Chat
09-21-2019, 07:05 AM
Celia Adamac, Chris Cook, Vicky Jordan, Phil and I all had a meeting with the GMUG FS yesterday afternoon and I felt like it went really well. They learned a lot about packgoats and I think were able to voice their own concerns about bighorn sheep. We were given plenty of time to explain why packgoats are not only an extremely unlikely disease source, but also why they are unlikely to ever come in contact with a bighorn sheep. I feel like we were heard and I hope this shapes their plan in a positive direction.
Some disturbing news, though--Rio Grande NF is already in the objection phase of their plan and seem to have pushed it through without adequate scoping. The plan contains a packgoat ban. Since we were not informed until this stage, we may not have standing for an objection. However, if they did in fact violate procedure in their scoping process, we may be able to still get our foot in the door. Since I'm in Utah for the next two weeks I'm hoping Celia can take the reins on this one. It sounds like Colorado Parks & Wildlife are the ones pushing these bans, and this is very similar to what I just heard from the Sierra/Sequoia folks in California. Out there, CA and US Fish & Wildlife are the ones pushing the packgoat ban agenda, and in the Sierra/Sequoia case, bighorn sheep were not even a species of concern in the area but F&W pushed the packgoat ban on them anyway as a preemptive measure, and probably to give precedent for Inyo where the BHS actually are. It's a very frustrating situation. But one of the best things to come out of yesterday's GMUG meeting is that they have said they'd like to put NAPgA in touch with the CO Parks & Wildlife people and arrange a meeting with them so we can discuss the packgoat/bighorn issue with them directly. I think this would be a big step in the right direction since they influence what happens in all of the FS/BLM plans in the state.
Some disturbing news, though--Rio Grande NF is already in the objection phase of their plan and seem to have pushed it through without adequate scoping. The plan contains a packgoat ban. Since we were not informed until this stage, we may not have standing for an objection. However, if they did in fact violate procedure in their scoping process, we may be able to still get our foot in the door. Since I'm in Utah for the next two weeks I'm hoping Celia can take the reins on this one. It sounds like Colorado Parks & Wildlife are the ones pushing these bans, and this is very similar to what I just heard from the Sierra/Sequoia folks in California. Out there, CA and US Fish & Wildlife are the ones pushing the packgoat ban agenda, and in the Sierra/Sequoia case, bighorn sheep were not even a species of concern in the area but F&W pushed the packgoat ban on them anyway as a preemptive measure, and probably to give precedent for Inyo where the BHS actually are. It's a very frustrating situation. But one of the best things to come out of yesterday's GMUG meeting is that they have said they'd like to put NAPgA in touch with the CO Parks & Wildlife people and arrange a meeting with them so we can discuss the packgoat/bighorn issue with them directly. I think this would be a big step in the right direction since they influence what happens in all of the FS/BLM plans in the state.