Sweetwater Rocks initiative: Producers voice concerns during contentious meeting in Jeffery City
On Jan. 6, the Wyoming Wool Growers Association (WWGA) and Fremont County Farm Bureau hosted a landowner and livestock producer listening session regarding the latest information in the proposal to reintroduce Bighorn sheep in the Sweetwater Rocks at the Jeffrey City Fire Hall in Jeffrey City.
The meeting drew a large crowd both in-person and online, consisting of private landowners, livestock producers and several state legislators, as well as representatives from the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, WWGA, Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), Wyoming Wildlife Federation and Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF), among others.
Initiative update
To begin, WGFD Lander Region Wildlife Management Coordinator Daryl Lutz noted the topic of reintroducing Bighorn sheep in the Sweetwater Rocks – a sprawling 73,101 acres from Devil’s Gate to Sage Hen Creek in central Wyoming – has come up multiple times over the past few decades, and the latest iteration started when the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) received a landowner appeal on June 21, 2021 from the Pathfinder Ranch to assess the feasibility of reintroducing Bighorn sheep in the area.
Since then, the Wyoming Bighorn Sheep and Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group has held several meetings, ultimately deciding to draft language in an amendment to the Wyoming Bighorn and Domestic Sheep Interaction Plan, which coined the term “Bighorn Sheep Restoration Area” (BSRA) and was unanimously approved by the plan’s three signatory parties.
Additionally, Sen. Larry Hicks (R-S11) pushed Senate File (SF) 118 through to strike out references to specific geographic areas, like the Sweetwater Rocks, and replace it with BSRA.
With hopes of ensuring producers and permittees are protected at all costs, many stakeholders have also pushed for federal legislation as well.
Lutz noted the working group undertook an intensive public review process including two meetings in Jeffery City and two meetings in Lander to compile public input, including that of livestock producers and permittees.
In the beginning, Lutz noted the group was met with quite a bit of support, which has since shifted.
“So, the working group felt it was an appropriate next step to try to come up with ways to address concerns about impacts to grazing permits and producers’ ability to continue grazing allotments which exist here,” he said.
Stakeholder concerns
First, several producers brought up the issue of miscommunication and conflicting information regarding the department’s timeline for reintroduction.
In an effort to alleviate some of this concern, WGFD Director Angi Bruce explained the July date many producers have been worried about is simply a meeting with the WGFC to give them an idea of how people on the ground feel about the project and to seek guidance moving forward.
“We have not brought the commission anything back in years besides the new definition of BSRA, so we need to take something back to them and see what direction they want us to go,” she stated.
Some individuals nodded to the issues of funding and private lands rights.
“What I want to know is public money is being expended to introduce Bighorn sheep into this area, but what public access will people have to come look at them or hunt them in the future if the main proponent of this – the ones who said they want them here – doesn’t let anybody on their property because they are envisioning a private-commercial funding enterprise?” asked Lander Producer Doug Thompson. “It seems to me this is contrary to public law because public funds should not be used to create a private game herd.”
Thompson also raised the issue of federal protections.
“I hear you, and I share the same worries about federal jurisdiction over the wildlife we manage every single day. We should do everything we can to guard against that,” Bruce replied.
Bruce also assured those in the room the project is not being carried out with public funding.
“It’s public funds generated through hunting and fishing, license sales and federal excise tax. It’s not coming from anything other than this,” she said.
Lutz noted he has heard from several producers and permittees who are concerned what the BLM might do or be required to do under the National Environmental Policy Act process or how a lawsuit brought about as a result of commingling might affect grazing permits.
“I want to emphasize this is nothing new,” he said. “In fact, it was documented in the 1980s as a primary concern, so while much of the world has changed, many things have not, and this is one of them.”
State and federal legislation
Although SF118 was crafted in good faith, concern with the legislation was another hot topic at the meeting.
WWGA Executive Director Alison Borcher noted her organization helped push this bill through, believing it was what many of WWGA’s constituents wanted. However, since then, she has heard differently.
One local producer voiced his frustration that the bill was supported by legislators far removed from the area.
“Sen. Hicks doesn’t represent us,” he said. “Our own legislators were totally against it, but it passed anyway.”
He also noted he has a hard time believing Bighorn sheep will be “gathered and immediately removed” if reintroduction results in conflict with domestic sheep, a stipulation outlined in SF118.
Section four of the bill notes the act will take effect no more than 15 days after applicable federal law is enacted or on Jan. 1, 2026 if no federal legislation is enacted.
This date also caused widespread concern among producers and permittees who are worried this means the species will be introduced regardless of their opposition.
Hicks assured meeting attendees his bill is not “some kind of anti-ag bill,” but an effort to bring multiple interests together to stay ahead of the game.
“We can control how this is done, where it is done and how it comes off, or we can just sit back and let things happen to us,” he stated.
On the federal side of things, Wyoming Wildlife Federation Government Affairs Director Jessi Johnson noted there is currently nothing in the pipeline, but there is certainly “an appetite to do something.”
“Our organization wants to make sure there is federal legislation in place to specifically protect what you guys are asking for,” she said. “We’re very much in support of it.”
WWGA Vice President Cat Urbigkit noted WWGA is currently working to finalize draft legislation and taking part in preliminary conversations with the state’s Congressional delegation in hopes of pushing a federal law through.
A resounding no
Throughout the course of the meeting, the overarching sentiment and concern was a total lack of trust between stakeholders and government agencies.
Many producers noted, regardless of how many times they have sat across the table from WGFD and voiced their opposition to Bighorn sheep reintroduction, the agency has left the meeting with the illusion all producers in the room are for it.
They also pointed out many instances, especially recently, where government agencies have seemingly ignored stakeholder feedback and moved forward with projects detrimental to local communities and the agriculture industry.
Overall, producers and permittees voiced resounding opposition to the reintroduction.
“We do not want this, we do not want this, we do not want this,” said Steve Garland. “I hope the director is listening to me when I say this, ‘We do not want this.’”
Borcher noted WWGA has been trying to act in good faith with the working group and all of the other voices in the room and will continue pushing forward with whatever WWGA’s membership wants.
However, she said, “My personal stance is the chief industry will no longer lose animal unit months (AUMs) to anything if I can do anything about it. I am one human and we are one organization so we can only fight so hard. Sometimes a good faith effort is how you do this.”
“I think if we are going to have any continued conversation on this topic, we need to make sure all of the players are in the room,” Bruce concluded. “This is why this meeting was necessary – to come to your community and make sure you had a voice at the table. The table needs to have all voices for us to build trust and keep the conversation moving forward.”
“Again, I will be presenting this information to the commission in July and clearly articulating the sentiment in the room was not to go forward at this time,” she added. “Thank you all for your time today, this was a huge commitment, and I heard you loud and clear.”
Hannah Bugas is the managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to roundup@wylr.net.
