South Dakota Joins to Protect Private Property Rights from Federal Prairie Dog Protections
PIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that South Dakota has joined 7 other states in an amicus or “friend of the court” brief to support asking the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a ruling striking down federal protections for the Utah prairie dog on private property.
“The States have historically managed the wildlife within their borders. Federal regulation of the white or black-tailed prairie dogs on state, local or private land encroaches on powers reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment and individual property rights,” said Jackley.
The States’ brief takes the position that federal regulation of the Utah prairie dog on private lands violates the Constitution, and that the state of Utah has the authority to manage wildlife within its borders. The States argue that Utah’s rural communities are hurt by the “uncontrolled proliferation” of the Utah prairie dog.
Prairie dogs belong to the Sciuridae family of rodents. There are five species of prairie dogs native to North America. The Utah prairie dog is a member of the white-tailed group.
South Dakota is home to the black-tailed prairie dog that is currently listed by federal authorities as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
U.S. District Court had ruled in favor of state control by determining that federal rules protecting the threatened species were allowing prairie dogs to overtake a town.
The property owners from Utah said the small, burrowing animals damaged the airport and cemetery and interrupted funerals with their barking.
-30-
Many good family memories were made going out and shooting those varmints! Our relatives sure appreciated us going out shooting them. Cattle could break their legs in the pesky pest holes.
“Threatened”?????? Have any of these people been to a prairie dog town? They multiply faster than we can shoot them! A guy I know that has an infestation once told me he thought if people think they should be protected, let’s take a couple of breeding pair and set them loose in Central park. Then we might see some people change their minds. BTW, he offered to pay me $5000 for the last one….
How can we (as Conservatives) wave the flag of “Protecting Private Property Rights” on this issue when we openly advocate for eminent domain to be used by private corporations for their own profit gain? Several times on this blog I have read that the Keystone XL needs to be built no matter what. Now, in this single issue we stand for property rights? This is disgraceful.