Mollify negative attitudes
With the possible exception of plague, the most serious
threat to the long-term survival of prairie dogs is our own
species (Wuerthner 1997; Vermeire et al. 2004; Lamb et
al. 2006). Farmers complain that prairie dogs eat crops.
Ranchers argue that prairie dogs compete with livestock for
forage, and that horses and cows break legs when they step
into burrows. Other negative attitudes stem from concerns
about diseases such as plague and monkeypox, limits on ur-
ban development, losing local control over management,
and the restrictive nature of ESA. These complaints are
all legitimate, but commonly are exaggerated. Prairie dogs
do compete with livestock for some types of forage, for
example —but the presence of prairie dogs sometimes im-
proves the quality of certain plants, so that livestock often
prefer to forage at colony sites (see the preceding and Det-
ling 2006). Further, prairie dogs are especially likely to col-
onize areas that livestock already have overgrazed, and thus
commonly are the effect, rather than the cause, of over-
grazing (Koford 1958; Knowles 1986b; Detling 2006). A
horse or cow might break a leg after stepping into a prairie
dog burrow, but the probability of such a fracture is trivial
(Hoogland 1995). And a person might contract plague from
either a prairie dog or its fleas, but such transmission is ex-
ceedingly rare (Levy and Gage 1999). And so on. For suc-
cessful conservation, we must try to dispel myths and in-
accuracies about prairie dogs — an onerous task, because
these misconceptions have persisted for generations.
In 2001, the Interstate Prairie Dog Conservation Team
submitted a proposal to the United States Department of
the Interior that would provide financial incentives — and
thereby presumably would mollify negative attitudes — for
farmers and ranchers who agree to conserve prairie dogs.
The proposal contained six components that are important
to landowners (Luce et al. 2006): (1) provisions for flexibil-
ity in land management, including grazing by livestock that
is compatible with the needs of prairie dogs, (2) protec-
tion from future regulatory actions regarding prairie dogs,
(3) financial benefits, especially direct payments ($4.05 per
hectare per year, plus a one-time payment of $40.50 per
hectare), (4) assistance with management of colonies that
expand into areas not covered in the incentive program,
(5) freedom to use enrolled lands to generate income by
means that will not harm prairie dogs (e.g., ecotourism),
and (6) other features, such as allowances for wildlife-based
recreational income (e.g., off-site recreational shooting).
The proposal was not funded, but will serve as a blueprint
for future efforts.SummaryThe outlook for many endangered species is dim. For prai-
rie dogs, however,the potential for conservation is enor-
mous. Researchers have identified eighty-four focal areas
that are suitable for large sanctuaries, for example. With
the recent realization that the prairie dog is a keystone spe-
cies, many people now appreciate that prairie dogs are cru-
cial for the grassland ecosystems of western North Amer-
ica. And by surviving 200 years of shooting, poisoning, and
destruction of habitat, prairie dogs have demonstrated that
they can overcome formidable obstacles. With prudent con-
servation, the battle to save prairie dogs is one that we
can win (Hoogland 2006; Manes 2006; Miller and Reading
2006).Conservation of Prairie Dogs 477