A bighorn lamb from the Jackson North Herd, seen on the National Elk Refuge. (Lori Iverson/US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Domestic sheep could graze anew on national forest land in the Wyoming Range where conservationists bought grazing rights to separate them, their pathogens and their impacts from bighorn sheep and their habitat. 

The Bridger-Teton National Forest is proposing to allow domestic sheep “restocking” by amending its management plan. It is seeking input by June 7 on issues it should address.

The proposed change tilts on the fulcrum of a Wyoming outline that specifies which wild bighorn herds are “core-native” herds prioritized for conservation and which are “non-emphasis” populations. Wyoming characterizes bighorn herds in the northwest as core but relegates those in the Wyoming Range to the lesser status.

At issue is whether federal guidelines governing wildlife on the Bridger-Teton National Forest call for protecting the Wyoming Range bighorns or whether the state plan will prevail. The conflict arises, in part, from pathogens domestic stock spread to bighorns, which are susceptible to pneumonia and other ailments that can drastically cut their numbers.

Bighorns in the Wyoming Range “exist at their own peril,” Wyoming Stock Growers Association Executive Vice President Jim Magagna said, summarizing the Wyoming Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Plan — a 17-year-old multi-stakeholder compromise. “They’re certainly welcome to be there,” he said, “but [the Forest Service] would not close any [domestic] sheep [grazing] allotments because of that particular [bighorn] herd” if federal managers honor the state plan and its non-emphasis designation.

However, the Bridger-Teton, which encompasses the Wyoming Range, “has an obligation to provide viable [wildlife] habitat,” said Kit Fischer, the National Wildlife Federation’s director of wildlife programs, who worked to buy out thousands of acres of grazing permits in the range. He’s fearful the federal agency may argue “we don’t have to protect every herd on the forest,” he said.


Bighorns were native to the Wyoming Range but by the early 1960s “competition with domestic sheep and illegal harvest were believed responsible for their extirpation,” Wyoming Game and Fish Department biologists have said.

The state wildlife agency reintroduced bighorns to their once-native Wyoming Range habitat around Mount Darby, 10,651 feet, in 1981 and 1987. To protect them from disease, the Bridger-Teton Forest Plan adopted a “standard” in 1990 that says domestic sheep “will not be restocked” on grazing allotments that become vacant there.

Domestic sheep raising has been an important part of the Wyoming economy since settlement days. This view of shearing shows how kids (note one in the bag) helped tramp down the wool for shipment. Depression-era photographer Arthur Rothstein took the picture for the federal government. (Arthur Rothstein/Library of Congress LC-USF34-004561-D)

But the Wyoming Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Plan, forged some 14 years later in 2004, distinguished between core-native bighorn herds that had persisted in their historic ranges and those, like the Darby Herd, that had been extirpated and re-established.

Participants crafting the state bighorn/domestic sheep plan — four federal land managers, four Game and Fish employees, three agriculture representatives, six domestic sheep grazing permittees or producers, three conservationists and two elected politicians — relegated the Darby Herd and others to “non-emphasis” status.

The group designated the Jackson North, Jackson South, Whiskey Mountain, Targhee and Absaroka herds as core natives, but the Bridger-Teton has not adopted protective standards for those bighorns.

In addition to stripping the Darby Herd of its no-restocking protection, the proposed forest plan amendment would impose the no-restocking standard to protect the core-native areas on the Bridger-Teton for the first time.

Given the Wyoming bighorn/domestic framework, it’s unlikely domestic sheep grazing would be allowed on federal lands around the core Bridger-Teton bighorns even without the new protections, but not impossible.

“We’re very supportive,” Magagna said of the proposed forest-plan change, “as the Wyoming plan calls for protecting the native bighorn herds.” The proposal change “puts the Forest Service plan right on board with the state bighorn sheep/domestic plan,” he said.

The change could leave the Darby Herd at risk, the Bridger-Teton acknowledges. 

“We know that disease outbreak is a threat to bighorn sheep herds and separation of bighorn sheep from domestic sheep and goats [is] an important management tool for the Forest,” Deputy Forest Supervisor Kevin Khung said in a statement.

Purchased protections

The Forest Service has thus far protected the Darby transplants because “Game and Fish thought that was a high-priority herd,” said Steve Kilpatrick, a biologist representing the Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation. “That’s the reason for the [will not be restocked] wording in the [1990] Forest Plan.”

In recent decades, conservationists paid domestic sheep herders to vacate many grazing permits and allotments in the Wyoming Range. All told, conservationists bought out more than 124,000 acres of domestic sheep grazing permits in the Wyoming Range.

Wyoming’s bighorn sheep plan divides the state into areas where core native herds of bighorns live, where “cooperative review” with domestic sheep grazers would allow bighorns to thrive, and where bighorn populations are not emphasized. (Wyoming Game and Fish Department)

“Nobody’s pushing permittees out,” said Fischer of the National Wildlife Federation office in Montana. Permittees often come to his organization because of conflicts, he said.

“We’re not anti-grazing, we’re anti-conflict,” he said. “We feel if we can convert allotments to cattle where it’s suitable, we’ll see far fewer instances of conflict.”

Fischer’s group and other conservation organizations, including Trout Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation, the Trust for Public Lands and the Wild Sheep Foundation, paid fair-market value for the buyouts, he said. Game and Fish set a goal of 150 bighorns in the range. The population climbed to more than 60.

But things began shifting in 2015. That year the Legislature adopted Wyoming’s Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Plan as law, Kilpatrick said. But lawmakers that year also acted against any further curtailment of domestic sheep grazing in the Wyoming Range.

Legislators easily passed a measure allocating $37,500 to the Game and Fish — available through 2020 — “for removing or relocating the Darby Mountain bighorn sheep herd from the Bridger-Teton National Forest boundaries.” Game and Fish would remove or relocate the wildlife if “any federal judicial or agency action require[ed] the elimination or suspension of any domestic sheep grazing in the Wyoming Range…”

One lawmaker called the measure blackmail. Game and Fish the next year changed the population goal for the Darby Herd from a “population objective” of 150 to a “trend-count” objective, a slightly different method of counting, of 65.

Wyoming’s plan

Magagna cited work on the Wyoming Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Plan as critical in building support for stock growers. A consortium of interests worked for years to develop the state’s vision for core native and non-emphasis herds, he said.

“We’ve encouraged the Forest Service to follow that,” he said. So did the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, which “has been in contact with the U.S. Forest Service over the years on bighorn sheep/domestic sheep management on the forest,” agency spokesman Derek Grant said in a statement.

Using a flashlight, tongue depressor and swab, Teal Wyckoff collects a sample from a bighorn ewe on the National Elk Refuge near Jackson in 2015, part of an effort to track diseases like pneumonia. (Angus M. Thuermer Jr./WyoFile)


Engagement sought “to encourage the management of bighorn sheep according to the Statewide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group plan which is in Wyoming rule and statute,” Grant wrote.

Agricultural interests laid the foundation for the state’s plan, said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, a group critical of public lands grazing. The Wyoming planning group declared the Darby Herd “as essentially sacrificial and not worthy of conservation,” he said.

Under today’s Bridger-Teton management scheme, “the Forest Service isn’t really allowed to sacrifice the Darby Herd,” he said. “That’s why they need a plan amendment.

“It’s important to note,” Molvar said, “the Forest Service is in no way bound by state plans and wildlife management policies.”

Game and Fish takes the risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorns seriously. So much so that when a Thermopolis-based rancher moved domestic sheep to private land on the edge of the state’s largest bighorn herd — the Absaroka Herd of more than 4,500 bighorns in the Cody region — the agency sprang into action.

Gov. Mark Gordon authorized an emergency hunt in August 2020 targeting up to 34 bighorns in Hot Springs County’s Owl Creek drainage. Unlike most bighorn hunts that focus on mature rams, the emergency decree targeted any bighorn — ram, ewe or lamb.

None were killed there last year, Game and Fish’s Bart Kroger said, citing agency harvest records. The agency approved a 2021 season of 32 bighorns of any age or sex in August “to allow harvest in an area where there is potential overlap between domestic and wild sheep.”

Disease transmission is a worry, too, for Grand Teton National Park, home of the Targhee Herd, where wildlife managers counted 90 sheep in 2020. Mountain goats, introduced by wildlife managers in Idaho, have moved into Wyoming and the national park, threatening the core native bighorns in the iconic Teton Range.

Grand Teton launched a controversial aerial goat shoot in 2020 before Wyoming objections halted the operation. The Park Service then allowed hunters to target goats, the state’s preferred method for the cull.

No connection?

There’s no evidence that the Darby Herd has an interchange with the larger Jackson Herd to its north, Kilpatrick said, perhaps reducing worries that disease introduced to bighorns in the Wyoming Range might spread to their neighbors — some 500 strong — in the Gros Ventre mountains.

“The limited data so far does not show interchange between animals in the southern part of the Jackson Herd and the Darby Herd,” he said, but more research is needed.

Yearling bighorn sheep. Taken on April 7, 2015 on the North Fork of the Shoshone River. (Rob Koelling)

Fischer said conservationists’ buyouts were calculated. “We had our eyes wide open,” he said. “We have to rate the risk on all of these investments.”

The buyouts “bought a tremendous amount of grazing relief,” Kilpatrick said. “Plants are coming back because of these buyouts,” he said. “We’ve learned you can’t graze those [habitats] hard.”

The Bridger-Teton could give Darby bighorns another level of protection by declaring them a species of conservation concern, something other national forests have done. Regardless of that designation, which Fischer said would be politically fraught, the Forest Service would still need to do additional environmental review before domestic sheep could graze in the buyout allotments under the proposed plan change, he said.

Support independent reporting — donate to WyoFile today

“We believe there’s enough evidence [that] it could be very challenging for the forest to restock those allotments,” he said. The question that remains, he said, is whether “the good that could come out of this amendment” — protection for core-natives — “is greater than the risk of potential restocking.”

People who want to comment on the range of issues the Forest Service will address in its proposed amendment can do so electronically through June 7 on the Forest webpage at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=58509. Those who comment preserve certain rights to be further involved in the issue.

Avatar photo

Angus M. Thuermer Jr.

Angus M. Thuermer Jr. is the natural resources reporter for WyoFile. He is a veteran Wyoming reporter and editor with more than 35 years experience in Wyoming. Contact him at angus@wyofile.com or (307)...

Join the Conversation


Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I agree with all of ;the above, obviously well-informed & knowledgeable comments. I keep reading about one after another of wild species being infected with diseases, losing access to forage, on & on, so that these livestock OPERATORS can continue destroying public lands, national forests, and even a national seashore, for crying out loud. Exactly how long are our so-called political “representatives” going to sit back & wait for these issues to solve themselves? By the time someone has an epiphany there will be nothing but cattle and sheep – no wildlife habitat, no wildlife species but lots of fat & happy livestock corporations.
    The fact that only 3% of the livestock (cattle, at least) raised for meat in this country are produced in these grazing allotments should make clear that this “way of life” which we hear is so sacred has come to the end of its usefulness. Why is it that in so many other industries, when it is no longer a productive, profitable operation, it goes away. Yet this particular “way of life” is allowed to go on – no matter the damage done to the land, air and water AND our native wildlife.

  2. No surprise here. The Forest Service is generally on the side of the livestock farmers…not to mention the timber-cutting crowd. And not just in Wyoming. The agency is in service is to them, not the rest of us.

  3. This is a letter I sent to the Forest Supervisor in February 2020 when I first heard about this proposal. I never got a reply!
    I recently read a news article in the January 29th issue of the Jackson Hole News & Guide newspaper reporting on how the Bridger-Teton National Forest is considering the restocking domestic livestock on grazing allotments previously bought out by conservation groups. This is too bad. I strongly recommend you reject this proposal.

    The proposed allotments to restock with domestic livestock were vacated, retired, and bought out in good faith and for very good reasons, often to protect important wildlife habitats and populations, but more importantly to re-establish bighorn sheep. In the early 80’s, Dave Lockman, (a former Wyoming Game and Fish Biologist and, check your records, a liaison with the Bridger-Teton during its forest planning effort), Bruce Johnson (also a Wyoming Game and Fish biologist stationed in Big Piney), and I (former District Wildlife Biologist on the Big Piney Ranger District) brought bighorns back to the Mt Darby and Fish Creek Mountain in the two allotments that were rename to Bighorn Sheep allotments for that purpose.

    It maybe that these two allotments were not big enough to hold the expansion of this population, which started to grow from those two transplants of 35 bighorns from Whiskey Mountain. They may have ventured into other areas, south and north along the Wyoming Range where domestics were. But in the mid-90’s several instances of domestic sheep and Jim Magagna’s herder caught grazing in these allotments closed to domestic sheep were reported to the District. In one instance the herder was told that domestic sheep were not allowed in the drainage due to the presence of bighorns. The herder said his boss had told him to go there. These domestic sheep were owned by Jim Magagna as he held the allotment to the north. It is likely nothing was ever done about this. It wasn’t long after this that bighorns began dying.
    Lessons learned: the area for bighorns was likely not big enough (not enough separation from domestic sheep); we shouldn’t have believed that the livestock industry, particularly the individuals now after these allotments to be returned to domestic sheep grazing would hold up their side of the agreement; and maybe we shouldn’t have wasted our time on that effort, especially in light of Wyoming’s position now that this is a “non-emphasis area” for bighorns. That lack of emphasis has allowed the livestock industry to bounce and apparently the Forest Service to fold. Both of which are wrong! Just because the State of Wyoming’s position is non-emphasis for bighorns in this area is no reason to go back on the agreement that was made – there are still bighorns there.
    I oppose this proposed action for the following reasons:

    1) Restocking these allotments with domestic livestock would revive the very problems that were reasons for vacating, retiring and buying out the allotments in the first place.

    2) The proposed action is an extraordinary slap in the face to those of us who put in so many diligent hours and many thousands of conservation dollars to enact.

    3) This proposal could likely put an end to all conservation buyouts throughout the entire country (how likely will organizations be inclined to purse conservation buyouts and spend funds to purchase these when federal agencies turn around 40 years later and go back on agreements).

    4) If this proposal is adopted it would also set the precedent for opening up retired, vacant, and bought out grazing allotments in all National Forests across the entire country.

    5) The proposed action would likely cause the extinction of the Darby Mountain Bighorn Sheep Herd.

    6) The proposed action, if adopted and applied to other National Forests, will most certainly result in the decline or extinction of many bighorn sheep populations all across the Western US. It will also have negative repercussions on a myriad of other important wildlife species and habitats.

    I therefore urge the Bridger-Teton National Forest to take a firm stand against this proposal and other such assaults on the public’s wildlife and wildlife habitats rather than cave in to the interests of groups who desire to utilize public lands for their own personal gain with considerable consequences to public resources.


    Mark Hinschberger

  4. This is a test once again to see whether Wyoming values conservation over rancher profits. Unfortunately, so far, western states like WY, MT, & Idaho have all proven to be under the firm control of ranchers & though they give lip service to loving conservation, when push comes to shove, they favor industry over conservation. It’s dismaying to see Biden’s Forest Service giving into them too.

    1. a test once again to see whether Wyoming values conservation over rancher profits. ”

      Our federal lands are managed for multiple use. Most conservationist like wool socks, like gas in their car, like laundry soap, like beef, like minerals that make smartphones possible, etc.

      ighorns do not face extinction. Love the bighorns and mountain goats and don’t think much of sheep ranchers but this sounds like a case of extreem noise from conservationist.

      1. If livestock were completely banned from public lands, consumers would still have no problem obtaining those items, with no increase in cost. Same with beef, and especially mutton. Consumption of the latter has been in decline since the 50s. It’s a niche market at best. Unless something has changed recently, most of our wool is imported.

      2. You need to do some deeper research on bighorns. They are teetering really, even though they are not on the ESA. In 2009, more than 2000 bighorns died across the Western states. Only in the last 8-10 years has the exact disease called Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae been isolated but there is no cure and new strains and super spreaders are a continuous problem..

        The Whiskey Mountain herd, used for decades for introductions throughout the Western states, is in decline and probably will wink out due to disease. Getting domestics off the Wyoming Range is a first step, but there are even thoughts among wildlife vets that cattle might also be disease transmitters.

        This is a no-brainer decision by the Forest Service to do the right thing. A minimum of 150-200 sheep is necessary for good genetics if this herd is to survive, even without the risk of domestic sheep.

  5. To say that the Wyoming Stockgrowers and especially the sheep barons continue to live in the past would be a huge understatement…

  6. There is no legitimate reason for this proposed action. It’s all politics. People who comment on it should rather push hard to have wild sheep declared a species of conservation concern throughout the entire Forest.

    Since it is likely the Bridger-Teton will ignore objections and adopt the proposed amendment against all scientific reason, it would then be appropriate for conservationists to petition the US Fish and Wildlife Service to declare wild sheep throughout the West a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. That would get peoples’ attention.

  7. Sheep have ruined more wildlife habitat then any other animal next to cattle why do federal lands owe livestock owners a free ride.