Manti Sheep Overgrazing and Deforestation

Hunt4Elk6x6

Member
Messages
39
I wanted to put this out there to see what people's opinions generally are about the amount of sheep on this unit and if you are seeing overgrazing take place and affecting the habitat holding capacity for deer and elk. I'm sure this unit is not unique to an overabundance of sheep, but it is where I have grown up hunting and recreating and continue to do so. I have seen a lot change over the years and it seems to get worse every year with growing herds of sheep eating everything down to the dirt. I just spent some time on the archery hunt in this unit and it seems everywhere I turned there was another independent herd of sheep in just about every canyon. I even backpacked in several miles off the beaten path only to wake up opening morning to a herd of sheep moving into the canyon I was hunting. As a hunter and a public land user wanting to experience wild places and wild things, it can be really frustrating to watch the sheep have the run of the mountain while the rest of just have to put up with it. I'm sure some can relate, but I'm interested to hear your opinions and if anything can be done about it. I'm by no means wanting to ruffle feathers or cause an uproar on here.

Second topic: The forest service plans to move forward with a massive logging project to clear out 30,000+ acres of forest. As many familiar with the Manti know, bark beetles have killed much of the pines on the unit. Though I understand it to be a problem with some sort of remedy needed, why wasn't any preventative action taken years ago to stop the spreading of the bark beetle problem? The Forest Service just let it take its course and devastate the forest. Perhaps somebody with better knowledge in the subject of botany, etc. might be able to enlighten me. Here is a link to Salt Lake Tribune article detailing the plan and also a link to the Forest Service's Final Decision outline.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2019/06/04/forest-service-unveils/

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=52899

I guess what I'm getting at is this: I'm frustrated. I have spent my entire life enjoying this area making memories as a kid with my Dad, having family camping trips, learning how to hunt and fish here, etc. I continue to spend a lot of time on this unit. I've watched as deer numbers have declined and sheep herds increase. I've watched a forest be devastated by an invasive beetle while the Forest Service just stood by. I've watched as prime hunting spots have been logged and landscapes altered and ruined in the past as they have left behind old logging roads for every four wheeler and side by side to use now in areas that once held no roads and lots of wildlife. I've watched public land be sold and posted for private use. I feel like we as the public are continually being stripped of these lands and the opportunities that once came with them. I'll always have the memories I've made over my lifetime on this unit, but I won't be able to make those same memories with my kids or share the same places, camping spots, hunting areas with them as my Dad did with me and his Dad before him. It is all about to be logged and destroyed. Where are all the deer and elk that occupy this area going to go now that their habitat and shelter is being cut down and destroyed? The quality of bucks and bulls are going to suffer tremendously. Maybe it's true, and maybe it isn't, but I can foresee an increase of animals on rancher's and farmer's lands as a result of this and those people growing frustrated with them eating their crops, etc. and thus killing them off and further depleting the population.

I appreciate you reading my rant, but I had to get it out there and off my chest as the negative impact hits in this unit just seem unceasing year after year. Perhaps some will agree and some won't, but I'm interested in any constructive feedback or opinions, but please be courteous and considerate of differing comments/opinions. Thanks!

95719manti.jpg
 
Sheep have been on the Manti mnts for over 100 years. Prior to the Taylor grazing act in the 1930?s there were many times more sheep on the land throughout the west. And cattle. What I think you are seeing is sheep on a rest/rotation cycle that is different than what you are used to, and they just seem to be more than when you have seen them before. As a rancher I can firmly attest that the BLM and FS rarely, IF EVER, increase grazing permits. They will cut your permits very quickly but in my 50+ years I have yet to see an increase on ANYONE I know or associate with in the Utah cattlemen's association. Please remember that grass and browse have evolved for thousands of years to be eaten my ungulates. Just like the pine beetle problem, healthy grass lands need to be grazed or they will just become a fuel source.
I will now sit back and watch as non rancher ?experts? like Grizzly tell you how worthless ranchers are and how we should be exterminated. Even though we OWN the right to graze grass on federal and state land. While your frustration with sheep is understandable, your recreation is not the same as other public land users whose livelihood depends on one check a year when they sell calves or lambs. I hope you can work with agriculture and federal land managers in a spirit of cooperation and have a fine hunting season. This year and the years to come. Feel free to PM me if you have more questions. And I'd love to invite you to our ranch to see firsthand the many benefits ranchers provide for wildlife.
 
As for the Sheep I don't think there is any more this year than any other year. The Manti has always had a lot of sheep. As for the overgrazing, if you are witnessing it start making phone calls. Someone is not doing there job.

The Forest Restoration project is long overdue. It's funny what years of Mis-Management will do to the forest.
 
And that's the mentality right there that I cannot stand with cattle grazers. You think because you OWN the right, that means you have MORE right to the land than anyone else has who might also use those same public?s lands as well. I hope they continue cutting your grazing quotas. Nothing pleases me more than to see freeloading public land moochers limited more and more from raping a public area and a public resource.

@screaminseagull
 
deerkiller attitudes like that is the reason most private property is not available for access to hunters like it was back in the 1970 and 1980.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-19 AT 07:26PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-19 AT 07:03?PM (MST)

>And that's the mentality right there
>that I cannot stand with
>cattle grazers. You think because
>you OWN the right, that
>means you have MORE right
>to the land than anyone
>else has who might also
>use those same public?s lands
>as well. I hope they
>continue cutting your grazing quotas.
>Nothing pleases me more than
>to see freeloading public land
>moochers limited more and more
>from raping a public area
>and a public resource.
>
>@screaminseagull


I am editing this to delete what I said pissed off. Deerkiller you have no idea what you are talking about. You come across as jealous of landowners and ignorant as to the many benefits agriculture gives to wildlife and sportsmen. You throw out blanket accusations without merit and you try and put words in my mouth that i simply didn't say. NEVER did I say I have MORE right to public land than anyone else!!! So stop lying please. I sent you a PM with an invitation to come see a working ranch and how it benefits livestock and wildlife. But I have little hope of hearing from you. Your kind simply bitches and whines and does nothing to solve anything. Sorry for trying to answer a guys question civilly and for highjacking this thread.
 
>And that's the mentality right there
>that I cannot stand with
>cattle grazers. You think because
>you OWN the right, that
>means you have MORE right
>to the land than anyone
>else has who might also
>use those same public?s lands
>as well. I hope they
>continue cutting your grazing quotas.
>Nothing pleases me more than
>to see freeloading public land
>moochers limited more and more
>from raping a public area
>and a public resource.
>
>@screaminseagull

Wow, carful your next hamburger does not get stuck in your throat.
 
I think the herds have increased over the last ten or so years, and last year they kept them up there longer and payed for it as the snow dumped on the on the elk hunt which stranded them on skyline. It drives me crazy the trash the sheep herders leave behind, every where you turn there's an empty bag of salt and a hollowed out log by it( I know there's also a lot of trash and beer cans lying around from others, which is wrong also)
Last year the ranchers built a new holding/loading pen just north of the orangeville road and the put up a cable so nobody could get access, this has been a last resort camping spot if everything else is full, called the forest service and they said the ranchers couldn't block it but it's still there, the forest service is there to just collect a paycheck, if they weren't they'd crack down on the rv?s being left up there from August to october up there.
In the end I can't not hunt up there as I just love being up there too much.
 
My favorite part of your clueless rant is the fact you haven't owned a single cow or sheep or hamster and you gaul to tell me how to ranch? Maybe I should come down to Taco Bell and tell you how to clean toilets?
 
>My favorite part of your clueless
>rant is the fact you
>haven't owned a single cow
>or sheep or hamster and
>you gaul to tell me
>how to ranch? Maybe I
>should come down to Taco
>Bell and tell you how
>to clean toilets?


LMAO!!
 
>Wow, carful your next hamburger does
>not get stuck in your
>throat.

The 3 elk I shoot every year supplies me with enough hamburger, I don't need any store bought crap.

I'm in no way jealous of land owners or ranchers. I hunt public land, and I've seen nothing but negatives come from the freeloader grazers on public land. I'm entitled to my opinion, just as you are yours.
@screaminseagull
 
>My favorite part of your clueless
>rant is the fact you
>haven't owned a single cow
>or sheep or hamster and
>you gaul to tell me
>how to ranch? Maybe I
>should come down to Taco
>Bell and tell you how
>to clean toilets?
How do you know what animals I or my family own? Haha I've owned plenty of livestock and other animals in my life. I didn't need a public area to feed my animals either. Although I do love Taco Bell from time to time, their chicken quesadillas are awesome, I've never worked there.

@screaminseagull
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-19 AT 08:54PM (MST)[p]Deerkiller I am not saying you do not have a right to your opinion and I do not think others are saying that either, but your opinion is just ignorant.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-19
>AT 08:54?PM (MST)

>
>Deerkiller I am not saying you
>do not have a right
>to your opinion and I
>do not think others are
>saying that either, but your
>opinion is just ignorant.

And that's your opinion! I think it's pretty accurate based off the several encounters I've had with ranches and livestock owners who run on public land
@screaminseagull
 
Sheep can remove the fire fuel or the whole forest can burn up in one big blaze. ME I would rather see it grazed off.
BUT not grazed to dirt.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
I know for a fact the number of sheep have not increased. Back in the early 90 they cut numbers of sheep back. In the early 2000 some of the permits where taken away. Also sheep used go up in middle of June and stay till the October deer hunt. Now its July till 1st of October. As for the timber sale they are also selling both sides of the skyline for companies to make firewood bundles sold at gas stations and groceries stores. I'm not excited about how the hunting may change.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-19 AT 11:03PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-19 AT 11:02?PM (MST)

It is really hard for any livestock operations too increase there numbers of cattle/sheep from one year to the next, cattle/sheep do not just magically appear in the corral it takes years too increase the numbers of critters. There is not many ranch operations that has the cash flow to go out and buy the livestock that would drastically increase the numbers of critters on the mountain.
The forest service cuts numbers of livestock more often than increase and considering we are not officially out of a drought I would really doubt the forest service would increase the numbers this year.
The question or accusation that the forest service did nothing too control the bark beetle is not completely accurate. In the 90s the forest service was took to court by California environmentalists to stop the logging of the infected spruce trees.
 
People complain about the beetles that the forest service doesn't let nature take its course "thus fires" then they complain when they do control burns and then they say the idiots let it get out of control?... Sheep have been grazing there over a 100 years and if they're not overgrazed in an area it is VERY good for the sage brush. they grow new shoots which have a lot more nutrients thus more horn growth. Looks at the 1920s to 1960s when sheep were everywhere and take a look at those big bucks. Have a few different plans to fall back on change will never stop. If you don't like the policies quit voting these yayhoos in.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-29-19 AT 10:47AM (MST)[p]>Sheep can remove the fire fuel
>or the whole forest can
>burn up in one big
>blaze. ME I would rather
>see it grazed off.
>BUT not grazed to dirt
That doesn't matter at all when the land managers just allow any and every fire to be a ?controlled burn? at first, then it gets out of hand and the whole damn place burns to the ground
@screaminseagull
 
As a public land owner like everyone else, I think our public resource is in a pretty bad state. You just have to wonder how in the hell did our forests manage themselves for thousands of years before the good old Forest Service, sheep and cattle came along??? It's a miracle there was a single tree standing in the forest when the pioneers rolled into Utah. In fact I think it was the pioneers' sheep that sh*t out the seeds that planted our current forests in what was a vast and barren mountainous grassland.

All BS-ing aside, it's a bit frustrating to think about the devastation of every north facing slope that this logging effort will have. Maybe our great-grandchildren will have a better more healthy forest I guess. The most frustrating thing is how this could have been prevented a lot easier than letting it go to pot then clear cutting everything for a healthy profit. Where's my share of the profit from selling our public resources? My taxes better damn well go down. This will also displace the wildlife, cause massive erosion, and add more roads for the lazy road hunters to clean up all the remaining two points. Most importantly though, how will our beloved Bolivian sheep herders feed themselves all summer when they can't shoot a deer every week because the deer are all gone?
 
Without logging and cleaning it up, what would you suggest? Let it fall over to the point you can't walk through it for 50 years until it all finally makes its way to the ground and rots? In the meantime, you won't be seeing much for new growth. Logging will cut a hundred year cycle down 20 years.
 
>Without logging and cleaning it up,
> what would you suggest?
>Let it fall over to
>the point you can't walk
>through it for 50 years
>until it all finally makes
>its way to the ground
>and rots? In the meantime,
>you won't be seeing much
>for new growth. Logging will
>cut a hundred year cycle
>down 20 years.

"Down 20 years"? So 80 years instead of 100?

The point is they could have prevented this extent of logging and are now forced to destroy 30,000+ acres of great wildlife habitat because they didn't "manage" the forests for decades. Let's hope they don't screw it up and leave a huge mess like I've seen most logging companies do.
 
The problem with most of the mountain west is the national forests are old over grown forests it is not the forest service fault what more could have they did they tried to log more but environmentalists would not allow it.
Through the years they have had many logging operations on the Manti and the Fish Lake forests and from what I have saw it has been pretty top notch operations. The forest cleaned up definitely looks better.
I am positive that the animal's will like it alot better when some quality food can grow again.
Even if they removed 50 thousand acres of old pine forest there would be plenty acreage of timber forest for the elk and deer to hide.
4ormore Too claim the hill sides will erode away is flat out BS. You name me one place that has been logged in the last 30 years that had turned out as bad as you claim.
 
>>Without logging and cleaning it up,
>> what would you suggest?
>>Let it fall over to
>>the point you can't walk
>>through it for 50 years
>>until it all finally makes
>>its way to the ground
>>and rots? In the meantime,
>>you won't be seeing much
>>for new growth. Logging will
>>cut a hundred year cycle
>>down 20 years.
>
>"Down 20 years"? So 80 years
>instead of 100?
>
>The point is they could have
>prevented this extent of logging
>and are now forced to
>destroy 30,000+ acres of great
>wildlife habitat because they didn't
>"manage" the forests for decades.
> Let's hope they don't
>screw it up and leave
>a huge mess like I've
>seen most logging companies do.
>

Yeah, missed a word there. Should have said down TO 20 years instead of a hundred.
I totally agree with you that it should have been logged many years ago, back when the beetle issues first surfaced. As I recall, there was an article some years ago about the environmentalists filing lawsuits to halt bidding for lumber harvest on the Manti because it would displace owls. If I remember correctly, the FS was figuring 9 million board feet of lumber that they were unable to bid out in timber sales? I have personally been involved in selective harvest of lodgepole on private ground under the direction of a biologist and within a few years, the results were amazing. New tree growth, feed growth that never existed before because too many trees wouldn't allow it and overall health of the area. A perfect example of management is the Duck Creek area of Cedar mountain, south of the BrianHead blaze. Thinning and clearing the past few years has encouraged new growth and the areas that have been thinned and the undergrowth cleared look amazing. Now as far as the grazing issue, despite what some claim, is good management for the forest. Ranchers (most) won't sh!t in there own nest and are very good stewards because their livelihood depends on it but I have seen overgrazing, particularly on dry years.
 
A lot of those sheep belong to some second cousins of mine. I also am friends with a few others running sheep.

In fact we bought 7 mutton that will feed our hunting camps the next month or so.

I support grazing. In fact most Saturdays on the muzzy deer hint when they push off the mtns., i try to get a high spot so i can watch the dogs work.

Now as to logging. Years ago Satterwhites tried logging beetle kill. It wasn't bad forest management that stopped it. It was the courts.

That's my frustration. Rob Bishop is the ranking member, and was for years the chair of NR. We have Mike Lee. Instead of the wrongheaded and stupid idea of "transfer" they could have devoted time to limiting management via courts. They could push hard for tort reform in this arena. Trump even suggested doing something last year. Instead, they did and do nothing.

There are entire drainages that are devoid of big game simply because of the massive amount of lumber lying on the ground, suffocating plant growth.

Sad that you have to hope for a fire to fix what the courts broke years ago.





"I don't care if the season is closed. Get off your butt and go hunt them"

TRISTATE
3/11/19

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Watch "Un Branded" on prime video. There's only one animal in Utah that overgraze our public land. When someone ignorantly accuses a rancher or overgrazing, they loose all credibility in my book. First off, why would a rancher ever in a million years want to overgraze his permitted land. Overgrazing causes irreparable damage so flora won't grow back. NO RANCHER IN THE STATE WOULD EVER WANT TO DO THAT! None have that I know, certainly none on the Manti. Especially with all the snow we had this year. Ranchers depend on grazing year after year. they would literally put themselves out of business if they did overgraze. Fact is, 50 years ago there were around 250% more sheep on the manti than there is now. Look it up. It's not because they over grazed it that there aren't that many now.

Grazing helps the manti much more than it hurts. Conservation groups purchased grazing permits in a few areas a couple decades ago thinking it would help wildlife populations. It backfired. They learned several reasons why grazing is beneficial. Talk to any DWR Biologist about grazing and the good it does.

My only advice to this matter is get educated! The last thing we need are hunters sounding like eco terrorists.
 
hoss did Mike Lee kick your dog or something.
"Just kidding"
I agree with you, Lee and Bishop could get things done if they would work on something that could help Utahns and stop beating a dead horse.
 
>Watch "Un Branded" on prime video.
>There's only one animal in
>Utah that overgraze our public
>land. When someone ignorantly accuses
>a rancher or overgrazing, they
>loose all credibility in my
>book. First off, why would
>a rancher ever in a
>million years want to overgraze
>his permitted land. Overgrazing causes
>irreparable damage so flora won't
>grow back. NO RANCHER IN
>THE STATE WOULD EVER WANT
>TO DO THAT! None have
>that I know, certainly none
>on the Manti. Especially with
>all the snow we had
>this year. Ranchers depend on
>grazing year after year. they
>would literally put themselves out
>of business if they did
>overgraze. Fact is, 50 years
>ago there were around 250%
>more sheep on the manti
>than there is now. Look
>it up. It's not because
>they over grazed it that
>there aren't that many now.
>
>
>Grazing helps the manti much more
>than it hurts. Conservation groups
>purchased grazing permits in a
>few areas a couple decades
>ago thinking it would help
>wildlife populations. It backfired. They
>learned several reasons why grazing
>is beneficial. Talk to any
>DWR Biologist about grazing and
>the good it does.
>
>My only advice to this matter
>is get educated! The last
>thing we need are hunters
>sounding like eco terrorists.

I whole heartedly agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
>hoss did Mike Lee kick your
>dog or something.
>"Just kidding"
>I agree with you, Lee and
>Bishop could get things done
>if they would work on
>something that could help Utahns
>and stop beating a dead
>horse.


No. He'd have to be in Utah to do that.

I just read. He seems to have time for prison reform, Fox news, and grandstanding.

I have been on the Manti for 42 years thus fall. Like much of our forests, bark beetle has ravaged it. You can't hunt deadfall. You can't graze it. You can't ATV it. Seems like perhaps this is an issue affecting thousands of his constituents. What has he done? Not a dang thing. Neither did Bishop. They will both grandstand on bad forest management, and how the state's can do better. Neither can say how. How to pay for it, or how to fix it.

Because they don't really care about an issue that doesn't bring in the cash.

Us poor Manti hunters and grazers don't have lobbyists. We don't fund campaigns. We aren't of a concern for Lee, or Bishop.


"I don't care if the season is closed. Get off your butt and go hunt them"

TRISTATE
3/11/19

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Deerkiller you really need to open your eye's and read this (who really own's the land and who really supports the cattlemen)your pissed off at the wrong people.

The Forest Service supports livestock grazing on National Forest System lands (National Forests and Grasslands). We believe that livestock grazing on these lands, if responsibly done, provides a valuable resource to the livestock owners as well as the American people.

While the Forest Reserves were originally established to protect timberlands and watersheds, it was recognized early in the history of the Reserves (later National Forests) that grazing was a legitimate use. In 1897, the newly formed Forest Service was authorized by Congress to regulate grazing and permit it as long as it did not injure forest growth. The agency's controls (permits, herd size, allotments, season of use) were attempts to protect the resource and prevent the monopolization by large outfits (Rowley 1985).

The Forest Service has supported controlled livestock grazing since the very early days of the agency. The earliest version of published policy of the Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 1905), stated:


?The Forest Service will allow the use of the forage crop of the reserves as fully as the proper care and protection of the forests and the water supply permits. In new forest reserves where the livestock industry is of special importance, full grazing privileges will be given at first, and if reduction in number is afterwards found necessary, stockmen will be given ample opportunity to adjust their business to the new conditions. Every effort will be made to assist the stock owners to a satisfactory distribution of stock on the range in order to secure greater harmony among citizens, to reduce the waste of forage by tramping in unnecessary movement of stock, and to obtain a more permanent, judicious, and profitable use of the range. The leading objects of the grazing regulations are:
1.The protection and conservative use of all forest reserve land adapted for grazing.
2.The best permanent good of the live-stock industry through proper care and improvement of the grazing lands.
3.The protection of the settler and home builder against unfair competition in the use of the range.?

By the 1936 edition of the policies, it was recognized that the "cattle and sheep which are grazed in the national forests bear an important relation to the supply of beef and mutton in this country, and represent an important industry and basis for established homes and every effort will be made by forest officers to promote the fullest possible use of grazing resources." (USDA Forest Service 1936)

While the relationship between the National Forests and the country's beef and mutton, and more recently lamb, supply declined in the 2nd half of the 20th century, livestock grazing remains an important and valid use of our national forests. According to the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, "It is the policy of the Congress that the National Forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes." Current Forest Service objectives for the range management program are:
1.To manage range vegetation to protect basic soil and water resources, provide for ecological diversity, improve or maintain environmental quality, and meet public needs for interrelated resource uses.
2.To integrate management of range vegetation with other resource programs to achieve multiple use objectives contained in Forest land and resource management plans.
3.To provide for livestock forage, wildlife food and habitat, outdoor recreation, and other resource values dependent on range vegetation.
4.To contribute to the economic and social well being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depends on range resources for their livelihood.
5.To provide expertise on range ecology, botany, and management of grazing animals.

It was never the intent of the Congress that all uses would occur on all areas. Individual forests determine what uses are feasible and appropriate for different areas through the development and revision of the Land and Resource Management Plans. Once a determination has been made that grazing is feasible and appropriate for an area, grazing is planned and managed taking into consideration all the other uses of the area.

The modern history of the west is very closely tied to livestock grazing. During the 1800's large ranching operations were established using the free forage available on unmanaged and unclaimed public domain lands. While the dominance of these cattle and sheep "empires" declined after restrictions on grazing began to occur in the early part of the 20th century, much of the custom and culture of the rural west is still very closely tied to ranching. Many rural communities continue to be dependent upon ranching for their economic livelihood and most of these ranches rely on federal land grazing, either on BLM managed lands or on National Forests, for at least a portion of the grazing.

It is the Forest Service's goal to conserve the rich resources of the National Forests and Grasslands while supporting communities greatly dependent upon these very same resources. While grazing is an important use, we will continue to move forward with improving our management and preventing degradation of soil, water, and vegetation.
 
I appreciate the feedback and opinions offered and that some, not all, kept it pretty civil. I can only offer my opinion based on what I have seen and I have spent plenty of years on the Manti. To be called an eco terrorist is not fair, and frankly, just plain stupid. I have a love affair with all things outdoors, not just hunting. It is my opinion, which I, as well as all of you, are entitled to that the forest managed itself just fine for many many years before we came along and decided to mess with it with our "educated" ideas and so-called management. How do you tell nature that you have better ideas than what it has been doing for millions of years? In addition, I'm not a fan of our public lands being an extension of private ranchland so ranchers and the Forest Service can make a buck at the rest of the public's expense and enjoyment. I didn't choose to be a rancher or run sheep for a living, so why do I need to put up with it because you chose to do it? If that is the way you want to make your living, that's fine, but do it on your land not the public's. I know you "own the right," but I don't have to agree with it. I gave this analogy to DesertRanch in a PM, but if I collected cars and sold them for a living, but didn't have a car lot to store them all in and instead decided to start parking them all in everyone else's driveways and garages, wouldn't that start to ruffle your feathers too? In short, this is my opinion whether you agree with it or not. There are plenty of other people who I have spoken to on the mountain that whole-heartedly agree with me, but I want all others who don't agree with it to know that I respect their opinion just like I expect you to respect mine. Agree to disagree if you will. Again, I appreciate everyone's feedback and here's to hoping we can all have a cordial and respectful relationship moving forward as we share our public lands.
 
>I appreciate the feedback and opinions
>offered and that some, not
>all, kept it pretty civil.
>I can only offer my
>opinion based on what I
>have seen and I have
>spent plenty of years on
>the Manti. To be called
>an eco terrorist is not
>fair, and frankly, just plain
>stupid. I have a love
>affair with all things outdoors,
>not just hunting. It is
>my opinion, which I, as
>well as all of you,
>are entitled to that the
>forest managed itself just fine
>for many many years before
>we came along and decided
>to mess with it with
>our "educated" ideas and so-called
>management. How do you tell
>nature that you have better
>ideas than what it has
>been doing for millions of
>years? In addition, I'm not
>a fan of our public
>lands being an extension of
>private ranchland so ranchers and
>the Forest Service can make
>a buck at the rest
>of the public's expense and
>enjoyment. I didn't choose to
>be a rancher or run
>sheep for a living, so
>why do I need to
>put up with it because
>you chose to do it?
>If that is the way
>you want to make your
>living, that's fine, but do
>it on your land not
>the public's. I know you
>"own the right," but I
>don't have to agree with
>it. I gave this analogy
>to DesertRanch in a PM,
>but if I collected cars
>and sold them for a
>living, but didn't have a
>car lot to store them
>all in and instead decided
>to start parking them all
>in everyone else's driveways and
>garages, wouldn't that start to
>ruffle your feathers too? In
>short, this is my opinion
>whether you agree with it
>or not. There are plenty
>of other people who I
>have spoken to on the
>mountain that whole-heartedly agree with
>me, but I want all
>others who don't agree with
>it to know that I
>respect their opinion just like
>I expect you to respect
>mine. Agree to disagree if
>you will. Again, I appreciate
>everyone's feedback and here's to
>hoping we can all have
>a cordial and respectful relationship
>moving forward as we share
>our public lands.

You've spent many years on the manti? I live on the manti! I'm 6th generation Sanpete. Hunting and camping on it for a few weeks every year doesn't give you the right to tell the people who live, work and rely on those mountains to leave. Forests didn't manage themselves before man in sense of the word. Now that man is here we have no choice but to responsibly manage it.
 
>>I appreciate the feedback and opinions
>>offered and that some, not
>>all, kept it pretty civil.
>>I can only offer my
>>opinion based on what I
>>have seen and I have
>>spent plenty of years on
>>the Manti. To be called
>>an eco terrorist is not
>>fair, and frankly, just plain
>>stupid. I have a love
>>affair with all things outdoors,
>>not just hunting. It is
>>my opinion, which I, as
>>well as all of you,
>>are entitled to that the
>>forest managed itself just fine
>>for many many years before
>>we came along and decided
>>to mess with it with
>>our "educated" ideas and so-called
>>management. How do you tell
>>nature that you have better
>>ideas than what it has
>>been doing for millions of
>>years? In addition, I'm not
>>a fan of our public
>>lands being an extension of
>>private ranchland so ranchers and
>>the Forest Service can make
>>a buck at the rest
>>of the public's expense and
>>enjoyment. I didn't choose to
>>be a rancher or run
>>sheep for a living, so
>>why do I need to
>>put up with it because
>>you chose to do it?
>>If that is the way
>>you want to make your
>>living, that's fine, but do
>>it on your land not
>>the public's. I know you
>>"own the right," but I
>>don't have to agree with
>>it. I gave this analogy
>>to DesertRanch in a PM,
>>but if I collected cars
>>and sold them for a
>>living, but didn't have a
>>car lot to store them
>>all in and instead decided
>>to start parking them all
>>in everyone else's driveways and
>>garages, wouldn't that start to
>>ruffle your feathers too? In
>>short, this is my opinion
>>whether you agree with it
>>or not. There are plenty
>>of other people who I
>>have spoken to on the
>>mountain that whole-heartedly agree with
>>me, but I want all
>>others who don't agree with
>>it to know that I
>>respect their opinion just like
>>I expect you to respect
>>mine. Agree to disagree if
>>you will. Again, I appreciate
>>everyone's feedback and here's to
>>hoping we can all have
>>a cordial and respectful relationship
>>moving forward as we share
>>our public lands.
>
>You've spent many years on the
>manti? I live on the
>manti! I'm 6th generation Sanpete.
>Hunting and camping on it
>for a few weeks every
>year doesn't give you the
>right to tell the people
>who live, work and rely
>on those mountains to leave.
>Forests didn't manage themselves before
>man in sense of the
>word. Now that man is
>here we have no choice
>but to responsibly manage it.
>


My friend. On my mom's side, my family were the first into Sanpete valley. On my dad's side they own tons of West Mt Pleasant and run sheep all over the manti.

I support grazing 100%.

But your wrong. On public land, the guy who camps there 2 weeks a year is every bit equal in his opinion to 6th generation sanpeters. Not in local government, private land, etc, but on FS on the Manti, your opinion carries no more weight than mine, or John Doe.

I think the OP is wrong.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Thanks for proving my point Hoss. You got one thing very wrong about your statement. The Sanpete ranger district and the DWR Great Basin Research Center is in Ephraim, not the Wasatch front. We live, work and are friends with the very people who assess and control these decisions, so yes my opinion is 1000000% more valuable than your's or his. Your relatives west of Mt Pleasant are probably my friends too, and would be on my side in this matter. Reading your comments above you are too. The Forest Service gets complaints all the time about grazing from clueless campers. What do you think comes from it? 99.9998% of the time nothing at all.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-10-19 AT 04:53PM (MST)[p]>Thanks for proving my point Hoss.
>You got one thing very
>wrong about your statement. The
>Sanpete ranger district and the
>DWR Great Basin Research Center
>is in Ephraim, not the
>Wasatch front. We live, work
>and are friends with the
>very people who assess and
>control these decisions, so yes
>my opinion is 1000000% more
>valuable than your's or his.
>Your relatives west of Mt
>Pleasant are probably my friends
>too, and would be on
>my side in this matter.
>Reading your comments above you
>are too. The Forest Service
>gets complaints all the time
>about grazing from clueless campers.
>What do you think comes
>from it? 99.9998% of the
>time nothing at all.


I'm well aware where both are.

Your still wrong. YOUR comments to the Rangers or BLM are as meaningless as a banker in SLC.

The FS/BLM job is to manage the resource for what's best for the resource,not what's best for sheep, camping, atv or whatever.

I support it 100%. Like I said.

BUT, those "campers" compromise a much bigger and more valuable industry than sheep do in UTAH. Times have changed. Thats just a reality.


Sanpete/Utah county was on fire last year. The cost to fight it was shared amongst everyone in the state(on state side), whole nation on FS/BLM side. No one in Logan got to give you the bird because it wasn't a local problem for them. Just like locals don't get to give outsiders the bird on management.

Pretty sure everyone involved wants to see the dead trees put to better use.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
It's easy to take a look, form an opinion and point a finger. But fact is, public land management is extremely complex. Everybody likes to bash the FS, but they're just like the DWR - they don't make the decisions; they just execute the decisions made by We, the People, for better or worse. And just like the DWR, the FS is constrained by a management plan.

I agree with the OP. For example, the current MP permits 800 sheep in Potters from July thru the end of September. I was last there in August and I didn't actually count, but I'm damn sure there were a lot more than 800 sheep there. But let's get real. Sheep don't understand management plans and sheepherders only understand what they're told to do.

Meanwhile, the MP considers native plant diversity, bare soil levels, riparian conditions and aspen recruitment. Conflicts with hunters isn't a consideration and I'd argue that it shouldn't be. If you disagree, get involved.

As for logging - yes, environmental lawsuits have been a pain in the butt. But I know of 2 operations that went broke trying to make a profit logging the Manti. The logs they cut are still setting there in piles, awaiting transport. Transport by semi-tractor...to where?

I love the Manti and I have a half-century of hunting and fishing history there. But straight up - those memories are gone and will not return. It isn't the fault of the USFS. It isn't the fault of Rob Bishop (much as I hate the plick). It's our fault because we won't work together, we won't fund the USFS as we should and we won't respect the multiple user mandate of our public lands.
 
"We" is Rob Bishop. He was great at starving FS budgets to purposely create maintenance issues. It was done to give fire to the "states can do better" crowd.

The reality is beetle kill destroyed the Manti. Too much is laying on the floor, forcing livestock and game off vast stretches of unusable ground.

We limit hunters, we limit sheep. ATV tourism is the gorilla in the room there now. Yet another result of our cut tags, loose 150,000 hunters. Sanpete county found another revenue stream to replace the lost hunter revenues.





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom