Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

If the prairie dogs eat ALL of the vegetation, then why don't they die for lack of food?

I have seen them travel surprising distances to forage for the feed they need to survive. Over a period of years the area that has been grazed to bare dirt will not support the numbers compared to areas that have more feed. The number of active mounds does decrease.

Adequate rainfall is factor in all this also. If there is enough rain in the spring and summer to keep the grass growing, ranchers will often tolerate a few dog towns as there is enough grass for all. With many ranchers facing an 8 year drought in some areas, the ranchers are forced to poison to try to keep what grazing land they have. The problem is during drought conditions, pds after eating the grass, will dig the roots up and consume them. This leaves the ground bare, and will be many years before the grass will come back in those areas. In the dog towns I shoot it is common to see bare dirt "flats" that can be the size of a football field.

quote:

Third, as several have observed, disease is a significant threat and comes and goes in somewhat irregular but almost certain cycles. I suppose that if a sudden influx of a pathogen hit a town that had been recently been shot heavily then there would be a chance that the town might not recover, whereas it might have recovered if a larger population left more potential disease survivors. This would be D99's "seed" argument and it deserves some consideration; ie., when shooting gets scarce, move on to another town.

It would seem that way, but is not. The plague is transmitted by fleas. The closer contact there is with other individuals in the town the quicker the plague will spread. The more a town is spread out the better it is able to resist or survive a plague. It can be compared to the spread of flu in humans. When a school is overcome with the flu, they send the students home for a few days to get them away from each other.

It is my opinion a town that is "thinned" by shooting is better able to survive. And many small towns are preferable to one huge town. This opinion comes from observations of towns in 4 states that host the most pd shooters in the world, and regular die-offs from the plague.

quote:

This thread has been a great discussion, and I'm glad that people are paying attention to the prairie dog as an environmental, ecological, and recreational asset.

I agree.

Jim

I probably will never have the opportunity again to shoot any more prarie dogs but I sure enjoyed the shared information in this thread. I can only imagine how debased this thread would have become ,say, three months ago. roger

Thanks pdhntr1, good comments.

Your observation about the thinner colonies being less subject to disease is accurate and I would have mentioned it except that my post was already growing too long.

Hey pdhntr 1

I am am just curious , you mentioned finding shooting years back in NE SDak ?

I was just wondering where abouts you found them ?

Very few dogs left east river these days .

Posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

I think that some of the arguments here from both extremes are overblown:

First of all, prairie dog towns cover such a relatively small percentage of a given piece of grazing land that the amount of forage they do or do not consume is de minimus (Latin for "doesn't amount to shit") as far as livestock production. If your 11,000 acre ranch were 100% prairie dog town, or even 10% prarie dog town, then you might be financially damaged by prairie dogs. But the small percentage of the acreage actually impacted by prairie dogs is, except for the most extreme cases, economically insignificant.

My question is when does the economically insignificant acreage combined with other factors become economically significant? So much of the Farming and Ranching industry operates on unknown factors that it is easy for the prairie dog to catch the brunt of the land owner’s frustration. I don't want to see these little guys on the brink of extinction because I enjoy the hours of recreation they give me and my friends. I am however able to see the other side of the argumnet as well from a land owner's point of view.

There are about 600 acres of land occupied by prairie dogs on my Fathers ranch, which means around an $8000 dollar loss to him each year. Calf prices were down last fall because of high corn prices which cost my Father another $20 dollars per hundred pounds sold. He sold around 250 calves averaging 500 pound each, so that was a loss of $25,000 from the previous years. We had a hail storm that wiped out all the feed that he was raising to feed his cattle all winter with so he has had to buy feed all winter that when all is said and done will probably have cost him over $50,000. Plus then you add in the other cost of operating a Ranch such as equipment repairs, fuel costs, and property maintenance everything adds up. So to say that prairie dogs are economically insignificant is a gross understatement.

How much would that extra $8000 dollars a year go to helping you pay off your debts, if you have any. For most people and extra $8000 a year would dramatically lower the number of years they would have to pay on a mortgage. The prairie dog is just something that the farmer and rancher can have some control of on their property, because they haven’t figured out how to control the weather or manipulate the markets into their favor.

Just a little food for thought.

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
Hey pdhntr 1

I am am just curious , you mentioned finding shooting years back in NE SDak ?

I was just wondering where abouts you found them ?

Very few dogs left east river these days .

OK, who the hell moved Mobridge?? It has been many years since I have been through there and I thought it was more east than central. Sorry about that. It should read North Central Sodak.

Regardless, that is actually where I got the "addiction". There was a few small towns on the east side of the river. My first shoot was with my M1917 sporterized 30-06, my winchester model 94 in 32 special and a 22.

I recall one town that was no more than 30 acres, but had a hill on the west side that overlooked the river. I rolled out a blanket on the ground overlooking that town and didn't move all day. I would shoot maybe 4 or 5 shots per hour as they were quite gun shy. I still thought I was in Heaven.

Jim

OK , yeah still quite a few dogs across the river from Mobridge .

As long as the cost of using poison is less than the cost of damage done by PDs, ranchers will poison. I load the truck, leave South FL and head for KS, WY and MT to satisfy my addiction(a long, long drive). The last two years ranchers have told me that they will poison. I understand why they do it but it sure makes it hard on me. More time is spent finding a place to hunt than shooting.

Good points made in this discussion (for the most part)and thanks. 600 shots per 10 day, 60 an hour or one each minute seems a little much. Even half of that does not leave time to enjoy other aspects of being there. IMHO, there is more to it than the shooting.

Leave only truck tracks and dead PDs! Dan

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Dan:
...The last two years ranchers have told me that they will poison. I understand why they do it but it sure makes it hard on me. More time is spent finding a place to hunt than shooting....

And hence the handle pdhntr, not shooter.

Because I understand your "condition", if we ever meet on a dog town, I will respectfully give up my rights to it as you are doing some serious time getting there driving from south Fl.

And I totally agree with you on the "other aspects of being there".

Welcome to AR.

Jim

Jim: That would be too much; I'd offer a cold bottle of water, conversation and then shoot together. Dan

I hunt them on a ranch here in SD that I also deer hunt on. The rancher wants ALL of them gone. In one section of pasture there is ZERO grass!! He can't even put his cattle in that section anymore. He has resorted to poisoning them because not enough of them were getting shot. The next year they were back in force. They are very gun shy now, shoot once and wait for 15 minutes till you see another one. They are vermin, rats and will eat their own. They are not pets!! The dead get eaten by yotes, badgers etc. So I'm also helping that population.

The ranch that I hunt on in Wyoming is even worse. The ranch is HUGE and 1 town that we shoot is VERY BIG. The rancher gave me strict orders to kill them, NOT educate them! If I don't shoot enough, he'll find somebody who will.

Both ranches make their money from cattle...NOT pdogs. I have seen calves with broke legs because of pdog holes, not a pretty site. I would rather shoot pdogs instead of cows!

D99: I would love to hear why you hate bowhunters! Yes, I have shot Pdogs with my bow...I guess you really hate me now!!!!!

There is an article in the latest Varmint Hunter quarterly magazine that comments on the findings of a study from Colorado about prairie dog populations and their influence on cattle weight. It seems there is a direct negative correlation.
VHA seems to be a quality organization.