Help Needed: Alaska Sheep M. ovi Response

BrettAKSCI

New member
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
80
Location
Anchorage
ATTENTION ALASKAN SHEEP HUNTERS!!!

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game Recently announced that 4 Dall sheep in the Talkeetna Mountains and 2 mountain goats on the Kenai Peninsula tested positive for M. ovi. M. ovi is a serious disease that has decimated bighorn sheep populations in the lower 48. While we don’t at this time understand the scope and severity of the problem, it is clear that actions need to be taken to limit future transmission of M. ovi to our wild sheep, goats, and muskox.

Currently the Alaska Legislature is hearing testimony on this use. The House Resource Committee has proposed a continuing resolution HCR 23 to express support in confronting this issue and to instruct the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to do everything in its power to address M. ovi.

At this point it is critical that Alaskan sportsmen and women express support to the leaders of the House Resource Committee for HCR 23. We NEED you to send an email of support to the co-chair Representative Andy Josephson before their next meeting Wednesday March 21 at 1PM. Please send all emails to:

[email protected] and [email protected]

Items to include:

1. Your name.
2. Where you live.
3. Your experience hunting sheep.
4. Why sheep matter to you.
5. Why sheep are valuable to Alaska.
6. Why sheep matter in general.

Here’s HRC 23 for review:

HCR 23: Supporting enhanced efforts to protect wildlife and domestic animals in the state from infectious diseases, foreign pathogens, and nonendemic parasites.
00 HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 23
01 Supporting enhanced efforts to protect wildlife and domestic animals in the state from
02 infectious diseases, foreign pathogens, and nonendemic parasites.
03 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
04 WHEREAS the state contains some of the most productive and unique ecosystems on
05 the planet; and
06 WHEREAS the wildlife resources of the state hold intrinsic value to the state,
07 including economic value reaching into the billions of dollars annually; and
08 WHEREAS the state's wildlife is enjoyed by myriad user groups for hunting,
09 trapping, viewing, and general outdoor recreation; and
10 WHEREAS the Alaska State Legislature has the responsibility under the Constitution
11 of the State of Alaska to manage its natural resources, including wildlife, for the benefit of all
12 the people of the state; and
13 WHEREAS the state subscribes to science-based wildlife management; and
14 WHEREAS the state's wildlife managers are tasked with providing for a sustained
15 yield harvest; and
16 WHEREAS the wildlife of the state is under continuous and increasing threat from
01 foreign pathogens, infectious diseases, and nonendemic parasites; and
02 WHEREAS pathogen and disease transmission to wildlife in other areas of North
03 America has resulted in catastrophic die-offs and extirpation of distinct wild populations; and
04 WHEREAS similar pathogen and disease transmission to domestic animals has
05 resulted in costly and problematic die-offs; and
06 WHEREAS screening, reporting, and mitigation are proven and widely used tools for
07 preventing the import and transmission of disease pathogens to wild populations as well as
08 domestic animals;
09 BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature supports enhanced efforts to
10 protect the state's wildlife from infectious diseases, foreign pathogens, and nonendemic
11 parasites; and be it
12 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature encourages the
13 Department of Fish and Game, Department of Natural Resources, and Department of
14 Environmental Conservation, including the office of the state veterinarian, to take necessary
15 and prudent measures to detect and identify the presence of infectious diseases, foreign
16 pathogens, and nonendemic parasites that threaten wildlife and domestic animals in the state
17 and to engage in actions to prevent the spread of those diseases and pathogens to at-risk
18 wildlife and domestic animals.


Here’s a copy of my letter:

March 19, 2018

To:

The Honorable
Representative Andy Josephson,
Alaska House of Representatives
Room 102 Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99801
[email protected]

Representative Josephson,

My name is Dr. Brett xxxxx and I am an Anchorage resident. As an Alaskan I enjoy the wild untamed nature of our state. One of my favorite animals to observe, hunt, and photograph is our Dall sheep. Our state is blessed with more Dall sheep than all the big horn sheep in all the lower 48 states put together! They are a resource cherished for the recreational opportunities they provide as well as economic opportunities for Alaskans.

Hunting our Dall sheep and the time spent in our mountains in their pursuit is a near spiritual experience to me. No one is a casual sheep hunter. Either you haven’t done it, you do it once and that’s enough, or you’ve done it and it’s turned into an all encompassing passion that reaches fever pitch each fall! I am infatuated with sheep, the mountains, and sheep hunting. Sheep hunters spend thousands of dollars in gear, train many hours per week to keep our physical conditioning, and spend hundreds and thousands of dollars to support the conservation groups that perpetuate our sheep and their habitat.

Wild sheep are an enigmatic symbol of wilderness. Unfortunately in the lower 48 once robust wild sheep populations have succumb to habitat loss, early commercial hunting, and more recently catastrophic disease events. Domestic sheep and goats free to feed and roam in and near sheep habitat have spread foreign pathogens new to North America’s sheep. Particularly insidious is M. ovi. M. ovi is transmitted directly from domestic animals of the Caprinae subfamily to wild sheep and goats. Numerous studies have demonstrated M. ovi’s transmission from domestic to wild sheep. M. ovi does not usually directly kill its victims. Instead M. ovi paralyzes the cilia of the respiratory system making it difficult for wild sheep and goats to expel and control native pathogens. So eventually sheep and goats succumb to a concoction of infection from native bacteria due to M. ovi. In the lower 48, there have been all age die-offs as high as 80-90% of a total sheep herd. These are catastrophic events. Additionally survivors carry and spread M. ovi to new generations. Also lamb mortality and survival can be seriously impacted for many years, limiting the herd’s ability to repopulate.

M. ovi has various strains. Some of them are more virulent than others. We do not know the strain and virulence of the current M. ovi facing the sheep in the Talkeetna Range. What we do know is that it’s highly probable that M. ovi was transmitted to our wild sheep by domestic animals. If this event is not catastrophic and nothing is changed, it is only a matter of time before a more virulent and deadly strain is transmitted. In short, complacency and inaction are not options consistent with the health and survival of Alaska’s wild sheep.

I am writing you to express my support for HCR 23 and to implore the legislature to do everything in its power to protect Alaska’s wild sheep. It’s important at this time to understand that while Alaska has a wealth of sheep and sheep managers, it also has a dearth of those experience and knowledgeable with wild sheep pathology. At a time like this it is critical to avoid being a lone wolf or pioneer. It’s prudent to speak with experienced managers from the lower 48 who have spent their careers studying wild sheep and the pathogens that besiege them, including M. ovi. In speaking with these experts I have ascertained there are both immediate actions and long term actions that must occur to secure the health and future of Alaska’s wild sheep.

Immediately the legislature needs to pass legislation mandating the testing of all domestic animals of the Caprinae subfamily. Any animals infected with M. ovi must be destroyed. Similarly all future importation of animals form the subfamily Caprinae into the state of Alaska must be tested for M. ovi. M. ovi is not endemic to Alaska, so if it is eliminated from domestic stock, it can’t be transmitted to our wild animals. Also the legislature must act to ban animals from the subfamily Caprinae from being used as pack animals in wild sheep, goat, and muskox habitat. We must limit the ability of domestic animals to interact with our wild Caprinae. Lastly the Department of Fish and Game must immediately initiate a helicopter capture and testing project in the area of infection to confirm results and ascertain more data on the problem. There is a very finite window for doing this. As soon as April, pregnant ewes will become more susceptible to mortality due to stress from the capture. I implore the legislature to take any and all immediate action to ensure funding and support for the department to conduct this vital step in verifying and quantifying the problem we face in the next few weeks.

In the long term the Alaska Department of Fish and Game needs to study the population near the sight of infection. The total population, its make up, and lamb survival must be measured and monitored. Also a statewide disease-screening program needs to be implemented to secure nose swab samples from as many sport hunted sheep and goat specimens as possible. This will help determine the distribution of M. ovi throughout the state and monitor for future outbreaks or spread. I implore the legislature to ensure funding and support to The Alaska Department of Fish and Game for these measures.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this critical matter. Alaska’s wild sheep are near to my heart and I hope you will shoulder the task of being their champion.

Sincerely,

Dr. Brett xxxxxx
Address
Email
Phone
 

polardds

Active member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
909
Reaction score
27
Location
Wasilla
Dr. Brett,

This is an over reaction to a "problem" that has been here perhaps as long as the Dall Sheep. You as a health care professional should know that just because an animal carries a certain bacteria they are not "infected." That animal can be a carrier. Perhaps the State should cull all the Dall sheep that carry M Ovi? Because even if you cull all the private sheep and goats that are carriers the wild ones will still carry it. The State Vet had a great presentation at the BOG meeting in Anchorage. Unfortunately there is no vaccine or money in creating a vaccine. I did find it interesting at the State Vet's presentation that one nostril could have the bacteria while the other would test clean. To a lot of people in this State they find more value in a private sheep or goat over a wild sheep or goat.


As a last note the State Vet explained that overall in the Lower 48 wild sheep populations are growing with a few isolated die offs.
 

willphish4food

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
233
Location
Willow, AK
The state vet's response is much different than the OP's. He basically says that yes, we have found M.Ovi, but we don't know enough about it to draw conclusions yet. As to the OP's letter to the state: I agree with some, and disagree with others. Let me take one statement of fact: "M. ovi is not endemic to Alaska." This is not a wholly true statement, and is very misleading. It assumes that M. ovi has been studied so thoroughly in the state, that we know for a fact it is not endemic to the state. The fact of the matter is, we have not studied it long enough nor with a large enough sample size to state with certainty that it is not endemic. Just because it has only now been discovered, does not mean that it is newly introduced to the herd. The only conclusion we can clearly, emphatically, make, is that "M. Ovi has been found in wild sheep and goats in Alaska." And that is not enough knowledge on which to base aggressive culling and control measures.
"M. ovi has various strains. Some of them are more virulent than others. We do not know the strain and virulence of the current M. ovi facing the sheep in the Talkeetna Range." This is a true statement. And we can draw different conclusions, and urge vastly different courses of action based on those conclusions. My conclusion and advised course of action is different from that urged by the OP and WSF. First, we do not know whether this strain that's been found will cause any harm at all to the population, some harm, or wipe it out in a generation or two. Second, it is very possible that this is a mild strain or non deadly strain that can build a sheep's immunity toward more harmful strains. Third, we don't know if environmental differences between Dall Sheep habitat in Alaska and BigHorn sheep in New Mexico, Montana and Wyoming provide a barrier against massive die offs as seen in BigHorn populations. Fourth, we don't know if physiological differences between Dall and Big Horn sheep make Dall sheep less susceptible to harm from various strains of M. Ovi, either.
So I advise a course of further study of wild populations, and easily implementable, low cost measures to keep separation between domestic flocks and wild. Work with private owners to securely contain their animals and test for virulent strains of M. Ovi. Don't use government as a club to bludgeon your ideology into others who may disagree.
 

johnnycake

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
735
Reaction score
46
Brett, thanks. Having witnessed catastrophic outbreaks first hand in Utah bighorns, I just cannot understand the mindset of "let's just wait and not start any proactive measures because we don't know if it is a problem." True, we don't know yet how much M.ovi impacts thinhorns--but are people really to risk 100% die offs in certain ranges, even if that risk were say 5% or less? I personally think the likelihood of thinhorns reacting just like bighorns is quite high, there isn't much genetic difference in North America's sheep species and M.ovi is an Old-World bacterium.

In the 1800s there were millions of bighorns roaming the western U.S. In Utah alone it is estimated that there were approximately 1 million bighorns--three times as many deer as Utah currently has. By 1910 there were 4 million domestic sheep roaming Utah, and by 1920 Utah's rocky mountain bighorns were extinct and there were isolated pockets of desert bighorns located in a handful of inaccessible red-rock areas numbering fewer than 150 individuals. Even with aggressive reintroductions and transplants, Utah has about 4,000 total sheep between both species today. 0.4% of what was historically there.

Why would we risk even 1/10 of that happening here, especially based on the hope that Dall sheep have a resistance not yet found in N.A. wild sheep?

And if you read the bill, it isn't saying anything concrete needs to happen, just that the DNR, ADFG, and DEC should all develop measures to detect, identify, and prevent the spread of infectious diseases in wild and domestic animals. Really, people are AGAINST the detection, identification and spread of diseases?
 

BrettAKSCI

New member
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
80
Location
Anchorage
"This is an over reaction to a "problem" that has been here perhaps as long as the Dall Sheep."

In all lower 48 analysis M. ovi is an old world pathogen completely foreign to North America that was brought over with domestic animals by Europeans. The concept that it probably has always been in Alaska's sheep does not hold water. Similarly of the 100 and some sheep tested from hunter harvest last year only 4 from a specific drainage in the Talkeetna Mountains tested positive for M. ovi. The only reasonable questions are when and how M. ovi spread from domestic animals and not if.


"You as a health care professional should know that just because an animal carries a certain bacteria they are not "infected.""

You are 100% correct. The 4 sheep were carriers and not suffering an active infection. It is unknown if there is an active infection or die off or if there ever has been in the past. M. ovi has many different strains. Some virulent with massive dieoffs and some pretty inert. We have no idea how virulent this one is or if it has caused any mortality. What we do know is that disease transmission has at least happened once (well twice with the mountain goats from the Kenai) and if nothing is changed with the way we handle domestic sheep and goats it is likely only a matter of time before it happens again. You do it enough times and eventually you crap out with a virulent strain.

"Perhaps the State should cull all the Dall sheep that carry M Ovi? Because even if you cull all the private sheep and goats that are carriers the wild ones will still carry it."

If it's an inert strain the fact that they are carrying may be a minimal issue. There can still be many other strains in domestic goats and sheep and some of those may be the "widow maker" that we hope to avoid. While some sheep may have been exposed we know from research that it does not help protect them in any way from other more virulent strains. So there is no down side to wild sheep and in fact a huge upside to continuing with mandatory domestic testing and destruction of infected animals.

"The State Vet had a great presentation at the BOG meeting in Anchorage. Unfortunately there is no vaccine or money in creating a vaccine. I did find it interesting at the State Vet's presentation that one nostril could have the bacteria while the other would test clean."

All the more reason for an immediate helicopter capture study in the area of infection with both nasal swab testing for M. ovi presence and blood testing for titters which show previous exposure. Similarly the domestics could/should perhaps be subject to mandator blood and nasal tests.

"To a lot of people in this State they find more value in a private sheep or goat over a wild sheep or goat."

And I have no problem with that. This shouldn't be an either or conversation. If we have a clean domestic sheep and goat population state wide, disease transmission is a nonissue. The only concern with be wild sheep and goats carrying to M. ovi giving back to domestics. Perhaps a reason to look into restricting using sheep and goats as pack animals in wild sheep and goat habitat. I'm not dogmatic on this point. I think a reasonable discussion could be had, but people with these pack animals will need to know that they are risking their destruction if they do contract (assuming mandatory testing and destruction take place).

"As a last note the State Vet explained that overall in the Lower 48 wild sheep populations are growing with a few isolated die offs."

This is naive beyond belief. Wild sheep have come back in the lower 48 in SOME locations with a LOT of work and money from WSF, state managers, and federal managers IN SPITE of M.ovi. There are plenty of herds with stagnant or declining populations due to M. ovi. Please do not minimize this. There is no defense for this position. It can only be born of ignorance on this topic. There are bodies of research, pier reviewed papers, and veterinarians who are experts on this subject and have dedicated their careers to this who would state otherwise. I'm similarly concerned with the state vet after his ADN comment that the strain found in the 4 sheep was not the same strain as found in Alaska's domestic animals. This is a categorically false statement since they have yet to test the strain of the M. ovi they found in the 4 sheep. Being tasked to address a problem does not confer expertise on the problem.

Brett
 

polardds

Active member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
909
Reaction score
27
Location
Wasilla
Dr. Brett,

I am still processing how I feel about this issue and how it should be resolved. I was trying to get a discussion started and so far it seems to be staying civil. When you start talking about "destroying" any domestics that test positive you will be surprised at how many people then won't get their animals tested. So the State needs to move carefully on that front as they have already alienated a lot of the domestic producers who no longer wish to facilitate any kind of testing. I don't own any domestics and have successfully gone on several sheep hunts. The State will have to balance the importance of domestics vs the importance of wild sheep. I was trying to foster the discussion as this site is expectedly biased towards the wild sheep and goats.
 

BrettAKSCI

New member
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
80
Location
Anchorage
"The state vet's response is much different than the OP's. He basically says that yes, we have found M.Ovi, but we don't know enough about it to draw conclusions yet. As to the OP's letter to the state: I agree with some, and disagree with others. Let me take one statement of fact: "M. ovi is not endemic to Alaska." This is not a wholly true statement, and is very misleading. It assumes that M. ovi has been studied so thoroughly in the state, that we know for a fact it is not endemic to the state. The fact of the matter is, we have not studied it long enough nor with a large enough sample size to state with certainty that it is not endemic. Just because it has only now been discovered, does not mean that it is newly introduced to the herd. The only conclusion we can clearly, emphatically, make, is that "M. Ovi has been found in wild sheep and goats in Alaska." And that is not enough knowledge on which to base aggressive culling and control measures."

Right well by definition you can't know everything about M. ovi in the state of Alaska by studying it extensively if you just found out it exists. The concept that you shouldn't do anything until you know everything is just not practical or reasonable. Especially so since M. ovi has been studied EXTENSIVELY in the lower 48. The strains studied are not from North America. It is an old world pathology. Therefore it is HIGHLY likely and also very reasonable to assume in the absence of Alaska specific research that this is the case here are well. Additionally it is important to note that these 4 sheep were detected in a wide study of over 100 hunter killed specimens last year from all over the state. The statistical probability that it's endemic and always been in our sheep, but only 4 sheep tested positive and all from the same drainage in the same mountain range is just not likely at all. This was a domestic to wild sheep transmission. The only question is when did it happen and how?

""M. ovi has various strains. Some of them are more virulent than others. We do not know the strain and virulence of the current M. ovi facing the sheep in the Talkeetna Range." This is a true statement. And we can draw different conclusions, and urge vastly different courses of action based on those conclusions. My conclusion and advised course of action is different from that urged by the OP and WSF. First, we do not know whether this strain that's been found will cause any harm at all to the population, some harm, or wipe it out in a generation or two."

Correct however we now know that domestics can infect wild sheep under our current lack of structure. It is reasonable to assume a future transmission will occur if nothing is done.

"Second, it is very possible that this is a mild strain or non deadly strain that can build a sheep's immunity toward more harmful strains."

That's actually not possible. It's been studied and documented extensively in the lower 48 that sheep herds exposed to mild strains are in no way shielded from the effects of more virulent strains when exposed. There are many cases of this. So there is no downside to preventing future transmission through rigorous testing and destruction program for domestic animals. Also there is no upside to exposure.

"Third, we don't know if environmental differences between Dall Sheep habitat in Alaska and BigHorn sheep in New Mexico, Montana and Wyoming provide a barrier against massive die offs as seen in BigHorn populations."

Agreed, but that doesn't need to stop us from ensuring a clean domestic stock in Alaska. The Alaska WSF is willing to pay for all testing and compensate owner of animals that test positive and are destroyed. Once you rip off the bandaid it is done. As long as animals entering the state are tested it will be a nonissue aside from the continued compliance and funding.

"Fourth, we don't know if physiological differences between Dall and Big Horn sheep make Dall sheep less susceptible to harm from various strains of M. Ovi, either."

Agree, but yet again not a reason to do nothing in the face of mountains of research on M. ovi and wild sheep and especially with the presence of reasonable options to mitigate potential risk.


"So I advise a course of further study of wild populations, and easily implementable, low cost measures to keep separation between domestic flocks and wild. Work with private owners to securely contain their animals and test for virulent strains of M. Ovi. Don't use government as a club to bludgeon your ideology into others who may disagree."

Containment and separation of domestic flocks will be way more heavy handed and "big government" than testing and destruction of carriers. I think this can be done with minimal invasiveness and with no monetary cost to domestic owners. I think this is a good faith move from those owners and avoids any need for an either/or conversation or debate. In this case if we have a disease free domestic herd. We can have our cake and eat it too.

Brett
 

BrettAKSCI

New member
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
80
Location
Anchorage
Dr. Brett,

I am still processing how I feel about this issue and how it should be resolved. I was trying to get a discussion started and so far it seems to be staying civil. When you start talking about "destroying" any domestics that test positive you will be surprised at how many people then won't get their animals tested. So the State needs to move carefully on that front as they have already alienated a lot of the domestic producers who no longer wish to facilitate any kind of testing. I don't own any domestics and have successfully gone on several sheep hunts. The State will have to balance the importance of domestics vs the importance of wild sheep. I was trying to foster the discussion as this site is expectedly biased towards the wild sheep and goats.

No worries. I appreciate the discussion. I don't see how to deal with domestics carrying M. ovi other than destruction. I get that is a major heartburn for owners. If it is a farm animal raised for meat the good news is there's no reason why it could still not be consumed and fully utilized. For a 4H kid or someone with a pet I can understand the heartburn and empathize. If someone suggested my dog must be destroyed to save wolves or coyotes I could only imagine how I would react. I get it. The only solace I can say is I think the disease rate is around 4 or 5%, so not a lot. By my calculations maybe less than 20 animals statewide???? Also once you pull the bandaid it's done. You keep testing and as long as it's not brought in we don't destroy animals.

Brett
 

BrettAKSCI

New member
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
80
Location
Anchorage
I read the other day, that even after seeing the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there are still people who believe the earth is flat...

Honestly this is just not something that most people know much about and really why should they? I'm not an expert. Nor did I know much about it even a week ago, but I've spent a fair amount of time over the last few days pouring over articles and having conversations with experts in this field. I had many of the same questions and skepticism that other people currently have, but I've asked they questions to people who know and they've cited research to back it up. I'm not an expert, but I can certainly regurgitate some facts and research from experts at this point!

Brett
 

ERDucker

Active member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
679
Reaction score
33
Location
Eagle River, Alaska, United States
Honestly this is just not something that most people know much about and really why should they? I'm not an expert. Nor did I know much about it even a week ago, but I've spent a fair amount of time over the last few days pouring over articles and having conversations with experts in this field. I had many of the same questions and skepticism that other people currently have, but I've asked they questions to people who know and they've cited research to back it up. I'm not an expert, but I can certainly regurgitate some facts and research from experts at this point!

Brett

Perhaps my comment missed the point. The facts are the virus is now present in Alaska and we should take measures to slow its spread or eliminate more introduction. WSF has brought forth reasonable proposals to deal with the possibility of it coming from domestic stock, but the no way in hell crowd refuses to listen. Instead, they prefer to bury their heads in the sand and ignore what has already been proven fact in other sheep areas.
 

BrettAKSCI

New member
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
80
Location
Anchorage
Perhaps my comment missed the point. The facts are the virus is now present in Alaska and we should take measures to slow its spread or eliminate more introduction. WSF has brought forth reasonable proposals to deal with the possibility of it coming from domestic stock, but the no way in hell crowd refuses to listen. Instead, they prefer to bury their heads in the sand and ignore what has already been proven fact in other sheep areas.

I agree. We're on the same page.

Brett
 

Bear

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
3,136
Reaction score
190
I find it funny ...no ridiculous that people can so easily dismiss this when to my understanding there is no long term study of how it affects thin horn sheep.
 

4merguide

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
13,049
Reaction score
820
Location
Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
I find it funny ...no ridiculous that people can so easily dismiss this when to my understanding there is no long term study of how it affects thin horn sheep.

"Something" has been putting the hammer down on Kenai sheep for quite awhile now, and now they find out that at a minimum a couple unit 15 goats have tested positive for movi. The 2009 article I read said they were VERY concerned about ewes not conceiving. Then I now read about how movi can contribute to that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to at least consider there may be some correlation here.

At a bare minimum, I believe F&G should immediately make it a requirement that any sheep or goats used as pack animals be tested before venturing out into wild sheep and goat country. I believe this would be a simple enough start to at least TRY to err on the side of caution. Besides, I would think that domestic animal owners would WANT to know weather or not their animals had contracted movi or not regardless, even if it wasn't causing them to become sick...
 

Bushwhack Jack

New member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
221
I read about this on the ADF&G website about a week ago. I'm curious if they only discovered the presence of this pathogen because they just started testing for it, or if they have always tested for this pathogen and this is the first positive test. When I read about it on the website it sounded like the sheep that tested positive were all healthy. So perhaps this is nothing new, but we are just noticing it now. Regardless, it is something we should all be concerned about as sportsmen. It think it is a highly critical that domestic sheep and goats should remain quarantined from wild sheep.
 

Chisana

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
75
Location
Juneau, Alaska
That it showed up in units 25 and 26 is certainly interesting. Does anyone know the history of using pack animals in the Brooks?

I know there have been horses taken in as far east as the Sheenjek. Seems logical that other domestics have been present in the communities near the Haul Road in the Brooks Range.
 

BRWNBR

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
10,027
Reaction score
508
Location
Big Lake
I think we all need more information. A lot of emotional knee jerk reactions, we need more data and a better more complete understanding of what is actually in Alaska’s Sheep and what it is capabal of doing/becoming.
 
Top