Montana wildlife group seeks to stop sheep grazing

[BigHornRam]

"but WSF cannot endorse any expectation that domestic sheep permittees are guaranteed replacement AUMs in the event their current grazing allotments are vacated or closed. While WSF has demonstrated its commitment to multiple use management on public lands, there are no guarantees in place for retaining public land grazing privileges"

The key part of this Bob, is the underlined part. The Hoppe's allotments have not been vacated or sold. The Gallatin Wildlife Ass is suing to close them. In your first post you said.......

"Great! I was wondering if that would happen."

Sure sounds to me like you are in favor of GVA's idiotic lawsuit.

 

[Oak]

I know nothing about this area or the issue, I just posted the article when I saw it. BigHornRam, would you support closure of any public land domestic sheep grazing allotments against the will of the permittee, to protect bighorn sheep?

 

[BigHornRam]

So your position is just to separate them? That's it? That's the title and after that the "Position" or article talks about why the two species are coming in contact.

Prior to the Greenhorn transplant, it was hashed out with Joe Helle and FWP, how Montana would keep separation between his domestic sheep and the transplanted bighorns. GVA (a green decoy org if there ever was one) doesn't like the agreement. If sportsman's groups reneg on this agreement, do you think there ever will be another bighorn transplant in Montana again?

Do a little research on this issue before you jump in bed with GVA.

 

[Ben Lamb]

GVA (a green decoy org if there ever was one)

Bullshit. I've known those guys for almost a decade and while I have disagreed with them in the past and probably will in the future, they're some of the toughest SOB's I've known. Just because you don't agree with their lawsuit or their politics doesn't mean they're not honest sportsmen.

Bringing in the DC lobbyist spin about "green decoys" isn't helpful and it only distracts people away from the merits of their case, or lack there of.

 

[BigHornRam]

I know nothing about this area or the issue, I just posted the article when I saw it. BigHornRam, would you support closure of any public land domestic sheep grazing allotments against the will of the permittee, to protect bighorn sheep?

I would want to know the particulars on the issue prior to making any decision reguarding a domestic grazing allotment. As I've said many times before, I favor working out a buyout agreement of the allotment if it is of that much importance to the bighorn sheep.

This lawsuit is going no where, and will only serve to piss off the livestock community......which will make future transplants all that much harder. Make sense?

 

[Oak]

I would want to know the particulars on the issue prior to making any decision reguarding a domestic grazing allotment. As I've said many times before, I favor working out a buyout agreement of the allotment if it is of that much importance to the bighorn sheep.

I didn't ask what you favored, I asked if there is any circumstance in which you would support closing an active allotment against the will of the permittee.

 

[BigHornRam]

Bullshit. I've known those guys for almost a decade and while I have disagreed with them in the past and probably will in the future, they're some of the toughest SOB's I've known. Just because you don't agree with their lawsuit or their politics doesn't mean they're not honest sportsmen.

Bringing in the DC lobbyist spin about "green decoys" isn't helpful and it only distracts people away from the merits of their case, or lack there of.

From the Gazette article Ben.......

"The commission is protecting agriculture," Hockett said. "It's similar to the bison issue (in Yellowstone National Park). They cross the line and boom, we shoot them."

Sounds pretty green to me, Ben

 

[Oak]

Don't feel too bad about not answering the question. I asked the same one 13 months ago in a room full of 50 bighorn sheep advocates, including leadership of WSF, and got the same reply.

 

[BigHornRam]

Think their stupid lawsuit is going anywhere, Ben?

 

[BigHornRam]

Don't feel too bad about not answering the question. I asked the same one 13 months ago in a room full of 50 bighorn sheep advocates, including leadership of WSF, and got the same reply.

Guess you learned something that day, Oak.

 

[shoots-straight]

Prior to the Greenhorn transplant, it was hashed out with Joe Helle and FWP, how Montana would keep separation between his domestic sheep and the transplanted bighorns. GVA (a green decoy org if there ever was one) doesn't like the agreement. If sportsman's groups reneg on this agreement, do you think there ever will be another bighorn transplant in Montana again?

Do a little research on this issue before you jump in bed with GVA.

Was the deal hashed out with GVA? Seems like you must of been there to know who signed what papers on the "DEAL". Just because MTFWP's agrees to a deal doesn't mean jack to everyone that might be an interested party.

It would be nice if the Domestic Sheep rancher would agree to a buyout. No?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I didn't ask what you favored, I asked if there is any circumstance in which you would support closing an active allotment against the will of the permittee.

Yes, but I would choose that battle very wisely.

In this case, you have a bighorn sheep herd that was transplanted there, and an expanding grizzly bear population that has colonized the area. I completely get it that both animals were native to the area and the Helle's sheep were not. It certainly doesn't make this fair or right.

I do agree with BHR in that this lawsuit will make future transplants much harder if they are going to happen in an area that has existing sheep allotments remotely close.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Think their stupid lawsuit is going anywhere, Ben?

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the lawsuit. Just commenting on you using an Oil & Gas Industry/ Washington D.C. smear campaign to malign guys who fight for wildlife and hunter opportunity.

 

[Ben Lamb]

From the Gazette article Ben.......


Sounds pretty green to me, Ben

Is he wrong?

 

[Oak]

Guess you learned something that day, Oak.

So your answer is no? Just want to be clear on where you stand.

I spoke with the President of MT WSF about this lawsuit last month when we were in BC. I understand how it's going to complicate the sportsman/landowner relations in MT.

 

[BigHornRam]

Was the deal hashed out with GVA? Seems like you must of been there to know who signed what papers on the "DEAL". Just because MTFWP's agrees to a deal doesn't mean jack to everyone that might be an interested party.

It would be nice if the Domestic Sheep rancher would agree to a buyout. No?

No clue what the GVA knew about the transplant prior to it happening. Don't really care either.

Agree that it would be nice to put together a buyout for these 2 allotments. How much $ can we count on from RCFWA, Shoot's ?

 

[BigHornRam]

So your answer is no? Just want to be clear on where you stand.

I spoke with the President of MT WSF about this lawsuit last month when we were in BC. I understand how it's going to complicate the sportsman/landowner relations in MT.

So you do know a little about this issue, Oak. Weed layer

 

[shoots-straight]

No clue what the GVA knew about the transplant prior to it happening. Don't really care either.


Agree that it would be nice to put together a buyout for these 2 allotments. How much $ can we count on from RCFWA, Shoot's ?

So your saying that they have no rights to sue to protect wildlife because a deal was hatched out by MTFW &P's and this rancher, to transplant wild sheep to public lands. Really?


How much could we count on coming from WSF? Your groups only concern is BHS, maybe they should get the ball rolling. How about you Paul? Is it worth your time to offer up to be point man?

 

[RobG]

It is GWA BHR, and Helle, not Hoppe. As it turned out I sat in on GWA's weekly meeting this morning. I do not speak for them, and I don't know the particulars about the lawsuit, but these folks are the real deal when it comes to hunters. Hockett got a really wide mule deer last year and Gutkoski packed his elk out this year on his back and he is 85 or so.

They never supported the compromise that got the sheep in the Greenhorns because it isn't enough habit - and it isn't really a viable herd now because of limited habitat so they were right. They proposed a buyout as a win-win solution but the other side wasn't interested. Now they are trying something else. I don't see why you have a problem with that.

This particular sheep operation prevents bighorns from being in the Gravellies and the Snowcrests - that is a huge amount of habitat that can't be used because this one operation wants to run a marginal business on public land. His operation also threatens the Madison herd. This area is also becoming an important area for grizzly bears.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

So at what point does an established precedent count? I agree, there is a ton of sheep habitat that is going unused.

If the Helle's weren't interested in a buyout, should they have been forced into one? Forcing a buyout in this case makes me a little squeamish personally. If the sheep operation was compromising an existing population, then I'm all for it.

I want my public lands available for wildlife, and I consider myself a real hunter. This lawsuit doesn't really sit right with me though.