T
he black-tailed prairie dog(Cynomys lu-
dovicianus,hereafter “prairie dog”) currently in-
habits 2% of the area that it occupied about
200 years ago (Manes 2006; Proctor et al. 2006). In re-
sponse to this precipitous decline, the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined in 2000 that the
prairie dog should be added to the Federal List of En-
dangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (FLETWP;
USFWS 2000; see also Manes 2006). In 2004, USFWS re-
versed its earlier designation by concluding that the prai-
rie dog is no longer a candidate species (USFWS 2004;
Manes 2006). Regardless of designation, the inescapable
conclusion is that prairie dog populations have decreased
sharply over the last 200 years, are still declining today
throughout much of the geographic range, and need better
conservation.
In this chapter I examine factors that have contributed
to the decline of the prairie dog, its ecological importance,
and ways to promote its longterm survival. I focus my
discussion on the black-tailed prairie dog, the species of
Cynomysfor which we have the most information. Almost
every argument also applies to the other four species of
prairie dogs. The Mexican prairie dog (C. mexicanus) is on
FLETWP (USFWS 1970), as is the rarest species of all, the
Utah prairie dog (C. parvidens;USFWS 1984; Roberts et al.
2000). White-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs (C. leucu-
rusand C. gunnisoni) are currently under consideration for
FLETWP as well (Center for Native Ecosystems et al. 2002;
Rosmarino 2004).
At least four aspects regarding the conservation of prai-
rie dogs are noteworthy. First, we usually know little about
the natural history of species that are under consideration
for FLETWP. Prairie dogs, by contrast, have been the focus
of several longterm studies (King 1955; Tileston and Lech-
leitner 1966; Halpin 1983, 1987; Knowles 1985, 1987;
Garrett and Franklin 1988; Hoogland 1995, 2003, chap. 37
this volume). The prospects thus are higher than usual for
using information on ecology, demography, and population
dynamics to formulate realistic, promising plans for con-
servation. Second, many endangered animals affect only a
small geographic area. The northern Idaho ground squir-
rel (Spermophilus brunneus), for example, is on FLETWP
and inhabits only two counties in west-central Idaho (Clark
2000; Sherman and Runge 2002; Yensen and Sherman
2003). The prairie dog, by contrast, inhabits ten states (Hol-
lister 1916; Pizzimenti 1975), and its perceived impact on
ranching and farming in these states is gargantuan. Third,
people rarely see individuals of most endangered species,
and, except for accounts in the media, are unaware of their
existence. Prairie dogs, by contrast, are highly conspicu-
ous, because they are diurnal and live in large colonies, and
because they frequently fight, chase, kiss, and allogroom
aboveground (King 1955). Fourth, the rarity of most en-
dangered species has resulted, incidentally rather than de-
liberately, from anthropocentric activities such as conver-
sion of habitat for agriculture, suppression of fire, and
construction of factories and houses (Yensen and Sherman
1997, 2003). These incidental activities also have contrib-
uted to the decline of prairie dogs, but in addition has
been a war specifically against prairie dogs over the last