FWP Approves First Prairie Dog Conservation Contract

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
21,451
Location
Cedar, MI
This is a great thing, IMO. I'm old enough to remember when P-dogs were candidates for listing under the ESA due to the lack of conservation effort & no regulatory mechanism in place for their continued existence. Seeing FWP pull this together, starting in 2015, is awesome. Kudos to the ranch for being so forward thinking.


The first contract Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks has ever crafted to conserve and protect prairie dogs has been approved by Region 7 supervisor Brad Schmitz.
Beginning in July, the 10-year agreement will pay the owners of the 71 Ranch $148,750 ($50 an acre) to enroll 2,975 acres of prairie dog colonies on land in Garfield and Rosebud counties, about eight miles north of Ingomar.

This one-time payment will be funded by a 50/50 split between a National Fish & Wildlife Foundation grant and state tax revenue from FWP’s Nongame Wildlife Account. No license dollars were spent on the project.

Grazing can continue on the parcels enrolled, but no tilling can occur.

Provided steps are taken to control sylvatic plague, the site may also be considered for introduction of endangered black-footed ferrets. This action would require further environmental analysis and the approval of the Fish and Game Commission.

Numerous questions were posed to FWP, as well as comments. These included queries about the project's funding, its requirements and the use of chemicals for plague control.
"One commentor was neutral about the contract but offered that FWP could host all the prairie dogs on their property because they do not appreciate the impact on their land," according to the decision notice.

Others offered praise that FWP was participating in the preservation of prairie grasslands and nongame species. Prairie dogs are considered a keystone species because their burrows provide habitat for other wildlife and they are a source of food to several predators.
FWP has been pursuing such a contract off and on since 2015, but had a hard time finding a landowner with a large enough parcel who was interested, according to the decision notice. A minimum of 1,500 acres was a requirement.
 
This is a great thing, IMO. I'm old enough to remember when P-dogs were candidates for listing under the ESA due to the lack of conservation effort & no regulatory mechanism in place for their continued existence. Seeing FWP pull this together, starting in 2015, is awesome. Kudos to the ranch for being so forward thinking.

Can you help me see why this is a good thing?
 
Can you help me see why this is a good thing?

P-dogs are the primary food source for Black footed ferrets. BFF are an endangered species because of loss of P-dogs through land mgt practices, loss to subdivisions, etc. This is a better way to encourage conservation of large, intact grasslands that benefits P-dogs as well as BFF's, and a host of other grassland species like elk, deer and pronghorn.

it also flips the script on conservation and creates a new model for non-game animals to have worth to landowners, as opposed to only finding worth in huntable or fishable species. Non-game animals are the primary tool for most of the serial litigants to pursue their agenda with, because states do not have robust non-game programs and those species aren't as well researched, documented or known about. That leaves large openings for groups like CBD, et al, to sue under the ESA based on the lack of regulatory requirements, etc.

So, focusing on non-game and creating new tools for landowners to benefit from their conservation is a big deal and a very good thing.
 
P-dogs are the primary food source for Black footed ferrets. BFF are an endangered species because of loss of P-dogs through land mgt practices, loss to subdivisions, etc. This is a better way to encourage conservation of large, intact grasslands that benefits P-dogs as well as BFF's, and a host of other grassland species like elk, deer and pronghorn.

it also flips the script on conservation and creates a new model for non-game animals to have worth to landowners, as opposed to only finding worth in huntable or fishable species. Non-game animals are the primary tool for most of the serial litigants to pursue their agenda with, because states do not have robust non-game programs and those species aren't as well researched, documented or known about. That leaves large openings for groups like CBD, et al, to sue under the ESA based on the lack of regulatory requirements, etc.

So, focusing on non-game and creating new tools for landowners to benefit from their conservation is a big deal and a very good thing.
thanks Ben.
 
We've poured a bunch of money into keeping black-footed ferrets from going extinct, without figuring out how to deal with the primary problem: loss of groceries (ie prairie dogs). I agree with Ben2 that it's good, creative conservation to try to incentivize growing some prairie dogs, instead of trying to get it all done via regulations. I'm interested to see how this one works out.
 
I’m fairly ignorant on the plight of the black footed ferret but seems like we have lots of prairie dogs in eastern Montana. Do they need connectivity of towns or something? Seems like a family of ferrets could eat for years on the prairie dog towns I know about. What am I missing?
 
I’m fairly ignorant on the plight of the black footed ferret but seems like we have lots of prairie dogs in eastern Montana. Do they need connectivity of towns or something? Seems like a family of ferrets could eat for years on the prairie dog towns I know about. What am I missing?
No shortage of food supply just across the state line into North Dakota. Lots of their little scouts on the move right now on the roads looking for new areas to mow down
 
I’m fairly ignorant on the plight of the black footed ferret but seems like we have lots of prairie dogs in eastern Montana. Do they need connectivity of towns or something? Seems like a family of ferrets could eat for years on the prairie dog towns I know about. What am I missing?

P Dogs are significantly reduced in number and range compared to pre-settlement. As previous posters have noted, some states still poison them, while others have zero regulatory mechanisms related to management or take. Since expansion, they've been regarded only as pests and animals of no regard or value, regardless of their ecological importance. If we're serious about protecting wildlife management from the animal rights people, then we should recognize where our biggest blind spots are in terms of the NAM and how we manage non-game species.

Fun story: We were dealing with a bill in Wyoming back in 2007, IIRC, that would have essentially made bounties on P Dogs a thing, along with some other poorly-thought out ideas related to dogs and ag disruption.

We sent the Sierra Club lobbyist in to support the bill and say "this is the best thing we could have asked for in regards to getting prairie dogs listed, so we're going to support your bill."

The bill died, many cowboys were aghast. It was a glorious day. We drank far too much that evening. Then we got called into the speakers office and got yelled at.

But it was cool. We'd been yelled at before.
 
I'm not sure on this one. I think of the wild horse/burro problem on not being able to manage them.. Are we going down that road here? If BFF's aren't able to make it with the millions of prairie dogs I see, I don't see a come back in their future.
Ferrets are on the cusp of extinction, for sure. Prairie dogs, not so much. But it's apples and oranges from the feral horse issue. This story is about providing incentives for keeping wildlife on private ranches. Private landowners can still get rid of feral animals on their ground. One of the big problems keeping ferrets alive is the plague tends to wipe out prairie dog towns. So once ferrets get a toe-hold, plague comes in and wipes out the rodents. Having more healthy prairie dog towns gives the ferrets more options. Ferrets are still in "emergency room" mode.
 
No wonder we have to sell so many nonresidents licenses for fwp funding.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,659
Messages
2,028,809
Members
36,275
Latest member
johnw3474
Back
Top