+- Pack Goat Central (https://www.packgoatcentral.com/forums)
+-- Forum: News (https://www.packgoatcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Forum: NAPgA News and Land Use Issues (https://www.packgoatcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+--- Thread: Packgoats As An Asset (/showthread.php?tid=209)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Packgoats As An Asset - vigilguy - 04-03-2014
Thank you very much, Saph, for your response. I value and appreciate your experience that you bring to the group.
I am venting here, because I feel like we are being bullied. I honestly thought that the US Forest Service would use credible resources to support their claim about concerns about goats, but they have not. We have seen them use resources used that have been retracted by the Deputy Chief of the Forest Service, information used by illegal committees, etc. The Wool Growers successfully defended their case in Idaho and won their case against the Forest Service. So it irks me that the Shoshone National Forest is trying to use old information that was thrown out of court. If they had done their homework and provided accurate scientific based evidence, I would have more respect for them. But they have not. So that is why I feel they are are pushing an agenda that makes absolutely no sense. I am more concerned about the Bighorn Sheep herds dying of selenium deficiency than I am of exposing them to packgoats.
I am good friends with John M., and he has decided to side with the Forest Service and the Game and Fish. i do not bring that up, as i want to remain friends with him. He and I have talked at length about the Selenium issue.
RE: Packgoats As An Asset - Saph - 04-03-2014
Charlie, have you read the latest news on the Wool Growers lawsuit in Idaho? Unless you know something that I don't, this does not bode well. I posted this same link in a another thread about the Shoshone closure.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/03/26/3102236/federal-judge-upholds-payette.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1
http://www.idahocountyfreepress.com/news/2014/apr/02/payettes-sheep-grazing-closures-upheld-court/
A federal judge upheld the decision by the Payette National Forest to close 70 percent of the forest to domestic sheep grazing to protect wild bighorn sheep.
U.S. 9th Circuit Judge Wallace Tashima denied a motion by the Idaho Wool Growers Association to overturn the 2010 decision by Payette National Forest Supervisor Suzanne Rainville aimed at separating domestic and bighorn sheep. Tashima ruled the Forest Service had followed the preponderance of evidence that domestic sheep carry diseases to the wild sheep populations.
The dispute began in 2007 when District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ordered ranchers to move their sheep off of five allotments on the Payette National Forest in Hells Canyon. The Forest Service was ordered to complete an environmental impact statement on sheep grazing in bighorn habitat.
The Wool Growers had used all its political might to try to delay and head off the Forest Service’s decision to close off the domestic sheep habitat, which came out of the EIS. Under pressure from Gov. Butch Otter and lawmakers, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game clarified its policy to kill bighorns if necessary when they mix with domestic sheep.
Three sheep ranchers - the Shirts Brothers, Carlson Co. and the Soulens - were affected by the decision and participated in the lawsuit. The Colorado Wool Growers Association also joined in the lawsuit because it has the most overlap between wild bighorn habitat and domestic sheep.
The Forest Service’s policy of doing a risk assessment of possible contact between domestic and wild sheep is now supported in federal court, said Craig Gehrke, Wilderness Society Idaho representative, who fought for the ruling for years to protect bighorns in the Hells Canyon Recreation Area.
The other area where this could have an impact in Idaho is in the Palisades Mountains and Tetons in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. There, Idaho Republican Sen. Jeff Siddoway and his family have grazed sheep for generations.
RE: Packgoats As An Asset - Nanno - 04-03-2014
(04-03-2014, 01:14 PM)vigilguy Wrote: Thank you very much, Saph, for your response. I value and appreciate your experience that you bring to the group.
I agree! Thanks so much.
Quote:I am good friends with John M., and he has decided to side with the Forest Service and the Game and Fish. i do not bring that up, as i want to remain friends with him. He and I have talked at length about the Selenium issue.
I'll bet this carries a lot of weight with the Forest Service. If the founder of modern goat packing is against having goats in Bighorn territory, then they've got a pretty good hand they're playing. What's John's reasoning, do you know?
And just so I'm not totally off-topic, another reason packgoats are a great asset is because their upkeep is minimal compared to other pack animals, and not just when they're on the trail. A pack animal has to be maintained during the off-season. Horses and mules are the most popular pack animals, yet they have the largest environmental footprint because they consume so much hay and water and require a lot of acreage if they are to stay healthy and get enough exercise. Goats, on the other hand, are comparatively easy to feed and house. They also don't require the use of a huge truck and trailer for getting to and from the trails.
RE: Packgoats As An Asset - vigilguy - 04-03-2014
(04-03-2014, 01:45 PM)Saph Wrote: Charlie, have you read the latest news on the Wool Growers lawsuit in Idaho? Unless you know something that I don't, this does not bode well. I posted a link in a another thread about the Shoshone closure.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/03/26/3102236/federal-judge-upholds-payette.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1
http://www.idahocountyfreepress.com/news/2014/apr/02/payettes-sheep-grazing-closures-upheld-court/
A federal judge upheld the decision by the Payette National Forest to close 70 percent of the forest to domestic sheep grazing to protect wild bighorn sheep.
U.S. 9th Circuit Judge Wallace Tashima denied a motion by the Idaho Wool Growers Association to overturn the 2010 decision by Payette National Forest Supervisor Suzanne Rainville aimed at separating domestic and bighorn sheep. Tashima ruled the Forest Service had followed the preponderance of evidence that domestic sheep carry diseases to the wild sheep populations.
The dispute began in 2007 when District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ordered ranchers to move their sheep off of five allotments on the Payette National Forest in Hells Canyon. The Forest Service was ordered to complete an environmental impact statement on sheep grazing in bighorn habitat.
The Wool Growers had used all its political might to try to delay and head off the Forest Service’s decision to close off the domestic sheep habitat, which came out of the EIS. Under pressure from Gov. Butch Otter and lawmakers, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game clarified its policy to kill bighorns if necessary when they mix with domestic sheep.
Three sheep ranchers - the Shirts Brothers, Carlson Co. and the Soulens - were affected by the decision and participated in the lawsuit. The Colorado Wool Growers Association also joined in the lawsuit because it has the most overlap between wild bighorn habitat and domestic sheep.
The Forest Service’s policy of doing a risk assessment of possible contact between domestic and wild sheep is now supported in federal court, said Craig Gehrke, Wilderness Society Idaho representative, who fought for the ruling for years to protect bighorns in the Hells Canyon Recreation Area.
The other area where this could have an impact in Idaho is in the Palisades Mountains and Tetons in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. There, Idaho Republican Sen. Jeff Siddoway and his family have grazed sheep for generations.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. You're right, this does not bode well. This is good to know.
There is another lawsuit currently in the works, and there should be a verdict in the next month or so, which has to do with lack of credible "modeling" that the Forest Service used. Bill Myers of Holland & Hart is representing the Wool Growers. I will make a thread once I hear more.
For those who have not read Andy Irvine's objections here is the link
http://andrewirvinelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NAPgA-Objections-to-the-Shoshone-Land-Management-Plan-Draft-Decision-without-exhibits.pdf
Quote:I am good friends with John M., and he has decided to side with the Forest Service and the Game and Fish. i do not bring that up, as i want to remain friends with him. He and I have talked at length about the Selenium issue.
"I'll bet this carries a lot of weight with the Forest Service. If the founder of modern goat packing is against having goats in Bighorn territory, then they've got a pretty good hand they're playing. What's John's reasoning, do you know?"
Yes, I believe it does. I do not know John's reasoning. I can speculate, but I'd rather keep that to myself. I am sure that he feels right about the side he chose, and that is his prerogative.
Even though the Forest Service totally ignored our BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES where we proposed to use GPS Collars, highlining, health certs, etc., we feel that the chances of commingling with Bighorn Sheep are slim to none.
RE: Packgoats As An Asset - Nanno - 04-03-2014
I'm wondering if John (and other goat packers who have taken the FS side on this issue) might be more concerned about of "slob packers" than about the goats themselves. These are people who might, through ignorance or carelessness, lose track of half-trained animals in questionable health.
Is it part of the "Best Management Practices" proposal to allow only wethers into Bighorn Sheep areas? I know people occasionally hike with does and young bucks, and I wonder if prohibiting any kind of breeding goats into those areas would be another way to minimize risk of mingling. That's another positive thing about your average pack goat--he can't interbreed with any wild species.
RE: Packgoats As An Asset - vigilguy - 04-03-2014
(04-03-2014, 09:25 PM)Nanno Wrote: I'm wondering if John (and other goat packers who have taken the FS side on this issue) might be more concerned about of "slob packers" than about the goats themselves. These are people who might, through ignorance or carelessness, lose track of half-trained animals in questionable health.
Is it part of the "Best Management Practices" proposal to allow only wethers into Bighorn Sheep areas? I know people occasionally hike with does and young bucks, and I wonder if prohibiting any kind of breeding goats into those areas would be another way to minimize risk of mingling. That's another positive thing about your average pack goat--he can't interbreed with any wild species.
Well said. Yes he is concerned about the "Slob Packers", the selfish jerks that don't care about anyone but themselves, and won't listen to proper handling and management of packgoats.
NAPgA wants to educate the new goatpacker, to inform him/her of the risks involved in core bighorn sheep areas, Leave No Trace, health certs, highlining, keeping bucks and does OUT, etc.
I don't remember about the WETHERS ONLY. I will look that up and see if we included that.
RE: Packgoats As An Asset - Nanno - 04-04-2014
I may have a rosy view of the world, but I don't think very many people are selfish jerks. I imagine probably every instance in which someone lost track of their packgoat was an honest, ignorant mistake, and this is where education is far more valuable than bans in my opinion. Selfish people will not be stopped by bans. They'll disregard posted signs, and the only recourse for the government at that point is to impose fines. But by then any potential damage is already done. Honest but ignorant people, on the other hand, are folks who appreciate our wilderness and our wildlife and wish to do no harm. They are willing to learn and are happy to obey guidelines to their activities so long as they understand that there are good reasons behind them. Banning people who have good intentions is the best way (in my opinion) to turn them into people who don't care any more. And when people don't care any more, that's when we lose our wilderness completely.
We need to think about this carefully. The goatpacking community may be small, but it's still a group of people who are dedicated to protecting nature. Every time another "nature lover" gets cut out, that's one more blow to the ultimate protection of the wilderness. More and more people are moving to cities, and more and more children are growing up in places where the only mountain they've seen is on bottled water, the only bear they've met was on television, and the only eagle they ever saw was on a postage stamp. Can we expect any of these folks to appreciate nature or to care about protecting it? There's been a very bad "environmental" trend to make people KEEP OUT of all wilderness areas (apparently this is the only "proper" way to protect nature), but I fear that if that trend continues down the generations, people will stop valuing our wild places entirely. That's when these places get sold to developers, strip-mined, drilled, and deforested. Sure, there are Federal regulations in place now. But what happens down the road when new people get elected and constituents are pushing for the development of wilderness to deal with a budgetary crisis? This is what happens when people no longer care about something--they sell it off to the highest bidder. The more the government restricts access to our wild places, the less chance that those places will survive the politics of future generations.
I think the Forest Service needs to be as inclusive as possible to all types of wilderness travel, but ramp up education efforts. I know it's more work than banning people and costs more money in the short-term, but in the end I think this is the only sustainable approach to managing our valuable public lands. In the end, carelessness is only a minor threat compared to indifference.
RE: Packgoats As An Asset - vigilguy - 04-04-2014
A year or two ago when I was getting my stock permit from the Bridger-Teton National Forest personnel, they told me that a guy had rented a packgoat, took him up out of the Green River Lakes area in the Northern Winds, (he had failed to apply for a stock permit beforehand), and ... get this... left the goat behind in a deadfall area in order to make it back to his truck so he could catch his plane. True story, I didn't make this up. They later found out who it was and they did issue a citation to him.
NAPgA once upon a time, (before my time) printed up pamphlets for distribution. Somehow we need to educate the folks who are using packgoats, perhaps providing pamphlets to the Forest Service personnel to mail out in the same envelope along with the stock permits.
This thread discusses packgoats as an asset....that's why I like to do annual trail cleanups with my goats. Clear the trails of deadfall in burn areas so that backpackers, horse packers and others can gain access to the high country. It seems to me that the USFS have suffered from budget cuts and need the volunteer help.
At past Rendys, we have put in hundreds of hours of work cleaning trails, cleaning up abandoned pot farms, etc. The USFS personnel were quite appreciative.
Carolyn Eddy has had a really good relationship with the Forest Service folks due to trail maintenance in the past.