Chat
[quote='vigilguy' pid='2325' dateline='1397912932']
igoat, thank you very much for contributing to this discussion and to our cause. You obviously know a whole lot about these issues and the "lingo" of the Forest Service.
Thank you, but I dont profess to know any more about the lingo or subject matter than can be learned through reading Mr. Irvine's comments and objections that he submitted on behalf of NAPgA, or what can be learned about NEPA and other laws on the FS website or Wikipedia
I just worry that Mr. Irvine's goodwill towards providing Pro Bono work on NAPgA's behalf will only go so far, as he still has to earn a living, and if this issue goes to court, I cant imagine that he will be capable, (even if he wanted to) of performing those efforts for free. That is why I mearly am championing the call to all affected persons out there to continue to contribute to the legal fund, because like it or not, we will likely need to use it if we are going to have our legal and rational arguments heard in front of a neutral arbiter of justice.
As I have been reading through the pertinent parts of the Blue Mountains Draft LMP on the FS website, I am reminded of a question that has been lingering in my mind. There is (apparently) some story or evidence relating to the Hells Canyon BHS dieoffs years ago, that connected a feral goat to the disease transfer. Sometimes when I read about it, it mentions the circumstance as being solidly backed by evidence, and other times it appears to have been purely circumstantial evidence that connected the goat to the die offs. Does anyone know the source of these stories, and the real truth of the matter?
I came across an article from my home state's Idaho Fish and Game, where it appears that Francis Cassirer, the department's lead expert on BHS may have been one of the lead persons in studying that particular incident, or at least she wrote something about it back in 1996. Has anyone ever talked to Francis in person to question what led the authorities to believe the dieoffs were attributed in that instance to the feral goat? I know that there are a number of IDFG biologists who themselves own packgoats, so certainly their position cannot be as extreme as we have experienced in WY, but in their own literature, I do still see the all-to-common general lumping of domestic sheep and goats into the same category of risk to BHS.
here is the article
https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/Wil...20PR04.pdf
One quote from the above quoted article; "There are currently no restrictions on or monitoring of pack-goat use in the project area; although, use of pack goats in areas used by bighorn sheep is of concern." Seems to imply that Ms. Cassirer at least then and possibly does now, subscribes to the belief that not only do domestic goats pose a threat to BHS, but also packgoats specifically. Suppose though, we were able to open lines of dialogue (if it has not already been done) with some of these leading scientists, including Ms. Cassirer, that the FS is relying on for their DEIS and LMPs, and convince them to concede that 1) the impact of domestic goats on BHS needs to be studied, compared, and separated from that of the impact and risk of domestic sheep. 2) that thereafter when they (the scientists and researchers in the field) refer to the issue, that they should cease to refer to the threat of 'domestic sheep and goats' as being one and the same, and in fact the threats of each category "sheep" and "goats" (being distinctly different in magnitude) should not even be mentioned in the same sentence. 3) and then separate the general risk associated with domestic goats specifically from the general risk of packgoats, and to thereafter cease to lump them into the same risk category. 4) that they should clarify their call for management or restrictions on packgoat use in BHS source habitats to not mean a complete ban, but rather a set of rules and procedures for packgoat owners to follow when in a risk area.
My opinion, having spoken with a few wildlife biologists, is that they are reasonable people who can see the wisdom of reasonable solutions rather than across-the-board bans. So, I suggest we begin a campaign to contact as many of the biologists who are most quoted on the subject and express to them our concerns, help them understand that we DONT want to be part of the problem, but want to be part of the solution, and merely ask for them to begin re-wording how they have hitherto been lumping essentially three completely separate and distinct risk categories into one, when they refer to the issue in their literature.
igoat, thank you very much for contributing to this discussion and to our cause. You obviously know a whole lot about these issues and the "lingo" of the Forest Service.
Thank you, but I dont profess to know any more about the lingo or subject matter than can be learned through reading Mr. Irvine's comments and objections that he submitted on behalf of NAPgA, or what can be learned about NEPA and other laws on the FS website or Wikipedia
I just worry that Mr. Irvine's goodwill towards providing Pro Bono work on NAPgA's behalf will only go so far, as he still has to earn a living, and if this issue goes to court, I cant imagine that he will be capable, (even if he wanted to) of performing those efforts for free. That is why I mearly am championing the call to all affected persons out there to continue to contribute to the legal fund, because like it or not, we will likely need to use it if we are going to have our legal and rational arguments heard in front of a neutral arbiter of justice.
As I have been reading through the pertinent parts of the Blue Mountains Draft LMP on the FS website, I am reminded of a question that has been lingering in my mind. There is (apparently) some story or evidence relating to the Hells Canyon BHS dieoffs years ago, that connected a feral goat to the disease transfer. Sometimes when I read about it, it mentions the circumstance as being solidly backed by evidence, and other times it appears to have been purely circumstantial evidence that connected the goat to the die offs. Does anyone know the source of these stories, and the real truth of the matter?
I came across an article from my home state's Idaho Fish and Game, where it appears that Francis Cassirer, the department's lead expert on BHS may have been one of the lead persons in studying that particular incident, or at least she wrote something about it back in 1996. Has anyone ever talked to Francis in person to question what led the authorities to believe the dieoffs were attributed in that instance to the feral goat? I know that there are a number of IDFG biologists who themselves own packgoats, so certainly their position cannot be as extreme as we have experienced in WY, but in their own literature, I do still see the all-to-common general lumping of domestic sheep and goats into the same category of risk to BHS.
here is the article
https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/Wil...20PR04.pdf
One quote from the above quoted article; "There are currently no restrictions on or monitoring of pack-goat use in the project area; although, use of pack goats in areas used by bighorn sheep is of concern." Seems to imply that Ms. Cassirer at least then and possibly does now, subscribes to the belief that not only do domestic goats pose a threat to BHS, but also packgoats specifically. Suppose though, we were able to open lines of dialogue (if it has not already been done) with some of these leading scientists, including Ms. Cassirer, that the FS is relying on for their DEIS and LMPs, and convince them to concede that 1) the impact of domestic goats on BHS needs to be studied, compared, and separated from that of the impact and risk of domestic sheep. 2) that thereafter when they (the scientists and researchers in the field) refer to the issue, that they should cease to refer to the threat of 'domestic sheep and goats' as being one and the same, and in fact the threats of each category "sheep" and "goats" (being distinctly different in magnitude) should not even be mentioned in the same sentence. 3) and then separate the general risk associated with domestic goats specifically from the general risk of packgoats, and to thereafter cease to lump them into the same risk category. 4) that they should clarify their call for management or restrictions on packgoat use in BHS source habitats to not mean a complete ban, but rather a set of rules and procedures for packgoat owners to follow when in a risk area.
My opinion, having spoken with a few wildlife biologists, is that they are reasonable people who can see the wisdom of reasonable solutions rather than across-the-board bans. So, I suggest we begin a campaign to contact as many of the biologists who are most quoted on the subject and express to them our concerns, help them understand that we DONT want to be part of the problem, but want to be part of the solution, and merely ask for them to begin re-wording how they have hitherto been lumping essentially three completely separate and distinct risk categories into one, when they refer to the issue in their literature.