Craig Daily Press

Digger55 (Anonymous) says…

NVPDLOVER. I greatly appreciate your comments and your passion. I, too, have posted several times on this issue. I can relate to the frustration you feel, because I am staggered by the fabrications, falsehoods, myths, and out right lies, these people are willing to tell, in order to justify their superior "Prairie Dog" position. The man-should-dominate-all animals, is a particular gem of backward thinking. These are people who believe an animal that has had 98% of the population irradicated from their original lands, is not threatened, just because they can look out in their field and see "tons of the varmits". So, by that definition, prairie dogs can't possibly be considered "endangered." Ignorant? There 'ya go.

OH! And I really liked the one about lead not being a problem in dead prairie dogs. Let's suspend reality for, like, one nanosecond. They outlawed living things eating lead paint decades ago. So, eating a body laced with lead from exploding shells is no problem. Geez! There was a major independent study done, for the Forrest Service, that proved lead infested bodies of prairie dogs, in the food chain, did show traces in carcasses of other dead animals, who had prayed on the prairie dog bodies. They also revealed the stress caused to surviving prairie dogs, when rampant shooting was going on by the gleeful "hunters", and that it affected their hormone levels, reproductive activity, eating habits, and behavioral patterns.

Well, NVPDLOVER, I am done with these fools. Most of them will probably go out and shot twice as many prairie dogs, just for for spite and to make themselves feel superior to all things. I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do, but frankly, my time will be better spent doing other things. Picking lint off my jacket will be more productive.

On Do you think there should be a ban on shooting prairie dogs?

Digger55 (Anonymous) says…

50cal, do you presume to speak for everyone in Colorado? Do you truly believe there is not a single enlightened soul in all of Colorado, who might be opposed to the indescrimate descimation of defenseless animals, just trying to survive in the universe like everyone else? Are you saying there are no human beings living in Colorado, who might embrace other options for removing innocent prairie dogs from their land, than just getting out the old rifle? Are we to believe that all inhabitants of Colorado are narrow minded baffoons, who seek to wipe out everything that becomes an inconvenience to them? I find that to be incredibly presumptuous!
But then, looking at a majority of the comments on this blog, I could be wrong.

On Do you think there should be a ban on shooting prairie dogs?

Digger55 (Anonymous) says…

I think most people have forgotten what is driving the current proposal to ban the shooting of prairie dogs and it was the exposure of a bloody and disturbing video being distributed on the Internet, of hunters gleefully shooting prairie dogs for "sport".

First, I want to whole-heartedly condemn putting sadistic videos of prairie dogs being blown into pink "mist", on the Internet for sport and "entertainment". It is truly a dark commentary on how low our society has fallen. Secondly, I understand the reluctance of landowners, who resent federal agencies telling them what to do on their own land, but ecological protection of an important keystone species must be considered. Studies have shown that prairie grasslands are more diverse and functional, when large populations of prairie dogs are present.

I work with many wildlife organizations and grass roots movements. The talks I have had with numerous individuals in these groups, has always lead to the same conclusion: the pessimistic mind set of ranchers and landowners across the eleven states of black-tailed prairie dog range, has been ingrained from generation to generation. They are only capable of seeing the subject of prairie dogs from their own limited universe. That mind set is very hard to change. On the other hand, there are environmentalists, private citizens, and interested people around the world, who see prairie dog preservation as a moral issue and a subject of responsible stewardship. It has long been a misconception that only “liberals” care about prairie dogs. Many people of all different beliefs, whether spiritual or political, see shooting, poisoning, bulldozing, and paving over populated prairie dog towns…as morally reprehensible.

Why should anyone think, that other opinions about the treatment of a threatened species, are irrelevent, if they have never lived on a ranch? That would be like saying that only people in Alaska, should have an opinion about preserving the Americn bald eagle. The bald eagle is a magnificent bird, but it is not a keystone species, that is vital to the existance of a hundred other animals, birds, reptiles, insects, and plants. Yes, I believe there is a need for "control" in this argument, by landowners, which far outways any interest in being morally correct or enlightened. When it comes to the "kill 'em all" mentality, it is without conscience or ramifications affecting the natural world. It's sad to say, there is not a single thing being been said on this blog, that will change that mind set. It's like spitting in the wind. What a shame!

On Do you think there should be a ban on shooting prairie dogs?

Digger55 (Anonymous) says…

With the exception of Daisyday, and Seaberg, there is nothing but ignorance, immaturity, and sarcastic rehetoric on this page. What a shame that a serious subject attracts such stupidity. The only enlightened individual to celebrate here is Daisyday's father, who rose above the myth and folklore to learn about the value of a “keystone” species. For those of you out there, who don't understand what that means, it is a species that is essential to the survival of almost a hundred other co-dependent species. For this reason, the state of Arizona just announced last week, their plan to reintroduce black-tailed prairie dogs back onto designated lands, where they were formerly shot, poisoned, and decimated out of existance. Finally, a forward thinking decision by a federal agency, which goes against all the landowner prairie-dogs-R-bad, HYPE!

On Do you think there should be a ban on shooting prairie dogs?

Digger55 (Anonymous) says…

Also, Seaburg comes on with another voice of reason and sanity!

On Do you think there should be a ban on shooting prairie dogs?

Digger55 (Anonymous) says…

With the exception of Daisyday, there is nothing but ignorance, immaturity, and sarcastic rehetoric on this page. What a shame that a serious subject attracts such stupidity. The only enlightened individual to celebrate here is Daisyday's father, who rose above the myth and folklore to learn about the value of a "keystone" species. For those of you out there, who don't understand what that means, it is a species that is essential to the survival of almost a hundred other co-dependent species. For this reason, the state of Arizona just announced last week, their plan to reintroduce black-tailed prairie dogs back onto designated lands, where they were formerly shot, poisoned, and decimated out of existance. Finally, a forward thinking decision by a federal agency, which goes against all the landowner prairie-dogs-R-bad, HYPE!

On Do you think there should be a ban on shooting prairie dogs?

Digger55 (Anonymous) says…

Hey, Bill, thank you for an excellent perspective. It falls along the same argument used by gay bashers, who claim legalizing marriage between two homosexuals would in turn lead to the legalization of beastiality.

It is unreasonable to lump a vital keystone species, in with any of the others. Black-tailed prairie dogs are a unique in their place in the ecosystem, because so many other species are co-dependent. Unfortunately, members of the Cattleman's Association and other special interest groups, are only capable of seeing the prairie dog situation from their own limited Universe.

The commission has an opportunity to do the right thing, which would be a refreshing change.

On Bill Ronis: Slippery slope in commissioner’s stance