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

[JasonCleghorn]

: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!

I consider myself one of the biggest nature loving, anti-corporatist, Gaia worshipping hippies on here and as much as I hate mining, particularly open pit mining such as in Ray and other places, even I don't think a single jaguar warrants the stoppage of the project, etc. Now if there were multiple jaguars, a breeding population, thriving population, etc. my opinion would be different. It doesn't mean that I agree with NOT stopping the project, but I can at least see WHY an agency wouldn't stop a project for that reason.

Frankly in a choice between bighorns and mountain lions, I'd choose mountain lions since they are infinitely less common. I'd even be willing to lose livestock, of course they would be someone else's livestock which makes that position easier for me to take.

All of this to say that I've enjoyed this thread and think that debates like this are what makes HAZ fun. I also like that for the most part, folks are somewhat welcoming of alternative points of view. For the most part.

[Tough_Boots]

Frankly in a choice between bighorns and mountain lions, I'd choose mountain lions since they are infinitely less common. I'd even be willing to lose livestock, of course they would be someone else's livestock which makes that position easier for me to take.

6,000 bighorn in AZ and 3,000 mountain lions-- not what I would call "infinitely less common" just more illusive to the average outdoor enthusiast. 80-100 hunting permits to take bighorn issued in AZ per year and 250-350 mountain lions harvest per year if that means anything to you.

[JasonCleghorn]

Frankly in a choice between bighorns and mountain lions, I'd choose mountain lions since they are infinitely less common. I'd even be willing to lose livestock, of course they would be someone else's livestock which makes that position easier for me to take.

6,000 bighorn in AZ and 3,000 mountain lions-- not what I would call "infinitely less common" just more illusive to the average outdoor enthusiast. 80-100 hunting permits to take bighorn issued in AZ per year and 250-350 mountain lions harvest per year if that means anything to you.

Wow, much like chumley said I'm glad you educated me on that. I never would have guessed that many lions. I'm actually happy to hear that, then.

[outdoor_lover]

even I don't think a single jaguar warrants the stoppage of the project, etc. Now if there were multiple jaguars, a breeding population, thriving population, etc. my opinion would be different.

I'm going to not Elaborate too much about that since there is a Topic about the Mine already viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3232&p=117981#p117981 and I don't want to get Off-Topic here. But I have to inform you that it's not just about a Single Jaguar. He just happens to be the Poster Boy for everything else this Mine threatens in that Area...

Taken from the Actual Amended Final Opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service, that was just released....

Your May 25, 2015, letter and SBA include determinations that the proposed action may affect,
and will likely adversely affect, the threatened Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates
chiricahuensis) (with critical habitat), the threatened northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis
eques megalops) (with proposed critical habitat), the endangered desert pupfish (Cyprinodon
macularius), the endangered Gila chub (Gila intermedia) (with critical habitat), the endangered
Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis), the endangered jaguar (Panthera onca)
(with critical habitat), the endangered ocelot (Felis pardalis), the endangered lesser long-nosed
bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus) (with critical habitat), the threatened western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus) (with proposed critical habitat), the endangered Huachuca water umbel
(Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva) (with critical habitat), and the endangered Pima
pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina). Your May 2015 SBA also includes the
determinations that the proposed action: (1) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
threatened Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) or its critical habitat; and (2) have no
effect on the nonessential experimental population of the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus
baileyi).