Idaho eliminating wild sheep

F

Foxbow

Active Member
Messages
343
With political pull from sheep farmers in the state, the state has plans to take away the Forest Service control of domestic sheep grazing on public lands. If this is allowed they can decimate the remaining wild sheep herd that is hanging on.
Must be the people of Idaho prefer domestic sheep over Bighorns.
 
Does the Wild Sheep Foundation know about this? I'd think they'd have all their members mobilized on this one.

Where did you get the info?

Zeke
 
im no expert, but i believe that this has been an ongoing problem for years. Idaho used to have 10-15k sheep and now have about 2K i think. Idaho has so much great sheep country too, its a shame.

Travis
www.RidgelineOutdoors.com
 
In short, a lot of what you see going on in Idaho revolves around the fact that cattlemen/farmers/ranchers have a pretty tight stranglehold on the legislature. At times this is a good thing and at times (particularly for sportsmen and wildlife) it isn't. There's little balance in the legislature so a lot of things get strong-armed through. I am a huge fan of multiple use on our public lands, and I think it's an important principle in land management, but right now, the ranchers pretty much run roughshod over sportsmen. Thus, wild sheep and other big game often get kicked to the curb.
 
This has been an ongoing issue in ID for years.

Pretty bold statement to say that the people of ID care more about domestic sheep than wild sheep, based on what a few hack in Boise say.

also, the state can do what it wants on the Blue ground (state), but they don't really have any say in it when it comes to the Green or Yellow ground (FS, BLM). Just look to the wolf reintroduction, logging (or lack of) and any other nubmer of issues....

I am torn on the issue. Sheep farming is a way of life for some, just as ranching and farming are. It has been around a hell of a lot longer than "trophy" hunting has, especially in Idaho. It is also pretty clear that the two species don't mix very well.

You have to be dang careful when you start claiming your rights/view to how public land is used/exploited are more important or "better" than someone else. That can be a slippery slope to go down.
 
>With political pull from sheep farmers
>in the state, the state
>has plans to take away
>the Forest Service control of
>domestic sheep grazing on public
>lands. If this is allowed
>they can decimate the remaining
>wild sheep herd that is
>hanging on.
>Must be the people of Idaho
>prefer domestic sheep over Bighorns.
>


Please provide your facts to support these allegations. Its pretty hard to contact our legislators without the ability to cite the proposed bills, if there are any.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-12 AT 01:37PM (MST)[p]I believe the original poster is refering to the Congressmen Simpson's rider to the 2012 Interior Appropriations Bill which suspended the Payette National Forest decision regarding seperation of domestic and wild sheep.

WSF and IDWSF have been the middle of this fight meeting with all parties involved. Simpson has chosen to defend wool growers over wild sheep.

If you're truly concerned over Simpson's actions, I would suggest emailing his office. His rider matures in one year but there has been rumors that he plans to renew it annually.
 
>im no expert, but i believe
>that this has been an
>ongoing problem for years.
>Idaho used to have 10-15k
>sheep and now have about
>2K i think. Idaho
>has so much great sheep
>country too, its a shame.
>
>
>Travis
>www.RidgelineOutdoors.com


We had about 50K historically before settlement of Idaho and are now down to approximately 3k sheep. The country in Hell's Canyon alone could support up to 20k.
 
>Sheep farming is a way
>of life for some, just
>as ranching and farming are.
>It has been around a
>hell of a lot longer
>than "trophy" hunting has, especially
>in Idaho. It is also
>pretty clear that the two
>species don't mix very.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Huh?

Ranching and farming have NOT been around longer than bighorn "hunting" though! Bighorn sheep have been clawing for a place to live for millennia and ranching for profit is how old?

Are you suggesting we should let the wild sheep get wiped out to make a rancher's life more profitable?

There was room for both..... until someone wanted it all!

Zeke
 
+1 What brymoore said. Google payette national forest bighorn sheep and I'm pretty sure you'll get enough reading material to keep you busy all weekend.
 
Just an add on here to whats been posted: Where I hunt archery elk'nIdaho. The domestic sheep farmers always run about a 1000+ sheep in my area early September feeding through the same ridges every year as there supplamental grazing. These Ranchers always use this land and pay a small fee to USFS for use and grazing privilages. It is happening everywhere and not just in Idaho. It is a rachet and this should be stopped because if it isn't sheep it is cattle and the same situation. I don't know what any of us can do about this situation but it is "Out of Control" and I sincererly hope somebody can stop this situation on money for the Feds. USFS and money in the pockets of the Ranchers at the expense of all the various game not being able to feed after the sheep have stripped the land> Then IDFG and other agencies in various States say "OH" we have habitat broblems and that is why the deer and elk are declining...You know somebody some where is getting greased to let all this slide...

))))------->
 
+ Just so you know this is BIG BUSINESS> I talked to the Sheep business owner thats runs his sheep USFS this way and he does this in at least 4 States. Lots of bucks going in deep pockets here.

))))------->
 
I sent an email to congressman Simpson letting him know of my support for bighorns. Hopefully he will recognize sound science and not the money that makes peoples pockets deep.
 
Trophy hunter..... You want all grazing removed in all federal lands? Is that what your saying? And spring bear good post I agree.
 
I'm gonna guess that the sheep industry has contributed a whole lot more to the economy of Idaho than trophy hunting wild sheep ever will.......just a fact of life that things we enjoy come at a cost.


JB
497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
>I'm gonna guess that the sheep
>industry has contributed a whole
>lot more to the economy
>of Idaho than trophy hunting
>wild sheep ever will.......just a
>fact of life that things
>we enjoy come at a
>cost.
>
>
>JB
>
497fc2397b939f19.jpg


The sheep industry in Idaho is a welfare industry. They cannot survive without public land grazing which they pay at $1.35 per AUM. The going rate on private land is $13.00. Should the sheep grazers be made to pay a competitive rate, they couldn't survive. Furthermore, the labor they use are immigrant herders under a special program which they pay $750 per month instead of minimum wage. We're also wasting money to kill coyotes for them every year. If we were to eliminate the special programs for the sheep industry, it would be an enormous savings to Idaho and the Federal government.
 
Sheep/cattle ranchers and farmers run this state, period. It will never change and I for one like it. Idaho does its job supporting our great nation with these resources. Trophy sheep hunting will still have its place but we dont need to rely on other countries when we have available resources right here in ours. Dont forget what made us the greatest country in the world and expect to stay this way if we cant support ourselves. Mothers/fathers with hungry children dont stand outside a game preserve and look at the beautiful animals.Think about it!
 
Let me first say I am very pro bighorn sheep and I bet I know as much about this issue as anyone here. But I have some questions.

1. trophyhunter, how old are you? It sounds like you just noticed the livestock grazing on public lands. Was this a school assignment? I'm sorry if thats insulting. I don't mean for it to be. I am being honest here. Your sudden wake up to this issue makes me wonder.

2. Brymoore, I agree with most of your post. I am unaware of a special program where sheepherders come here for $750 a month. Not saying it isn't so. Just asking what law that is. Also you say we are wasting money killing coyotes for the sheepman. Wait a minute... isn't everyone else saying that coyotes are a huge part of the trouble with deer herds? If the truth be known the banning of 1080 and a few other things back in the 70s (which were down specifically for livestock interests) has probably had as much to do with the state of todays deer herds than almost any other factor. So your statement again predator control is a double edged sword.

Again, I am very pro bighorns. And I disagree with this action on the Payette. It will continue to have an negative impact on bighorns. I congratulate everyone who has posted here for their interest in the issue. I just wonder where you've been for the last 40 years. Or even 10.
 
The special program is nick-named H2A guest workers.

I'm in favor of predator control when its effective such as controlling lions for sheep and wolves for elk. There's always been debate as to whether trying to control coyotes was effective from a biological perspective. We shoot the hell out of them in Idaho and I still see a lot of them. Something interesting just happened in MT showing that coyote control might not be effective (especially from a cost perspective) at reducing the population. Anyway, I don't believe the government should be paying for a program to shoot coyotes to protect domestic sheep.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012...ding-shortfall-has-strange-result-in-montana/
 
> Sheep/cattle ranchers and farmers run
>this state, period. It will
>never change and I for
>one like it. Idaho does
>its job supporting our great
>nation with these resources. Trophy
>sheep hunting will still have
>its place but we dont
>need to rely on other
>countries when we have available
>resources right here in ours.
>Dont forget what made us
>the greatest country in the
>world and expect to stay
>this way if we cant
>support ourselves. Mothers/fathers with hungry
>children dont stand outside a
>game preserve and look at
>the beautiful animals.Think about it!
>

The majority of the meat and wool produced in this country is from private land. Texas is the largest producer of beef in he country with almost no public grazing. Dryland public grazing only survives due to government programs to support an economically unviable industry. The elimination of dryland grazing would only be a blimp on the meat production of this country. Any shortfall would be produced by states were grazing can be profitable.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with trophy hunting. All of the animals that live on public land are affected by grazing including elk, deer and upland game.
 
I think we all need to think about people feeding their families,and the cost of meat at the grocery store. If not for ranchers.....you don't stand a chance in stopping things like reintroduction of wolves. I would love to someday hunt a bighorn, but I think people and the ability to make a living should come first. Good luck Idaho...hope there's some neutral ground where both sides can exist
 
NVBighorn: I guess I'm old enough to know better... but still not old enough/// and keep do'n it anyway...

Thing is I have hunted CA, NV, UT. ID. for quite a few years and have seen plenty of range cattle. I guess the cattle ranchers manage their stock differently spreading them out so much cattle per section of ground not to over feed the terrain. About 8 years ago I changed areas archery hunting in S.E. Idaho and this was my first exposure to sheep ranchers. That was the eye opener for me so I guess for my responce to you asking my age I will have to say for this writing back to you.. I am 8yrs old :)

The impact of a sheep rancher dropping off drop camps and 4 sheep herders and 1000 sheep per herder in about 5 different locations, then grazing them through the mountains is almost as bad as going through the habitat with a weed eater. Those sheep distroy everyting in their path. This sheep guy does this in four different States every year. That was my point, the impact his business has on the land, habitat and game. and your wild sheep. Not much I can do about it because I don't live and vote in the States with the domestic sheep herding or Wild Sheep problems.

))))------->
 
CATMAN you realize that only 3% of ALL BEEF produced in the entire USA comes from public lands.... You could remove all public land grazing and nobody but the few welfare ranchers would notice. Hell some midwestern states produce more cattle than all of the west combined. High arid desert is not good feed and takes a chit ton of land to raise cattle. Not to mention that public land grazing costs taxpayers over 125 million dollars every year. Its a failed system.
 
more than a hundred years of grazing by sheep and cattle from Europe and Asia have done untold damage to fragile arid western ecosystems, while they will never fully recover. I certainly wouldn't give any more control to the powerful grazing interests that have already taken so much wildlife habitat.
 
A bighorn sheep permit in Montana just sold for $300,000... who in the right mind could ever argue that the economic value of a domestic sheep exceeds that of a bighorn sheep.
 
I respect and admire the lifestyle of livestock operators that use pubic land for grazing. I have family who do. Now, that having been said, I heard a sheep producer here in Nevada say that there are 12 public land sheep operators left in the state of Nevada. While I don't wish them harm I will not be heart broken when they are gone. However, if you look at range conditions those ranges traditionally used by sheep are GENERALLY in better shape than those used by cattle. That's because they are herded from area to area. Yes it may look like a moonscape when they leave an area but the idea is to come in, remove the feed then move on. Not sit there all summer waiting for green regrowth the way a cow will. So the sheep GRAZING near bighorn sheep give me far less heartburn than the diseases they carry that wild sheep are not adapted to. THAT is what is really at the heart of the battle on the Payette. Disease transmission from comingling. That is what needs to be resolved. The sheep industry says their sheep do not cause bighorn dieoffs yet all you have to do is put one of each in a pen and see who dies first. But proving that in court or worse yet, in Congress has proven nearly impossible.
 
>CATMAN you realize that only 3%
>of ALL BEEF produced in
>the entire USA comes from
>public lands.... You could remove
>all public land grazing and
>nobody but the few welfare
>ranchers would notice. Hell some
>midwestern states produce more cattle
>than all of the west
>combined. .


What is this the Huffington Post? Are cattle over running public land or is it only 3% of ALL BEEF?

You are quoting bad facts there..You realize that figure is referring to animals taken to slaughter, so it includes feedlots? And that the majority of the cattle on public lands don't go directly to slaughter, and aren't including in that figure?

There number of sheep and cattle on public lands has been going down for several years, yet our game is in worse shape than ever. Hmmm.
 
>
>
>What is this the Huffington Post?
> Are cattle over running
>public land or is it
>only 3% of ALL BEEF?
>
>
>You are quoting bad facts there..You
>realize that figure is referring
>to animals taken to slaughter,
>so it includes feedlots? And
>that the majority of the
>cattle on public lands don't
>go directly to slaughter, and
>aren't including in that figure?
>
>
>There number of sheep and cattle
>on public lands has been
>going down for several years,
>yet our game is in
>worse shape than ever. Hmmm.
>


Bingo! We have a winner!!!!
 
Animal protein can come from all kinds of animals, less cattle, more elk, more domestic sheep means less wild sheep, thats what the post is about. "Game is in worse shape than ever" anyone who believes that is either a complete fool or uneducated.

The arid west is not good cattle habitat compared to most of the country, the long term change to the land because of livestock grazing is hard to measure, and very much still going on.
 
There is actually some science saying the the grazing is beneficial if done properly. The areas that are never grazed get to be old growth brush that nothing uses. If the sheep are kept moving and hit different areas every other year or so it improves the habitat for everything. In the west big-game issues are more a problem of loss of winter range than anything. I'm guessing wild sheep populations have always been cyclical just like rabbits. They are just too susceptible to disease. Just my guess though.
 
No doubt grazing can be beneficial, there were several million (Seton estimated 4 to 5 mil) bighorns grazing in the mountain country before domestic sheep came on the scene, and much of the country was grazed heavily by bison, pronghorns and elk. The problem is old world sheep carry diseases that kill native sheep and since domestics are grazed over huge areas and multiple mountain ranges it takes away vast areas where the bighorns once lived, and could otherwise do very well.
 
Definitely less about 'grazing' than disease transmission potential, as mentioned by a couple people here. One contact between a carrier domestic and a bighorn can lead to the decimation of an entire local population. And as Piper mentions above, occupation of a range by domestics pretty effectively precludes that area from any bighorn colonization.

Does anyone know how to post a PDF file? I would like to put up the results of a fairly recent study.

Thanks
 
I can show you many many many many many different figures that all point to the fact that the west does not produce the amount of beef they would all want us to believe.

You know that Vermont produces more cattle than NV...... Vermont.
 
I dont' think the real point is grazing rights to provide someone with a living... they do that already, they just want more. The fact isn't that we need more meat in our diets to keep us healthy. The fact isn't that grazing will damage the environment beyond repair.
The fact is that when wild sheep come in contact with domestic (old world) sheep the wild sheep will die by the hundreds! Disease can, has and will wipe out entire herds. I know this sounds like an Idaho only issue but we're all connected at the hip!
The "deer only" hunters don't seem to care and probably won't until it affects "their animal".


On a side note: Where are the animal rights activists? Oh that's right... they really don't care about animals anyway! They only want to fight against the hunters!

Zeke
 
PDF file? Anyone?

Conclusive evidence concerning transmission of the pneumonia causing Mannheimia Haemolytica bacterial pathogen from domestics to bighorn

Thanks
 
Domestic sheep and Bighorns could coexist, just keep domestic sheep out of Bighorn habitat. With 20 trillion acres (aprx.) of public land here in Idaho, you would think the farmers could graze their sheep where they do not contact Bighorns..
 
>Domestic sheep and Bighorns could
>coexist, just keep domestic sheep
>out of Bighorn habitat. With
>20 trillion acres (aprx.) of
>public land here in Idaho,
>you would think the farmers
>could graze their sheep where
>they do not contact Bighorns..
>


I agree with the premise of your statement, but 20 trillion acres? That's bigger than the earth. :)
 
53,484,800 total acres in Idaho

(83570 sq miles X 640 acres/sq mile)

He was confusing it with Oprahs bank account.
 
>Domestic sheep and Bighorns could
>coexist, just keep domestic sheep
>out of Bighorn habitat.


THAT is what the whole discussion and disagreement is about!
 
I've always dreamed of hunting sheep in Idaho. Hope I get the chance some day
 
Well, don't think there's a way to post a PDF on this forum...will try printing it out and scanning it, then post it as a 'photo'

Thanks to those that offered help via PM...

I would like to get the thing posted up, so that maybe our 'grazing advocate' friends here might be able to better understand where we're comin from
 
I doubt it. Research is as one sided as it needs to be. The fact is if all public land grazing were eliminated it would have an effect on the industry and more importantly it would wipe entire communities off the map.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-12 AT 12:00PM (MST)[p]You doubt what? The fact is that domestic sheep give native bighorn sheep diseases and are the primary reason there are so few bighorns left anymore? and the domestic sheep industry isn't overwhelmingly important for anyone but those few individuals that own the flocks, in fact most of their employees aren't even citizens of this country.
 
Colorado Oak

Yeah that might be a slight exaggeration on the acreage.

6Speed
What communities would be lost by limiting domestic sheep grazing on public in Idaho.
Maybe some Basque village in Tibet
 
>
> NVBighorn
>
> Thanks for the calculations.


No problem. Probably done by some Basque in a village in Tibet. Do you need a geography lesson too?
 
GW,
Lots of words, not enough pictures! LOL

It looks like the bottom line is: wild sheep contact with domestic sheep is a death sentence for the native animals.

If you look at history you'll see that the same thing happened with smallpox when Europeans came in contact with indigenous peoples in North America.

Wild sheep vs domestic sheep is another example where "progress" might not be the best thing!

Thanks for the read Mr GW!

Zeke
 
I really wonder what the impact would be if the sheep industry in idaho disappeared tomorrow. I think it might be minor at best. Let's face it, the $$ is the only benefit to our state/society. Cattle ranching is different just because of the scope of the size of the industry here.
 
AS a whole, based on 2010 figures, the US wool industry contributes about 35 million annually to the economy. The US produces less than 1% of wool worldwide. Texas of all states is the leading producer of wool followed by California and Wyoming.

Seems to me the elimination of public grazing in native sheep territory would have little economic impact.




The voices in my head may not be real, but they have
some good ideas!
 
There are a half dozen informed posts on this thread, you know who you are. The remainder either have an axe to grind, some other agenda, or perhaps attended public school in some poor Basque village in Tibet.
 
The Basque people are actually from Spain and France. Alot of them came to this country because of there knowledge and abilities with livestock, and helped make this nation what it is today. In Idaho alot of the herders come from Peru nowadays, for those of you misinformed on the subject.
I cant believe some of you would really choose ruining someones livelihood over hunting. Do any of you know where food in the grocery stores come from. Do you hate farmers and dairymen? When you turn on the lights, take a hot shower or pump the gas you put in your vehicles to go hunting do you realize what it takes to make this happen.Do you hate dams on rivers worse than these every day luxuries? I realize these have nothing to do with sheep but its the same principle behind it. People want it to be what it used to be like way back when but forget what it took to get where we are.
Dont get me wrong I think there is a way for both wild/domestic sheep herds to exist and its a very heated subject and I hope someday to see a solution just like all of you would. However, im for us humans surviving over trophy hunting! If it was somebody after your livelihood how would you see it?
 
It's always funny how folks that use natural resources on public lands, no matter what the resource, are always vocally in favor of "multiple use". As long as "their" particular use is predominant, to the detriment of all others.
 
The nations first forest service chief said that the national forests should be managed for the "greatest good for the greatest number for the longest period of time". Is that wrong?
 
My point exactly. That's multiple use. It involves compromise and common sense, principles that are in short supply these days.
 
>My point exactly. That's multiple
>use. It involves compromise
>and common sense, principles that
>are in short supply these
>days.


Multiple use at a competitive price. $1.35 per AUM is welfare.
 
On public land an AUM is usually considered one cow and calf, one horse or 7 sheep, so its even worse than it sounds.
 
> Colorado Oak
>
> Yeah that might be a
>slight exaggeration on the acreage.
>
>
> 6Speed
> What communities would be lost
>by limiting domestic sheep grazing
>on public in Idaho.
> Maybe some Basque village in
>Tibet


None, reread my post I said all grazing as some on here have implied. Regulating grazing is good eliminating it entirely would be bad. Also as some others have already said, buy a globe.
 
And hence the axe to grind.

Grazing domestic livestock in proximity to wild sheep and the biological issues involved has absolutely nothing to do with the price of an AUM.

You hate livestock on public lands, I get it. You make my point.

The bottom line is that we can have healthy wild game herds as well as properly managed livestock on public lands. It may involve spacial separation, development of vaccines, etc., but for certain it will involve compromise on all sides of the issue. Digging in because "livestock aren't charged enough and I don't like them sheep" or because wild sheep and recreational hunting are seen as less important than commodity production will get us nowhere.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-12 AT 10:45AM (MST)[p]I don't hate livestock if your refering to me, The issue gets muddled because its gets complicated,and its political.

Some believe that a persons right to make money on public land is more important than the publics desire to hunt or have wildlife on public land, in most cases you can have both to a certain extent, but wild and domestic sheep are incompatable. This post is telling how hunters feel about the livestock interests overpowering all other interests in the state of Idaho. In circomstances like this some bitterness about the minoritys power over the majority is understandable.
 
FOREST SERVICE: Agency halts plan to separate bighorn sheep from domestic herds in Idaho
(Monday, March 5, 2012)
Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

The Forest Service said it will cut short a plan to prevent domestic sheep from transmitting a deadly disease to their wild kin on Idaho's Payette National Forest.

The decision by Forest Supervisor Keith Lannom comes three months after Congress inserted a policy rider in an appropriations bill that barred the agency from further reducing the level of domestic sheep grazing on national forests, a move that angered wildlife advocates (Greenwire, Jan. 20).

Lannom's announcement halts a 2010 decision to reduce domestic grazing on the forest by 70 percent in order to reduce the risk of contact between the two species and prevent the transmission of fatal respiratory disease from domestic sheep and goats to bighorn sheep.

The agency last year implemented the first phase of the decision by reducing the amount of suitable grazing lands from about 100,000 acres to roughly 55,000 acres. The agency will no longer implement the final two phases, which would have reduced suitable acreage by more than 16,000 additional acres.

"The Payette National Forest has done an admirable job in balancing various interests while addressing this complex natural resource issue since 2005," said Regional Forester Harv Forsgren. "By halting implementation of the 2010 decision at the 2011 level in accordance with the 2012 Appropriations Act, Forest Supervisor Lannom continues the tradition of taking a balanced approach."

Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said he inserted the policy rider to prevent more sheep grazers from being driven off the national forests.

But Craig Gehrke, director of the Wilderness Society's Idaho office in Boise, said the rider followed more than five years of public involvement and undermined a consensus among wildlife biologists that domestic sheep and goats should be kept away from bighorn sheep and their habitat.

"Over the past decade bighorn sheep populations in the western U.S. have plummeted, in large part due to diseases contracted from domestic sheep grazing on public lands," Gehrke said in an email. Like early Native Americans who died from smallpox and measles transmitted by early Europeans, bighorns have no immunity to diseases carried by domestic sheep, he said.

The Forest Service today said its hands are tied.

"The forest is complying with the requirements of the act while at the same time providing a lowered risk of contact between the two species," Lannom said in a statement.

Simpson, who is the House's top appropriator for the Forest Service, in January told Greenwire he is unsure whether he will seek to extend the restrictions in the next budget bill.

He said he will wait to see whether scientists are successful in developing a vaccine that could inoculate bighorns from catching the pneumonia-like disease.

"We want to take a breather and see if the people working on the vaccine, if that's a viable alternative," he said. "Some scientists say they're getting close."

Gehrke said researchers warn an effective vaccine is as much as 15 years away.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

EBAF6D80-4552-4115-A784-F456537226A3.jpeg
deer.jpg
20230726_075046.jpg
IMG_2088.jpeg
resized 2.jpg
6B628439-F126-4D64-8F7D-C96FDE9F4841.jpeg
IMG_20161123_155032041_HDR[1].jpg
816EE39D-EC63-4720-A358-2A7033F4A8F9.jpeg
IMG_5339.jpeg
0C985589-1FC4-4FFB-8F49-8CD55700BCD2.jpeg
DSCN3100.JPG
1703775676686.png
Back
Top Bottom