In recent years, people have interpreted scientific information about the black‐tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in various, and sometimes conflicting, ways. Political complexity around the relationship among black‐tailed prairie dogs, agricultural interests, and wildlife has increased in recent years, particularly when prairie dogs occur on publicly owned lands leased to private entities for livestock grazing. Some have proposed that estimates of prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) numbers from 1900 are inflated, that prairie dog grazing is not unique (other grazers have similar affects on vegetation), and that prairie dogs significantly reduce carrying capacity for livestock and wildlife. We address all these issues but concentrate on the degree of competition between prairie dogs and ungulates because this motivates most prairie dog control actions. We conclude that the available information does not justify holding distribution and numbers of prairie dogs at a level that is too low to perform their keystone ecological function. We further conclude that it is especially important that prairie dogs be sufficiently abundant on public lands to perform this function.

No abstract

Monitoring annual herbage use in rangelands is desirable for scientific management but problematic due to the difficulty and expense of making direct measurements of sufficient precision. We used a Robel pole with 1.27 cm alternating white and gray bands to indirectly measure standing herbage. This technique enables a smooth transition in the basis of annual use monitoring from percent use to residual herbage and overcomes the difficulties alluded to above. Our study was conducted in the southern Bighorn National Forest, Wyoming on granitic soils and within the Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis Elmer) vegetation type. The objectives were to develop and validate the relationship between Robel pole visual obstruction readings and clipped standing herbage, and develop guidelines for monitoring and estimation of optimum sample size. Clipped standing herbage ranged from 134 to 3792 kg dry matter (DM) ha−1 with a mean of 1558 kg DM ha−1. Visually obstructed bands (band = 1.27 cm) averaged 6.1 and ranged from 0.2 to 19.5. Approximately 75% of the variation in standing herbage was explained by linear regression on visual obstruction measurements. Both intercept and slope of the regression were highly significant (P = 0.001). The standard error of the estimate for a single observation was 458 kg DM ha−1. Cluster analyses grouped the visual obstruction readings into four management categories. This monitoring tool provides pertinent information for managers to develop guidelines based on band and/or standing herbage for natural areas, wildlife and livestock use.