Domestic sheep and goats prohibited…

[skagitsteel]

Sorry Skagit but your statements are simply not true. It is the exact same disease in goats and sheep. Not a different strain because they are different species. Goats and sheep share the exact same diseases and they are readily transmissible. Funny how the people who have pack goats argue in favor of using them by spreading misinformation. The main reason for tracing back to free range domestic sheep is because not many people are free ranging domestic goats.

Do your research there is not just one strain. Over 100 known strains and many more that are likely unknown. What we know domestic sheep consistently pose a threat. Goats have not been proven to pose the same threat and should not be lumped into the same category as domestic sheep. Not saying throw caution to the wind with goats, just different considerations than domestic sheep. For example a tested, clean herd to enter areas with known populations of wild sheep would not be unreasonable. Also never leaving goats tied alone at camp, where there would be a chance of wild sheep approaching them. Keeping them tied down near a tent at night so no chance of one wandering off, ect..

[YellowDog]

I realize this is an old topic but didn't see the point in starting a new one to respond to the posts made in this one. 
The reality is that the misinformation that is being spread and cited on this topic is not being done by the packgoat community.  There is no scientific evidence to support most if not all of the claims that are being made to support these bans of packgoats.  That is, there is research that shows that large herds of domestic sheep on allotments of FS land and lands owned and managed by other public agencies do pose a risk to bighorn sheep.  Likewise, large herds of domestic sheep on PRIVATE land adjacent to or within 35 miles of any Bighorn Sheep habitat pose a risk to Bighorn Sheep because Bighorn Sheep do not recognize imaginary boundaries drawn on a map delineating who owns a particular parcel of land.  Bighorn sheep, in particular rams, are known to travel long distances outside of their "home range" (up to 35 miles) and in doing so they undoubtedly travel through and across privately owned land that house large herds of domestic sheep so there is still just as big of a risk of disease transmission from a domestic sheep to a BHS due to the wild and uninhibited nature of Bighorn Sheep.  These effectively do nothing to insure that disease transmission doesn't occur because BHS are and always will be wild animals that travel, "trespass" on private land, and come into contact with domestic animals which exposes them to a certain level of risk of disease transmission. 

M.ovi has been documented in numerous wild animal populations including deer, elk, moose, mountain goats, and others so the risk is present in nature regardless. 

There absolutely are different strains of the M.ovi pathogen which is well documented and verified by scientific evidence.  Statements to the contrary are either being made in error or as lies.

The current policy embraced by BHS biologists is "Test and Remove".  That is that they capture and test BHS and if they test positive for M.ovi they kill the sheep.  This, in my opinion flies in the face of the "herd immunity" benefits we learned about through the COVID-19 pandemic.  The biologists are removing (killing) all BHS that are able to survive M.ovi  when in fact those sheep that are able to survive might just be the best chance BHS have for long term survival because they are removing the very sheep that have developed an immunity to the pathogen that causes the disease that is believed to be causing the die offs. 

Finally, it is a known scientific fact that Canine Parvo lives outside of its host (domestic dogs) for months if not years.  It is also known that Canine Parvo is transmissible to the beloved Grey Wolf which now inhabit the vast majority of our state and public lands.  So I ask you, why are we not closing all public lands to domestic dogs due to the KNOWN risk of transmission of Parvo to Wolves?  This would mean that there would effectively be no more pheasant, chukar, duck, goose, grouse, etc. hunting because your bird dog could possibly have parvo, leave the pathogen on public land, and a wolf could become infected, infect its pack, and cause the death of wolves.  This logic for this type of ban on domestic dogs is actually MORE supported by scientific evidence than the bans that are being placed on packgoats when it comes to bighorn sheep.  Think about that one and ask yourself if your willing to accept that since any domestic dog has the potential to pose a risk to wolves, we should ban them from all public land?

[Platensek-po]

I realize this is an old topic but didn't see the point in starting a new one to respond to the posts made in this one. 
The reality is that the misinformation that is being spread and cited on this topic is not being done by the packgoat community.  There is no scientific evidence to support most if not all of the claims that are being made to support these bans of packgoats.  That is, there is research that shows that large herds of domestic sheep on allotments of FS land and lands owned and managed by other public agencies do pose a risk to bighorn sheep.  Likewise, large herds of domestic sheep on PRIVATE land adjacent to or within 35 miles of any Bighorn Sheep habitat pose a risk to Bighorn Sheep because Bighorn Sheep do not recognize imaginary boundaries drawn on a map delineating who owns a particular parcel of land.  Bighorn sheep, in particular rams, are known to travel long distances outside of their "home range" (up to 35 miles) and in doing so they undoubtedly travel through and across privately owned land that house large herds of domestic sheep so there is still just as big of a risk of disease transmission from a domestic sheep to a BHS due to the wild and uninhibited nature of Bighorn Sheep.  These effectively do nothing to insure that disease transmission doesn't occur because BHS are and always will be wild animals that travel, "trespass" on private land, and come into contact with domestic animals which exposes them to a certain level of risk of disease transmission. 

M.ovi has been documented in numerous wild animal populations including deer, elk, moose, mountain goats, and others so the risk is present in nature regardless. 

There absolutely are different strains of the M.ovi pathogen which is well documented and verified by scientific evidence.  Statements to the contrary are either being made in error or as lies.

The current policy embraced by BHS biologists is "Test and Remove".  That is that they capture and test BHS and if they test positive for M.ovi they kill the sheep.  This, in my opinion flies in the face of the "herd immunity" benefits we learned about through the COVID-19 pandemic.  The biologists are removing (killing) all BHS that are able to survive M.ovi  when in fact those sheep that are able to survive might just be the best chance BHS have for long term survival because they are removing the very sheep that have developed an immunity to the pathogen that causes the disease that is believed to be causing the die offs. 

Finally, it is a known scientific fact that Canine Parvo lives outside of its host (domestic dogs) for months if not years.  It is also known that Canine Parvo is transmissible to the beloved Grey Wolf which now inhabit the vast majority of our state and public lands.  So I ask you, why are we not closing all public lands to domestic dogs due to the KNOWN risk of transmission of Parvo to Wolves?  This would mean that there would effectively be no more pheasant, chukar, duck, goose, grouse, etc. hunting because your bird dog could possibly have parvo, leave the pathogen on public land, and a wolf could become infected, infect its pack, and cause the death of wolves.  This logic for this type of ban on domestic dogs is actually MORE supported by scientific evidence than the bans that are being placed on packgoats when it comes to bighorn sheep.  Think about that one and ask yourself if your willing to accept that since any domestic dog has the potential to pose a risk to wolves, we should ban them from all public land?

It Was my understanding that they remove those sheep cause they can still transmit the disease even if they show no symptoms. So they can pass them on to young who are particularly vulnerable.
Most domestic dogs are vaccinated against parvo. How many hunting dogs are not vaccinated against parvo? Much different than having a bunch of sheep and goats roaming around potentially carrying a disease for which there is no vaccine.

[YellowDog]

I realize this is an old topic but didn't see the point in starting a new one to respond to the posts made in this one. 
The reality is that the misinformation that is being spread and cited on this topic is not being done by the packgoat community.  There is no scientific evidence to support most if not all of the claims that are being made to support these bans of packgoats.  That is, there is research that shows that large herds of domestic sheep on allotments of FS land and lands owned and managed by other public agencies do pose a risk to bighorn sheep.  Likewise, large herds of domestic sheep on PRIVATE land adjacent to or within 35 miles of any Bighorn Sheep habitat pose a risk to Bighorn Sheep because Bighorn Sheep do not recognize imaginary boundaries drawn on a map delineating who owns a particular parcel of land.  Bighorn sheep, in particular rams, are known to travel long distances outside of their "home range" (up to 35 miles) and in doing so they undoubtedly travel through and across privately owned land that house large herds of domestic sheep so there is still just as big of a risk of disease transmission from a domestic sheep to a BHS due to the wild and uninhibited nature of Bighorn Sheep.  These effectively do nothing to insure that disease transmission doesn't occur because BHS are and always will be wild animals that travel, "trespass" on private land, and come into contact with domestic animals which exposes them to a certain level of risk of disease transmission. 

M.ovi has been documented in numerous wild animal populations including deer, elk, moose, mountain goats, and others so the risk is present in nature regardless. 

There absolutely are different strains of the M.ovi pathogen which is well documented and verified by scientific evidence.  Statements to the contrary are either being made in error or as lies.

The current policy embraced by BHS biologists is "Test and Remove".  That is that they capture and test BHS and if they test positive for M.ovi they kill the sheep.  This, in my opinion flies in the face of the "herd immunity" benefits we learned about through the COVID-19 pandemic.  The biologists are removing (killing) all BHS that are able to survive M.ovi  when in fact those sheep that are able to survive might just be the best chance BHS have for long term survival because they are removing the very sheep that have developed an immunity to the pathogen that causes the disease that is believed to be causing the die offs. 

Finally, it is a known scientific fact that Canine Parvo lives outside of its host (domestic dogs) for months if not years.  It is also known that Canine Parvo is transmissible to the beloved Grey Wolf which now inhabit the vast majority of our state and public lands.  So I ask you, why are we not closing all public lands to domestic dogs due to the KNOWN risk of transmission of Parvo to Wolves?  This would mean that there would effectively be no more pheasant, chukar, duck, goose, grouse, etc. hunting because your bird dog could possibly have parvo, leave the pathogen on public land, and a wolf could become infected, infect its pack, and cause the death of wolves.  This logic for this type of ban on domestic dogs is actually MORE supported by scientific evidence than the bans that are being placed on packgoats when it comes to bighorn sheep.  Think about that one and ask yourself if your willing to accept that since any domestic dog has the potential to pose a risk to wolves, we should ban them from all public land?

It Was my understanding that they remove those sheep cause they can still transmit the disease even if they show no symptoms. So they can pass them on to young who are particularly vulnerable.
Most domestic dogs are vaccinated against parvo. How many hunting dogs are not vaccinated against parvo? Much different than having a bunch of sheep and goats roaming around potentially carrying a disease for which there is no vaccine.

MOST packgoats are tested for and negative for M.ovi too so they should be good to go too then right?  The risk of pathogen transmission from a packgoat as opposed to large herds of sheep is unproven, undocumented, and based entirely on the fact that it "could maybe happen."  The comment you make suggesting packgoats are "roaming around" like large flocks of sheep on allotments is completely misleading and shows your complete lack of understanding of what a packgoat is and does and how they are handled, cared for, monitored, etc. is very telling.  The point is, the risk of disease transmission is ADMITTEDLY extremely low (per the scientists and researchers, not my assertion) from packgoats to BHS and the Forest Service, other land managers, and wildlife biologists, etc. admit and agree that there has never been an actual risk assessment study so they have no idea what the actual risk of disease transmission is but they suspect that it is possible so if there is "any chance" it could happen then its safer to ban packgoats.  Well, the same should apply to domestic dogs since there is a KNOWN risk of disease transmission to wolves, documented cases of parvo being contracted by wolves, and since there is a risk it surely is just safer to just ban domestic dogs from public lands, right?

And yes, they are killing the sheep that test positive for M.ovi because they could (and probably would) transmit the pathogen to other sheep in the herd but if we believe in "herd immunity" as we learned was achievable and desirable when it came to our own lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, then shouldn't that be achievable and desirable in BHS populations to insure their continued existence and ability to develop resistance to the pathogen?  Killing sheep that can survive M.ovi ensures that M.ovi will continue to kill BHS, plain and simple. 

[Platensek-po]

I realize this is an old topic but didn't see the point in starting a new one to respond to the posts made in this one. 
The reality is that the misinformation that is being spread and cited on this topic is not being done by the packgoat community.  There is no scientific evidence to support most if not all of the claims that are being made to support these bans of packgoats.  That is, there is research that shows that large herds of domestic sheep on allotments of FS land and lands owned and managed by other public agencies do pose a risk to bighorn sheep.  Likewise, large herds of domestic sheep on PRIVATE land adjacent to or within 35 miles of any Bighorn Sheep habitat pose a risk to Bighorn Sheep because Bighorn Sheep do not recognize imaginary boundaries drawn on a map delineating who owns a particular parcel of land.  Bighorn sheep, in particular rams, are known to travel long distances outside of their "home range" (up to 35 miles) and in doing so they undoubtedly travel through and across privately owned land that house large herds of domestic sheep so there is still just as big of a risk of disease transmission from a domestic sheep to a BHS due to the wild and uninhibited nature of Bighorn Sheep.  These effectively do nothing to insure that disease transmission doesn't occur because BHS are and always will be wild animals that travel, "trespass" on private land, and come into contact with domestic animals which exposes them to a certain level of risk of disease transmission. 

M.ovi has been documented in numerous wild animal populations including deer, elk, moose, mountain goats, and others so the risk is present in nature regardless. 

There absolutely are different strains of the M.ovi pathogen which is well documented and verified by scientific evidence.  Statements to the contrary are either being made in error or as lies.

The current policy embraced by BHS biologists is "Test and Remove".  That is that they capture and test BHS and if they test positive for M.ovi they kill the sheep.  This, in my opinion flies in the face of the "herd immunity" benefits we learned about through the COVID-19 pandemic.  The biologists are removing (killing) all BHS that are able to survive M.ovi  when in fact those sheep that are able to survive might just be the best chance BHS have for long term survival because they are removing the very sheep that have developed an immunity to the pathogen that causes the disease that is believed to be causing the die offs. 

Finally, it is a known scientific fact that Canine Parvo lives outside of its host (domestic dogs) for months if not years.  It is also known that Canine Parvo is transmissible to the beloved Grey Wolf which now inhabit the vast majority of our state and public lands.  So I ask you, why are we not closing all public lands to domestic dogs due to the KNOWN risk of transmission of Parvo to Wolves?  This would mean that there would effectively be no more pheasant, chukar, duck, goose, grouse, etc. hunting because your bird dog could possibly have parvo, leave the pathogen on public land, and a wolf could become infected, infect its pack, and cause the death of wolves.  This logic for this type of ban on domestic dogs is actually MORE supported by scientific evidence than the bans that are being placed on packgoats when it comes to bighorn sheep.  Think about that one and ask yourself if your willing to accept that since any domestic dog has the potential to pose a risk to wolves, we should ban them from all public land?

It Was my understanding that they remove those sheep cause they can still transmit the disease even if they show no symptoms. So they can pass them on to young who are particularly vulnerable.
Most domestic dogs are vaccinated against parvo. How many hunting dogs are not vaccinated against parvo? Much different than having a bunch of sheep and goats roaming around potentially carrying a disease for which there is no vaccine.

MOST packgoats are tested for and negative for M.ovi too so they should be good to go too then right?  The risk of pathogen transmission from a packgoat as opposed to large herds of sheep is unproven, undocumented, and based entirely on the fact that it "could maybe happen."  The comment you make suggesting packgoats are "roaming around" like large flocks of sheep on allotments is completely misleading and shows your complete lack of understanding of what a packgoat is and does and how they are handled, cared for, monitored, etc. is very telling.  The point is, the risk of disease transmission is ADMITTEDLY extremely low (per the scientists and researchers, not my assertion) from packgoats to BHS and the Forest Service, other land managers, and wildlife biologists, etc. admit and agree that there has never been an actual risk assessment study so they have no idea what the actual risk of disease transmission is but they suspect that it is possible so if there is "any chance" it could happen then its safer to ban packgoats.  Well, the same should apply to domestic dogs since there is a KNOWN risk of disease transmission to wolves, documented cases of parvo being contracted by wolves, and since there is a risk it surely is just safer to just ban domestic dogs from public lands, right?

And yes, they are killing the sheep that test positive for M.ovi because they could (and probably would) transmit the pathogen to other sheep in the herd but if we believe in "herd immunity" as we learned was achievable and desirable when it came to our own lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, then shouldn't that be achievable and desirable in BHS populations to insure their continued existence and ability to develop resistance to the pathogen?  Killing sheep that can survive M.ovi ensures that M.ovi will continue to kill BHS, plain and simple.

Wow. Ok. Herd immunity would be achieved like you said if we allowed m.ovi to run rampant on our bhs. However covid has about a %1 mortality rate? M.ovi has a %67 mortality rate in adult healthy bhs and a much much higher mortality rate in juveniles. Can our bhs herds withstand a reduction of their population by %70 and still have a viable gene pool? Your comparison with parvo is again nullified by vaccination. How many unvaccinated hunting dogs are running on public lands? Must be pretty close to 0. However %100 of all sheep and goats are unvaccinated against m.ovi. So even you got your animals tested there is no way of knowing they didn’t contract the disease in the time it takes to get results back and or travel to the area you are taking them too. It’s an apples to oranges comparison. My question to you is if you are willing to risk killing off %67 of a herd of bhs just so you can take your goats into an area? Is that a risk that all hunters are willing to allow?  Is the benefit of an extremely small percentage of hunters and backcountry explorers worth the risk of killing sheep?

[YellowDog]

I realize this is an old topic but didn't see the point in starting a new one to respond to the posts made in this one. 
The reality is that the misinformation that is being spread and cited on this topic is not being done by the packgoat community.  There is no scientific evidence to support most if not all of the claims that are being made to support these bans of packgoats.  That is, there is research that shows that large herds of domestic sheep on allotments of FS land and lands owned and managed by other public agencies do pose a risk to bighorn sheep.  Likewise, large herds of domestic sheep on PRIVATE land adjacent to or within 35 miles of any Bighorn Sheep habitat pose a risk to Bighorn Sheep because Bighorn Sheep do not recognize imaginary boundaries drawn on a map delineating who owns a particular parcel of land.  Bighorn sheep, in particular rams, are known to travel long distances outside of their "home range" (up to 35 miles) and in doing so they undoubtedly travel through and across privately owned land that house large herds of domestic sheep so there is still just as big of a risk of disease transmission from a domestic sheep to a BHS due to the wild and uninhibited nature of Bighorn Sheep.  These effectively do nothing to insure that disease transmission doesn't occur because BHS are and always will be wild animals that travel, "trespass" on private land, and come into contact with domestic animals which exposes them to a certain level of risk of disease transmission. 

M.ovi has been documented in numerous wild animal populations including deer, elk, moose, mountain goats, and others so the risk is present in nature regardless. 

There absolutely are different strains of the M.ovi pathogen which is well documented and verified by scientific evidence.  Statements to the contrary are either being made in error or as lies.

The current policy embraced by BHS biologists is "Test and Remove".  That is that they capture and test BHS and if they test positive for M.ovi they kill the sheep.  This, in my opinion flies in the face of the "herd immunity" benefits we learned about through the COVID-19 pandemic.  The biologists are removing (killing) all BHS that are able to survive M.ovi  when in fact those sheep that are able to survive might just be the best chance BHS have for long term survival because they are removing the very sheep that have developed an immunity to the pathogen that causes the disease that is believed to be causing the die offs. 

Finally, it is a known scientific fact that Canine Parvo lives outside of its host (domestic dogs) for months if not years.  It is also known that Canine Parvo is transmissible to the beloved Grey Wolf which now inhabit the vast majority of our state and public lands.  So I ask you, why are we not closing all public lands to domestic dogs due to the KNOWN risk of transmission of Parvo to Wolves?  This would mean that there would effectively be no more pheasant, chukar, duck, goose, grouse, etc. hunting because your bird dog could possibly have parvo, leave the pathogen on public land, and a wolf could become infected, infect its pack, and cause the death of wolves.  This logic for this type of ban on domestic dogs is actually MORE supported by scientific evidence than the bans that are being placed on packgoats when it comes to bighorn sheep.  Think about that one and ask yourself if your willing to accept that since any domestic dog has the potential to pose a risk to wolves, we should ban them from all public land?

It Was my understanding that they remove those sheep cause they can still transmit the disease even if they show no symptoms. So they can pass them on to young who are particularly vulnerable.
Most domestic dogs are vaccinated against parvo. How many hunting dogs are not vaccinated against parvo? Much different than having a bunch of sheep and goats roaming around potentially carrying a disease for which there is no vaccine.

MOST packgoats are tested for and negative for M.ovi too so they should be good to go too then right?  The risk of pathogen transmission from a packgoat as opposed to large herds of sheep is unproven, undocumented, and based entirely on the fact that it "could maybe happen."  The comment you make suggesting packgoats are "roaming around" like large flocks of sheep on allotments is completely misleading and shows your complete lack of understanding of what a packgoat is and does and how they are handled, cared for, monitored, etc. is very telling.  The point is, the risk of disease transmission is ADMITTEDLY extremely low (per the scientists and researchers, not my assertion) from packgoats to BHS and the Forest Service, other land managers, and wildlife biologists, etc. admit and agree that there has never been an actual risk assessment study so they have no idea what the actual risk of disease transmission is but they suspect that it is possible so if there is "any chance" it could happen then its safer to ban packgoats.  Well, the same should apply to domestic dogs since there is a KNOWN risk of disease transmission to wolves, documented cases of parvo being contracted by wolves, and since there is a risk it surely is just safer to just ban domestic dogs from public lands, right?

And yes, they are killing the sheep that test positive for M.ovi because they could (and probably would) transmit the pathogen to other sheep in the herd but if we believe in "herd immunity" as we learned was achievable and desirable when it came to our own lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, then shouldn't that be achievable and desirable in BHS populations to insure their continued existence and ability to develop resistance to the pathogen?  Killing sheep that can survive M.ovi ensures that M.ovi will continue to kill BHS, plain and simple.

Wow. Ok. Herd immunity would be achieved like you said if we allowed m.ovi to run rampant on our bhs. However covid has about a %1 mortality rate? M.ovi has a %67 mortality rate in adult healthy bhs and a much much higher mortality rate in juveniles. Can our bhs herds withstand a reduction of their population by %70 and still have a viable gene pool? Your comparison with parvo is again nullified by vaccination. How many unvaccinated hunting dogs are running on public lands? Must be pretty close to 0. However %100 of all sheep and goats are unvaccinated against m.ovi. So even you got your animals tested there is no way of knowing they didn’t contract the disease in the time it takes to get results back and or travel to the area you are taking them too. It’s an apples to oranges comparison. My question to you is if you are willing to risk killing off %67 of a herd of bhs just so you can take your goats into an area? Is that a risk that all hunters are willing to allow?  Is the benefit of an extremely small percentage of hunters and backcountry explorers worth the risk of killing sheep?

My point with herd immunity is that the so called experts DON'T KNOW what the answers are and by killing sheep that survive M.ovi you guarantee that herd immunity will never be achieved.  They aren't even studying those sheep that can survive to my knowledge to determine if they can come up with any kind of treatment, vaccination, etc. using the BHS that can survive M.ovi.  That doesn't make sense. 

The parvo comparison is absolutely not nullified just because there is a vaccine available.  The fact is that transmission of parvo from domestic dogs to wolves has happened and is documented while the transmission from a packgoat to a BHS has never been documented to have happened. 

Its not just unvaccinated "hunting dogs" that are the issue.  Its the irresponsible meth-head, tweaker, environmentalist hippies that may or may not vaccinate their domestic dogs and then go camping or hiking with them on public land. 

The RESEARCH has shown and the experts have stated repeatedly that M.ovi is almost always transmitted by nose to nose contact and that it (once again) MAY be possible for animals that are in close proximity to one another (feet from each other) at the same time to have airborne nasal droplets pass from one to another but it is not documented, proven, or known for sure and the likelihood of this happening is EXTREMELY low. Kinda like canine parvo, the liklihood of it passing to wolves is extremely low but they haven't proven that the risk is zero so its still possible and therefore dogs must be banned. 

If my goats are tested negative and they are not in close proximity to any other animals that can possibly carry M.ovi, there is no risk.  You make it appear as if M.ovi can spontaneously infect a domestic goat/packgoat.  If that's possible, then BHS who are even more susceptible to the pathogen are clearly doomed.

What I advocate for is facts, science, and proof before restricting the public from using public land.  They have spent millions and millions of dollars capturing and killing BHS and their solution now is just shut down public lands.  Well, BHS can and are contracting M.ovi by travelling outside their home range and coming into contact with domestic sheep so the closures are not effective and again, it has never been documented that a packgoat has caused a M.ovi outbreak in bighorn sheep. 

You could get hit by a car or a bus on your way to the store or home from work today, are you going to stay home to protect yourself?

[Jake Dogfish]

Their is no money to be made on “herd immunity”.

[Platensek-po]

I realize this is an old topic but didn't see the point in starting a new one to respond to the posts made in this one. 
The reality is that the misinformation that is being spread and cited on this topic is not being done by the packgoat community.  There is no scientific evidence to support most if not all of the claims that are being made to support these bans of packgoats.  That is, there is research that shows that large herds of domestic sheep on allotments of FS land and lands owned and managed by other public agencies do pose a risk to bighorn sheep.  Likewise, large herds of domestic sheep on PRIVATE land adjacent to or within 35 miles of any Bighorn Sheep habitat pose a risk to Bighorn Sheep because Bighorn Sheep do not recognize imaginary boundaries drawn on a map delineating who owns a particular parcel of land.  Bighorn sheep, in particular rams, are known to travel long distances outside of their "home range" (up to 35 miles) and in doing so they undoubtedly travel through and across privately owned land that house large herds of domestic sheep so there is still just as big of a risk of disease transmission from a domestic sheep to a BHS due to the wild and uninhibited nature of Bighorn Sheep.  These effectively do nothing to insure that disease transmission doesn't occur because BHS are and always will be wild animals that travel, "trespass" on private land, and come into contact with domestic animals which exposes them to a certain level of risk of disease transmission. 

M.ovi has been documented in numerous wild animal populations including deer, elk, moose, mountain goats, and others so the risk is present in nature regardless. 

There absolutely are different strains of the M.ovi pathogen which is well documented and verified by scientific evidence.  Statements to the contrary are either being made in error or as lies.

The current policy embraced by BHS biologists is "Test and Remove".  That is that they capture and test BHS and if they test positive for M.ovi they kill the sheep.  This, in my opinion flies in the face of the "herd immunity" benefits we learned about through the COVID-19 pandemic.  The biologists are removing (killing) all BHS that are able to survive M.ovi  when in fact those sheep that are able to survive might just be the best chance BHS have for long term survival because they are removing the very sheep that have developed an immunity to the pathogen that causes the disease that is believed to be causing the die offs. 

Finally, it is a known scientific fact that Canine Parvo lives outside of its host (domestic dogs) for months if not years.  It is also known that Canine Parvo is transmissible to the beloved Grey Wolf which now inhabit the vast majority of our state and public lands.  So I ask you, why are we not closing all public lands to domestic dogs due to the KNOWN risk of transmission of Parvo to Wolves?  This would mean that there would effectively be no more pheasant, chukar, duck, goose, grouse, etc. hunting because your bird dog could possibly have parvo, leave the pathogen on public land, and a wolf could become infected, infect its pack, and cause the death of wolves.  This logic for this type of ban on domestic dogs is actually MORE supported by scientific evidence than the bans that are being placed on packgoats when it comes to bighorn sheep.  Think about that one and ask yourself if your willing to accept that since any domestic dog has the potential to pose a risk to wolves, we should ban them from all public land?

It Was my understanding that they remove those sheep cause they can still transmit the disease even if they show no symptoms. So they can pass them on to young who are particularly vulnerable.
Most domestic dogs are vaccinated against parvo. How many hunting dogs are not vaccinated against parvo? Much different than having a bunch of sheep and goats roaming around potentially carrying a disease for which there is no vaccine.

MOST packgoats are tested for and negative for M.ovi too so they should be good to go too then right?  The risk of pathogen transmission from a packgoat as opposed to large herds of sheep is unproven, undocumented, and based entirely on the fact that it "could maybe happen."  The comment you make suggesting packgoats are "roaming around" like large flocks of sheep on allotments is completely misleading and shows your complete lack of understanding of what a packgoat is and does and how they are handled, cared for, monitored, etc. is very telling.  The point is, the risk of disease transmission is ADMITTEDLY extremely low (per the scientists and researchers, not my assertion) from packgoats to BHS and the Forest Service, other land managers, and wildlife biologists, etc. admit and agree that there has never been an actual risk assessment study so they have no idea what the actual risk of disease transmission is but they suspect that it is possible so if there is "any chance" it could happen then its safer to ban packgoats.  Well, the same should apply to domestic dogs since there is a KNOWN risk of disease transmission to wolves, documented cases of parvo being contracted by wolves, and since there is a risk it surely is just safer to just ban domestic dogs from public lands, right?

And yes, they are killing the sheep that test positive for M.ovi because they could (and probably would) transmit the pathogen to other sheep in the herd but if we believe in "herd immunity" as we learned was achievable and desirable when it came to our own lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, then shouldn't that be achievable and desirable in BHS populations to insure their continued existence and ability to develop resistance to the pathogen?  Killing sheep that can survive M.ovi ensures that M.ovi will continue to kill BHS, plain and simple.

Wow. Ok. Herd immunity would be achieved like you said if we allowed m.ovi to run rampant on our bhs. However covid has about a %1 mortality rate? M.ovi has a %67 mortality rate in adult healthy bhs and a much much higher mortality rate in juveniles. Can our bhs herds withstand a reduction of their population by %70 and still have a viable gene pool? Your comparison with parvo is again nullified by vaccination. How many unvaccinated hunting dogs are running on public lands? Must be pretty close to 0. However %100 of all sheep and goats are unvaccinated against m.ovi. So even you got your animals tested there is no way of knowing they didn’t contract the disease in the time it takes to get results back and or travel to the area you are taking them too. It’s an apples to oranges comparison. My question to you is if you are willing to risk killing off %67 of a herd of bhs just so you can take your goats into an area? Is that a risk that all hunters are willing to allow?  Is the benefit of an extremely small percentage of hunters and backcountry explorers worth the risk of killing sheep?

My point with herd immunity is that the so called experts DON'T KNOW what the answers are and by killing sheep that survive M.ovi you guarantee that herd immunity will never be achieved.  They aren't even studying those sheep that can survive to my knowledge to determine if they can come up with any kind of treatment, vaccination, etc. using the BHS that can survive M.ovi.  That doesn't make sense. 

The parvo comparison is absolutely not nullified just because there is a vaccine available.  The fact is that transmission of parvo from domestic dogs to wolves has happened and is documented while the transmission from a packgoat to a BHS has never been documented to have happened. 

Its not just unvaccinated "hunting dogs" that are the issue.  Its the irresponsible meth-head, tweaker, environmentalist hippies that may or may not vaccinate their domestic dogs and then go camping or hiking with them on public land. 

The RESEARCH has shown and the experts have stated repeatedly that M.ovi is almost always transmitted by nose to nose contact and that it (once again) MAY be possible for animals that are in close proximity to one another (feet from each other) at the same time to have airborne nasal droplets pass from one to another but it is not documented, proven, or known for sure and the likelihood of this happening is EXTREMELY low. Kinda like canine parvo, the liklihood of it passing to wolves is extremely low but they haven't proven that the risk is zero so its still possible and therefore dogs must be banned. 

If my goats are tested negative and they are not in close proximity to any other animals that can possibly carry M.ovi, there is no risk.  You make it appear as if M.ovi can spontaneously infect a domestic goat/packgoat.  If that's possible, then BHS who are even more susceptible to the pathogen are clearly doomed.

What I advocate for is facts, science, and proof before restricting the public from using public land.  They have spent millions and millions of dollars capturing and killing BHS and their solution now is just shut down public lands.  Well, BHS can and are contracting M.ovi by travelling outside their home range and coming into contact with domestic sheep so the closures are not effective and again, it has never been documented that a packgoat has caused a M.ovi outbreak in bighorn sheep. 

You could get hit by a car or a bus on your way to the store or home from work today, are you going to stay home to protect yourself?

You are avoiding the questions tho. Couldn’t your goats contract movi between the time they get tested and you get results back? Here immunity won’t be achieved that way because it causes %67 mortality amongst adult healthy bhs. Those that survive then infect the juveniles where the mortality rate is much much higher. You seem to not understand that. In the same argument that some dog owners could be irresponsible could the same not be said for goat owners? Your goats might not be a problem but can you say the same for everyone else? Is the benefit for an extremely small subset of users outweigh the negative of dead sheep? The fact that you won’t answer those questions is telling. There is an estimated population of 70k bhs in North America. Are you willing to allow that number to drop by %67 just so you and a few others can take goats into the backcountry? Bhs have a much more limited range than wolves. Again if a huge outbreak of parvo happens they can do a vaccination program for the wild animals, something you cannot do for movi. Did they “shut down” public lands or restrict a few animals from being allowed in certain areas? Huge difference. I repeat to you that you are asking that we risk the BHS population for the convenience of a very very small minority to be able to take part of their hobby in limited areas. Sheep may be able to travel outside of those areas but as you said they are usually single males and if they are proximity to movi I believe they try and put them down. You would be better served by pushing the vet industry to come up with a vaccine for domestic animals. Heck I wish they would do the same with brucellosis and bison/cattle. There it’s the opposite. We restrict bison to limited areas to protect domestic cattle. Should be the other way around.

[YellowDog]

I realize this is an old topic but didn't see the point in starting a new one to respond to the posts made in this one. 
The reality is that the misinformation that is being spread and cited on this topic is not being done by the packgoat community.  There is no scientific evidence to support most if not all of the claims that are being made to support these bans of packgoats.  That is, there is research that shows that large herds of domestic sheep on allotments of FS land and lands owned and managed by other public agencies do pose a risk to bighorn sheep.  Likewise, large herds of domestic sheep on PRIVATE land adjacent to or within 35 miles of any Bighorn Sheep habitat pose a risk to Bighorn Sheep because Bighorn Sheep do not recognize imaginary boundaries drawn on a map delineating who owns a particular parcel of land.  Bighorn sheep, in particular rams, are known to travel long distances outside of their "home range" (up to 35 miles) and in doing so they undoubtedly travel through and across privately owned land that house large herds of domestic sheep so there is still just as big of a risk of disease transmission from a domestic sheep to a BHS due to the wild and uninhibited nature of Bighorn Sheep.  These effectively do nothing to insure that disease transmission doesn't occur because BHS are and always will be wild animals that travel, "trespass" on private land, and come into contact with domestic animals which exposes them to a certain level of risk of disease transmission. 

M.ovi has been documented in numerous wild animal populations including deer, elk, moose, mountain goats, and others so the risk is present in nature regardless. 

There absolutely are different strains of the M.ovi pathogen which is well documented and verified by scientific evidence.  Statements to the contrary are either being made in error or as lies.

The current policy embraced by BHS biologists is "Test and Remove".  That is that they capture and test BHS and if they test positive for M.ovi they kill the sheep.  This, in my opinion flies in the face of the "herd immunity" benefits we learned about through the COVID-19 pandemic.  The biologists are removing (killing) all BHS that are able to survive M.ovi  when in fact those sheep that are able to survive might just be the best chance BHS have for long term survival because they are removing the very sheep that have developed an immunity to the pathogen that causes the disease that is believed to be causing the die offs. 

Finally, it is a known scientific fact that Canine Parvo lives outside of its host (domestic dogs) for months if not years.  It is also known that Canine Parvo is transmissible to the beloved Grey Wolf which now inhabit the vast majority of our state and public lands.  So I ask you, why are we not closing all public lands to domestic dogs due to the KNOWN risk of transmission of Parvo to Wolves?  This would mean that there would effectively be no more pheasant, chukar, duck, goose, grouse, etc. hunting because your bird dog could possibly have parvo, leave the pathogen on public land, and a wolf could become infected, infect its pack, and cause the death of wolves.  This logic for this type of ban on domestic dogs is actually MORE supported by scientific evidence than the bans that are being placed on packgoats when it comes to bighorn sheep.  Think about that one and ask yourself if your willing to accept that since any domestic dog has the potential to pose a risk to wolves, we should ban them from all public land?

It Was my understanding that they remove those sheep cause they can still transmit the disease even if they show no symptoms. So they can pass them on to young who are particularly vulnerable.
Most domestic dogs are vaccinated against parvo. How many hunting dogs are not vaccinated against parvo? Much different than having a bunch of sheep and goats roaming around potentially carrying a disease for which there is no vaccine.

MOST packgoats are tested for and negative for M.ovi too so they should be good to go too then right?  The risk of pathogen transmission from a packgoat as opposed to large herds of sheep is unproven, undocumented, and based entirely on the fact that it "could maybe happen."  The comment you make suggesting packgoats are "roaming around" like large flocks of sheep on allotments is completely misleading and shows your complete lack of understanding of what a packgoat is and does and how they are handled, cared for, monitored, etc. is very telling.  The point is, the risk of disease transmission is ADMITTEDLY extremely low (per the scientists and researchers, not my assertion) from packgoats to BHS and the Forest Service, other land managers, and wildlife biologists, etc. admit and agree that there has never been an actual risk assessment study so they have no idea what the actual risk of disease transmission is but they suspect that it is possible so if there is "any chance" it could happen then its safer to ban packgoats.  Well, the same should apply to domestic dogs since there is a KNOWN risk of disease transmission to wolves, documented cases of parvo being contracted by wolves, and since there is a risk it surely is just safer to just ban domestic dogs from public lands, right?

And yes, they are killing the sheep that test positive for M.ovi because they could (and probably would) transmit the pathogen to other sheep in the herd but if we believe in "herd immunity" as we learned was achievable and desirable when it came to our own lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, then shouldn't that be achievable and desirable in BHS populations to insure their continued existence and ability to develop resistance to the pathogen?  Killing sheep that can survive M.ovi ensures that M.ovi will continue to kill BHS, plain and simple.

Wow. Ok. Herd immunity would be achieved like you said if we allowed m.ovi to run rampant on our bhs. However covid has about a %1 mortality rate? M.ovi has a %67 mortality rate in adult healthy bhs and a much much higher mortality rate in juveniles. Can our bhs herds withstand a reduction of their population by %70 and still have a viable gene pool? Your comparison with parvo is again nullified by vaccination. How many unvaccinated hunting dogs are running on public lands? Must be pretty close to 0. However %100 of all sheep and goats are unvaccinated against m.ovi. So even you got your animals tested there is no way of knowing they didn’t contract the disease in the time it takes to get results back and or travel to the area you are taking them too. It’s an apples to oranges comparison. My question to you is if you are willing to risk killing off %67 of a herd of bhs just so you can take your goats into an area? Is that a risk that all hunters are willing to allow?  Is the benefit of an extremely small percentage of hunters and backcountry explorers worth the risk of killing sheep?

My point with herd immunity is that the so called experts DON'T KNOW what the answers are and by killing sheep that survive M.ovi you guarantee that herd immunity will never be achieved.  They aren't even studying those sheep that can survive to my knowledge to determine if they can come up with any kind of treatment, vaccination, etc. using the BHS that can survive M.ovi.  That doesn't make sense. 

The parvo comparison is absolutely not nullified just because there is a vaccine available.  The fact is that transmission of parvo from domestic dogs to wolves has happened and is documented while the transmission from a packgoat to a BHS has never been documented to have happened. 

Its not just unvaccinated "hunting dogs" that are the issue.  Its the irresponsible meth-head, tweaker, environmentalist hippies that may or may not vaccinate their domestic dogs and then go camping or hiking with them on public land. 

The RESEARCH has shown and the experts have stated repeatedly that M.ovi is almost always transmitted by nose to nose contact and that it (once again) MAY be possible for animals that are in close proximity to one another (feet from each other) at the same time to have airborne nasal droplets pass from one to another but it is not documented, proven, or known for sure and the likelihood of this happening is EXTREMELY low. Kinda like canine parvo, the liklihood of it passing to wolves is extremely low but they haven't proven that the risk is zero so its still possible and therefore dogs must be banned. 

If my goats are tested negative and they are not in close proximity to any other animals that can possibly carry M.ovi, there is no risk.  You make it appear as if M.ovi can spontaneously infect a domestic goat/packgoat.  If that's possible, then BHS who are even more susceptible to the pathogen are clearly doomed.

What I advocate for is facts, science, and proof before restricting the public from using public land.  They have spent millions and millions of dollars capturing and killing BHS and their solution now is just shut down public lands.  Well, BHS can and are contracting M.ovi by travelling outside their home range and coming into contact with domestic sheep so the closures are not effective and again, it has never been documented that a packgoat has caused a M.ovi outbreak in bighorn sheep. 

You could get hit by a car or a bus on your way to the store or home from work today, are you going to stay home to protect yourself?

You are avoiding the questions tho. Couldn’t your goats contract movi between the time they get tested and you get results back? Here immunity won’t be achieved that way because it causes %67 mortality amongst adult healthy bhs. Those that survive then infect the juveniles where the mortality rate is much much higher. You seem to not understand that. In the same argument that some dog owners could be irresponsible could the same not be said for goat owners? Your goats might not be a problem but can you say the same for everyone else? Is the benefit for an extremely small subset of users outweigh the negative of dead sheep? The fact that you won’t answer those questions is telling. There is an estimated population of 70k bhs in North America. Are you willing to allow that number to drop by %67 just so you and a few others can take goats into the backcountry? Bhs have a much more limited range than wolves. Again if a huge outbreak of parvo happens they can do a vaccination program for the wild animals, something you cannot do for movi. Did they “shut down” public lands or restrict a few animals from being allowed in certain areas? Huge difference. I repeat to you that you are asking that we risk the BHS population for the convenience of a very very small minority to be able to take part of their hobby in limited areas. Sheep may be able to travel outside of those areas but as you said they are usually single males and if they are proximity to movi I believe they try and put them down. You would be better served by pushing the vet industry to come up with a vaccine for domestic animals. Heck I wish they would do the same with brucellosis and bison/cattle. There it’s the opposite. We restrict bison to limited areas to protect domestic cattle. Should be the other way around.

I'm actually not avoiding any questions.  I'm stating facts and the facts are that there has been no documented, confirmed case of a M.ovi outbreak in a wild BHS herd due to packgoats, there has never been a risk assessment done to determine what the probability of that happening is and the experts and researchers admit that the risk is very low.  On top of that, BHS are known to go on long forays outside of their home range during which they travel through countless tracts of privately owned land and public land that is not typically bighorn sheep habitat and in doing so they come into contact with domestic sheep on large grazing allotments on public land and large herds of sheep on privately owned land.  Banning packgoats which are used in limited numbers, bonded to their humans, on leads, high-lined or low-lined in camp at night, never left unattended, etc. pose FAR LESS of a risk to BHS populations than BHS pose to themselves by going on naturally occurring forays which bring them into contact with large domestic sheep operations.  There is no such thing as zero risk and if the risk of a packgoat on public land is as close to zero risk as the risk of a BHS coming into contact with a domestic sheep herd on private land during one of their forays, then the banning of packgoats is absolutely not justified. 

So as for testing my goats for M.ovi, please explain to me how you think my goats could contract M.ovi between the time swabs are taken and the time the results are back?  If they are penned on my property and not in contact with other animals, where is M.ovi going to come from?  Again, do you believe M.ovi can spontaneously infect an animal?  Please explain.  It doesn't take months or years to get M.ovi test results and if they don't leave my property there is zero risk that they will come into contact with the pathogen.  Your suggestion that they somehow could appears to be a red-herring.

I completely understand that M.ovi postive BHS are very likely if not certain to infect other BHS and juveniles.  I don't want that to be the case but if we continue to kill all of the BHS that have developed immunity to M.ovi, there is no chance that herd immunity will ever occur and worse yet, BHS will continue to contract M.ovi from domestic sheep on private and public land outside their home range and from other wild ungulates and large scale die offs will continue to happen.  It is unavoidable.  Again, the risk of a BHS getting M.ovi from a packgoat on public land is as close to zero as you can get and likely lower than the risk of a BHS getting M.ovi while on a foray crossing private land and coming in contact with domestic sheep.  Not all BHS have collars and they don't know when every BHS goes on a foray so while they might try to kill them for doing what comes naturally to them, there is no way they know of most of those sheep going on forays.  Also, there are multiple sets of telemetry data of collared bighorn sheep and individual sheep that have travelled very long distances and crossed into multiple states (3-4) and visited multiple other BHS herds other than their native herd. 

You are ignoring the science and data (or lack thereof) and ignoring the facts.

Again on the canine parvo, it is proven that wolves have contracted canine parvo from domestic dogs in the wild (near Yellowstone).  No such proof of disease transmission exists when it comes to packgoats and bighorn sheep. 

Suggesting that there is ANY chance whatsoever that 67% of the estimated 70K BHS in North America might happen is ridiculous.  If it were going to happen, it already would have happened because M.ovi outbreaks in BHS have occurred and migrated to other neighboring herds by BHS movement so if it was going to happen, it would have already happened.  This is just a fear mongering tactic. 

As for responsible dog or packgoat owners, again, there is no way to manage either for zero risk so you prove my point.  If zero risk is the only acceptable risk for wolves/parvo and BHS/M.ovi, then no dogs should be allowed on public land where a wolf might exist. 

in Washington, the WDFW Manages a little over 1 Million acres of land.  They banned packgoats on nearly 70% of those lands.  That's not a small amount of land.  In addition, others in this thread (maybe it was you?) advocate for the Forest Service to follow suit and ban packgoats on FS land too so this argument holds no water at all.  Still, you, the WSF, the researchers and biologists haven't addressed the bigger risk of BHS coming into contact with a domestic sheep herd on private land or on a grazing allotment.  You really don't want any other "solution" other than an outright ban of all sheep, goats....and packgoats which are completely different, from public lands. 

Does it bother you that I know of a packgoat owner who legally took their goats to a State park that borders one of the Wildlife Areas where packgoats are banned on the very weekend the WDFW ban went into effect and while legally on that land with his packgoats they encountered a herd of about 80 BHS on that very land?  The sheep looked at him and his goats from a couple hundred yards away, he just stopped and waited while his packgoats browsed within 20 ft or so of him and the BHS herd slowly meandered over the ridge.  So where do the bans end?  With the Wildlife Areas being closed?  With the FS lands being closed too?  With state parks being closed?  Maybe we just ban domestic sheep and goats altogether on public AND private land because the risk will never be zero.

The FS just implemented a "Temporary" ban on packgoats in the Wallowa-Whitman Forest and Hells Canyon Recreation Area with background/intent to protect sheep until a risk assessment can be completed.  That temporary ban is for 3 years.  If there was such a concern, why hasn't a risk assessment been done in the past 20 years when WAFWA created their "recommendations" which are not based on science or fact but rather fear and money?