Black-tailed prairie dog conservation: a new approach for a 21st century challenge. (cases).

Abstract

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)policy is highly contentious. We use the policy sciences to examine how prairie dog conservation became so controversial and suggest ways to increase the prospects for success. We begin by describing the context of prairie dog management--who is involved and how they interact. Stakeholders with diverse values, strategies, sources of power, goals, and demands conflict in their struggle to influence prairie dog management. This conflict stems from the diverse perspectives and interactions of those involved, including ranchers, conservationists, animal rights activists, agency personnel prairie dog shooters, developers, and the general public. We next examine management and policy responses to the problem. The agencies have begun responding, but are largely offering a replay of old ideas, perspectives, and patterns of interaction that contributed to the decline of prairie dogs. The current mixed federal and state agency program is highly fragmented, and likely will meet with limited success. Progress has been plagued by a narrow focus on biological issues, agency inertia, powerful special interest political forces, and negative attitudes. To improve matters, we suggest keeping participation open and including all stakeholders. We further recommend using adaptive, interdisciplinary, and multi-method approaches. Using a "best practices" approach would capitalize and build on past successes. Only by improving conservation practices can we hope to restore the black-tailed prairie dog to levels that permit it to function as a keystone species across the Great Plains.

Introduction

The ongoing conflict about black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) policy is one of the most contentious wildlife conservation issues in the United States. In 1999, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated the black-tailed prairie dog as a "candidate species" for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). One journalist said "[S]ome worry that any effort to protect prairie dogs will ignite a range war between endangered species advocates and landowners." Broadly speaking, the overall goal of prairie dog management, and the assemblage of associated species (i.e. the prairie dog ecosystem), is to ensure the ecosystem's viability in well-distributed populations in ways that benefit from broad public support (Clark et al. 1989). Achieving this goal is proving very difficult in practice because "Today's West is at war over natural resources, with wildlife the refugees" (Frasier 1999:A8). How did this issue move to the top of controversies? In this paper we examine this and other questions and suggest ways to achieve prairie dog conservation in a more co-operative, practical way.

We begin by describing the context of prairie dog management--who is involved and how they are interacting. Next we examine management and policy responses to the problem. Finally, we offer recommendations to improve matters. We use the policy sciences in our analysis, which requires that we address both the content (e.g., biology) and procedures (e.g., human interaction) involved (Clark et al. 2001; Clark 2002). We have more than 35 years combined experience in prairie dog management. We seek to contribute constructively to prairie dog conservation, lessen the conflict involved in the current effort, and achieve a successful conclusion in the common interest.

Who is involved? What are their perspectives?

For decades prairie dog policy was characterized by stability. Soon after Europeans began settling the Great Plains to ranch and farm, the U.S. Government embarked on a campaign to eradicate prairie dogs. At that time, around 1900, biologists estimated that prairie dogs inhabited 41 million hectares (Mac et al. 1998). Prairie dogs were classified as agricultural pests. Near consensus existed among scientists (most employed by the United States Department of Agriculture), livestock ranchers, and other appointed and elected government officials that these rodents consumed as much as 50 to 75% of the forage available for cattle and must be diligently controlled (Division of the Biological Survey 1902; Merriam 1902; State of Colorado 1915; Jones 2000).

The prairie dog issue became salient because the situation changed; new players with a new set of demands gained power in the political arena. By 1960, prairie dog populations had dwindled to about 600,000 hectares--a reduction of more than 98%. The 1960s also brought a rise in citizen environmental consciousness with social movements devoted to reducing industrial pollution and saving declining species. The new science of conservation biology emerged and often conflicted with science serving industrial and agricultural constituencies. Though the U.S. had some early wildlife conservation laws on the books (e.g., the Lacey Act of 1900 protected some game animals and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 regulated hunting of designated birds), the 1973 Endangered Species Act brought a sea change with sweeping protection for plant and animal species deemed endangered or threatened.

The contemporary prairie dog sociopolitical arena reflects a tension rooted in these shifts. In 1998 black-tailed prairie dogs covered only 280,000 to 320,000 hectares (Biodiversity Legal Foundation 1998; National Wildlife Federation 1998). The further decline of prairie dogs is no longer universally viewed as the success of science and technology to control an agricultural pest, but also as a failure to protect a species important to an entire ecosystem. The data and what they mean for policy are highly disputed among interested groups. The movie Varmints captures much of the conflicting views of people involved in contemporary prairie dog management (Hawes-Davis 1998). The complexity, and conflict, stems from the diverse perspectives of people now involved and the way they choose to interact with one another. Currently, many well-organized groups hold deeply-felt, but contradictory views on prairie dog management. To understand the issue requires that we know who is involved and why. Each participant has a unique vantage point, holds special interests, and often "defines" the problem in a narrow and incomplete manner that reflects these interests; thus each viewpoint proposes a different solution (Weiss 1989).

Ranchers

The agricultural industry generally wants prairie dogs eliminated or held at low numbers. Ranchers believe that prairie dogs reduce forage and crops available for their livestock and livelihood. More broadly, they feel a changing economy and culture threaten their traditional lifestyle. They also see that they are losing control over public and private grazing lands, particularly when species are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Ranchers' views of prairie dogs are an outgrowth of a worldview that promotes domination over nature, libertarianism, an endless frontier, and the control of nature for economic gain. Ranchers use their beliefs, the powerful symbol of the American cowboy, and their traditional influence over local politicians to support their interests.

Conservationists

These participants view prairie dogs as a native keystone species and demand their protection. They tend to be motivated to conserve and expand prairie dog populations because of their importance to prairie ecosystems. The root of this viewpoint lies in assumptions and philosophies associated with ecological and conservation thought, the right-to-existence for all organisms, and changing human relationships to the natural world (Kellert 1995). The myth challenges other popular and powerful myths that define quality of life in solely economic terms, instead arguing that society should balance some economic growth for a healthy environment. Powerful symbols include wilderness, endangered species, and charismatic animals. Proponents largely distrust and often vilify big business (e.g., corporate America) and natural resource extractors, including many, if not most, ranchers.

Animal rights activists

Animal rights activists want decreased human impact on the environment and desire an end to pain and suffering to prairie dogs caused by poisoning and other extermination methods. They support extending legal rights to animals that are now reserved for humans (Wise 2000), including prairie dogs. The views of animal rights activists can be traced to the urban animal welfare movement, and developed into a powerfully organized interest in the last few decades (Rudacille 1998). These stakeholders, often in conjunction with conservationists, demand increased involvement in wildlife and public land management and often use lawsuits, media publicity, and appeals to public pressure, including citizen ballot initiatives, to achieve their interests.

Agency personnel

Federal, state, local, and tribal agency personnel hold personal views that vary greatly, but can be quite similar within a single agency. Despite multiple use mandates, most agencies are strongly influenced by a more limited number of special interests (e.g., hunters, loggers, miners, or ranchers), and this influence is manifest in policies that often clash with the common interest (Meier 1993). In extreme cases, this leads to agency "capture" by a special interest group that the agency was created to manage or regulate (Clarke and McCool 1985). There are also straggles for power among the agencies (Fischer 2000). State, local, and tribal government personnel maintain an interest in maximizing power vis a vis the federal government, especially in the western U.S. Despite these differences, some broad generalizations among agencies are possible. Agency personnel generally embrace the "technical rationalist/expert" role (see Clark 1997). In this view, control of nature for human purposes is both possible and desirable, and professional resource managers should be entrusted with making decisions and manipulating nature. With respect to prairie dogs, formal agency policy at all levels resulted in substantial prairie dog declines over past decades. Today, most agencies seek to keep prairie dogs off the endangered species list, and often this goal appears to be more important than species conservation (e.g., see BLM 2000; EDAW 2000; NGPC 2001). In addition, an anti-prairie dog attitude remains strong among wildlife professionals and especially land managers, but this is changing (Reading 1993).

Recreational shooters

Recreational shooters form a small but vocal stakeholder group. They want prairie dogs to be abundant enough to serve as live targets for their shooting. Shooters view themselves as highly skilled agents of control for agricultural pests and identify with the agricultural community. They mostly embrace a libertarian view, one that is an offshoot of the frontier/cowboy worldview. Prairie dog shooters want free access to public lands for hunting with minimal government regulation, and they support continued shooting opportunities provided on many public lands and Indian reservations. They influence prairie dog management by actively promoting their interests and enlisting support of ranchers, gun rights activists, and local businesses that benefit from their pursuits.

Developers

Developers play a restricted role in the prairie dog management debate, but they are key stakeholders along Colorado's Front Range, for example. Developers focus on generating wealth for themselves and view prairie dogs as pests that interfere with urban development. As housing tracks are put in, prairie dogs are killed or relocated. Developers are searching for inexpensive solutions to the prairie dog management challenge that will permit them to continue developing land (e.g., exterminate or move animals in the way of development).

General Public

The American public is diverse, and most citizens are unaware of the prairie dog conservation problem. However, public support for conserving wildlife is strong. For example, a survey by Czech and Krausman (1997) found 84% of the public support the current ESA or would like it strengthened. Some publics, such as homeowners living near urban prairie dog colonies, are a part of the development debate. Zinn and Andelt (2001) found that support for prairie dogs increased with the distance respondents lived from prairie dog colonies in the city of Fort Collins, Colorado. Alternatively, some of the most vocal supporters of prairie dogs in urban environments are people living near the colonies who like to watch the animals or recognize their ecological importance (Prairie Dog Coalition 2002). Fox-Parrish (2002) found that antagonism toward prairie dogs increased as their exposure to and experience with prairie dogs increased among the general public in rural Kansas. Many Native Americans with traditional cultural beliefs consider prairie dogs to be a species with which they are intimately interconnected. They demand that everyone can and should be more connected to nature, that all species are important, and that therefore the tribes are obligated to protect and restore native communities on reservation lands.

Prairie dogs

Black-tailed prairie dogs are participants in this issue too, as are a myriad of other associated species. Prairie dogs are one-kilogram ground squirrels that live in colonies of strongly defended family groups, known as "coteries" (Hoogland 1995). One of five species of prairie dogs, the black-tailed form is the only species that inhabits the Great Plains, ranging over most of the short and mid-grass prairies from southern Canada to northern Mexico. Because they are colonial and live in burrows they excavate, and constantly clip tall vegetation, prairie dogs alter the grassland ecosystem's structure, processes, and composition (Kotliar et al. 1999). To ecologists, these changes indicate their importance as a "keystone species" that enriches ecosystem function in a unique and significant way disproportionate to their abundance (Miller et al. 2000). Their interest, to the extent their interest can be known, appears to be for continuation of their species and individual well-being. Miller and Reading (2002) list eight threats facing black-tailed prairie dogs: continued habitat destruction; uncontrolled recreational shooting; introduced diseases (especially plague); inadequate regulatory mechanisms by government agencies; continued and widespread poisoning; the inability of prairie dogs to respond evolutionarily to present threats; lack of adaptive management; and negative attitudes toward prairie dogs.

Right or wrong, humans will decide the prairie dogs' fate. The categories delineated above provide a general characterization of the players involved in prairie dog policy. Many participants fall into more than one category; much variance exists within categories. Intensity of belief and the degree to which individuals are willing to work with other groups vary as well. However, conflict and polarization largely typify interactions between groups in the prairie dog policy arena that have included lawsuits, arrests of activists at protests, and even threats of violence (Gutierrez 1998; Proskocil 1999; Fong 1999). While some debate can be constructive, unmanaged conflict can erode trust in government institutions and lead to policy failure.

Prairie dogs as a policy problem

Defining the prairie dog "problem" practically is a challenge. As Weiss (1989:97) noted, "problem definition is a package of ideas that includes, at least implicitly, an account of the cause and consequences of undesirable circumstances and a theory about how to improve them." Key questions include: "Just what is the problem?;" "How big is it?;" and "Who is it a problem for?;" as well as "What might be done about it?" Prairie dog conservation is about making choices, like "How will the prairie dog ecosystem be managed?" and "Who gets to decide?" In other words, it is largely a human value problem in decision-making, although many technical elements are involved. In fact, much of the behind-the-scenes politics is masked by technical discussions. The answers to the last two questions are determined by who has authority and, especially, control of the management process. Authority means having the right to make a decision, and control means having the power to carry out an action in the face of opposition.

Prairie dogs on the political agenda

Black-tailed prairie dogs made it onto the U.S. political agenda as a conservation issue in 1998 when several conservationists petitioned the USFWS to list the species as threatened under the ESA (National Wildlife Federation 1998; Biodiversity Legal Foundation et al. 1998). The USFWS had rejected an earlier petition filed by Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Sharps (1995).

Following the second petition, all participants positioned themselves either for or against the petition and utilized their resources to substantiate or refute its claim that prairie dogs were or were not in need of special help. In some cases, participants recognized that prairie dogs needed protection, but stated that they favored local control over federal listing as the best way to manage the species. Persuasion as well as coercion were used to influence the evolving definition of the prairie dog conservation "problem," shape a preferred" solution," and control the overall decision-making process to the maximum extent possible (see Clark 1997). Attention during this phase focused on the USFWS. Ranchers and government agencies, especially state agencies, largely opposed listing. The states, in particular, banded together to form an anti-listing coalition.

Caught between savvy conservationists, ranchers, and state governments, often backed by their representatives in the U.S. Congress, the USFWS took the most risk-averse path. The agency decided to designate the species as "warranted" for listing as threatened under ESA, but "precluded" it from listing because of other, higher priority species that needed attention first (USFWS 1999). The USFWS appeared reluctant to grant prairie dogs candidate species status, and so far has abdicated its responsibility to protect a species it accepts as meeting the requirements for ESA protection. The USFWS's 90-day and 12-month findings supported a definition of the problem as articulated in the petitions, that prairie dog populations had indeed declined by as much as 99% due to threats including habitat loss, plague, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and long-term rodent control (USFWS 1999; USFWS 2000). This move sent shock waves through the Western cattle and real estate industries (Matthews 1999:8). The "warranted, but precluded," or candidate species, designation focused the controversy that had been brewing for years and fueled great activity by agricultural interests, government land and wildlife management agencies, nongovernmental conservation organizations, scientists, and others (e.g., Predator Conservation Alliance 2001; Thacker 2001; Prairie Dog Coalition 2002).

The agencies respond

In response to the candidate species designation, federal land management agencies made some prairie dog management changes. The U.S. Forest Service declared a temporary moratorium on poisoning prairie dogs within National Grasslands. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management also ceased poisoning prairie dogs on land it manages, and both agencies began more active prairie dog conservation, such as temporary shooting bans. The USFWS recommended including incentives for landowners in the 2002 farm bill to pay landowners for helping to conserve prairie dogs. But the USFWS basically turned prairie dog management over to the states that had lobbied for control of implementation, moving the states to center stage. A directive to them that "doing nothing" was not a policy option accompanied delegation of authority to the states. The USFWS retains oversight of states' efforts and reviews the status of candidate species each year.

The states have begun responding to the USFWS's "warranted, but precluded" ruling, but progress toward prairie dog conservation has been slow. The 11 states within the range of the black-tailed prairie dog formed the Interstate Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team and produced a conservation plan, the "Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Assessment and Strategy" with subsequent draft addendums, to conserve the species and address factors causing its decline (Van Pelt 1999; Luce 2001a, 2002). The draft interstate plan's main goal appears to be to prevent listing prairie dogs under the ESA and the associated loss of control over management (Miller and Cully 2001). That goal arguably takes precedence over recovery of the species--a classic case of goal substitution driven by competition for power. Throughout the draft plans, recovery is never discussed as such; instead, the plans refer to prairie dog conservation with respect to precluding the need for listing under the ESA (Luce 2002).

The objectives of the draft interstate plan "... set an adaptive management strategy target to increase occupied acreage [of prairie dog colonies] to exceed 1% of historic range in the next 10 years (by 2011)," while stating that present acreage figures are "slightly less than 1% of historic (Luce 2002:13)." Thus, the plan is striving for a vague goal that is just marginally better than the status quo. In addition, the plan never clarifies how success or failure in adaptive management will be assessed, or how the plan will be adapted or terminated. The draft interstate plan goes on to call for conducting additional research and monitoring, identifying focal areas that contain high densities of prairie dogs, creating financial incentives for cooperating landowners who conserve prairie dogs, and increasing regulation of and oversight over prairie dog shooting and poisoning (Luce 2001c, 2002). The draft plan also permits unrestricted shooting and calls for providing money to cooperating landowners for poisoning, even if a state remains below its target objectives for prairie dog acreage.

After three years, the interstate plan remains in draft form, but all states are developing conservation plans and some states have begun taking action (Luce 2001b). For example, a few states have removed "pest" species designations from prairie dogs and others are working toward that end (Predator Conservation Alliance 2001). A number of state agencies have also started regulating prairie dog poisoning and shooting, which were formerly unlimited (Luce 2002). Arizona, Colorado, and South Dakota have already banned shooting for part or all of the year, primarily on public land (Luce 2002). In 2002, Colorado started a $600,000 pilot program that uses lottery money to provide financial incentives to landowners that conserve prairie dogs (Davis 2002). Other initiatives include developing education programs and exploring the use of regulatory amendments to the ESA to encourage participation by landowners, tribes, and state agencies, such as Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances.

Annual reviews by the USFWS and states claim the agencies are making adequate progress (USFWS 2001; Luce 2001b). Indeed, some progress has been realized at the federal and state level, but it has been slow to arrive. Conservation efforts thus far have been largely evaluated by the agencies themselves; a task ideally conducted by an external organization with no stake in the outcome (Kleiman et al. 2000). Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming already claim that they exceed the target figures laid out in their individual state plans. (Luce 2002). Colorado and Wyoming suggest they already exceed the draft interstate plan's target figures (CDOW 2002; Luce 2002).

What the states have so far proposed and carded out is necessary for prairie dog conservation, but far from sufficient. Calls for more research, frequent meetings, and regular revising of the draft plan give the impression that the states are working toward conservation goals, but these activities are not substitutes for effective policy and real action. The draft interstate plan promotes traditional decision-making, without fully addressing how the states will reverse their lack of success in protecting the prairie dog ecosystem to date. Instead, the interstate plan, the perspectives behind it, and the interests it serves, offer a replay of old ideas and patterns of interaction that have for decades contributed to the decline of prairie dogs. As a result, current prairie dog conservation efforts are plagued by a narrow focus on biological issues, agency inertia, powerful special interest political forces, and negative human attitudes toward prairie dogs. In addition, agencies have dominated conservation planning, with little input from other important stakeholders.

One of the most significant deficiencies of the interstate and individual state plans are their failure to provide mechanisms for addressing the sociopolitical factors affecting prairie dog conservation policy. The plans fail to establish how the states will manage their political environments, such as powerful conservative governors, agricultural lobbies, urban and suburban developers, and conservation interest groups. For example, how will the interstate plan address the fact that politically powerful stakeholders (e.g., ranchers) hold strongly negative attitudes toward prairie dogs that leads them to continue fighting conservation initiatives and arguing for continued poisoning (e.g., see Reeder 2002). Both state and federal agencies have pitched simplistic solutions to this problem. For example, the agencies advocate landowner incentives as a primary tool to protect the species. While potentially helpful, incentives are insufficient, as they do little to address the underlying negative attitudes toward prairie dogs held by many stakeholders (Reading et al. 1999; Lamb et al. 2001; Fox-Parrish 2002). Ranchers are already resisting voluntary measures, even financial incentives that reward prairie dog protection on private land (Omaha-World Herald 2002). Indeed, an incentive program in Colorado was largely unsuccessful in finding ranchers willing to participate, possibly because they dislike prairie dogs for far more than financial reasons (e.g., prairie dogs are seen as symbols of poor land stewardship, a loss of control over public and private land, outsiders telling them what to do, and threats to their lifestyles; Reading and Kellert 1993; Reading et al. 1999). There is a also risk of non-compliance to new rules, especially poisoning and shooting restrictions that are difficult to monitor on huge swaths of private and public land.

Overall, the draft plan currently offers little that is new, creative, and helpful in maximizing cooperation among stakeholders. The plan offers no recognition of these complex and contentious sociopolitical variables and no methods to provide policy-relevant information about them. This is not surprising, given the traditional, biological focus of the training that most conservationists and wildlife and land managers receive (Clark 2001). However, the states ignore sociopolitical variables at their own peril.

Inattention to the relevant social context can lead to increased tension and ultimately policy failure. Problems exist that impede prairie dog conservation. Some states face hostile state legislatures and commissions. For example, in 2001 the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission voted to bar the state from endorsing the states' conservation plan. And recently, Wyoming joined North Dakota and Colorado in withdrawing from the official interstate effort, calling into question the new organization's ability to coordinate effective regional conservation. In addition, animal rights and conservation groups have sued to gain protection for prairie dogs resulting in resource intensive court battles for federal and state agencies (McCullen 2000).

Currently, the prairie dog program is on a fixed course and there seems to be no effort by either the federal or state agencies involved to seek out more effective management in the common interest. The program chosen is the most conservative and the closest to the status quo as possible. Moreover, it is failing to advance the common interest in ensuring the survival of prairie dogs and the viability of prairie dog ecosystems in ways that benefit from broad public support.

How can prairie dog conservation be improved?

The prairie dog conservation challenge is complex and contentious and it likely will not yield to more government bureaucracy. The practical problem at hand now is to decide what can be done to improve matters.

One of the biggest challenges is convincing the key participants that achieving broad public support for and realizing prairie dog conservation is in the common interest and in their own interest. For example, how will ranchers, who see prairie dogs and prairie dog conservation as threatening to their livelihood and lifestyle, ever tolerate prairie dog protection policies? Why should conservationists care if enacted policies receive broad support when for many the goal is conservation using science not public opinion as indicators, regardless of the level of coercion needed to achieve it? Opponents resistant to popular conservation proposals risk provoking more coercive regulations--such as ESA measures--which they despise. They also risk losing some popular support for agricultural programs that are increasingly contested by the conservation community. On the flip side, even strict prairie dog protection codified by the ESA is likely to fail without the political will needed to effectively implement and enforce enacted policies. It is the state and federal agencies, those formerly charged with eradicating prairie dogs that will have discretion over the application of prairie dog conservation measures.

We recommend building new cooperative relationships and expanding on successful practices to date--"practice-based" approaches. Practice-based conservation is adaptive management at its best. It involves finding and taking advantage of opportunities that exist or can be created to address problems. Practice-based conservation involves three steps, each of which requires on-going evaluation (Kleiman et al. 2000). First, participants identify the "best practices" being employed. Second, these are adapted and applied to similar circumstances elsewhere in the prairie dog's range. Finally, the most effective practices are diffused as widely as possible, where professionals continue to adapt, refine, and upgrade them relying on their own experience. Such adaptive management should be carried on endlessly. Thus, the prudent way for conservation to proceed is to find and continually upgrade performance in the light of experience (Clark and Brunner 1996). Independent evaluations of policies and practices are essential to prevent self-serving appraisals. "Watch dogging" the agencies and helping them to learn and upgrade their performance is necessary. We have chosen to highlight a few of what we consider "best practices," each of which could be improved through evaluation and refinement.

Outcome-driven initiatives

While the federal and state governments have not considered alternatives to the interstate prairie dog plan, some bottom-up approaches are worth considering. Several private individuals and organizations have initiated conservation projects for black-tailed prairie dogs in recent years. For example, several recently created land trusts focus on conserving wildlife and ecosystems. With respect to the prairie dog ecosystem, the Southern Plains Land Trust was founded in 1998 to capitalize on the relatively low price of land in and around southeastern Colorado. They focus on land inhabited by prairie dogs and located close to large blocks of public land. Their experience has much to offer others involved in prairie dog conservation. Similarly, other non-profit organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, and for-profit organizations, such as Turner Enterprises, Inc., are purchasing land and working to restore prairie dogs and their associated species. They and their collaborators have taken an experimental approach to restoring the prairie dog ecosystem that promises to benefit similar restoration efforts throughout the range of prairie dogs (Truett et al. 2001).

Process-focused initiatives

Opening up a dialogue between traditional antagonistic stakeholders holds the promise of reducing unproductive conflict and stimulating discussions that can help dispel inaccurate myths and build bridges for conservation. Such dialogues must occur in "safe-harbor" situations, where people feel safe to come together and freely state their true opinions without resorting to rhetoric (i.e. opening "real" dialogue among stakeholders). For example, in 1999 the Denver Zoological Foundation and the Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative held a daylong workshop at the Denver Zoo on prairie dog conservation. Participants included representatives from the Western Governor's Association; ranching, animal rights, environmental, and conservation organizations; and tribal, city, county, state, and federal government agencies. Many of these individuals and groups had never met in such a setting before. Although the workshop was a modest beginning, it succeeded in bringing together diverse interests, in sharing values, concerns, and strategies for addressing prairie dog management, and in opening a dialogue for future collaboration, coordination, or at least communication. Unfortunately, this process was discontinued, but it serves as a model that could be duplicated and expanded in the future.

Process/outcome initiatives

Montana was the first state to set up a prairie dog working group to seek appropriate conservation and management of prairie dogs within the state. The group recently put together a management plan (Montana Prairie Dog Working Group 1999), which involved state and federal agencies, tribal representatives, conservation organizations, and private interests and builds on the Montana Prairie Dog Management Guidelines developed in 1988 by the Montana Black-footed Ferret Working Group (1988). Focusing on both prairie dog species (black-tailed and white-tailed) that inhabit Montana, its goal is "for the state of Montana to provide for management of prairie dog populations and habitats to ensure long-term viability of prairie dogs and associated species." Five objectives follow and a strategy to meet each objective is outlined. Annual review is required. Although lacking in some areas, the plan is the product of a cooperative effort among diverse interests over several years and is arguably the best state plan currently addressing prairie dog management. More importantly, it provides a basis for upgrading conservation planning and implementation in the future.

Several other best practices should be identified, adapted, and spread among participants in prairie dog conservation efforts. Particularly important areas for analysis include federal agricultural policies (including both working to halt perverse agricultural subsidies that encourage prairie dog eradication and creating incentives for landowners that manage their properties for prairie dog conservation), initiatives on tribal lands, actions undertaken at the city and county levels, federal land management (including national grasslands, wildlife refuges, parks, and monuments, as well as lands managed by the BLM), and applied research, especially on managing introduced diseases. We suggest holding well-mediated, problem-oriented workshops on each of these issues to facilitate the process.

Finally, prairie dog conservation requires sound leadership at all levels. Leaders should strive for a strong, open, objective, fair, and competent leadership style. Westrum (1994) refers to such competent, dynamic leaders as "maestros." Maestro coordinators could greatly improve both social and decision processes in prairie dog conservation efforts by facilitating information flow, communication, coordination, efficient use of resources, the identification and dissemination of best practices, and more. Quality leadership at state levels is also required for similar reasons.

Conclusions

Black-tailed prairie dog populations have declined dramatically and become increasingly fragmented over the past century. That decline has important implications for the entire ecosystem because of the prairie dog's role as a keystone species. The USFWS recognized the plight of the prairie dog in 1999 by declaring the species warranted for listing under the ESA. However, the USFWS also precluded such listing, stating the need to focus on other, higher priority species. Prairie dog conservation is highly contentious, wherein stakeholders with diverse values, strategies, sources of power, goals, and demands conflict in their struggle to influence the prairie dog management process. The current mixed federal and state agency program is highly fragmented, especially among the federal and state governments. The current program likely will meet with limited success. We recommend a more innovative response.

We suggest that prairie dog conservation is more likely to succeed if participation remains open and includes the full range of stakeholders. This requires movement toward adaptive, interdisciplinary, and multi-method approaches. We provide recommendations for using a "best practices" approach that capitalizes and builds on activities that have already proven successful in prairie dog conservation. Using workshops and a more representative, open, and flexible organizational structure offers a better chance for resolving the conflict of values currently dominating prairie dog conservation and moving more quickly toward more effective and efficient practices that are acceptable to more stakeholders. Despite recent attention to the plight of the black-tailed prairie dog, the species continues to decline across most of its range. We must improve conservation practices if we hope to restore the black-tailed prairie dog to levels that permit it to function as a keystone species across the Great Plains.

Acknowledgments

Support for this work was provided by the Denver Zoological Foundation, the Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and the Southern Plains Land Trust. Comments by Richard Wallace and especially Denise Casey greatly improved the manuscript.

Literature cited

Biodiversity Legal Foundation and J.C. Sharps. 1994. Petition to classify the Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) as a Category 2 Candidate species pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act and the intent of the Endangered Species Act. Unpublished Petition, USFWS Region 6, Denver, Colorado.

Biodiversity Legal Foundation, J.C. Sharps, and Predator Project. 1998. Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus). Unpublished Petition, USFWS Region 6, Denver, Colorado.

Brunner, R.D. and T.W. Clark. 1997. A practice-based approach to ecosystem management. Conservation Biology 11(1):48-58.

Brunner, R.D. and R. Klein. 1999. Harvesting experience: a reappraisal of the U.S. Climate Change Action Plan. Policy Sciences 32:133-161.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2000. Candidate determination of the black-tailed prairie dog. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Instruction Memorandum No. 2000-140.

Clark, T.W. 1997. Averting extinction: Restructuring the endangered species recovery process. Yale University Press, New Haven Connecticut.

Clark, T.W. 2001. Developing policy-oriented curricula for conservation biology: Professional and leadership education in the public interest. Conservation Biology 15:31-39.

Clark, T.W. 2002. The policy process: A practical guide for natural resources professionals. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Clark, TW. and R.D. Brunner. 1996. Making partnerships work in endangered species conservation: An introduction to the decision process. Endangered Species Update 13:1-4.

Clark, T.W., D. Hinckley, and T Rich, eds. 1989. The prairie dog ecosystem: Managing for biological diversity. Montana BLM Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 2.

Clark, T.W., M.J. Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer, and M.B. Rutherford, eds. 2001. Species and ecosystem conservation: An interdisciplinary approach. Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Bulletin Series 105:1-275.

Clarke, J.N. and D. McCool. 1985. Staking out the terrain: Power differentials among natural resource agencies. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2002. Division to compensate landowners who protect black-tailed prairie dogs. CDOW Press Release, January 15, 2002, CDOW, Denver, Colorado.

Czech, B. and P.R. Krausman. 1997. Public Opinion on Species and Endangered Species Conservation. Endangered Species Update 5/6:7-10.

Davis, T. 2002. Division of Wildlife to compensate landowners who protect prairie dogs. The Colorado Conservator 18(1):9.

Division of the Biological Survey. 1902. Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1902. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. xci.

EDAW. 2000. Black-tailed prairie dog study of eastern Colorado. Unpublished report prepared for Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado.

Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.

Frasier, C. 1999. The turtles in the shoe box. Casper Star Tribune 12/23/99:A8.

Frost, R. Undated. Possible answer to difficult questions. Cooperative Extension Service, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Fong, T. 1999. Activists sue to save prairie dogs complaint directed at federal prison. Denver Rocky Mountain News. November 25, p. 44A.

Fox-Parrish, L. 2002. Attitudes and opinions of landowners and general citizens relative to the black-tailed prairie dog. M.S. Thesis, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas.

Gutierrez, H. 1998. Town faces ruckus over prairie dogs; woman arrested in Lafayette during protest over gassing of animals for development. Denver Rocky Mountain News. March 26, pg. 36A.

Hawes-Davis, D. 1998. Varmints. High Plains Films, Missoula, Montana.

Hoogland, J.L. 1995. The black-tailed prairie dog: social life of a burrowing mammal. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Jones, S. 1999. Becoming a pest: prairie dog ecology and the human economy of the Euroamerican West. Environmental History. 4(4):531-552.

Kellert, S.R. 1995. The value of life. Island Press, Covelo, California

Kleiman, D.G., R.P. Reading, B.J. Miller, TW. Clark, J.M. Scott, J. Robinson, R. Wallace, R. Cabin, and F. Fellman. 2000. The importance of improving evaluation in conservation. Conservation Biology 14(2): 1-11.

Kotliar, N.B., B.W. Baker, A.D. Whicker, and G. Plumb. 1999. A critical review of assumptions about the prairie dogs as a keystone species. Environmental Management 24:177-192.

Lamb, B.L., K. Cline, A. Brinson, N. Sexton, and P.D. Ponds. 2001. Citizen knowledge of and attitudes toward black-tailed prairie dogs: Completion report. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-471. Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Licht, D.S. 1997. Ecology and economics of the Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

List, R. 1997. Ecology of kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) and coyote (Canis latrans) and the conservation of the prairie dog ecosystem in northern Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Luce, R. 2001a. An umbrella, multi-state approach for the conservation and management of the black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus, in the United States. Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Luce, R. 2001b. Letter of November 12 from the Interstate Coordinator of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team to Peter Gober. USFWS, Ecological Services Field Office, Pierre, South Dakota.

Luce, R. 2001 c. Conserving black-tailed prairie dog habitat through landowner incentives. Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

Luce, R.J. 2002. A multi-state conservation plan for the black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus, in the United States--an addendum to the black-tailed prairie dog conservation assessment and strategy, November 3, 1999. Unpublished Draft #3, Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Mac. M.J., P.A. Opler, C.E. Puchett Haecker, and P.D. Doran. 1998. Status and trends of the nation's biological resources. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

McCullen, K. 2000. State faces suit over prairie dogs group says poisons affect other species. Denver Rocky Mountain News. March 14, Pg. 20A.

Meier, K.J. 1993. Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California.

Merriam, C.H. 1902. The prairie dog of the Great Plains. Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture. United States Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

Miller, B. and R.P. Reading. 2002. The black-tailed prairie dog: Threats to survival and a plan for conservation. Wild Earth 12(1):46-55.

Miller, B., R. Reading, J. Hoogland, TW. Clark, G. Ceballos, R. List, S. Forrest, L. Hanebury, P. Manzano, J. Pacheco, D. Uresk. 2000. The role of prairie dogs as keystone species: A response to Stapp. Conservation Biology 14:318-321.

Miller, S. and J.F. Cully, Jr. 2001. Conservation of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus). Journal of Mammalogy 82:889-893.

Montana Black Footed Ferret Working Group. 1988. Prairie dog management guidelines. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman, Montana.

National Wildlife Federation. 1998. Petition for rule listing the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) as threatened throughout its range. USFWS Region 6, Denver, Colorado.

NGPC [Nebraska Game and Parks Commission]. 2001. Draft Nebraska conservation plan for the black-tailed prairie dog. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Omaha World-Herald. 2002. Keep trying on prairie dogs UNL survey indicates fewer opportunities for voluntary conservation. January 20:10b.

Prairie Dog Coalition. 2002. Prairie dog summit forms coalition. Prairie Dog Tales 1(1):1.

Predator Conservation Alliance. 2001. Restoring the prairie dog ecosystem of the Great Plains: Learning from the past to ensure the prairie dog's future. Predator Conservation Alliance, Bozeman, Montana.

Proskocil, N. 1999. Groups Sue Over Delay In Ruling on Prairie Dogs. Omaha World-Herald. February 11:23.

Reading, R.P. 1993. Toward an endangered species reintroduction paradigm: A case study of the black-footed ferret. Ph.D. Dissertation. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

Reading, R.P., and S.R. Kellert. 1993. Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). Conservation Biology 7:569-580.

Reading, R.P., B.J. Miller, and S.R. Kellert. 1999. Values and attitudes toward prairie dogs. Anthrozoos 12:43-52.

Reeder, J. 2002. Prairie dogs threatening ranchers crops and livelihoods. Durango Herald, May 2:8.

Rudacille, D. 1998. Activism for animals. Pp. 1-3 in M. Beckoff and C.A. Meaney, eds. Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.

Schneider, A.L and H. Ingram. 1997. Policy design for democracy. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.

State of Colorado. 1915. Horticulture pests. Laws Passed at the Twentieth Session of the General Assembly of the State of Colorado. Western Newspaper Union, State Printers, Denver, Colorado.

Thacker, P. 2001. A new wind sweeps the plains. Science 292:2427.

Truett, J.C., J.A.L.D. Dullum, M.R. Matchett, E. Owens, and D. Seery. 2001. Translocating prairie dogs: A review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:863-872.

USFWS. 1999.90-day finding for a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog as threatened. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

USFWS. 2000. 12-month finding for a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog as threatened. Federal Register 65(24):5476-5488.

USFWS. 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Annual notice of findings on recycled petitions. Federal Register 66(5):1295-1300.

Van Pelt, W.E. 1999. The black-tailed prairie dog conservation assessment and strategy. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Van Putten, M. and S.D. Miller. 1999. Prairie dogs: The case for listing. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:1113-1120.

Weiss, J.A. 1989. The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy Sciences 22:92-121.

Westrum, R. 1994. An organizational perspective: Designing recovery teams from the inside out. Pp. 327-349 in T.W. Clark, R.P. Reading, and A.L. Clarke, eds. Endangered species recovery: Finding the lessons, improving the process. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Wise, S.M. 2000. Rattling the cage: Toward legal rights for animals. Perseus Books, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Zinn, H.C., and W.F. Andelt. 1999. Attitudes of Fort Collins, Colorado residents toward prairie dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:1098-1106.

Richard P. Reading
Denver Zoological Foundation and Northern Rockies Conservation
Cooperative, 2900 East 23rd Avenue, Denver, CO 80205
[e-mail]

Tim W. Clark
Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 301
Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, Northern Rockies Conservation
Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY 83001
[e-mail]

Lauren McCain
Department of Political Science, University of Colorado at Boulder,
Campus Box 333, Boulder, CO 80309-0333
[e-mail]

Brian J. Miller
Denver Zoological Foundation, 2900 East 23rd Avenue, Denver, CO 80205
[e-mail]