dogs will remain at the new site for 1 week; most of the
others will perish as they disperse in search of their genetic
relatives back home (e.g., Radcliffe 1992; Long et al. 2006).
In the past 10 years or so, however, wildlife managers have
developed ploys that induce as many as 71% of translo-
cated prairie dogs to remain at their new colony site for
2 months, and most of the sedentary survivors rear off-
spring in the year after translocation (Long et al. 2005;
Shier 2006). One ploy is to mow tall vegetation at new col-
ony sites; another is to provide underground nest chambers;
a third is to move entire families together; and a fourth in-
volves temporary, large aboveground enclosures that deter
dispersal in the first week or so after translocation. With
these new techniques, translocation is now an excellent
mechanism by which we can initiate colonies in areas of
suitable habitat.
Reduce poisoning and recreational shooting
Because so many people disdain prairie dogs, regulations
are unlikely to halt all poisoning and shooting. If we em-
phasize the importance of focal areas and improve enforce-
ment of regulations there, however, then killing of prairie
dogs in these areas, at least, should cease.
Landowners sometimes profit by charging a fee for rec-
reational shooting of prairie dogs. Paradoxically, colonies
where marksmen pay to shoot might persist longer than
colonies with no shooting —because income from recre-
ational shooting gives landowners an incentive to manage
colonies for long-term survival (Reeve and Vosburgh 2006;
Hoogland 2006).
Stop plague
Plague is an introduced disease, and questions abound re-
garding transmission within and among colonies (see pre-
ceding and Barnes 1993; Cully et al. 2006). Consequently,
we cannot easily predict how plague will impede our ef-
forts to conserve prairie dogs. Three measures should help
to counter plague. (1) For now, we should give higher pri-
ority to conservation of focal areas that are in the plague-
free eastern one-third of the prairie dog’s geographic range
(Cully 2006; Proctor et al. 2006). (2) To kill fleas and
thereby halt transmission of plague, we should infuse bur-
rows with a biodegradable insecticide such as Deltadust
(Bayer Environmental Science, Montvale, New Jersey) at
the first sign that plague might be present (Seery et al. 2003;
Hoogland et al. 2004). Infusion also is an advisable pro-
phylactic for those colonies that are especially valuable for
some reason (e.g., research, habitat for black-footed fer-
rets). (3) Because of uncertainties with plague, the “precau-
tionary principle” should apply to the conservation of prai-
rie dogs — that is, as insurance against the unpredictable
loss of colonies to plague, we should designate more sanc-
tuaries than otherwise might seem necessary (Miller and
Reading 2005).Consider politics, legislation
Addition of the prairie dog to FLETWP would necessitate
federal regulations and restrictions for state governments
and private landowners. To avoid such entanglements, states
have responded in several ways. For example, the ten states
with prairie dogs (plus an eleventh state, Arizona, where
the prairie dog has been eradicated) have formed the In-
terstate Prairie Dog Conservation Team, from which a co-
operative plan for the conservation of prairie dogs has
emerged (Luce et al. 2006). Cooperation also is underway
between Native American tribes and states of Montana,
North Dakota, and South Dakota. Many county govern-
ments and extension agents, however, still oppose conser-
vation of prairie dogs, and continue to promote eradica-
tion. Will saving the prairie dog require its addition to
FLETWP? The answer to this pivotal question is not yet
clear (Hoogland 2006; Manes 2006; Miller and Reading
2006).
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) became effective in
1973 —before the full development of concepts such as vi-
able populations, keystone species, and ecological function.
In the last 30 years we have learned much about these is-
sues, but current ESA policy does not incorporate much of
this new information (Pyare and Berger 2003; Soulé et al.
2003). A strict legal interpretation of the current version
of ESA must focus on single species. USFWS (2000) has
argued, for example, that interspecific interactions are ir-
relevant for evaluating the status of prairie dogs under
ESA— even though black-footed ferrets, burrowing owls,
mountain plovers, and other organisms depend on prairie
dogs for survival (Kotliar et al. 2006). Strict legal interpre-
tation of ESA does not requireUSFWS to consider the eco-
logical role of prairie dogs in grassland ecosystems, but ESA
does allowsuch consideration (Miller and Reading 2006).
The USFWS website lists more than seventy-five recovery
plans that include multiple species or subspecies. For prai-
rie dogs and the grassland ecosystem, perhaps conservation
biologists can write a multispecies recovery plan similar to
the South Florida Multispecies Recovery Plan for the Ever-
glades, which considers sixty-eight species (USFWS 1998).
A single multispecies recovery plan will be more economi-
cal and more effective than separate plans for prairie dogs
and the many species that depend on them for survival
(Miller and Reading 2006).476 Chapter Forty