Executive Director, Audubon of Kansas
to the Kansas House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture
and Natural Resources
Regarding Black-footed Ferret Conservation Programs
January 22, 2013
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to
share my perspective and that of Audubon of Kansas and other conservation partners who
have been actively involved in the reintroduction of Black-footed Ferrets and
conservation of other wildlife associated with Black-tailed Prairie Dog in Kansas.
Although I have been professionally involved in wildlife management and conservation
since I enrolled in KSU exactly 50 years ago, I grew up on a family farm/ranch and have
been involved in agriculture since childhood. I continue to manage 1,173 acres of family
ranch land for livestock and wildlife in three counties.
I am providing a copy of the Fall/Winter 2011 edition of Prairie Wings magazine with a
detailed article (pages 14-18) on the issues surrounding the reintroduction of Blackfooted
Ferrets, and a copy of the Winter 2012/Spring 2013 edition with an update on the
Appeals Court Decision and the recent ferret surveys (pages 42-43).
Unfortunately, I have to acknowledge that I believe that much of the presentation to this
committee earlier was grossly exaggerated, misleading and/or totally incorrect in a
number of ways. Unfortunately, there is no formal written record. On other subjects,
there is some common ground and some overlap of interpretation. Differing perspectives
and opinions are certainly appropriate in this arena.
First on the common ground, we share the perspective that landowners who do not want
to accommodate prairie dogs on their land should not be required to.
However, we do not agree that this native wildlife species—and all the other associated
species that depend on the habitat they create or on prairie dogs as prey—should be
exterminated from the Kansas landscape; and that landowners who want to
accommodate, manage and/or conserve prairie dogs should be required to poison and
exterminate them against their wishes and at their own expense. The Black-tailed Prairie
Dog is a keystone species, an ecologically important part of the wildlife heritage of
Kansas, and as with other wildlife (including White-tailed Deer, Wild Turkeys, Canada
Geese, Pheasants, Coyotes, Red-winged Blackbirds and Meadowlarks) they technically
belong to the State of Kansas as part of our “Public Trust” of natural resources.
2
Hopefully there will be enough landowners in Kansas and in other states that voluntarily
maintain colonies of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs so they won’t become federally threatened
or endangered. A decade ago there was a real prospect that this species would be
classified as warranted for classification as federally threatened. In an effort to diminish
the prospect of that, ten states developed “Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation &
Management Plans.” I am providing you with copies of several pages from the 24-page
(plus Appendix III) Kansas document. You will note on pages 20-21 that twenty-seven
individuals representing the full range of stakeholders from wildlife conservation groups
and university biologists to representatives of the Kansas Farm Bureau and the Kansas
Livestock Association participated in the development of the plan over a period of
several months.
It can be viewed on line at: http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Services/Researc...
Publications/Conservation-Plans/The-Kansas-Black-Tailed-Prairie-Dog-
Conservation-and-Management-Plan
You will also note that the report correctly stated that the group “recognizes prairie dogs
and their habitat as valuable, important, and desired components of the grassland
ecosystem, while also recognizing the economic and political realities that control of the
species will be necessary in many instances.”
In terms of on-the-ground conservation objectives, the Kansas Conservation Strategy
articulated five population and colony complex objectives. One was to “Maintain one
complex greater than 5000 acres.” The three ranch landowners who have property
included in what we refer to as the Haverfield/Barnhardt/Blank Complex are meeting that
objective. For the benefit of the Kansas plan, and for the public interest in the plan, this
property is the only property that comes close to achieving this state conservation
objective. We all owe them a debt of gratitude for their commitment to their
conservation initiatives.
Unfortunately, of the five objectives under the Kansas Conservation Strategy, this may be
the ONLY objective that has been achieved within, or by, the State of Kansas. A lot of
thought went into the plan, but once the bullet of federal listing of the species was
dodged, it has largely been relegated to collecting dust on agency shelves. Another key
objective was to repeal or appropriately revise the antiquated eradication statutes of 1901.
That has not been accomplished in the legislature—but it should be.
With this in mind, and with continuous eradication mandates by some counties, it will be
difficult to make a future case for the State of Kansas’ commitment to conservation of the
species if it is petitioned again for listing. And it will be understandable if this approach
diminishes our ability to make a case for not listing the Lesser Prairie-chicken with new
promises of conservation plans.
Landowners like Larry and Bette Haverfield, Gordon Barnhardt and Maxine Blank
should be thanked for their willingness to accommodate this complex of prairie
dogs, and the reintroduction of the endangered Black-footed Ferret. Their property
3
has also become possibly the most valuable site for conservation of other at-risk species
that are substantially dependent on prairie dogs—including Burrowing Owls, Ferruginous
Hawks, Golden Eagles and Swift Foxes. These landowners are doing more to conserve
these species on their land than any other public or private land entity in the state.
I also call your attention to the “Kansas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan.”
This 170-page document can be found on line at:
http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Services/Kansas-...
I have provided a copy of the cover, entitled A Future For Kansas Wildlife, because it
reflects the diversity of Kansas’s stakeholders/organizations and agencies involved in
developing this plan. “The Species of Greatest Conservation Need for the Shortgrass
Prairie” include all of the above-mentioned species—plus others, including the Mountain
Plover and Lesser Earless Lizard, that are often dependent on habitat provided by prairie
dog colonies.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the landowners who are providing a place for these
imperiled wildlife species. When landowners such as these three prevent various
species from being listed as threatened or endangered, that directly benefits landowners
who do not want to accommodate wildlife on their land--they won’t have to.
I also think that all of us, especially if we are farm and ranch landowners, owe a
debt of gratitude for their leadership in trying to protect private property rights,
even thought their position on that—along with their choice of private land
management/stewardship—has been under litigation assault by the Logan County
Commission and the Kansas Farm Bureau for several years. They have had to spend tens
of thousands of dollars trying to defend private property rights, when those rights should
be honored.
They have also been willing to go the extra mile, many miles, to manage their land in
ways that diminish the outward movement of prairie dogs from their land to surrounding
areas. It would be wonderful if you could come out and take a tour of the property to see
in person many of the management techniques that have been successfully employed.
I am providing four photographs. The first is simply a view of the Haverfield family
ranchstead. The other three show the 90-foot vegetative buffer that is used to discourage
expansion of prairie dog colonies into the property with adjacent grasslands owned by
others, and the “prairie dog fence” that we have built to further discourage dispersal from
this property. The combination of these two management practices is working very well.
In addition, whenever some prairie dogs become established on surrounding lands, those
landowners can call on the APHIS-WS agent assigned to the Logan County Black-footed
Ferret reintroduction sites to control the prairie dogs with poisons and/or shooting. The
funding for that program is made possible by a combination of funds from the U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service, APHIS, a federal grant obtained by the KDWP&T, and The Nature
Conservancy. Prairie dog colonies are treated for at least 3 ½ miles beyond the
boundaries of the two reintroduction sites. This is done at NO COST to those
4
neighboring landowners. Prior to the reintroduction, there were prairie dogs throughout
the landscape serving as the “source population” so they didn’t all originally come from
either of the sites. With these three practices, this combination reflects the intent of the
landowners and agencies involved to maintain a good neighbor policy.
However, as a friend once commented, “Good deeds seldom go unpunished!” Some of
the surrounding landowners are adamantly opposed to the presence of prairie dogs and
mistakenly believe that with the presence of a federally endangered species their property
rights may be infringed upon in some unimaginable ways in the future. I am reminded of
an opponent (associated with an organization also opposed to the ferret reintroduction) of
the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserved who claimed that nearby farmers would have to
get approval to paint their barns from the National Park Service if the Z-Bar Ranch
became a unit of the National Park System.
As members of the two committees in the legislature have heard in presentations this past
week, professionals (our fellow Kansas residents and others) working for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service have been accused of being “very deceitful all the way along.”
They have slandered with other characterizations that are reminiscent of the statements
once commonplace in the early years of robust politics in this country’s democracy. In
this case as previously in the controversy leading up to establishment of the Tallgrass
Prairie National Preserve, an outside agitator from Idaho has been brought in to create
this type of divisive atmosphere. The more divisive emotions and fear he can create, the
more he can convince his benefactors to pay for his consulting services.
As a result of this approach by people who think the sky will fall if there are a couple
parcels of land with prairie dogs, Black-footed Ferrets and other associated wildlife in
this state of 52 million acres, people become unwilling to work together and trust one
another. In this case, some neighboring landowners have been unwilling to accept the
services of APHIS-WS to control prairie dogs for several years in a row while claiming
that the uncontrolled prairie dogs were damaging their property. One individual
indicated that he only wanted prairie dogs controlled with Rozol, and only with Rozol,
because it would likely kill any Black-footed Ferrets present, and another reportedly
adopted the same position. They simply want the ferret reintroduction to fail.
I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Register announcement for the “Draft Black-footed
Ferret Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement.” This is a very good development! Yet it
was suggested that this was the primary reason for the opponents to engage the Kansas
Legislature. The Safe Harbor Agreement is designed to protect the private property
rights and operational options of landowners involved in Black-footed Ferret
reintroduction efforts. We trust that the 30-day extension for comments will provide
people with an opportunity to better understand the merit of the program. It is part of the
envisioned EQIP incentive, similar to the incentive programs already in place or being
planned for Lesser Prairie-chickens (so that species may not become biologically
threatened and not have to be listed as Threatened).
5
It was suggested that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been secretive as this protocol and
the proposed landowner incentive program was being explored and drafted. This is not
correct. The Colorado Cattlemen Association and the Wyoming Stockgrowers
Association have both been involved from the beginning.
Although it was suggested that the western two-thirds of Kansas was threatened by this
program, nothing could be further from the truth. It will not affect a “billion acres” of the
country as stated, but only make it possible for a few landowners in the Great Plains
states to work with the NRCS, USFWS and APHIS-WS to better accomplish
conservation goals and recovery for the Black-footed Ferret with cooperative, voluntary
programs.
The previous presenter also suggested that too much money was invested in the Kansas
reintroduction project, most of which has gone for prairie dog control. It was stated that
$574,000 has been spent in Logan County since 2006 (thus, for operations of various
kinds in these past seven years). As a member of the USDA State Technical Committee
and being well-informed about federal agricultural programs, I can say with confidence
that considerably more than that amount of federal money is often provided to individual
producers to improve feedlot operations for cattle and hogs. The public interest to invest
in wildlife conservation is just as great as it is to invest in many kinds of other
agricultural practices.
Farm bill conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program
and the Conservation Reserve Program have evolved and been improved with the
cooperative involvement of wildlife conservation interests and agricultural producers, and
that is exactly the manner in which the Black-footed Ferret program is expected to
become a reality. There is every opportunity to develop this program on common
ground.
2
9
Goal
The Goal of the Plan is to maintain biologically viable populations of black-tailed prairie dogs at selected sites
across the historical range in Kansas. Seven objectives were determined to be necessary to achieve this goal.
Statement
The Kansas Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Working Group (KS PDWG) recognizes prairie dogs and their habitat as
valuable, important, and desired components of the grassland ecosystem, while also recognizing the economic
and political realities that control of the species will be necessary in many instances.
Objectives
1. Establish a Statewide Prairie Dog Working Group and Conservation Strategy
2. Determine and monitor species distribution and status
3. Establish regulatory protection
4. Identify, maintain, and promote existing and additional suitable prairie dog habitats
5. Education and Outreach
6. Identify, prioritize, and implement research needs
7. Implementation of State Conservation Strategy
10
Strategies to Meet Objectives
Objective 1. Establish a Statewide Prairie Dog Working Group and Conservation Strategy
1.1 Public meetings
Public meetings were hosted to inform landowners and other interested parties about the new federal status
of prairie dogs. Current and historical background about prairie dog population in Kansas was provided.
Information was also provided about the Interstate Prairie Dog Workgroup and the need to develop a
statewide prairie dog workgroup. These public meeting were held in Hutchinson, Garden City, and
Goodland in March of 2000.
1.2 Statewide Prairie Dog Working Group
The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks initiated the development of a Statewide Prairie Dog
Workgroup composed of representatives from both agricultural/landowner interests and
wildlife/environmental interests. Representatives from various organizations, encompassing both
stakeholder types, were requested to voluntarily participate in the workgroup and work toward the
development of a mutually acceptable approach to conserve prairie dogs in Kansas in order to preclude
listing under the ESA. The list of names and affiliation of members of the workgroup can be found in
appendix.
1.3 Kansas Conservation Strategy
• Maintain at least current acreage of 130,000 acres of Black – Tailed Prairie Dogs in Kansas
• Maintain distribution of Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs over 80% of historic range (west of Flint
Hills) in Kansas.
• Maintain 1 complex greater than 5000 acres
• Maintain 10% of acres in complexes of greater than 1000 acres
• 10 year goal of increasing Black tailed Prairie Dog acreage to 150,000 acres (1% of suitable
land) by 2012 if appropriate landowner incentive programs are developed at the federal level.
12
Objective 3. Establish regulatory protection
3.1 Propose legislative and regulatory changes that are consistent with the goals of this strategy.
The legal classification and management policies for black-tailed prairie dogs are consistent and reflect the value of
the species and associated ecosystem among state agencies. Currently the black-tailed prairie dog is classified as
wildlife in Kansas (KSA 32-701). Although it may be referred to as a pest, there are no laws in Kansas legally
classifying it as a pest.
Current laws and regulations concerning prairie dog management and control in Kansas have been evaluated and
changes recommended. Changes in the legal status of prairie dogs would facilitate the implementation of
management measures necessary to achieve appropriate conservation of black-tailed prairie dogs and other
associated species.
• Hunting, take and season lengths have been evaluated and no change is recommended at this time. KDWP
has ample regulatory authority to set season dates and harvest limits. Hunting, take and season lengths will
be reevaluated in 2004, 2007, and 2010 after completion of surveys to protect over harvest of prairie dogs
in the state. Questions have also been added to the small game harvest survey to document the amount and
portion of the state where shooting takes place. Hunting may bring extra-unforeseen revenues to
landowners as has been documented in other states.
• Commercial harvest of live prairie dogs, i.e. pet commerce, is not recommended at this time. Therefore, no
changes are recommended to the state regulation regarding commercialization of some wildlife species.
These regulations will be reviewed at least every three years to address changes in the population level of
prairie dogs or to address new concerns.
• The use of pesticides for prairie dog control will be reevaluated at least every three years. The effectiveness
of products currently recommended and their impact on other wildlife will be evaluated. Changes in
methods will be recommended based on these outcomes and on new better products reaching the market.
• Statute change recommendations to existing legislation , which currently mandates prairie dog
eradication in many cases, were drafted and a bill, HB 2470 - Regarding options for the control of
prairie dogs, was submitted to the 2001 Kansas Legislature jointly by the Dept. of Agriculture and the
Dept. of Wildlife and Parks. The focus of proposed changes would make conservation and/or control of
prairie dogs voluntary for landowners, providing more flexibility in management decisions and
removing the threat of mandatory eradication. More work is needed in developing this legislation
before voting on the measure, and the Kansas Workgroup will continue to be involved in this effort.
20
Kansas Black-tailed Prairie Dog Working Group
Jim Barett Mike Beam Bob Bolen
Farm Bureau- Landowner repr. KLA - Cow-Calf/Stocker Div. Noxious Weed Dept.
702 N. Neill Ave Kansas P.O. Box 70
Oberlin Kansas 66749 Sharon Springs KS 67758
Bill Busby Jerry Choate Jack Cully
KS Biological Survey Fort Hays State University KS Coop Unit
2041 Constant Ave. Sternberg Museum, 600 Park K.S.U., 205 Leisure Hall
Lawrence Kansas 66047 Hays Kansas 67601 Manhattan KS 66506
Rodney Einsel Elmer Finck Keith Foster
KS Grazing land Coalition KS Chap. Wildl. Society 504 Saint John
HC 66 Box 28 Box 4050, E.S.U. Garden City Kansas 67846
Wilmore Kansas 67155 Emporia Kansas 66801
Jeanne Fox Bill Fuller Dan Garcia
Dept. of Agr. Pesticide Use Sec. Farm Bureau USFS,. Cimarron /
109 SW 9th St. 800 SW Jackson Suite 815 Comanche Grasslands
Topeka Kansas 66612 Topeka Kansas 66612 Box 127
Springfield Colorado 81073
Bill Gill Tom Halstead Bill Hlavachick
U.S. FWS USDA / Wildlife Services KS Wildlife Federation
315 Houston, Suite E. 123 Call Hall, KSU 214 N. Main
Manhattan Kansas 66502 Manhattan Kansas 66506 Pratt Kansas 67124
Richard Jones Ron Klataske Charles Lee
KS Assoc. of Cons. Districts Kansas Audubon Extension Service
522 Winn Rd 813 Juniper Dr. K.S.U. 127 Call Hall
Salina Kansas 67401 Manhattan Kansas 66502 Manhattan KS 66506
21
Rob Manes Mike Mitchener Dwight Moore
WMI KDWP KS Mammal Society
10201 S. Hwy 281 512 SE 25th Ave. Box 4050, E.S.U.
Pratt Kansas 67124 Pratt Kansas 67124 Emporia Kansas 66801
Dan Mulhern Mark Sexson Baron Shively
U.S. FWS Public Land Supervisor, KDWP Rangeland Association
315 Houston, Suite E. 10001 W. Mc Artor 200 S. Centennial Drive,
Manhattan Kansas 66502 Dodge City Kansas 67801 Suite A,
Mc Pherson KS 67460
Mark Smith Greg Wingfield Christiane Roy
Kansas Livestock Association- Nature Conservancy KDWP
Landowner repr. 700 SW Jackson, Suite 804 1526 Merchant
Smith Flying V, HC2 Box 201 Topeka Kansas 66603 Emporia, KS 66801
Sharon Springs Kansas 67758

1) A view of the Larry and Bette Haverfield family ranchstead and some of the
surrounding ranch landscape.
2) A photo of the highly successful “prairie dog fence” erected by Audubon of Kansas
and the 90-foot wide “vegetative buffer” established by Larry Haverfield along most of
the boundary to allow vegetation to grow higher and further discourage prairie dogs from
dispersing from the property.
3) Another view of the “prairie dog fence” and the 90-foot wide “vegetative buffer”
established by Larry Haverfield along the eastern side of the ranch. Note the taller
vegetation and the extensive area without grazing extending to the boundary fenceline.
The prairie dog fence and the taller vegetation in combination discourage prairie dogs
from dispersing from the property.
4) A third view of the vegetative barrier and the prairie dog fence. This site is on the
west side of the property, adjacent to a public road.