04-01-2014, 07:15 PM
In reading the attorney's objections on behalf of NAPgA's behalf there are a couple of acronyms used that I don't know. BMP's and NEPA. Would someone please tell me what they are. Thanks!
(04-01-2014, 07:15 PM)Taffy Wrote: [ -> ]In reading the attorney's objections on behalf of NAPgA's behalf there are a couple of acronyms used that I don't know. BMP's and NEPA. Would someone please tell me what they are. Thanks!
(04-01-2014, 07:45 PM)Saph Wrote: [ -> ](04-01-2014, 07:15 PM)Taffy Wrote: [ -> ]In reading the attorney's objections on behalf of NAPgA's behalf there are a couple of acronyms used that I don't know. BMP's and NEPA. Would someone please tell me what they are. Thanks!
Taffy,
BMPs= Best Management Practices. Also known as "Mitigation Measures." These are actions designed to mitigate the negative effects of an activity on a resource. In this case, our mitigations would include practices that would reduce probability of contact with wild sheep, such as high lining our animals in camp, leashing at all times when on the trail, etc.
NEPA=the National Environmental Policy Act, basically the law that requires the Federal government to document the effects of any & all proposed activities on resources. National Forests are required to revise their Management Plans every 10-15 years, thus they must go through the NEPA procedure, including analysis of alternatives and their effects. The document produced by this analysis is called the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
(04-17-2014, 10:10 PM)igoat Wrote: [ -> ]Just an FYI, on the Wallowa-Whitman Forest website it was just announced that the comment period for the Blue Mountain National Forest Draft LMP has been extended to August 15. That should give everyone a chance to write up some substantive comments. I would also encourage everyone planning to comment, to read the comment requirements on their FAQ page, as there are some specific criteria that need to be met before the Forest Service would be required to consider your comments.
Im not sure if this particular editorial on the subject of Packgoat disease carrying capacity has been shared on this site, but I figured I would provide the link anyways.
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdf/10....002.63.119
The summary of the article was “Pasteurella spp may be transmitted when animals are in close proximity, particularly by nose-to-nose contact. Therefore, when domestic pack goats are in wildlife habitats, they should be managed to prevent contact with wild ruminants.”
I only bring this up because I worry that we in the packgoat community might be fighting the wrong fight. We keep suggesting in these forums that there is no conclusive evidence to connect the possibility of disease transfer between packgoats and BHS. Unfortunately, I believe that eventually there will be such evidence, and all the more so if we keep pushing for it. The biological similarities between all ruminants suggests that there will always be some level of risk of disease transfer between them. Therefore, we should stop trying to convince people that a goat cannot transfer a disease to a BHS, but rather focus on convincing them that the level of risk of such an event happening is SO LOW that it is not worth mitigating. And even if the risk were deemed too high to leave unmanaged, there are mitigation options available to a packgoat problem that would not be available to other grazing domestic herds. Namely, we would be willing as a community to adhere to rules or regulations requiring us to high-line, to keep our goats on leads all the time, to use GPS collars, etc. Objectively, if the ultimate goal is to ensure that no BHS ever comes within 60 feet of one of our goats, that is a manageable goal without banning our goats from the forests completely. I have even toyed around with the idea of using backpacking electric bear fences to create a perimeter around my camp. Not that it would be meant to keep my goats in, but rather in the (albeit highly unlikely) circumstance if a BHS came sniffing around, he would get a jolt from the fence long before he came in range of my goats.
So, lets make sure we pick the right arguments, the winning arguments that put us on the side of the BHS rather than make us appear ignorant and anti-wildlife.
(04-18-2014, 07:18 AM)IdahoNancy Wrote: [ -> ]The article concludes that the vaccine does not work on goats. We do not object to the fact that our goats carry this type of bacteria. We object to the conclusion they came to in the bottom which was not even relevant to the objective of study. Pack goats do carry this bacterium but there is no evidence that they can transmit this to bighorn sheep. Dr. Foreyt and his studies have proven the opposite. Hypothesis and opinions are not evidence-based science and should not be included in the management practices of our national Forest in an effort to exclude one group of users. Despite this we are willing to use management practices for our packgoats to minimize potential contact with bighorn sheep.