Sheep on public lands

[suv]

Just want to find out what y'all think about this. Up in my favorite elk hunting spot (which is a good bit of 'wheeling to get in), this guy runs a bunch of sheep - so many that it deforests all around the watercourses and basically ruins the area for camping and it makes hunting much less of an enjoyable experience. Last year, there was a state guy up there killing bears to protect the sheep. The shepherds are filthy and leave their trash all over - and they are only being paid something like $10 a day.

I wish the sheep would go - it seems like unfair use of the land, and unfair for the government to allow such business practices for the sheep business.

Anyone else feel the same, or am I not seeing the big picture?

Cody

 

[jamesgeologist]

I have the same feeling....

I nearly plowed into a herd of sheep outside of Vernal and the passenger riding along said it was a good thing that I didn't hit any as the sheperds have legal recourse to collect the money they loose by motorists killing their livestock that are too stupid to realize grass doesn't grow in the middle of the road. In the oil patch they are called "range maggots"

James

 

[Hickey]

yeah my dad call them land maggots.

 

[bobdog]

I do some hunting up by Strawberry and The sheep really do tear things up. Lamb chops sure are tasty though.

 

[James K]

Mountain maggots.
Why is it ok for the sheep to be there and destroy vegetation?
But we can't wheel some places anymore because of erosion problems. If these damn animals are eating all the vegetation why aren't the shepards responsible for re-planting?

 

[BlackSheep]

ever done any backpacking in the high uintas? the sheep are destroying those beautiful alpine meadows. Pretty bad.

oh, yeah, that area is wilderness area, no roads or anything, yet these sheep leave their droppings all over the place, AFTER they have eaten all the possible food sources in the area.

 

[84 4Runner]

This has been a huge frustration for me for some time -- sheep and cattle grazing on our public lands which destroys the land for responsible land users. Cattle and sheep destroy vegatation, deposit feces everywhere, and trample much of the land that you work hard to keep your 4x4 off of in order to "tread lightly" and preserve the land for future users.

The US government (through the BLM) allows ranchers to graze (and often strip) public lands because of political issues. This is in the interests of "protecting the homeland" and "protecting the US economy". Do you know the government actually pays farmers and ranchers to not sell their crops in order to keep them in business? US farming and ranching is very inefficient in comparison to farming in other countries. This forces the government to support the US farmers and ranchers in order to keep the US from being entirely dependent on foreign countries.

In order to keep US ranchers in business, the US government allows them to graze their herds on public lands. Unfortunately there are little or no restrictions on the numbers of livestock allowed on the public land, nor are they required to replant the growth that the livestock destroys.

I understand the need to protect US economic and political interests by protecting our farmers and ranchers, but I think they need to be responsible about their use of the land. There should be requirements for re-vegatating (like re-foresting?) the land after using it.

 

[mbryson]

Interesting subject........Any ideas on how to 'help' change the usage patterns?

 

[muleskinner]

I'd pay $5 a head if I could make them long range practice targets (legally)

 

[84 4Runner]

Originally posted by muleskinner
I'd pay $5 a head if I could make them long range practice targets (legally)

Or maybe the ranchers should pay us $5 a head to NOT make them long range practice targets.

I think there should be some regulation on the ranchers. At least restrictions on where and how many sheep or cows can be grazing. I would think there should be some requirements on replanting the vegatation as well.

Although, I am not certain how laws could be enforced. Any thoughts?

 

[suv]

I think law enforcement would be easy if the government wanted to do it. They have no problem giving me a ticket for riding my dirt bike on a road that's not even accessible to 2wd vehicles (conflict of traffic is the reason atvs are outlawed there), but they don't seem to care much that there's an illegal immigrant up there spreading his trash all over the forest.

I don't think there's a solution that makes everyone happy. The solution that makes 99% of people happy? Put the sheep on your own damn land! Or, graze them a little on public lands during the months when not many people are in the mountains, like april through July - just move them around enough so they don't damage the land.

Why does our government feel so sorry for the ranchers? If my construction business becomes unprofitable, they don't send me state employees or subsidize my materials cost. Why should the ranchers get such benefits? If I hire illegal immigrants and pay them one-fifth of minimum wage, I'll be going to jail - or court at the least.

I'm not so selfish that I want all the land to myself - but if someone's use of the land ruins it for others, that's misuse. I guess I have the same question as a lot of you - what can we do about it?

 

[jamesgeologist]

I hesitate to bring this up, but SUWA was, in it's earliest conception, an organization against the proliferation of cattle and cattle ranchers in the Escalante region of Southern Utah despite what their website’s homepage says. In fact, I listened to a broadcast on NPR about the apparent defection of one of the founders, Grant Johnson, who previously supported the removal of cattle and cattle ranchers in and around the Escalante region, hence Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. He now lives in Boulder, UT and is rather harmonious with the local ranching population. He now believes that cattle are not all that bad, and furthermore, denounces SUWA for changing its mission statement and it's agenda to broaden its appeal throughout the planet and Hollywood. Now, I am not necessarily inclined to believe him as I have seen first hand the destructive nature of cattle, but more importantly some arguing this point appear to be siding with the ultra inept wing of SUWAcide. We fight for the free and public use of the lands that are prime for wheeling. Ranchers and Shepherds fight for the best grazing lands. Despite the mutual disapproval of each other’s agenda, i.e. grazing and wheeling, we are, in essence, in the same boat. If we condemn the grazers for willful destruction of public lands, than we are, in truth, furthering the case of “no access” for anyone including hikers, bikers, and anyone or anything with a pulse. Just watch out how we address the issues that are immediate to our cause. Please don’t think I am chastising anyone. We are all here for the enjoyment of the sport, not to promote ill feelings.

Sincerely,
James Wilson

 

[BlackSheep]

James,
you have a good point, so I'll try to counter point...

When comparing BlackSheep to the sheepsheep:

I drive on an established trail, usually leaving very little or no damage to the surrounding land. What damage I do leave is typically due to the occasional spinning of tires on an obstacle. Maybe I stepped off the trail to take a leak behind a bush or rock, but otherwise, in a couple of days, most people would never even know that I drove down that road.

On the other hand, when you put sheepsheep in an area that is accessable by horse or foot only (like the High Uintas), I expect to see pristine landscape. Lets even assume that the sheepherders aren't throwing their trash anywhere except where it belongs. The sheep completely trash the entire area. Everywhere you go in what should be a pristine alpine meadow is full of trashed vegitation and sheep droppings. It is very obvious the affect the sheep have on the area.

All we (as wheeler's) need to do is stay on the trail, you can bet that the sheep don't care about any trails. Tread lightly means nothing to the sheep.

 

[mbryson]

I think we should work out a way to incorporate the rancher/cattleman view into our access rights, adding more people to our cause. Any ideas there?

 

[jamesgeologist]

I couldn't agree with you more.....The sheep do not care about tread lightly or anything resembling preservation. It is the shepherds that represent the greatest threat to us and themselves for that matter.

It will be interesting to see if it ultimately helps or hurts our cause by including all manner of livestock that graze public lands.

I would rather cage 'em, kill 'em and eat 'em.

 

[84 4Runner]

Originally posted by BlackSheep
James,
you have a good point, so I'll try to counter point...

When comparing BlackSheep to the sheepsheep:

I drive on an established trail, usually leaving very little or no damage to the surrounding land. What damage I do leave is typically due to the occasional spinning of tires on an obstacle. Maybe I stepped off the trail to take a leak behind a bush or rock, but otherwise, in a couple of days, most people would never even know that I drove down that road.

On the other hand, when you put sheepsheep in an area that is accessable by horse or foot only (like the High Uintas), I expect to see pristine landscape. Lets even assume that the sheepherders aren't throwing their trash anywhere except where it belongs. The sheep completely trash the entire area. Everywhere you go in what should be a pristine alpine meadow is full of trashed vegitation and sheep droppings. It is very obvious the affect the sheep have on the area.

All we (as wheeler's) need to do is stay on the trail, you can bet that the sheep don't care about any trails. Tread lightly means nothing to the sheep.

Agreed. Most experience wheelers make an effort to tread lightly. We know that by disobeying the unspoken (or sometimes spoken) law that thou shalt not destroy the land while using it, we may end up with no land at all to use. It has been a battle for us to keep land open for public use, so we make a conscious effort to leave the land how it was when we found it.

Ranchers and shepherds have no reason to fear losing the land through irresponsibility. The government has always (and probably will continue to) supported the ranchers, and so they have no reason to try to minimize the damage they do to the land.

There need to be restrictions and consequences for ranchers and farmers damaging the land. Whether or not the sheep and cattle are able to tread lightly, their caretakers should be capable of minimizing the damage they do. Take them to areas not generally used by the public. Replant what can regrow. Avoid trampling growth that has little chance of regrowth (cryptobiotic soil). Minimize usage of public land by encouraging ranchers and herders to use private land.

In any case. I think something needs to be done.