Plight of the Bighorns

Bighorn Sheep
Bighorn Sheep. Photo credit: David Stalling.

Back in October I took a break from elk hunting to photograph bighorn sheep at the National Bison Range in Moiese. I was surprised how close one ram let me get, and then I noticed something was wrong. Several times he dropped his head to the ground and struggled to lift it back up. The weight of his heavy horns, he long proudly carried, had apparently become too burdensome. He was dying. I returned the next day and found his body.

After posting a photo of the ram on Facebook, and speculating about his death, my friend Stacy Courville, a wildlife biologist with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe, said the sheep most likely died from pneumonia, which had recently infected the Bison Range. So I talked to Jeff King, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manager who oversees the range. Courville was correct: A bacteria called Mycoplasma ovipheumonia had infected the bighorn populations, causing pneumonia. More than 35 wild sheep had died in just a few months. King and others suspect that the bacteria was transferred to the wild herd from a domestic sheep herd about a mile west of the range.

Once the bacteria infects a herd of wild sheep, it can be devastating, and not much can be done.

“Mycoplasma ovipheumonia has no cell wall, so antibiotics do not work on it,” says Mark Penninger, an Oregon-based wildlife biologist who heads up the bighorn sheep program for the U.S. Forest Service. “It is carried with no ill effects by many domestic sheep and goats, but is deadly to wild sheep. Our wild sheep have not evolved with this pathogen. It can sometimes kill wild sheep by itself, but is often a precursor that compromises the respiratory system’s ability to move things, such as bacteria and viruses, out with mucous. Then the sheep die when their body responds by producing more mucous, which results in pneumonia. It is quite the dilemma when trying to protect and restore bighorn populations.”

When a bighorn sheep population is initially infected, often as many as a third, and sometimes up to 90%, of the herd may die from pneumonia. Most survivors are apparently immune, but their lambs are not and usually die before weaning. In some populations, annual pneumonia outbreaks in lambs continue for decades after the initial infection, which prevents the population from bouncing back. In other populations, lamb survival returns to normal relatively quickly. Why some populations recover and others do not is one of the most important questions scientists are trying to answer. Some researchers hope that wild sheep herds could eventually develop an immunity.

But in the meantime, bighorns are being infected and dying throughout their range.

More than 90 bighorns recently died of pneumonia near Plains, and another 39 died near Gardiner. “We’re losing hundreds of wild sheep to this disease every year and it is decimating herds across the west,” said Kyle Meintzer, director of the Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF) based in Bozeman. “For example, in 2013, 400 wild sheep in California were lost, and that’s 80 per cent of what was the largest herd in the state. Wildlife managers were forced to sacrifice the herd in the Tendoy Mountains in Montana due to recurring pneumonia and low lamb survival. Wildlife managers, with the help of hunters, will remove 100 per cent of the herd and later will repopulate the herd with healthy bighorns.”

Unfortunately, killing wild sheep because of suspicion of exposure is the prudent thing to do in many cases, according to Mark Penninger. “A wandering wild sheep can cover a lot of miles and return to its herd with death in its breath. Killing one sheep could prevent the loss of an entire herd. Capturing and testing is rarely practical due to urgency and terrain.”

Although scientists don’t know exactly how the disease is transmitted, what factors contribute to transmission and whether transmission of other bacteria, even among wild sheep alone, contributes to the bighorn die-offs, mounting evidence suggests that domestic sheep are a major vector. A 2008 study by Colorado Division of Wildlife scientists showed that a single domestic sheep that wandered onto bighorn winter range caused a die-off of more than 86 bighorns from 1997 to 2000.
What can be done? The most viable – yet controversial – proposals involve separating wild and domestic sheep by large distances to prevent contact. “The science is clear that domestic and wild sheep can’t live together,” says Kevin Hurley, Conservation Director for WSF.

In the Salmon River country of Idaho, where 76-percent of the bighorn populations was lost to pneumonia, legal battles ensued between sheep herders, conservationists and the U.S. Forest Service when the Payette National Forest decided to keep domestic sheep off grazing leases within bighorn sheep range. In 2008, a U.S. District Judge ruled in favor of the decision. But leaders of hunter-conservation organizations, and wildlife biologists and mangers with state and federal agencies, would prefer to work with the sheep ranching industry to find viable solutions rather than fight things out in court.

The WSF recently met with members of Congress and federal wildlife agencies on solutions to create safe zones against deadly pneumonia bacteria and viruses that are infecting wild sheep herds in the U.S. “Having a disease-free zone around the new herd is necessary to prevent new infection and assure the success of restoration,” says Kyle Meintzer.

Steve Torbit, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Rocky Mountain Regional Center in Boulder, Colorado, calls for “livestock producers and wildlife folks to roll up their sleeves and work together to find areas suitable for domestic sheep.” Torbit and other bighorn advocates hope they can persuade western sheep ranchers and federal officials to develop a strategy that will allow bighorn sheep populations to expand through conservation and further reintroductions across the West. “I don’t want to start a new range war, because it’s not good for anybody, and it’s certainly not good for wildlife,” he says. He favors a collaborative process that brings ranchers, sportsmen, tribes and conservationists together to protect the range and wildlife but still allows ranchers to thrive – creating safe zones for wild sheep far from domestic sheep, and setting aside other zones for domestic sheep far from bighorn habitat.

As Kevin Hurley puts it: “If you believe in compromise and conservation, both sides have to give up something.”

David Stalling is the MWF Western Field Rep. Reach him at dstalling@mtwf.org.

Wildlife, Access at Stake In 2017 Montana Legislature

Montana Capitol
Montana Capitol. Photo credit: Mark Dostal

Here we go again: the 2017 Montana Legislature will convene next month, and the Montana Wildlife Federation’s (MWF) members, volunteers, and staff will be taking a leadership role on issues that affect wildlife, habitat and public access.

MWF and our conservation partners had numerous successes in the last Legislative session two years ago. We helped pass a major overhaul of Montana’s hunting and fishing license structure and fees. That vital bill helped shore up the finances for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks for years to come, while also simplifying the complex system of hunting and fishing licenses.

MWF also addressed several key conservation issues, including getting ahead of feral swine before they reach Montana; cracking down on intentional abuse of replacement hunting licenses; and overhauling how hunters tag game animals in the field to make it easier for hunters.

2015 was, overall, a good session for wildlife, habitat and hunters. But there’s work to do next year. In 2017, we have a strong agenda to build on our conservation successes from two years ago.

The 2017 Legislature: An Overview

Republicans maintain their solid majority in the Montana House of Representatives, with a 59-41 seat advantage over the Democrats. In the Senate, Republicans expanded their majority to 32-18.

Governor Steve Bullock won re-election and will be working on some similar issues as last session, including infrastructure spending and early childhood education. He will also be advancing some proposals to protect and expand Montana’s public lands and public access, which will be of great value to Montana hunters, anglers, and other recreationists.

Budget issues will be front and center this session, with revenue projections down sharply and expected tough decisions on spending. Bullock has called in his proposed Fiscal Year 2018-2019 budget for some targeted tax increases on high income earners, as well as some special taxes on cigarettes and medical marijuana. He is also pushing for bonding roughly half of the proposed $292 million in infrastructure spending. In addition, what to do about the looming closure of two units at the Colstrip power plants will be a big theme this session.

So where does that leave wildlife, habitat, access and hunters and anglers? It is likely that our issues will not be at the forefront, although as always there will be bills that need scrutiny and debate. Montana FWP has a few bills it is proposing, mostly clean up measures.
The Senate Fish and Game Committee will have new leadership this session. Sen. Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, has served on the committee for the past two sessions and will take over as chair.

In the House, Rep. Kelly Flynn, R-Townsend, will return to chair the committee. Flynn is a rancher and outfitter who chaired the committee last session. He brought a bill to increase funding for the popular Block Management program last session, and has worked on an effort outside of the Legislature to improve landowner-hunter relations.

MWF’s Agenda

MWF will be bringing a bill to improve public access to public land. It is based on a bill we brought last time that would increase the fine for gating a public road that leads to public land. Currently the fine is $10 per day, far too low to serve as a deterrent for illegally blocking public roads. Our bill would raise the fine to a minimum of $100 per day.

We will also be working, as always, to maintain a strong defense against any bills that would interfere with scientific wildlife management. Already there are several bills in the hopper that look troublesome, including one that would require payments of hunter dollars to landowners for crop damage. These programs in other states have led to disastrous consequences, costing state wildlife agencies millions and leading to landowner tag programs that impede management and reduce public hunting opportunity.

MWF will also be working to gain some additional funding for livestock loss prevention work to keep grizzly bears out of trouble, as well as wolves. And we will be pursuing a bill to increase the payment to landowners in the popular Block Management hunter access program to create more of an incentive to join the program.

Finally, we will be working to ensure that full funding is restored to Habitat Montana, which is Montana’s most successful habitat protection program. The program uses hunter license dollars to pay landowners for conservation easements on private land, as well as to purchase key habitat for wildlife from willing sellers. Habitat Montana has increased available winter range for wildlife, helped keep working farms and ranches in business and helped reduce conflicts with wildlife. It has also increased public hunter access and opportunity.

Last session the Legislature put a budget rider on Habitat Montana that barred any land purchases that weren’t already in negotiation. That has caused some lost opportunities for FWP from willing landowners, and hurt hunters from Montana and around the country. It’s crucial that we get the program renewed and continue to protect key habitat in Montana.

Nick Gevock is MWF’s Conservation Director. Contact him at ngevock@mtwf.org.

New BLM Planning Rule a Boon to Montana Hunters/Wildlife

bonogofsky-2837-150102-2

Last week, the Bureau of Land Management issued its final planning rule for land management in the west. Planning 2.0 will update how the BLM manages the 245 million acres of public lands across the nation. The new planning rule has two major changes that will effect hunters and anglers – identifying and planning around wildlife corridors and public involvement.

Planning 2.0 establishes three additional periods where the public can be involved-increasing transparency and public involvement in land use decisions. While the land use planning for our public land has always been a public process, Planning 2.0 will allow sportsmen (and every citizen) to have a bigger role in deciding how they want to see their favorite spots to hunt and fish managed. Sportsmen having a seat at the table on these land use plans will ensure that a healthy landscape and the opportunity to chase critters will be passed on to the next generation.

The new planning rule also promotes landscape-scale management which is great news for wildlife. The old planning process had no language regarding wildlife migration corridors in BLM planning documentation, but under Planning 2.0, field offices must consider identifying and locating migration corridors early in the process of planning for land use. Migration corridors are a vital habitat component for big game like mule deer, elk, and pronghorn in the West. By identifying where animals move, feed, and rest between seasonal ranges early on in the planning process, we will reduce conflicts between wildlife and development.

The thorough pre-planning that is taking place in Planning 2.0 will help to better manage landscapes for all the ways they are used — whether its hunting, hiking, timber production, or energy development — and support the local community’s ability to maintain a high quality of life and healthy economy. With the new planning rule in place, it’s time for sportsmen and women roll up our sleeves and get to work on how we want our public lands managed.

For more information on the planning rule, visit New BLM Planning Rule a Boon to Public Involvement

John Bradley is the Eastern Field Rep. for Montana Wildlife Federation. Reach him at jbradley@mtwf.org

A Win for Wildlife: Sage Grouse Rider Left Off of Defense Bill

Sage Grouse. Photos by Bob Wick, BLM Photos by Bob Wick, BLM. Sage Grouse.

Yesterday the Senate voted to send the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to the White House for President Obama’s signature. In a victory for conservationists, ranchers, and hunters, the NDAA left out destructive language that would undermine existing Greater Sage-Grouse land-management plans. The Defense Bill previously had language that would have allowed states to roll back the federal sage-grouse conservation plans and would have prevented the Department of the Interior from changing the bird’s status for ten years. This extreme provision would have ended years of bipartisan cooperation between federal, state and private interests working to keep the bird and its sagebrush habitat healthy enough to avoid listing under the Endangered Species Act.

This latest victory for the bird comes after declines in historic sage grouse populations and habitat led to the bird’s consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act. In late 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that an ESA listing for the grouse was “not warranted.” The ruling was based on local conservation efforts that were taking place and the continued implementation of federal resource management plans by the BLM that advance the species’ recovery and improve sage grouse habitat.

The millions of acres of sagebrush steppe that the sage grouse relies upon also provide habitat for more than 350 species of fish and wildlife, including mule deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope. Healthy and functioning sage-grouse habitat across the West fuels our outdoor economy, while providing stability to local ranching communities.

With the NDAA moving forward without the negative sage grouse rider attached, it’s time for hunters and anglers, ranchers and farmers, state and federal land managers, and all who value the West need to roll up our sleeves and work together to protect this unique western landscape.

John Bradley is Montana Wildlife Federation’s Eastern Field Rep.

For more information, check out these articles.
Western Sportsmen: Drop Sage-Grouse Rider From Defense Bill

NWF Hails Removal of Harmful Sage-Grouse Rider in Defense Bill

Effort to Turn Forest Service Lands over to State Management Meets Opposition in Swan Lake

image

During a meeting last night at the Swan Lake Community Center, a packed room of Montanans from all walks of life made one thing abundantly clear: We love our National Forests.

Hosted by Lake County Commissioners, the meeting was held to inform and seek input from the public regarding the Swan Resource Management Study, which entails a controversial proposal by the Lake County Conservation District (LCCD) to turn 60,000 acres of the Flathead National Forest, all within Lake County, into a “conservation forest” to be managed “in trust” by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). Jim Simpson, Chairman of the LCCD, presented an overview of the proposal and answered questions from concerned citizens.

In response to a question, Simpson assured those in attendance that he was not advocating transfer of federal public lands, and that this plan is in “no way” associated with the American Lands Council, an organization that seeks to transfer federal lands to the states. The conservation forest, he said, will remain under federal ownership, but would be managed by the state in accordance with the same rules and regulation that govern management of state forests. All American citizens would maintain the right to enjoy all activities currently allowed on the land, he said, and the forest would resort back to Forest Service management in 100 years. Net revenues from management would be invested into the Swan Valley community for “conservation projects” on state, federal, private and tribal lands. The project would require Congressional approval. ​

“Management emphasis will be on reducing fuel levels and fire risks, managing the forest locally and collaboratively, and actively managing the forest to promote forest healthy,” Simpson said. “We want to generate income for Lake County, and put that money into conservation.”

At this stage, Simpson said, he is merely seeking comments from the public. “We want to find out, from you, if this project goes forward or not, before we approach the governor and the Montana Congressional delegation.”

Simpson showed a time-lapse video of the devastating Roaring Lion fire in the Bitterroot Valley this past summer, a wildfire that burned nearly 8,000 acres and destroyed 14 homes. He seemed to insinuate that the creation of a “conservation forest” would prevent such fires in the Swan Valley. However, there was no talk about forest-fire ecology; the historical and natural role of fire in creating and shaping western forests; how past management activities and climate change have contributed to recent increases in size, frequency and intensity of wildfires, and how the Forest Service has been actively engaged in collaborative efforts to reduce fire risks near and around homes and structures.

Some of the concerns and comments brought up by those in attendance: National Forests belong to all Americans, and all American should have a say on how they are managed; State management seems more driven by profit than protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat and clear, clean rivers and streams that are important to hunters, anglers and others; the Forest Service has a larger budget, and therefore more resources to better manage the forests and fight wildfires, and the state should seek to work collaboratively with the Forest Service to achieve goals rather than take over management of our National Forest lands.

In fact, just south of Swan Lake, a collaborative effort called the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project is bringing together a diversity of citizens with various interests – including hunters, anglers, business leaders, county commissioners, loggers, ranchers, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, environmentalist and others – to set aside their differences, find common ground, and manage National Forest and other lands in a manner that protects fish and wildlife and related recreational activities, reduces fire risks, and helps local communities. It seems preferable to turning our National Forest lands over to state management for 100 years.

Simpson says public comments will determine whether the project moves forward or not. To learn more, and provide input, go to: swanforestinitiative.org

David Stalling is the Montana Wildlife Federation Western Field Rep. Contact him at dstalling@mtwf.org

Jeff Lukas – MWF Elk Campaign Manager

Jeff Lukas

Elk Campaign Manager

Jeff Lukas is a passionate conservationist who has been fishing and hunting his entire life. Whether it’s floating a small stream chasing trout, pursuing elk in the high country, or waiting in a blind for ducks to set their wings, Jeff is always trying to bring more people afield to show them what we are trying to protect. He loves being in the arena, and he will never shy away from conversations about the beautiful and unique corners of Big Sky country.