That might be why they are more susceptible to disease — they’re all standing around together. One gets sick, and they all die.”"



He also thinks that most of the sheep there died in the 1800's. The ones that survived had some immunity to these pathogens and passed that on to their offspring. Plausible theory IMO.
 
The sheep ranchers lose productivity and have some cases of death to their flocks because of these pathogens. Yes, I think they are interested in finding a working vaccine and using it.
 
You seem up to speed on the anti-government Bundy types theat. Another problem has been with the growing use of holistic sheep and goat weed management grazing. The city of Missoula has paid to have sheep graze their city properties.


The Missoula hippies were way more upset about losing the migrant shepherd when this project would no longer pencil out, than losing local bighorns.
 
You seem up to speed on the anti-government Bundy types theat. Another problem has been with the growing use of holistic sheep and goat weed management grazing. The city of Missoula has paid to have sheep graze their city properties.


The Missoula hippies were way more upset about losing the migrant shepherd when this project would no longer pencil out, than losing local bighorns.

I did follow along with that saga of stupidity. I have a buddy that worked for Missoula County on weed management and he works with people involved in that project. Before that incident with the rams happened, I had a conversation with one of those guys and told him that this would likely happen at some point. Of course, they didn't seem too concerned and really didn't want to hear anything negative about their little experiment. I don't necessarily think using domestics for weed control is a terrible idea, but not anywhere near wild sheep. I was also very disappointed, but not surprised, by the overall reaction to how it ended.
 
I met a "lady" from Clinton that let a sick young ram spend the winter with her 4-h flock. She said to me " when that ram left in spring, it was fat and sassy. You can't tell me domestic sheep kill wild sheep."

That year the Bonner, Rock Creek, and East Fork herd burned to the ground. :mad:

Could have been a coincidence.
 
I met a "lady" from Clinton that let a sick young ram spend the winter with her 4-h flock. She said to me " when that ram left in spring, it was fat and sassy. You can't tell me domestic sheep kill wild sheep."

That year the Bonner, Rock Creek, and East Fork herd burned to the ground. :mad:

Could have been a coincidence.

I heard about that. Some people are just not willing to hear anything that goes against what they want to believe. Some of these types end up loving wildlife right to death. Really common with folks that won't stop feeding deer in town.

The most discouraging conversation I had relating to landowners and wild sheep was while I had a ewe permit in 680 4-5 years ago. I had been hunting some BLM breaks country for a couple days, but the majority of the sheep were up on the benches feeding on irrigated ag fields. I figured it wouldn't hurt to talk to the landowner and see if he would at least let me cross his property to access some landlocked BLM where the herd often went to bed down. As soon as I asked him about sheep hunting, he went on a half hour tirade about sheep and FWP. He hated those sheep for eating all his crops and wanted FWP to come in and shoot them all using a helicopter. I told him that FWP had created a special ewe hunt specifically to help alleviate this problem and that I had one of those permits and would be more than happy to kill one and chase the rest off of his place. Of course, that was a big NO. He leased his property to the outfitter than controls vast amounts of private land and access to a lot of the public north of the river. He had only ever brought ram hunters to that property and usually not until the rut started. Of course he did not allow ewe hunters:rolleyes:. I couldn't quite grasp his logic with the whole thing. He then told me that he has a relative down by Jordan with a sheep ranch. They had been talking about bringing part of his herd over to his place in 680 with the hope that disease would spread and wipe them all out. He told me he would be happy if every wild sheep in the breaks was gone forever. Those are the kinds of people that I am worried about. Obviously most rancher/farmers don't think like this, but it only takes one. I really don't even think actual sheep ranching operations are the biggest disease threat to wild sheep. It is often the uninformed hobby or 4-h types with just a few animals that can be the biggest problem. Your Clinton "lady" isa perfect example of that.
 
MT Wsf put in a lot of effort to purchase the 3 whiskey ridge ranches to provide access and a domestic sheep free future. Farming, cattle grazing, and continued private land ownship was part of the plan.

Still stings that the deal fell apart.
 
Same outfitter that is running 500 goats on his property right now?

Agreed. I'm worried about people like that as well.

I hadn't heard about the goats. The one that had the lease where I was hunting is Faber. I was a handful of miles NW of Whiskey Ridge. Is he the one with the goats? Where are the goats? That is not good.

I have spent a bit of time on whiskey ridge glassing across the river as well as catching sheep there a couple winters ago. I have seen some nice rams up there. I hadn't heard about that WSF project. That is sad that it fell through. You wouldn't happen to have any more info on that would you? Does one of the landowners up there run sheep or goats?
 
There is no reason to play nice with these people.

“Dave McEwan, former president of the Montana Wool Growers Association, disagrees that domestic sheep and goats are a threat to bighorn sheep in the Missouri Breaks or anywhere else.”

 
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.
I'd suspect that there are fewer domestic sheep being grazed on federal lands now, and in general regardless of land ownership, than in the past. From what little I know, the wild sheep herds are not doing as well as they have in the past. Makes for a bit of a negative correlation. And I get that correlation and causation are not the same thing...

When in graduate school a professor I had at Utah St showed a graph with permitted domestic sheep numbers and estimated mule deer populations. They had the same shape, with a time lag of about a decade (IIRC). The mule deer numbers tracked with with domestic sheep numbers, but about 10yrs later. Just makes me wonder what the trends look in comparing wild and domestic sheep.
 
I'd suspect that there are fewer domestic sheep being grazed on federal lands now, and in general regardless of land ownership, than in the past. From what little I know, the wild sheep herds are not doing as well as they have in the past. Makes for a bit of a negative correlation. And I get that correlation and causation are not the same thing...

When in graduate school a professor I had at Utah St showed a graph with permitted domestic sheep numbers and estimated mule deer populations. They had the same shape, with a time lag of about a decade (IIRC). The mule deer numbers tracked with with domestic sheep numbers, but about 10yrs later. Just makes me wonder what the trends look in comparing wild and domestic sheep.

I would be curious about that myself. I do know that the vast majority of wild sheep herds died out back in the mid 1800 to early 1900. I would guess that those die off were probably a combination of disease and commercial hunting particularly in places like the breaks with easy access. There was a whole possible other subspecies of sheep called Audubon sheep that lived in the badlands of Eastern Montana, North and South Dakota and Nebraska that does not exist any more. Most sheep herds that exist here in Montana and most western states were reintroduced or transplanted. The vast majority of sheep in the lower 48 were killed off.

So, am I correct in my understanding in your mule deer graph example, that mule deer numbers increased proportional to domestic sheep numbers increasing, but ten years later? So when domestic sheep numbers peaked and then began to decrease, the mule deer population began to increase until it peaked 10 years after the domestic sheep population peaked out? If that is what you are saying, to me, that would suggest that mule deer responded positively to a decrease in domestic sheep? Anyways, mule deer and wild sheep are very different animals, and the diseases that domestic sheep carry don't have nearly as negative of consequences on deer as wild sheep. Also, I could see how concurrent coyote population management via shooting, poison etc could help mule deer populations, but I don't think that coyotes prey on wild sheep nearly as much as they do on deer.
 
Back
Top