Ranchers blast prairie dog management

Government says drought worsens the situation

By Steve Miller, Journal staff | Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

WALL -- Prairie dogs continue to decimate the Buffalo Gap National Grassland and encroach onto nearby private land, particularly in Conata Basin, despite poisoning efforts in buffer zones, area ranchers say.

Charles Kruse, who ranches on private and nearby leased national grassland in Conata Basin, said proliferating prairie dog populations have stripped vegetation on the national grassland in the past 10 years, making it unfit for cattle and wildlife.

In 1997, Kruse said, "It was a healthy prairie system, with grass and grazing and prairie dogs."

He admitted that more rain fell in the 1990s, but he said prairie dogs, not drought, have been the primary reason for the denuding of vegetation in Conata Basin.

"They've eaten the grass, the sagebrush and are even eating prickly pear cactus."

Only a few poisonous weeds remain on some areas, Kruse said.

Kruse also said the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets in Conata Basin in the 1990s has added to the problem. Wildlife advocates now say Conata Basin is the most successful ferret reintroduction site in the country so far. The Forest Service also wants to reintroduce ferrets into the Smithwick area of Fall River County.

Kruse was among ranchers from three states who verbally pummeled U.S. Forest Service officials at a regional meeting of the Association of National Grasslands, Inc., in Wall on Tuesday.

The Buffalo Gap National Grassland, which includes the Wall and Fall River ranger districts, is administered by the Nebraska National Forest.

Forest supervisor Don Bright of Chadron, Neb., and Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Rick Cables of Denver said they understood the ranchers' complaints but that drought played a role in the lack of vegetation on some parts of Conata Basin.

Bright is considering a plan to poison prairie dogs in larger areas of the national grasslands in South Dakota and Nebraska. He hopes to issue his decision in October.

Kruse said he and other ranchers who depend largely on leased federal pastures to graze their cattle will be driven out of business if the Forest Service doesn't further reduce prairie dog populations in the grassland interiors.

"There isn't one person in Conata Basin that isn't overrun with prairie dogs," he said.

Without vegetation, the fragile topsoil has been blowing off the grasslands for the past few years, he said.

Kruse blamed Forest Service management policies. He said the stripped land isn't good habitat even for prairie dogs or ferrets.

He said the Bankhead-Jones Act that created the federally owned grasslands from private land in the 1930s specified that the government would maintain the economic benefit to local areas through private grazing leases.

The Forest Service's Cables told the crowd of about 70 ranchers in Wall that they were representing only one side of the argument. "There is intense pushback from conservation organizations and advocates of threatened and endangered species," Cables said. "They have petitioned again to list prairie dogs as threatened."

Cables said the best way to prevent listing is for ranchers and the Forest Service to work together for a balanced approach that controls prairie dogs but provides adequate habitat for them and black-footed ferrets as well as cattle.

In June, Bright issued draft plans that could allow increased poisoning of prairie dogs on national grasslands in Nebraska and South Dakota, including Conata Basin.

Conservation groups condemned options for more poisoning, arguing they could lead to the destruction of prairie dog colonies and threaten the recovery of black-footed ferrets.

Sterling Miller, a biologist for the National Wildlife Federation, said the Forest Service is abandoning its responsibility to maintain healthy wildlife and habitat on public lands.

The conservation groups said that because there are no restrictions on poisoning on private land, the prairie dog colonies on public land should remain large enough to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Swift foxes, burrowing owls, ferruginous hawks and other animals depend on prairie dogs for food or depend on their burrows for shelter, they said.

"With no science to back their claims, the Forest Service is preparing to needlessly eradicate numerous species that make their home in the national grasslands," Steve Forrest of the World Wildlife Fund said in a written statement. "America's grasslands are a significant part of our natural heritage. We should be celebrating and restoring these special places, not destroying them."

Fall River County State's Attorney Lance Russell, who has served as a spokesman for local governments and grazing associations, downplayed the threat of another listing of prairie dogs.

"Anybody can ask for a listing. But all the science is against them," Russell said.

Russell also praised the Forest Service for changing its approach on the issue since 2002.

But he said it's important the Forest Service takes adequate action in Bright's upcoming poisoning decision.

Russell said he favors Alternative Three, which sets a standard of 25 percent ground cover for "fair range condition" on all of the grasslands.

He said Alternative One is similar but would exempt Conata Basin and the Smithwick area. Current management and its devastating results would continue in those areas under that alternative, Russell said.

Conservation advocates, including Jonathan Proctor, Great Plains representative for Defenders of Wildlife, have said the preservation of the black-footed ferret is more important than subsidizing grazing for a relative handful of ranchers who lease federal pastureland in Conata Basin.

Kruse acknowledged that only about 14 ranchers have grazing permits in the basin.

But Ken Knuppe of Buffalo Gap, a past president of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, said the number of grazers is not important. "If it's wrong and it affects one person, it needs to be righted. And if it's pushing them out of business, it's wrong."

Russell said the issue is bigger than the number of ranchers affected.

He argues that the federal law establishing the grasslands requires the federal government to manage the soil resource and improve it.

"If you maintain fair range condition, you can maintain prairie dogs and ferrets, and you haven't destroyed the soil resource," Russell said. "It's not an all-or-nothing game."

Prairie dog timeline

Decision expected in October

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 2000 declared that the black-tailed prairie dog deserved listing as a threatened species. The finding halted virtually all prairie dog poisoning on federal land.

The ruling coincided with the beginning of a seven-year drought.

The drought and poisoning moratorium resulted in an explosion of prairie dog populations.

Since then, ranchers have complained that prairie dogs were coming onto their land from nearby federal land, chewing up scarce grass.

After updated population studies, the Interior Department in 2004 dropped the prairie dog from the list of species deserving protection, and the state of South Dakota began poisoning prairie dogs that had encroached on private land from public land.

In 2005, the Forest Service, after fending off a lawsuit from conservation groups, began poisoning prairie dogs in buffer zones on federal land to stem encroachment.

Ranchers and local governments in South Dakota said that wasn't enough to stop the ruin of the national grasslands. Last spring, the Nebraska National Forest announced it would consider poisoning prairie dogs in larger areas of the national grasslands in South Dakota and Nebraska. That decision is expected in October.

Contact Steve Miller at 394-8417 or steve.miller@rapidcityjournal.com