Grand Teton Bighorn Sheep

[brutah]

You're a little confused where the impacts are. You ASSume "Grand Teton NP" = big backcountry peaks, when the part of Grand Teton NP with the most skier/sheep impact is the NP that abuts the JH ski area boundary. The impacts there dwarf the impacts in the rest of the park by a factor of 1,000. Dumb fucks like you twist that into a criticism of someone that wants to ski a remote line in the park. Fuck off.

Ignoramuses like you misunderstand and perpetuate the idea that all BC skiing needs restriction. The slant of the JH newspaper doesn't help.

According to the recent public presentation by the author of the study, there are no recommendations for closure at all. The health of the herd is quite good. Things are stable. It's something to keep an eye on.

You wouldn't know it from the newspaper coverage. Their latest headline was "skiers support closure" , giving the impression that closures have been proposed, when they haven't, not by a long shot. They asked Turiano if he would support closure if it came to that, he gives a measured response - "well, yes, but only with considerable further study, public input, and a consideration of all impacts not just those of skiers" and voilà a shitty slanted headline. JH news & guide has an agenda here, not quite sure what it is. Maybe they're trolling JHMR.

Regardless, fuck you and your misinformed ignorance. As to your first point - I have set foot on skis in GTNP, more than a thousand times.

hahahahahaha i'm glad you took the time to read way into my comments. you fuckin dumbwit. such a big tough 'local' i'm sure. can't wait to see your segment in the next tgr, brah, i'm sure you're out there all time droppin the grand in january.....

1st if what you say is true, you don't have anything to worry about

it doesn't sound like anything is definitive but YOU'RE SKIING IN A NATIONAL PARK. they do weird things in national parks, grand teton n.p. is one of the top grossing national parks so you're going to have to deal with the park wanting to keep as much diversity in the park as possible. people come there to see wildlife and waterfalls remember, most don't come to ski. and only recently have I starting seeing most n.p.'s worth skiing in winter collect park fees so people skiing in the park during the winter presumably aren't contributing that much to the park(they were collecting them on weekends in glacier np this year). (the $80 annual pass isn't how they really bank either *hint*)

i agree that any skiing closures basically suck and I choose to mainly ski in the backcountry because i enjoy the freedoms it allows and basically being to able to do whatever you want with the attached dangers.

i've re-read my comments and they're pretty general and broad. i think i was mainly commenting on a overall need to do what is possible to fight climate change including protecting biodiversity and if that means closing an area that has good skiing than so be it. that stuff sucks for sure, but so be it.

also, the closures don't effect many areas that I have skied in the winter and i'm pretty sure they wouldn't extend past march (the current closure ends march 31st). again i don't want to generalize but i think most the high peaks probably see more visits in late spring than mid winter. still restrictions are restrictions, such is life.

i think my comments are also just making fun of most the people in this thread with their stupid misinformed bullshit comments about science and how wildlife biology works and also how most of the vocal opposition in this thread is coming from those who have probably never skied in gtnp, that is until now that "Mr 1000Xs" TG stepp'd up because surely he is bad ass with 1000s of midwinter big mtn descents in the park not to mention all times he's gotten rad in granite, brah.

i'm sure your a super rad east coast transplant that loves gtnp but so do 1000s of people and most don't ski. (and yes i see the sheep range just south of jhmr) most people come to the park to hike to waterfalls/lakes/viewpoints, see wildlife (even imbred and/or super docile wildlife), see some crazy natural landscape like mtns, arches, and canyons. most people don't go to n.p. to ski before april if they go ski at all. restrictions do suck, but such is life (not that the article really says that anyone is suggesting closures just yet. but i only skimmed the jh n&g article while reading all the sltrib one). even with the restrictions you could probably ski any of the lines you wanted at some point in the year, just maybe not in mid winter. boo hoo. doesn't seem like anything to get your panties twisted up in bunch just yet.

anyways i'm just ramblin' now but go ahead and fuck yourself buddy. if you were such the bad ass you claim to be you'd cope with the loss of some access just fine. but i'm going to assume that you're not, just a poser local. so eat a bag of dicks.

[old goat]

The winner of this argument is the one with the most creative insult. I award the gold medal to brutah, for "so eat a bag of dicks." (Would those be Bighorn dicks? People do eat the balls, of course--Rocky Mountain oysters. Mmmmmm, tasty.)

[haysman16]

[QUOTE=BRUTAH;4278882


"i've re-read my comments and they're pretty general and broad. i think i was mainly commenting on a overall need to do what is possible to fight climate change including protecting biodiversity and if that means closing an area that has good skiing than so be it. that stuff sucks for sure, but so be it."

How exactly does having a herd of sheep in the mountains fight climate change? don't their farts actually add more methane into the atmosphere, therefore increasing greenhouse gases ()? just curious.
Dan

[brutah]

How exactly does having a herd of sheep in the mountains fight climate change? don't their farts actually add more methane into the atmosphere, therefore increasing greenhouse gases ()? just curious.
Dan

again, i was being somewhat board and general with that statement and not really localizing it to one particular situation. BUT here you go: loss of biodiversity is a direct result of climate change or factors contributing to climate change. loss of a bighorn sheep herd equals a loss of biodiversity/genetic uniqueness. therefore, taking steps to protect biodiversity, a direct negative result of climate change, is a way to help prevent climate change. how's that work?

do i think this is the best way to spend the limited resources that goes to habitat and wildlife protection/research? not really, but i'm not the national institute for sciences and like I said this is one of the TOP GROSSING national parks in the USA.

plus, you have a few other situations at play here: one, the herd is unique in that it has no range overlap or exposure to domesticated sheep, which is one of the biggest reasons for an overall decline in bighorn sheep populations across the west since domesticated sheep can be vaccinated for scrapie and bighorns cannot. yet domestic sheep are still carriers of scrapie. that same reason for lack of exposure though will probably end up in a loss of the herd anyways without human interaction (that is, introducing other bighorns to increase genetic diversity amongst the herd. ironic? somewhat) two, you are dealing with a NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. All of their management practices are a little different than all other government entities (state and federal).

[skiJ]

again, i was being somewhat board and general with that statement and not really localizing it to one particular situation. ...

plus, you have a few other situations at play here: one, the herd is unique in that it has no range overlap or exposure to domesticated sheep, which is one of the biggest reasons for an overall decline in bighorn sheep populations across the west since domesticated sheep can be vaccinated for scrapie and bighorns cannot. yet domestic sheep are still carriers of scrapie. that same reason for lack of exposure though will probably end up in a loss of the herd anyways without human interaction (that is, introducing other bighorns to increase genetic diversity amongst the herd. ironic? somewhat) two, you are dealing with a NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. All of their management practices are a little different than all other government entities (state and federal).

I am pretty sure there is No vaccination for scrapie .

The OP seemed to be focusing two concerns about Bighorn "management" -- terrain closures and Mountain Goats .
There is some interesting information in this thread ;
terrain closures . . .
I suspect IF We could leave them alone, the Bighorns and the Goats would co-exist pretty easily ; both animals thrive in terrain poorly suited to human habitation; however, I won't be surprised if in our efforts to "manage" and "study" them(,) we endanger one or both
( this is being well practiced with moose in northern Minnesota where fatalities associated with "study" ... have contributed significantly to ,,, greatly damage the moose population ) .


anyway. No vaccination for scrapie. I doubt the disease in domestic sheep would be much of a risk to Bighorns ( though I am certain If we wanted to 'domesticate' Bighorns we could contaminate Bighorns too ) ., though I suspect if we try hard enough(,) we can find or create a similar neuro-degenerative condition (in Bighorns) .

i.e. bovine spongiform encephalopathy .

we are from the government : we are here to help you ;

If it ain't broke ...


: ) skiJ

[brutah]

I am pretty sure there is No vaccination for scrapie .

The OP seemed to be focusing two concerns about Bighorn "management" -- terrain closures and Mountain Goats .
There is some interesting information in this thread ;
terrain closures . . .
I suspect IF We could leave them alone, the Bighorns and the Goats would co-exist pretty easily ; both animals thrive in terrain poorly suited to human habitation; however, I won't be surprised if in our efforts to "manage" and "study" them(,) we endanger one or both
( this is being well practiced with moose in northern Minnesota where fatalities associated with "study" ... have contributed significantly to ,,, greatly damage the moose population ) .


anyway. No vaccination for scrapie. I doubt the disease in domestic sheep would be much of a risk to Bighorns ( though I am certain If we wanted to 'domesticate' Bighorns we could contaminate Bighorns too ) ., though I suspect if we try hard enough(,) we can find or create a similar neuro-degenerative condition (in Bighorns) .

i.e. bovine spongiform encephalopathy .

we are from the government : we are here to help you ;

If it ain't broke ...


: ) skiJ

ok no vaccination from CWD/scrapie (my bad), i was slightly confused as I haven't worked in wildlife disease for 3 years now. pneumonia is the biggest threat from domesticated sheep to bighorns (and there is a vaccine for pneumonia for domestic sheep, but not bighorns). but scrapie is another threat to bighorns from running into domestics. habitat loss (i.e, human's never ending expansion, proximity to domestic sheep or more recreationists spending time in their range) is probably the number one threat to bighorns.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3676

https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/131015n.aspx

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5383002.pdf

uh-oh did i just link to science?!?!

[skiJ]

ok no vaccination from CWD/scrapie (my bad), i was slightly confused as I haven't worked in wildlife disease for 3 years now. pneumonia is the biggest threat from domesticated sheep to bighorns (and there is a vaccine for pneumonia for domestic sheep, but not bighorns). but scrapie is another threat to bighorns from running into domestics. habitat loss (i.e, human's never ending expansion, proximity to domestic sheep or more recreationists spending time in their range) is probably the number one threat to bighorns.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3676

http://<b>https://www.avma.org/News/...1015n.aspx</b>

Further investigation of TSE transmissibility to bighorn sheep, including animal studies, is warranted, the study concludes, adding that the lack of reported TSEs in bighorn sheep may be attributable to other host factors or a lack of surveillance in this particular species.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5383002.pdf

uh-oh did i just link to science?!?!

hehe .

good References . ... I still believe we pose the "biggest threat" to animals like the Bighorn and the moose through Mismanagement including habitat loss .

much of the "study" and ' science ' that we are subjecting wildlife to . . . I strongly Question and seriously doubt the value.
prion diseases are Real - and have been around for centuries . CWD has exploded through attempting to 'domesticate' deer ( including simply the practice of [attracting deer to feeders for observation and entertainment] ) - -

I believe the risk of transmitting scrapie through incidental crossing - of - paths is (very) low ( though probably less - low if domestic sheep from known scrapie infected herds are grazed on known Bighorn habitat.
( but for me this raises the question of why known scrapie-infected herds are tolerated) ) .

pneumonia is certainly a killer .

Wildlife study... probably Needs to be a lot more extensive-Observation., and a lot less 'Science' ( if they kill nine more moose for too many more years , Minnesota will solve 'the problem' of the declining moose population . ) .


... largely, I think our views are compatible - maybe even consistent - -

Thanks for the info.

tj

[old goat]

All of this is important in the short run. In the long run only a few species that are able to adapt to living with humans, like cockroaches, will survive. Most species that exist on earth today will become extinct due to human activity without humans ever being aware of their existence. I take solace in the knowledge that humans too will one day be extinct, and hopefully life forms more congenial to the existence of other species will replace us.