On the Range
Wild Bighorns Threatened by Domestic Sheep
Should domestic sheep be permitted to graze on public lands when their presence threatens the survival of wild bighorn sheep? That's a question that is increasingly getting serious discussion around the West.
By George Wuerthner, 6-23-09
At one point in my life I was very interested in studying wild sheep. I almost accepted a graduate research project at the U of Alaska to look at winter diet and behavior of Dall sheep in the Brooks Range. I wimped out when I realized that I’d be alone months at a time in a tiny cabin on the North Slope peering through a night vision scope to watch the animals in the near 24 hours of darkness of mid-winter forage in 50 below zero weather. It just didn’t sound like that much fun—though definitely interesting. But for a number of years I read everything I could about wild sheep, and I continue to follow research and news about wild sheep to this date.
Wild bighorn sheep were once fairly common in the western United States and Canada. Some estimates suggest as many as 1-2 million wild sheep once roamed the West. By 1900, over-hunting, habitat degradation and perhaps most importantly disease transmission from domestic sheep to wild sheep had brought the bighorns down to an estimated 15,000. Today there are about 75,000 sheep in the western US and Canada.
While that is a significant growth from its low point, wild bighorn sheep populations are nowhere near their biological potential. There is no doubt in my mind that the West could easily support far more sheep were it not for one thing—domestic livestock.
One thing that was obvious from a study of the literature is that whenever domestic sheep grazing overlaps with wild bighorn sheep, disease frequently decimates the wild animals. So prevalent was this in the scientific literature, I did not think it was controversial—yet as recently as this year the state of Idaho was debating whether domestic sheep were really a threat to wild sheep populations.
The biggest problem for wild sheep is development of pneumonia after contracting Pasturella bacteria from their domestic cousins. Sometimes as many much as 75 percent of the herds may die. For instance, in one study of Hells Canyon, 43 percent of the mortality was due to pneumonia and the researchers believed it was the major limit on bighorn sheep population growth.
Francis Singer and his associates looked at 24 transplanted sheep populations and correlation between persistence and distance to domestic sheep. Not surprising to most wildlife biologists, Singer found that the closer domestic sheep were to wild sheep, the less likely for bighorns to persist. In another study Singer also looked at over 100 bighorn transplants in six western states. Again he found the closer domestic sheep came to wild bighorn, the more likely those sheep were to disappear.
Despite many examples of such die-offs from around the West, the livestock industry and its lackeys in government continue to deny there is any link or at least try to confuse the connection by suggesting there is uncertainty.
This kind of deliberate obfuscation occurred recently when Dr. Marie Bulgin, a University of Idaho professor, and former President of the Idaho Sheep Growers Association, testified before the Idaho Legislature and in federal court that there was no firm scientific link showing domestic sheep transmitted pneumonia to bighorn sheep in the wild. This despite the fact that research on exactly that issue was done in a laboratory she supervised, and indeed, her own daughter participated in the study. There is 1999 story in the Science Daily that discusses research at the U of Idaho that confirms that domestic sheep can be the source of disease transmission.
The fear of disease transmission and subsequent bighorn die-offs has deterred restoration of wild sheep to many areas of the West. For instance, I recall one time in the 1990s when the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department (MFWPD) proposed to introduce mountain goats to the Centennial Range on the Idaho-Montana border. Goats were never native to the range, but bighorn were. When I wrote the department suggesting that they reintroduce bighorn, they responded by saying that as long as domestic sheep grazed the range, there was little point in attempting any restoration, due to disease concerns. Similar concerns in many other parts of the West have precluded reestablishment of bighorns in native habitat.
There is good reason for this caution. As recently as January 2008, a number of bighorn sheep in Montana’s Elkhorn Mountains by Helena died from pneumonia thought to have been contracted from domestic animals. Other major die-offs in Montana have been reported for bighorn herds in the East Pioneers, Tendoy Mountains, Highland Mountains, Sleeping Giant Area, and Madison Range, as well as elsewhere. There have been several major die-offs of wild sheep in the Hells Canyon area of Idaho and Oregon and in the Sierra Nevada of California. Many other examples could be cited.
Rather than do the obvious, which is to eliminate public land use by domestic sheep, wildlife agencies have taken to killing wild bighorn sheep. Just this past month in Idaho the Idaho Fish and Game shot a ram that was known to mix with domestic sheep along the Salmon River near Riggins. As many as 11 other sheep had contact with that ram and may also be killed. This bighorn was killed in response to a new law passed by the Idaho Legislature that requires Idaho Fish and Game to kill or remove sheep that get near domestic sheep.
Without being forced by the legislature, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) has adopted a similar policy. For instance, prior to a reintroduction of bighorn sheep to the Gravelly Range on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest near Dillon, MDFWP signed an agreement stipulating that if wild sheep had any interaction with domestic sheep, the wild sheep would be shot—and potentially even entire bighorn herds eliminated.
Disease transmission is only one of the threats posed to wild bighorn sheep by the presence of domestic sheep. Keep in mind there is no free lunch. Domestic animals consume forage that would otherwise support native species like wild bighorn sheep. This forage competition can stress wild sheep, making them more vulnerable to disease or starvation.
Also domestic livestock grazing (including cattle) have frequently altered plant communities to favor browse species desired by mule deer, whose populations sometimes increase and provide alternative prey to support higher populations of mountain lions, which can prey on bighorn sheep. Since many bighorn herds are small and isolated, even the loss of a few animals to predators can hurt wild herd survival. While predators get the blame, the ultimate source of the conflict lies with domestic livestock.
This naturally raises the question of why domestic animals grazed on public lands have preference over wild bighorn sheep. Why not just close the domestic sheep allotments so that wild animals are given priority?
Only a few environmental groups are willing to take on the Western myth. The Idaho-based group Western Watersheds is one of the most persistent critics of the livestock industry and has sued the Forest Service in Idaho and Wyoming over the management of wild bighorn and domestic livestock—arguing that the agency should keep domestic animals away from wild herds, and should even close allotments if necessary. (In the interest of disclosure, I am an advisor to WWP).
Recently in Montana, the Gallatin Wildlife Association (I am a member) is requesting that the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest close down sheep grazing allotments in the Gravelly Range and Snowcrest Ranges to safeguard wild sheep. The Center for Biodiversity (I am an ecological advisor) is also working to protect wild sheep from their domestic cousins in California.
I am convinced that as long as domestic sheep are roaming our public lands, wild bighorn sheep will never reach their biological potential. And that is a loss not only to hunters, but to the public at large who could be enjoying restoration of bighorn herds throughout the West.
The real issue is larger than wild bighorn sheep. Whether it is bighorn sheep, bison, grizzly bears, wolves, cutthroat trout, prairie dogs, or sage grouse, if private business (i.e. livestock production) threatens public wildlife on public lands, shouldn’t the private businesses be the ones that ought to go?
[End of article]
Public wildlands for public wildlife -- what a concept! Add to this the continuing slaughter of wild bison on public wildlands outside of YNP, and the refusal of Montana's legislature to even acknowledge that bison are wildlife (native wildlife at that), and you begin to see who our public trust resources are actually held in trust for -- private special interests that dominate our legislature in spite of their anti-wildlife, anti-conservation bent. Consider the fact that wildlife watching accounts for more state revenue than either hunting or fishing, and you begin to see that it is not just a conservation issue. Who represents Montana's hunters and anglers? Certainly not our elected reps. Is this really a wise use of public wildlands? Not hardly...
Comment By bearbait, 6-23-09I am a disbeliever. If increased sheep numbers is but a path to more hunting, then why? A dead sheep is a dead sheep, never again to a part of the reproductive process. Condor bait.
I would be a proponent of wild sheep conservation but for the issue of who gets to kill the last sheep. Introduced wolves predating on introduced bighorns is a self fulfilling prophesy. Add cougars protected from realistic hunting (man did domesticate and select for dogs to trail animals, long ago, and predators did evolve with man and his domesticated dogs, so why did that become a crime against nature in the 20th century?), and domestic sheep or no, big horns are not going to reach critical mass that allows them to inhabit all the available suitable habitat. 40 years of effort has not been stopped by domestic sheep, but it sure has been impacted by cougars, wolves and hunting. And, if the bighorns graze to tight to the ground, they will get liver flukes from ingesting snails that do seriously weaken immune systems. Are the domestic sheep the source of the flukes in that circular fluke life track?
Fish and Wildlife agencies exist on gun, bullet and camping tariffs, and sales of opportunities to kill. The best that can be said about hunting is that if the critter is considered game, the hunters are the ones who step up and put up the money to save habitat and regulate hunting. The worst, is that the agencies will hold hunts that are not sustainable in order to sustain budgets and their constituencies.
No salmon fishing allowed off the California coast in 2009, and very reduced restrictions on chinook fishing in Oregon, and all the allowed chinook fishing is in bays and rivers, and none allowed on the ocean. An abundant hatchery coho biomass is out there in a now fecund ocean, so the daily limit of marked coho is three fish. All unmarked, wild coho and all chinook are to be released unharmed. That allows rods to be in the water 50% more time, and increases the likelihood of hooking a wild coho or a chinook, and hooked fish, even when released, do have a mortality rate of as much as 30%. I don't see the "conservation" in that decision. First, nobody "needs" an extra salmon. Second, the best use of excess hatchery fish is their dead body in a stream to improve the habitat for wild hatchlings. The carcass as biomass to feed the stream and riparian ecosystem. Drying out in someone's freezer is hardly the highest use. One fish and they eat that fresh. Two fish, one is given away or frozen. Three fish, one or two are frozen. Human nature.
So, with sheep, I fail to see the need to end sheep herding to protect an increased number of opportunities to kill a big horn. If the sheep have decimated habitat, take them off and rest the land. But vegans will still hate you for killing an animal. And nobody has yet to reveal if the pre-European estimate of 60 million bison living on the grasslands maintained by native American fire regimes farted. I need to know if the bison passed gas and contributed to global warming. I know the firing of the plains had to contribute. But I don't know a thing about bison farts. Is a bison fart like a falling tree in the forest? If you can't see it, smell it, or hear it, did it happen? The smoke you can see. You know wildland fire is a huge contributor to air pollution. But I need to know if bison farts are fewer and less offensive and polluting than cow farts. Bison turds are not sloppy, but ankle breakers for sure. Hikers must just hate them. Big horns are interesting to look at, and good to eat.
Like geriatric Asians looking for a cure for erectile dysfunction by ingesting rhino horns, in the hoity-toity crowd, having a sheep head from the "big four" of North America, the Dall, Stone, Big Horn and Desert Big Horn makes you a member of the Grand Slam club. But that has become passe', and others have been added, and there is a World Grand Slam, ad nauseum. There is something plebian, earthy about a band of sheep in the mountains. A really rich guy with guides and a catered camp looking to add a sheep head to the wall while his trophy bride adds a pool boy to her boudoir check list doesn't have the cachet of blue collar sweat and an earned living like herding sheep to put lamb on the urban market shelves. My perception and take.
The real question will be if the lamb shanks at the St. Martin's Hotel in Winnemucca or the lamb at the Star Hotel in Elko will taste the same after the swells in Dallas and Scottsdale get the herders banned from public lands? Now that would be a real loss.
George, thanks for writing this article and bringing this important conflict to the attention of New West readers.
This is an issue very similar to the unjust treatment of bison in southwest Montana where, in this case a few domestic sheep owners are subsidized by the federal government and their use of public lands precludes the restoration and conservation of native bighorn sheep across a vast landscape of wild country. The impact is felt across the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest as well as on a number of FWP owned Wildlife Management Areas, including the Robb-Ledford, Blacktail and Wall Creek WMAs that are located on the perimeter of the Gravelly-Snowcrest Mountain Ranges.
Bearbait; let me start by saying domestic cows, and Bison do not fart. That's somebody's 'city-folk' thinking. They do burp, but fart NO. I do know that domestic cattle can chit through the eye of a needle at a hundred paces.
These sheep and cattle remind me of the illegal aliens. Infiltrating into pristine lands, and made to be confined, thus, spreading disease and destroying the land not helping it at all. Illegal Aliens move in take jobs have babies, spread disease, and collect U.S dollars, without having to pay their fare share. The best weed spreaders there are, is domestic livestock. They eat in one place then get moved to another pasture, and fertilize the seeds from the plants they just ate. Lest we forget the 'rancher' driving through the fields, gathering seeds etc. and loading the 4x4 up and taking those seeds to grow in other places. (Utility workers spread weeds probably the most) Best solution I see, is if you don't have the land to pasture your livestock get rid of your livestock. Private Land for livestock. Public land for wildlife, since wildlife belong to the public. Those domestic animals belong to only 'you', and you can do what you will with them, BUT the wildlife belong to everybody, and it's only fair that We as JQ Public should be allowed to enjoy 'our' wildlife, on 'our' public land, after all public land belongs to the public not any one individual. If FW&P;have to shoot the wild sheep then it's only fitting we get to shoot the domestic ones. I can guarantee you the land would be in much better shape withOUT domestic livestock setting foot on it. Bottom line the livestock industry wants to control everything. They want to decide what you eat, how much you pay,and what you can have on your own private land. (even though the wildlife is much healthier for consumption), No antibiotics, No Hormones, No body playing God with them. Instead of removing the wild sheep take the domestic to central park, and let them save on fuel, and labor, by grazing instead of all those exhaust fumes from lawn mowers. It would be a one time shipping fee to get the domestic there, instead of subsidizing them year after year
George,
You've got to quit confusing me! You're making sense again, and I'm just not sure what to do with that. Did you quit hanging out with Matt or something? Keep it up! Maybe you're coming around ;)
Bearbait - as a general rule hunting the males of a species does not effect populations significantly. The exception to this is when there aren't enough males to breed all the females, so if the western states can make a few bucks off some rich guy wanting to shoot one, why not? As long as there's still opportunity for locals, I don't have a problem with it. Of course sometimes the rich guys then move here . . . but that's another issue.
Bearbait, your ramblings avoid the point of the article and do damage to the actually debate. The predator diatribe misses the point. Bighorn sheep evolved with predators and managed to thrive with natural population fluctuations. The introduction of domestic sheep has tipped the biological scale and not in favor of the sheep. In the Greenhorn Mountain sheep transplant provided unfair compensation to the lamb and wool producer who trails his bands between the Gravellies and Snowcrest mountains. In other words, FWP was forced to kiss his butt in order to reintroduce a otherwise natural wildlife specie onto OUR public lands!! He also trails through the Robb-Ledford WMA purchased with our hunting and fishing license dollars. I, for one, tire of being forced into a subservient position to private producers grazing their private domestic stock on public lands. They should be kissing our butt for the privelege, not the other way around!!! FYI, FWP was obligated by the Grenhorn agreement to kill a Bighorn ram that rambled far enough to land in the Ruby mountains because it ranged beyond the AGREED boundaries!!! THERE ARE NO DOMESTIC SHEEP THERE and this animal posed NO THREAT TO ANYTHING!!! I wish you and others with your attitude would see that the advantage is unjustly weighted towards the sheep producers, even on OUR public lands.
Comment By Ann, 6-24-09Something that I don't understand is the Domestic Sheep are the ones making the Wild sick, so why aren't we disposing of the domestic since they are sick first? Besides the fact that sheep destroy the ground they graze more so than cattle. sheep eat roots and all.
Maybe the rancher should be charged the price of killing and even if they don't, processing of every Wild one killed. Maybe then the Rancher would start taking care of their own. i.e. vaccines, or finding private land to pasture on. I'm sick and tired of cowtowing to the almighty Rancher. If you don't have livestock your rights are trampled into the ground. But if you own Livestock you get all kinds of handouts.
If I have missed the point of the debate, I apologize. I thought it was about native sheep and domestic sheep.
Edenic America, maintained by Native American set fire and directed burning, is no longer possible. Too many people, metes and bounds concerns, myriad "evolved" human concerns in a federal republic with great expanses of federal lands. Therefore, we have to deal with our environmental concerns in many areas, all at the same time.
Right now, the issue is universal health care at trillion dollar costs, at a time when population gains threaten the very environments liberals most want to conserve. The idea of conservation of land off limits to human use and an expanding population with universal medical care that today primarily is concerned with human foibles and results of lifestyle choices are seemingly diametrically opposed. The issue, then, becomes one of metering out federal benefits to satisfy the desires of not the whole of the population (the goal of universal health care) but to the vocal majority with political power with no regard to minority positions. The party of diversity often choses uniform solutions, which is logically not possible to effect of achieve.
There has to be recognition that bighorn sheep cannot occupy all their former range at their former population levels. That is edenic dreaming and politically not possible, if only that there will be some who will eliminate sheep forced on them. Human nature. That illegal activity is no different than spiking trees or burning buildings in the name of saving the environment. Much of the former habitat of bighorn sheep has become residential or bisected by transportation corridors, or is impacted by domestic livestock, all legitimate human endeavors is you look at the world and not Montana. Sheep are everywhere in the Middle East, Europe, and parts of Asia, and right where wild sheep also live.
I watched a fantastic video on the net of Mongolian horsemen hunting wolves with golden eagles in the snow, I suppose in the age old quest to protect domestic livestock. PETA somehow missed that hunting trip. 28 distinct ethnic groups herd domestic caribou in Europe and Asia, but no North American peoples were known to herd domestic caribou (reindeer) that we know of. Preserved burials of reindeer people 15,000 or more years old have revealed bodies with reindeer tattoos in their skin in coverage that looks not unlike that you see today on the street, revealed by summer clothing. We have to understand and know that our very humaness is defined in part by our domestication of livestock and plants, world wide. That is who we are.
We are also landscape managers on a broad scale, for millennia. We are the fire animals. We can cause ignition and use fire to manage a landscape for our good, our survival, and not that of a landscape without human influence. Again, that is who were are, and it is humans who determined where bighorns lived and were hunted by our predecessors on this landscape. That some were even named by their neighbors or the early explorers "Sheep Eaters" should be noticed. They didn't live just anywhere. They lived where there were sufficient sheep to support their survival. I admire their choice of sustenance: sheep are damned good eating. Both domestic and wild.
There has to be balance in the equation of human diversity (herding sheep in the mountains is as viable as writing software in the city) on the land, and there have to be concerted efforts to keep all aspects of the human condition, including herding sheep in the mountains. That activity has been ongoing in Europe for how many thousands of years, and still Europe maintains wild areas and wildlife. Sometimes, perhaps, we allow zealots to have too much influence, on either side of the equation.
Sheep across the unclaimed Public Domain, not cattle, were the reason for the various grazing acts of the early 20th century. There were many bands of sheep that just trailed across the West, with no home place, land of any kind, to take care of the sheep when not on public lands. That is the reason for the grazing permits being issued based on the size of private holdings, and for those with no private holdings, no permit. It was a troublesome time that took a decade or better to level off. The next part of sheep was that in a prior time, when petroleum was not the basis for food, clothing, and fire protection, sheep were very, very important to our national defense. The reason Americans don't eat much sheep today is due to that being the only meat available in WWII due to rationing that made feeding soldiers primary. Mutton day after day did not make Americans love that meat. Sheep, cattle, free range horses and mules, copper and other metal mining, petroleum from public lands, all fed the war machine that allowed the US in just a little more than 4 years to win a two front world war. Just because we can import all the lamb we will ever eat, and wool which is passe' in clothing, horses which we have too many of to the point of a national problem, and a huge population of recreational liberals who seemingly hate mining, all need to know that public lands have myriad uses, not all of which are based on digital photography and titanium and aluminum gear encased in petroleum based fabrics. Sheep permits are part of that diverse use of public lands. That there should be fewer should be up for discussion. That there are far fewer than there were a decade ago is fact. More sheep permits have been canceled than there are permits offered today. That seems not to be talked about.
In my end of the world, there are no longer sheep on Steens Mtn., and far fewer bighorn tags (cougars are way too numerous) as well as far fewer mule deer. Vast areas are now off limits to cattle, too. But there is no demonstrated increase in game animals. The driving force is no cat hunting with dogs, but initiative passed in urban Oregon, to regulate the rural parts of the State. The tyranny of the urban majority is alive and well. There are also no sheep in the Wallowa Mountains and the Hells Canyon country. All permits were pulled to preserve big horn sheep. They still get pneumonia from other bighorns. They still have limited winter range, and mingle with domestic livestock. The big rams like cheetos, according to a buckaroo I met, on their winter range on private land. Eat them out of your hand. Rich guys pay a hundred thousand dollars to kill one with the Governor's tag bought at auction. Hard to see the challenge in killing a cheetos eating sheep. Would you mount him with a cheeto hanging from his lip? (I am being coy---in the late summer and fall when they are hunted, they are in really, really remote areas, and skittish as all hell, and very hard to hunt).
If there is a canary in the coal mine, it is that undocumented worker's kid born this morning in Anywhere, The West, who comes from an ethnic group that is producing 4 babies a life time for every female in that demographic, to the 1 the Anglos are producing. You should ask them what to do about bighorns. It will soon be their problem to solve.
Bearbait, my apologies for any perceived harshness from me but you are right about it being a debate about the balance of wild sheep management and domestic sheep on the public domain. It's quite evident you know your stuff, as do I, but there is an imbalance in Montana where wild sheep are concerned. The presence of domestic sheep does drastically increase the incidence of pneumonia and Tuberculosis outbreaks among wild sheep but to hear the sheep men, their sheep are getting infected by wild sheep; highly unlikely according to the biologists. Domestic sheep are much more resistant than wild sheep just as the white amn was resistant to flu and common cold that spread through Indian tribes like grass thru a goose. What we take for granted as a nuisance was fatal to native peoples here and on other exotic locations like Hawaii and Polynesia. The same concept applies to this debate. Is this the most important issue in our human lives?? Of course not, but as a sportsman I recognize that hunting/fishing/tourism IS a major factor in our Montana economy if not the number 1 factor. Why we subsidize abusive practices to the detriment of native species astounds me. Like I described above, FWP was obligated to remove a ram that was impacting no-one. had there been an accompanying ewe, or several, then a satelite band could have established an expansion herd where no conflict existed but FWP is bound by law to gain "permission" from local farm and ranch operators before they can establish a native species and agree to arbitrary restrictions to get it; that's butt kissing any way you look at it. You yourself made the case as to why the sheep business has become marginalized; I, for one, simply have a differing perspective as to what's proper and it isn't the disease and competition with domestic sheep what drove the wild sheep off the landscape to begin with.
Comment By Treehuggin' Cowgirl, 6-24-09Bearbait,
I find it unfortunate that you so frequently direct the debate towards race. I grew up in a minority majority state, and it's not the end of the world. Mexicans are people too, and if they bred us "anglos" out, so be it. Our country is clearly facing some illegal immigration challenges, but that doesn't mean the people who are coming over are some inferior quality that shouldn't be passed on. Hell, anyone who makes it all the way from Sonora to Oregon is real resourceful All of this "Americans being bred out of their way of life" fearmongering is nonsense, especially since at least half of the American west used to be in Mexico!
Treehuggin' Cowgirl;
I didn't see anybody direct anything towards Race. You are the one making it about race. Why are the supposed Non-prejudiced people, always the ones using the Race card? Guilty conscience maybe? If you were referring to my post about the illegal aliens, then you must know we have all kinds shapes and colors of illegals.
Every thing I've read and re-read that is anywhere near what you may have meant by bringing up RACE, is True and factual. Kind of like, if you are short you are short, not height challenged.
Try to bury it all you want but the world is made up of different races.
Ann,
My comment was directed at bearbait's comment, which specifically mentioned anglos. Although I didn't entirely agree with your comment about illegal aliens, I didn't find it offensive or racist, just a statement of legitimate frustrations. Being bred out by illegals is something bearbait brings up frequently on multiple comment threads. You're right that bearbait may be referring to a few other groups as well such as southeast Asian. Perhaps he'd like to clarify. While many minorities do have more children than cacausians, I think continuously citing that as evidence of our country's downfall or the "canary in the coal mine" is insulting.
Treehuggin' Cowgirl; Ok, Now what are they if they aren't Anglo's? What is wrong with 'Canary in the coal mine'? Every mine in years past did have Canaries in the mines so the miners would be alerted to noxious fumes before it killed them. The canary dies get the hell out of the mine. Looks to me like you are trying awful hard to make his post racial, although I don't see it at all. What is offensive to some is not to others, If it offends you don't look at it pure and simple. Poodles offend me so can I get a law that will eliminate all poodles? nit-picking
This political correctness is Bull Sh*t. The world is a cruel place at times and people need to Mature, and deal with it. Quit whining and running to tell. In my opinion Mormons, and Catholics 'breed' more than most. There is good and bad everywhere, a person just needs to be smart enough to recognize which is which.
Ann,
I'm not surprised you don't see it at all, since your post is largely non-sensical. I have no problem with the phrase "canary in the coal mine," but I do have a problem with considering increasing populations of minorities to be that canary.
I'm going to wait for bearbait to speak for himself Ann. Considering how well you're defending him, I think he'd rather handle it himself.
Hay Suess friggin' Christo!!!! It is NOT about race. It is about population. Human population. If a person talks about human population growing exponentially because there are ethnic groups who will not, ever it seems, quit producing babies to use up the planet's resources, the hue and cry is about race. Take the racism argument and hide it from the sun. Each demographic has a reason to keep the women barefoot and pregnant. A man child to take care of them in old age(China), or daughters as income producers from dowries (India, Middle East), girls for polygamy cultures, "It is God's way" from most religions. But you can end up using all the resources, and then what? Blame it on domestic sheep? How about blame it on too many people needing too many resources, and no limits on population. All a "woman's right to choose" did for America is give a couple of generations of educated women an excuse not to have to endure child birth and raising kids, which is fine, but those who chose to have many kids come from religious and social groups who don't really have the Roe v. Wade crowd's interests in mind. They don't care about glass ceilings. They don't care about careers. And they will be the majority sooner than you would believe. At that time, out the window that right will be tossed, wise Latina or no.
Human population demands are crowding wildlife to the ends of their habitat, in Montana, Mexico, East Africa, the Middle East, anywhere in China and a thousand other places. The issue of preserving animals is NOT going to ever be solved as long as we have people breeding themselves out of a spot at the dinner table. I only pointed that out. I was not being a racist. I was being a realist. You will never recover animal populations as long as you, say, drain the West to cover the water needs of southern California, where the bulk of undocumented people of all races and national origin seem to end up (they know heat, and are not cold tolerant?). That is where wildlife people and volunteers place "drizzlers" to water big horn sheep of some unique sub species, and that is where the cougars camp out to eat big horn sheep: the only water source, which is the only way you can have sheep there, and in California, you can't kill a cougar, so the whole deal is like wiping your ass on a hoop. Meanwhile, the sheep bands have been driven off century old grazing areas so as to protect the big horns being decimated by cougars. The parameters of the discussion were set by idealists, not pragmatists, and that is a huge problem in this discussion. How to pragmatically have a huge, varied food program not based on feed lots and GMA food, and still have wildlife on their native habitat.
So two summers ago, the Feds and Oregon Fish and Wildlife found a dope grow in the Trout Creek mountains on the Nevada border. That is Sonoran country in Oregon. And the dope grow was run by undocumented Mexicans, as per the one they caught, and his naming of the two that escaped. But the living quarters in a cave they had fashioned for themselves was littered with the remains of several big horn sheep they had taken to eat, and some deer as well. That they were messing with a creek with ESA listed Lahotan cutthroat trout living in it, and were using pesticides and fertilizers in that creek water is an insult to the environment as well. Am I being a racist to say undocumented immigrants engaged in illegal drug production killed CITES protected animals to feed themselves? I just told you one of the ways, other than domestic sheep, that big horns are killed in Oregon, just as I said dealing with birth rates, population growth, and unrestrained immigration are a bigger threat to big horn sheep than regulated domestic sheep grazing. Name your poison. A McVilla in the meadow, a logging road to timberline, total protection of predators, no meaningful land management now allowed, resorts using foreign workers to control costs, unreasonable housing costs resulting in hot bed sleeping arrangements and over loaded sewage output from overcrowded housing, holy moley, the list is endless, and all of it has an impact on big horn sheep in some way. Too many people. Too little land. And no real, meaningful, defended borders, national imperative, to end the flow of undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens overstaying visas, all of which will result in the coming of extended family members, and they don't share your or my vision or hope for wildlife, wildlands, and public good. Not what they are looking for or want from the US, not why they came here. And not the solution to big horn survival in the wild.
Get out of the mindset that the problems for big horn sheep are not global, and must be settled in some Ranger station office. That is treating symptoms, not the disease, which may be our only choice for now. We are then just delaying attempts to solve the core problems.
Treehuggin' Cowgirl; It's obvious to me that you are a racist tree-hugger. Probably only like shade trees and not Pine trees. You twist stuff around and read more in to it than necessary. With your rant what makes you think Bearbait would waste his time trying to draw you a picture? It's obvious to the most casual observer that what he said about; 'being bred out by illegals' is true whether you like it or not. By the way do you work for ACORN?
Comment By Ann, 6-24-09Bearbait; That was a good picture you drew. And on the chance I might be tagged a racist, I agree. I can think of lot worse things to be.
Comment By Oldilox, 6-24-09Bearbait, I didn't take any racist implication from your post. To further clarify, the phrase "Think Globally, Act Locally" fits my mindset on Montana bighorns. One can get lost in the futility of the world; it's a distraction from the everyday reality in Montana. Thankfully, our cold climate will ironically "insulate" us from more human encroachment. While I'm gathering from your argument, paraphrasing, of course, it almost seems you're saying that humans and the infrastructure/agricultural needs should be prioritized over wildlife 'cuz wildlife is inconsequential in the bigger picture; I simply cannot agree with you although I respect your viewpoint. In many ways you are outlining all the reasons to INCREASE protection of our wildlife resources because given the population pressures, if we don't pay attention, our wildlife will go the way of the dinosaur. That world isn't worth living in.
Comment By Brian Ertz, 6-24-09Thanks for the well written essay George, I enjoyed reading your experience and thoughts.
I'll add one thing, you cite the Idaho law responsible for the statutory obligation that IDFG kill bighorns that come into contact with domestic sheep (the law also permits as much if bighorns are seen merely stepping foot on public land allotments grazed by domestic sheep).
I think it's worth mentioning that Jeff Siddoway, the Idaho legislator who sponsored the bill, grandstanded in support of his bill using specifically Marie Bulgin's false testimony that there was no evidence of transmission in the wild to garner the support that would pass the legislation.
I think you're right - this issue, the bighorn sheep issue, has brought the broader question regarding the (in)appropriateness of public land ranching into sharp focus. It needs more light.
There is no doubt in my mind that the West could easily support far more sheep were it not for one thing—human population. Where do you care to start, Mr. Wuerthner?
Comment By Glenn Hockett, 6-26-09Sheepherder gal:
Domestic sheep on bighorn sheep habitat on public lands is a clear and often fatal conflict to bighorn sheep. That is where I suggest we start addressing the issue.
It is really easy for the enviro in a big house in a big to insist that the rural folks must make all sorts of accomodations for the wildlife the city folk want to have a home...on the other guys land of course. Do any of you ever consider decreasing YOUR footprint and make more room where you are for whatever?
Like it or not trying to protect predators and expect prey species to thrive with them is really dumb.
Glenn--I don't usually get involved in these discussions because they usually don't tend to be very thoughtful. I do want to respond to your thoughtful comment. The key word in your response is "habitat"--and who gets to define it. If it is Mr. Wuerther, then most of the Rocky Mountain West (meaning mountain) is habitat, and he gets to decide which families go on the train. Bighorns are being introduced in areas where they may have once been, 150 years ago, but where rural families have been producing domestic sheep (read wool and lamb) for 100 years. Other factors come into play, including conifer encroachment, predation and parasites. I agree that sheep and goats should avoid contact with wild sheep, but that wild sheep should not be dropped off in areas where there are active sheep grazing permits.
Comment By Glenn Hockett, 6-26-09sheepherder gal:
On private lands the interest of the private landowner is of utmost importance, but on public lands I disagree. Subsidizing the use of public lands in such a way that it precludes a native species such as bighorn sheep is wrong and bad public policy.
That is an easy argument to make, but most of the interior West, and most land suitable for grazing is government-owned land (which is different than "public" land, but that is a different discussion). If one were to follow this argument to its logical conclusion, one would place most of our animals who provide us with food and fiber into confinement. Do you prefer to wear clothing made from oil-based products, for example? This is like arguing that wind towers should only be erected on private land--an argument that is being made; never mind where the wind blows. Ranchers who manage grazing lands also manage for wildlife, and provide habitat for wildlife species throughout the year. Some western states have developed policies, using a collaborative public process, to manage the most suitable areas where wild sheep are successful for those animals and to manage those areas which have been used for domestic sheep grazing for many decades for them. Wild sheep should not be used as a cat's paw for the anti-grazing crowd. They do deserve our care and protection--a goal that can be reached without devastating rural communities.
Comment By Glenn Hockett, 7-01-09Doing what is necessary to get bighorn sheep back on the mountain will be a huge bonus to local communities and economies. Subsidizing a few domestic sheep growers on public lands has a smoke stack effect that adversely impacts a vast landscape for public wildlife and burdens tax payers everywhere.
Comment By Todd, 7-01-09There are many things affecting sheep numbers, including the artificially large numbers of predators. Unfortunately enviros tend to sit back and demand that someone else make all kinds of sacrifices so they can have the dream world they demand. Ironically enviros insist on others subsidizing their recreation and give nothing but hot air in return. Ranchers provide food for the country and water sources, etc for the wildlife.
Comment By the real mike, 7-01-09Oh, nonsense! That's just all horse manure. The problem is non-native sheep and the diseases they carry and transmit, scrapie that mutates into mad cow in bovines and CWD in deer and elk, pneumonia and scabies-like mites that spread to native sheep. Bighorn sheep have dealt with predators in much larger numbers than today for eons. Your nonsense is ridiculous.
Comment By Geo, 7-01-09Here's more on the disease and how it affects bighorns
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/biologists-home-in-on-bighorn-killing-bacteria/article769194/
So, Todd... how often do you eat mutton??? I've had lamb 3 times in 10 years; it's not a big part of my diet although I do wear wool in lieu of synthetics. Still I do put effort and money into my hunting and fishing; wild sheep guys are the worst for extravagence; several times winning bids for the MT auctioned sheep tag exceeded $300,000!!! Then that person spends lots of cold hard cash on gas, food, lodging and travel so any economics arguments are simply moot. You give predators lots more credit than they deserve too; let's put the onus where it belongs, without infections from domestic sheep our wild sheep on PUBLIC lands will have a chance; private domestic sheep on PUBLIC land just isn't a fair exchange for secure wild sheep herds in my world.
Comment By Ann, 7-02-09I have to agree, when domestic are infecting the public lands and wildlife it's time to remove the domestic.
Comment By Todd, 7-02-09Actually it may be the human waste left behind by hikers that is causing the problem. Certainly the sheep near Dubois, WY aren't affected by grazing domestic sheep, but they are dying off.
Comment By Oldilox, 7-02-09Sheepherder gal; FWP ARM rules require that local ranchers sign-off on bighorn transplants, so "dropping off" bighorms doesn't happen. However, the disparate weight that ag has in the arrangement is what we non-ag people object to. We are talking about federal public lands and some state wildlife management areas where errant wild sheep are being removed to satisfy the woolgrowers. Those public wildlands also belong to us who hunt and fish, why is it unfair to allow equal consideration to our concerns? One would think repopulation of wild sheep onto an state WMA would be a positive thing not cause for alarm!!! Something wrong with this picture...
Comment By the real mike, 7-02-09Oh gosh, Toad, er, Todd, you have me turning in circles. First, you claim the real problem isn't domestic sheep with their well-documented proclivity for carrying and spreading disease, but rather too many predators. Now, you say it's human wastes and you offer up evidence from a herd that was infected by an introduced animal that had been in contact with domestic sheep before it got up on Whiskey in the first place. Given the circumstances, I'm afraid the primary human waste problem we have here might be you.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/wild_bighorns_threatened_by_domestic_sheep1/C8/L8/