The Idaho Woolgrowers have had their way in the Idaho Legislature but have rarely done well in federal court.

Earlier this month U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill gave them a victory by shooting down two advisory committees that had linked disease in bighorn sheep to domestic sheep. His decision has no impact in past Forest Service decisions forcing ranchers to move their sheep off of federal lands.

“If they make similar decision they have to base it something else and if they don’t it becomes arbitrary and capricious,” said Boise attorney and former Interior solicitor William Myers who argued the case for the Woolgrowers.

It could make it more complicated for the U.S. Forest Service to defend against appeals of these decisions and to issue a new environmental impact statement on sheep grazing. What makes this interesting is the sheep industry used a law that was written to keep industry groups from having to much sway with federal agencies.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act was passed by Congress in 1972 to prevent agencies from setting up advisory committees dominated by representatives of industry and other special interest groups seeking to advance their own agendas. The Payette National Forest Service set up the two committees - the “Risk Analysis of Disease Transmission Committee”and the “Payette Principles Committee” to study the risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep.

The Woolgrowers and embattled University of Idaho research veterinarian Marie Bulgin said they were barred from participating in the committees, which biased their results.

It’s exactly what bighorn advocates say Bulgin, a former Woolgrower president, and the Woolgrowers have been doing before the Idaho Legislature. Bulgin is under investigation by the U of I officials for allegedly ignoring studies that showed a link between bighorn disease and domestic sheep done at the Caine Center in Caldwell that she heads.

Ironically, it was during one of these committee meetings that the Caine Center’s handling of these past studies were revealed to the bighorn science community.

If the Forest Service is to move forward with action to separate bighorns from domestic sheep it will not be able to use the results from these committees. But it can use the underlying science, which overwhelming supports separation to protect bighorns.

Obviously, if it doesn’t address Bulgin’s and the Caine Center’s views on the matter it could lose in court.