Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Here's another weird switch in Kansas: a
struggle over nature conservation and property rights in which
the environmentalists and the landowners are on the same side. Sort
of. Two Logan County ranchers, contrary to the usual practice in
Kansas during the last century or so, are
welcoming prairie dogs to their property. They say allowing the
burrowing rodents to breed and flourish (which is the main thing
prairie dogs do, in addition to digging holes and competing with
cattle for grass) will support a variety of other species that
eat them, including eagles, hawks, foxes, and maybe
even black-footed ferrets. Their neighbors complain that
prairie dogs do not respect property lines, so one man's wildlife
preserve is another's nuisance. They also worry that
the arrival of endangered species will trigger onerous land
use restrictions. The county commissioners, siding with the irate
neighbors, are invokiing a 1901 law that allows the government
to poison prairie dogs on recalcitrant ranchers' land and bill
the owners for the expense. I have no neat solution to the tangle
of conflicting property rights claims, but it gives me an excuse to
post this adorable picture of ferret food. It reminds me of my one
road trip across Kansas, which featured flatness interrupted
only by scattered bits of prairie dog.
Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Get Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Going to the Prairie Dogs
Timothy|12.13.06 @ 3:06PM|#
Prairie Dogs carry the plague, and any number of other nasty ailments. I think it's best to slaughter them wholesale.
|12.13.06 @ 3:07PM|#
What pathetic pandering! At some point, somebody surely told the
honorable commissioners that, in cases in which federal and state
laws contradict each other, the federal law triumphs.
I wonder how much of the taxpayers' money they intend to expend on
frivolous court cases before they accede to the law?
|12.13.06 @ 3:11PM|#
Prairie Dogs carry the plague, and any number of other nasty
ailments. I think it's best to slaughter them wholesale.
So do people...same response?
|12.13.06 @ 3:15PM|#
"They also worry that the arrival of endangered species will
trigger onerous land use restrictions."
In the perverse world of endangered species law, they are exactly
right to be concerned. The lesson the ESA teaches landowners is "if
you see an endangered species on your land, kill it and bury body
really well and if you see any habitat on your land burn it to the
ground or bushhog it before anyone else notices it is there."
|12.13.06 @ 3:17PM|#
Yeah, sort of like laws against armed robbery teach the lesson
"kill all the witnesses."
When, oh when, will we learn our lesson, and repeal this misguided
law?
|12.13.06 @ 3:27PM|#
"So do people...same response?"
'I've got a little list,
They'd none of them be missed.'
Brian|12.13.06 @ 3:27PM|#
Good eatin'
The other highlight of driving across Kansas is the sunflowers.
Miles and miles of them.
|12.13.06 @ 3:28PM|#
I think this is the first time I have heard of staff here NOT automatically siding with the land owners in a dispute over property rights. How is this any different than having a junk yard on your property? If the neighbors can prove loss in a court of law, then they can sue the ranchers in question. This is no different than any other land use dispute. The neighbors should have taken proper precautions to prevent the entry of prarie dogs (a native and rather hearty species)onto thier land if it was that much of an issue.
|12.13.06 @ 3:32PM|#
joe -
Witness intimidation - unto the point of murder, if deemed
necessary - is a very popular tactic among those perpetrating
criminal acts (or selling drugs) in the inner cities. Police
continually complain that finding cooperative witnesses in bad
neighborhoods is tough work.
As for those who want to develop a cafeteria for ferrets on land
where the government had previously organized extermination of
their favorite chow, maybe they ought to offer to pay their
neighbors for damages done to the herds on adjoining land.
Kevin
|12.13.06 @ 3:36PM|#
They are cute, not just in pictures. I've seen them a few times,
most recently on the land at the Laura Ingalls Wilder house back in
1987.
I'm from the east coast and I've lived on the west. Prarie dogs are
the cutest species indigenous to the U.S.A. Marmots come close, but
I don't think it's possible to keep a pet marmot.
A few years ago, someone started exporting prarie dogs to Japan for
the pet market. Is that still going on? Seems to me "cuteness" is
one of nature's ways of preserving a species. It works for human
babies.
|12.13.06 @ 3:39PM|#
I have this crazy idea. I suspect that there is a difference between draining a marshy area or offing a rare bird and killing human beings in a robbery.
Timothy|12.13.06 @ 3:41PM|#
Kwix: Nah, people have redeeming qualities like being able to bathe and build theme parks. Prairie dogs, what'd they ever do for anybody? Nothing.
|12.13.06 @ 3:42PM|#
Peter they are really cute in person as well.
Joe,
Rather than looking at land owners on the same level as murderers
and criminals, why not amend the law and give them some incentive
to have habitat and species on their land? Sometimes you
inadvertantly give away what you really think about capitalism and
property rights.
ed|12.13.06 @ 3:47PM|#
I'd love to see Ed host a children's show on Animal
Planet.
I'd rock their world.
|12.13.06 @ 3:50PM|#
Joe,
Just like the story posted here a few months back about people
cutting down trees to prevent an endangered species from nesting in
them, This is yet another example of the law of unintended
consequences. The ESA and Federal power is not always a good
thing.
I live in Alaska. We have bald eagles, about 35,000 of them. They
are very sensitive to environmental changes and due to thier
solitary nature are not adapted well to handling communicable
disease. So, in the interest of protecting the bald eagle they
should not be fed scraps of food during the winter months as this
encourages large congregation, aggressive behavior and the spread
of disease.
Since the eagle is listed nationwide as a "threatened species" it
falls under the control of US Fish and Wildlife Service meaning
that the state of Alaska cannot make rules regarding the human
interaction with eagles. The feds have not bothered themselves with
this issue, and thus we have issues like
this. In this instance, the federal government tied the hands
of the state government to the deteriment of a species they were
charged with protecting. Fortunately for the birds, the town of
Homer can make rules regarding its residents.
|12.13.06 @ 3:53PM|#
"Yeah, sort of like laws against armed robbery teach the lesson
"kill all the witnesses.""
You managed to precisely capture the absurdity of the ESA despite
your intentions. The government treats people that have the good
the gov't wants (habitat capable of supporting an endangered
species) punatively (by restricting their land use). If the
government wanted boots for the military, it wouldn't mandate all
the factories capable of producing boots produce boots free of cost
as long as the government thinks that it will continue to need them
for the obvious reason that it creates incentives to preemptively
avoid being capable of producing boots, in addition to concealing
and destroying existing boot making equipment.
|12.13.06 @ 3:58PM|#
Without prairie dogs, we wouldn't know what to call Prairie
Dogging:
The act of a turd poking its top out of ones anus repeatedly
"Dude, pull the car over I gotta shit, I'm prairie dogging
here"
- Urban Dictionary
|12.13.06 @ 4:11PM|#
"Without prairie dogs, we wouldn't know what to call Prairie
Dogging:"
Well, there is turtle heading.
|12.13.06 @ 4:12PM|#
I thought Prairie Dogging was when cubicle slaves popped their heads over the walls of their cells to see if the boss is coming.
|12.13.06 @ 4:19PM|#
Prairie-dogging, according to Wordspy, is
When the heads of office workers pop up over cubicle walls in response to a loud voice or noise.
Does that make the office manager a black-footed ferret?
Kevin
|12.13.06 @ 4:19PM|#
Prairie Dogs are great animals,..... for developing your long range shooting ability. Joking aside, private property should be just that, neither the Feds nor the Ccoms should be able to come on your land and kill the animals you are raising (or allowing to live) there, period. However, "livestock" migrating into a farmer's sunflower crop or a cattle pasture should be the responsiblity of the owner of that animal, whether "native" or "imported domestic". If your cherished property damages a neighbor's property, payup and/or find a way to prevent the same damage in the future.
UCrawford|12.13.06 @ 4:20PM|#
I would agree with Kwix, if the neighbors of the people raising the prairie dogs are unhappy and can demonstrate that the prairie dog habitat causes a measureable detriment to their holdings, then they can take the prairie dog breeders to court. However, the endangered species laws add another dimension. The prairie dog breeders can take precautions to try and contain the critters, but if the dogs breach those barriers even once, the damage will be done to the dog owners' neighbors. Exterminating the trespassers will likely entail a messy and costly legal process...with no guarantee of resolution in the neighbors' favor. The only just course of action would be to force the breeders to foot all legal bills themselves should the prairie dogs breach containment...but if the breeders (who frankly sound like idiots) are unable or unwilling to do that, then the state's probably right to get involved right now and invoke this law. Otherwise the breeder's whimsical idea of prairie dog rehabitation (which offers no apparent tangible benefit to anyone but the breeders) creates an economic problem for everyone else in the region.
|12.13.06 @ 4:22PM|#
So a wild, native creature resides on someone's land. It acts
naturally, and the landowner gets billed for it?
Does anyone else see the affront to property rights of the
landowner?
I think I'll sue my neighbor for all the pigeon crap.
Jonathan C. Hohensee|12.13.06 @ 4:26PM|#
I'd love to see Ed host a children's show on Animal
Planet.
They should call it "Eaten, Worn or Laughed at"
|12.13.06 @ 4:35PM|#
i think i'm on the same page as Ironchef. it's not clear to me from the post (sorry, no patience to rtfa) that these people are "breeding" prairie dogs, so much as not chasing off the wild animals. thus, there's a distinction between keeping them, in an ownership sense, and keeping them in the sense that no action is taken to evict them. and since when are people liable for harms caused by wild animals that they aren't keeping?
UCrawford|12.13.06 @ 4:38PM|#
It's not just a wild native creature residing on someone's land. The rancher, Haverly, has been encouraging the growth of these prairie dog villages, which have apparently grown over into the fields of Haverly's neighbors (who are having to pay higher bills for extermination on their own land). The county land offices verified that prairie dog villages bring down land prices because of the problems the dogs cause for cattle grazing, causing a tangible detriment to the neighbors' holdings. In essence, Haverly is forcing his neighbors to shoulder the economic consequences of his personal efforts to reintroduce the prairie dogs, which is not a right he should have as a landowner. And that's to say nothing of what happens if the black-footed ferret is somehow introduced to the region and one of them dies on his neighbors' property...Haverly's neighbors are right to be concerned about his actions. And the state government may be right for intervening.
UCrawford|12.13.06 @ 4:41PM|#
The article also indicated that Haverly has interfered with efforts to poison the prairie dogs and that the size of the village on his property has grown substantially. So, while he may not be breeding them, per se, he is allowing them to grow in number...apparently enough to affect his neighbors' property.
|12.13.06 @ 4:41PM|#
I'm quite frankly baffled by the thought of "reintroducing"
prairie dogs to anything.
They're all over the freaking place. At least here in Colorado.
|12.13.06 @ 4:44PM|#
Kevin,
"Witness intimidation - unto the point of murder, if deemed
necessary - is a very popular tactic among those perpetrating
criminal acts (or selling drugs) in the inner cities. Police
continually complain that finding cooperative witnesses in bad
neighborhoods is tough work."
I know that. That's why I drew the comparison with the ESA.
And why, exactly, should the property owners be required to keep
their land prarie-dog free? Because the government said so? Because
their neighbors want it that way? If a raptor lands in my tree, and
eats my neighbor's bunny, am I to be held responsible for their
loss?
UCrawford|12.13.06 @ 4:48PM|#
Haverly and the environmental groups backing him are apparently hoping that reintroducing the prairie dogs will allow endangered species (like the black-footed ferret) to survive in the region. And that would be an admirable goal if Haverly owned all of the land in the area and shouldered the full consequences of his decisions himself. But he isn't doing that, he's essentially forcing his neighbors to shoulder them too (through higher extermination bills and degrading land value to name a couple), and that's not admirable, that's just selfish and wrong. And that's not a right that he should have as an individual property owner. He's forcing his choices on the rest of his neighbors and it's acting against their own interests.
UCrawford|12.13.06 @ 4:53PM|#
That's a flawed analogy, Joe. If your neighbor's bunny was on your land, and the bunny died, then your neighbor was at fault for not controlling his pet (the raptor eating it is irrelevant). Same as the rancher Haverly is responsible for the prairie dogs from his land intruding on his neighbors' property and damaging its value.
|12.13.06 @ 4:56PM|#
I'm disappointed in the weakness of the responses. So far,
nobody has been able to explain why unintended consequences
invalidate one type of law but not another, except to say that they
like one type and not another; refering me to the unintended
consequences of the law as if my argument didn't already rely on
knowing about the inintended consequences; oh, and saying that I'm
a baaaaaaaaad person who believes blah blah blah blah blah.
Sphynx manages a decent argument by refering to the longstanding
doctrine that you are responsible for keeping your livestock from
harming other people's property.
The problem is, they aren't "livestock." They've the critters that
live in the area. The squirrels in my tree aren't my livestock; nor
are the earthworms under my lawn. These prarie dogs aren't even the
owners' property, which he has responsibility over. The situation
is most analogous to someone deciding not to use Chemlawn, and his
neighbors suing him because they are allergic to his
dandelions.
UCrawford,
I "encourage" the squirrels in my tree to increase by, like the
property owners in question, not destroying their nests when they
build them. I would also work to prevent my neighbors from putting
poison on my land to kill them. I still don't think that makes me
liable if one of the squirrels digs up and eats my neighbors' tulip
bulbs.
|12.13.06 @ 4:57PM|#
"...[T]that's not admirable, that's just selfish and wrong. And
that's not a right that he should have as an individual property
owner. He's forcing his choices on the rest of his neighbors and
it's acting against their own interests."
Repudiation of the Supremacy of the Collective- If that's not a
hate crime, I don't know what is.
|12.13.06 @ 5:01PM|#
UCrawford,
I'm not responsible, even if the wild hawk that lives in my tree
kills the bunny in my neighbor's yard. It's still his
responsibility, not mine, to protect his property from natural
processes that reduce its value. Even if I were to feed the hawk by
leaving little bits of meat in my driveway, it's still a wild
hawk.
"He's forcing his choices on the rest of his neighbors and it's
acting against their own interests." In exactly the same way that
the property owners who decided to exterminate the critters have
decided to force their choice on Haverly and everone else.
One group wants the ecology to work one way. The other group wants
the ecology to work another way. I don't see why their financial
interest allows Haverly's neighbors to have a greater say into how
the ecology should function, and I certainly don't see how their
claim is so superior as to give them the right to control what he
does on his land.
UCrawford|12.13.06 @ 5:03PM|#
Joe,
You can choose to believe that encouraging the proliferation of
squirrels doesn't make you liable, but if the neighbors can
demonstrate that the destruction of the tulips was significant
enough to merit reparation (if, for example, it were a rare breed
of tulip), you'd be wrong. Same as if the squirrels in your yard
decided to move out of your trees to nest and tear holes in your
neighbors roof, or if you decided that maybe it's wrong to kill a
family of rats living in your house and they then expanded to your
neighbors' house and gave them all hantavirus. By allowing a pest
to grow unchecked, you've created a hazard to the well-being of
your neighbors' interests. And that goes beyond the personal
discretion of the property owner...that goes to forcing the
consequences of the choices you make upon your neighbors.
UCrawford|12.13.06 @ 5:10PM|#
Joe,
Normally I'd agree with your point about Haverly, except that the
prairie dogs aren't being restricted to his land, the neighbors
have indicated quite clearly that they're spreading to theirs,
which is driving up their extermination bills and driving down
their land value. It's the same argument as to people in
residential areas aren't allowed to turn their houses into
junkyards...they're forcing their neighbors to bear the economic
costs of their decisions.
The environmental considerations don't really even enter into it.
If Haverly wants to give up ranching entirely and dedicate his
entire life to saving the prairie dog, and doesn't care about the
consequences to his own land, that's fine. It's his right, so long
as he can insure that the consequences of his actions won't
severely affect the value of his neighbors' land. But from what the
article has indicated, he can't do that. Which makes his
encouragement of the growth of the prairie dog village
irresponsible and wrong.
|12.13.06 @ 5:12PM|#
They're the critters that live in the area. - joe
The "naturalness" of the habitat is long gone, and was helped to
that state by both private and government action. Destruction of PD
cities no doubt is the cause of their predator, the ferret, almost
dying out. If the P-dogs have no natural predators, what can one do
but hunt them or artificially limit their habitat?
I dunno, bringing the ferrets back might just reduce the varmints
from menace to nuisance.
The Nature Conservancey and Ducks, Unlimited pay rural landowners
so that they can work their land and provide habitat. Wouldn't it
be wise to work out something like this for the ferrets?
Kevin
tomWright|12.13.06 @ 5:14PM|#
So many points being missed, I can not believe there are as many
marksman here as the jokes imply.
The prairie dog 'ranchers' are just letting a native species
flourish unmolested. Unless I missed it in my quick scan of the
article, they are not actively encouraging population expansion of
the Prairie Dogs. They are doing so with the ferrets, but the
ferrets are not a problem to cattle. This is no different than
letting birds nest in trees or fish swim in a stream that crosses
your property. It is not your reponsibility to control nature. If
anything, introducing the ferrets is itself a control
measure.
If these were domesticated animals, like dogs, running loose
attacking a neighbors cattle or sheep, or exotic animals like
tigers kept as curiosities, then there would be a case.
The neighbors that object have no case so far as I am concerned.
Just like a tree that grows next to a property line, they can
prune, remove or kill what crosses it over or onto their property,
but can not harm what is on the other side of the line without
committing a crime.
In fact, the act of spreading poison on the P.D. 'ranchers' land is
justification for armed defense, so far as I can see: After all,
not only are they tresspassing and committing other criminal acts,
but the landowner upon whose land the poison is surreptitiosly
placed, may have other animals or people visiting the P.D. colony.
Who knows what other animal, like a pet dog, or even a curious
toddler, might eat it. The poisoner was endangering human lives as
well as the P.D.'s and other animals.
Could there be a complaint by a duck 'rancher' if snapping turtles
came down a stream, crossed a neighbors property line and ate their
ducklings?
|12.13.06 @ 5:16PM|#
Mr. Haverfield, who is 70, and his wife, Betty, 71, are
perfectly content to have neighbors and friends shoot some of the
thousands of prairie dogs for sport. They just do not want them
poisoned en masse.
******
Mr. Haverfield suggested a compromise, a 90-foot buffer zone of
poisoned land, with an electric fence. The commissioners rejected
it.
[From the article]
What an unreasonable bastard this guy is.
|12.13.06 @ 5:23PM|#
UCrawford,
No, I wouldn't be wrong. There is no - zero - zilch - nada
liability attached to choosing not to stop the established
migration and activity of native species from occuring.
The examples of rats and trash aren't applicable, because rats
nesting in a human shelter, or a yard filling up with junked
appliances, isn't the natural migration and activity of the area,
but a consequence of the property owner's occupation and use of his
land. If Haverly was introducing tigers to his land, and they
escaped and ate his neighbors' sheep, that would be a case of what
you're talking about. If he was burning tires and smoking out his
neighbors, that would be, too.
"except that the prairie dogs aren't being restricted to his land,
the neighbors have indicated quite clearly that they're spreading
to theirs" You mean like the leaves from my maple tree that fall
onto my neighbor's yard? The law is, if wants that to stop, he has
to cut the limb that extends over his land. He has no right to cut
down my tree, or take me to court to force me to cut down my
tree.
UCrawford|12.13.06 @ 5:26PM|#
Kevin,
It would be wise so long as Ducks Unlimited and the landowners who
want to harbor the ferrets can insure that the ferrets don't ever
leave their property and settle on their neighbors' land.
Otherwise, the "environmentalists" (for lack of a better term) are
just forcing their own choices on non-participating property
owners, which isn't a wise policy at all.
As for the reintroduction of the ferret as a control measure, once
an endangered species (like the black-footed ferret) sets up house
on your property, then the landowner is subject to restrictions on
land usage that endanger the animal. So the reintroduction of a
non-native endangered species (the ferret) to Haverly's property
potentially harms the economic value of Haverly's neighbors'
property by subjecting the neighbors to those environmental
restrictions should the ferrets relocate off of Haverly's land (and
it could also keep the neighbors from being allowed to poison
prairie dogs on their own land, to protect the ferrets from
unintentional poisoning). And allowing the prairie dogs to
flourish, without any predator controls, creates a potential pest
problem that also affects the neighbors' economic interests. So by
allowing the prairie dogs to flourish, Haverly is unfairly
affecting his neighbors' interests.
As for the fence, was it possibly rejected as an insufficient
measure to contain the prairie dogs (since they could likely tunnel
underneath it)?
|12.13.06 @ 5:29PM|#
Kevin,
"The "naturalness" of the habitat is long gone, and was helped to
that state by both private and government action."
Well, if the prarie dog population can re-establish itself so
robustly without Haverly doing anything at all, I don't think
that's true.
If everyone on my block uses Chemlawn on their yards to kill the
dandelions, and there hadn't been a dandelion there for years,
could my neighbor sue me if I stopped using Chemlawn, and the
dandelion tufts that blew off my property gave him allergies?
|12.13.06 @ 5:31PM|#
UCrawford,
If my oak tree extends over my neighbor's property and they find
this harms them for whatever reason, either the mess or risk of a
branch falling on the roof, they are free to cut down the branches
that exist in space across the property line at their expense. They
cannot compel me to cut down the tree entirely.
UCrawford|12.13.06 @ 5:32PM|#
Joe,
The concept of what constitutes "natural" or "unnatural" migration
and habitation patterns is a lot more arbitrary than you're
apparently willing to admit. The question for Kansas is more a
matter of "Are you responsible for what goes on on your property?",
and it appears in the case of Haverly that the state is leaning
towards holding Haverly accountable for allowing a pest to flourish
and move into his neighbors' property, which (as a pretty strict
libertarian) I'm okay with.
UCrawford|12.13.06 @ 5:33PM|#
Keith,
Yes, but I'd also say that since the tree is growing on your
property they should also be free to present you with the bill for
the trimming. It's your tree growing onto their property.
|12.13.06 @ 5:45PM|#
UCrawford,
You are wrong. It is your responsibility to cut the limb, at your
own cost and risk. That doctrine goes back a thousand years in
English Common Law.
You might not want this to be so, but it is. You might as well
insist that I put up a windbreak to keep your potted plants from
blowing over.
Or insist that I cut flowering trees that grow on my property to
stop bees from flying into your yard.
|12.13.06 @ 6:02PM|#
there is also a difference between actively harboring or
allowing to reproduce - which imply some affirmative action on the
part of the rancher, and inaction - which is generally not a source
of liability.
common law generally imposes no duty to act to the benefit of
another, thus i cannot see how the rancher would have any duty to
his neighbors in this. even in a hand-formula determination of
duty.
|12.13.06 @ 6:08PM|#
Kevin,
"The "naturalness" of the habitat is long gone, and was helped to that state by both private and government action."
Well, if the prarie dog population can re-establish itself so robustly without Haverly doing anything at all, I don't think that's true. - joe
joe, I live in a city. It's full of unnatural structures, but also
still has public and private parks, not to mention other private
lawns and lots, providing habitat for rats, racoons, rabbits,
possum, skunk, pigeons, gulls, raptors, feral cats and whitetail
deer. That the prairie dogs are able to flourish in the current
environment under question is not to say that it is anything close
to a natural habitat. Ranchers manicure their spreads differently
than urban gardeners, but those dogs and dogies aren't living on
the old open range, are they? Haverfield and Barnhardt could be
proponents of returning the land to its original state, but I'm
sure that if they are they have a bunch of work to do.
UCrawford, if reintroducing the ferret as a control measure were
ever contemplated, the ESA would have to be amended to allow
regulatory relief to the landowners. There'd be no point to it if
neighboring folks had an incentive to follow the "3S rule" when
they discovered an endangered animal on their land.
Kevin
|12.13.06 @ 6:08PM|#
further, if the neighbors don't want prairie dogs on their land
- why don't they just put poison on their own damned
property!
it is the neighbors imposing the artificial condition here (prairie
dog-less land). it seems to me that it is the neighbors who are
imposing a burden onto this rancher. landowners who want to alter
their property from its natural condition can do so - but shouldn't
expect others to pay to keep it sufficiently artificial.
|12.13.06 @ 6:35PM|#
They cannot compel me to cut down the tree
entirely.
Actually, I'm not 100% sure of that, but it reminds me of a funny
story. A few years ago in Southern California, a guy had a big
sycamore (or some such large tree) on his property that was
basically dying or dead. He wanted to cut it down because it was in
danger of falling in high winds. His loudmouth neighbor, who
enjoyed the shade from the tree, went to the city and got an
injunction to keep his neighbor from cutting down the tree. Cut to
a couple of months later, there's a big wind storm, and sure
enough, down comes the tree...right on top of loudmouth's garage.
To his credit, loudmouth didn't complain and paid for the damage
himself.
The other highlight of driving across Kansas is the
sunflowers.
I'm sorry but this is crazy. There are no highlights when driving
through Kansas, except for the sign that says you are now leaving
Kansas.
|12.13.06 @ 6:47PM|#
"I'm disappointed in the weakness of the responses."
I'm disappointed people still respond to you Joe. I guess we're
both just going to have to live with our little
disappointments.
|12.13.06 @ 6:54PM|#
This guy and his prairie dogs is the equivalent of someone
setting up a facility to raise termites and letting them out to
destroy his neighbors houses.
If he kept the prairie dogs on his property the neighbors would not
be complaining. He is exporting the costs for his hobby onto his
neighbors.
Furthermore, if any of his neighbors work cattle on horseback
prairie dog holes are a lethal hazard.
|12.13.06 @ 7:13PM|#
I have seen, on the PERC website, some articles discussing ranching for wildlife. The premise is that ranchers may profit by selling hunting licenses to be used on the their own property, and by other means as well, depending on the laws in their state. Naturally, they create conditions under which target animals like moose, bear, deer, antelope, and others flourish. I would be hard pressed to argue that if the animals who benefitted from this habitat improvement damaged adjacent property that the rancher would be liable.
|12.13.06 @ 7:38PM|#
For those who argue the prarie dogs must be contained, how does that compare or contrast with GM pollen escaping a corn patch and rendering all the neighbors' corn no longer GM-free?
|12.13.06 @ 7:57PM|#
What is it bizarro day at H&R?
The libertarians (UCrawford, TJIT, Kevrob-sorta-)are arguing that
the government is correct to take away the rights of a land owner
at the behest of his neighbors due to the externalities his
inaction is causing?
Even if you support the concept that there is no action that you
can take on your land that doesn't have an impact on your neighbors
(true in a sense--everything is interconnected at some level) and
use that as a justification for limits on property rights
(certainly reasonable in some situations) this case wouldn't be the
one you would want to use.
Strange.
|12.13.06 @ 8:04PM|#
That last post is unclear.
This case would be the one you would want to use to argue FOR
expansion of government in regards to property rights, but only if
you wanted to take the extremem position that the land owner has
virtually no rights when his actions are put in the context of
their impact on the group.
|12.13.06 @ 8:08PM|#
I think the confusion is this.
Some libertarians seem to take the position that good for the
environment = antifreedom
Therefore, they reason, any action whose intent/consequence
supports the goals of evironmentalism must be antifreedom.
The government's job is to protect freedom, therefore, the
government should stop this guy from taking an action that supports
environmental goals.
Crazy.
|12.13.06 @ 8:15PM|#
Ironchef gets this exactly right.
So let's change the context a bit for UC et al.
Instead of inaction, let's say this rancher decides to raise, I
don't know, PIGS.
The pigs are fenced in, but the smell gets out.
By your arguments, the government has some responsibility to
restrict the pig farmers rights due to the impact the smell has on
his neighbors.
Am I following your arguments?
|12.13.06 @ 8:17PM|#
FWIW.
I think there are important differences between the PD case and the
PIG case that change my position on the issues...
PD - inaction allowing a natural process
PIGS - overt action for profit
I would side with landowner in PD
I would side with neighbors in PIGS
Cost of doing business and all...
One man's pest...
|12.13.06 @ 8:19PM|#
Of course you would need to take things on a case by case
basis.
Smell = harm requires pretty serious smells.
|12.13.06 @ 8:24PM|#
Cost of doing business and all elaborated.
The pig farmer incurs extra costs to deal with the impact his
actions have on his neighbors. He will pass these costs along to
the community at large in the form of higher prices for his
product. The neighbors get a benefit, but also incur a cost (more
expensive ham). They do not force the PIG farmer to take the entire
burden upon himself. It is a distributed cost.
|12.14.06 @ 12:39AM|#
Leftstream:
Thanks for the "sorta."
What makes this case a mess is the involvement of the government in
eradicating the ferrets, either because that's what folks wanted or
as a side-effect of reducing the prairie dogs. The two maverick
ranchers did take an affirmative action. They reintroduced the
ferret. Now, a necessary prerequisite of bringing the ferret back
was ceasing the anti-PD activity normal to Plains ranching, and
given the century-old attitudes of cattlemen, county agents and
even the Feds in that region, the neighbors see that as a hostile
act.
The whole thing reminds me of those nice folks who remove
non-native grass lawns from their properties and let native
wildflowers and grasses sprout. It may be "ecologically correct,"
but that's no comfort to the neighbor with allergies who bought his
house with no idea that he'd be living nextdoor to a pollen
factory. In days past, the relevant municipality would send over
somebody with a mower to cut everything back if you wouldn't do it
yourself, and add the cost to your property tax bill. Now there are
sometimes local codes that allow for natural landscaping.
Kevin
|12.14.06 @ 7:27AM|#
An alternate to Dave Killion's idea.
Some sort of offset trading mechanism for encouraging biodiversity.
Ala Carbon Dioxide Offset Trading, but with improving biodiversity
and/or nativness as the target. Ie get p[aid to improve the number
of rare and/or wild native species on your land. For instance
French Broom infests California; Environmentalists and friends say
they value native species, let them pay the land owner to keep the
Broom at bay, and as such grow native plants instead.
It would be awkward to set up, but it help take the governmetn laws
and beurocracy out the system, replacing it with an environmentally
conscious market.
ed|12.14.06 @ 9:12AM|#
I'd love to see Ed host a children's show on Animal
Planet.
They should call it "Eaten, Worn or Laughed at"
_________________________
I'm serious.
Cows? Eaten.
Minks? Worn.
Monkeys? Laughed at.
It's a very compact philosophy.
Perfect for the kiddies.
Just like libertarianism.
|12.14.06 @ 9:18AM|#
Kevin,
I'm not claiming that the ranchland is in a particularly natural
state; just that it is natural enough that a native species can
re-establish itself fairly easily, meaning the property owner
doesn't have to take any overt acts for them to come back, he just
has to refrain form commiting overt acts that would eradicate
them.
He certainly committed overt acts in re-introducing the ferret, but
his neighbors aren't complaining about the ferret here.
TJIT,
If he had "set up facilities" for the groundhogs to come back, the
case would be harder, but he doesn't appear to have done so.
|12.14.06 @ 10:06AM|#
What sort of American advocates the government claiming right to manage a taxpayer's private property? If you think the government knows how a rancher should run their land, you might be better off in China. The rancher's neighbors can poison and shoot all they want on their side of the fence, but a man's property is his OWN.
|12.14.06 @ 10:10AM|#
Humans are the only animal stupid enough to fall in a prairie dog hole. The rest of God's creations gets along just fine with them. If your only complaint is that they consume too much grass you intended for your non-native european cattle, you might need to reevaluate your priorities before your reckoning.
thoreau|12.14.06 @ 10:36AM|#
I think people here are more interested in property values than property rights. That's the problem.
|12.14.06 @ 10:48AM|#
Man if I've ever wanted to see some knee-jerk 'anti-joe'
reactions I'd just need to look in this thread.
Like someone above suggested, its bizzaro day at H&R:
joe is actually making well-reasoned pro-liberty arguments while
the rest of the regulars are repeating the same thing over and over
in some kinda pro-regulation stupor.
Like joe has argued over and over the rancher has not taken
positive action to promote the re-establishment of the praire dog
villages, he simply did not take positive action to stop it,
allowing natural progression.
To argue that he should allow the goverment to go on his property
and spread poison is flat out assinine.
|12.14.06 @ 10:48AM|#
joe, it is the re-introduced ferret that brings the hammer of
the federal ESA down on the neighbors. If this were just a matter
of two ranchers refusing to control prairie dogs on their land v.
others who increased their anti-PD activities at their property
line, it wouldn't be such a complicated question. Then we'd be
talking about the state law that demands eradication and even
empowers the government to undertake it against a landowners will.
That'd be the rural version of an urban "anti-blight" ordinance,
hey? If these guys wanted to have a prairie dog reserve, and made
arrangements with their neighbors to keep the underground warrens
from encroaching on the adjacent properties, I'd say that enforcing
the mandatory poisoning law was nuts.
Kevin
|12.14.06 @ 11:17AM|#
joe, it is the re-introduced ferret that brings the hammer
of the federal ESA down on the neighbors. If this were just a
matter of two ranchers refusing to control prairie dogs on their
land v. others who increased their anti-PD activities at their
property line, it wouldn't be such a complicated
question
Well then maybe we should be discussing the ESA regulations then.
Or are you suggesting that the two ranchers should be held liable
because their actions might cause a federally mandated law to
become applicable?
|12.14.06 @ 11:18AM|#
Kevrob,
Thanks for elaborating your position. I can now feel comfortable
removing the "sorta" from your position. You have moved to the left
of me on this issue.
;~)
|12.14.06 @ 11:19AM|#
If he kept the Prairie dogs on his property nobody would care
about what he did and this would not be an issue.
But the prairie dogs are not staying on his property they are
colonizing his neghbors property.
Unlike other wildlife that graze and move on the prairie dogs
colonize, destroy a lot native sod, and leave potentially lethal
hazards for anyone who works cattle on horseback.
As the saying goes your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
His failure to keep the prairie dogs on his property is punching
his neighbors in the nose.
A couple of corrections to some previous commentors
No ferrets have been reintroduced
They are prairie dogs not ground hogs
As far as I could see the article did not make it clear whether the
prairie dogs were native or reintrouduced.
|12.14.06 @ 11:30AM|#
Joe,
Another way of explaining why his neighbors want something done is
this.
You live in a condo and a neighbor had an infestation of rats, or
termites. This neighbor does not control the rats or termites or
keep them on his property. Because of this the termites or rats
have colonized your condo and started destroying the framing of
your condo.
You have taken efforts to control the problem with the termites and
rats in your condo but these actions are ineffective because every
time you control the rats and termites on your property the rats
and termites from the neighbors condo reinfest yours.
I don't think the most staunch property rights advocate or
libertarian would say other condo owners would be out of line for
demanding that their neighbor keep the termites and rats on his
property.
|12.14.06 @ 11:31AM|#
TJIT,
"As the saying goes your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
His failure to keep the prairie dogs on his property is punching
his neighbors in the nose."
You are confusing the prairie dogs with the rancher. How can he be
responsible for the actions of wildlife. See Ironchef's comments
above.
"destroy a lot native sod, and leave potentially lethal hazards for
anyone who works cattle on horseback."
This is bunk.
|12.14.06 @ 11:40AM|#
"Scientists, in fact, refer to prairie dogs as the architects of
North America's grasslands. Prairie dogs gnaw through woody shrubs
such as mesquite that would otherwise takeover the grassland
habitat.
And as burrowing animals, they excavate tons of hard-baked desert
soils, increasing the grounds' fertility and improving foraging for
cattle."
From Bruce's link above
|12.14.06 @ 1:29PM|#
Mainstream man,
I assume you have some experience around prairie dogs and working
cattle on horseback.
Maybe we can compare notes because your "this is bunk" to my
comments on sod destruction and work hazards indicate you must have
some kind of experience on the ground. Is this true?
|12.14.06 @ 1:31PM|#
Kevin,
"joe, it is the re-introduced ferret that brings the hammer of the
federal ESA down on the neighbors."
No, it is the federal government that brings down the ESA down on
the neighbors.
TJIT,
"If he kept the Prairie dogs on his property nobody would care
about what he did and this would not be an issue." They are not his
prarie dogs, and he did nothing to cause them to come onto anyone's
property. You might as well complain that I failed to stop a cold
air mass from moving across my land and frosting your fields.
He is not swinging his fist. The prarie dogs are not his fist, and
he is not swinging them.
As I've written, the prarie dogs recolonizing their native habitat
are not the equivalent of rats or roaches moving from one house to
another, because the latter are present only because of the overt
acts of the owner (building a home - rats and roaches being
domestic pests that require a human habitation to survive in most
areas), while the former are a natural phenomenon that the owner
did nothing to cause.
|12.14.06 @ 1:33PM|#
val,
Thanks, but I wouldn't dismiss the entirety of the argument as
mindless anti-joe reaction.
Much of it is mindless anti-environmentalist reaction.
|12.14.06 @ 1:43PM|#
joe: Why does disareeing with you is described as "mindless
anti-joe reaction"?
BTW, Are any posters here in possesion of good prairie dog
recipes?
|12.14.06 @ 1:47PM|#
Hey, Joe, I'm an environtmentalist. I'm also rational.
I finally got to start a post with Hey Joe. Too
cool for words.
|12.14.06 @ 1:47PM|#
"Man if I've ever wanted to see some knee-jerk 'anti-joe'
reactions I'd just need to look in this thread."
There's nothing knee-jerk about my anti-joe reactions. It's from a
pretty clear history of him being a troll. A much subtler one than
Dan T., but a troll nevertheless.
People who go onto internet sites simply to annoy the regulars are
not people I consider worth repsonding to. Whether they happen to
be hiding behind good, bad or indifferent arguments at the moment,
means very little to me.
|12.14.06 @ 3:12PM|#
'Why does disareeing with you is described as "mindless anti-joe
reaction"?''
Not all of it does described is that way, J sub D. Quite a bit of
this thread does fall under that heading, I'm afraid.
Again, that's too bad for you. Engaging the ideas of those you
disagree with is a good way to grow, and helps to weed out sloppy
thinking. But some people don't have the constitution for anything
more challenging than a mutual admiration society, I guess.
|12.14.06 @ 8:23PM|#
"I assume you have some experience around prairie dogs and
working cattle on horseback."
Yep. You assume correctly.
|12.14.06 @ 8:26PM|#
Although it was many many years ago, I spent every summer of my youth working on my grandfather's cattle ranch in Oklahoma. He (and most of his neighbors), like the rancher's in the article, had no problem with the prarie dogs. They helped keep the black jack from invading pastures.
|12.14.06 @ 8:51PM|#
MainstreamMan,
My experience is in the western states and I've never heard of
blackjack before. What is it a type of weed?
I stand by my statement about prairie dogs being a lethal hazard. I
was helping gather cattle a couple months ago and there had been
prairie dog activity in the area. The thought of having my fast
moving horse step in one of those holes gives me the heeby jeebys.
That would be one quick, nasty kind of wreck.
Cheers,
TJIT
|12.14.06 @ 9:03PM|#
"blackjack ... What is it a type of weed?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack_oak
|12.14.06 @ 9:19PM|#
lots of smart folks in this discusion. to respond to a long ago question...yes, i have eaten prarie dog...tastes like squirrel or however you spellit. poor...lived out west...dad a rollin stone and whatnot...hence...prarie dog fo' dinna. not so bad...then. lv. pc. rob
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245