Chat
Dave--I appreciate your comments. With respect to your statement--"Can a goat (regardless of pack, meat, dairy, range) pass a disease/sickness onto a wild sheep? This is the only thing that needs to be addressed and answered":
There is much research that still needs to be conducted on this issue. Margaret Highland (WSU) is currently doing some fascinating studies on transmission between domestic sheep and Bighorns. However, as we all know, very little has been done to include goats, to date; hopefully, goats will be addressed in the near future. In addition, scientists are calling other livestock AND wildlife species into question, including domestic cattle and mule deer, with respect to disease transmission. But the research seems to indicate that these diseases and the mechanisms of transmission are so complex and difficult to understand that the decision to close public lands to domestic sheep and goats (including pack goats) may be overly-simplistic. Which brings us to the subject of "risk."
RISK is a science, in and of itself, particularly when it comes to decision making. "Qualitative" Risk Analysis, which the Shoshone used to base their decision to close most of the Wind River Range to Pack Goats, is just that--"Qualitative," and inherently subjective. The goal in the Shoshone National Forest Plan is to maintain "LOW RISK of disease transmission from domestic sheep and domestic goats to wild bighorn sheep within core bighorn sheep ranges." At the meeting in Cody, the Wild Sheep folks were saying they want as close to "zero risk" as possible. This was NOT the goal stated in the Forest Plan. So, somewhere in the process, the goal shifted and the Forest Service needs to be held accountable as to how and why they justified that shift. If the Forest Service truly wants "zero" risk, they need to change the Forest Plan, and document how they are going to achieve this "zero risk" goal, and whether or not it is even realistically achievable. Most importantly, they need to document how Pack Goats are a significant risk factor, given all the independent variables that have to occur in order to transmit disease from pack goats to wild sheep. These variables include the ("abysmally low") number of pack goats that pass through wild sheep habitat in the Winds, probability of goats escaping, probability of contact with wild sheep, probability that a goat has a transmittable disease, and so forth. These are independent variables, so they need to be treated as such, when quantifying total risk. Each time you multiply one of these independent variables by another, the overall risk decreases. If you do the math, I think you will find that this risk is going to be extremely low. Not "zero," but pretty close.
I am concerned that other Land Use Plans (including the Blue Mountains in Oregon and Washington) are using similar "qualitative" Risk Analyses, without taking a "hard look" at the robust, quantitative science this issue requires, and with respect to the actual risk that Pack Goats pose, rather than a "perception" of that risk.
We are willing to collaborate in developing mitigation measures to bring risk of contact between our goats and bighorn sheep as close to zero as possible. But we object to the idea that Pack Goats are continuously lumped with domestic sheep and goats when, to date, very little scientific research justifies this. More importantly, the Risk Analysis that the Forest Service used to support or justify the decision to close the Wind River Range to Pack Goats is flawed and needs to be redone. The bottom line is that our pack goat numbers are so small, especially when combined with numerous other independent risk variables, that we feel our marginal contribution to overall risk is insignificant. Again, the Shoshone National Forest's goal was to maintain "low risk." If they wanted "zero risk," they should have stated it in the Forest Plan. They did not--Saph.
There is much research that still needs to be conducted on this issue. Margaret Highland (WSU) is currently doing some fascinating studies on transmission between domestic sheep and Bighorns. However, as we all know, very little has been done to include goats, to date; hopefully, goats will be addressed in the near future. In addition, scientists are calling other livestock AND wildlife species into question, including domestic cattle and mule deer, with respect to disease transmission. But the research seems to indicate that these diseases and the mechanisms of transmission are so complex and difficult to understand that the decision to close public lands to domestic sheep and goats (including pack goats) may be overly-simplistic. Which brings us to the subject of "risk."
RISK is a science, in and of itself, particularly when it comes to decision making. "Qualitative" Risk Analysis, which the Shoshone used to base their decision to close most of the Wind River Range to Pack Goats, is just that--"Qualitative," and inherently subjective. The goal in the Shoshone National Forest Plan is to maintain "LOW RISK of disease transmission from domestic sheep and domestic goats to wild bighorn sheep within core bighorn sheep ranges." At the meeting in Cody, the Wild Sheep folks were saying they want as close to "zero risk" as possible. This was NOT the goal stated in the Forest Plan. So, somewhere in the process, the goal shifted and the Forest Service needs to be held accountable as to how and why they justified that shift. If the Forest Service truly wants "zero" risk, they need to change the Forest Plan, and document how they are going to achieve this "zero risk" goal, and whether or not it is even realistically achievable. Most importantly, they need to document how Pack Goats are a significant risk factor, given all the independent variables that have to occur in order to transmit disease from pack goats to wild sheep. These variables include the ("abysmally low") number of pack goats that pass through wild sheep habitat in the Winds, probability of goats escaping, probability of contact with wild sheep, probability that a goat has a transmittable disease, and so forth. These are independent variables, so they need to be treated as such, when quantifying total risk. Each time you multiply one of these independent variables by another, the overall risk decreases. If you do the math, I think you will find that this risk is going to be extremely low. Not "zero," but pretty close.
I am concerned that other Land Use Plans (including the Blue Mountains in Oregon and Washington) are using similar "qualitative" Risk Analyses, without taking a "hard look" at the robust, quantitative science this issue requires, and with respect to the actual risk that Pack Goats pose, rather than a "perception" of that risk.
We are willing to collaborate in developing mitigation measures to bring risk of contact between our goats and bighorn sheep as close to zero as possible. But we object to the idea that Pack Goats are continuously lumped with domestic sheep and goats when, to date, very little scientific research justifies this. More importantly, the Risk Analysis that the Forest Service used to support or justify the decision to close the Wind River Range to Pack Goats is flawed and needs to be redone. The bottom line is that our pack goat numbers are so small, especially when combined with numerous other independent risk variables, that we feel our marginal contribution to overall risk is insignificant. Again, the Shoshone National Forest's goal was to maintain "low risk." If they wanted "zero risk," they should have stated it in the Forest Plan. They did not--Saph.