[Taxacom] black-footed ferret reintroductions

Tue Sep 19 12:13:27 CDT 2006

I am going to make some arguments here that I don't necessarily agree 
with, but which are legitimate from the viewpoint expressed.  Those are 
from people directly involved, but with no one on this list to express 
it, and you need to hear it. The use of 'dogs below is for prairie dogs, 
not Canis.  use of towns refers to large aggregations of 'dogs, not Homo.

First, people in Canadian cities and back east in general don't have a 
clue about the realities ranching in the Great Plains.  I have never met 
an actual rancher who worried about plague, although yuppie dog-walkers 
might.   When plague goes through a town, it kills 90% of the 'dogs as 
well as the coyotes in the area -- hardly something a rancher is going 
to be unhappy about.  The basic underlying problem is that, unlike 
people back east, ranchers out west don't like to be told what to do on 
their own land.  While socialist Canadians and New Yorkers may love the 
government to tell them what to do on the land they have bought and paid 
taxes on, westerners are not like that.

Second, prairie dogs do indeed render the land they live on worthless.  
Big towns will absolutely mow the grass, which is grown by ranchers as 
an economic crop, to the ground.  Also, the ground of a town is littered 
with large holes and weak places.  Not only do cows and horses break 
their legs in such holes (economic loss), but every years, numerous 
ranchers, their hands and their family members are injured and sometimes 
killed by falls from horseback in such situations.

Third, when there is a mortgage on a piece of property, the bank expects 
it to be paid.  A big town can remove several sections (that is is a 
square mile to those back east, 640 acres) from production, but the bank 
still expects to be paid from the revenue generated by that land. When 
there is no mortgage, the income from that land is what puts food on the 
table and pays the kid's dentist bills and college tuition.  It is money 
taken directly from a family's wallet.  How many of you are willing to 
have that happen to you?  Taxes are based assessments that are on the 
potential for production, and not producing does not mean the taxes do 
not have to be paid.  Double economic whammy there. No one pays a 
rancher to raise dogs (although you can eat them -- tasty!).

If a piece of land goes up for sale, and it is covered by 'dogs, its 
value is greatly decreased.  This is a real economic impact to the 
owner.  Most ranchers are land poor.  Virtually all of their assets are 
tied up in land and their only way to leave ranching is to sell the 
land.  If there is debt to be retired at the time of sale, 'dog towns 
may make the sale impossible.  If the land value is what is to pay for 
retirement of a couple who have worked their whole lives to pay off a 
ranch, who are you to tell them they should eliminate a major part of 
their nest egg?

When a rancher lets a town go, it can creep across property lines to 
neighbors, who will not be particularly happy about it.  Further, in 
most states, the rancher who allows this is legally liable and can be in 
some jurisdictions billed for losses of property value, damage and even 
injury, not to mention the costs of control.

Any fool who stands in the middle of a 'dog town can see with their own 
eyes that the blasted little beasts are not really endangered -- there 
are thousands and thousands of them in sight.  It is just a plot by 
illy-livered, lettuce-munching eastern tree-huggers to harass honest, 
hard working westerners.

Blackfooted ferrets live off prairie dogs, they do not control them.  
200 years ago there were 'dog towns that stretched for a hundred miles, 
and the ferrets were at their height.  That is not control.

If you let ferrets on your land, you are then subject to inspection and 
invasion by government people.  Government people bring rules and 
regulations.  Those R&R bring costs in lost use of the land, lost time, 
lawyers fees, etc.  No ferrets, no problems -- ferrets bring bureaucracy 
and expense.

If ranchers had not taken care of the 'dogs for the last hundred years, 
leaving many of the current big towns on marginal land alone, there 
would be no 'dogs left today.  TELLING them to conserve them and 
imposing problems on landowners who harbor 'dogs is the WORST incentive 
possible. 

Shooting 'dogs in spring is a well established activity for the youth of 
this region, and beats the hell out of meth as something to do.  It does 
not seem to have any population effect in the vast majority of cases.

The idea of buying areas of a ranch with 'dog towns is ridiculous.  
Ranches are units that work because of their shape.  If a town is in an 
integral part of the ranch, or a particularly productive area, that part 
of the ranch cannot simply be removed.  If it is sold, who will replace 
the acreage needed to give the ranch critical mass as an economic unit?  
Plus, then you have people coming in and wanting access across your 
land, who want to put restrictions on your activities, etc.  Who needs 
that?  Who will stop the town from growing out of that sold property 
back onto your now-diminished ranch?  Will the area be fenced, and if 
so, by whom?

Lastly, in reality, 'dogs are left alone by many ranchers in areas where 
they do not impact ranch operations that much.  The towns are knocked 
back when they get out of hand, but not eliminated (which is not that 
hard to do).  I know of many large towns on ranches in this category in 
Montana and Wyoming.  These ranchers actually kind of like them around 
(although they would never say that you those lettuce-munchers from 
Toronto).  Ranchers do not live and work the way they do if they are not 
closet nature nuts. But, they hate to be interfered with, especially by 
people who are demonstrably ignorant of the facts, and pushy to boot.  
If they could have ferrets without Feds, many would be buying them to 
put on their land themselves.  Take a lesson from TNC, and learn to 
listen to the other side, and you can easily work out a way to solve the 
problem.  Blasting them as evil idiots will get you just the opposite of 
what you want.

If you want to save 'dogs and ferrets, send your donation to The Nature 
Conservancy, who knows how to deal with ranchers. 

Mike Ivie

Nadia Talent wrote:

>Hi Diana,
>
>In Colorado, a lot of the antagonism towards prairie dogs seems to be  
>fueled by fear of the plague.
>
>Nadia Talent
>University of Toronto.
>
>On 19 Sep 2006, at 11:20, Diana Horton wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I would like to know whether the ranchers who favour either  
>>poisoning or
>>shooting prairie dogs (I wonder which way the prairie dogs would  
>>choose to
>>go?) have a valid concern.  Have any studies been done to determine  
>>just
>>how much grass prairie dogs consume?  Are they really such a threat to
>>livestock?
>>
>>Also, I presume that the anti-prairie dog ranchers have been made  
>>aware
>>that the black-footed ferrets would control the prairie dog  
>>populations.
>>
>>Diana Horton
>>University of Iowa
>>
>>At 11:56 AM 9/18/2006, Ken Kinman wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Dear All,
>>>     North America's most endangered mammal, the black-footed  
>>>ferret (once
>>>thought extinct), is being slowly reintroduced back into the  
>>>wild.  However,
>>>efforts to do so in Kansas may be scuttled by neighboring ranchers  
>>>and the
>>>Logan County Commission.  Using an old state "eradication" law,  
>>>the county
>>>can enter the proposed reintroduction sites to poison the prairie  
>>>dogs (and
>>>adding insult to injury, send a hefty bill to the landowners).   
>>>Such action
>>>could begin on October 1, and very well ruin any chance of  
>>>introducing the
>>>black-footed ferret on any of those sites.  For those interested,
>>>yesterday's Hays Daily News printed an editorial and several  
>>>related stories
>>>on the heated debate over how to control prairie dogs without  
>>>resorting to
>>>poison.  Here's the weblink (to the editorial and 5 related stories):
>>>
>>>http://www.dailynews.net/hdnews/prairiedogs/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Taxacom mailing list
>>>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Taxacom mailing list
>>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom mailing list
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>
>  
>

-- 
__________________________________________________
NOTE NEW ADDRESS:

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

For Postal Service Delivery:            For FedEx, UPS or Freight Delivery:

Montana Entomology Collection      Montana Entomology Collection - MSU
Montana State University                Marsh Labs, Room 50
P.O. Box 173020                           1901 S. 19th Ave, Room 50
Bozeman, MT 59717-3020            Bozeman, MT 59717
USA                                              USA

(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu