Leave your pet sheep at home when hiking

[azdesertfather]

I can't believe this is actually a story...you know it means though that someone has actually been doing it ...

Wildlife officials are asking hikers to refrain from bringing domestic sheep or goats into bighorn sheep habitat in the Catalina Mountains because the domestic animals can transmit diseases such as pneumonia to bighorns
http://tucson.com/news/local/domestic-s ... bc808.html

[flagscott]

Then why are they eliminating the Mountain Lions? You cannot compare what is happening with the Wolves in Yellowstone to the Bighorn Sheep in the Catalinas...Two totally different Scenarios....And in Yellowstone, they are not Eliminating One Species to "ensure" the Survival of another....Especially an Apex Predator....

The short answer is that when you are reintroducing a population and the population is still small, every individual counts. A few dead bighorns could be the difference between success and failure. Once the bighorn population gets bigger, the population will hopefully be able to absorb killings by lions.

I am not a fan of killing one native species to save another (especially predators), but I understand that in some cases it's necessary.

...that said, I don't know enough about the bighorns in the Catalinas to know if killing the lions really is necessary. Mountain lions killed a lot of bighorns reintroduced in Arizona in the past, but whether or not the number is too much for the bighorns to handle wasn't clear from anything I read. I do know that a lot of state wildlife agencies love to kill predators because it means more deer and elk, and that means more $$$$ from hunting licenses. Not saying that's the case here, but it certainly might help to tip the balance in favor of killing lions. It's also a lot cheaper to kill a few mountain lions than to restore habitat and make things better for bighorns.

Getting back to the original point of the thread, keeping sheep and goats out of bighorn habitat will hopefully prevent diseases which will mean more bighorns and less need to kill mountain lions.

[Tough_Boots]

@outdoor_lover

Did I argue for the elimination of mountain lions? No. I do think that wildlife management can be done successfully but that doesn't mean they are doing it correctly in this case. My point is simply that ecosystems are built by complex relationships between species. That is true in Yellowstone and true in the Catalinas.

[JasonCleghorn]

Then why are they eliminating the Mountain Lions? You cannot compare what is happening with the Wolves in Yellowstone to the Bighorn Sheep in the Catalinas...Two totally different Scenarios....And in Yellowstone, they are not Eliminating One Species to "ensure" the Survival of another....Especially an Apex Predator....

The short answer is that when you are reintroducing a population and the population is still small, every individual counts. A few dead bighorns could be the difference between success and failure. Once the bighorn population gets bigger, the population will hopefully be able to absorb killings by lions.

I am not a fan of killing one native species to save another (especially predators), but I understand that in some cases it's necessary.

...that said, I don't know enough about the bighorns in the Catalinas to know if killing the lions really is necessary. Mountain lions killed a lot of bighorns reintroduced in Arizona in the past, but whether or not the number is too much for the bighorns to handle wasn't clear from anything I read. I do know that a lot of state wildlife agencies love to kill predators because it means more deer and elk, and that means more $$$$ from hunting licenses. Not saying that's the case here, but it certainly might help to tip the balance in favor of killing lions. It's also a lot cheaper to kill a few mountain lions than to restore habitat and make things better for bighorns.

Getting back to the original point of the thread, keeping sheep and goats out of bighorn habitat will hopefully prevent diseases which will mean more bighorns and less need to kill mountain lions.

What percentage of the time does reintroduction work/fail?

[flagscott]

What percentage of the time does reintroduction work/fail?

For bighorns, as of 2000, 40% of introductions were very successful (ended up with over 100 sheep), 30% were unsuccessful, and the other 30% are a mixed bag (30-100 sheep surviving). https://www.researchga...

I think they're up to 90ish sheep now in the Catalinas, but I couldn't find anything saying if the population is actually growing on its own or not. That's the big question that's going to ultimately determine if this thing succeeds.

[chumley]

Other than being an incredibly beautiful animal to see out wandering the hills, what is the ecosystem benefit of reintroducing bighorn to an environment that they once thrived in but have disappeared from due to disease, predation, or human encroachment?

[JasonCleghorn]

Other than being an incredibly beautiful animal to see out wandering the hills, what is the ecosystem benefit of reintroducing bighorn to an environment that they once thrived in but have disappeared from due to disease, predation, or human encroachment?

This is the question I wanted to ask, but didn't.

[Tough_Boots]

Other than being an incredibly beautiful animal to see out wandering the hills, what is the ecosystem benefit of reintroducing bighorn to an environment that they once thrived in but have disappeared from due to disease, predation, or human encroachment?

I dunno... you would need to talk to an actual ecologist that specializes in that area rather than us armchair know-it-alls

[flagscott]

Other than being an incredibly beautiful animal to see out wandering the hills, what is the ecosystem benefit of reintroducing bighorn to an environment that they once thrived in but have disappeared from due to disease, predation, or human encroachment?

Why does there have to be a practical benefit? Sometimes it's worth bringing back a species because they used to be there and they belong there.

California condors don't have much benefit for the Grand Canyon ecosystem, but I think I speak for a lot of people (well, maybe not on this site but surely a lot of visitors) when I say am very glad they're back. Isn't that enough?

[Jim]

I think a lot of people on this site are happy the condors are there. I think there are a lot of people who are happy the sheep are there. I like seeing the sheep in the desert, and the ones I saw in the Catalinas when I lived there. Heck, we have people who want to see feral horses that have (their words not mine) potential to trample children in campgrounds, defecate everywhere, and tear things up, so this site is full of people who want to see animals in a location.

[chumley]

they used to be there and they belong there.

I guess I was asking if they used to be there, but they're not there anymore, if they really do belong there?

When it's clear that humans are the primary cause for a species that is no longer thriving (as I think it the case with sheep? -- I know it was with wolves) I think we sometimes try to "right our wrongs". I just wonder if it always makes sense to do so.

I know absolutely zero about this so any information is welcomed. But unlike wolves, I'm not sure that I've read an opinion explaining why it's important to reintroduce sheep to the ecosystem other than they used to be there. What are the negatives caused by their absence? And what are the positives/negatives caused by the efforts to re-establish their presence?

[big_load]

Maybe if we imported some really nasty bees, they'd keep the people and goats away from the sheep.

[Tough_Boots]

they used to be there and they belong there.

I guess I was asking if they used to be there, but they're not there anymore, if they really do belong there?

Elk had completely disappeared from the Mogollon Rim and then reintroduction started about 100 years ago and now they thrive. Do they belong or not? Seems like they do.

But unlike wolves, I'm not sure that I've read an opinion explaining why it's important to reintroduce sheep to the ecosystem other than they used to be there.

I'm not sure if you're referring to that video I posted but the whole point is to show the complex relationships and how they interact. If one species disappears likely because of human interaction, then the integrity of that ecosystem is compromised. If the ignorance of our past can be rectified-- why not? If you take that video as only referring to wolves, then I believe you've missed the point.

ecology [ih-kol-uh-jee]
noun
the branch of biology dealing with the relations and interactions between organisms and their environment, including other organisms.

[chumley]

I'm not really referring to the video, and I didn't miss the point of it. But there have been sheep missing from the ecosystem for long enough that there should be some kind of studies about what bad things have happened in their absence and why they need to come back. I'm just curious what they are because I've never read anything about that.

As for elk, I think it has been argued that there are far too many elk on the rim and without any real predators they are having a negative effect via grazing, trampling, etc. (Look at all the "exclosure" areas in the various meadows and draws meant to keep elk out to protect the soil and flora as well as the complete lack of new aspen growth because of elk foraging.)

People are part of the ecosystem. It's our environment, not the environment. We have a huge impact on everything. Hunting to extinction is much less of an issue today than it was a long time ago, but our population has increased exponentially. Some things simply need more unspoiled range than exists anymore.

If you really want to see more [insert favorite animal here] that used to thrive in Arizona but doesn't anymore, we all probably need to move somewhere else and then create strict limits on the number of people who can even hike through the habitat. That's not going to happen.

So people are the metaphorical "wolves" from your video. Because we don't want to extinguish them, we've established two huge refuges (Kofa and Cabeza Prieta) where sheep are protected from predators (and for the most part, people) so that they can survive. From those two locations, they are being relocated to other areas that provide potentially enough wilderness for them to establish a herd. I'm just not sure why we're doing it. And so far, I haven't read anything that explains it other than "because they were here before".

Using that reasoning, people should be driven out because they weren't here before.

[Tough_Boots]

Using that reasoning, people should be driven out because they weren't here before.

Ecologically speaking, I totally agree with that. It would fall under the reasoning to remove invasive species because of their ill effects on the native species. But of course, just like the crawdads-- we're probably not going anywhere. The environment is a huge complex thing that we don't completely understand so attempting to manage it will off course have its arguments, failures, and unavoidable hypocrisies. But at least humans are finally acknowledging the complexities of world around them

[flagscott]

I'm not really referring to the video, and I didn't miss the point of it. But there have been sheep missing from the ecosystem for long enough that there should be some kind of studies about what bad things have happened in their absence and why they need to come back. I'm just curious what they are because I've never read anything about that.

As for elk, I think it has been argued that there are far too many elk on the rim and without any real predators they are having a negative effect via grazing, trampling, etc. (Look at all the "exclosure" areas in the various meadows and draws meant to keep elk out to protect the soil and flora as well as the complete lack of new aspen growth because of elk foraging.)

People are part of the ecosystem. It's our environment, not the environment. We have a huge impact on everything. Hunting to extinction is much less of an issue today than it was a long time ago, but our population has increased exponentially. Some things simply need more unspoiled range than exists anymore.

If you really want to see more [insert favorite animal here] that used to thrive in Arizona but doesn't anymore, we all probably need to move somewhere else and then create strict limits on the number of people who can even hike through the habitat. That's not going to happen.

So people are the metaphorical "wolves" from your video. Because we don't want to extinguish them, we've established two huge refuges (Kofa and Cabeza Prieta) where sheep are protected from predators (and for the most part, people) so that they can survive. From those two locations, they are being relocated to other areas that provide potentially enough wilderness for them to establish a herd. I'm just not sure why we're doing it. And so far, I haven't read anything that explains it other than "because they were here before".

Using that reasoning, people should be driven out because they weren't here before.

I'm an ecologist, and you've got a lot of misconceptions here.

First, there is no need to limit numbers of hikers to protect almost any species. Yellowstone and Glacier have TONS of hikers and still have just about all of their native species. Ditto lots of places in Alaska and Canada. The only exception I can think of is that you can't have hikers tromping through, say, seabird nesting colonies or the like. But even that sort of restriction would just be seasonal and usually only applies to very small areas.

Second, if you think that species are only valuable if they have a huge impact on their ecosystem, you're entitled to that opinion, but not every species does. Some species are uncommon. Others just don't have a big impact on the rest of the ecosystem. So, if we decided to follow your wish and only work to save the species that have a big ecological footprint, then we would probably be left with very few species. That's why the idea of saving a species for its own sake or because people enjoy seeing them is a much better approach then looking only at ecosystem benefits.

But there are more subtle benefits of increasing species diversity. Ecology tell us is that ecosystems with more species are more resilient to drought, fire, climate change (am I allowed to mention climate change in Arizona, or has Gov. Ducey banned all references to it?), flooding, disease, etc. So mountain lions mostly eat deer and javelina in southern Arizona (plus cows where they're around). Having a healthy population of bighorns around would mean that there is another species for lions to feed on if the deer or javelina decline, or vice versa. And there are lots more examples of this sort of thing.

Third, the problem with establishing bighorns in the Catelinas is not lack of space--it's that reintroductions are hard, and animals often die when they get dumped in a new place they're unfamiliar with. It's not a given that the reintroduction in the Catalinas will fail--I think it's too soon to say one way or the other. More generally, Arizona has a ton of public lands and intact habitat, and if there was political will, we could have wolves from Williams to the New Mexico border and even grizzlies again. Of course, the ranchers who suck from the public teat (on federal and state land) would go absolutely pumpkin flavored nuts if that happened, so it is a political non-starter. But lack of habitat is not the problem. Lack of courage is.

People don't need to be driven out, but uses of the land should be more compatible with healthy ecosystems.

[chumley]

You've got a lot of misconceptions here

:thanx: As I said, I know very little about any of it. Thanks for providing an educated opinion for me. I love to learn new things. Keep it coming!

if we decided to follow your wish and only work to save the species that have a big ecological footprint

Just to clarify, not my wish at all. I was just looking for the scientific logic for it. Your point about ecological diversity is a good one.

Now, where do you stand on feral horses? :STP:
;)

[flagscott]

:thanx: As I said, I know very little about any of it. Thanks for providing an educated opinion for me. I love to learn new things. Keep it coming!

if we decided to follow your wish and only work to save the species that have a big ecological footprint

Just to clarify, not my wish at all. I was just looking for the scientific logic for it. Your point about ecological diversity is a good one.

Now, where do you stand on feral horses? :STP:
;)

Thanks. So, this is going to sound strange coming from a scientist, but I don't think that the question of whether or not to save any species comes down to science. These are value questions. Science can (sort of, with many qualifiers) tell you what might happen to an ecosystem if you remove x number of species, but whether or not saving the species is worth it isn't a scientific question. It's about values. Do we value the wild Santa Ritas and the jaguar more than the money the mine will bring? Do we value having bighorns in the catalinas more than the lives of all the mountain lions killed or the livestock displaced? Science can inform these decisions, but it can't answer the questions. I wish it could...

As for feral horses, I'm not getting involved!

[chumley]

It's about values. Do we value the wild Santa Ritas and the jaguar more than the money the mine will bring?

Good point! People obviously have different views on that ... Diversity of opinions is good too, right?

[outdoor_lover]

I had a large Paragraph typed to Elaborate more on the Catalina Project, but it really doesn't matter. You all know how I feel about that Project and I'll just leave it at that...

And for what it's worth, I stay completely out of the Horse thing too...I consider myself "Neutral" on that Subject. I won't take a Side there....

[flagscott]

It's about values. Do we value the wild Santa Ritas and the jaguar more than the money the mine will bring?

Good point! People obviously have different views on that ... Diversity of opinions is good too, right?

Hell, no! I wish everyone had same opinion as me on everything!