FS to lift poison ban on prairie dogs

[BuzzH]

Check this out, the ranchers are whining about prairie dogs:

Some western South Dakota ranchers say the animals are streaming from federal lands onto their property, ruining grazing land, causing erosion and damaging roads.

Fall River County State's Attorney Lance Russell told the Rapid City Journal he is skeptical about the new ruling's effect. Russell is a spokesman for ranchers and rural county commissions that have complained about damage from prairie dogs.

Read the entire article:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/02/16/news/wyoming/ec57c714758ab34187256e3a00615b5c.txt


You know what I find amusing is that they're bitching about the extensive damage a freaking 2 pound rodent does, but their cattle dont do any damage to public lands????

Its pretty hard for me to feel too sorry for these guys and their prairie dog problems...

 

[danr55]

Sounds like a great excuse to hold a PD shooting contest.. What's wrong with those guys up there??

 

[Ten Bears]

I have no sympathy for these whiners.

 

[Troy Jones]

Hey, this is my area! I believe if you own the land you can do what you need to make a living. I've delt with this all my life and also work with the PD for a living. Many don't seem to understand that PDs are a rodents and they do breed as such. I'm not bragging by anymeans, but I'm sure I have killed more PD's through shooting and poisoning than all on this board will ever know combined. There is obviously no love lost between me and PD's. You can bitch and moan all you want about your public land, but when it comes to private land it's really out of all of your control. What has happened to individual rights? As far as something wrong with us up here, we are tired of outsiders telling us what and how we should do things on our own land. Sorry Craig...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Troy,

Did I miss something??? When I read the article I thought it was talking about killing the rodents on MY PUBLIC LANDS. Where do you see the threat to "individual rights"?

The U.S Forest Service has decided to lift its ban on poisoning prairie dogs on five national grasslands in South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming, the agency said in a letter to three regional foresters.

And as for the "outsiders" that you are tired of, shouldn't a National Forest be managed for the will of the Nation, not just the local Welfare Ranchers ?

 

[Troy Jones]

EG, I don't think you understand. PDs, don't understand birth control or property lines. To put it in an analogy you might understand. Say your neighbor (forest service) has an oil spill and it goes over into your yard and ruins all your grass. Are you upset? Would you like to see something done about the oil that's constantly leaking and ruining more of your land? Or maybe your neighbor has a severe mice infestation and you do nothing but kill mice on your property. You obviously don't make any progress because you can't kill mice on your neighbors and they keep coming and coming. You do nothing but waste time and money. Are you frustrated? Would you try anything to get some resolve?

As far as shooting them, you can't shoot PDs on FS land, and you will not shoot out a prairie dog town. Poisoning and follow up poisoning is the only method. The politically correct term is "control". We poison our PD towns every 3 to 5 years. This has been going on all my life, and yes all the towns are still there. You think you have them controlled, and they will move back in again. Knocking back the PDs on FS land every few years would keep everyone happy. Hell, I think it's a great idea to shoot PD's on Fed lands. You are the ones who need to raise hell about that. Historic range is what seems to be the concern. Well that scenerio is long gone, along with millions of bison and roaming natives. You take one key element out of the picture and all would be exactly what you what from nature and your perfect environment. You know what that is? White man... Will it ever be? Not likely.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Troy,

You are right, I don't understand Prarie Dogs. But I have never had much of a conversation with them either....

Last I read the Constitution, everybody had a the ability to move anywhere they wanted. I assure you, before I buy a house in a neighborhood infested with mice, I will look into it and make an educated, informed decision. Why must we provide Welfare to those who were not smart enough to look into the risks and other factors that were associated with the neighboring Public Lands they wanted to live next to?

So we have some geniuses who decided they want to live next to National Forest lands, and then get upset when the wildlife wanders onto their property. I bet they are just as bright as the geniuses who move next to an airport, and find out that airplanes are loud.

Who was there first? The Prarie Dogs or the Ranchers? The ranchers should have been smart enough to see there were Prarie Dogs on the adjacent lands and know they would have some sort of "issue" with them, and discounted the price they would pay for the land, appropriately.

Why should I, a taxpayer, send money to the Forest Circus to kill Wildlife that wanders onto Private lands? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a bit of sense. If the Welfare Ranchers want the Prarie Dogs killed on their private lands, then they should have to pay the bill.

By your own comments, posioning, shooting, and other methods don't control Prarie Dogs. My guess is, that they have a built-in control, and eradication efforts don't allow it to work. But then again, I don't understand....

 

[Troy Jones]

It has just changed in recent years, for no PD control on Fed lands. The ag. producers that have the property in question have been there as long as 100 years or at least in the family. I don't know the people in the article. I do know, that the people I work with don't necessarily want to totally remove PDs, but they like to keep them at a managable level.

 

[JoseCuervo]

You are right, I don't understand, as I would have guessed the Prarie Dogs were there for more than 100 years. I guess maybe they just moved in from California????

And I doubt any of the ranchers of today were alive 100 years ago, so they must have had the option of moving away, sometime in the last 100 years. Nobody is chained to the land they live on. They could always sell their land, and move to California....

I still don't see the attack on "individual rights" or the reason "outsiders" shouldn't have a voice in managing Wildlife on National Forests.

 

[dgibson]

Those prairie dog towns sound like a good place for a few gallons of gasoline and a match to me.

 

[Troy Jones]

EG, It is obviously is something your tunnel vision can't comprehend. It's....not....the....PDs....on....FS land....it's....them....moving....on.....to....private....land.

 

[Nemont]

Come on EG, using the arguement of who was there first. Then you will need to allow all indian, oops Native American, peoples unfettered access to your land.

In addition if we get into why should I spend MY tax dollar on things like wolf reintroduction, spotted owl, welfare moms and dads, grants to liberal universities it is a never ending argument. The list is endless.

All they are talking about doing is "controlling" the population not eradicating it.

The PD's do have a control mechanism, it is called the plague, which affects not just the praried dogs but the predators as well, including the Blackfooted Ferret. By contolling numbers before they get out of hand the plague is kept in check.

If addition if you think cattle destroy public lands you should go look at the grazing on PD towns. It is down to the dirt. Uncontolled they destroy ground.
Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont, my point was that its funny how ranchers will bitch about prairie dogs damaging the ground, while systematically denying their cattle have any impact.

Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black.

I agree, pd's can cause damage, no doubt about that. But, it isnt pd's causing 60% of BLM lands to be in poor condition and 90% of riparian areas to be in poor condition.

I'll tell you what the vicious cycle is...ranchers over-grazing public lands, which forces game animals onto their land, which they in turn bitch about because the eat their hay...all the while allowing no hunting. Then they bitch about prairie dogs "streaming onto their land", while they kill coyotes, fox, and badgers. Thats a vicious cycle.

 

[BbarC]

I bought a little ranch 3 years ago that had been cattle and goat grazed down to the rocks. After a little management, today it looks better than it probably has in 30 years. I know of one ranch about 2000 acres that was good land at one time and the prairie dogs covered it up. They were totally poisoned out 30 years ago and the land today it is still totally worthless as it has never recovered from the devastation caused by the pd's..

 

[JoseCuervo]

Troy,

I still don't understand how the FS killing PDs or not killing PDs is an assualt on "individual rights".

Nothing was keeping these ranchers from killing the dogs on their own land was there?

 

[Troy Jones]

EG, it doesn't work to control PD's on one side of the fence and not the other. Hence, where the problem lies. Before the hoopla when things had some normality, either the ag. producer, BLM, FS or State land offices would call to do PD control. We would bait the whole town and map both sides of the fence and send a bill to each for their acreage. Actually if the rancher called, 8 out of 10 times they would pick up the tab for the PD control on the fed or state land too. Even if they didn't lease it.

 

[Oak]

So what would your solution be, Troy, if I owned the ranch on the other side of the fence instead of the FS and I didn't want the 'dogs poisoned? I sure hope nobody would try to assault my individual right to enjoy PD's on my property.

Oak

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Troy Jones:
EG, it doesn't work to control PD's on one side of the fence and not the other. Hence, where the problem lies. Before the hoopla when things had some normality, either the ag. producer, BLM, FS or State land offices would call to do PD control.

Troy,
I can understand that the PDs don't read land ownership maps and they will migrate, but that does not seem like an assault on "individual rights". I am not Pro-Prarie Dogs or Anti-Prarie Dogs, just anti-Tax Money to ranchers for killing Wildlife on MY PUBLIC LANDS.

I really don't care if PDs are good for the land or bad for the land, they are what they are... And given that they are a wild animal on Public Lands, I don't feel too bad when they wander across the property line onto private land. At that point, if they are a problem, the landowner can deal with them, just like we do with deer, elk, geese, and other critters that damage Ag land. But I have yet to hear of a program to kill deer on Public Lands with Poision to keep them from crossing on to Private lands and eating haystacks.

 

[Troy Jones]

To answer Colorado Oak's question. It's just like what would happen if you owned a dog and it didn't stay on your property. If your dog goes on to the neighbors and damages their property, your liable. What happens here if a joining landowner won't do anything with their PD's you take a civil action against them. It happens once or twice a year. The non complying landowner usually ends up paying to have the control done or paying damages. But trying to do such an action against the government is almost impossible.

I just happened to talk about this issue with one of my collegues today. From what I understand some landowners are logging time and money spent on PD control work from PDs moving off fed land onto their land. Apparently the downfall is they do it on a monthly basis for 4 or 5 months a year to try and keep up with the movement. The cost is outrageously higher to the government than what it would be to do the whole towns every 4 or 5 years. So actually EG "your money" is still being pissed away by "your government" on "your land". A range tech from the BLM would probably have better insight on this program.

 

[danr55]

I don't really have a horse in this race except for the fact that I am part of those who own the NATIONAL FORESTS and NATIONAL GRASSLANDS, but I have a question about poisoning prarrie dogs..Back in 1970 when Nixon outlawed the use of a poison called 1099 which was primarily used in prarrie dog and coyote control, it was determined that this poison migrated, via the critters that ate the carcasses, into eagles, badgers, foxes, vultures, condors, hawks, etc. If poisoning is allowed again, what are the risks to these other scavenger populations?

I will also comment on the remarks vis a vis "you don't destroy a prarrie dog town by shooting it out"... That is profoundly untrue. There are several prarrie dog towns in northern Arizona that have been wiped out clean by the hords of PD shooters from California and Arizona. Time was when we could spend three or four days shooting dogs until we were exhausted and out of ammo and tired of cleaning rifles. Today you are lucky if you can find a town with enough dogs to shoot up a box of ammo.. Even if you can't wipe it out, I can see all kinds of moneys that could be made from inviting hunters to come shoot dogs for a nominal fee. I would be willing to pay $20 or $25 a day to shoot dogs.. Even in SoDak..