# Plague???



## macker13 (Nov 7, 2006)

I have a buddy who just heard that Eastern Wyoming and South Dakota have been hit recently by the plague and many towns are dead. He contacted ND F&G who said that the ND towns have not been hit. Has anyone seen first hand the plague in WY or SD?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Many of the towns I hunted in the past are gone this spring. It wasn't plague it was poison. I remember the ranchers complaining and wanted tens of thousands poisoned on public land. I didn't think they would pull it off, but evidently the Forest Service got enough pressure.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

macker13,

It is/was plague.

http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/w ... erness.pdf

In another related article, is named one Ken Knuppe, a rancher who lives nearby. (I believe he ran for governor) I visited with him and others about all the prairie dogs that "used" to be at Conata Basin South Dakota.

The trouble between hunter/ranchers years ago started when Tony Dean and some at the South Dakota Wildlife Federation injected themselves into this fray on the side of the fedgov. Many battles over grass and greed.

The war is now over because there is little left to fight over. The prairie dogs are all dead. Mother Nature took care of it.

But human relation wounds remain. Someone needs to explain it to Plainsman that it is time to move on.


----------



## tucker (Nov 25, 2005)

stopped in at the game and fish in fort yates,,and was told that at least 80 some towns were poisoned last year ,,they give me a map with the poisoned towns ,,,all the way from fort yates to mobridge and then to the west...plus a lot of towns have been poisoned around solon,, selfridge,,brien,,,,porcipine,,,,,i dont know if this is in the area that is being talked about,,but this is just what i have found out from scouting the area,,,,,


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

As for myself, I have only hunted on private land. I know a rancher down on the Cannonball. The access is easy on the north side of his place and it is shot out. The access is not so easy on the south side because a person has to cross the Cannonball. It was good for awhile until they put a little texas crossing in. Now it is shot out too. Prairie dogs get educated in a hurry.

One time I was poking around in the badlands and came upon a town of 500 acres. They stood right beside the vehicle everywhere. There wasn't any no hunting signs but I visited with the landowner anyway. He said have at it and good luck. So I rounded up some buddies and told them how great this was going to be. One fella had been in Nam and had some shrapnel in his back. We set up a bench for him while the dogs just about played around the bench legs. When the first shot went off that all changed. Fifteen minutes went by without any sign of fur. Then thirty.

Three of us walked into the hills looking for some dogs less educated. Our Vet friend stayed at the bench. We got back after two hours and the whole trip was kind of a bust. We knew there were thousands of prairie dogs there but we had only expended a handfull of rounds. I took some ribbing. While loading up to leave a van pulled in and the guys started dumping oats all over the place. We quizzed them some and found out they were getting these dogs used to grain and when they were accustomed to it then they were going to lace it with poison.

I do not begrudge the rancher for resorting to such a drastic conclusion. He had allowed hunting for years and the dogs were out of control. At Conata Basin S.D. things got way out of control and then Mother Nature stepped in and simply killed them all.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think there has been some Sylvatic plague around because the population in Theodore Roosevelt is down. I do know that the ranchers pressed the Forest Service to poison. I can see their right to poison on private property, but not on public property. Since it's multiple use land they lease it knowning that. In the past mother nature dealt with this by towns expanding in acreage not the plague. Historic records of towns tell us some were many thousands of acres.

Shaug you perhaps could tell us if any of the grazing associations pushed the Forest service.

Edit: Oh,by the way this isn't mother natures way of keeping prairie dogs in check. You see, sylvatic plague was never in North America.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> I can see their right to poison on private property, but not on public property.


When too many dogs breed on public property they then spill over onto private. Let's see, how does your argument go again about............draining excess water down hill unto thy neighbor?????????



> Shaug you perhaps could tell us if any of the grazing associations pushed the Forest service.


Go fish.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Go fish.


I think in the common language that means: yes the grazing associations pressed the Forest Service to poison prairie dogs on public land, but your not going to admit it. :rollin:

I hope you understood the part about mother nature not causing the reduction in prairie dogs. You see, mother nature didn't put sylvatic plague on this continent people did.



> When too many dogs breed on public property they then spill over onto private. Let's see, how does your argument go again about............draining excess water down hill unto thy neighbor?????????


Well then you can poison. What does one do with the water? That is a very poor comparison. Prairie dogs would be more like trees growing onto your property. You can spray them. With water you either pass the problem along downstream to become an even larger problem or you remain flooded.

So shaug was it county grazing associations or the NDSA or both who pressed the Forest Service to put ranchers interest ahead of everyone else?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> So shaug was it county grazing associations or the NDSA or both who pressed the Forest Service to put ranchers interest ahead of everyone else?


Huge prairie dog towns don't always equal more shooting opportunities. They get smart in a hurry. In who's interest is it to have more. Name some persons and orgs.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> Plains wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Me. Anyone else?

The town i like to hunt is one and a half mile from private property. It would be a long time before they ate a blade of private grass. When they get close poison a half mile buffer.

I went fishing as you suggested and found a good article that explains the plague ----errrrr poison in that area of South Dakota you were telling us about. I think you want to hide something. :wink:



> Prairie Dogs Poisoned by U.S. in South Dakota
> 
> Maryann Mott
> for National Geographic News
> ...


----------



## 4JAKE (Jul 13, 2008)

I'm with you Plainsman. It's in my interest too!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

4JAKE said:


> I'm with you Plainsman. It's in my interest too!


Now that's what I was looking for. Someone who understands that their interests are involved.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Count me in too. Don't get out there as often as I would like, but I have an interest in anything that happens on public land.

If ranchers are so concerned about competition from a little PD, perhaps they should rent private pasture.

Huntin1


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Count me in also. I guess it wasn't that difficult after all Shaug.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

It would seem you fellas are in good company with some very prominent wackos.

Plains, the piece you found was written by one : Maryann Mott
for National Geographic News.

Who is she?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... gered.html



> U.S. Endangered Species Act Works, Study Finds Maryann Mott
> for National Geographic News
> 
> April 18, 2005
> ...


Plains, your article is old. Suckling at the Center for Biological Control and other wackos got it wrong. The dogs at Conata Basin are "all" dead now. The 2 billion of taxpayer dollars spent for the black footed ferret re-introduction program is now a waste.

http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/w ... erness.pdf


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It would seem you fellas are in good company with some very prominent wackos.


That's the same old tired line. Anyone that will not let you strip every last spear of grass from the public land is labeled a radical. Anyone that will not agree with you killing all that compete for grass will be labeled a wacko. I would guess we are only a post or two from HSUS again.

We have shown you that the plague in this part of the world is not mother nature doing her work. A number of people have talked to agencies that say the towns were poisoned. Yet you cry wacko. Shaug it's clear what is happening and your trying to muddy a very clear picture. As more people look for outdoor recreation your going to have more competition on public land. It's going to become harder to rape the public resource without attracting attention.

Since your so up on this shaug could you tell us if the North Dakota Stockmen's Association pressured the Forest Service to poison?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains,

you scrounged up an old story from 2004 written for the National Geographic. Since that time the prairie dogs talked about in that piece have totally been wiped out by disease.

Back in -04 it was a hellava battle. The ranchers said there are too many. The population cannot sustain itself. The enviros said they wanted more. The land was a moonscape.

I don't know if there ever could have been a compromise. Don't need one anymore. Mother Nature killed them all.

Plainsman, you will have to find something more recent. How about an article about the aftermath. Cause and effect.

And try to find something from a more reputable source than persons like Maryann Mott who write studies with an agenda.

Maryann wrote back in 2004 that Conata Basin had the only self sustaining population of Black Footed Ferrets in the world. Plains, how about an article about those ferrets after the collapse of the prairie dogs. What happened to them?

It's all interesting.

And what about those ranchers, how are they doing now?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The ranchers said there are too many.


I think that's what they said about western North Dakota in the Bismarck Tribune last year.



> Mother Nature killed them


Not really, we did through the spread of disease to this continent.

http://www.blackfootedferret.org/disease



> Plague is a non-native disease to the Americas. It was introduced to San Francisco in the early 1900s from rats on Asian trading ships.


Shaug the ranchers in Wyoming wanted to stop the ferret recovery. They would rather a species go extinct than loose a blade of grass. Is it true ranchers poisoned their dog towns in protest, and some in fear?

Someone asked about the prairie dogs in North Dakota. There was extensive poison last year, and perhaps the year before. That's all the further this had to go. There was no intent to say much of anything else. However, since you want to blame it all on plague I think the sportsmen should know who works against them quietly behind the scene.

Shaug did the North Dakota Farm Bureau get their finger into this also?

Here is an article for you and the date is unimportant. What is important is that it documents that ranching has already wiped out 99% of the prairie dogs. What remnant would be reasonable to keep? I would have thought that on public land we could accept 5%. I think less than 1% is a black eye to the entire country. I may be conservative, but I worship God, not money. If we want to use economics as an excuse then charge reasonable fees for public land grazing.



> Welfare Ranching: Prairie Dog Gone
> http://www.publiclandsranching.org/html ... g_gone.htm
> Prairie dogs have declined drastically since European settlement of the Great ... catastrophic outcomes from the massive prairie dog poisoning campaigns, but ... New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming all ...


Back in 1996 it was recommended to stop the poison program by environmental management specialists because it's endangering species dependent on prairie dog ecosystems.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/xp1j8218072g6kj3/


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,

I went to the link you provided:

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/html ... g_gone.htm

Here are some of the professional named:



> Lauren McCain is president of the Southern Plains Land Trust, which works for conservation of native shortgrass prairie, and is a doctoral candidate in policy sciences at the University of Colorado.
> 
> Richard P. Reading is director of conservation biology at the Denver Zoological Foundation and associate research professor at the University of Denver. He received a Ph.D. degree in wildlife ecology from Yale University.
> 
> Brian J. Miller is a conservation biologist at the Denver Zoological Foundation. He received his Ph.D. degree from the University of Wyoming, where he studied the ecology of black-footed ferrets.


It would seem that the PhD's involved in that piece you copy and pasted are into conservation biology. So what the heck is todays new age conservation biology?

Conservation Biology

In 1980 the IUCN (in collaboration with UNEP, UNESCO, FAO and the World Wildlife Fund) released the first World Conservation Strategy calling for "a new ethic, embracing plants and animals as well as people." From this evolved the holistic science of conservation biology.

Conservation biology centers on the largely unproven assumption that "nature knows best." Consequently, all human use and activity should follow "natural" patterns within ecosystems. Ecosystems, however, don't naturally coincide with the political boundaries of man. Any single ecosystem may cross several national, state, and local political boundaries. To be effective, therefore, environmental law must be superior to property rights and political jurisdictions.

This largely unproven science was introduced to U.S. colleges by Rockefeller-aligned foundations. They provided endowed chairs and grants to natural resource colleges. As students began to graduate with conservation degrees in the late 1970s, federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others - all members of the IUCN - changed the qualifications for employment as field managers to include those holding conservation degrees.

Following the first World Conservation Strategy in 1980, Dr. Michael Soule was tapped to create a professional society and a scientific journal that centered on the new science of conservation biology. The journal's first issue outlined the purpose of conservation biology.

"The society is a response&#8230;to the biological diversity crisis that will a reach a crescendo in the first half of the 21st century. We assume implicitly that&#8230;the worst biological disaster in the last 65 million years can be averted&#8230;We assume implicitly that environmental wounds inflicted by ignorant humans and destructive technologies can be treated by wiser humans and by wholesome technologies."

In the first chapter of the textbook of "Conservation Biology," Soule further explains the initial strategy of conservation biologists:

"In many situations conservation biology is a crisis discipline. In crisis disciplines, in contrast to 'normal' science, it is sometimes imperative to make an important tactical decision before one is confident in the sufficiency of data&#8230;Warfare is the epitome of a crisis discipline. On a battlefield, if you observe a group of armed men stealthily approaching your lines, you are justified in taking precautions, which may include firing on the men."

This almost unbelievable arrogance and militancy formed the fundamental understanding of right and wrong for these early conservation biologists. Many graduates holding to these radical ideas were hired by our federal and state agencies. It shouldn't be surprising that these government employees holding such extremist views are quite hostile to any people using government lands for any purpose. Many of these conservation graduates hold senior management positions today.

Tragically, the change that occurred within our natural resource colleges and government agencies did not come bout from a healthy debate based on solid scientific evidence. Instead it came from an unethical, or perhaps even illegal, collaboration between federal, NGO, and U.N. change agents to advance their agenda. Not only were affected landowners and resource users not included in this process, they were not allowed to even be aware of it. In a very real sense, early conservation biologists declared war on traditional science and resource management without bothering to inform their alleged enemy - the general public, specifically landowners - that they were at war.

Certainly, not all federal resource managers or even many of those graduated with a conservation degree ascribe to the militant approach taken by Soule. Nonetheless, various degrees of this mindset have permeated our federal agencies at every level. For instance, a March 30, 1994, United States Bureau of Land Management internal working document on ecosystem management brazenly states: "All ecosystems management activities should consider human beings as a biological resource."

The reduction of humanity to the level of a biological resource has had an enormous impact on the internal culture of these agencies. Many employees no longer view themselves as servants of the people and stewards of the resource, but as righteous protectors of nature from humans. Nature's welfare becomes more important than human welfare. This explains why these agency employees can often enforce regulations that harm or even destroy the lives of property owners and resource users. They honestly believe they have a moral responsibility to protect nature from man's perceived damaging activities, no matter what the cost.

Certainly conservation biology has matured since Michael Soule penned his uncompromising words in the 1980s. Credible scientists, without personal agendas, use methodology derived from conservation biology to investigate natural relationships. Nonetheless, conservation biology is a young science that has been politically forced to become the flagship science used in resource-management decisions. There was, and still is, little justification in the adoption of conservation biology as the foundation for federal policy. Every American should know that the United States is implementing international policy, which has caused not only great but also unnecessary harm to American citizens.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't think you will find any articles that you like if it says a single prairie dog left alive is ok. I'll keep searching though and I am confident I can find dozens to support letting the species have some habitat left.

Good question about the ferrets. I would guess they will go extinct thanks to the ranchers going nuts about the program. Isn't it terrible being drug into a civilized world?

Personally I would not spend billions saving a species like the ferret. However, I would make a significant effort. I certainly would not have released wolves into Idaho and Montana when thousands still survive in Alaska and Canada. However, when only a few species are left on the planet we are fools to let them pass into oblivion without knowing their importance. It's like running in total darkness.

You keep pushing your agenda to kill them all. You keep telling us the ranchers are not pushing this. A couple of people may even believe it. I'll keep searching for the evidence of who is behind it. Look at the posts above. People have talked to agencies that verified the poison program in North Dakota last year.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,

You are quite wrong about me. I think managing the dog population with a .223 or .17 cal is a lot more fun than poison. However........ if hunting isn't keeping the numbers in check I would like to reserve the right to manage them with an alternative.

I do believe they have there place on Gods green earth but would I trap some and relocate them to my place? Heavens no.

I am sure everyone would like to see their numbers expanded artificially high so that there are more opportunities to plink at them. The reality is that mother nature will right itself with disease or whatever.

I am not saying the ranchers know best, but at Conata Basin SD they warned that the huge population was not sustainable. Those ranchers live at ground zero. The prairie dogs are all dead now from disease. Where are the follow up stories about the death toll? Where are the follow up stories how the barren ground the dogs left has been taken over by weeds because of the wet warm humid summer of 2011?

Everyone is a stakeholder on those public lands and its care. Huntin1 admits he only gets out there once a year. Most of us spend less time than that informing ourselves about these issues. Letting the enviros speak for us and claim to represent us is when things get out of wack. When they attack the rancher and wildly claim, "they want more grass for their cows" that's when the argument becomes polarized.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You are quite wrong about me. I think managing the dog population with a .223 or .17 cal is a lot more fun than poison. However........ if hunting isn't keeping the numbers in check I would like to reserve the right to manage them with an alternative.
> 
> I do believe they have there place on Gods green earth but would I trap some and relocate them to my place? Heavens no.


I am very pleased with that attitude shaug. I don't blame you for not relocating them to your place. I do know one rancher that has. He is as shooting afflicted as I am. He has an upstairs bedroom for his gun and reloading room. He opens a window and the dog town starts in his barn yard at 75 yards and goes to 600 yards. There is a pie shape behind his barn (bullet shadow I call it) that survives and keeps the town alive.



> I am sure everyone would like to see their numbers expanded artificially high so that there are more opportunities to plink at them. The reality is that mother nature will right itself with disease or whatever.


Disease will control them now, but it's un-natural. In the past the towns simply expanded or they starved.



> I am not saying the ranchers know best,


 I think they are like everyone else. Some have good ideas, some have goofy ideas.


> but at Conata Basin SD they warned that the huge population was not sustainable.


 Under current conditions (European plague) they are correct.


> Those ranchers live at ground zero. The prairie dogs are all dead now from disease. Where are the follow up stories about the death toll? Where are the follow up stories how the barren ground the dogs left has been taken over by weeds because of the wet warm humid summer of 2011?


I have walked across high population prairie dog towns and marked off an acre observing them for a couple of hours. That was not scientific it was just curiosity. The best guess I could make was 21 dogs per acre. From what I have observed dense prairie dog towns are dominated by broad leaf plant species (weeds) and don't show it because they are constantly cropped. The definitin of a weed is a plant where you don't want it. Kochia and spurge we all agree on are weeds, but we may get into debates about others. :wink:



> Everyone is a stakeholder on those public lands and its care.


 I could not agree more.


> Huntin1 admits he only gets out there once a year. Most of us spend less time than that informing ourselves about these issues. Letting the enviros speak for us and claim to represent us is when things get out of wack.


 It takes very close attention to tell true environmentalists from what you call wackos. We would agree on many of them being wackos.


> When they attack the rancher and wildly claim, "they want more grass for their cows" that's when the argument becomes polarized.


 Isn't that why the ranchers want the prairie dogs poisoned? If we are to come to any agreement the first thing we have to do is form an honest base.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> Isn't that why the ranchers want the prairie dogs poisoned? If we are to come to any agreement the first thing we have to do is form an honest base.


So where is the base line? How many dogtowns are enough? I do think that the ranchers at ground zero have a vested interest in the quantity and populations. They know the carrying capacity of what the land can sustain. Heck, they live there. 24/7, 365 days a year.

It's not really public land as much as it is fee land. Ranchers pay a rent. They are a stakeholder too. If there is a problem then there is two sides to the story. Ask the rancher and the enviro. Too often in the past I have witnessed the media print rock throwing accusations. It's more fun to print about furry little creatures getting wronged than it is to write about grassland management.

And that is where the sportsmen/orgs need to make that distinction and not be to quick to join into the raucus when the leaders of it have an ulterior motive.

Conata Basin SD should be held up as a model as to what happens when too much government coupled with too many non-profits gets too much control. The fed/gov, the nonprofits have slunk away and taken the media with them. Where is the follow up articles about the aftermath? The cause and effect? How are the ranchers doing now? Do the ranchers still hate the South Dakota Wildlife Federation for sticking their nose in there? Where is the media?...............Silence.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug I can't see any other reason for ranchers to want prairie dogs poisoned than grass. Yes they pay for leasing the land. Perhaps they should pay less for land with prairie dogs, but the public land is multiple use land. What they get is to graze it. It appears you think that means some type of ownership. Leasing gives them no ownership, and I don't think any more say than anyone else in how it is managed.

I think the more pay hunting we see the more pressure there will be on public land. I see grazing as a useful management tool and support it, but I think many people see grazing as abuse. I don't agree with that, but I think more and more people are leaning that way. I think the poison program will accelerate that attitude among people. I see an end to grazing in the future and I think that's a shame. I think the ranchers will bring that on themselves. It's a pitty they just can't admit they were behind the poison and want to force the government into killing as many prairie dogs as possible. If they succeed it will be to their own demise because public support will be against them. I think they have put their own back against the wall.

Am I happy about this? Absolutely not. I think moderate grazing is much better than none use. Ranchers are their own worst enemy. Denying the poison program will simply cause many people to distrust what ranchers say. I don't think the people of this country will continue to tolerate the kill everything that competes with a cow mentality. Just fess up and respect others or it will only get worse.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> I think the more pay hunting we see the more pressure there will be on public land. I see grazing as a useful management tool and support it, but I think many people see grazing as abuse. I don't agree with that, but I think more and more people are leaning that way. I think the poison program will accelerate that attitude among people. I see an end to grazing in the future and I think that's a shame. I think the ranchers will bring that on themselves. It's a pitty they just can't admit they were behind the poison and want to force the government into killing as many prairie dogs as possible. If they succeed it will be to their own demise because public support will be against them. I think they have put their own back against the wall.


I would think that pay hunting would flucuate with the size of the dog population. If the population is low, so is success. If success is slow than who is going to guide it? Nobody. However, if success is hot than guiding is easy. Plainsman, if you wish for more prairie dogs and towns than you will have to accept more pressure from guideing.

Maybe you are right about the end of grazing on public land. To get there what is needed is a spotted owl type poster child. The father/son loggers out west never figured out what hit them. They are out of business. Broke. Bankrupt. Today our forests burn from fuel overload and disease.

Hey Plains, wasn't your old friend, Glen Sargent (USGS and member of the wildlife society) involved in the spotted owl wars?

He probably showed those f.....g loggers where the bear sh^ts in the woods.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Hey Plains, wasn't your old friend, Glen Sargent (USGS and member of the wildlife society) involved in the spotted owl wars?
> 
> He probably showed those f.....g loggers where the bear sh^ts in the woods.


Sounds like lots of anger to me. You know if you tell hunters about guys leaving your gates open, or tearing up your roads, or throwing out garbage they don't get defensive, they apologize for the idiots among their ranks. Why is it you can't admit there are some bad eggs out there ranching.

Like I said shaug I support light and moderate grazing, but not heavy grazing that encourages invading weed species. I think it's a management tool. So you see I support those ranchers, but it appears you don't want to support those who support you. When I publicly support grazing you start building another boogie man and get personal with names like Glen Sargent. I don't know much about the spotted owl, but were talking prairie dog poisoning now anyway.

I find it much easier to support people who level with me. I think nearly everyone thinks that way. Do you really think your helping the ranchers cause when it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why they want to poison? They may pay for grazing, but the land belongs to some guy in middle New York as much as those living out west. Don't keep shooting yourself in the foot. Why whiz on those who support grazing, but not every blade of grass every year?

We are not in hot topics, so I will be as polite as possible, and if need be google till my fingers get calloused. You keep denying what is as evident as the sun coming up. Well see where it gets each of us.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Yes, ranchers pay a grazing fee on this multiple use public land. $1.35 per AUM to be exact according to this 2012 report: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsro ... _2012.html

The most recent figures that I can find on private grazing land in western ND are from 2006 and the cost then was $13 -$14 per AUM: http://beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_latest_grazing_rates

Can't imagine that the fee has gone down on private land.

I'm not real familiar with grazing contracts, but I do know that provisions can be written into any contract between private individuals. One of these provisions could allow the leasee to control "pests" that compete with his cattle for the grass. I accept that, no issue.

However, some (notice "some" not "all") ranchers seem to think that they should be able to have the same control over the public multiple use land that they lease. And they have whined enough that the Feds have stepped in and poisioned the PD's at our expense.

I know ranchers out west who accept that the PD's are there and shrug it off. I also know ranchers who ***** about everything. Human nature I guess. The point here is that they pay about 10% of the going rate for grazing and some expect to have control as if it were private land. Perhaps the Forest Service should charge the same rate on it's lands, that are charged for private lands in the same area.

huntin1


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

huntin1 said:


> Perhaps the Forest Service should charge the same rate on it's lands, that are charged for private lands in the same area.
> 
> huntin1


YUP.......... What he says


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> Like I said shaug I support light and moderate grazing, but not heavy grazing that encourages invading weed species. I think it's a management tool. So you see I support those ranchers, but it appears you don't want to support those who support you. When I publicly support grazing you start building another boogie man and get personal with names like Glen Sargent. I don't know much about the spotted owl, but were talking prairie dog poisoning now anyway.


In a wet year such as the last three it may look like light grazing and back in 2008 when it was extremely dry it may look like heavy grazing. The simple solution to persons living in New York or elsewhere would be to simply sell off a bunch of cows in dry years and buy them back durring the wet. Not that simple. It takes a special cow to live out there. She knows her way around and where home is when snow comes. Ranchers manage grass and boundary fences. It's their livelyhood. They know how to live inside the confines. Back in 2008 they did sell down.



> I find it much easier to support people who level with me. I think nearly everyone thinks that way. Do you really think your helping the ranchers cause when it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why they want to poison? They may pay for grazing, but the land belongs to some guy in middle New York as much as those living out west. Don't keep shooting yourself in the foot. Why whiz on those who support grazing, but not every blade of grass every year?


Persons from New York may make a once in a lifetime pilgramidge to North Dakota. They neither want to see the land overgrazed by cows or denuded to nothing by prairie dogs. If they visit this year, everything will look OK. If they were here in 2008 durring the dry the grass didn't look too good. Poison for PD's is a management tool.

Many out of staters will never lay an eye on areas populated by PD's. It is just too easy to stampede them into a desired direction by spreading misinformation and disinformation. Non-profits partnered with some in the fed/gov have the ability to do just that. The ranchers do not have the where-with-all to combat that in the media.

It is my hope that we do not have an incident like Conata Basin SD coming here to ND. Those ranchers were vilified for no good reason. If it ever comes to that here, I would hope that the sportsmen of ND do not get sucked into the name calling and attacks against ranchers.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There is no name calling or any attack. However, since you think so tell me why the ranches want prairie dogs poisoned. We both know it's because they are eating the grass. So since they only pay a pittance in comparison to private land I think they could leave most of those prairie dogs for people to shoot, and predators to eat. If that's not good enough maybe it's time for some cows to go. Compromise works both ways you know. My experience is many ranchers don't expect it to work both ways.

Don't bs us shaug. Tell us why the prairie dogs are poisoned. All this New York, management, 2008 is smoke and mirrors.

Manage = code for kill the prairie dogs that eat "OUR" grass. No attack shaug, just simple truth.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> So since they only pay a pittance in comparison to private land I think they could leave most of those prairie dogs for people to shoot, and predators to eat. If that's not good enough maybe it's time for some cows to go.


Bruce, instead why don't you tell we the people why you think it is a good idea to get rid of the cows (a walking mini factory) and repalce them with thousands upon thousands of acres of prairie dogs.

Disease will take them as surely as EHD cut down North Dakotas deer herd.

Like I said, I shoot PDs on private land. The ranchers tolerate them to a point. Many people are welcome but when the PDs get educated to gunshots then poison is used as a last resort.

I would tolerate a prairie dog on my land or maybe a hundred. But not several thousand. Some sidewalk outdoorsman may say , "well that is the risk you take when you go into farming/ranching." OK, then I reserve the right to control the population.

Bruce, no matter how much crying you do, nobody is going to sell cows and replace them with prairie dogs so that you have more to plink at. I'm sorry.

As far as public land is concerned, I think what happend at Conata Basin SD should be held up as a model. Here is what happens when the fed/gov and its surrogate non-profits get involved. Train Wreck.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So shaug how about you tell us why ranchers want to poison prairie dogs.

If I was a rancher I wouldn't tolerate tens of thousands of prairie dogs on my land either. If I was getting to graze a cow calf for a $1.35 I wouldn't go on an outdoor site in a prairie dog form and whiz on sportsmen. We are not asking for the country to be over run with prairie dogs. Were simply not happy with people wanting to poison them all. Especially when it isn't their land.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

No one is poisoning them "all"



> If I was getting to graze a cow calf for a $1.35 I wouldn't go on an outdoor site in a prairie dog form and whiz on sportsmen.


Are you trying to create division?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> No one is poisoning them "all"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh please, it's clear we have a number of people who have that purpose in mind. Does unity mean we all do it your way? I think that's what you have in mind. I think the division is already there. The division is not between sportsmen and landowners, the division is between those who want to "conserve" the natural resources of pubic land, and those who want to suck it dry. Some people simply have not seen it yet. I like to point it out before we loose everything.

Tell me why the ranchers want to poison prairie dogs. Are you like Obama and afraid to tell us what your really about?

Let me repeat "I support grazing". I don't support overgrazing. I don't support sacraficing all other natural resources for cows. I would reduce the number of wild horses by about 80% to benefit the ranchers and the wildlife. So in that light can't ranchers level with us?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> I would reduce the number of wild horses by about 80% to benefit the ranchers and the wildlife.


Just because you say it doesn't make it true. In 1971 the fed/gov passed the The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.

Before that the ranchers managed the population. This act of Congress took that ability away from them.



> To require the protection, management, and control of wild free- roaming horses and burros on public lands. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress finds and declares that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros are fast disappearing from the American scene. It is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish this they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.


We all know how well that is now working. Just think, before the wild horse and burro act, the ranchers provided this service for free.

So Plainsman, tell me why you think the control and/or management of prairie dog overpopulations should be removed from the ranchers and to whoms hands do you think this control should be placed in?

I mean, if the control of overpopulations should be removed from the ranchers, there will be a vacuum. Whom do you think should fill that vacuum?

And before you say the ranchers created the horse problem to begin with, I would like to remind you that the government wanted those ranchers to raise horses and burros for army mounts.

I don't have PDs on my land but if I did I would surely want to reserve the right to control the population and especially the overpopulation. First I would use hunters and lead, but if that isn't working because they have become too educated to gunshots, then.................you know the rest.

We don't need another Conata Basin SD or another wild horses and burro act. Best just leave it alone.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug your squirming around. I think I said I supported your right to do what you want on your land. No, not think, I know I said that. What makes you think you have the right to manage species on federal land? What besides prairie dogs do you think you have the right to manage? Do you also think you should manage the deer herds?

You keep ducking the question. Why do ranchers want to poison prairie dogs? I know, I just want to see if your honest enough to answer the question. Everyone reading this knows so why duck it? You can admit it to yourself can't you? Lets not play ring around the rosy like XXX always does.

Oh, by the way I would not let ranchers manage the wild horses. I would manage it with permits from the agency who manages the land. I would give permits to Alpo.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Not sure what ducking you are talking about. I think ranchers should reserve the right to manage the population or overpopulation. The trouble with wild horses or prairie dogs on fed/gov land is that when their numbers increase they don't stay on public land. They spill over to private. Persons living next door and leasing public lands are in the best position to keep the numbers in check. They live there. They know the carrying capacity.

Your wild horse scenerio or inclusion into this conversation Bruce is a very good example of what happens when local control is lost. Do the agencies that now manage the wild horses do a better job than the ranchers did before the wild horse and burro act of 1971? NO. The wild horse situation is out of control because there are too many voices in the mix. So what agencies do you think should be managing prairie dog populations and can do a better job than the ranchers of today? What agencies Bruce, no ducking? I'm sure you have some fed/gov agency and its non-profit surrogates in mind.

Maybe you can help start a non-profit called Friends of the Prairie Dog. Maybe with enough experts on board you can get a sub specie of prairie dogs named and get it listed as an endangered specie. That was even tried at Conata Basin.

Conata Basin should be held up as a model as to what can happen when the fed/gov and its non-profit surrogates take away local control. They behaved like wild unbridled horses.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So what agencies do you think should be managing prairie dog populations and can do a better job than the ranchers of today? What agencies Bruce, no ducking? I'm sure you have some fed/gov agency and its non-profit surrogates in mind.


The government doesn't do as good of a job today as they did in the 1960's or even 70's. Blame the universities and the media for that. Ranchers have always remained the same. Also, I have always said ranchers/farmers are like everyone else. A few exceptionally good ones, a whole bunch of good guys, and a few rotten apples. It's those rotten apples that will kill everything that competes for a single dollar.

In that light someone has to oversee the management. That means it can't be left to the ranchers. It has to be someone with all of the people in mind. Not only ranchers and bunny huggers, but the middle of the road sort of people. Someone who doesn't let everything turn into prairie dogs, but maintains a healthy population. Not kill all you can and leave a half dozen to repopulate an entire town of thousands. That leads to less biodiversity and more susceptibility to diseases they were once resistant to. That may require a PhD research scientist with experience to make some of those decisions. If you have that experience by all means make your voice heard, but if your just sagebrush Joe I don't think you should make the decision.

Agencies are influenced by the people they represent. For example the Forest Service is under the department of agriculture. That leaves them very politically inclined to go your way. They receive tremendous pressure from both sides. They get it from the ranchers and they get it from the animal rights groups. Considering what they have to put up with they do a tremendous job. As far as which agencies make the decisions I think it should be the agency in charge of the land. That could be Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or even state land. The decision should be science based, not emotional, and not ranch economics either.

The ducking shaug is your circling and circling the question, "why do ranchers want to poison prairie dogs"? Please tell me. I'm about 80% on your side on this one, but I just want you to level with me. It's your resistence to answer that question that tells me prairie dog control can not be left to ranchers. If ranchers can't be truthful about the reason they can't be trusted with the control.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Ranchers should be able to control PD, on land that they own, I've said that before and I stand by it. If they spill over on to private land from public then the rancher has a right to control the ones that spilled over onto his land.

No private rancher should have the right to control any Species that exist on multiple use public land period. If they don't like the fact that something is competing with their cows on this public land, they are free to forfeit their grazing lease at a tenth of the going rate and lease or buy private land.

Huntin1


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> The ducking shaug is your circling and circling the question, "why do ranchers want to poison prairie dogs"? Please tell me. I'm about 80% on your side on this one, but I just want you to level with me. It's your resistence to answer that question that tells me prairie dog control can not be left to ranchers. If ranchers can't be truthful about the reason they can't be trusted with the control.


How many different ways would you like me to answer that? I do not live in the little missouri area but if I did I would want to be able to control the overpopulation.



> Agencies are influenced by the people they represent. For example the Forest Service is under the department of agriculture. That leaves them very politically inclined to go your way. They receive tremendous pressure from both sides. They get it from the ranchers and they get it from the animal rights groups. Considering what they have to put up with they do a tremendous job. As far as which agencies make the decisions I think it should be the agency in charge of the land. That could be Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, or even state land. The decision should be science based, not emotional, and not ranch economics either.


At Conata Basin SD many scientists and experts were trotted out to support the psuedo science. Expand the population to incredable numbers. The voice of the ranchers was drown out. In the end, the prairie dogs all died from disease. Not one or two towns but "all". The plague hitch hiked on fleas that in turn hitch hiked on raptors speading to other areas. I read somewhere the fed/gov spent 2 billion dollars of the taxpayers money on their black footed ferret reintroduction program. A lot of science can be purchased with that amount of money.

Huntin1



> If they don't like the fact that something is competing with their cows on this public land, they are free to forfeit their grazing lease at a tenth of the going rate and lease or buy private land.


Ah yes, the real agenda.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> shaug said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman,
> ...


See that's where I get confused, and you will not answer the question "why do ranchers want to poison prairie dogs"? I think it's for the grass. Why is that a wild claim? Why is that considered an attack? I'm simply looking for the truth. Here is your chance to set me straight. Why do they want to poison prairie dogs? Can you answer that one simple question without going in a dozen circles?

shaug I really need some help here. See I think there are two or three people that have come here simply to cloud issues to benefit agriculture. Some never post in anything but the hot topics. The same thing is happening on fishingbuddy. One guy even posted swifts business, his wifes business, and really tried to backstab them. That's why I am always suspicious of people who want to know who worked with who, when they worked together, where they are from. They can't win a debate telling the truth so they look for a back door to destroy people.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

shaug said:


> Huntin1
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And how do you get an "agenda" out of that statement.

The real agenda here is that some ranchers don't want to have to compete with anything for that grass, doesn't matter to them if the grass is growing on their own land or land that they pay a token fee to graze. If there is a PD out there eating a blade of grass that their own cows could have, the solution is to poison the dang grass eating PD's.

huntin1


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Hunt,

No one is poisoning them "all". You make it sound as if they (the ranchers) are trying to poison every prairie dog. There have always been pd's on private and public land and there will continue to always be in the future. It is the excess or overpopulation that is at issue. If shooters can't get the job done with a .223 then what is the alternative?

Plainsman wrote,



> shaug I really need some help here. See I think there are two or three people that have come here simply to cloud issues to benefit agriculture. Some never post in anything but the hot topics. The same thing is happening on fishingbuddy. One guy even posted swifts business, his wifes business, and really tried to backstab them. That's why I am always suspicious of people who want to know who worked with who, when they worked together, where they are from. They can't win a debate telling the truth so they look for a back door to destroy people.


Why do people need anonymity on these web forums in the first place? Should people be able to make claims, pass along bad information and simply get away with it because it is "just" a web- forum?

For instance Bruce, I heard your brother-in-law is selling milk tainted with cow antibiotics for mastitis. Of course it probably isn't true but the damage is done to his reputation if it is posted on a web-forum. Should anonymity give people a license to post something on a web-forum that they wouldn't say in person? It's all rather childish don't you think?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You know who I am.



> Why do people need anonymity on these web forums in the first place?


So who are you? The reason they want anonymity is because some people will try to destroy them simply because of their opinion. Much like swift who they even put up pictures, and listed his wife's business if I remember right. Whatever it was it was a real below the belt move they made on fishingbuddy. I find it hypocritical that people hide their own name, but like to use my first name constantly.

Why do ranchers want to poison prairie dogs? You have never answered that.

I support grazing shaug, but I require honesty to continue that support.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> So who are you? The reason they want anonymity is because some people will try to destroy them simply because of their opinion.


If someone has a strong opinion and is willing to stand face to face with another that they are pointing their attention at, well i respect that. However, if someone loosely throws around opinions, accusations, misinformation, disinformation and does this from a screen name then who is the "real destroyer?" (The assassin of anothers charactor.) For example Bruce, I heard your brother-in-law is selling milk tainted with cow antibodies for mastistis. He doesn't like regulations or rules and refuses to abide by any because he is a Gordan Kahl wannabe. He is a radical farm bureau type but cashes every check the gov. sends his way.

Of course I only "heard" these things so now that would make it "hearsay" so now me nor my screen name can be held liable. Right??? No sir, that is just wrong. If you wouldn't say it to someone face then don't say it behind their back on a web-forum hiding behind a screen name.

I think a sportsmens forum has value and it is fun to rib and tease each other. Anonymity, I would suppose has its place when life isn't taken too seriously. However, there is a line in the sand when someones opinion crosses it. That is when support for these web-forums fades.

How many more ways would you like me to answer your question why do ranchers poison prairie dogs? When there are too many coyotes, mange takes them. When there are too many racoons, distemper takes them. When there are too many skunks, rabies takes them. Would you like me to continue?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I hope you remember I don't like it when people use real names because there are crazies out there. So I don't really want your name, I was just putting the shoe on the other foot.



> Would you like me to continue?


 Yes, I would like to know why the ranchers want to poison prairie dogs.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

You're a really funny guy shaug. You insist that people shouldn't hide behind a username while doing so yourself. You want people to post their name, where they work and who they work with, but refuse to do so yourself. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

As far as shooting them I think the popularity in prairie dog hunting has indirectly caused them to increase in population. 15 years ago 4 of us could work a 200 acre town and shoot several hundred dogs. Now the pressure has gotten so heavy that they are spooky and tunnel up at the first shot. Our hundreds went to a couple dozen the end result seeming to be more pressure equals a smaller kill. I know of several towns that grew very little until our competition for the towns grew. The more trouble we had getting on an town the more they seemed to grow. I actually find the small towns of a few acres the most productive because they are so small many people won't bother with them and the dogs are not as spooky. I know of at least one that was poisoned because shooters were no longer able to control the growth.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dakotashooter, you are correct in your assessment. I have experianced the same thing. A rancher down along the Cannonball has them all over his land. The access to the north side of his property is easy and everybody goes there. The towns are big but as soon as you poke your head over the skyline the alarm goes out and it's over. Too much pressure. To get to the south side of his property you have to cross the river. It's a Texas style crossing made out of rocks. Kind of scary. Not many make the trip. The shooting is better.

There is a radio personality named Scott Bachmeier who talks about shooting prairie dogs a lot on his show. Along with the fad comes more shooting pressure. More shooting pressure gets them educated fast. Therefore, more pd's and bigger towns doesn't neccessarily lead to more shooting opportunity.

My best advice: peek over the hill and shoot the farthest ones first. As opportunities dwindle, creep ahead until more come into veiw set up and shoot. Keep a low profile. There will be some standing ten yards on the downhill side in front of you while you shoot right over the top of them. They will be chattering like mad looking around for the source of the commotion. Resist the temptation to stand up and give them the what for.

I have often wondered, what if a guy tanned a big cow hide and pulled it over a shell with gunports out the sides? Two guys inside could walk right out in the middle of a town without alarming the prairie dogs. It's a zanny idea but hey, I'm just trying to figure out how to build a better salamander trap.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good conclusion dakotashooter. That makes perfect sense. One of my favorite places to shoot I have to wait 15 minutes between shots. I still go there because it's fun to lay up along a rim shooting down into a valley.

I shoot a small less noisy cartridge first then on to the 223, then 22-250, etc. In some towns where you can start at 30 yards a high velocity 22 LR with hollow points is an acceptable start. I was a little shocked one day to find that the 180 gr ground ball coming out of my 50 cal Hawken, that anchors deer, didn't stop prairie dogs right in their tracks. Go figure. I guess small high velocity in this case is better.

Another thing is a heavy barrel very accurate rifle that you can have confidence in out beyond 600 yards gets you some shooting even in the towns with spooky dogs.

About 20 years ago I got into a town of very uneducated prairie dogs. I though here is my chance to try my bow. They are darn fast and at 20 yards your arrow just drives into dirt. A dozen shots at fully exposed dogs at 20 yards left me 0 dogs 20.



> I have often wondered, what if a guy tanned a big cow hide and pulled it over a shell with gunports out the sides? Two guys inside could walk right out in the middle of a town without alarming the prairie dogs. It's a zanny idea but hey, I'm just trying to figure out how to build a better salamander trap.


I can just see it now. Shaugs Trojan cow. Some things that sound crazy work because no one else has done it. I carry a turkey diaphragm call when stalking mule deer in low areas. If I make a noise they often ignore me if I cluck and scratch the ground a little. If your not in a turkey area it doesn't work at all.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

After having to put some cattle down with broken legs from stepping in them i can see why ranchers want them dead. I love shooting them little rats as much as anyone but dont begrudge ranchers for wanting them dead. I talked to a racher down south west sd that is more of a shooter than most and he had the plauge run through and wipe out a couple of his towns. he was more dissapointed than me they are gone. My prefered method of management is the 168 amax but i know it is not the most efficient way


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KurtR said:


> After having to put some cattle down with broken legs from stepping in them i can see why ranchers want them dead. I love shooting them little rats as much as anyone but dont begrudge ranchers for wanting them dead. I talked to a racher down south west sd that is more of a shooter than most and he had the plauge run through and wipe out a couple of his towns. he was more dissapointed than me they are gone. My prefered method of management is the 168 amax but i know it is not the most efficient way


I know of horses having that problem, but I was not familiar with cows breaking their legs in prairie dog holes. I want to be clear here, I don't begrudge ranchers poisoning on their own land.

Yes, I know one rancher that would be very sad if he lost his prairie dog towns. He has one upstairs bedroom that he reloads in, and when you open the window the prairie dog town starts right by the barn. He has a bench built right into the window sill. I really like being on his ranch. You can't get by the house going either direction without coffee and looking at a different rifle. My kind of guy for sure. It was in his barn yard I tried to shoot prairie dogs with a bow. Even at 20 yards your just looking at your arrow stuck in dirt. Darn those little suckers are fast.


----------

