FWP Approves First Prairie Dog Conservation Contract

Huge win for region 7 when the mule deer are gone nonresidents can still come and shoot prairie dogs (hopefully), and maybe get a glimpse of an elusive bff.

That’s if the plague doesn’t get them first
 
I’m a little confused and clearly ignorant. Why are some of you so adamant about prairie dogs? I get culling them in farmer and rancher fields that are enclosed for livestock. I shoot a bunch of them for a friend to reduce risk of broken legs.

I’ve done some more research. Smithsonian
 
Last edited:
I’m a little confused and clearly ignorant. Why are some of you so adamant about prairie dogs? I get culling them in farmer and rancher fields that are enclosed for livestock. I shoot a bunch of them for a friend to reduce risk of broken legs.

I’ve done some more research. Smithsonian

As Ben1 pointed out, it's about keeping land intact and functioning at an ecological level. P Dogs are indicator species, and as shown in your link, their survival means better chances for other critters as well. They also provide other, easier sources of nutrition for coyotes, who, with more options for dinner, theoretically wouldn't predate on fawns quite as much.

More groceries for everyone, more deer for everyone & more food for song dogs, bff's and so many others who dine on Cynomys ludovicianus
 
They have been conserved to the tune of 150k to the desperate landowner. Or maybe he is laughing his way to the bank.
I would be thrilled if every dollar came from hunter licenses. It would provide another example of hunters funding conservation while groups like CBD bitch and moan about conservation but don't do anything. I only hesitate because it is I think it's going to the Galt ranch.
 
I would be thrilled if every dollar came from hunter licenses. It would provide another example of hunters funding conservation while groups like CBD bitch and moan about conservation but don't do anything. I only hesitate because it is I think it's going to the Galt ranch.

4% of the recreational MJ tax goes to nongame. Great use of that tax money.

I'm ok with Galt's getting some cash for conservation. if anything, it can help show others that there aren't any boogeymen associated with the program.
 
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'd rather hear the stories of hooking up with abortion lobbyists. I remember a guard buddy trying that at the Rialto (or was it the Western?) back in the day. Was humorous to say the least.
 
4% of the recreational MJ tax goes to nongame. Great use of that tax money.

I'm ok with Galt's getting some cash for conservation. if anything, it can help show others that there aren't any boogeymen associated with the program.
Your optimism always brightens my day, even in this instance of one group of native Montana vermin assisting another group of native Montana vermin. Maybe next the Galts' will join APR in grazing bison.
 
I'd rather hear the stories of hooking up with abortion lobbyists. I remember a guard buddy trying that at the Rialto (or was it the Western?) back in the day. Was humorous to say the least.

I mean, I see two strikes before he even got to the plate, but whatever.

Your optimism always brightens my day, even in this instance of one group of native Montana vermin assisting another group of native Montana vermin. Maybe next the Galts' will join APR in grazing bison.

I get tired of the constant hate that people are supposed to have for others that they disagree with. It's draining and it causes people to miss opportunities to do good things for wildlife, for the land, and for each other. When we show people a little empathy, kindness and and an honest willingness to work with them to solve problems, about 78% of people take you up on that offer and they show up ready to compromise and work together.

Too often we let people convince us someone is evil incarnate when we don't have any actual idea what that person is like at all. Ranchers see the world from a different perspective. If we can't be bothered to see the world through their lens, then there is zero chance that change will happen, or that conservation gets less controversial. Some folks want the controversy to be sure - they thrive on it as it feeds their machines and their egos. But the god's honest truth is when we let ourselves be less than offended at every little thing, we end up finding better paths to the outcomes desired (conservation of large landscapes, specific species, etc).

Human nature is the biggest roadblock to meaningful advancement of conservation principles.
 
I mean, I see two strikes before he even got to the plate, but whatever.



I get tired of the constant hate that people are supposed to have for others that they disagree with. It's draining and it causes people to miss opportunities to do good things for wildlife, for the land, and for each other. When we show people a little empathy, kindness and and an honest willingness to work with them to solve problems, about 78% of people take you up on that offer and they show up ready to compromise and work together.

Too often we let people convince us someone is evil incarnate when we don't have any actual idea what that person is like at all. Ranchers see the world from a different perspective. If we can't be bothered to see the world through their lens, then there is zero chance that change will happen, or that conservation gets less controversial. Some folks want the controversy to be sure - they thrive on it as it feeds their machines and their egos. But the god's honest truth is when we let ourselves be less than offended at every little thing, we end up finding better paths to the outcomes desired (conservation of large landscapes, specific species, etc).

Human nature is the biggest roadblock to meaningful advancement of conservation principles.
Agree. You are preaching to the choir in that respect.
The I'm just saying I did a double-take when I read who did the contract. Galt's are family that have been part of the machine for looong time. Not good or bad, just that they like everyone else tend to look at their own self interest and not necessarily what is best in the name of conservation. I hope it is a precedent for others to come.

Screenshot 2024-06-12 at 11.26.48 AM.png
 
As Ben1 pointed out, it's about keeping land intact and functioning at an ecological level. P Dogs are indicator species, and as shown in your link, their survival means better chances for other critters as well. They also provide other, easier sources of nutrition for coyotes, who, with more options for dinner, theoretically wouldn't predate on fawns quite as much.

More groceries for everyone, more deer for everyone & more food for song dogs, bff's and so many others who dine on Cynomys ludovicianus

I try to frame stuff to hear from people, not take sides. Those are great points.
 
Of course the division between prairie dog conservation and landowners that don’t want them, will always be selfish.

If I had a ranch with prairie dogs on it, I wouldn’t give a hoot about their existence in the ecosystem. I help as much as I can to irradicate them on a couple ranches and they appreciate my help.

I guarantee that they wouldn’t want any neighbors introducing or proliferating prairie dog numbers anywhere near their ranches. Whether it is Galt or anyone else, they are somehow evil for not wanting prairie dogs around?

Conservationists that are for prairie dog expansion have different idea and want to see the population grow in those areas.

So who is right and who is wrong? To say that prairie dogs inhabit a small percentage of their historical habitat is no different than buffalo, mule deer bighorn sheep and countless other diverse creatures both animal and plant.

After settling this country, little is as it was previous to that settlement. All sorts of living things have been affected. I am not saying this plan is either good or bad, but saying landowners are selfish is against one of the fundamental reasons this country was founded on, to protect the rights of all individuals and recognize the sanctity of ownership, whether it is public or private property…
 
Of course the division between prairie dog conservation and landowners that don’t want them, will always be selfish.

If I had a ranch with prairie dogs on it, I wouldn’t give a hoot about their existence in the ecosystem. I help as much as I can to irradicate them on a couple ranches and they appreciate my help.

I guarantee that they wouldn’t want any neighbors introducing or proliferating prairie dog numbers anywhere near their ranches. Whether it is Galt or anyone else, they are somehow evil for not wanting prairie dogs around?

Conservationists that are for prairie dog expansion have different idea and want to see the population grow in those areas.

So who is right and who is wrong? To say that prairie dogs inhabit a small percentage of their historical habitat is no different than buffalo, mule deer bighorn sheep and countless other diverse creatures both animal and plant.

After settling this country, little is as it was previous to that settlement. All sorts of living things have been affected. I am not saying this plan is either good or bad, but saying landowners are selfish is against one of the fundamental reasons this country was founded on, to protect the rights of all individuals and recognize the sanctity of ownership, whether it is public or private property…

Why would you not want prairie dogs? Honestly asking, and not a loaded question. Why don’t they? Again just asking for information. I hunt ground squirrels for a friend on their cattle allotments. It gets me great practice and protects their cows and horses.

I’ve been doing some more reading and what I’m finding is that ground squirrels and prairie dogs are great for the wilder ecosystems. They aerate the soil and fertilize it and more.

Where’s the line with the public trust? Moose, deer, elk, coyote, fox, ferret, squirrel… I honestly don’t know.
 
Back
Top