Bighorns and domestic sheep

[Oak]

There is a single paragraph in an upcoming House Appropriations Bill for the Department of Interior, environment and related agencies that threatens federal management of bighorn sheep. In particular, this paragraph will undermine a landmark Record of Decision signed by Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell last year that phases out domestic sheep grazing in portions of the Payette National Forest to protect bighorn sheep populations. If you are unfamiliar with that decision, you may read about it here:

Payette National Forest Announces Bighorn Sheep Management Decision

The paragraph in question reads as follows:

19 DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK GRAZING

20 SEC. 442. None of the funds made available by this
21 Act or any other Act through fiscal year 2016 may be
22 used to plan or carry out any action or any subsequent
23 agency regulation for managing bighorn sheep (whether
24 native or nonnative) populations on any parcel of Federal
25 land (as defined in section 3 of the Healthy Forests Res-​

132
1 toration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6502)) if the action may
2 or will result in a reduction in the number of domestic
3 livestock permitted to graze on the parcel or in the dis-
4 tribution of livestock on the parcel.​

It can be found on page 131, line 19 of the following bill: Interior - FY2012​

If you agree that the remaining bighorn sheep in the Payette NF, as well as all bighorn sheep populations remaining on public lands throughout the west, should be protected from disease transmission from domestic sheep, please write your congressman and let them know that inclusion of this paragraph is not acceptable.​

 

[Big Fin]

Thanks for the heads up on this one, Oak. Will be sending emails in the morning.

 

[shoots-straight]

Roger that Oak.

 

[justdada]

PM me. Who do I write? What do is say? I want to get involved

 

[Oak]

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazin...nimals/Archives/2011/Battle-for-Bighorns.aspx

 

[Carrion Carrier]

Take domestic sheep out of areas where bighorns can be/are recovered!

 

[Ben Lamb]

CSPAN has the debate on the Interior Approps bill right now. The sheep issue has come up.

Right now, they're talking about importing polar bears to zoos.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

 

[Dinkshooter]

Oak,
Do you remember how many BH sheep they thought that area could support if the disease/domestic grazing issue was resolved? I think I remember but it seems way to high.

 

[Oak]

Oak,
Do you remember how many BH sheep they thought that area could support if the disease/domestic grazing issue was resolved? I think I remember but it seems way to high.

I've heard from 8,000 to 10,000. Seems a little high.

 

[Oak]

Update....

The House Interior Appropriations Committee sent to the floor the FY12 Department of Interior (DOI) Appropriations bill, containing a number of cuts that will have a significant impact on federal conservation programs. The bill cuts the total DOI budget by $715 million from FY11 levels, funding it at $9.9 billion for FY12. The bill also cuts EPA funding by $1.5 billion. These levels are significantly lower than what was proposed in President Obama’s FY12 budget request. Key wildlife programs also found themselves on the chopping block. The committee recommended a $145 million cut for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), funding them at $1 billion. Under this FWS cut, the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants would receive a cut of $39.8 million from FY11 levels, down to $22 million. The bill also cuts National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) funding by $36 million from FY11, despite the fact that the NWRS is already struggling with a backlog of more than $3.3 billion in operations and maintenance costs and is trying to address an ongoing issue of understaffing, particularly in law enforcement personnel. The bill would fund NWRS at $455 million for FY12.​

The House Appropriations Committee also attached a long list of riders to the bill, many of which could have significant ramifications in terms of conservation, especially of endangered species. One rider would prohibit new species listings to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the FWS, with supporters of the rider calling the ESA a prime example of “policy failure” and pointing to the low ratio of recovered species to overall number of listed species as proof. It would prevent the FWS from funding not only the listing of new species but also the designation of new critical habitat, the up-listing of a species from threatened to endangered and the protection by law enforcement of species similar to that of currently listed species. On 27 July 2011, the House passed the Dicks Amendment striking this rider from the appropriations bill.

Sections 120 and 442 of the appropriation bill also severely limit protections for bighorn sheep in the western United States. Section 120 calls for the exemption of mobile permits from complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In doing so, ranchers could allow their sheep or cattle to graze on larger areas of land and continue grazing as they move between grazing lands, referred to as "trailing." This poses a threat to some bighorn sheep subspecies that are endangered or threatened, as they would be in closer contact with disease-carrying domestic sheep. Section 442 also works to undo previous protections by loosening restrictions on the interaction between domestic sheep and the native bighorn sheep.

A number of amendments to strike these riders were filed by House Democrats but failed to pass. As of 1 August, the House was in the process of considering the bill. Due to the current debt ceiling debate, however, a full house vote will most likely not occur until after Congress comes back from recess in September. A full committee report from the markup is available for public viewing.

 

[1_pointer]

Section 120 is a bit interesting. Some BLM offices have 'trailing' areas and the permits for such were granted on a Temporary Non-Renewable permit and not subject to NEPA. Sounds like this is opening more areas up for that. Trailing across non-designated trailing areas (ie. other allotments) was much more common in the not to distant past.

Of note, for trailing permits, they were not allowed to go where they wanted, an area was designated and a minimum amount of movement per day was specified on the permit. Seems like this would still be a viable option for keeping certain types of livestock from certain areas.

I do see some hurdles offices could face in trying to authorize these types of permits across other allotments...

 

[Big Fin]

A couple Hunt Talkers are on a conference call with Senator Tester, right now. He is hearing it loud and clear about sections 120 and 442.

Senator Tester is the Chair of the Congressional Sportsman Caucus. He has appointed a committee of Montana hunters and anglers. We get to speak with him regularly on these type of calls. And his staff is often uses us sounding boards.

Besides the budget issues that are stripping so much conservation opportunity, we want him to do what he can to protect our the bighorn populations. We lost 20% of our sheep in Montana last year due to disease. These sections of the legislation will greatly impair the efforts to restore those populations and relocate other populations. This needs to be wiped from that legislation.

Bad enough we will take it on the chin with budgets, but to have this kind of crap show up in appropriations is a kick in the crotch.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I heard four people speak out against sections 120 and 442 on that call. That's a great start.

We need 4000 more.

 

[1_pointer]

Could someone spell out the specific issues you see section 120 causing? So far I've been too lazy to look it up and read the whole thing and can see why it theory it would be worrisome, but am not seeing it as a super big problem for bighorn sheep.

This is all it says from the Full Committee report linked above:

Section 120 provides for the trailing of livestock across public
lands through fiscal year 2014.

 

[Oak]

Section 120 would exempt mobile permits from NEPA review, potentially allowing domestic sheep to be trailed through occupied bighorn habitat. In places like the San Juan Mountains in southwestern Colorado where allotments with bighorn sheep have been vacated over the years, there is now a patchwork of active allotments, with occupied bighorn habitat between. Since the rider was attached by Simpson of Idaho and is singling out the BLM, I assume that ranchers in Idaho are being inconvenienced by a specific conflict in that state.

TRAILING LIVESTOCK OVER PUBLIC LAND​

SEC. 120. During fiscal years 2012 through 2014,
the trailing of livestock across public land (as defined by
section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)) and the implementation
of trailing practices by the Bureau of Land Management
shall not be subject to review under section 102(2)(C) of​

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.4332(2)(C)).​

 

[Big Fin]

Section 120 would exempt mobile permits from NEPA review, potentially allowing domestic sheep to be trailed through occupied bighorn habitat. In places like the San Juan Mountains in southwestern Colorado where allotments with bighorn sheep have been vacated over the years, there is now a patchwork of active allotments, with occupied bighorn habitat between. Since the rider was attached by Simpson of Idaho and is singling out the BLM, I assume that ranchers in Idaho are being inconvenienced by a specific conflict in that state.

Same with the Greenhorn and Snowcrest Ranges in Montana. We currently have one operator who likes to trail his sheep anywhere, anytime. And, we have spent money, time, and sheep, on some reintroductions over there.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the Missoulian article on the conference call yesterday. Kathy did a great job bringing this issue up. So did Randy and Bill Geer from TRCP.

Rancher and National Wildlife Federation board member Kathy Hadley objected to several riders in the bill, including one that would prohibit management of bighorn sheep if it interfered with private grazing rights on public land.

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...e50-11e0-bf21-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1U4pHHdaa

 

[1_pointer]

Section 120 would exempt mobile permits from NEPA review, potentially allowing domestic sheep to be trailed through occupied bighorn habitat. In places like the San Juan Mountains in southwestern Colorado where allotments with bighorn sheep have been vacated over the years, there is now a patchwork of active allotments, with occupied bighorn habitat between.

I still don't see how this section would allow the BLM to issue mobile trailing permits in areas that have been closed to grazing or to sheep grazing for protection of bighorns or otherwise through a land use plan. If the allotments have been vacated and closed through a land use plan or admendment I'm not sure that these mobile permits could be authorized for those areas. Trailing permits could only be authorized for areas that are open to grazing for that type and class of livestock for the period spelled out in the LUP or decision, both of which are appealable. It appears to me that trailing permits are being added to the list of categorical exclusions, but that does not allow the BLM to not adhere to existing land use plans. However, I'm not as up to speed on these issues as I was not too long ago and could very well be wrong...

 

[Ben Lamb]

There is a concerted push to open grazing allotments for domestics. The industry is being fairly aggressive in their approach. I'll try and track down some info on it. I had it around here somewhere, but my wheelchair bound goat might have eaten it.

 

[Big Fin]

There is a concerted push to open grazing allotments for domestics. The industry is being fairly aggressive in their approach. I'll try and track down some info on it. I had it around here somewhere, but my wheelchair bound goat might have eaten it.

Could probably find it in some testimony given in bills proposed in the legislature this spring. The sheep guys were out in force, with their velcro gloves on, hoping to get close to some legislators. I think they succeeded with some of them.

I really have not use for those range maggots. Is there a piece of wildlife ground they have not destroyed when given the opportunity?


My theory is this - If a sheep ain't worth mounting it ain't worth feeding. . Speaking of bighorns only with that statement. Don't want my Montana friends to take that quote literally.

Was thinking about putting that on the back of the OYOA T-shirts. Or, something like this.

Mount your sheep!

Would have to include a picture of a big ram on a pedestal mount, so the Montana members did not misconstrue what I am advocating.