Madison Valley landowner opposes wild sheep transplant

tallbuck1

Active Member
Messages
485
I also posted this under the montana state thread.


From Here: Http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/wildlife/article_f975e3e6-677e-11e3-ae53-001a4bcf887a.html

Here's the article:

Madison Valley landowner opposes wild sheep transplant Story Comments Print Create a hardcopy of this page Font Size: Default font size Larger font size Posted: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:15 am LAURA LUNDQUIST, Chronicle Staff Writer One of two proposed locations is no longer an option for transplanting bighorn sheep in the Madison Range. When the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission approved a plan last week to transplant up to 150 wild sheep from the Taylor-Hilgard area to a region farther north in the Madison Range, two transplant sites were still under consideration: Indian Creek and Wolf Creek. The wild sheep are being transplanted from a herd that has outgrown what the southern area can probably support, increasing the possibility of disease, especially in winter. Wolf Creek is now the project site after Indian Creek-area landowners Kate and Eric Roberts refused to allow FWP to cross their property to access the national forest. The Robertses have owned the 6,500-acre CB Cattle and Guest Ranch for more than four decades and provide access from the valley to the Indian Creek trailhead. They keep around 100 head of Angus cattle, and Kate Roberts said she was concerned about the wild sheep coming down to graze her property and eat her hay. One of the reasons for the southern herd's growth was that a local man was feeding them hay, Roberts said. ?I'm a big animal lover ? I love horses, dogs, cats, you name it. So I hate that I'm fighting these bighorn sheep,? Roberts said. ?We've had significant issues with elk, wolves and grizzly bears. (FWP) has not done a good job from my perspective of managing those animals. When they sat down with us in July and said they want to introduce another animal, we said, ?No, we don't trust you.'? When FWP published the wild sheep environmental assessment in September, the Indian Creek site was still under consideration and was the preferred site because it is farther ? around 19 miles - from the herd's origin. In September, biologist Julie Cunningham said one of two landowners still opposed the Indian Creek project. The supportive landowners are a California family who own the Wonder Ranch, east of the CB Ranch. The Robertses allow the family to use a CB Ranch road to access their property during the few weeks that they visit, but the CB Ranch 1971 deed includes no easement for the owners of the Wonder Ranch. The attorney for the owners of the 88-acre Wonder Ranch sent an email to FWP in support of the wild sheep transplant, Roberts said, but the Wonder Ranch does not have the authority to grant access to FWP through the CB Ranch. Roberts said she didn't comment on the environmental assessment. The Wolf Creek site, east of the Sun Ranch and the Rising Sun Estates subdivision, is around 11 miles from the herd's origin. ?Those people have open arms. We were opposed to it,? Roberts said. FWP Region 3 Supervisor Pat Flowers confirmed that Indian Creek is off the table just as biologists are preparing to begin capture operations this week. ?Both sites were still options but (the Robertses) won't grant us permission to enter their property. So we'll use Wolf Creek,? Flowers said.


I urge you all to do something.... I sent them an email through there ranch web page....

Tallbuck1
 
I'm a strong advocate of private property rights but this example seems strange for sure.
If the Robertsons are looking at it from an economic stance it would be a great benefit to have sheep in the area. They could charge the nimrods a hefty trespass fee when the FWP begins giving permits!
Good thing the FWP has another translocation option.
Zeke
 
....I sent them a donation and 2 boxes of 12ga OOB......they'll need both


When you go swimming in the ocean, it is very cold, and it makes my willy small
 
They run 100 head of cattle and they think the sheep are going to run them out of business? with 100 head they never were in business.


If there wasn't a plan B I bet FNAWS would pay them what they're after to make this happen.



Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-14 AT 11:46AM (MST)[p]Her quotes about mismanagement are pretty funny, and proves she has no clue... good luck changing her mind. She doesn't care about anything but herself, period.

Too bad the sheep are losing out.
 
Sorry I have to agree with her. I know this area well. I know the herd that they are taking the transplant from ec.. The MFWP has not done the kindest of jobs working with the landowners in that area. That is ground zero for every viable wildlife species in the state and the big predators. Gods country. Also it is not very far from the capture site. And a good chance that they are just gonna go back up valley to the capture sight. There are alot more places in the state that could use a herd boost than Wolf and Indian creeks. You also have to remember that because of the extreme rugged terrain. Those sheep will be out of the high country in October and wont go back up till April. So the rest of the time they are on the Landowners hay stacks. Sounds like they are good land stewards but the MFWP are not necessarily the best neighbor. Tough enough to make a living ranching these days without the MFWP stuffing another species down your throat.
 
Sheepeater

Did you read the EIS for the project? Just curious. The selected site (which was opposed by the landowner) was chosen due to its proximity to the capture site. The distance was assumed to be far enough away that the sheep would NOT likely return to the capture site. The second site, Wolf Creek, indicated a very high likely hood of the sheep returning to the capture site, but sheep were known to be there most recently in the mid 90's... The sheep in Indian Creek were presumed to have died from disease from domestic sheep, but I'm not sure if it was ever confirmed or just from recollection of local ranchers. The sheep that lived in Indian Creek, prior were assumed to be a separate herd from the ones at the Slide Inn.

Secondly, if I remember correctly from the EIS, the sheep they want to transplant are known to have survived a serious pneumonia outbreak in the 90s. Moving them to another area where they could come into contact with sheep who have not been exposed to the same strain was the primary concern for NOT moving them out of the Mad Range, and into another population. This is also a big concern for transplanting sheep anywhere. It's not quite so simple as to move sheep here to there.

The ranch in question has anywhere from 500-1500 elk on it throughout the winter, 2-300 antelope nearly year round, deer, etc. Yet they're somehow worried about a handful of sheep which might... maybe... possibly come down to their hayfield for a bite? ALL the haystacks within 10 miles of here are fenced out for the elk/deer/antelope already.

There is plenty of winter range these sheep could live in within the NF. The entire north side of Indian Creek, from the mouth upsteam about 4 miles, gets enough wind/sun in the winter to stay sufficiently bare. Portions of South Indian as well. With an estimated sustainable population of around 120-150 sheep, if I recall correctly from the EIS.

I know a bit about this area as well, born and raised there, have ties to ranching, and most of my family still lives there. As a matter of fact, a portion of the ranch in question used to be in my family.

The impacts realized by this transplant would be minimal to the landowner, IMO. In the end the sheep, hunters and the general public lose.

It would be interesting to note that the LO has permits for commercial use (grazing and guiding) on the national forest.

Also, more interesting... its for sale.

http://www.prumt.com/property/detail/191070
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom