DIE-OFF CASE STUDIES

Bonner/West Riverside, MT: 2010

INTRODUCTION
Rocky Mountain bighorns in the Bonner/West Riverside population live near the adjacent communities of Bonner and West Riverside (46° 52’ 39.93”N, 113° 53’ 20.00”W), which are located in west-central Montana about 6 km (4 mi) northeast of Missoula in Missoula County (MFWP 2010a; Google Earth 2012). Bonner/West Riverside bighorns range within state Bighorn Hunting District 283 (Lower Blackfoot), which contains about 579 km2 (360 mi2) (MFWP 2010a). The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) provides a description of this region:

“Plum Creek Timber Company (PCT) owns approximately 24%, the U.S. Forest    Service (USFS) – Lolo National Forest (NF) administers about 37%, and the State of Montana administers 5% of the hunting district. The remaining [34%] is privately owned. The quality and quantity of winter range forage here is declining. Grasslands are subject to weed infestations and conifer encroachment. Shrubfields, created by the wildfires in the early 1900s, are decadent and degraded by conifer reproduction.

Approximately 25 mi2 (7%) of the hunting district are occupied by bighorn sheep during some portion of the year. Forty-five percent of the occupied range is on public lands. [Bighorn] sheep commonly graze in residential lots in the West Riverside community. The bighorn sheep population is commonly referred to as the “Bonner herd” because it is generally limited to suitable habitats in the lower Blackfoot River drainage near the town of Bonner” (2010a, 168).

Bonner/West Riverside location map

BIGHORN POPULATION HISTORY PRIOR TO OUTBREAK
Just prior to the outbreak they experienced in 2010, Bonner/West Riverside bighorns were “well established in all suitable habitats” (MFWP 2010a, 169). The MFWP adds:

“In addition to the core population that inhabits the area north of Bonner and the Blackfoot River, a subpopulation of approximately 30 (not surveyed) occupies a portion of the Rattlesnake Wilderness and National Recreation Area. Another subpopulation of approximately 30 (not surveyed and not hunted) occupies the area south of the Blackfoot River between Bonner and LaFrey Creek in Hunting District 292. During cold winters, sheep often cross an iced-over Blackfoot River . . . . Occasionally, bands of young rams and/or ewes are seen on Mount Jumbo and near Johnsrud Park in Missoula, suggesting that surplus animals are immigrating in search of new habitats or other bighorn populations.

In 2008 and 2009, TNC [The Nature Conservancy] purchased 12,305 acres within the hunting district from PCT as part of the Montana Legacy Project. In 2009, TNC turned 5,169 acres over to the Lolo NF. The majority of those lands include important occupied bighorn sheep winter habitat northeast of Bonner” (2010a, 169).

Montana wildlife managers reestablished Rocky Mountain bighorns in the Bonner/West Riverside area in 1987 (MFWP 2010a). The bighorns spent time near subdivisions that hosted hobby flocks of domestic sheep, and wild-domestic interaction was observed in fall 2009 (Edwards et al. 2010). This mingling may have contributed to a 2010 pneumonia outbreak that led to the deaths of about 100 bighorns (WAFWA 2010). Various documents shed light on policy that addressed wild-domestic sheep interaction in the Bonner/West Riverside area before it experienced a disease outbreak. These documents include Montana’s 2010 bighorn management plan and an agreement between MFWP and The University of Montana (UM) (MFWP 2010a; TUM 2001).

Regarding bighorn-domestic sheep interaction policies, Bonner/West Riverside lacked clear buffers, had special supervision rules for sheepherders, and did not have trailing restrictions (Edwards 2012; TUM 2001; MPRD 2010; Stockman 2012). Montana wildlife managers considered domestic sheep presence before reintroducing bighorns to the area, and grazing allotment alterations were not attempted because there were no federal domestic sheep grazing allotments in the area (MFWP 1986; Stockman 2012). Negotiation or education were attempted, and bighorns near domestic sheep were removed from the wild (MFWP 2010a). Agencies also coordinated and did not experience significant tension or funding difficulties related to the wild-domestic sheep disease issue (TUM 2001; MPRD 2010; MFWP 2010a; Canepa 2012; Valliant 2012).Before examining policies in more detail, it helps to know more about the history of bighorns in the Bonner/West Riverside area.

In 1987, MFWP reestablished bighorns in the Bonner region by transplanting 14 animals from Upper Rock Creek to Woody Mountain. In 1990, wildlife managers augmented this population with 30 additional bighorns from the Sun River population (MFWP 2010a). According Edwards et al.: “Bighorns soon became well established in all suitable habitats near the community of Bonner” (2010, 32). Regarding population dynamics, MFWP states:

“During good years, recruitment may be 40 to 55 lambs:100 ewes recorded during early April surveys. But lamb:ewe ratios have often been below 35:100 and in 1998, following the 1996-97 winter, only 13 lambs:100 ewes were observed. . . .

Because of the lack of hunting access that might otherwise control this population and because of the numerous complaints from residents in West Riverside, FWP repeatedly has trapped and removed sheep for starting or augmenting other herds. The 1996 to 97 winter was so severe that more than 30 sheep were forced to temporarily live in the Big Pine Trailer Court until FWP trapped and successfully translocated 31 of them to the Elkhorn Mountains. In 2007, another 27 sheep were captured and moved to Utah” (MFWP 2010a, 169).

Edwards et al. remark: “Human-bighorn conflicts were especially prevalent in the West Riverside community where ≥98 bighorns grazed on residential lots” (2010, 33). The Bonner/West Riverside bighorns became “a popular watchable wildlife opportunity because of [their] proximity to Missoula and Bonner and MT Highway 200” (MFWP 2010a, 169). In 1996, a hunting season on these wild sheep started (MFWP 2010a). In 2000, two yearling bighorn rams from the Bonner/West Riverside population had made their way to Mount Jumbo where they were shot after being observed near domestic sheep used for weed control (MFWP 2010a; TUM 2001). In 2007, a helicopter survey counted 128 bighorns in the Lower Blackfoot Bighorn Hunting District (MFWP 2010a). By late 2009, the population consisted of about 160-180 bighorns (WAFWA 2010). Though well-established in the area, bighorns were not the only sheep in what are literally the Bonner/West Riverside neighborhoods.

NEARBY DOMESTIC SHEEP
Before and after the outbreak, known association between bighorns and domestic sheep or goats occurred (WAFWA 2010). Edwards et al. explain:

“Numerous domestic sheep and goats were present for many years as hobby flocks and commercial operations, but there had been no previously known incidence of pneumonia in the Bonner population. After the die-off was detected in January 2010, the public reported a case of bighorns and domestics comingling in the fall of 2009” (2010, 33).

In addition, MFWP states: “Rural subdivisions in the East Missoula and Bonner areas have resulted in small bands of livestock including domestic sheep and goats” (2010a, 170). Before the outbreak, domestic sheep were also used by the City of Missoula for local weed control—with some of them grazing on Mount Jumbo at the edge of town (WAFWA 2010b; MFWP 2010a). However, Missoula does not graze domestic sheep on Mount Jumbo in January, which was when disease hit the Bonner/West Riverside bighorns (Stockman 2012). Additionally, an inquiry to the Lolo National Forest reveals that “the Missoula Ranger District did not graze sheep or goats in 2010 in the Bonner area” (Stockman 2012). With domestic sheep largely absent or closely regulated on public lands, subdivision animals may have caused the bighorn disease outbreak in the Bonner/West Riverside area.

OUTBREAK SUMMARY
In the winter of 2009-2010, Rocky Mountain bighorns in the vicinity of Bonner/West Riverside experienced a pneumonia outbreak (WAFWA 2010). On January 12, 2010, residents in the Bonner area “reported coughing/sick [bighorns] in/near subdivisions” (WAFWA 2010b, 1). Approximately 110 estimated mortalities occurred. Of these, 99 deaths resulted from culling performed by MFWP in an effort to prevent further disease spread (WAFWA 2010). West Riverside residents cooperated with MFWP during culling efforts (MFWP 2010b).

The MFWP shot many bighorns in mountains north of the Blackfoot River (Chaney 2010). Biologists employed a containment zone strategy and killed bighorns that left a certain area (Gevock 2010). The containment zone included “the West Riverside and Bonner communities and land lying between Marshall Canyon and about two miles east of Johnson Gulch” (MFWP 2010b). Wildlife managers hoped to prevent the spread of pneumonia to more isolated bighorns inhabiting the Rattlesnake Wilderness and regions southeast of Bonner along Highway 200 (Chaney 2010; MFWP 2010b). In addition to the 99 documented culling deaths, Bonner/West Riverside bighorns also suffered four more known disease-related mortalities. In all, in the winter of 2009-2010, about 68 percent of the local population died because of the pneumonia outbreak (WAFWA 2010).

The MFWP’s culling efforts appeared to achieve compensatory mortality—killing animals that would have died anyway. March-April 2011 bighorn population surveys showed the Bonner/West Riverside population (heavily culled) was 58 percent smaller than pre-outbreak numbers (Crowser 2011). The nearby Lower and Upper Rock Creek populations were also infected with pneumonia during the winter of 2009-2010 but were in an area “where intensive killing of diseased sheep was not feasible” (Crowser 2011, 2). The Rock Creek populations were 59 percent smaller than pre-disease numbers—about the same percent reduction as Bonner. However, Bonner/West Riverside lamb recruitment for 2011 was the same as recruitment levels in spring 2009 before the die-off: 31 yearlings per 100 ewes (Crowser 2011). In the Rock Creek populations, “[2011] numbers of yearlings per 100 ewes declined by 96 percent since the die-off” (Crowser 2011, 2). So, in the case of the Bonner bighorns, culling likely helped reduce lamb recruitment suppression. Nonetheless, just what policy documents were in place that could have prevented the need to intentionally kill scores of bighorns?

POLICY DOCUMENTS
Montana’s 2010 Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy was released in January—the same month managers noticed the Bonner/West Riverside outbreak. The 2010 document is Montana’s first comprehensive bighorn management plan (MFWP 2010a). According to the plan, “[bighorn] herd health currently is focused on maintaining separation between wild sheep and domestic sheep and goats to prevent potential disease transmission” (MFWP 2010a, 2).

As part of the plan’s “Statewide Protocol for Resolving Situations Where Bighorn Sheep and Domestic Sheep and Goats Commingle,” MFWP states:

“If bighorns are using pastures common to domestic sheep and goats, every effort should be made to discourage animals from commingling. This is especially true in situations where bighorns are just beginning to move onto cultivated lands where contact with domestics could occur over time” (2010a, 50).

The MFWP based its separation policies on the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ (WAFWA) 2007 recommendations (MFWP 2010a; WAFWA 2007). The excerpt below provides detail on MFWP’s attitude toward separation policies:

“FWP believes that any localized removal, transfer, or conversion of established domestic sheep allotments on public lands for the benefit of bighorns should only come with the willing participation of the producer and land managing agencies. FWP has spent much time listening to all sides of this issue and while it is FWP’s direction to see bighorn sheep populations expand in distribution and numbers, as a wildlife-managing agency FWP readily acknowledges the contribution of livestock producers in providing valuable wildlife habitat and wildlife presence on their private lands. Additionally, something heard repeatedly in conversations with livestock producers was their desire to see viable populations of bighorn sheep in Montana. That feeling appears not to be held universally across the west where these domestic and wild species come together” (2010a, 3).

This attitude can be partially explained by the fact that Montana state code prohibits transportation of wildlife that could threaten agriculture (MFWP 2010a). The MFWP adds:

“Although the Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy will serve as a source of information and guidance to the FWP Commission, it does not preempt Commission authority to formulate annual rules, augment or transplant, set hunting seasons and regulations, or implement emergency actions in response to unexpected events or circumstances” (2010a, 4).

So, regarding wild-domestic sheep interaction management, Montana’s bighorn plan is more of a compilation of aspirational goals and guidelines instead of a binding document. Still, keeping in mind wildlife federalism, and the erosion of the state wildlife ownership doctrine, the federal government could make such guidelines more binding if it so chose. Another important document regarding wild-domestic sheep interaction policy in the vicinity of the Bonner/West Riverside wild sheep population is the “Bighorn Sheep and Domestic Sheep Interaction Protocol” appendix in the Missoula Conservation Lands Management Plan. The protocol is an August 2010 update to the original protocol from 2000. The protocol addresses the City of Missoula’s efforts to control invasive weeds on open space lands with domestic sheep grazing. It provides background on interaction policies in the decade before the outbreak (MPRD 2010).

The 2000 informal agreement and protocol was between MFWP and UM, which ran sheep vegetation management at the time. In 2005, the Missoula Parks and Recreation Department (MPRD) took over sheep weed control efforts and coordinated with MFWP to limit bighorn-domestic sheep interactions on city open space lands (MPRD 2010). According to MPRD: “The City currently uses sheep to graze spurge and toadflax infestations on steep terrain on Mt. Jumbo and Waterworks Hill where few other weed control options are available” (2010, 120). Grazing times are adjusted based on timing of bighorn sightings on Mount Jumbo (Edwards 2012). The MPRD adds:

“Although Jumbo, Sentinel and Waterworks Hill are not within bighorn sheep spring and summer ranges, wild sheep have been seen occasionally in these areas over the past 15 years. Most often, those sightings occurred from May-July and primarily involved dispersing subadult rams looking for other sheep and new habitats to colonize” (2010, 120).

The original 2000 protocol appears in a 2001 vegetation management plan for conservation lands in Missoula (TUM 2001). Some key general provisions of the protocol (that do not cleanly fit into the following policy analysis criteria) are below (TUM 2001, 21).

The 1986 Lolo National Forest Plan was applicable at the time of the outbreak (USFS 1986). Though the Lolo National Forest currently addresses the disease issue, an examination of the plan reveals no reference to bighorn-domestic sheep disease (Stockman 2012; USFS 1986).

Now that the Bonner/West Riverside disease outbreak and some of its related factors have been summarized, sufficient context has been established to examine individual policies.

POLICY ANALYSIS CRITERIA

1.) Were clearly defined buffer zones established to ensure separation of bighorns and domestic sheep?

Answer and Explanation
Clear buffer zones were not in place in the Bonner/West Riverside area. Domestic sheep may not have been a significant location-specific concern at the time of the transplant. Bonner/West Riverside bighorns shifted primary habitat use away from the area where they were originally transplanted. The original transplant site (Woody Mountain) did not host domestic sheep, and the bighorns’ habituation to subdivisions and people may not have been anticipated (Edwards 2012).

Policy
According to Montana’s bighorn plan, “FWP has tried to establish a buffer zone of up to nine miles between domestic sheep and goats and bighorn sheep populations” (MFWP 2010a, 44). In the Montana bighorn plan’s section covering “Suggested Management Practices on Private Lands,” MFWP provides detailed recommendations for fencing that could help implement separation (2010a, 54).

2.) Were special supervision rules in place for sheepherders?

Answer and Implementation
Special supervision rules for sheepherders were clearly in place in the Bonner/West Riverside area (TUM 2001; MPRD 2010). According to the Mount Jumbo Advisory Committee (MJAC):

“Bighorn sheep arrived on Mount Jumbo in June 2001 at precisely the same time as in 2000. This year, the herder notified Marilyn Marler [Parks Department Advisor] immediately and the domestic sheep were removed from Mount Jumbo. As a result of this prompt action, there was no need for a removal of wild bighorn sheep from Mount Jumbo” (2001).

In June 2012, UM natural areas specialist Marilyn Marler stated: “My understanding is that the arrival date of the Mt Jumbo bighorns was very predictable, and now the sheep are just regularly moved prior to that date. Staff are still instructed to keep an eye out for big horns” (2012).

Morgan Valliant (Conservation Lands Manager for MPRD) provided the details that follow. In 2000, Missoula sheep managers had a part-time herder and a couple of volunteers keep an eye on domestic sheep from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. By then, sheep supervisors already had cell phones and knew what bighorns looked like. However, they did not know about disease transmission. Cell phones had already been in use by the time of the 2000 bighorn euthanizations on Mount Jumbo. In 2000, several hours also passed on some days with no herders supervising sheep. After 2000, land managers hired three part-time herders to allow for better supervision. At least one herder was on-site every hour from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. However, this supervision scheme was not a 24-7 process. The current sheep supervision program started in 2006, and it features one herder who is on-site 24-7 (Valliant 2012).

Policy
In its bighorn management plan, MFWP emphasizes that those responsible for overseeing domestic sheep should quickly notify the agency if interaction with bighorns occurs (2010a). According to MFWP: “In areas where bighorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats share range or contact is possible, formal agreements between FWP and the producer/owner will be drafted outlining response plans should contact occur” (2010a, 49).

A 2000 bighorn-domestic sheep interaction protocol covering the Mount Jumbo weed control situation was in place at the time of the 2010 outbreak (MPRD 2010). Below are key supervision policies from that protocol (TUM 2001, 21).

3.) Were domestic sheep trailing restrictions in place to ensure separation?

Answer and Explanation
Domestic sheep trailing restrictions were not in place (TUM 2001; Stockman 2012). The 2000 bighorn-domestic sheep separation protocol for Missoula’s open space lands does not mention sheep trailing. Also, domestic sheep on Missoula’s open space lands were not in the typical range of the Bonner/West Riverside bighorns, so they would not have been trailed through regularly occupied bighorn habitat (TUM 2001). Additionally, in 2010, the Missoula Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest did not graze domestic sheep in the Bonner region (Stockman 2012). Valliant adds: “No trailing restrictions. [There were] slim chances of seeing bighorns when we would walk sheep through the neighborhoods in the Lower Rattlesnake. I could see how this would be important when trailing through wildlands” (2012).

4.) Were policies in place or was consideration taken regarding the concept of prohibiting bighorn reintroduction to the site if it hosted domestic sheep?

Answer
Policies were in place that considered domestic sheep presence in an area prior to bighorn reintroduction (MFWP 1986).

Policy
In October 1986—just prior to the 1987 establishment of the Bonner/West Riverside bighorn population—MFWP approved guidelines for bighorn transplants (MFWP 2010a). One criterion of the 1986 guidelines was that: “Preference will be given those sites not in close proximity to domestic sheep and those with limited competition from other livestock or wild ungulates” (MFWP 1986, 2). Among components for determining transplant priority, the guidelines also list: “An evaluation of potential competition with domestic stock and other wildlife including the potential for disease transmission” (MFWP 1986, 1).

5.) Before the disease outbreak, was any effort made to buy out nearby domestic sheep grazing allotments or convert them to cattle?

Answer and Explanation
This criterion is not applicable because, in 2010, the Missoula Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest did not graze domestic sheep in the Bonner region (Stockman 2012).

6.) Were other forms of negotiation and/or education attempted with local stakeholders regarding the issue of bighorn-domestic sheep disease transmission?

Answer
Negotiation and education efforts regarding wild-domestic sheep separation have been carried out in the Bonner/West Riverside area (MFWP 2010a).

Policy and Implementation
A habitat management strategy for the hunting district containing the Bonner/West Riverside bighorns is to “continue to work with private landowners and Missoula County to limit the use of domestic sheep and goats in the area” (MFWP 2010a, 171). According to MFWP, “Missoula County has adopted covenants prohibiting domestic sheep in two subdivisions, but enforcement is typically left to homeowners” (2010a, 170). A July 2005 approval letter for the Quiet Pines Lots subdivision notes: “Domestic sheep and goats are not allowed in this subdivision because of the proximity to the Bonner bighorn sheep herd. The possibility exists that domestic sheep or goats could transmit a potentially fatal bacterial infection to bighorn sheep, leading to heavy mortality in the native bighorns” (Missoula County 2005b, 4).

This provision is part of MFWP’s “Living with Wildlife” covenants (Missoula County 2005a). The same covenant  as above or covenants using nearly identical language restricting domestic sheep because of Bonner/West Riverside bighorns appear in regulations for the Blackfoot Acres, Shadow Mountain Estates, and 20895 East Mullan Road subdivisions (Missoula County 2005a, 2006, 2007).

The MFWP’s “Living with Wildlife” covenants are difficult to enforce, but Missoula County can enforce covenants via conditional approval of projects (e.g., a proposed subdivision may need to have domestic sheep restrictions to be approved). The County is aware of the wild-domestic sheep issue and generally takes the lead of MFWP. Missoula County tends to address bighorn-domestic sheep interaction covenants on a case-by-case basis based on MFWP’s recommendations. However, the County does not have a specific policy for reviewing domestic sheep presence in bighorn habitat subdivisions (Canepa 2012).

While MFWP provides feedback on major subdivisions, minor subdivisions in Missoula County can escape wildlife agency scrutiny. Among numerous exceptions, minor subdivisions do not have to undergo public hearings or be reviewed for their impacts on the natural environment, wildlife, or wildlife habitats (Missoula County 2010).

In terms of review for bighorn-domestic sheep conflict, some minor subdivisions may slip through the cracks. The MFWP does not have time to review everything (Canepa 2012). However, in the Missoula area, MFWP still receives notifications when minor subdivisions are proposed for bighorn habitat. Personnel do not always have time to comment, but in the Missoula region, subdivisions in bighorn habitat get a red flag at the regional MFWP office (Edwards 2012). The MFWP has talked to the County about whether or not maintaining the Bonner/West Riverside bighorn population is worth the effort because of the high risk of disease transmission from various private land animals (Canepa 2012).

In addition to weighing in on subdivision proposals and potential covenants, MFWP also developed education recommendations for those who control noxious weeds with domestic sheep or goats (MFWP 2010a). In its bighorn management plan, MFWP says it “will provide educational information and offer assistance to county weed districts regarding the disease risks associated with domestic sheep and goat use” (2010a, 52). The MFWP developed a wild-domestic sheep interaction protocol (for use with UM) that was in place during the 10 years leading up to the disease outbreak. Some key education provisions from that protocol are below (TUM 2001). Regarding whether or not these types of education efforts had actually been implemented in Missoula’s open space lands, Valliant remarked that there were: “No education efforts I recall” (2012).

Negotiation and education-related tasks are a major part of Montana’s “Statewide Protocol for Resolving Situations Where Bighorn Sheep and Domestic Sheep and Goats Commingle.” The MFWP explains:

“It is the responsibility of each FWP region, where bighorn sheep occur to make the details of this protocol known to producers, managing agencies, and the public at large. In the case of large producers on public or private lands in areas where contact is likely to occur, a written and signed agreement outlining their rights and responsibilities under the terms of this protocol shall be made available to them. Each situation where mixing may occur may be somewhat unique and specifics of the agreement need to be tailored to the circumstances. Additionally, each region is responsible for having local FWP contacts made available to land managing agencies and sheep and goat producers to resolve commingling issues should they occur” (2010a, 50).

More policy applicable to bighorn-domestic sheep-related negotiation is found in the Montana State Land Board’s Administrative Rule 36.25.127, which covers domestic sheep grazing in bighorn habitat. This rule states:

“(1) If a lessee/licensee has not grazed domestic sheep on the state tract at any time during the previous 10 years, and if the lessee/licensee requests a change to domestic sheep, then the department shall prepare a Montana Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) document at the appropriate level of review to examine the environmental impacts. In preparing the document, the department shall consult with the department of fish, wildlife and parks and the lessee/licensee and shall seek comments and interface as necessary with surrounding landowners and any interested public groups to design appropriate measures under the law.

(2) The department may allow grazing of domestic sheep on state lands within or adjacent to officially identified bighorn sheep ranges if bighorns are separated by a protective geographic buffer or if other applicable mitigation measures to minimize contact are negotiated and implemented” (Montana Secretary of State 2012).

7.) If wandering bighorns got too close to domestic sheep, were they ever removed from the wild in or near this location?

Answer and Implementation
In 2000, two yearling bighorn rams were shot on Mount Jumbo after being seen with about 90 domestic sheep used for weed control (MFWP 2010a; TUM 2001). According to MPRD: “When wandering bighorns comingle with domestics, as occurred in June 2000 on the saddle of Mount Jumbo, MFWP must remove and kill the roaming bighorn(s) before they leave and possibly transmit lethal bacteria to other wild sheep” (2010, 119).

Policy
According to MFWP: “Bighorn sheep coming in contact with domestic sheep and goats should be lethally removed immediately either by producers authorized to shoot the animal or by FWP employees. . .” (2010a, 49). The Montana bighorn plan makes frequent reference to fatally removing wandering bighorns. However, MFWP says: “Although Montana generally attempts to lethally remove bighorn sheep known to have had contact with domestic sheep and goats, only one of seven administrative regions has such a written protocol” (MFWP 2010a, 45).

8.) Did coordination and/or tension exist between different levels (federal, state, local) of government management agencies regarding bighorn-domestic sheep interaction?

Answer and Nature
The MFWP coordinated with UM and MPRD regarding domestic sheep used for weed control (TUM 2001; MPRD 2010). Though domestic sheep grazing did not occur on USFS land in 2010, Karen Stockman (a biological science technician for the Lolo National Forest) notes: “The Lolo NF current weed management plan includes grazing sheep and goat but we must consult with the FWP/FWS to ensure domestic-wild interactions are highly unlikely in an area if we choose to graze for weed control. So far we have not utilized this option” (2012). Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks wildlife biologist Vickie Edwards noted that her agency coordinates with the USFS. Edwards also mentioned that some domestic sheep grazing near Mount Sentinel was prevented because of coordinated communication (2012). The MFWP regularly reviews the City of Missoula’s grazing rules (Edwards 2012).

Regarding bighorn-domestic sheep conflict, Missoula County turns to MFWP biologists for expert opinions. Much collaboration exists between MFWP and the County. They have good communication (Canepa 2012). In general, agencies in the Missoula area have been fairly cooperative regarding the wild-domestic sheep disease issue. However, politics and cooperation trends significantly vary throughout the state and in different offices and regions (Edwards 2012).

Policy
Montana’s bighorn plan regularly mentions coordination between different levels of government (MFWP 2010a). Regarding disease risk mitigation, MFWP states: “Formal agreements should also be drafted with land management agencies regarding domestic sheep allotments, sheep used for weed programs, and habitat management programs and other activities that could impact bighorn sheep populations and herd health” (2010a, 49). The MFWP adds that it will “cooperate with public land management agencies and private individuals in the management of bighorn habitats” (2010a, 170).

9.) Did you encounter funding difficulties regarding bighorn-domestic sheep interaction management?

Answer and Nature
There have been some budgetary constraints on gathering baseline biological data on wildlife health at the state level, and health data can influence policy (Edwards 2012). However, funding difficulties did not seem to be a significant factor for separating bighorns from domestic sheep in the Bonner/West Riverside area. There were no wild-domestic sheep interaction funding issues regarding the City of Missoula’s noxious weed program (Valliant 2012). Valliant explains that this was because:

“. . . most of the significant changes [made to the grazing program in consideration of bighorns] were also necessary to make [the] program more effective. [For           example,] having a herder on site 24-7 (90% of the program cost) ensures sheep graze where we want them to, protects sheep from coyote/domestic dog attack, provides increased oversight ([so we] know when grazing goals have been met and it’s time to move to another area) and also reduces chances of contact [with] bighorns” (2012).

POLICY EFFICACY SUMMARY
In the Bonner/West Riverside region, despite some problems, notable policy efficacy stands out. The area did not have clear buffers, allotment alteration, or trailing restrictions because it lacked domestic sheep grazing allotments. However, special supervision rules for sheepherders were in place (TUM 2001; MPRD 2010), and these rules probably prevented disease in some instances. At the time of the Bonner/West Riverside bighorn reintroduction, statewide policy existed that considered domestic sheep presence (MFWP 1986), but such policy was likely not applied to the Bonner area in a manner that seriously considered hobby animals. This reflects ineffective policy that may have contributed to disease.

Various forms of negotiation and education were carried out regarding Bonner wild-domestic sheep interaction (MFWP 2010a; TUM 2001; Missoula County 2005a, 2006, 2007) and probably helped delay the onset of disease. Bighorns too close to domestic sheep were removed from the wild (MFWP 2010a), and a die-off did not happen until 10 years later (WAFWA 2010), so such lethal precautions may indicate effective interaction policy that prevents disease. The agency coordination and lack of tension and funding difficulties (TUM 2001; MPRD 2010; Stockman 2012; Edwards 2012; Valliant 2012) also contributed to effective policies that probably delayed a disease outbreak in the Bonner/West Riverside bighorn population.

REFERENCES
Canepa, Sarah. 2012. Rural Landscape Scientist, Missoula County Rural Initiative. Interview by author. Conducted by phone. August 16.

Chaney, Rob. 2010. FWP to let pneumonia take course with Rock Creek bighorn sheep. Missoulian. February 25. http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_1 906780a-21c5-11df-98b4-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story (accessed January 7, 2012).

Crowser, Vivaca. 2011. News: Bighorn Lambs Still Feeling Effects of 2009-2010 Pneumonia Outbreak. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. ftp://www.co.missoula.mt.us/ ruralftp/Newsletter/LinksFrom-eNewsletters/2011-7_BighornLambs2010 PneumoniaOutbreak.pdf (accessed May 13, 2012).

Edwards, Victoria L., Jennifer Ramsey, Greg Jourdannais, Ray Vinkey, Michael Thompson, Neil Anderson, Tom Carlsen, and Chris Anderson. 2010. Situational agency response to four bighorn sheep die-offs in western Montana. In proceedings of Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council’s 17th Biennial Symposium, Hood River, OR. June 7-11.

Edwards, Vickie. 2012. Wildlife Biologist (Missoula Area), Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Interview by author. Conducted by phone. August 7.

Gevock, Nick. 2010. Infection rate high among bighorns: Biologists find numerous sick sheep in upper Rock Creek. The Montana Standard, Butte. February 5.

Marler, Marilyn. 2012. Natural Areas Specialist, The University of Montana. Interview by author. Conducted by e-mail. June 6.

Missoula County. 2005a. Public Meeting – September 14, 2005. http://www.co.missoula. mt.us/mcbcc/importmins/2005/09-14-2005.pdf (accessed May 29, 2012).

Missoula County. 2005b. Quiet Pines Lots Subdivision Approval Letter, July 21, 2005. ftp://co.missoula.mt.us/opgftp/SubZone/CoSub/2005/AppvlLtrsOnly/QuietPinesAppvlLtr.pdf (accessed May 29, 2012).

Missoula County. 2006. Executive Summary: Shadow Mountain Estates. ftp://co.missoula.mt.us/opg ftp/SubZone/CoSub/2006/ShadowMountain/ShadowMountain EstatesRPT.pdf (accessed May 29, 202).

Missoula County. 2007. Public Meeting – June 20, 2007. http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/ mcbcc/importmins/2007/20070620BCC.pdf (accessed May 29, 2012).

Missoula County. 2010. Article 4 – Subdivision Application and Review Procedure. In Missoula County Subdivision Regulations. ftp://www.co.missoula.mt.us/opgftp/Documents/ CurrentRegulations/CoSub/Article4.pdf (accessed June 23, 2012). [govt. doc.]

Missoula Parks and Recreation Department (MPRD). 2010. Appendix C: Bighorn Sheep and Domestic Sheep Interaction Protocol. In Missoula Conservation Lands Management Plan. http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/ 4499 (accessed January 4, 2012). [govt. doc.]

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). 1986. Bighorn Sheep Transplant Guidelines. N.p. [govt. doc.]

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). 2010a. Montana Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy: 2010. Helena. http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id =397 46 (accessed October 15, 2011). [govt. doc.]

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). 2010b. Pneumonia Outbreak Prompts More Removals of Bighorn Sheep Near Bonner. http://fwp.mt.gov/news/news Releases/headlines/nr_3514.html (accessed May 13, 2012).

Montana Secretary of State. 36.25.127: Domestic Sheep Grazing in Bighorn Sheep Habitat. State of Montana. http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?RN=36.25.127 (accessed July 10, 2012).

Mount Jumbo Advisory Committee (MJAC). 2001. Mount Jumbo Annual Report ~ 2001. City of Missoula. ftp://ftp.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2002-02-25/Referrals/MOUNT% 20JUMBO%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%202001.htm (accessed May 29, 2012).

Stockman, Karen. 2012. Biological Science Technician (Lolo National Forest), U.S. Forest Service. Interview by author. Conducted by e-mail. June 13.

The University of Montana (TUM). 2001. Appendix A: Letter from Fish, Wildlife and Parks regarding disease transmission from domestic to wild sheep. In Vegetation Management Plan for Selected Conservation Lands as adopted by Missoula City Council on 3/26/01. Missoula, MT. [govt. doc.]

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1986. The Lolo National Forest Plan. Missoula, MT. [govt. doc.]

Valliant, Morgan T. 2012. Conservation Lands Manager, Missoula Parks and Recreation Department. Interview by author. Conducted by e-mail. November 2.

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). 2007. WAFWA Wild Sheep Working Group Initial Subcommittee Recommendations for Domestic Sheep and Goat Management In Wild Sheep Habitat (June 21, 2007). N.p.: WAFWA. Web address no longer available (accessed on April 23, 2009; based on file info).

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). 2010. Summary on 9 BHS Die-offs in 5 Western States: Winter 2009-10 (June 22, 2010). Cheyenne: WAFWA. http://www.wafwa.org/documents/wswg/Summary9BHSdie-offsin5westernstateswinter 2009-10.pdf (accessed May 17, 2012).