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?
Plague???
macker13
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
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.
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.
Joined
·
20,347 Posts
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.
Disease will control them now, but it's un-natural. In the past the towns simply expanded or they starved.
I think they are like everyone else. Some have good ideas, some have goofy ideas.
Under current conditions (European plague) they are correct.
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:
I could not agree more.
It takes very close attention to tell true environmentalists from what you call wackos. We would agree on many of them being wackos.
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.
Joined
·
20,347 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Joined
·
20,347 Posts
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.
Joined
·
3,263 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Joined
·
20,347 Posts
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.
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.
Plainsman wrote,
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.
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.
Joined
·
20,347 Posts
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.
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.
Joined
·
20,347 Posts
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.shaug said:
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?
Plainsman wrote,
Before that the ranchers managed the population. This act of Congress took that ability away from them.
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.
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.
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.
Joined
·
20,347 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Joined
·
20,347 Posts
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.
Joined
·
3,263 Posts
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
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
Plainsman wrote,
Huntin1
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.
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
Ah yes, the real agenda.
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
