HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061308.tiff /� �/q� c COLORADO CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
/7„,4
THE NATION'S OLDEST SINCE 1867
C/ZZ'Zd yzz v :62 L�
TERRY It FANKHAUSER
(L-?-e-la
%, F )-. -7 ' Executive Vice President
� /��y 8833 RALSTON ROAD (303)431-6422
//, '/ / ARVADA,CO 80002-2239 FAX:(303)431-6446
2/ 7 5L J 6 1, / n<;71///
/// Visit
n site W r wwadocac ndocaalearg
_ wEmaiL cer coloradonrck.org
i 70' 32
5/ 7 '�
�-L - : ° /�
7 (-
te CY ,,,t ,w—c--c,<-1-ei_ L-Lit"
=9' c
S 22t
0001/7fon//r/ it4/3 2006-1308
April 24, 2006
Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest
And Pawnee National Grassland Supervisors Office
Attn: Karen Roth
2150 Centre Ave. Bldg. E
Fort Collins, Co. 80526
To the Forest Service;
I received a letter from Forest Service District Ranger, Steven Curry concerning the
proposal to manage prairie dogs on the Pawnee National Grassland. I am very
disappointed in this letter and its contents. There are not any definite answers to the
questions and concerns I and many others have been expressing. The more I read this
letter,the more I become concerned and confused as to what you are planning to do.
1. I have been told many times that the Forest Service wants to be a good neighbor.
As many of you know,the prairie does from the Forest Service land have
invaded my land and caused me much expense,frustration,hard work and
damage to my property. This damage has resulted in a loss of forage which is
badly needed for my cows in this thought. I have done all within my means to
control the prairie dogs but it is a losing battle for me.
2. Your letter states that the prairie dog population is expanding in acreage by
approximately 12%per year. I go from 0 acres two years ago to over 50 acres at
the present time. Twenty one months ago I had 250 holes. I have done all I
can to control the prairie dogs and now I have over 750 holes because the
prairie dogs continue to come onto my land from Forest Service land. The
Central Plains Experimental Station had 72 acres of prairie dogs in 1999 and 972
acres in 2005. That is about a 60% increase per year, much more than a 12%
increase. I feel that 12%per year is too much of an increase.
3. This letter states that there are 44000 acres of suitable prairie dog habitat on the
Pawnee Grasslands. You state that there will be a minimum of 200 acres of
black-tailed prairie dog colonies and no restriction on the upper population size. I
am assuming that means we could have 44000 acres of prairie dogs,44000 acres
out of 193000 acres. I feel that is totally unacceptable. The old plan was for a
maximum of 1000 acres. I don't think any of us would object to 1000 acres of
prairie dogs if they were not allowed to move on to privately owned land.
4. I had always felt the Forest Service wanted to be good stewards of the land. We
are not allowed to overgraze it with our cattle and now the prairie dogs are
severely damaging the prairie grasses which means less forage for the
permittes cows for grazing. In areas where there are prairie dog towns it looks
like it has been terribly abused, and it has. The forage on Forest Service land on
WCR 108 and WCR 53 looks to be completely destroyed. There is nothing there
for any animals to eat. Now the wind causes more erosion. Is this being a good
steward and taking care of our fragile prairie?
5. I have been told by Forest Service personnel that there would be a buffer zone
between prairie dog towns on Forest Service land and private land. Now.Mr.
Curry says there will be no buffer zone. That is unacceptable. I understand the
Forest Service in South Dakota is to maintain a 1 mile buffer zone. I feel 2 miles
would be more appropriate but I would be thankful for 1 mile. That would at
least give us a chance to control the prairie dog population on our private land.
6. I have been told by Forest Service personnel that the plague would help to keep
the prairie dog population under control. Now you say you might use pesticides
as a tool for reducing flea populations to prevent the plague. I don't find this
acceptable.
7. Your letter states that the PNG would respond to requests from adjacent
landowners and would take action when prairie dogs from the PNG encroach
onto adjacent lands. How will you respond and when will you take action? This
statement leaves it wide open for you to do as you please or do nothing. We need
definite answers as to what you will do and how soon you will do it.
8. I am concerned when you say economic feasibility of tools would be considered
prior to taking any action. Does that mean you might say it is not economically
feasible to control the prairie dogs on FS land to keep them from moving to
private land?
9. The letter states that non-lethal forms of control would be considered first in all
cases where removal of prairie dogs from an area is necessary. What other form
of control could or would you use, other than relocation?
Please, Forest Service, be the good neighbor instead of just talking about it. Please limit
the number of acres of prairie dogs,establish a buffer zone and take better care of
our grasslands. How about some common sense in taking care of the Pawnee
Grasslands and the adjoining lands.
Sincerely,
53/��ze c- _-
Mary Kanode
54501 WCR 53
Ault, Co. 80610
970-834-2190
CC:
Senator Wayne Allard
Commisioner Dave Long
Govenor Bill Owens
Senator Ken Salazar
Congresswomen Marilyn Musgrave
Deputy Forest Supervisor Jackie Parks
CCA Executive Vice President Terry Frankhauser
USDA State Director of APHIS Michael Yeary
Hello