SamSpade
New member
Prairie dogs get poisoned Nov. 28, 2005
By Steve Miller, Rapid City Journal Staff Writer
Poisoning of prairie dogs on three federal grasslands in South Dakota and Nebraska likely will start Monday, Nov. 28, after a Forest Service official in Denver rejected appeals by environmentalists and grazing interests.
Prairie dogs will be poisoned on 3,000 to 7,000 acres on the Buffalo Gap and Fort Pierre national grasslands in South Dakota and Oglala National Grassland in Nebraska, according to Don Bright, supervisor of Nebraska National Forest, which administers the grasslands.
Bright’s decision to allow the use of rodent poison and other tools to control prairie dogs on the three national grasslands was upheld Nov. 10 by regional forester Rick Cables in Denver.
Poisoned grain will be placed in buffer zones on the federal land to try to prevent prairie dogs from encroaching onto adjacent private rangeland, Bright said. Half-mile buffer zones will be poisoned on Buffalo Gap and Oglala national grasslands. One-quarter-mile zones will be poisoned on Fort Pierre National Grassland.
The appeals decision ends another chapter, for now, in the long-running dispute about whether and how to manage prairie dogs on the tens of thousands of acres of national grasslands in South Dakota and Nebraska.
When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ruled in early 2000 that black-tailed prairie dogs deserved protection under the Endangered Species Act, all poisoning stopped on federal land.
The ban and a drought that began that year combined to prompt a proliferation of prairie dogs on and near the federal grasslands.
Ranchers said the increasing number of prairie dogs stripped grass and other vegetation from federal lands leased for grazing and spread onto private land, damaging it for grazing as well.
In 2004, U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton dropped the prairie dog as a candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act, and South Dakota and federal officials forged a plan to begin controlling prairie dogs on private and federal sides of the fence.
That fall, the state began poisoning prairie dogs on private land adjacent to federal land.
After a court settlement on the federal plan, prairie dogs were poisoned on the federal grasslands late last year.
The court, however, ordered the Forest Service to prepare a prairie dog management amendment to its forest plan before any more poisoning could take place on federal ground.
Bright approved that amendment in August.
A coalition of grazing groups and counties appealed, saying Bright’s plan didn’t allow for poisoning of prairie dogs deep enough into the grasslands to prevent their encroachment and to protect the grass and other habitat on the federal land. They also objected to provisions that called for fencing off parts of the national grassland from cattle in order to create tall-grass buffer zones to discourage prairie dog movement.
Environmental and wildlife conservation groups also appealed, saying the plan called for poisoning too many prairie dogs. They said the poisoning could jeopardize endangered black-footed ferrets in Conata Basin south of Badlands National Park. Prairie dogs are the main food source for ferrets and are important for other wildlife, conservation group contend.
Nancy Hilding of Black Hawk, president of the Prairie Hills Audubon Society, and Jonathan Proctor of Denver, Great Plains representative for Defenders of Wildlife, both said they were dismayed by Cables’ rejection of their appeals.
“It’s bad for the public and bad for wildlife on public lands,” Proctor said Thursday.
The conservation groups said the control plan didn’t put enough emphasis on grass buffer zones. The tall-grass buffer zones are the best long-term solution to prairie dog control on the national grasslands, Hilding and Proctor said. They said prairie dogs need short grass to provide adequate warning of predators.
“If you install a fence out there, you can stop or substantially reduce the migrations where the grass can get to an appropriate height and density,” Hilding said.
Hilding said poisoning in the buffer zones will not work because prairie dogs travel much farther than the half-mile buffer zones on the federal land and the one-mile zones on private land. That means the poisoning will have to be repeated year after year, at taxpayer expense.
Fall River County State’s Attorney Lance Russell also criticized the Forest Service action, but from the other side of the argument. Russell represents a coalition of area grazing groups and six counties in western South Dakota and Nebraska.
Russell said the buffer zone poisoning ignores the overall health of the range throughout the national grasslands. “By allowing the interiors to go absolutely uncontrolled, they are degrading the environment, not only from an economic standpoint for the ranchers, but also for what it does to the ground,” he said. “I believe there are serious environmental concerns.”
Russell and area ranchers say prairie dogs have stripped the vegetation even from some areas that haven’t been grazed by cattle for years, harming habitat for wildlife not directly dependent on prairie dogs.
“All we were asking them to do is think about controlling the prairie dogs in order to fulfill their mandate to manage the land for the health of the range, the soil and the vegetative cover,” Russell said.
Bright said the prairie dog amendment focused on halting prairie dog encroachment onto private land. “A year ago, that was the issue we were hearing, so that is what we took on,” Bright said.
But he said the Forest Service recognizes the need to deal with the interior of the grasslands. That will come later, using other processes, such as tall-grass buffers, he said.
“But we also recognize that our first line of defense is the poison,” Bright said. “Buffers aren’t going to be effective if you already have prairie dogs in them”
He said prairie dogs have returned to some areas poisoned last year, which will be poisoned again.
Bright also said weather could determine how much work could be done before the end of January, when poisoning must stop to reduce risks to migratory birds. Moisture on the bait reduces its effectiveness, and extremely cold temperatures reduce the animals’ above-ground activity, he said.
By Steve Miller, Rapid City Journal Staff Writer
Poisoning of prairie dogs on three federal grasslands in South Dakota and Nebraska likely will start Monday, Nov. 28, after a Forest Service official in Denver rejected appeals by environmentalists and grazing interests.
Prairie dogs will be poisoned on 3,000 to 7,000 acres on the Buffalo Gap and Fort Pierre national grasslands in South Dakota and Oglala National Grassland in Nebraska, according to Don Bright, supervisor of Nebraska National Forest, which administers the grasslands.
Bright’s decision to allow the use of rodent poison and other tools to control prairie dogs on the three national grasslands was upheld Nov. 10 by regional forester Rick Cables in Denver.
Poisoned grain will be placed in buffer zones on the federal land to try to prevent prairie dogs from encroaching onto adjacent private rangeland, Bright said. Half-mile buffer zones will be poisoned on Buffalo Gap and Oglala national grasslands. One-quarter-mile zones will be poisoned on Fort Pierre National Grassland.
The appeals decision ends another chapter, for now, in the long-running dispute about whether and how to manage prairie dogs on the tens of thousands of acres of national grasslands in South Dakota and Nebraska.
When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ruled in early 2000 that black-tailed prairie dogs deserved protection under the Endangered Species Act, all poisoning stopped on federal land.
The ban and a drought that began that year combined to prompt a proliferation of prairie dogs on and near the federal grasslands.
Ranchers said the increasing number of prairie dogs stripped grass and other vegetation from federal lands leased for grazing and spread onto private land, damaging it for grazing as well.
In 2004, U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton dropped the prairie dog as a candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act, and South Dakota and federal officials forged a plan to begin controlling prairie dogs on private and federal sides of the fence.
That fall, the state began poisoning prairie dogs on private land adjacent to federal land.
After a court settlement on the federal plan, prairie dogs were poisoned on the federal grasslands late last year.
The court, however, ordered the Forest Service to prepare a prairie dog management amendment to its forest plan before any more poisoning could take place on federal ground.
Bright approved that amendment in August.
A coalition of grazing groups and counties appealed, saying Bright’s plan didn’t allow for poisoning of prairie dogs deep enough into the grasslands to prevent their encroachment and to protect the grass and other habitat on the federal land. They also objected to provisions that called for fencing off parts of the national grassland from cattle in order to create tall-grass buffer zones to discourage prairie dog movement.
Environmental and wildlife conservation groups also appealed, saying the plan called for poisoning too many prairie dogs. They said the poisoning could jeopardize endangered black-footed ferrets in Conata Basin south of Badlands National Park. Prairie dogs are the main food source for ferrets and are important for other wildlife, conservation group contend.
Nancy Hilding of Black Hawk, president of the Prairie Hills Audubon Society, and Jonathan Proctor of Denver, Great Plains representative for Defenders of Wildlife, both said they were dismayed by Cables’ rejection of their appeals.
“It’s bad for the public and bad for wildlife on public lands,” Proctor said Thursday.
The conservation groups said the control plan didn’t put enough emphasis on grass buffer zones. The tall-grass buffer zones are the best long-term solution to prairie dog control on the national grasslands, Hilding and Proctor said. They said prairie dogs need short grass to provide adequate warning of predators.
“If you install a fence out there, you can stop or substantially reduce the migrations where the grass can get to an appropriate height and density,” Hilding said.
Hilding said poisoning in the buffer zones will not work because prairie dogs travel much farther than the half-mile buffer zones on the federal land and the one-mile zones on private land. That means the poisoning will have to be repeated year after year, at taxpayer expense.
Fall River County State’s Attorney Lance Russell also criticized the Forest Service action, but from the other side of the argument. Russell represents a coalition of area grazing groups and six counties in western South Dakota and Nebraska.
Russell said the buffer zone poisoning ignores the overall health of the range throughout the national grasslands. “By allowing the interiors to go absolutely uncontrolled, they are degrading the environment, not only from an economic standpoint for the ranchers, but also for what it does to the ground,” he said. “I believe there are serious environmental concerns.”
Russell and area ranchers say prairie dogs have stripped the vegetation even from some areas that haven’t been grazed by cattle for years, harming habitat for wildlife not directly dependent on prairie dogs.
“All we were asking them to do is think about controlling the prairie dogs in order to fulfill their mandate to manage the land for the health of the range, the soil and the vegetative cover,” Russell said.
Bright said the prairie dog amendment focused on halting prairie dog encroachment onto private land. “A year ago, that was the issue we were hearing, so that is what we took on,” Bright said.
But he said the Forest Service recognizes the need to deal with the interior of the grasslands. That will come later, using other processes, such as tall-grass buffers, he said.
“But we also recognize that our first line of defense is the poison,” Bright said. “Buffers aren’t going to be effective if you already have prairie dogs in them”
He said prairie dogs have returned to some areas poisoned last year, which will be poisoned again.
Bright also said weather could determine how much work could be done before the end of January, when poisoning must stop to reduce risks to migratory birds. Moisture on the bait reduces its effectiveness, and extremely cold temperatures reduce the animals’ above-ground activity, he said.
