Public Attitudes and Knowledge of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog: A Common and Controversial Species

Black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus; hereafter, prairie dogs) are native to the short-grass prairie region of North America from Mexico to Canada (figure 1). According to government documents (64 Federal Register 57 at 14426–14427), before the 19th century expansion of the United States, prairie dogs inhabited millions of acres of the Great Plains and lived in huge colonies west of the Missouri River. Settlement of the Great Plains and the transformation of vast areas from native grassland to tilled farmland forever changed the prairie ecosystem and prairie dog habitat. Over the course of the last century, the habitat range of the prairie dog shrank by nearly 99 percent (Dolan 1999, Kotliar et al. 1999). Among the causes of shrinkage is poisoning: Livestock operators began extensive poisoning of prairie dogs around 1880, and the federal government began subsidizing prairie dog poisoning in 1915, quickly making it an institutionalized practice for federal, state, tribal, and county governments (Dunlap 1988). Prairie dog numbers have been further reduced by disease (i.e., sylvatic plague [Yersinia pestis]; Barnes 1993), drought, urban sprawl, cultivation and grazing practices, and recreational shooting. Because of the controversy over the status of the species, much of the recent research on prairie dogs explores the extent and nature of competition between prairie dogs and cattle for forage and the economic justifications for prairie dog control (O'Meilia et al. 1982, Collins et al. 1984, Uresk and Paulson 1989, Mulhern and Knowles 1995). There is also an ongoing scientific debate about whether prairie dogs are a keystone species and the extent to which they fulfill functions not duplicated by other species (Stapp 1998, Kotliar et al. 1999). Incomplete and emerging scientific understanding of prairie dogs and their relation to a changing ecosystem fuels not only these debates but also a public policy controversy (Gerhardt 2000). The outcome of this debate may guide policymaking for other widespread but threatened species. Many researchers and environmentalists consider the management and conservation of prairie dogs to be vital not only for the survival of the prairie dogs but also for the effective conservation of a large number of other grassland species, including predators such as the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), ferruginous hawk (Beuto regalis), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (Knopf 1993, Miller et al. 1996, Kotliar et al. 1999). The National Wildlife Federation, Predator Project, and Biodiversity Legal Foundation petitioned the federal government to acknowledge the declining numbers of prairie dogs and recognize their importance to the prairie ecosystem by determining that the black-tailed prairie dog is a threatened species (64 Federal Register 57 at 14425). In 2000 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found (under section 4[b] of the Endangered Species Act) that listing the black-tailed prairie dog as threatened is warranted. However, because other species in greater need of protection also await listing, the FWS decided against listing the species then. In making this decision, the FWS suggested that delaying the listing would give individual states an opportunity to implement their own protection programs (Gerhardt 2000, Hughes 2000). Indeed, after the petition and initial finding but before the FWS's final finding, nine states moved toward cooperative plans that might afford protection to the species (Gerhardt 2000, Hughes 2000). Additionally, each state within the historic range is conducting a census of prairie dog populations and habitat (Robert Luce [Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team, Cheyenne, Wyoming], personal communication, January 4). Preserving threatened and endangered species is one element of environmental protection. Citizens of the United States favor environmental protection, especially when it positively affects their quality of life (Shindler et al. 1993). Moreover, research has shown that they believe government should do more about environmental protection either through stricter regulations or stronger enforcement of existing environmental laws, and that having more information does affect their voting decisions (Shindler et al. 1996, Pew 1997, Greenberg Quinlan Research 2000). These findings are important for wildlife managers engaged in prairie dog conservation: They need to know whether citizens believe that prairie dog issues affect their quality of life and whether citizens think the government should be taking action. Moreover, it is important to know which segments of the population view those concerns as important. People seem to want and use information about the environment and natural resources, and wildlife managers need to design programs to explain the connection between protecting a threatened species and people's daily lives. Wildlife managers need answers to several questions to effectively implement federal or state programs. Among these questions are the following: Once managers have the answers, they can identify gaps in the public's understanding and design programs with a higher probability of success. What are the attitudes toward prairie dogs held by ranchers and farmers, environmentalists, and residents of urban and rural areas? What is the level of public knowledge about prairie dogs? How do attitude and knowledge vary among these groups? What are the sources of information on which the different groups rely? Wildlife management research has not traditionally focused on assessing citizen attitudes and knowledge (Kellert 1985, Reading 1993). However, over the past two decades more holistic attempts have been made to assess wildlife issues by surveying public attitudes. The results have provided managers, hunters, landowners, and environmentalists with an improved framework for expediting the policy process and rendering it more effective (Kellert and Clark 1991). At the same time, information about citizen knowledge has become more available. Despite the increasing use of this type of information in wildlife management, minimal data are available with respect to the public's attitude toward or knowledge of prairie dogs. Surveys have demonstrated that with the exception of those who identify themselves as environmentalists, most people who live in states within the historic prairie dog range display little concern for the animals (Reading 1993, Dolan 1999). Overall, respondents who are more likely to care about prairie dogs tend to be younger, better educated, professional, and female; people employed in agricultural or natural resource extractive industries tend to be less concerned about the animals (Reading 1993, Lamb et al. 2001). However, researchers have found several dimensions of attitudes and perceptions. Western ranchers generally dislike prairie dogs; they regard them as grass-eating pests that compete with cattle for food and as animals of little ecological value or ethical concern (O'Meilia et al. 1982, Reading 1993). The results of Reading's (1993) study demonstrated that 91 percent of ranchers surveyed in two counties of Montana believed they should not have to accept losses due to prairie dogs on public lands, and 97 percent favored controlling prairie dog numbers (Reading 1993). Ranchers claim that these losses stem from livestock stepping into prairie dog burrows and breaking legs and the destruction of grass and other vegetation, through which the prairie dogs reduce the number of livestock able to graze on a given section of land (64 Federal Register 57). Farmers who responded to studies or commented on plans complained about crop loss, damage to haying equipment, and draining of irrigated fields, all of which have been attributed to prairie dog activities (Hygnstrom and Virchow 1994, Long 1998). Overall, most ranchers and farmers are concerned more about adequate prairie dog control than about the prairie dogs themselves (Reading 1993, Kayser 1998, Reading et al. 1999). Any negative attitudes they express appear to stem from restrictions on ranching operations and loss of control over management of public land (Reading 1993). However, Reading (1993) found a small number of ranchers with more positive regard for the animals, who favored maintaining a moderate prairie dog population on public grazing lands. The Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service found in its survey of 1113 agricultural operators that younger respondents were more inclined than older ones to support conservation of prairie dogs and to favor a program that provided financial compensation for allowing prairie dogs to occupy their land. The same survey found that respondents with large acreage (15,000 acres or more) showed the most interest (40 percent) in participating in a compensation program. The attitudes of rural and urban residents differ substantially with respect to the ecological value of the species. Rural residents are generally more negative toward prairie dogs than their urban counterparts, who tend to enjoy watching the animals (Reading 1993, Zinn and Andelt 1999). According to Reading (1993), the attitudes of residents of Billings, Montana, differed significantly from those of residents in nearby Phillips County, a rural region. In Billings, respondents expressed greater concern for the protection, recreational value, and ecological worth of prairie dogs. Residents of Phillips County expressed little to no concern for the protection of prairie dogs and reported perceiving no ecological and ethical value in them (Reading 1993, Reading et al. 1999). Reading (1993) explained that he found urban–rural residency and livestock dependence to be the most important indicators of support or antagonism toward prairie dogs. In their study of 646 residents of Fort Collins, Colorado, Zinn and Andelt (1999) reported a similar urban–rural pattern. Lamb and colleagues (2001) reported, following a study of more than 1900 respondents in 11 states, that urban respondents across the short-grass prairie region of the United States tended to be more protective of prairie dogs than rural respondents and attached a higher priority to protecting them. Although rural and urban residents have different attitudes toward prairie dogs, the two groups do share a few perceptions (Reading et al. 1999, Zinn and Andelt 1999). According to John Sidle, an endangered species coordinator for the US Forest Service, both urban and rural residents perceive prairie dogs to be abundant (Long 1998). Furthermore, both groups perceive the animals as destructive toward vegetation (natural and ornamental) and generally favor controlling prairie dog populations (Reading 1993, Zinn and Andelt 1999). Hunters are a group that cuts across the urban–rural divide. Although hunters opposed species reintroduction, they valued animals such as prairie dogs more than nonhunters did. This was particularly evident within rural populations, where rural hunters tended to have a more positive attitude toward prairie dogs and prairie dog management than did rural nonhunters (Reading 1993, Long 1998). Hunters' desire to see the prairie dog species maintained may be connected to both altruism and utilitarianism. Rural public attitudes usually support management of prairie dog colonies in coordination with other uses, such as ranching, hunting, and prairie dog watching (Reading 1993, Zinn and Andelt 1999). In contrast to many western ranchers and even the general public, those who identify themselves as environmentalists seem to stress the benefits of prairie dog communities. People who belong to conservation organizations reported a much more positive attitude toward prairie dogs than did other respondents in the studies we reviewed. Those positive attitudes were primarily associated with the moral, ethical, and ecological arguments for maintaining prairie dogs (Reading et al. 1999). Environmentalists saw prairie dogs as a keystone species that regulates the prairie ecosystem by influencing primary production and increasing the diversity of plant and animal communities (Reading 1993, Kotliar et al. 1999, Reading et al. 1999). On many Native American reservations, ranchers typically regard prairie dogs as “the scourge of the Earth” (Long 1998). This attitude derives from cultural, historical, and economic considerations. Prairie dog shooting programs bring money to reservations in the form of license and guide fees (Long 1998). However, this attitude is changing on a number of reservations. Some tribal leaders, such as those at the Fort Belknap reservation in Montana and the Rosebud Sioux reservation in South Dakota, have limited the number of licenses sold and attempted to remind the local communities that their ancestors once valued all the creatures of the prairie (Dolan 1999). Other Native American communities, such as the Cheyenne River Sioux in South Dakota, have developed holistic prairie management programs reflecting the interrelationship among and importance of all animals of the prairie (Roemer and Forrest 1996). Zinn and Andelt (1999) and Lamb and colleagues (2001) reported that negative attitudes toward prairie dogs were associated with familiarity and knowledge of the animals. As noted by Kellert (1993, p. 7), “Greater knowledge is often more a basis for reinforcing and rationalizing attitudes than a cause for attitudinal convergence or change. Despite this qualification, one may assume knowledge exerts a moderately important influence on attitudes toward wildlife.” US citizens' knowledge of the environment is relatively sparse (Pierce and Lovrich 1986). Kellert (1993) found their knowledge about wildlife in particular to be limited. For example, only 40 percent of survey respondents knew that iguanas are not mammals. US citizens understood that habitat loss is an important cause of species decline, but they tended to overestimate the role of chemical and industrial pollution as a cause of species endangerment (Kellert 1993). With this in mind, it is important to look at what recent literature shows about people's knowledge of prairie dogs. According to Reading (1993), ranchers in Phillips County, Montana, perceived themselves as having “great” knowledge of prairie dogs (88 percent said they “know a lot”). This perception was not substantiated by the results of Reading's (1993) study measuring the ranchers' actual level of prairie dog knowledge. Ranchers were found to have about the same level of knowledge about prairie dogs as some other groups in the study (Reading 1993). Sexton and colleagues (2001) reported in a study of respondents from the short-grass prairie region of the United States that rural respondents possessed higher levels of factual knowledge about prairie dogs, although urban residents reported knowing more terms related to the management of prairie dogs. Reading (1993) found that farmers and ranchers reported personal experience as the most common source of their information (85 percent) about prairie dogs, with books, articles, and newspapers as other important sources. Somewhat fewer ranchers and farmers said they obtain information from friends, television, and literature provided by the Bureau of Land (Reading 1993). found that farmers to on as the primary source of information about agricultural practices, and in a much found that they on in to and for information about The most by respondents to the study were those to Reading (1993) suggested that because a level of perceived knowledge is associated with personal attempts by managers to by scientific findings might not be respondents to much they knew about prairie dogs, Reading (1993) found that the general public's of knowledge was The US study reported that the respondents were able to questions about with prairie dogs; the vast not questions of prairie dog life et al. Sexton et al. 2001). On the basis of these the researchers suggested that may know about general but when it to about prairie dogs, knowledge is not et al. p. people who live prairie dog colonies more knowledge than other of the general public and Andelt 1999). The Fort Collins study showed that the level of knowledge when residents lived even one from colonies and Andelt 1999). Zinn and Andelt (1999) and Lamb and colleagues (2001) reported that people with experience with prairie by more about and less inclined to accept associated with the animals. People prairie dog colonies were more likely than other of the public to with the animals and were more concerned about the of prairie dogs and Andelt 1999). This concern might be as a environmental because the animals have a on people's lives. Fort Collins citizens who live prairie dogs would be more than the general public to accept poisoning as a control the general public reported a for and and Andelt 1999). respondents who lived those with the of saw the animals in a more and were more to accept control by poisoning than were those with a of and Andelt 1999). large of all respondents in the Fort Collins study reported support for environmental protection. as is the with other environmental and for with the most knowledge reported a for protection from of As important as understanding what people know is of where they their reported some or a from personal experience percent) and from and about a of the respondents in the study said they some or a about prairie dogs from television, or other sources et al. 2001). from farmers, and the resource many states have traditionally the prairie dog as a species and have or ranchers and farmers to prairie dogs (Roemer and Forrest 1996). Indeed, the of many government have the attitudes and of farmers and Although the US Fish and Wildlife Service has not listing the prairie dog as a threatened species, its in 2000 that the animal federal listing has to the debate over prairie dog in and prairie dog management programs is understanding public attitudes toward and knowledge of the species and management The literature we have to a number of about public attitudes and of prairie dogs does not of environmental protection, that the of these burrowing as keystone species has not in the perceptions of the general et al. 2001). There is a between urban and rural attitudes. However, this does not explain the of knowledge people Although urban residents are relatively of prairie dogs, ranchers and rural those who have experience with the Research has shown one with have greater knowledge than the general public and 1997, Zinn and Andelt 1999). experience is important because it is connected with it is also associated with negative attitudes toward prairie dogs et al. 2001). knowledge and concerns improved of the most in natural resource management over the past has been the on making 1999, et al. 1999). The public has has and resource managers have a of and management that the public in wildlife and other natural are to be and 2000). knowledge of prairie dog and management may more effective in these et al. found that US citizens who are generally are more likely than the general public to of to environmental study also that citizens with levels of knowledge are less likely to perceive a stronger between value and environmental perception than value and knowledge. and colleagues found a between higher and greater environmental Zinn and Andelt (1999) demonstrated that in one the of prairie dogs on quality of life were related to knowledge and perceptions of at Greenberg Research found that environmental issues with the importance to the public are those that most affect perceptions of the quality of Although these studies to understanding of citizens' of environmental issues such as prairie dogs, of the ones we perceptions of prairie dogs over time, or in relation to such as the economic status of the communities. They generally to prairie dogs are related to other environmental and affect people's quality of among environmental for management and quality of life of of to be an important in toward prairie dogs and prairie dog This farmers, rural and people colonies know more believe they know more) but care less about protection of the animals. would be to the nature of perception prairie dogs. prairie dogs relatively more or less than other environmental a in perception and of with How would a in knowledge or perception affect the of a in value or What is most important in for prairie dog perception of or it even to the level of public knowledge about a species such as prairie dogs? is it to people where their knowledge of prairie dogs may be whether or not it is to knowledge of prairie dogs, it is important to know the sources of information they and The studies that have been to an to this the data from these studies are is a need for more extensive research to identify sources of knowledge about habitat Moreover, the literature we did not the of whether or attitudes might the general public's level of knowledge The literature we was in that environmentalists and many urban residents are relatively of prairie dogs, although ranchers and rural are The literature also that may be a between perceived and actual knowledge about the species. believe that knowledge does not to in it can to improved or more effective public (Kellert 1993). what would knowledge to a better understanding of other of better understanding the of of questions to the attitudes and knowledge of government including state, tribal, and federal wildlife and land management The level of knowledge about and attitude toward prairie dogs and prairie dog management among these have not been reported in the Although has been some of public on government or personal with government for information on endangered species, we no studies that either the knowledge of such or the connection between their attitudes and knowledge and those of the local communities where they There are a number of in the management of prairie dogs. In some the prairie dogs in different management it to more effectively the management and among the of federal of what are the most likely to in of the and for prairie dog protection is an would be for the management of other threatened but widespread species. few studies have for for prairie dogs and areas in which to conservation for the protection and of the prairie dog ecosystem et al. 1998, et al. These studies attempted to through some existing in to of prairie dog Although this type of research is a more understanding of existing and toward level of prairie dog management or conservation a in because are areas that need further study 1). understanding not only the but the and of the as The increasing on public and in conservation programs in recent is (Reading 1993, Reading et al. 1999). and is The and attitudes people toward those and attitudes are and what levels of knowledge are all issues for the of prairie dog studies and conservation programs. to acknowledge the of and Sexton in the of this and that of who on are for the provided by and who as of the process for as as for the and of over that among environmental and for management of the nature of perception prairie dogs of information sources the public and that are more of attitudes may public knowledge of government attitudes and knowledge of prairie dogs of and of black-tailed prairie historic range in the United States

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.