Invasive sheep brought to US after WWII are making Texas bighorns sick 49%

By Andrew Paul24%

7/13/2026, 4:39:34 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 27.3% saturation with 138 hits. Analysis detected 1,087 faulty-reasoning hits from 506 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.5% and a BS Rank of 49% (10,985 of 21,164 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.90% of the article peer group.

An invasive sheep called the aoudad ( Ammotragus lervia ) is causing problems across Texas, but the biggest issue has likely remained underexamined for decades. 
A study recently published in the journal Scientific Reports suggests seemingly asymptomatic aoudads are spreading pneumonia-causing respiratory pathogens to the state’s native bighorn sheep. 
Based on recent experiments conducted by a team of wildlife biologists and veterinarians, the sick bighorn sheep only have a one-in-five chance of survival. 
“Wildlife managers have been concerned about the potential aoudad disease threat for our native species since the late ’70s, but relatively little work had been done to characterize these risks,” Logan Thomas , a study co-author and Kansas State University biologist, said in a statement . 
Aoudads first arrived in West Texas shortly after World War II, when veterans returning from North Africa’s Barbary Coast arrived home with the large, horned sheep intending to breed them for big game hunting. 
Aoudad numbers have since exploded by over 1,800 percent , with an estimated 30,000 of them now living in the region. 
Their drain on local food sources is nudging out the state’s remaining 1,500 bighorn sheep, while bacteria like Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae spread by the aoudads threatening commercial livestock, goats, and sheep. 
The animals are such a nuisance that Texas even recently introduced a bill allowing hunters to shoot them from helicopters. 
To better understand the true impact of diseases carried by the aoudad, researchers recently exposed native bighorns to the pneumonia-causing pathogens, M. ovipneumoniae and Pasteurellaceae . 
They discovered aoudads often remain infectious for prolonged periods of time despite showing comparatively few symptoms, while sick bighorn sheep exhibit far more severe issues. 
What’s more, the sheep mortality rates may be as high as 80 percent. 
“Some other work we did on this suggests aoudad handle these pathogens far better than bighorn sheep, possibly because aoudad evolved with some level of exposure to them whereas bighorn did not,” explained Thomas. 
A subsequent survey of 351 free-range aoudad throughout Texas showed nearly 10 percent were carriers of M. ovipneumoniae DNA, while over 55 percent possessed antibodies from previous exposure. 
Juvenile aoudads also appear to shed more pathogens than adults. 
More investigations are needed, particularly when it comes to understanding various strains’ virulency. 
Conservationists also continue to adapt their strategies to protect the state’s remaining bighorn sheep. 
“This research has changed the way TPWD manages bighorn in Texas,” veterinary pathologist Walter Cook explained. 
“For example, they recently relocated over 70 uninfected bighorn to Franklin Mountains State Park in El Paso, where there is very little chance of aoudad reaching the area.” 
In the meantime, Thomas warned that any aoudad spotted in Texas should be viewed as a possible problem. 
“Because aoudad show little, if any, signs of infection, every aoudad on the landscape should be conservatively considered a risk to bighorn sheep,” he added. 
The post Invasive sheep brought to US after WWII are making Texas bighorns sick appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.7%Andrew Paul: 2.6%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias6.7%This article: 10.9%Andrew Paul: 1.5%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias10.9%This article: 11.1%Andrew Paul: 3.1%Popular Science: 2.6%Availability Heuristic11.1%This article: 5.5%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Andrew Paul: 3.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 4.7%Andrew Paul: 4.5%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect4.7%This article: 4.9%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion4.9%This article: 2.8%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Andrew Paul: 6.9%Popular Science: 4.7%Optimism Bias5.5%This article: 6.1%Andrew Paul: 0.8%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias6.1%This article: 24.7%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias24.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 27.3%Andrew Paul: 5.6%Popular Science: 4.3%Appeal to Authority27.3%This article: 4.9%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma4.9%This article: 5.9%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope5.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.6%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 4.2%Hasty Generalization14.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.0%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 6.7%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 9.9%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.6%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote14.6%This article: 9.1%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection9.1%This article: 4.9%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice4.9%This article: 11.7%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination11.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 2.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.7%

506 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers27%attributed speech367writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLogan Thomas • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLogan Thomas • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWalter Cook • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageLogan Thomas • 18 words • 0.0% coverageLogan Thomas • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Logan Thomas

100%flagged-word coverage
123 attributed words88% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Indoctrination+48.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Logan Thomas: 48.0%48.0%Quote-first Misdirection+37.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Logan Thomas: 37.4%37.4%Unattributed Quote+29.8 ptsWriter: 7.6%Logan Thomas: 37.4%37.4%Biased Writer Voice-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%Logan Thomas: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Logan Thomas: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.