Statement of Ron Klataske, Executive Director, Audubon of Kansas to the Kansas House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture
Regarding Support for House Bill #2783

February 13, 2006

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the Audubon of Kansas Board of Trustees, listed on this letterhead, and approximately 5,000 Audubon members throughout Kansas, we thank you for considering House Bill 2783. We are honored to be here in partnership with organizations representing tens of thousands of other Kansas citizens including the Kansas Rifle Association, Kansas Farmers Union, Kansas Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy and individual landowners who are providing leadership for us all.

In addition, members of the Kansas Nongame Wildlife Advisory Council, representing fourteen (14) science and education based organizations including the Kansas Academy of Science recently passed the resolution urging “all relevant entities of state, county, and township government to support and work with landowners who elect to maintain black-tailed prairie dogs and their colonies.” Please see the complete copy of the resolution provided. Although House Bill 2783 would be appropriate for consideration by the Wildlife, Parks and Tourism Committee, there is merit for asking your consideration.

• The antiquated statutes we are addressing don’t just mandate eradication (on private land and/or statewide extinction) of prairie dogs in Kansas, the statutes eradicate the rights of landowners to conduct conservation of native wildlife as part of their land stewardship.
• The century-old statutes also eradicate an element of agri-tourism and outdoor recreation on private lands. The old statutes are a “takings” measure that can result in the poisoning of wildlife and their total eradication on a person’s property through a fifteen (15) day process. This can be done without consideration of the economic value of the resources for the private landowners or the conservation values of public interest. This is condemnation and eminent domain in its worst form. There are no safeguards and no consideration on current science and current conditions.
• In fact, 80-1208 specifies that township and county officials have no choice or they are automatically deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and are subject to a fine of not less than fifty dollars for each offense. The antiquated statutes undermine the concept of “Home Rule.” H2783 would restore a county’s authority to make 21st Century choices.
• In addition to “eradicating” landowners’ prospects of utilizing a renewable resource to complement other forms of income, these antiquated statutes eradicate all of these specific agri-tourism and nature-based tourism values of considerable and growing economic necessity for rural communities. These same economic values are important to our entire state.As an owner and manager of farm and ranchland my family relies on three sources of income to help us pay the property taxes and support two students at Kansas State University and another at Fort Hays State University. These sources include livestock production and grazing, farm program payments, and recreational (hunting) access. In addition to the contribution of sportsmen to me for the opportunity for quality hunting they contribute substantially to the local communities. Last year we hosted two gentlemen from Alabama, an archer from Texas, two from Nebraska and one from Minnesota--along with several Kansas residents. They stayed in local motels, ate at numerous restaurants and purchased other supplies.

Agri-tourism and nature-based tourism helps to keep struggling businesses in rural open for the benefit of farm and ranch families who are able to stay on the land. I am always saddened to go home to Greenleaf, a community that cannot sustain a cafe or service station and only has a satellite grocery store from Hanover.

I had twenty-two (22) classmates in High School. All who graduated left the community, and their farms. We need to create opportunities for rural families and communities. Eradicating wildlife is not a commendable mandate for state statutes, and eradicating property rights and opportunities for ranch and farm families is even less understandable in light of the rural economic challenges.

Lastly, if prairie dogs once again become a candidate species for the Endangered Species list, will land have to be acquired by governmental agencies to maintain the species and all of the associated wildlife dependent upon prairie dog colonies?

We would prefer that private landowners be allowed to maintain prairie dog colonies on their land so that conservation needs identified by the Kansas Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation and Management Plan can be fulfilled on a private land voluntary basis. They are striving to do everyone a favor, and they are the real heroes in this initiative. By the way, that plan was developed by a broad-based group of organizational representatives (including both wildlife conservation and farm groups), agency and university personnel from KSU, FHSU, KU and Emporia State University.