P Joe
Well-known member
From the Argus Leader
The power of prairie dog politics
PUBLISHED: December 6, 2006
In recent days, the SD Stockgrowers Association has opposed the expansion of a national park in South Dakota, while other ranchers have opposed the creation of the nation's first prairie wilderness on a national grasslands in western South Dakota. They claim the wilderness proposal lacks support, ignoring that the three largest grazing permit-holders, favor the designation.
They claim to hate public lands but don't take advantage of the cheap grazing fees that are, by any description, a subsidy. And they resent sharing those lands, whether they be Forest Service, BLM or state school and public lands, with the public. They get by with these attitudes because theirs is a powerful lobby.
One so powerful many feel helpless to fight a system that demonstrates so much control over government.
Let us use the prairie dog to illustrate how the ranching community works the government. When ranchers say prairie dogs are destroying rangeland, few argue, though by the time prairie dogs use it, much of it has already been destroyed. When the ancestors of today's ranchers brought European cattle, breeds ill-suited to the rigors of winter on the Great Plains, these selective grazers began a generation-long destruction of native grasses that early settlers ill-advisedly replanted with imported species such as Timothy, Cheat and Kentucky Bluegrass. Thus, prairie not already lost to the plow was chewed into domestication. But few realize many of these introduced exotic grasses lose their value to wildlife and cattle during the winter. That explains why wintering big game animals can stand in waist-high grass, and yet be starving.
Meanwhile, cows flatten vegetation in riparian areas, ruining streams and in some years, grazing the prairie down to nothing. And what wasn't historically grazed was plowed with the same disastrous results.
The prairie dog issue offers a good example of how agriculture works the government. Since the first ranchers arrived on the West River prairie, they've been waging war on any wildlife specie they believe interferes with cattle or sheep. They were successful in convincing the government that it should be the taxpayers responsibility to control them. And we have been doing it for years, spending billions on coyote eradication, only to find that where we've cut coyote numbers, they've been replaced by skunks, raccoons and red fox. And then the coyotes come back stronger than ever, likely because they eat the smaller predators.
But how did we manage to get ourselves into the position where we have come to accept it is the responsibility of taxpayers, to eradicate coyotes so a few can raise sheep when we can't even find lamb on most supermarket counters?
Over the years, ranchers convinced the legislature that prairie dogs should be relegated to pest status, and even attempted to rename them "prairie rats." They created myths such as the common belief that cattle and horses break their legs in prairie dog burrows. That surprises Dan Uresk, who once headed the Rocky Mountain Research station in Rapid City before prairie dog politics resulted in his demotion to a title of Senior Biologist. Uresk told me he's tried tracing those broken leg claims and has yet to find such an incident.
Several months ago, I delivered the keynote address to a prairie dog gathering in Rapid City that was sponsored in part by the National Wildlife Federation, the SD Wildlife Federation and the SD Wildlife Society. Agency professionals comprised most of the attendees. One of the things I talked about was the "bullying political tactics" employed by some ranchers.
After I left, George Vandel, a Game, Fish & Parks bureaucrat, said he was offended by my description of the political tactics of ranchers. Ironically, his department has been the object of relentless bullying efforts by those same ranchers. He was followed by Secretary of Agriculture, Larry Gabriel, who warned those in attendance to get on board with this "good neighbor prairie dog program" the state created in response to the threat of the possible endangered species listing of the black-tailed prairie dog. Gabriel told them that "ranchers are frustrated, that they're talking about getting their guns and shooting someone."
That wasn't well received by the group, and one, a federal employee, suggested to Gabriel that his comments were "19th century remarks in the 21st century," and not appropriate in a room full of professionals. Moreover, he said, the comments validated everything I had said in the opening address.
Black-tailed prairie dogs are a keystone species, an indicator of the health of the prairie ecosystem, and they have been shot and poisoned unmercifully until the Endangered Species Act (ESA) reared up to stop these efforts. We have ranchers who have complained about prairie dogs to the point where they've removed nearly all of them except for those on public lands and now they want them disappeared too. They claim prairie dogs destroy forage, though scientific evidence shows cows and calves on a light to moderate grazing schedule neither gain or lose weight in a prairie dog town. Besides, poisoning prairie dogs only amounts to a gain of about 50 pounds of forage per acre.
The easiest way to attract prairie dogs is to overgraze pastures. And if you look at western South Dakota today, you know that they could pop up most anywhere. But we are in a drought, which means the rancher who cares about the land, takes extra special care of it in such times. And we have ranchers like that. But we also have those who never have good grass, even in wet years.
Many ranchers have strong feelings about prairie dogs, but their views aren't shared by the public, even in an ag-dominated state such as South Dakota. A survey conducted by Larry Gigliotti Ph.D of the SD Game, Fish & Parks Department notes that about 75 percent of all South Dakotans believe prairie dog populations should be maintained.
So how is it that a high percentage of politicians in elective office see the same research and science, but still cling to the belief prairie dogs should be eradicated? The truth is, the agricultural lobby dominates state governments to the point that anyone questioning farm or ranch policies is viewed as unpatriotic, uninformed, unconcerned with the economy, or they must certainly be radical environmentalists.
Witness state government literally walking on eggs whenever ranching groups get upset about something. Common political sense should tell us that in terms of votes, ranchers aren't that powerful. But they do make noise; lots of it, and elected officials and their appointees quickly and predictably fall in line.
The SD Lockout is a good example of how they play the game of prairie dog politics. Some don't like the idea that a Game, Fish & Parks conservation officer can come on their land to check for violations, licenses, etc. Because the Game, Fish & Parks Department didn't back off on their use of the Open Fields doctrine, the affected ranchers did what they always seem to do. They closed their land to hunting, and though they've never published a list of participating landowners, they claim to have shut down hunting on over 4 million acres of land in western South Dakota. This is one case where Gov. Mike Rounds deserves a pat on the back for backing Cooper on his insistence of maintaining the Open Fields doctrine to assure that game laws are followed.
But consider all of the media attention the lockout received. And it will be interesting to see how prairie dog politics plays out when newly elected Rep. Betty Olson of Prairie City, SD, one of the lockout leaders, brings some of her ideas to the state legislature. Among them, the belief that the Game, Fish & Parks Secretary should be selected by the Game, Fish & Parks Commission, and an effort to get a percentage of hunting license sales earmarked for bridge and road repair in Harding County. One of the things all rural residents have a difficult time understanding is that the country road system could never pass muster on the basis of use. Many roads that receive regular taxpayer maintenance, serve only a handful of landowners.
Imagine if a political leader today were to suggest the creation of another state park on the magnitude of Custer State Park. I can already hear the wails from the prairie dog politicians. Yet, spend some time around Custer State Park and you will quickly realize that almost all of the major economic activity in the area flows in and around this wonderful park, as it would likely do if the proposed grassland wilderness idea became reality.
The power of prairie dog politics
PUBLISHED: December 6, 2006
In recent days, the SD Stockgrowers Association has opposed the expansion of a national park in South Dakota, while other ranchers have opposed the creation of the nation's first prairie wilderness on a national grasslands in western South Dakota. They claim the wilderness proposal lacks support, ignoring that the three largest grazing permit-holders, favor the designation.
They claim to hate public lands but don't take advantage of the cheap grazing fees that are, by any description, a subsidy. And they resent sharing those lands, whether they be Forest Service, BLM or state school and public lands, with the public. They get by with these attitudes because theirs is a powerful lobby.
One so powerful many feel helpless to fight a system that demonstrates so much control over government.
Let us use the prairie dog to illustrate how the ranching community works the government. When ranchers say prairie dogs are destroying rangeland, few argue, though by the time prairie dogs use it, much of it has already been destroyed. When the ancestors of today's ranchers brought European cattle, breeds ill-suited to the rigors of winter on the Great Plains, these selective grazers began a generation-long destruction of native grasses that early settlers ill-advisedly replanted with imported species such as Timothy, Cheat and Kentucky Bluegrass. Thus, prairie not already lost to the plow was chewed into domestication. But few realize many of these introduced exotic grasses lose their value to wildlife and cattle during the winter. That explains why wintering big game animals can stand in waist-high grass, and yet be starving.
Meanwhile, cows flatten vegetation in riparian areas, ruining streams and in some years, grazing the prairie down to nothing. And what wasn't historically grazed was plowed with the same disastrous results.
The prairie dog issue offers a good example of how agriculture works the government. Since the first ranchers arrived on the West River prairie, they've been waging war on any wildlife specie they believe interferes with cattle or sheep. They were successful in convincing the government that it should be the taxpayers responsibility to control them. And we have been doing it for years, spending billions on coyote eradication, only to find that where we've cut coyote numbers, they've been replaced by skunks, raccoons and red fox. And then the coyotes come back stronger than ever, likely because they eat the smaller predators.
But how did we manage to get ourselves into the position where we have come to accept it is the responsibility of taxpayers, to eradicate coyotes so a few can raise sheep when we can't even find lamb on most supermarket counters?
Over the years, ranchers convinced the legislature that prairie dogs should be relegated to pest status, and even attempted to rename them "prairie rats." They created myths such as the common belief that cattle and horses break their legs in prairie dog burrows. That surprises Dan Uresk, who once headed the Rocky Mountain Research station in Rapid City before prairie dog politics resulted in his demotion to a title of Senior Biologist. Uresk told me he's tried tracing those broken leg claims and has yet to find such an incident.
Several months ago, I delivered the keynote address to a prairie dog gathering in Rapid City that was sponsored in part by the National Wildlife Federation, the SD Wildlife Federation and the SD Wildlife Society. Agency professionals comprised most of the attendees. One of the things I talked about was the "bullying political tactics" employed by some ranchers.
After I left, George Vandel, a Game, Fish & Parks bureaucrat, said he was offended by my description of the political tactics of ranchers. Ironically, his department has been the object of relentless bullying efforts by those same ranchers. He was followed by Secretary of Agriculture, Larry Gabriel, who warned those in attendance to get on board with this "good neighbor prairie dog program" the state created in response to the threat of the possible endangered species listing of the black-tailed prairie dog. Gabriel told them that "ranchers are frustrated, that they're talking about getting their guns and shooting someone."
That wasn't well received by the group, and one, a federal employee, suggested to Gabriel that his comments were "19th century remarks in the 21st century," and not appropriate in a room full of professionals. Moreover, he said, the comments validated everything I had said in the opening address.
Black-tailed prairie dogs are a keystone species, an indicator of the health of the prairie ecosystem, and they have been shot and poisoned unmercifully until the Endangered Species Act (ESA) reared up to stop these efforts. We have ranchers who have complained about prairie dogs to the point where they've removed nearly all of them except for those on public lands and now they want them disappeared too. They claim prairie dogs destroy forage, though scientific evidence shows cows and calves on a light to moderate grazing schedule neither gain or lose weight in a prairie dog town. Besides, poisoning prairie dogs only amounts to a gain of about 50 pounds of forage per acre.
The easiest way to attract prairie dogs is to overgraze pastures. And if you look at western South Dakota today, you know that they could pop up most anywhere. But we are in a drought, which means the rancher who cares about the land, takes extra special care of it in such times. And we have ranchers like that. But we also have those who never have good grass, even in wet years.
Many ranchers have strong feelings about prairie dogs, but their views aren't shared by the public, even in an ag-dominated state such as South Dakota. A survey conducted by Larry Gigliotti Ph.D of the SD Game, Fish & Parks Department notes that about 75 percent of all South Dakotans believe prairie dog populations should be maintained.
So how is it that a high percentage of politicians in elective office see the same research and science, but still cling to the belief prairie dogs should be eradicated? The truth is, the agricultural lobby dominates state governments to the point that anyone questioning farm or ranch policies is viewed as unpatriotic, uninformed, unconcerned with the economy, or they must certainly be radical environmentalists.
Witness state government literally walking on eggs whenever ranching groups get upset about something. Common political sense should tell us that in terms of votes, ranchers aren't that powerful. But they do make noise; lots of it, and elected officials and their appointees quickly and predictably fall in line.
The SD Lockout is a good example of how they play the game of prairie dog politics. Some don't like the idea that a Game, Fish & Parks conservation officer can come on their land to check for violations, licenses, etc. Because the Game, Fish & Parks Department didn't back off on their use of the Open Fields doctrine, the affected ranchers did what they always seem to do. They closed their land to hunting, and though they've never published a list of participating landowners, they claim to have shut down hunting on over 4 million acres of land in western South Dakota. This is one case where Gov. Mike Rounds deserves a pat on the back for backing Cooper on his insistence of maintaining the Open Fields doctrine to assure that game laws are followed.
But consider all of the media attention the lockout received. And it will be interesting to see how prairie dog politics plays out when newly elected Rep. Betty Olson of Prairie City, SD, one of the lockout leaders, brings some of her ideas to the state legislature. Among them, the belief that the Game, Fish & Parks Secretary should be selected by the Game, Fish & Parks Commission, and an effort to get a percentage of hunting license sales earmarked for bridge and road repair in Harding County. One of the things all rural residents have a difficult time understanding is that the country road system could never pass muster on the basis of use. Many roads that receive regular taxpayer maintenance, serve only a handful of landowners.
Imagine if a political leader today were to suggest the creation of another state park on the magnitude of Custer State Park. I can already hear the wails from the prairie dog politicians. Yet, spend some time around Custer State Park and you will quickly realize that almost all of the major economic activity in the area flows in and around this wonderful park, as it would likely do if the proposed grassland wilderness idea became reality.