Comment on FR Doc # 2012-09884

It would seem to me that if the purpose of revising this Special Rule is to allow the lethal take of Utah prairie dogs in areas presenting a serious human safety hazard, it should allow for Utah prairie dogs to be removed from private property where Utah prairie dogs and humans co-exist. While I feel this revision is a step in the right direction, I feel that where Utah prairie dogs present the greatest threat to human health and safety is in the residential neighborhoods where Utah prairie dogs thrive, due to the absence of predators. It is here, where our kids and domestic pets play outside, where Utah prairie dogs are in close proximity, that human health and saftey is most vulnerable. The federal goverment controls 70% of the land in Utah and there are five times more Utah prairie dogs than are necessary to have them removed from protection under the ESA--why can't the federal government move the 3,000 necessary to remove from protection under the ESA on to federal land and manage them there, allowing home owners to rid their properties of these animals if they choose to do so? Why is it that this battle has to take place on land owned by private citizens, and at the expense of these same citizens who are frequently extorted out of thousands of dollars in order to get permission to do as they please with their own properties?