Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Proposal 90 Sheep/Goats?

  1. #1
    Charterboat Operator Abel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kodiak
    Posts
    1,279

    Default Proposal 90 Sheep/Goats?

    Anyone else see this on the news this morning?

    http://www.alaskafb.org/board-of-gam...ers-in-alaska/

    I don't farm anything, I'm good at killing critters, not growing them so I'm shooting off the cuff here but, how often do the domestic and dalls cross paths? Here in Kodiak there people with goats, and our Mountain goats can drop pretty low as we watch them from the house, but I don't think they cross paths much...
    Life's to short for an ugly boat

    Blaze N Abel Charters
    Kodiak, AK
    www.alaska-fish.com
    https://www.facebook.com/BlazeNAbelCharters/?fref=ts

  2. #2
    Member polardds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    801

    Default

    The Attorney General has stated that the Board of Game (BOG) does not have this authority. But the BOG will do what the BOG wants. The Alaska Wild Sheep organization is really pushing this hard. There is much misinformation out there on both sides. It is something for the State Veterinarian to decide eventually not the BOG.

    Apparently the microbe they are worried about has to be passed by nose to nose contact. Also all the wild sheep and goats up here have the microbe present already. It is usually a stress event that will cause the sheep or goat to get ill.

    http://www.frontiersman.com/news/pro...367426f97.html

  3. #3

    Default

    At the Dall sheep meeting a biologist from Nevada gave a presentation on the devastation to the Big Horn sheep in her state due to the sharing of habitat by domestic sheep and wild sheep. It is transferred by sheep or goats to other wild species of sheep or goats. Several members of the working group lived in areas where domestic goats shared the same habitat as wild sheep. One exposure of an infected animal has the potential to wipe out an entire population in an uncontained area. Cattle and other hooved animals are not affected, according to their tests. Bad stuff, hope we never see it up here.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Eielson Farm Road
    Posts
    368

    Default

    The farm crowd is going BATCRAP nuts on Facebook, they'll be at the BOG meeting in March- torches, pitchforks and bad feelings.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polardds View Post
    There is much misinformation out there on both sides.
    Are you saying the sheep foundation is lying and if so what are the lies?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polardds View Post
    Also all the wild sheep and goats up here have the microbe present already.
    Please quote your source.

  7. #7
    Member polardds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    801

    Default

    I am not saying anyone is lying. Full disclosure, I am a lifetime Wild Sheep Foundation member. Each side has their science and depending on who funds the science is generally what side the science will support.

    The proposal 90 does not address whether the 15 air mile distance would be from current sheep habitat or what could be sheep habitat. The BOG has no authority according to State Law, so many of the local Fish and Game Advisory Committees have been taking "no action" on this proposal. The Wild Sheep people will eventually attempt this through the appropriate channels and we will see where it goes.

    I have not personally seen the "science" either side has used. From the public testimony given the "science" seems to contradict itself is basically what I was getting at.

  8. #8
    Member Bambistew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    315

    Default

    There is an absolute mountain of research on this topic, and for people to defend domestic sheep as being some innocent creature in this whole battle is a bit perplexing. Its akin to the tobacco industry telling you that cigarettes don't cause cancer, ton's of science there stating it doesn't. Undoubtedly, some people continue to believe it.

    I have no affiliation with any org, I'm just a concerned citizen who respects wild sheep and would surely hate to see them see the same fate as they have down south. It is my understanding that they do not have the microbe (mycoplasma ovipneumonia) present in their system, which is only found in domestic sheep. This microbe can result in an all age die off, or prolonged die off over many years due to poor recruitment. Some adults survive the initial infection, only to infect their lambs the following year... Very few lambs survive, not enough to maintain the herd and the herd will eventually go extinct. They've seen this time and time again down south, and just recently in the Tendoy Mountains of Montana, where they are currently extirpating the herd due to prolonged die off.

    The lethality and longevity depends on the strain. Much like when you get the flu, sometimes its worse than others. They do carry a similar species of pneumonia but it rarely (if ever) does the wild strain result in an all age die off... You can't lump all pneumonia into one simple category, you could divide them into two... domestic and wild strains, same with all animals... Its not just nose to nose, it can also be passed through the air (by coughing/ or sneezing) up to 50ft or more according to recent studies.

    What baffles me is the fact that the goat/sheep owners are not willing to take some responsibility to protect wild sheep. It really wouldn't take much. Some domestic animals do not carry disease, a simple test could prove it, and protections would not be as onerous.

    If the wild sheep passed disease to domestics with similar results, you can bet we would have had some sort of separation order on the books long ago, or even shoot on sight orders. All one has to do is look at the brucellosis issues down south... A known domestic disease passed to wild animals (elk and bison), eradicated from domestics via quarantine and vaccine. Yet, now they kill off wild animals (bison and elk) to "control" the disease from spreading back to domestics so they can maintain the brucellosis free status in domestic herds. Congratulations general public, your wildlife has been infected with a domestic disease, your problem now.

    Also, its interesting to note, that wildlife managers shoot wild sheep when they come in contact with domestics. Why? There is a high likelihood that the animal will return to the wild herd, infect the rest, and KILL THEM ALL. Shooting a few to save the rest is a small price to pay.

    There are lots of things that have to happen for transmission to occur, but keeping domestics away from wild sheep is of utmost concern. There are plenty of places that domestic sheep can be in Alaska with very low threat potential. Its highly unlikely that a sheep would come out of the Chugach to mingle with goats/sheep across the Glenn, travel through miles and miles of spruce forest, or go through a subdivision to mingle with a female. A place like McCarthy, Healy, Cooper Landing, Upper Eagle River, or other places where people live in 'rural' settings near sheep country, are places of concern.

    Imagine if we saw an all age die off in 14C today linked to domestic pneumonia. We've never seen this in Alaska, never been a documented case, so it would be safe to assume that it's not naturally occurring in our herds. What if we found the same strain in a domestic herd up, Highland Road. Are you willing to risk someones "rights" to own a pet over the viability of a herd of world class wild sheep over something as simple as a cheap test, a taller, or secondary fence?

    I don't agree with way this proposition was proposed, but I'm glad it was. It will finally get people talking about a ticking time bomb. its not a matter of if, its a matter of when it happens in Alaska. it doesn't matter if goats/sheep were banned in Alaska. There will still be people who raise them, don't follow the rules, and could give two ****s about wildlife. The only way we have a chance to do something is to work together and educate the public.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bambistew View Post
    There is an absolute mountain of research on this topic, and for people to defend domestic sheep as being some innocent creature in this whole battle is a bit perplexing. Its akin to the tobacco industry telling you that cigarettes don't cause cancer, ton's of science there stating it doesn't. Undoubtedly, some people continue to believe it.

    I have no affiliation with any org, I'm just a concerned citizen who respects wild sheep and would surely hate to see them see the same fate as they have down south. It is my understanding that they do not have the microbe (mycoplasma ovipneumonia) present in their system, which is only found in domestic sheep. This microbe can result in an all age die off, or prolonged die off over many years due to poor recruitment. Some adults survive the initial infection, only to infect their lambs the following year... Very few lambs survive, not enough to maintain the herd and the herd will eventually go extinct. They've seen this time and time again down south, and just recently in the Tendoy Mountains of Montana, where they are currently extirpating the herd due to prolonged die off.

    The lethality and longevity depends on the strain. Much like when you get the flu, sometimes its worse than others. They do carry a similar species of pneumonia but it rarely (if ever) does the wild strain result in an all age die off... You can't lump all pneumonia into one simple category, you could divide them into two... domestic and wild strains, same with all animals... Its not just nose to nose, it can also be passed through the air (by coughing/ or sneezing) up to 50ft or more according to recent studies.

    What baffles me is the fact that the goat/sheep owners are not willing to take some responsibility to protect wild sheep. It really wouldn't take much. Some domestic animals do not carry disease, a simple test could prove it, and protections would not be as onerous.

    If the wild sheep passed disease to domestics with similar results, you can bet we would have had some sort of separation order on the books long ago, or even shoot on sight orders. All one has to do is look at the brucellosis issues down south... A known domestic disease passed to wild animals (elk and bison), eradicated from domestics via quarantine and vaccine. Yet, now they kill off wild animals (bison and elk) to "control" the disease from spreading back to domestics so they can maintain the brucellosis free status in domestic herds. Congratulations general public, your wildlife has been infected with a domestic disease, your problem now.

    Also, its interesting to note, that wildlife managers shoot wild sheep when they come in contact with domestics. Why? There is a high likelihood that the animal will return to the wild herd, infect the rest, and KILL THEM ALL. Shooting a few to save the rest is a small price to pay.

    There are lots of things that have to happen for transmission to occur, but keeping domestics away from wild sheep is of utmost concern. There are plenty of places that domestic sheep can be in Alaska with very low threat potential. Its highly unlikely that a sheep would come out of the Chugach to mingle with goats/sheep across the Glenn, travel through miles and miles of spruce forest, or go through a subdivision to mingle with a female. A place like McCarthy, Healy, Cooper Landing, Upper Eagle River, or other places where people live in 'rural' settings near sheep country, are places of concern.

    Imagine if we saw an all age die off in 14C today linked to domestic pneumonia. We've never seen this in Alaska, never been a documented case, so it would be safe to assume that it's not naturally occurring in our herds. What if we found the same strain in a domestic herd up, Highland Road. Are you willing to risk someones "rights" to own a pet over the viability of a herd of world class wild sheep over something as simple as a cheap test, a taller, or secondary fence?

    I don't agree with way this proposition was proposed, but I'm glad it was. It will finally get people talking about a ticking time bomb. its not a matter of if, its a matter of when it happens in Alaska. it doesn't matter if goats/sheep were banned in Alaska. There will still be people who raise them, don't follow the rules, and could give two ****s about wildlife. The only way we have a chance to do something is to work together and educate the public.
    Well said bambistew. If you believe for one sec bambistew is being biased it is worth noting he is from a state where there's a lot of domestic sheep. In fact many montanains have married or dated a sheep at some point in their life.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    105

    Default

    In speaking from experience from Montana. They had close to 100% mortality rate in a population of wild sheep that was caused by domestic goats and sheep grazing in the same winter range as the sheep. It was a shame as they had strictly managed that population for years to produce a healthy huntable population. I believe the transfers The microbe was a lung work that eventually cause pneumonia then death.

  11. #11
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    I disagree with the a assertion that goat and sheep owners are doing nothing to protect wild sheep populations. Goat and sheep owners already keep their animals penned and fence to protect them from wild animals and also keep them on their own property. The requirement for addittinal fencing is expensive and not possible in the space available on many small holdings. There are no grazing leases in the state of Alaska which is really what this is about, in the western states where its a problem. The proposed changes in prop 90 would make it impossible for many small owners to raise goats and sheep. Many goat and sheep owners raise them on Properties less than one acre. 30 feet of additional fence all around would be too large an enclosure to allow many of these owners to continue raising their goats or sheep. Removal from the clean list would make it also impossible for many owners to continue raising their animals. This is a very large issue. It distresses me as an American believe strongly in the constitutional law in the Constitution and our Bill of Rights not only the 2nd amendment but all the amendments that one group of Americans is so ready to seize Liberty from another group for whatever reason but in this case out of fear of an event withan extremely small likelihood of ever happening. It also distresses me as a hunter, who hunts primarily for food, to see other hunters so willing to take food from those who raise it for themselves.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •