wordpress.com … · web viewi think if someone misses 2 or 3 meetings, they should be dropped....

Draft Meeting SummaryBighorn Sheep/Domestic Sheep Working Group September 23, 2008 Meeting

Meeting location: Idaho State Department of Agriculture Office, BoiseIn attendance: Dennis Batie (Idaho FNAWS), Wally Butler (IFBE), Mick Carlson (Rancher), Guy Carlson (Rancher), Ken Cole (Western Watersheds Project), Brad Compton (IDFG), Katie Fite (Western Watersheds Project), Margaret Soulen Hinson (Rancher), Kurt Houston (Idaho Department of Lands), Gretchen Hyde (IRRC), Ron Kay (ISDA), Keith Lawrence (Nez Perce Tribe), Michael Lopez (Nez Perce Tribe), Betty Mathews (USFS Wallowa-Whitman), Pat McCoy (Capitol Press), Chuck Middleton (Wild Sheep Foundation), John Noh (Idaho Rangeland Resources, Noh Sheep Co.), Brian Oakey (ISDA), Lloyd Oldenburg (ISCAC), John Peterson (Rancher), Suzanne Rainville (USFS Payette), Tom Rinkes (BLM), John Robison (Idaho Conservation League), Alan Schroeder (did not identify affiliation), Joe Shirts (Rancher), Ron Shirts (Rancher), Frank Shirts (Rancher), Mitch Silvers (U.S. Senator Crapo’s Office), Alison Squier (Facilitator), Jim Unsworth (IDFG), and Chanel Young (ISDA).

Meeting objectives:1. Inform stakeholders who participated in effort to develop interim strategy

about the initiation of a new collaborative advisory process that will provide recommendations to the Governor in support of the development of a long-term strategy for managing bighorn sheep and domestic sheep interactions in Idaho.

2. Invite input and recommendations regarding the collaborative working group goals, composition, and organizational structure. Seek input regarding interest groups and/or individuals who should be asked to participate in the proposed collaborative effort.

3. Invite input on lessons learned from the interim strategy process, and how those lessons should be constructively applied to improve

Welcome and Introductions Jim Unsworth with Idaho Department of Game (IDFG) and the co-chair of the Bighorn Sheep/Domestic Sheep Working Group (BHS/DS Working Group) welcomed everyone to the meeting. He explained that the purpose of the September 23 meeting was:

Draft Meeting Summary – Bighorn Sheep/Domestic Sheep Working Group September 23, 2008 Meeting

1

1. To close out the interim strategy process from last winter and spring, and

2. To introduce and move forward with a new BHS/DS Working Group collaborative working process to develop a long-term strategy for the interaction of bighorn and domestic sheep in Idaho.

Jim U. briefly spoke about and reviewed the interim strategy effort. He noted in particular that the rushed nature of the process to develop an interim policy (with a deadline of February 2008), did not lend itself to a collaborative process. He explained that many participants in the previous process had suggested that a professional facilitator should be engaged for future meetings. Jim said that they had listened to this suggestion; and in response he introduced the facilitator for the September 23rd meeting, Alison Squier. Alison introduced herself and explained that she was the owner of a small company, Ziji Creative Resources Inc., that provides facilitation, writing/editing, and project management services. She stated that she has a long-standing commitment to collaborative efforts and believes in the capacity of people to find creative solutions to solve problems when they work together. She also told participants, in the interest of full disclosure, that she is married to an IDFG employee. Brian Oakey with Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), the other co-chair of the BHS/DS Working Group, also welcomed the meeting participants and thanked them for their time and the travel commitment required to participate in the meeting. Before transitioning to the heart of the meeting agenda, Brian noted that the issuance of the Payette National Forest’s Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), and the timing of the September meeting were coincidental. The September meeting date was selected prior to identification of a release date for the Payette DSEIS. Brian noted that the Payette DSEIS is not intended to be the focus of the group’s long-term efforts or of the September meeting. He explained that the September meeting, and the new collaborative process it introduces, is intended to focus on development of a statewide long-term strategy for the interaction of bighorn and domestic sheep. While the issues raised through the Payette DSEIS are very important, particularly to the parties directly affected by the DSEIS, the BHS/DS Working Group is intended to have a statewide focus. Brian said that he, Jim, and the facilitator shared the concern that trying to force the group into responding collectively, within the DSEIS comment timeframe, was likely to create the same challenging dynamics (e.g., too short a time frame to support a collaborative effort), that characterized the interim strategy process. Brian encouraged participants to comment individually on the Payette DSEIS.


2

Brian reiterated that the ISDA, IDFG, and Governor Otter’s office are all committed to a collaborative BHS/DS Working Group process. He invited everyone to put all ideas on the table at the meeting so the group could decide how to best move forward. In closing, he stated that the focus of the group was to create a policy that affords viable and manageable environments for both Bighorn Sheep and the domestic sheep industry.At this point the facilitator asked all the attendees to introduce themselves and identify what organization or interest group they represented or were affiliated with. After the group introductions, she explained that the individuals invited to the September 23rd meeting were those individuals who had been involved in the BHS/DS Working Group interim strategy meetings. She commented that they’d inadvertently left some individuals off the list that had gone out for the September 23rd meeting and apologized for that. She stated that there were probably people who should be involved in development of a long-term strategy who were not at the September meeting and said that they hoped this group would help them to identify individuals or organizations that had not been included in the interim strategy process, or this meeting, but who should have a role in development of a long-term strategy.

Review Meeting Agenda & Activities The facilitator reviewed the meeting agenda and reiterated that the purposes of the meeting, which included:

Inform individuals who participated in the development of the interim strategy about the initiation of a collaborative advisory group that will provide recommendations to the ISDA and the IDFG in support of the development of a long-term strategy for managing bighorn sheep and domestic sheep interactions in Idaho.

Invite input and recommendations regarding the collaborative working group goals, composition, and organizational structure;

Seek input regarding lessons learned from the interim strategy process, and how those lessons should be constructively applied to improve and support this new effort;

Seek input regarding interest groups and/or individuals who should be asked to participate in this new effort;

Identify general next steps and a tentative timeline.Brian Oakey stated again that the Governor is committed to a collaborative approach to developing long-term management plan for bighorn sheep and domestic sheep that seeks to maintain healthy bighorn sheep populations while sustaining an economically viable domestic sheep industry. Brian emphasized the need for providing predictability to maximum extent practical for the management of both bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. Draft Meeting Summary – Bighorn Sheep/Domestic Sheep Working Group September 23, 2008 Meeting

3

He also noted that in the development of a long-term strategy they do not wish to put artificial time constraints on the group and that the effort is to be consensus-driven and collaborative to result in the best working product. In regard to deliverables, the main focus of the group is to provide input and recommendations to ISDA and ISDF through Jim Unsworth and Brian Oakey as they advise the Governor on setting statewide policy.At this point, Katie Fite with Western Watershed Projects, asked if the primary BHS/DS Working Group goal identified by Brian Oakey at the beginning of the meeting was going to be revisited as part of the new collaborative process. She commented, that she did not feel that goal was arrived at by a consensus in the interim strategy process. The facilitator responded that she did not want to speak inaccurately for Brian or Jim, but that it was her understanding that that goal was the basis of the Governor’s support of the collaborative effort. She added that she encouraged people to note any concerns they had with the goal or other factors in their comments on the survey that would be sent out after the meeting, and in the comments they write in response to questions in the meeting. Jim Unsworth interjected that the group had spent time formulating goals in the previous process. The facilitator asked Brian Oakey to introduce the proposed goals that he and Jim Unsworth had identified for the group. The goals were posted on flip chart paper around the walls of the room and also provided as a handout. The proposed goals for the BHS/DS Working Group long-term strategy process included:

1. Provide recommendations to state on where bighorn sheep will receive management emphasis, and where domestic sheep will receive management emphasis.

2. Provide recommendations on the development of management strategies for areas where bighorn and domestic sheep may interact, including strategies for farm flocks.

3. Provide input on development of the statewide bighorn sheep management plan.

4. Provide active support and outreach for mutually agreed upon goals and management strategies for bighorn and domestic sheep. Goals and management strategies should be designed to provide predictable outcomes in both short- and long-term (note this was part of #4 but the facilitator renumbered it to #5 when the group later commented on these goals).

Brian emphasized that goals being presented are designed to serve as a starting discussion point -- not the end point. He also talked about the IDFG statewide efforts to develop management plans for Bighorn Sheep, which would serve as a platform for stakeholders to voice concerns to IDFG. The management plan may work to serve as support and outreach for addressing concerns. Draft Meeting Summary – Bighorn Sheep/Domestic Sheep Working Group September 23, 2008 Meeting

4

A meeting participant commented that during the interim strategy process some participants had felt that the group was “forbidden” from talking about disease issues; she wanted to know if that was going to be the policy going forward. The facilitator responded that this was a new process and that until the broad guidelines for the group were developed everything would be open for discussion.

Responses to Potential Proposed GoalsAt this point, the facilitator outlined how the remainder of the meeting would progress. She explained that given the short amount of meeting time and the large number of meeting participants, they were going to ask participants to respond in writing to the potential group goals, identify potential additional goals, address questions about the lessons learned from the interim strategy process, and to provide recommendations about the structure and recommended participation for moving forward. She said that although this approach wouldn’t allow for much interaction between participants at this meeting, it would allow them to collect a great deal of information from everyone in a short period of time. She explained that after the meeting, all the responses would be compiled for everyone to see in the meeting summary and a survey with some additional questions would also be distributed.The following potential “goals” were posted on the walls around the room:

1. Provide recommendations to state on where bighorn sheep will receive management emphasis, and where domestic sheep will receive management emphasis.

2. Provide recommendations on the development of management strategies for areas where bighorn and domestic sheep may interact, including strategies for farm flocks.

3. Provide input on development of the statewide bighorn sheep management plan.

4. Provide active support and outreach for mutually agreed upon goals and management strategies for bighorn and domestic sheep.

5. Goals and management strategies should be designed to provide predictable outcomes in both short- and long-term (note this was part of 4 but the facilitator renumbered it to 5).

The facilitator asked the meeting participants to answer the following questions relative to each of the goals:

Does this goal address your interests? Explain why it does or why it doesn’t.

How would you modify it to better meet your interests? What other goal(s) would you suggest?


5

The following section includes the proposed goals in bold italic, followed by the meeting participant responses to each proposed goal (the abbreviation BHS is used for bighorn sheep and DS is used for domestic sheep; where we couldn’t read handwriting we made our best guess or just noted that we couldn’t read it and enclosed the uncertainty in brackets e.g., [couldn’t read]; we did not edit the individual comments): Proposed Goal #1: Provide recommendations to state on where BHS will receive management emphasis, and where DS will receive management emphasis.

Need to know where bighorn are. Need to know where bighorn are native versus where they are an

introduced species. Locations set aside for domestic sheep need to offer economic viability

to their owner. This is a start. By identifying these specific areas, IDL as a landowner

can make rational business decisions. In order to make such a recommendation, we need to know where

major populations of BHS are located. It would also be nice to know where domestic sheep summer (other than the Payette).

BHS should only use management policies by this group in areas that do not conflict with Idaho code 36-106.

The policy of this group should be in compliance with the 1997 contract. The reason for this is the IDFG, the BLM, FNAWS and the U.S. Forest Service signed this agreement.

Yes – if BHS areas are determined, then when a BHS is outside of their area, they do not effect the domestic sheep operations. Also, the BHS areas are identified so that domestic sheep are not placed in their areas.

Determine where BHS should be (public land) based on suitable historic bighorn range. Anywhere there are domestic sheep which are not in proximity to the occupied BHS habitat (40 miles buffer).

BHS should receive management emphasis in suitable historical BHS habitat but especially in Hells Canyon and Salmon River Corridor. Should have a buffer of many miles from occupied habitat.

DS should be grazed outside of historic BHS habitat. Need info as to where BHS and DS are located

o Where do conflicts and potential conflicts existo Define “management emphasis” for each specieso Should there be terms such as viable and non viable populations

be used to determine management emphasiso Good goal


6

Without seeing the exact locations on a map – including the overlap of allotments and BHS range, it is impossible to provide recommendations.

o Will these “lines of boundaries” change over time?o How will these areas be decided and by who?

Forest Service (FS) is responsible for habitat management. If FS improves management and results in improved habitat – then lines on a map could become detrimental to the whole system. IDFG has management of the animals.

I am not convinced that drawing lines on the map is necessarily a goal. It may be a tool that could be used to focus some management strategy. Drawing lines connotates winners and losers. I would rather see us work towards a win-win goal.

I want DS and BHS managed within Idaho state codes, and the ‘97 agreement.

Need to develop statewide tools (GIS) regardless of ownership as to where sheep (both) species are currently occurring and where they are likely to occur if populations increase. This goal would meet my interests. Question as to implementation of this goal.

Define management emphasis. In areas of management emphasis is the selected species the only animal that is managed?

Sheep allots that are now permitted should stay permitted. Outside those areas they need to follow Idaho law and the agreement between Woolgrowers and the assignees ’97 Agreement.

BHS should receive management emphasis on all public (federal and state) lands where they currently and historically existed. That means that bighorn sheep should not be precluded from inhabiting current or former range on public lands.

The concept of “zones” has been used in Wyoming where there are islands of BHS habitat separated by areas that are not BHS habitat. In Idaho BHS habitat generally is associated with river canyons and is contiguous. There are not islands as in Wyoming. It is not clear what emphasis means. The nationally recognized experts that have engaged the issue have recognized that federal land managers should move to separate BHS from DS. It is not clear how “emphasis” would create separation. In Idaho I think we will see BHS return to or try to recolonize historic habitat regardless of how it is zoned. So DS emphasis zones need to be free of BHS habitat.

BHS should have priority in suitable habitat on public land. Idaho geography is intertwined in such a way that the ranges are not isolated as they are in Wyoming.

The zone of influence of BHS depends or is conditioned upon BHS distribution and BHS habitat. As to BHS distribution, the question is as of when…1608, 1808, or 2008? As to BHS habitat, the question is in relationship to private land, to private land sheep flocks, to domestic


7

sheep allotments? In answer to these questions: as to BHS distribution, the distribution should be based up to the point in time just before reintroduction into an area, and if not reintroduced, but native, minimum area of influences (see habitat). As to BHS habitat, the habitat area should not include private land, private land with flocks, or existing domestic sheep allotments. See 1997 agreement and Idaho law. BHS habitat must consider existing disease status of BHS. The zone of influence of BHS must be defined, and limited, as stated. In addition, the “zone” should be where BHS are to be distributed, not where they may stray or drift. Straying/drifting outside of zone should be strictly prohibited.

BHS are an iconic symbol of Idaho’s wildlife heritage. Only remnant populations remain. BHS should be allowed and encouraged to repopulate as much of their historic range as practicable. DS operations should be focused in areas without conflicts or potential conflicts with BHS.

Which areas for emphasis? DS – private lands. If Otter wants viability develop private lands “niche marketing.” All public lands with suitable habitat should be managed for BHS.

o Currently occupied habitato Restoration habitato Actions to restore

Overall! Main “big” goal - was not consensus derived. Otter should not impose a goal - there was nothing in sage-grouse group “goal” about.

Proposed Goal #2: Provide recommendations on the development of management strategies for areas where BHS and DS may interact, including strategies for farm flocks.

Allegations of interaction between DS and BHS need to be based on actual events, not “might have” or “could have” or “potential for.”

There should be no areas where BHS and DS interact (public lands). Strategies and agreements must be made to prevent BHS from interacting with DS i.e., double fences etc.

Necessity of scientific input to create strategy. Need locations of herds of DS and BHS. Farm flock component is critical. Necessity of agency (FS, BLM and state lands) input and collaboration.

In development of BMP’s, cost to operators/landowner needs to be considered and allowed for. No unfunded mandates. Compensation for lost revenue and/or alternative areas to maintain current operations should be provided.

Zone management for risk where the extreme edges of BHS do interact with domestic grazing and farm flocks have strategy similar to


8

some current policy to remove BHS that are deemed to be a threat to the wild population.

Allegations of conflict between DS and BHS need to be based in science, not emotionalism.

Yes, I would agree with this goal. Recognizing that there is a difference between public and private property. There should be a broad array of strategies developed that can be selected from on a site-by-site basis.

Interested in this goal but need to address how to implement this goal and resolve difference on a site specific basis. How will federal agencies be expected to implement if this issue is not addressed in forest Plan or resource Management Plan.

Farm flocks can be fenced in. When BHS join farm flocks on private land the BHS can be lethally removed. Separation must be maintained on public lands.

Remove all BHS from area. After determining areas where DS and BHS may come into contact,

then area should be more closely patrolled so that DS and BHS could be moved further apart. I don’t believe that the State can govern animals on private property, so BHS hopefully could be hazed away. The only time either [cant read word would probably present a problem would be early fall during the breeding season.

The management [can’t read word] are there when the groups brought in the wolf. They’ve changed the areas where these game animals roam, and keep them from intermingling. No right to manage on private lands without owner’s approval.

If there is interaction between DS and BHS, if this has occurred over a long period, i.e. both populations co-exist, what has been the management practice and adopt them for that area. If this has not occurred for a long time (many years) go to proposal 1 and develop areas for BHS and DS private land/small flocks, have a communication protocol when BHS enter flock.

Strategies should be developed that are holistic; that consider the historic, social, economic…impacts on rural communities. People will determine the success of the management strategies. Rural communities can make or break these plans.

DS on private lands are a private property right. Therefore, the plan should suggest voluntary BMPs. IDFG would then need to handle the animals in conflict to minimize that conflict.

The zone of influence of BHS depends or is conditioned upon BHS distribution and BHS habitat. As to BHS distribution, the question is as of when…1608, 1808, or 2008? As to BHS habitat, the question is in relationship to private land, to private land sheep flocks, to domestic sheep allotments? In answer to these questions: as to BHS distribution, the distribution should be based up to the point in time


9

just before reintroduction into an area, and if not reintroduced, but native, minimum area of influences (see habitat). As to BHS habitat, the habitat area should not include private land, private land with flocks, or existing domestic sheep allotments. See 1997 agreement and Idaho law. BHS habitat must consider existing disease status of BHS. The zone of influence of BHS must be defined, and limited, as stated. In addition, the “zone” should be where BHS are to be distributed, not where they may stray or drift. Straying/drifting outside of zone should be strictly prohibited.

After zones of influence are defined, and should the zone overlay between BHS and DS, there should be four types of management:

o Disease monitoring of BHS and perhaps DSo Manage actions of the concept of separation, though no 100%

guarantee standard. Need temporal information on BHS.o Should contact, communication vehicle,. Disease monitoring.

Lethal BHS. o Compensation/alternatives

Farm flocks - state provide fencing and other [prvd ent mngt] and require double fencing if private land interfaces with public land BHS

BHS – immediately remove BHS grazing and trailing from all public lands allotments in occupied habitat and in any other areas or public lands where contact may be foreseeable (foreseeable – based on topography, distance bighorns may move, etc.) Identify (and act to phase out over next 5 years) – all DS grazing in restoration habitat as well. As removing domestic grazing from public lands will benefit federal and state taxpayers, ID Congressional delegation should promote buyout of public land sheep grazing permits.

The first goal should be to avoid conflicts between BHS and DS instead of mitigating or addressing conflicts after they occur.

DS and BHS cannot interact. Research at WSU and [?] has documented BHS dying a few days after being placed in the presence of DS. They must be separated on federal lands. In areas where “farm flocks” (I assume this is small flocks) feed on private lands there needs to be vigilance so it is reported and there is a response to capture the BHS and remove them from the population. On private lands that are within the boundaries of national forests efforts should be made to acquire the land from willing sellers or conservation easement on the property to eliminate the grazing where BHS are close by.

Science must be used in the management decisions – not opinions. Livestock in these areas have a long history in assisting rural economies – this should be recognized.

Restrict DS from using public lands (fed and state) where BHS currently, historically and potentially could inhabit.

Acknowledge that disease is a problem.


10

Management of BHS on private ground cannot harm the producers. Harming the producer with management practice is trampling on the rights of landowners and destroying the families that code section 36-106 was supposed to protect.

Farm flocks graze almost entirely on private ground, so that is 100% of decision making by the owner.

Proposed Goal #3: Provide input on development of the statewide BHS management plan.

Recommend input which is related to policy and oversight, not specifics. IDFG needs to have full ability to develop specifics based on best, most current scientific data. Do not consider any political comments.

Linked comments:o Management of BHS should take into consideration winter

nutrition and stress. Although the FS has done evaluation of BHS habitat, they evaluated summer habitat only. Winter habitat is far more important.

o Once an area has been set aside for BHS, it should be set in concrete. No more taking of allotments when BHS roam. There should be some defference to previous agreements i.e., 1997 agreement.

o More BHS rams should be harvested so that fewer rams roam during breeding seasons because they have no ewes.

o Winter feeding should be considered during harsh winters. Statewide plan needs to take into consideration habitat information in

addition to population data. Past plan did not address habitat issues or potential conflicts with domestic sheep to any detail. Believe that this group’s input would be beneficial.

Manage for increased number of BHS to at least number we had 20-25 years ago – 6500 head if not more.

Separate fact from fiction. What are the assumptions that we are starting with and how valid are they? State these starting point assumptions.

The saying that the state manages wildlife while the feds manage habitat causes dome difficulty and need to be at least clarified.

Need broad minded group to focus on the issue at hand with a willingness to compromise and work out differences.

We need to have only participants willing to collaborate and to reach consensus in this process. No single-minded notions.

The members of this working group should only include the individuals or groups who agree with the “Multiple use” mandate of the USFS/BLM.


11

IDFG has a financial interest in only one side of this equation. Agriculture needs agency leadership in this process.

Yes. Area for BHS size of population. Expansion of population. The management of BHS should be done by professional wildlife

people with the benefit of the BHS in mind. Statewide BHS management needs to manage BHS without harming

domestic sheep operation. May be hazing or by removing BHS. The BHS management plan can only be in areas that would not be in

conflict with Idaho code 36-106 and the 1997 contract. The plan would have to consider laws and contracts or the State of Idaho could end up paying millions of dollars to pay for damages caused by non compliance with Idaho laws and signed contracts. BHS should be shot if they invade domestic herds.

BHS in conflict areas with domestic sheep should be removed if the IDFG are concerned about contacts in an area.

We need outside, objective people representing appropriate training and experience without ties to either livestock grazing or environmental interests.

This process needs to be informed by sound science. Participants need access to wildlife biologists, data, and research studies. Important information includes the distribution and population of historic and current BHS populations as well as projected trends and cumulative effects. The economic and cultural significance of Idaho’s wildlife needs to be conveyed to the participants.

Habitat is good on the sheep allots. That is not the problem. Look in Hells Canyon. No grazing in 35 years. Has it made the habitat better. NO. First start with your predators and quit trying to ruin ranches that are producing something for this country.

This process could help inform the statewide BHS Management Plan. Some background from IDFG on their plan process would be beneficial to understand how these fit together.

This is valuable only if the group is defined as a single entity and gives a single response. Otherwise it is too large a time commitment for the value received.

There should be a chance to have policy and technical input to the plan.

The plan should be to restore BHS to historic bighorn habitat that is still capable of supporting BHS.

The plan should contain direct action to begin to reverse the decline of bighorn sheep in Idaho.

The plan should set aggressive population restoration goals. The plan should have a standard to create separation between BHS. The idea of “best management practices” is a strategy to manage risk.

We have not been able to quantify how much risk is possible to


12

maintain viable populations. We do not have viable populations now – based on the declines over the last 20 years.

The zone of influence of BHS depends or is conditioned upon BHS distribution and BHS habitat. As to BHS distribution, the question is as of when…1608, 1808, or 2008? As to BHS habitat, the question is in relationship to private land, to private land sheep flocks, to domestic sheep allotments? In answer to these questions: as to BHS distribution, the distribution should be based up to the point in time just before reintroduction into an area, and if not reintroduced, but native, minimum area of influences (see habitat). As to BHS habitat, the habitat area should not include private land, private land with flocks, or existing domestic sheep allotments. See 1997 agreement and Idaho law. BHS habitat must consider existing disease status of BHS. The zone of influence of BHS must be defined, and limited, as stated. In addition, the “zone” should be where BHS are to be distributed, not where they may stray or drift. Straying/drifting outside of zone should be strictly prohibited.



guarantee standard. Need temporal information on BHS.o Should contact, communication vehicle. Disease monitoring.


The plan should be based on research that is peer reviewed. We need examples of where BMPs have worked so we can see how

they are different or similar from our situation. General – to develop management plan:

o We need qualified out of state vets with no ties to /conflicts of interest with – public lands livestock grazing

o Need concrete info on occupied and potential habitato Is IDFG using a public lands livestock “filter”

[Now in] defining habitat? In writing off suitable habitato IDFG/agencies by next meeting should provide detailed mapping,

sheep population numbers, etc. So the current status can be understood

o Clear biological parameters (focused on BHS needs) should be applied to BHS habitat (both occupied and restoration)

Proposed Goal #4 and #5: Provide active support and outreach for mutually agreed upon goals and management strategies for bighorn and domestic sheep. (5) Goals and management strategies should


13

be designed to provide predictable outcomes in both short- and long-term.

(4) This should be the overriding goal. If we do not aim for “predictable outcomes” we are not going to make much progress toward keeping both species viable.

(4) What happens if certain members do not want consensus keep this group from being successful?

(4) The collaborative should find some mutually agreed upon aspect to focus on first instead of tackling the entire issue. By concentrating on a “low hanging fruit” we can build trust, strengthen relationships, and facilitate future problem solving.

(4) Agree. (4) I want BHS to survive in the short and long term, but not at the

expense of DS operations. We have to follow law and contracts (97) we have in place.

(4) I agree. If this is truly a collaborative process than the end product should be supported by the participants.

(4) List all possible strategies with all possible results to both BHS and DS – of actions on public lands.

(4) There are many more DS in Idaho than there are BHS. Perhaps 100 times more. The DS industry is market driven. There is no guaranteed outcome. Nothing is predictable.

(4) Monitor and document what is actually happening with BHS populations. TO measure the success of a management plan you have to be able accurately record results.

(4) Active support and outreach should be an IDFG responsibility, but group members could be called upon as resources.

(4) Goals should be expressed by an independent person, because groups will carry their own agenda to the table. If such an independent person could be found they need to make sure the audience understands the existence of laws and contracts that the State of Idaho has on BHS (36-106) (1997) agreement.

(4) If these are a part of the Management Plan I believe that this is needed.

The zone of influence of BHS depends or is conditioned upon BHS distribution and BHS habitat. As to BHS distribution, the question is as of when…1608, 1808, or 2008? As to BHS habitat, the question is in relationship to private land, to private land sheep flocks, to domestic sheep allotments? In answer to these questions: as to BHS distribution, the distribution should be based up to the point in time just before reintroduction into an area, and if not reintroduced, but native, minimum area of influences (see habitat). As to BHS habitat, the habitat area should not include private land, private land with flocks, or existing domestic sheep allotments. See 1997 agreement and Idaho law. BHS habitat must consider existing disease status of


14

BHS. The zone of influence of BHS must be defined, and limited, as stated. In addition, the “zone” should be where BHS are to be distributed, not where they may stray or drift. Straying/drifting outside of zone should be strictly prohibited.

(4) After zones of influence are defined, and should the zone overlay between BHS and DS, there should be four types of management:


guarantee standard. Need temporal information on BHS.o Should contact, communication vehicle. Disease monitoring.


(4) Excellent statement, it’s time for all to put their money and perspiration where their mouth is!

(4) The key component of #4 is “mutually agrees upon goals” – once agreement is reached all parties involved with process need to be willing and able to defend the outcome. Not sure about ability to provide “predictable outcome.”

(4) Serious reservations because of federal law and court decisions – the legal issues at this time as to the potential success of this process. Would only support if BHS are given opportunity and habitat to increase in numbers to at least numbers of 20 years ago 6500 head in Salmon River and more in Hells Canyon area that is said to be able to maybe support 10,000 head.

(4 and 5) Can’t provide active support and outreach for something premised on Otter’s viable domestic sheep industry. Independent non-ag/non-livestock economic study of benefits of BHS versus negatives of DS on public lands and to the public must be conducted simultaneously with any collaborative effort.

(4 and 5) I agree, but I think one should cross this bridge if one can get the rest of the goals done.

(5) The outcomes short term and long term won’t be predictable until it is conclusively determined what is determining viability of BHS populations in the first place

o Habitato Climateo Predatorso Wolf reintroductiono Disease

(5) Agree. (5) Believe that to find a solution both short and long term strategies

are a given. (5) Compensation paid to allotting an area exclusively to BHS

historically/currently used for domestic sheep.


15

(5) Predictable outcomes should include recognition of the right of all businesses to exist. That includes ranchers, livestock operators, hunters, backpackers, protectionists, private landowners – the public lands belong to ALL taxpayers.

(5) Agree goals and management strategies should be designed to provide as best we can a predictable outcome both for short and long term when dealing with wild and domestic loose animals. Should consider options that include “change of class” of livestock in not losing AUM’s of grazing in or close to historic BHS habitat.

(5) Predictability of decisions and outcomes are paramount. This allows all parties to plan and allocate their resources to achieve the best possible outcome for their own interest.

(5) Any goals in conflict with the laws and rights created by the 1997 agreement and code section 36-106 will cost the State of Idaho millions of dollars.

The meeting participants also identified the following potential proposed goals for the BHS/DS Working Group:

Continue to collect new information as it is available and be flexible if information provides new ways of handling the problem.

General: BHS must be viewed as part of wildlife on public lands and any habitat projects must also consider other wildlife values that may be affected.

Move Idaho wildlife forward based on 21st century science and not “industry” claims i.e., stop spending Idaho tax money developing policy and promoting “research” trying to “prove” disease is not a concern.

Ensure continued revenue streams at current or higher levels as a result of management decisions.

Sustainability of the rural/local economies should be a priority. Comments on economic study should maybe go here. Credible non-ag.

Economists should conduct BHS benefit study. Costs to public of continuing to “support” DS.

IDFG update on what happened, where, under the interim policy. Encourage and monetarily support research concerning BHS health

and viability. If a way to keep the sheep species away from each other and keep the

domestic producers whole I am for it. But protecting BHS must be a priority.

Drawing lines on a map of current “occupied” BHS habitat will be dangerous. The idea of making this the point to start from would be a ruinous idea for wildlife resources i.e., 20 years ago there were “about” 6,000 BHS in Idaho – in 2008 there are estimated about 2,000 there


16

are estimated about 2,000 (outside Owyhee Co.) This is catastrophic decline which if it continues (could) provide reason for certain groups to demand ESA listing which is what none of use wants.

Improve communications to resolve conflicts on other issues as they come up.

Work together on shared concerns such as noxious weeds, etc. How to achieve BHS recovery in Idaho. There are only about 2,500 BHS left in Idaho. Avoid listing BHS for federal protection. How does Idaho manage “border populations” shared with other states

like OR, W, MT, UT, NV? How to develop goals and strategies that better integrate a larger

spectrum of value that Idaho citizens attach to BHS. Must maintain operators grazing rights – loss of those rights could also

jeopardize the Tribe’s 1855 rights.

Participants also identified the following other considerations as part of the discussion of potential goals:

Before we start:o List all federal laws and policies and rules which affect

management of wild and domestic animals on public land. o List all tribal law, treaties and rules which can affect

management f wild and domestic animals on public and all other lands with native tribes rights and how this affects the federal and state laws, rules, etc.

Without considering what laws, judges decisions and rules trump which other laws/rules – this process could be flawed and invalid before we start. If all other laws/rules are superior to state actions on federal land – this process is going nowhere except to court.

How to implement what we come up with on federal land. An exercise helping all to recognize their own personality type and that

there are differing types of personalities might be useful.

Lessons Learned from Interim Strategy ProcessNext, the facilitator asked the group to identify the three most important lessons we should learn from the interim strategy process (e.g., what mistakes can we avoid, what can we do better)? The following section presents the responses from meeting participants:

Cannot ignore disease. Cannot ignore Payette Forest information. Cannot ignore WAFWA recommendations.


17

We need more time. We need more information. The interim meetings were okay, we just quit before we got going.

I believe the Governor and Ag. Dept. tried to ram (no pun intended) something through without taking in consideration of wild sheep and their supporters.

Use sound science and facts. Set realistic goals. Invite more stakeholders, be more transparent, invite more public interaction.

It takes time for people to develop a working relationship, so not trying to fit into a timeframe is important. It’s critical to have the right people at the table. People have to be willing to work towards the overarching goals and not take positions right out of the box.

Hire a professional facilitator. Provide adequate time for collaborative process to mature.

Be sure people in this room and the public know we have Idaho code and a agreement to follow.

Agencies/particularly USFS refusing to follow the interim policy and adopting of actual strategies implemented by the state of Idaho. Failure of the state for follow the 1997 agreement and to put conditions (though interim) on DS operations and not agreeing to control zone or influence of BHS. State worked hard to develop and implement interim policy.

Necessity of more information i.e., maps, scientific data, locations of animals. The inclusion of the scientific community is crucial. Time is not of the essence. A collaborative effort needs time. Relationships need to be built. Single minded no-willing participants bog down the process. Needs clear vision.

Participants should be open minded. Participants should be willing to reach consensus and have the good of the industry and BHS in mind. Ideas should be practical and based on sound information.

Need a charter. Need an agreed upon mission. Need separate policy and technical workgroups. Need facilitation. Need a decision making framework - recommend a consensus based process. Need time to work collaboratively – no artificial deadlines. Need product clearly identified. Need science based process, peer reviewed literature. Need smaller group. Need team building for the group. Need notes. Review notes at start of next meeting.

What is [real]. Honesty in science. Truth. Don’t set unreasonable expectation – some will never agree. Their

“disagreement” is their power! Totally unproductive. Don’t hesitate to remove a member who has only one objective “to remove all livestock from public land.” If one person keeps repeating without listening they should be excused.

No Otter edicts like this seems already to have related to “goal” of a viable domestic sheep industry. That anti collaborative – and dictatorial. Avoid relying on Idaho-derived “science” that tries to


18

ignore disease transmission. Don’t let IDAG/IDFG/Otter write or edit info, conclusions, etc. from plan. No basement meeting rooms.

Frequent feedback loop on assumptions or decisions to confirm consensus or grudging consent. Define what is success for this group. Set realistic timeframe, but not open-ended (need time certain).

Process must be consensus and collaboration – driven. Process must be transparent. Process must not be results-driven.

Be completely open and keep EVERYONE informed of ALL proceedings. More clearly state up front what is driving this process i.e., is it political

from pressure placed on the agencies by the Governor’s office on behalf of industry? As clearly shown in the Governors letter to the USFS. If this process proceeds and is determined a success can we next expect the cattle assn. to demand separation of cattle and elk in areas of any disease problems i.e., brucellosis.

Be certain that you let the group know that there are laws in the State of Idaho and contracts made by agencies in the state of Idaho that have to be considered before proceeding with any policies by this working group. Code 36-106. 1997 Agreement signed by USFS, ISF&G, FNWAS, BLM, etc.

Who Should Participate in the Collaborative Working GroupThe facilitator asked the group to identify what interest groups (or specific individuals) should be involved in the collaborative working group? The following section includes the responses provided at the meeting:

Larry Thorngren – provide online/phone opportunity to participate. Indian tribes should be included (Sho-Ban’s and Paiutes). Other states

especially Oregon, Washington affected by Hells Canyon experience. Idaho Outfitter groups. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian

Reservation (CTUIR). Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Shoshone-Paiute Tribes.

OSC – Dustin Miller. ICA. Sheep (Bighorn) are state. Feds should not be on this working group.

Individual groups, farmers and ranchers need to be involved on this group – not groups supported by out of state dollars.

We need involvement of people who will fully respect the rights of all other participants to disagree with him or her – and who will respect the potential validity of all opinions. Hidden agendas are inappropriate.

River outfitters whose clients enjoy seeing BHS. Hunting outfitters. Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association. Oregon Fish and Game biologists. Idaho Tourism Department. Local Chambers of Commerce.


19

All groups who are willing to work towards holistic solutions. Absolute agendas should be excluded.

Any group which demonstrates through the group’s history, to be able to provide constructive input into the process.

Individuals who are not involved now, but are impacted later should be able to participate at a later date. Who knows what new range the BHS will “move” to. There must be unbiased experts advising in this process – otherwise it is only political/legal.

How Should the Collaborative Working Group be Structured

The facilitator asked next for responses to the question, “What recommendations do you have for the group’s structure (e.g., should there be a policy committee and a technical committee, should there be appointed members, other ideas)?” The participants responses follow:

No – people should not be appointed. No separate committees, this discriminates against smaller groups and non-industry folks.

Look at the structure of groups that have successfully addressed similar issues. How was Wyoming’s task force setup? Who was included? How were they selected?

Have each group designate a main contact and an alternate. Steering committee with assigned task groups. Allows for

confirming alignment of understanding, agreement, and direction. At least one group representing each of the following interests: 1)

policy, 2) technical, 3) research. Group structure should be balanced between the various interest

groups and agencies. No one group or interest should dominate the group. Those groups should identify the primary member. Use of alternates (1 or 2) should be permitted but it should be the responsibility of the primary member to update alternates – reduce “down time discussion” during meetings.

Probably best if appointed, but get committed people is the most important part.

I don’t think appointments are good. If people are committed they will come. I think if someone misses 2 or 3 meetings, they should be dropped. There should probably be several working groups [can’t read word] such as: 1) [can’t read first couple letters] ese review, 2) habitat review or environmental, 3) populations and interaction information [can’t read word], 4) historical, 5) benefits of livestock grazing group.

Meetings should be open to the public. Need a technical committee to work on management planning issues, need them to evaluate the basis of the BMPs and research current/past/recent on disease research. Need a policy group.


20

Group structure - Landowners/interest in land: 1) BLM, 2) USFS, 3) IDL, 4) private landowners, 5) livestock permittees, 6) Tribe(s), 7) Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 8) Idaho Department of Agriculture.

No dominant interest gains special consideration through threat of legislation or political pressure – keep all processes evenly represented on all committees.

Appointed members only. Group membership: 1) Outfitters and guides, 2) should be balanced,

3) should be appointed if representing a group, 4) should have federal agency representation (BLM, USFS), 5) should have a representative for major conservation groups.

Yes, I agree with having a technical committee and policy committee or perhaps bringing experts in to inform the entire group.

The makeup of the group must include all interested parties that claim a stake in this issue. Many of the scientific studies are confusing so possibly a technical advisor should be found to help the committee.

I agree with appointing individuals, so there is consistency amongst the group. These individuals need to have the ability to make decisions and be able to go back to the groups they represent with the information from the meetings. A large group is very difficult to work through a collaborative process.

What are the issues we need to find solutions for? The facilitator asked participants to identify what they think the issues that the group needs to find solutions for are. Following are the responses:

How do we successfully implement recommendations to maintain wild sheep and maintain the DS industry?

Develop a management strategy that allows for a healthy BHS population (define what that is) and a viable DS industry and healthy rural economies.

Removing DS from public lands quickly (and with compensation to ranchers). Source of funds and savings to taxpayers and public and public health. No shifting DS to other public lands.

Quit using sheep producers as the scapegoat for the decline in BHS numbers. Look at their own disease factors. Look at the numbers being killed by predators especially the wolf which the tribes and watershed project were instrumental in bringing [can’t read word]. Make sure the BHS are where they say.


21

We need to have a statewide policy that can help ensure we do not have repeats of what has happened on the Payette. Lives impacted, costly court fights, agencies put in difficult positions.

Alternate allotments for DS operations to avoid conflicts. Other compensation strategies for livestock operators currently working in conflict areas. How to re-stabilize and expand BHS populations to as near historic ranges as practicable.

How to keep BHS alive w/o taking DS off the range. Keeping Otter/Craig/Crapo and industry from biasing outcome,

undercutting credible biologists, biology, etc. Keep the DS industry viable. Keep management/BMP requirements at

an economically feasible level. Maintain a viable BHS population by providing the best habitat possible.

At a time when the American economy is in crises, why are we even considering the possibility of losing another industry.

Alternate grazing allotments or both public and private land. If necessary, USFS and BLM work with group to develop purchases or trades to provide private land grazing to move allotments. Example i.e., invite a rancher in the Camus Prairie area to graze cattle in existing forest or BLM area in exchange for allowing grazing of domestic sheep on hay land in his area.

Agreement by all parties that both BHS and DS positions are valid. Agreement that neither will be maximized everywhere, but will in designated areas through innovative reasonable and achievable management.

Keeping ranchers viable and on the public land. In Idaho, it is impossible to keep livestock on private land year round. It would be detrimental to the land, water, and wildlife. Spreading out over the thousands of acres of public land is a much better management of habitat and land. Private land will be subdivided!

How to restore BHS to viable population levels within occupied and historic range. How to define “viable DS industry.”

How do we keep BHS and DS separate. How do we keep wildlife management in the hands of trained professionals and not politicians.

How to keep out of lawsuits. To make sure that the federal land agencies have a clear direction on what they [can’t read word] and manage for.

How can we keep DS industry grazing in good areas in Idaho while providing the opportunity for BHS to recover in historic bighorn habitat or the Hells Canyon and Salmon River corridor? It means real change has to come to the industry which will be unfortunate for a few who will have to find other areas to graze in Idaho or other states.

How to recover BHS populations. How to direct greater amounts of resources to disease research at WSU. How to help livestock producers through this industry transition. How to develop and apply


22

buffers between occupied BHS habitat and DS. How to amend DS allotments when BHS move in. How to create effective separation.

The zone of influence of BHS depends or is conditioned upon BHS distribution and BHS habitat. As to BHS distribution, the question is as of when…1608, 1808, or 2008? As to BHS habitat, the question is in relationship to private land, to private land sheep flocks, to domestic sheep allotments? In answer to these questions: as to BHS distribution, the distribution should be based up to the point in time just before reintroduction into an area, and if not reintroduced, but native, minimum area of influences (see habitat). As to BHS habitat, the habitat area should not include private land, private land with flocks, or existing domestic sheep allotments. See 1997 agreement and Idaho law. BHS habitat must consider existing disease status of BHS. The zone of influence of BHS must be defined, and limited, as stated. In addition, the “zone” should be where BHS are to be distributed, not where they may stray or drift. Straying/drifting outside of zone should be strictly prohibited.



guarantee standard. Need temporal information on BHS.o Should contact, communication vehicle,. Disease monitoring.


Closing Comments from ParticipantsThe facilitator asked each participant to provide a closing comment or thought that they wished to share with the group. She asked each participant to be concise and brief. Following are the highlights of those comments:

Include the scientific community in the meetings and discern problems using science.

Make sure to include facts. Educate participants. Everyone needs to have a clear understanding of the process. Needs

to be open – no game playing. Mutual respect. Terms should be clearly defined so that all participants have the same

understanding of the language being used Federal laws and rules governing particular aspects of the process

should be reviewed and considered so that everyone understands the limitations of the process.

Concern that results of process might turn into something that would privatize the public resource.


23

Bring everyone up to speed learn about each other’s perspectives. Share information so that everyone is familiar with the applicable regulations.

Study science going back 20 years. Idaho code and law needs to guide process. Putting the sheep industry out of business is not the answer.

Need to start with clear definition of what the problem is. Need to clarify what assumptions are. There needs to be consensus around the definition of the problem.

Needs to be agreement that we want to maintain BHS populations and DS – meet both needs.

Want to see Idaho code and 1997 agreement resurface on the table. Make sure we’re following laws. Code section 36-106, contracts signed

by BLM, IDFG, FNAWS, ODFW, WDFW, and USFS. Need to know legal sideboards. Futility of the process. Forest service

DSEIS. Zone of influence is the key to reaching consensus. Are we talking about Bighorn distribution as of 1608 or 2008? Need to consider zone of influence relative to private lands and allotments and Bighorn habitat. Need to consider disease status.

Legal issues have to be taken into account e.g., federal land and how do we actually implement whatever the group recommends?

Need to have a list of federal, state, and tribal laws and identify which supersede which. Also need to look at tribal hunting and fishing rights.

Allow interested individuals to be part of the process. Keep in mind the idea that collaboration requires compromise. Consider predator issues.

Next Steps and Follow-up ActionsThe facilitator thanked everyone for their hard work during the meeting. She invited participants to get up and walk around the room and take a look at all of the comments from the meeting participants. She summarized the following proposed next steps:

Distribute summary of meeting including all written comment from meeting (originally proposed for October, now occurring in December);

Distribute a survey to meeting participants requesting additional input regarding BHS/DS Working Group goals, structure, etc. (originally proposed for October, will occur in January – with approximately 2-3 weeks response time on survey);

Based on input from survey and other dialog will develop draft goals and draft charter (originally proposed for November/December, now early 2009);

Convene full day workshop to review, discuss, revise if necessary, and develop agreement on goals and charter (originally proposed for December or January, now early 2009);


24

Based on decision on group structure – appoint members or other approach (originally proposed for January, now TBD); and

Convene approximately monthly BHS/DS Workgroup meetings beginning (originally proposed for January/February 2009, now TBD).

Some participants suggested some tools, resources, or information they felt would be valuable at future meetings. Suggestions included:

Providing all participants with a list of relevant documents (e.g., research and educational materials) that could be provided electronically or in print upon request.

Ask participants to suggest topics for presentation that would help educate the group and bring everyone up to speed.

Provide a list of relevant laws, statutes, etc. and document how they interact with one another (e.g., which law or statue supersedes another).

Identify what terms we need to define.

AdjournBrian Oakey and Jim Unsworth closed the meeting by expressing appreciation for the time commitment all the meeting attendees made to the process. Both Brian and Jim said that they found the process of the day’s meeting encouraging and were looking forward to moving forward in finding a solution for what has been a contentious issue.


25

Attachment AList of Past Attendees at Interim Strategy BHS/DS meetings (Provided by ISDA)

Pete Grinde Payette NFChuck MiddletonJim Unsworth IDFGStephen Goodson Office of the Gov.Dr. Mark Drew IDFG/ISDAJohn Caywood ID FNAWSLloyd Oldernburg ID FNAWS/ISCACTom Rinkes BLMWally Butler IFBFCathy Bourner Div. of TourismNate Fisher Office of the Gov.Kurt Houston IDLStan Boyd IWGVince Moreno Rep. SaliDustin Miller Sen. CraigMarie Bulgin U of I Ron Kay ISDAAlan ShroederJoe ShirtsRon ShirtsDavid PickettLarry ThorngrenBrian Ertz WWPGretchen Hyde IRRCPaul VarcarceNate Helm SFWDoug Schleis Wild Idaho NewsBrad Compton IDFGSuzanne Rainville FSDale Toweill IDFGDebbie Hollen Wallowa-Whitman NFTim Shommer Wallowa-Whitman NFRick Fortman FSKeith Ridler APKeith Lawrence Nez Perce TribeJohn Noh IRRCChad Colter Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Claudeo Broncho Shoshone-Bannock TribesErin Anchustesni WWPDraft Meeting Summary – Bighorn Sheep/Domestic Sheep Working Group September 23, 2008 Meeting

26

Katie Fite WWPCindy Salo Soc. For Range ManagementJeff Lord ICADr. Greg Ledbetter ISDAGrant Simmonds IOGA


27

wordpress.com … · web viewi think if someone misses 2 or 3 meetings, they should be dropped....

Documents