Skip to content

City Council Approves Amended First Reading of Prairie Dog Ordinance

Longmont's City Council gave initial approval at Tuesday's regular session to move forward with a new ordinance the requires relocation or a permit for the extermination of prairie dogs on private property within Longmont city limits.
prairie-dogs-938578_1280
Longmont Observer

This content was originally published by the Longmont Observer and is licensed under a Creative Commons license.

Longmont's City Council gave initial approval at Tuesday's regular session to move forward with a new ordinance the requires relocation or a permit for the extermination of prairie dogs on private property within Longmont city limits.

Currently, there are no rules against exterminating a prairie dog colony on private property in Longmont, outside of existing state rules regulating the use of allowed and prohibited poisons.

Multiple amendments were made during the discussion, with additional input possible. The final approval (2nd reading) on this topic will happen in January.

Two levels of permits were approved. A 'minor' level, that applied to colonies of 25 or fewer prairie dogs, and a 'major' level that applied to over 25 prairie dogs. Property owners and developers in Longmont would need to use a new 90-day process for a 'major' (over 25 animals) permit that included public notification and public comments.

Council members put the weight of finding a relocation site onto prairie dog advocates, instead of landowners and developers, with this addition to the ordinance. If a relocation site isn't found within 90 days, the landowner would be allowed to exterminate the prairie dogs.

No registration of any sort would be maintained, as originally planned, after input from various prairie dog advocates argued against it due to its impracticality and the difficulty in keeping it up-to-date.

It was agreed, however, that a list of qualified prairie dog relocation companies be maintained and used as a resource. The concern seemed to be that past 'relocation' companies were really just exterminators, without any relocation experience.

The council added that the ordinance should contain an expectation that the cost of relocation should be reasonable, although what reasonable means was not defined and the city staff were directed to develop phrasing that would outline that definition for the final reading of the proposed ordinance.

Two land developers spoke against the ordinance. The first, a commercial building and small developer, JD (John) Parker, spoke about how local activists were very unresponsive and unable to find a relocation site to relocate a colony of prairie dogs on one of his development sites. As a result, he donated the prairie dogs to a bird of prey sanctuary that uses prairie dogs as food for the birds. He claimed that the traps used to capture the animals were regularly stolen and vandalized, which was very expensive. He also outlined how only a very small percentage of the animals could be captured - 5 to 10%.

Parker talked about a city-based relocation site at Rogers Grove, next to where he lives, and he expressed concern about this site being repopulated with prairie dogs. A video of his comments:

Video Source: The City of Longmont & Channel 8

Another local developer, Steve Strong, expressed dismay that the council would pass an ordinance like this and asked how his properties would be protected against other properties' prairie dog populations migrating to his properties. He claimed to have spent $20,000 to relocate four prairie dogs. He also accused prairie dog activists of cutting up the fences on his property, threatening the livelihoods of and bodily harm to his family and kids. He also claimed that they uncovered the holes to bring back the prairie dogs. See his complete comments below:

Video Source: The City of Longmont & Channel 8

The final vote was 4-1 in favor of the first reading of the ordinance with Mayor Bagley, council members Rodriguez, Waters and Christensen voting for, and council member Martin voting against, with council members Finely and Peck absent.