Oakley ? Two men embroiled in a dispute with Logan County have been told they must remove cattle from the land they own or lease, or the county will spread poison on the land – and charge them for the work and the toxic substance.

Logan County wants to poison the 8,000 acres to rid it of prairie dogs. However, landowner Larry Haverfield and Gordon Barnhardt, who leases some of the land, have been fighting the poisoning because they support a federal effort to reintroduce the endangered black-footed ferret to the northwest Kansas area. Prairie dogs are a main food source for the ferrets.

County commissioners oppose the reintroduction effort. This week, Haverfield was served with a letter from Logan County Attorney Andrea Wyrick giving him until Wednesday to remove his cattle.

Otherwise, the county will “enter the land and treat the prairie dog infestation with Phostoxin, a chemical that can be used while cattle remain on the property,” the letter said.

A county commissioner said a similar letter likely was sent to Maxine Blank, an 80-year-old Utah woman who owns some of the land that Haverfield leases.

Some of the disputed land already had been treated – without the owners’ consent – with Rozol, which is significantly cheaper than Phostoxin. However, the Kansas Department of Agriculture has begun an investigation of that application because it apparently was not done correctly. Rozol is not supposed to be applied above ground on land where cattle graze.

Logan County Commissioner Nick Scott dismissed the suggestion that the county’s action might put Haverfield out of business.

“It’s an effort to stop the black-footed ferret, it looks to me, and to protect the neighbors,” he said.

Brenda Pace, a Hutchinson resident and Barnhardt’s daughter, said she plans to sign a complaint against the company that applied the Rozol, and against an agriculture department field agent she contacted about the issue.

“When I talked to him, he didn’t seem like he wanted to do anything to stop the prairie dog poisoning,” she said.

Barnhardt said he initially agreed not to file a complaint because he believed he had struck a deal with the applicator. In exchange for not filing a complaint, he said, the county was not to be billed for the work and the company would not return to Barnhardt’s or Haverfield’s land.

On Tuesday morning, Barnhardt received a bill for $567.60, prompting him to say he would now file a complaint.

“I don’t have any reason not to because he did illegal things on my land, and he wants to charge me for it,” he said.

Without a restraining order, Scott said the county will be at the ranch Wednesday. He said if the county needs to hire people to move cattle or take them elsewhere and feed them, it will, and charge the cost to Barnhardt and Haverfield.

Haverfield and Scott both said the dispute likely is headed to court.

“It’s the Hatfields and the McCoys again,” Scott said. “I hate to see it go to court, but if it has to, it has to. I think it’s just the step to a lawsuit.”

“It’s like he has no property rights whatsoever,” Ron Klataske, executive director of the Audubon of Kansas, said of Haverfield. “Why are they targeting these landowners, and why are they doing it right now?

“They have an unfounded fear of the experimental reintroduction of black-footed ferrets. It’s no more founded than monsters under one’s bed. There are no monsters under a bed.”