Weminuche bighorn sheep - Colorado

Oak · Jul 4, 2014

The U.S. Forest Service Weminuche Landscape Grazing Analysis is open for comment until July 21. The analysis covers domestic sheep grazing allotments within or adjacent to S-71, S-28, S-16 and S-15. The Weminuche bighorn sheep herd is a Tier 1 herd in Colorado, which means it has the highest management priority.

The Forest Service preferred alternative is to continue grazing 3 "high risk" and 1 "moderate risk" domestic sheep allotments, as risk relates to contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep.

The risk assessment the Forest Service conducted concludes:

"The total herd contact rates [with domestic sheep] for these three allotments exceeds the levels thought likely to maintain long-term bighorn herd persistence...."

And further:

"If a disease event involved S-28 and was to spread to S-16 and S-15 through the interconnected metapopulation structure of the Weminuche RBS-20 DAU, there is potential for a disease event to involve a high value population that comprises about 75% of the bighorn sheep population on the [San Juan National] Forest."

Go to this link to read the lengthy Risk Analysis and Environmental Assessment, or to comment on the analysis. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Big Fin · Jul 4, 2014

That's flat out stupid. Or, is this a misprint, "....exceeds the levels thought likely to maintain long-term bighorn herd persistence......?"

Not sure why an industry that relies on so much subsidy, as does the wool/sheep industry, is such a darling of some in Congress who put pressure on the USFS to accommodate a domestic species that is so damaging to one of our most cherished and fragile native species.

Emails are best sent to whom/where?

I was hoping to somehow, someday, draw a sheep tag and bring the importance of this issue to hunters. Not sure why everyone thinks life is honky-dory for wild sheep. They are the most at-risk species of any big game animal we hunt.

Hope folks start taking interest in the cause of this amazing species.

Big Fin · Jul 4, 2014

Looks like Colorado and Idaho have some sheep guys who have figured out the sheep meat subsidy program. This does not take into account many other forms of subsidies to the domestic sheep industry, beyond these direct payments.

Link to subsidies from 1995-2012 here - http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=sheep&regionname=theUnitedStates

Looks like the wool subsidy payments have been more distributed, but some of the same names as the sheep meat subsidy payments.

Wool payment list from 1995-2012 here - http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=wool&regionname=theUnitedStates

I've provided that information to show that change to the Government policies that are negatively impacting wild sheep will gore some oxen (domestic sheep) and change will come with a lot of resistance. We see it in MT, where the wool/sheep industry has many in the state legislature carrying their water for them.

I have no problem with domestic sheep operations, but I'm not a fan of paying/subsidizing these operations that help fund practices that kill off wild sheep populations. If they want to operate on public lands at very discounted grazing rates, the industry and land management agencies should be required to take efforts to accommodate the health of native species.

Our wild sheep need voices and so far the voices are pretty quiet in Congress.

DRAFTSTUD · Jul 4, 2014

Colorado should have a sheared sheep on it's state cover instead of a Bighorn.

jryoung · Jul 4, 2014

We already know Siddoway's record.

Mr. Harper certainly seems to be struggling after raking in $3M in subsidies and record prices.

http://growourflock.org/shortage-spikes-prices-sheep-and-lambs

Biscuit Hunter · Jul 5, 2014

draftstud said:
colorado should have a sheared sheep on it's state cover instead of a bighorn.

Oak · Jul 7, 2014

Big Fin said:
That's flat out stupid. Or, is this a misprint, "....exceeds the levels thought likely to maintain long-term bighorn herd persistence......?"

No misprint. That's the short version, as attention spans on these forums is generally short.

The longer version is:

In almost all cases, the total herd contact rates predicted by the Risk of Contact Tool for the Vallecito Creek Herd S-28 were higher than those for the West Needles Herd S-71, and much higher than those for the Cimarrona Peak Herd S-16. The total herd contact rates for S-28 indicate that even under the allotment configuration proposed in Alternative 4 there is concern for the potential for physical contact with the Endlich Mesa, Virginia Gulch and Tank Creek allotments, respectively. The total herd contact rates for these three allotments exceed the levels thought likely to maintain long-term bighorn herd persistence (one disease event every 46 years), even under an assumption of moderate (25%) or low (10%) disease transmission probability (USDA Forest Service 2013c, USDA Forest Service 2010a, 2010c and 2010d).

There are a total of five bighorn sheep herds on the San Juan National Forest (S-15, S-16, S- 28, S-31 and S-71) totaling about 625 individuals (USDA Forest Service 2013a). The Weminuche Herd RBS-20, S-15, S-16 and S-28, totals about 455 individuals, about 73% of the bighorn population on the San Juan National Forest. If a disease event involved S-28 and was to spread to S-16 and S-15 through the interconnected metapopulation structure of the Weminuche RBS-20 DAU, there is potential for a disease event to involve a high value population that comprises about 75% of the bighorn sheep population on the Forest. A bighorn mortality event involving three quarters of the Forest’s bighorn herds would be a significant event for the administrative unit, though is unlikely to contribute to a trend towards federal listing.

As a sensitive species, individual bighorn sheep and habitats for bighorn sheep may be impacted, but actions should not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability on the planning area.

The preferred alternative is proposing a sunset clause to the active allotments (which I don't believe the USFS has the legal authority to do), which would only allow the permits to be transferred to the permittee's immediate family (the current permittee has a 25 year old son). The comment period letter states that this is "in order to eventually phase out sheep grazing, but without causing hardship to the permittee."

The socioeconomic analysis in the EA only addresses the potential loss of domestic sheep grazing. It does not address recreational values (consumptive and non-consumptive) of bighorn sheep populations distributed across suitable habitats in the analysis area, and the economic impact of losing 75% of bighorn sheep in the planning unit.

Landscape scale desired conditions from the SJNF Resource Management Plan (2013) state, "prevent physical contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. Manage domestic sheep to achieve effective separation from bighorn sheep." The preferred alternative continues grazing in three high risk allotments, and through a boundary alteration actually increases the risk on one allotment (according to the risk assessment).

npaden · Jul 15, 2014

I went ahead and submitted my comments.

It is just amazing that the current thought process is to continue to permit sheep grazing on public land at a rate significantly below market value by sheep that are also subsidized for meat and wool production. This alone is a travesty, but to know that it is being done at the potential cost of several different herds of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep is even more amazing.

Is there any way that sportsman could contribute to buy these below market grazing allotments and then not use them? If it is money that is needed, I’m sure there would be a way to raise money to offset the below market grazing allotments.

How long is the sunset clause that it being proposed? What is the risk that disease will be transmitted to bighorn sheep before this sunset clause is reached?

Is there any way to come up with a monetary settlement to offset the hardship to the current permittee’s?

Thanks, Nathan Paden

I wonder how many Bighorn sheep tags they would have to auction off to pay off the sheep herders? Seems that even it it put them in an over harvest situation for a couple years it would be worth it to save the rest of them.

Dinkshooter · Jul 15, 2014

^
THANK YOU VERY MUCH npaden!

JoseCuervo · Jul 15, 2014

Comments sent.

I strongly object to the proposed action to continue grazing the six currently active allotments (5 sheep, one converted to cattle) by proceeding with the Alternative 4 Adaptive Management/Closing Vacant Allotments Alternative that is being proposed. It is crazy to allow domestic sheep on these grazing allotments when three of the five active sheep allotments are considered to pose “high risk” for contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep according to the Risk Assessment, while a fourth allotment is considered to pose a “moderate risk”. The science has long been understood on disease transmission from domestic sheep to wild sheep. Putting wild sheep populations into a “high risk” situation makes no sense.

As such, I encourage you to adopt the Alternative 1– No Action Alternative whereby domestic livestock grazing would not be reauthorized on these allotments.

I have several concerns with the proposed action as it relates to bighorn sheep conservation on the San Juan National Forest. I believe that the decision to continue domestic sheep grazing in high risk areas, thus jeopardizing a high value bighorn sheep herd, is arbitrary and capricious.

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are designated by the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) as a Sensitive Species on National Forest System lands within the Region (USDA Forest Service 2013d). This designation implies there is concern for the long-term viability and/or conservation status of bighorn sheep on NFS lands in the Region (Beecham et. al 2007). For this reason, all agency actions that have the potential to affect bighorn sheep conservation are analyzed for their potential impacts. Beyond analyzing the potential impacts, IGNORING the analysis is poor science and poor decision making.

Mortality and depressed recruitment resulting from pathogens introduced by domestic livestock are regarded as the limiting factor for bighorn sheep in Colorado (George et al. 2009). Physical contact between domestic sheep or goats and bighorn sheep increases the risk of disease transmission from domestic animals to bighorn sheep, with potential for a subsequent bighorn sheep mortality event and/or extended period of reduced recruitment. The primary disease agents are respiratory diseases to which domestic sheep and goats are typically resistant or unaffected, and to which bighorn sheep have little resistance (Cassirer et al. 2013, Besser et al. 2012a, Besser et al. 2012b, George et al. 2008, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2007). Pneumonia caused by bacterial respiratory pathogens is considered the most virulent disease impacting bighorn sheep today (Besser et al. 2012b, George et al. 2009, Beecham et al. 2007). It can result in all age die-offs followed by suppressed lamb recruitment up to several decades after the initial die-off (George et al.)

There is no good reason to subject a sensitive species like wild sheep to the high risks of disease transmission from domestic sheep.

Please consider me to be an Interested Party and to be kept apprised of any and all decisions, comments, and objection periods for the Weinmuche grazing decisions.

JoseCuervo
South of the Border

Dinkshooter · Jul 15, 2014

Badabing JC!

BigHornRam · Jul 17, 2014

Nice comments Jose. I knew you had the ability to conduct yourself in a professional manner.

BigHornRam · Jul 17, 2014

Oak.........I mean Jose. Since you are such a good comment writer, and advocate for Bighorn sheep all over North America, can I get you to draft a letter to the city of Missoula to address their accountability in this particular incident.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/bi...cle_739bf802-eb75-11e3-b855-001a4bcf887a.html

It should be noted that the city actually pays this rancher to graze their property.

Thanks

MattK · Jul 17, 2014

BHR- I was just up there last night (Hiking the L)... I walked by the sheep herders wagon. It doesn't seem that the domestic sheep are doing a very good job at getting rid of the weeds but they are doing a great job of killing wild sheep.

JoseCuervo · Jul 17, 2014

BigWhore said:
Oak.........I mean Jose. Since you are such a good comment writer, and advocate for Bighorn sheep all over North America, can I get you to draft a letter to the city of Missoula to address their accountability in this particular incident.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/bi...cle_739bf802-eb75-11e3-b855-001a4bcf887a.html

It should be noted that the city actually pays this rancher to graze their property.

Thanks

BigWhore,
Is there a reason you are interested in pretending I give a shit what you think I should be interested in? This is now 2 different threads where you seem concerned with my opinions on topics.

How about you quit thread-shitting on other people's threads, and, if you don't have any insight into the topic of the thread, you go ahead and post your comments to c:/Documents/NobodyCares/*.doc ?

Oak · Aug 2, 2014

Less than 2 weeks after the comment period ended. The first battle won.

Proposed regulations to guide sheep grazing in the Weminuche Wilderness are so weighty and controversial that the level of environmental examination of the issues is being ramped up a notch.

The original Environmental Assessment (EA) of the plan – for which an unusual second public comment period was opened – has been suspended to allow preparation of a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

- See more at: http://www.durangoherald.com/articl...grazing-study-suspended-#sthash.4gZarmRE.dpuf

T Bone · Aug 2, 2014

Nice!

Oak for President.

Oak · Feb 17, 2016

Since I posted on this initially, I thought I'd bump it to the top for anyone who may have been following along the first time. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been released for comment. Although I have not read through the 217 pages yet, it appears the preferred alternative is very similar to what was proposed in the EA in 2014: continue grazing high risk allotments and use BMP and adaptive management strategies to reduce the risks to bighorn sheep.

The DEIS and supporting documents can be found at the bottom of this page. It looks like a new bighorn sheep risk assessment has been completed for the DEIS as well. Comment deadline: April 4.

brymoore · Feb 17, 2016

This amazes me. Can you use the Payette Forest decision in Colorado to protect wild sheep? IDWSF has had great success at buying conflicting grazing allotments since the PF decision was made.

npaden · Feb 17, 2016

I got the email this morning, but when I click on some of the links to read the pdf's it gives me a file not found error message. (Nearly all of the ones in the top).

I don't understand on the economic impact it is showing a negative $122k annual deficit for proposal 4 which would be to permanently close the allotments that haven't been used for decades? They do a good job of coming up with the economic impact of hunting and wildlife viewing and put a dollar amount on it, but then say that you really can't put a real dollar amount on the ranching because it is a heritage and a way of life?

The more I'm involved in these types of issues the more it seems that they actually don't want input from anyone except the ranchers. And those are the kind of guys screaming how terrible the government is and trying to take over wildlife refuges.

I don't know how you can deal with this kind of stuff over and over and over.

Weminuche bighorn sheep - Colorado

Expert

Administrator

Administrator

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Expert

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Expert

Well-known member

Expert

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page