Pack Goat Closure extending to Oregon

[Taffy]

In reading the attorney's objections on behalf of NAPgA's behalf there are a couple of acronyms used that I don't know. BMP's and NEPA. Would someone please tell me what they are. Thanks!

[Nanno]

This is all very good information. I'm planning to attend the Weld County Goat Extravaganza at the end of this month, and I'll be taking Cuzco and his pack and doing a demonstration and talk during the event. I feel this is an excellent time to raise awareness because of the FS closures, and I'm hoping to get people interested not only in pack goats, but in fighting alongside us to keep our land open. I hope that even people who aren't directly interested in packing with goats themselves will be able to appreciate those who do and will see this as their fight as well. I'm planning to have an information booth, or at least a poster set up at my stall and I'm going to try to consolidate a lot of this information to a single page flier that people can take with them so they don't just stop by, read, and forget.

I'm also running a "Goat of Many Colors" contest just for fun, and I'm hoping the folks running the Extravaganza will allow me to put at least some of the entry fees toward the NAPgA. I'm talking with the lady in charge, and she suggested the proceeds go toward the youth programs in the area that participate in the Extravaganza. But I'd like to have some of the proceeds benefit the NAPgA because even if it doesn't generate a lot of money, having the NAPgA as a beneficiary will put our organization's name right before the eyeballs of everyone at the show and raise awareness to our current fight. Even people who can't afford to donate money can still write objection letters! Heck, I may even take a pile of form letters with me so interested parties can write to the FS in Oregon about these newest closures.

[Saph]

In reading the attorney's objections on behalf of NAPgA's behalf there are a couple of acronyms used that I don't know. BMP's and NEPA. Would someone please tell me what they are. Thanks!

Taffy,

BMPs= Best Management Practices. Also known as "Mitigation Measures." These are actions designed to mitigate the negative effects of an activity on a resource. In this case, our mitigations would include practices that would reduce probability of contact with wild sheep, such as high lining our animals in camp, leashing at all times when on the trail, etc.

NEPA=the National Environmental Policy Act, basically the law that requires the Federal government to document the effects of any & all proposed activities on resources. National Forests are required to revise their Management Plans every 10-15 years, thus they must go through the NEPA procedure, including analysis of alternatives and their effects. The document produced by this analysis is called the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

[Taffy]

Thanks, Saph.

In reading the attorney's objections on behalf of NAPgA's behalf there are a couple of acronyms used that I don't know. BMP's and NEPA. Would someone please tell me what they are. Thanks!

Taffy,

BMPs= Best Management Practices. Also known as "Mitigation Measures." These are actions designed to mitigate the negative effects of an activity on a resource. In this case, our mitigations would include practices that would reduce probability of contact with wild sheep, such as high lining our animals in camp, leashing at all times when on the trail, etc.

NEPA=the National Environmental Policy Act, basically the law that requires the Federal government to document the effects of any & all proposed activities on resources. National Forests are required to revise their Management Plans every 10-15 years, thus they must go through the NEPA procedure, including analysis of alternatives and their effects. The document produced by this analysis is called the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

[igoat]

Just an FYI, on the Wallowa-Whitman Forest website it was just announced that the comment period for the Blue Mountain National Forest Draft LMP has been extended to August 15. That should give everyone a chance to write up some substantive comments. I would also encourage everyone planning to comment, to read the comment requirements on their FAQ page, as there are some specific criteria that need to be met before the Forest Service would be required to consider your comments.

---

Im not sure if this particular editorial on the subject of Packgoat disease carrying capacity has been shared on this site, but I figured I would provide the link anyways.

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdf/10....002.63.119

The summary of the article was “Pasteurella spp may be transmitted when animals are in close proximity, particularly by nose-to-nose contact. Therefore, when domestic pack goats are in wildlife habitats, they should be managed to prevent contact with wild ruminants.”

I only bring this up because I worry that we in the packgoat community might be fighting the wrong fight. We keep suggesting in these forums that there is no conclusive evidence to connect the possibility of disease transfer between packgoats and BHS. Unfortunately, I believe that eventually there will be such evidence, and all the more so if we keep pushing for it. The biological similarities between all ruminants suggests that there will always be some level of risk of disease transfer between them. Therefore, we should stop trying to convince people that a goat cannot transfer a disease to a BHS, but rather focus on convincing them that the level of risk of such an event happening is SO LOW that it is not worth mitigating. And even if the risk were deemed too high to leave unmanaged, there are mitigation options available to a packgoat problem that would not be available to other grazing domestic herds. Namely, we would be willing as a community to adhere to rules or regulations requiring us to high-line, to keep our goats on leads all the time, to use GPS collars, etc. Objectively, if the ultimate goal is to ensure that no BHS ever comes within 60 feet of one of our goats, that is a manageable goal without banning our goats from the forests completely. I have even toyed around with the idea of using backpacking electric bear fences to create a perimeter around my camp. Not that it would be meant to keep my goats in, but rather in the (albeit highly unlikely) circumstance if a BHS came sniffing around, he would get a jolt from the fence long before he came in range of my goats.

So, lets make sure we pick the right arguments, the winning arguments that put us on the side of the BHS rather than make us appear ignorant and anti-wildlife.

[IdahoNancy]

The article concludes that the vaccine does not work on goats. We do not object to the fact that our goats carry this type of bacteria. We object to the conclusion they came to in the bottom which was not even relevant to the objective of study. Pack goats do carry this bacterium but there is no evidence that they can transmit this to bighorn sheep. Dr. Forsyt and his studies have proven the opposite. Hypothesis and opinions are not evidence-based science and should not be included in the management practices of our national Forest in an effort to exclude one group of users. Despite this we are willing to use management practices for our packgoats to minimize potential contact with bighorn sheep.

[Dave-Trinity-Farms]

I like some of your points and even agree with some. Being a dairy goat breeder for 15+ years and my other half over 20 years, we have dealt most goat diseases and illnesses. Having spent the better part of that time on a commercial sized dairy farm. And as for goats being able to pass it onto sheep, I dont know. From everything I have read, there is no study to say they can. And just as you mentioned, at some point we may very well have to change our direction of attack.

Here is my thinking. I know some diseases and illnesses transfer from goat to sheep and from sheep to goat. They are close enough in genetics for it to happen but far enough apart the the disease or illness often has to go through a slight transformation. A mutation if you will, in order to do so. And if it is ever proven that a transfer can happen and the chance for them to transfer it is easy, then I believe the first thing that needs to be done is to protect the wildlife. If that means closing the forests, then so be it. But the facts must be in place and open minded solutions discussed. Such as the pneumonia vaccine that is already available for goats and sheep. If it could be adapted to be used as a booster each outting to prevent transmission, then there would be no need for a closure. But maybe like a day pass, a piece of paper showing proof of the vaccine. A certified vet certificate.

So ill help fight to keep things open so at the very least we can learn the facts. And then go from there.

[vigilguy]

Just an FYI, on the Wallowa-Whitman Forest website it was just announced that the comment period for the Blue Mountain National Forest Draft LMP has been extended to August 15. That should give everyone a chance to write up some substantive comments. I would also encourage everyone planning to comment, to read the comment requirements on their FAQ page, as there are some specific criteria that need to be met before the Forest Service would be required to consider your comments.

---

Im not sure if this particular editorial on the subject of Packgoat disease carrying capacity has been shared on this site, but I figured I would provide the link anyways.

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdf/10....002.63.119

The summary of the article was “Pasteurella spp may be transmitted when animals are in close proximity, particularly by nose-to-nose contact. Therefore, when domestic pack goats are in wildlife habitats, they should be managed to prevent contact with wild ruminants.”

I only bring this up because I worry that we in the packgoat community might be fighting the wrong fight. We keep suggesting in these forums that there is no conclusive evidence to connect the possibility of disease transfer between packgoats and BHS. Unfortunately, I believe that eventually there will be such evidence, and all the more so if we keep pushing for it. The biological similarities between all ruminants suggests that there will always be some level of risk of disease transfer between them. Therefore, we should stop trying to convince people that a goat cannot transfer a disease to a BHS, but rather focus on convincing them that the level of risk of such an event happening is SO LOW that it is not worth mitigating. And even if the risk were deemed too high to leave unmanaged, there are mitigation options available to a packgoat problem that would not be available to other grazing domestic herds. Namely, we would be willing as a community to adhere to rules or regulations requiring us to high-line, to keep our goats on leads all the time, to use GPS collars, etc. Objectively, if the ultimate goal is to ensure that no BHS ever comes within 60 feet of one of our goats, that is a manageable goal without banning our goats from the forests completely. I have even toyed around with the idea of using backpacking electric bear fences to create a perimeter around my camp. Not that it would be meant to keep my goats in, but rather in the (albeit highly unlikely) circumstance if a BHS came sniffing around, he would get a jolt from the fence long before he came in range of my goats.

So, lets make sure we pick the right arguments, the winning arguments that put us on the side of the BHS rather than make us appear ignorant and anti-wildlife.

Here's my personal response on your comments---- After talking to Curtis King and Larry Robinson about the attendance to the public meetings concerning the Forest in Washington and Oregon, it seems like they were talking with a much more rational USFS audience than what we are dealing with in the Shoshone National Forest. Larry told me that he came away quite encouraged after talking with the USFS biologist. The biologist made comments like,"sounds like 'they' have lumped domestic goats in with the domestic sheep and brush goats." Comments like that from USFS personnel are heartwarming! Why? Because being used to dealing with the Shoshone personnel, I am not used to it. Up here in Wyoming, we hear things like,"If there is a one-in-a-million chance...it's too great." "Or...there is a chance that domestic goats cause catastrophic die-offs". Comments like this, (which we actually heard), made us feel like we were dealing with an irrational, paranoid audience that refused to listen to any logic or sound reason.

Is there a possibility that goats can transfer MH bacteria to the BHS. I am not so naive to think that there isn't. The scientists that have served on the various Boards have suggested proper management techniques in order to ensure separation between the two species, and I am in complete agreement with that. That is why we (NAPgA) proposed the 13 Best Management Practices in order to accommodate those requests. I am personally all in favor of holding clinics or classes by"Master Trainers" in each state, require that those who want to obtain a stock permit for their packgoats be required to take these clinics, pass an exam, and become "certified" before applying for a stock permit.

But what we are hearing up here in Wyoming is...TOTAL BAN. In fact, the Forest Service issued a "temporary" ban for 4 out of the 5 ranger districts in the Shoshone National Forest over the last 18 or so months. The Wyoming Game & Fish and the Wyoming Sheep Foundation have not been as willing to listen to logic as the Forest Service has. In public meetings up here, they have been rude, nasty, immature and downright paranoid. I only mention this because I want all of you to understand the caliber of people that we have to deal with up here.

I won't go into great depth about the scientific studies in this post, but I will state that when I have read studies with penned up the BHS and domestic sheep, the results have been catastophic. BUT, in the only two studies that involved domestic goats and BHS (1994) and (2010), NO die-offs occurred in the first one, and two out of seven BHS died (in a lung-worm study) AFTER 11 MONTHS IN CAPTIVITY. Only two studies in 20 years. I have even read a study where two BHS died while penned up with horses. Then why don't we ban horses? (Using the same logic). Of course not! Then don't make laws based on inadequate science, and don't write papers (Schommer) that distort the facts.

My point is this--- Let us implement our Best Management Practices. We will educate and certify the goatpacking community. WE will teach our community LNT ethics and proper goat management. Those that apply for a stock permit will have to be certified in one of our clinics.

---

The article concludes that the vaccine does not work on goats. We do not object to the fact that our goats carry this type of bacteria. We object to the conclusion they came to in the bottom which was not even relevant to the objective of study. Pack goats do carry this bacterium but there is no evidence that they can transmit this to bighorn sheep. Dr. Foreyt and his studies have proven the opposite. Hypothesis and opinions are not evidence-based science and should not be included in the management practices of our national Forest in an effort to exclude one group of users. Despite this we are willing to use management practices for our packgoats to minimize potential contact with bighorn sheep.

Well said, Nancy!. I agree 100%. I even called Dr. Foreyt personally about a year ago and he told me that, at present, there is not nearly enough science to make a determination (such as banning) on domestic goats.

These scientists all suggest proper managment practices to minimize contact. WORKS FOR ME!

---

I am more concerned about the health of Bighorn Sheep when I see photos like THIS...think of the STRESS that they are being subjected to!

[igoat]

Thank you all for helping me make my point. The science is lacking to directly connect any domestic goat with disease transfer capacity to BHS, let alone a more easily managed packgoat. However, if the public's perception is that a goat is biologically close enough to a BHS that there is a possibility of the sharing of bacteria between the two, then it may be folly for us to fight that uphill battle. Much of the literature I have read agrees that the science is weak in finding direct incidents of transfer between goats and BHS (at least by comparison to the domestic sheep transfer capacity) and the same literature often suggests that other animals like horses and cattle can be carriers of some strains of bacteria as well. The primary argument though, is that the BHS are ATTRACTED to domestic sheep and goats, which increases the risk. So lets say hypothetically that goats and horses both biologically posed the same level of risk to transfer if contact was made; the proponents of goat bans would argue that the risk is higher for the goat because the BHS is attracted to it and not to the horse, which increases the chance of exposure. This is the part of the argument we should be focusing on; whether or not BHS are attracted to packgoats when they are in the presence of their owner, and whether that attraction could be mitigated or deterred.

---

When it comes to the legal matter though, if you are hearing comments like the "one in a million chance" being too great, I hope you are informing Larry to bring that to NAPgA's attorney Mr. Irvine. Under NEPA governmental agencies aren't supposed to work on those kind of absolutes, and need to enact regulations that take into consideration not only the environmental impact but also the economical or social impacts as well. It should also be pointed out that there is probably a better than a 1 in a million chance that a BHS Ram on a foray would wander down onto private property and come into contact with a domestic sheep herd, and a far better that a million to one chance that a BHS would get hit by a car. But, neither of those instances can legally be mitigated by the forest plan because it would put an undo burden on the public at large, and the benefit to the BHS would be outweighed by other human concerns.

So, I hope everyone here is contributing to the legal fund so that we can afford to keep Mr. Irvine in this fight, because if the Shoshone disregards the Objections he just filed, then our next recourse is to fight the FS in open court for making their "arbitrary and capricious" regulations, and that will likely cost upwards of $100k in legal fees. (which we might be able to get back if we win and the judge finds that the error was egregious enough).

[Saph]

Great reply igoat!

I used a very similar argument to yours ("one in a million chance") when I filed my individual Objection to the Shoshone National Forest Plan last month. I hope that you plan on using your opinions in your comment response to the Blue Mountain Forest Plan. You DO plan on commenting, don't you? EVERYONE needs to comment! All of our opinions are valid, as long as we meet the criteria for the comment responses.

igoat, it sounds like you have some background in NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). Thank you for weighing in on this issue. While I do think we may end up in court, it would be nice to do some "front-loading" before-hand. We ALL need to do this, by commenting, offering to "collaborate" (big government buzzword) and by putting ourselves on the mailing list of every single Forest that has Bighorn Sheep habitat, as they will no doubt continue to close areas off to Pack Goats--Saph