Yeti GOBOX Collection

Weminuche bighorn sheep - Colorado

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).

It looks like they disabled the links to the 2014 draft EA documents, possibly so as to not confuse people.
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.

It would obviously make their decisions easier and less time consuming if they only heard from ranchers. Note that they intended to make this decision within the framework of and EA before receiving so many comments from those outside of the livestock industry.

Dealing with this stuff "over and over and over" is not easy, but it is the framework in which we must work. I am glad that we have the NEPA process in place which allows all citizens a place at the table when these decisions are made. The most frustrating aspect is the glacial pace at which some of the agency offices operate, which is partially due to the lack of funding the agencies suffer. Example: this analysis was first scoped in March 2012, and here we are 4 years later commenting on a DEIS. This one is far from over.
 
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.

Sure, the Payette decision is relevant, and the risk assessment for this analysis uses the Risk of Contact Tool that was used to inform the Payette decision. We have had less success in Colorado with incentives to waive grazing permits than other states have had. Also, you may be aware that Colorado Wool Growers Association is one of the plaintiffs in the ongoing Payette appeal.

The permittee for the allotments in this particular analysis also happens to be a state representative, which makes the issue a big more political.
 
Sure, the Payette decision is relevant, and the risk assessment for this analysis uses the Risk of Contact Tool that was used to inform the Payette decision. We have had less success in Colorado with incentives to waive grazing permits than other states have had. Also, you may be aware that Colorado Wool Growers Association is one of the plaintiffs in the ongoing Payette appeal.

The permittee for the allotments in this particular analysis also happens to be a state representative, which makes the issue a big more political.

Just a bit.
 
The idea of federal subsidies just plain pisses me off. If your business isn't profitable, shut it down! That's the way the world works.

From the lists posted above, it appears the Nottingham Ranch in Craig Colorado received a total of $1,026,066 if federal wool and meat subsidies for that time period. Seriously?

Lets look at a state welfare program like RFW. How many vouchers does this guy receive every year. How much does he make on those vouchers?

In 2012 I was pulled over along a county road studying a map. A big white ford pick up, pulls up. Turns out it was Nottingham. He sarcastically asked if I was lost. I was then told that I had 2 tires on his property and needed to move along. At the time, I wondered what a poor sheepiphile was doing driving a $50,000 truck. Now I know.
 
True definition of a "Hobby" ranch. Can he claim the subsidies as income for the IRS? Probably shows a profit of $275.00 for the year. GJ
 
The permittee on the Weminuche wrote a rebuttal after the BHA op-ed:

Former Colorado State Rep. calls out enviros for lies about bighorns on grazing allotments


From the rebuttal;
"I have spent more nights in a bedroll in the Weminuche Wilderness than any man alive. I have never seen a bighorn sheep on our allotments."

And that is exactly why his allottment should be canceled. He has never seen a bighorn in his allottment, because they can't be there due to his presence which is subsidized by me and you.
 
From the rebuttal;
"I have spent more nights in a bedroll in the Weminuche Wilderness than any man alive. I have never seen a bighorn sheep on our allotments."

And that is exactly why his allottment should be canceled. He has never seen a bighorn in his allottment, because they can't be there due to his presence which is subsidized by me and you.

There is a Hunttalker that spent one summer scouting mountain goats up there and saw two bighorns on one of his allotments, one of the two "unverified sightings"....
 
There is a Hunttalker that spent one summer scouting mountain goats up there and saw two bighorns on one of his allotments....

I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was being truthful. Silly me.
 
. Most allotments go through an Environmental Assessment (EA), but because of threats of a lawsuit by radical environmental groups like Western Watersheds and others, the Forest Service is upgrading the review to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to make sure that there is no reason to be sued.

I wonder what he would think if he found out that it was a hunter that contacted some of the "racial environmental groups" ???
 
I had to read that article 2 times before I noticed him bashing Parkinson, Mumma and BHA in the end. That's not nice Mr. Brown (Former Colorado State Representative).
 
The subsidies provided in dollars also don't take into account the well-below market grazing fees they pay to the USFS, correct? I think I read somewhere that the grazing fee is like a 1/5 of the market rate fee.

Seems counterproductive to spend lots of money to save bighorns (which can generate piles of revenue) while at the same time spending lots of money so someone can carry a failing sheep ranch. Maybe CO can start selling domestic sheep tags.
 
Back
Top