Sept. 17, 2006

By MIKE CORN

Hays Daily News

Byron Sowers is dead set against prairie dogs.

And he applauds the Logan County Commissionís decision to move ahead with poisoning the rodents beginning Oct. 1.

But, he said, there are three or four people who like prairie dogs.

"Therefore, there is a little agitation between the landowners," he said.

The situation has gotten out of hand, said Sowers, a Thomas County resident who owns land in Logan County. He also is a candidate for Thomas County Commission.

A swift fox surveys the countryside in southwest Logan County. (Photo by Steven Hausler)

He also blames the drought.

"Theyíre trying to find habitat because the grass is dead," he said.

Sowers was one of several landowners to meet with Ron Klataske, executive director of Audubon of Kansas, who has been promoting the idea of reintroducing black-footed ferrets into Logan County.

Sowers isnít keen on that idea.

"My idea is letís eliminate the prairie dogs and not mess with the ferret," he said. "We wouldnít be in this situation if the Logan County Commission six months ago would have acted on the wishes of the people."

Sowers, whose land adjoins that of Larry Haverfield ó a top-rated area for the reintroduction of the ferret ó said nothing was done on the land adjoining him.

"If theyíre going to poison prairie dogs, letís do it to everybody," Sowers said.

Sowers said he treats prairie dogs every year, but the animals keep encroaching on his land.

When he bought the land next to Haverfield four years ago, he had about 20 acres of prairie dogs.

"Today I have 400 acres," he said of the 900 acres of pasture that he owns. "I went out and treated every hole this spring. I thought I had a 99.9 percent kill.

"Today, I have them worse than the day I killed them," he said, noting that he spent nearly $3,000 in his eradication efforts.

There is some question, however, if the prairie dogs are moving from Haverfieldís land onto Sowersí or the reverse.

Few prairie dog mounds are visible on the Haverfield side of the fence, and most of them are relatively new. On the Sowersí side, the numbers are greater and the mounds older.

"To say the least, thereís a lot of agitation," Sowers said. "People are getting very upset. If the county would have done their duty back in March, we wouldnít have this problem today. Iím ready to eradicate them."

Even with near eradication, Sowers said he thinks they will repopulate the area.

"Theyíll come back," he said. "They told me they would travel up to 5 miles a year. I believe that. I think they might travel 10 (miles) a year. I think itís something that needs to be controlled."

As for the people who want prairie dogs, he thinks the responsibility should fall to them.

"Just make sure they keep their prairie dogs," he said. "If my cattle get out, Iím responsible for the damage. If their livestock ó or wildlife ó gets out, they should be responsible.

"Weíre all trying to be neighbors, to find something that everyone can live with. But at the end of five years, we know who will be controlling everything."

That five years would be the term of the experiment period for the ferret reintroduction program, and Sowers is convinced that the question of control no longer would be in the hands of Logan County.

Instead, he thinks the control would be in the hands of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the ferret reintroduction program.

n n n

Although no specific numbers are available, Denny Mackley knows Logan County has a prairie dog problem.

He is the noxious weed director, and the man whose duties include treating prairie dogs.

"I don't have a figure," he said of how many of the animals there are in his county. "I do know that Logan was the worst county in the state of Kansas."

Mackley uses Rozol to treat prairie dogs, a treated grain that is cause for concern for many because of the fear of residual deaths from anything that eats a poisoned dog.

All it takes is about a quarter cup ó roughly 2 ounces ó of the treated grain.

Rozol can only be used from Oct. 1 through March 15, primarily because of efficiency. In the summer months, prairie dogs shun the grain in favor of grass.

n n n

For Lillian Becker, prairie dogs are a question of ownership.

"I did not buy them," she said. "I did not invite them. So whose are they?"

Becker is just one of several Logan County residents who testified before the House Agriculture Committee earlier this year, urging passage of a new bill governing treatment of prairie dogs.

She also is one of a small handful of residents who allow hunting of the dogs for a fee.

Sheís also in favor of maintaining a prairie dog population and perhaps even the reintroduction of a black-footed ferret.

Part of her logic is simply because prairie dogs are native to the area.

"How are you going to eradicate something that is native?" she asked. "Thereís no way. You may say you're going to eradicate rattlesnakes. Youíre not going to do it.

"Whatís the difference between a bald eagle and a black-footed ferret?"

She also thinks the prairie dogs ó through fee hunts ó are a means of economic development, and one that Logan County desperately needs.

The hunters who pay to shoot prairie dogs on her land "stay in Oakley," she said. "They buy food donít they?"

She suggests that Logan County residents follow the proverbial advice of making lemonade from the lemons they have.

"We could bring big bucks into this area, and nobody wants to," she said.

And she argues that shooters offer an excellent method of controlling prairie dogs.

"We had a full year," she said of hunters. In June, every weekend and Tuesdays and Wednesdays were chock full. Depending on the weather, the shooters hit 40 percent to 70 percent of the shots they take.

"These are expert marksmen," she said. "They shoot no less than 200 rounds a day. You tell me weíre not controlling prairie dogs."

Hunters come in groups of anywhere from two to six, Becker said, and most shoot for two days.

"Weíve booked a lot of them for October," she said.

The fee hunting, Becker said, helps make up for the drought.

"We are making up for what we are losing on this drought," she said. "Nobody else is going to give you a handout. Itís just an economic management tool to use when you have to."

In the case of a failed corn crop, she said, farmers would cut it and turn it into silage for cattle.

"Thatís the way we feel about not being able to grow grass," she said of the effects of the drought. "Weíve made up some of the loss."

In addition to the fee hunting, Becker said they have spread out poison ó along the edges of the fields ó in an effort to keep the prairie dogs from spreading onto adjoining parcels of land.

Either way, she thinks they are contributing to efforts to control prairie dogs.

"Dead is dead," she said. "It doesnít make any difference if itís lead or poison."

Becker said they are also cautious and donít allow hunting from the highway, along Kansas Highway 25 north of Russell Springs.

"We don't allow shooting for nothing," she said. "We get a better quality, a wonderful quality when they pay because they donít want to mess it up."

While she is taking in money, the county is shelling it out ó using Rozol, a product she said is the most expensive.

She prefers using zinc phosphide, which she says is the cheapest and most reliable poison for prairie dogs.

"The secondary kill is not there," she said.

n n n

"We are in the process of trying to get the prairie dogs under control," Logan County Commissioner Carl Uhrich said.

Uhrich is perhaps the most strident opponent ó at least among the three-member commission ó of prairie dogs.

"I think we need to get our prairie dogs under control," he said. "And when we do, there wonít be any room left for black-footed ferrets."

Uhrich said a big part of Logan County is beset by prairie dogs, but he admits the worst is in the southwest corner and central area.

"They tell me weíre No. 1 in prairie dogs," he said of Logan County.

In response, the county is ready to take action.

"This winter weíre going to put two people on," he said of the crew that will be taking care of prairie dogs. "It just got out of hand in our county."

Last winter, he said, the county spent $200,000 on control of prairie dogs.

"Weíve made a dent in it," he said. "But weíve got a long ways to go."

But there are three or four landowners, he said, that want them.

"Theyíre large acreages, and thatís where the problem is," he said. "If they could keep them home, they could have all they want."

The county now is going to do more because other efforts have failed, he claims.

He even points to the Nature Conservancy, which owns a huge bloc of land in the county.

"They tried everything," he said. "They tried fencing. They poisoned."

n n n

The Nature Conservancy has indeed taken action and plans to take even more extraordinary action in future months.

Out of nearly 17,000 acres of land it owns, there are about 2,000 acres of prairie dogs.

"Our goal is to absolutely keep prairie dogs off of our neighbors," said Rob Manes, a spokesman for the Nature Conservancy.

But controlling the dogs is not an easy thing to do, theyíve found.

"We do want black-footed ferrets," Manes said. "If we can't have ferrets, weíre not fully realizing our goals."

First, he said, they are going to have to control the expansion of the prairie dogs.

"I think weíre going to have to use some physical barrier designs," he said.

And poison?

"Oh yes," he said.

Thatís in part because the county has the right to enter upon private property, poison the animals and then send the landowner a bill.

"We recognize that if we do not want the county to do that, we have to take care of our neighborís concerns," Manes said.

And they are concerned that the county just might do it for them.

"Certainly weíre concerned about it," he said. "Our goal and hope is that by taking care of our neighborís concerns we will prevent that."

Manes said he thinks the prairie dogs expanded over a bigger territory than what was expected.

"We didnít achieve what we thought we would," he said of the control effort.

And Manes admits the Nature Conservancy used Rozol in its efforts to kill prairie dogs.

"Thatís a huge controversy," he said. "Thereís a huge risk."

There also are fumigants available.

"Those compounds kill everything in the hole," he said. "weíre not going to do that."

In contrast with most concerns, Manes said the Nature Conservancy used Rozol because it presents fewer risks.

"Bottom line is we chose chlorophacinone (Rozol) because it clearly offers the least risk of poisoning non-target animals."

Prairie dogs at the Nature Conservancyís Smoky Valley Ranch are scattered throughout the area.

"Our management goal is to manage them away from the borders where theyíre causing the problems," he said. "We are going to be successful because we have to."

Related Stories

Meeting will discuss ferret reintroductionee County starts to poison prairie dogs Prairie dogs steal ferret's thunder Prairie dog battle turns legal in Logan Co. Turning neighbor against neighbor State struggles with prairie dog answer Return of black-footed ferret possible Russell Springs could lose its highway Prairie dogs divide Prairie dog fans few in number Attitudes toward prairie dogs mixed

And if the county chooses to enter upon the Nature Conservancy land?

"Iím not sure," he said. "Iím not sure how we would respond. Weíre not looking for a fight here. Weíre looking to be good neighbors.

"We hope it doesnít turn into a confrontational issue."

***

"My guess, if ferrets are introduced it will probably be on only one place," said Ron Klataske, executive director of Audubon of Kansas. "Thatís on Larryís. He has the most all around complex."

Larryís place is the almost 6,000 acres of land ó all of it prairie ó that is either owned or operated by Larry Haverfield.

"Thereís more groceries for ferrets on Larryís," he said. "And more space."

But thereís plenty left to do.

"Iíve talked to most of the landowners that have property around Larryís," he said. "Iíve been incredibly impressed with most of the folks ó on both sides of the issues.

"They like Larry, and they do appreciate his perspective on his management of his grassland. Theyíre willing to accept it if doesn't place a hardship on them."

Klataske is among those who recognize that prairie dogs expanded wider than normal this spring, and that is part of the reason for problems.

"Maybe they had good reproduction, or it was dry," he said. "Just an awful lot of them moved out into other lands. It created a disproportional problem for us and a practical problem for us."

Audubon is willing to take steps to reduce that "dispersal and keep them on the land where they are welcome."

Already, the group has a grant that they are looking at using to install poultry netting about 3 feet high, combined with electric wires close to the ground.

"Hopefully they will disperse back onto the same land where they are welcome," he said.

They also are looking at visual barriers ó taller grasses and forbs that would be allowed to grow up because cattle would be fenced off.

Klataske said they might be willing to pay farmers to have a strip of vegetation as a barrier.

"I have an $83,000 grant, private stewardship grant, that I would be willing to use provided there is accommodation by the neighbors," he said.

Money also would be available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to control prairie dogs if ferrets are reintroduced.

"Theyíve allocated $40,000 to K-State for these properties where the ferrets might be reintroduced," he said. "The idea is we want to lessen or eliminate any burden on surrounding landowners because we in the wildlife area would like to see prairie dogs retained and ferrets released."

Even though the Nature Conservancyís Smoky Valley Ranch has been mentioned as a possible candidate for ferret reintroduction, Klataske said the money Audubon has collected would be used for private landowners.

"It would be misleading of me to say that all of the landowners think that way," he said of people willing to take a look at different proposals that could allow for the release of the ferrets. "The majority of landowners think that all of the prairie dogs should be eliminated from Logan County."

Klataske agrees that the situation would be bad if the county moves ahead with its initial call to start controlling prairie dogs on Haverfieldís property come Oct. 1 ó the first day that poison can be used.

"Itís really going to be a messy situation if they do," he said.

The costs would be extensive, Klataske said, and there would be legal questions that need to be answered.

"We really want to avoid conflicts," he said. "I think itís possible. Do I think itís easy? No."

For now, he said, the biggest challenge is time.

"Our project is designed to move ahead with or without ferrets," Klataske said. "Weíd like to see a situation that prairie dogs continue to exist where people want them and pretty well leave dispersal where people donít want them," he said.

"This is either going to evolve into a great success story for land use and wildlife organizations or evolve into a tremendous conflict," he said. "I have been on both sides. I much prefer the eventual outcome become a success story.

"Winning in the courts will have a good feeling to it. Winning by partnership would be a great feeling."