The Effect of High-Tensile Electric Fence Designs on Big-Game and Livestock Movements

Abstract

We used infrared‐activated video cameras and direct observation to evaluate the effects of 2‐wire high‐tensile electric fence (2‐WF), 3‐wire high‐tensile electric fence (3‐WF), and 4‐wire high‐tensile electric fence (4‐WF) designs on elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) movements. In addition, high‐tensile electric fences (HTEF) were tested for their effectiveness on domestic cattle (Bos taurus; 2‐WF and 3‐WF) and bison (Bison bison; 3‐WF and 4‐WF). Shock energy on the test fences ranged from 0.5–4.5 J. The wildlife species we studied were physically capable of crossing all of the fence designs. However, difficulty in crossing the fences varied between species and designs. The elk and mule deer observed were more successful (100%) at crossing the 2‐WF than pronghorn (51%). Mule deer (95%) and pronghorn (91%) were more successful at crossing 4‐WF than elk (59%). The majority of elk (79%), mule deer (93%), and pronghorn (97%) successfully crossed 3‐WF. Electric shock did not appear to affect elk, mule deer, or pronghorn at a charge of 0.5–4.5 J, and overall < 1% were shocked when interacting with HTEF. For domestic cattle, 2‐WF was 99% effective in calf separation tests and 100% effective for bull separation. Bison were successfully contained by both 3‐WF (100%) and 4‐WF (99.8% [∼100%]). Our data suggest the 3‐WF design overall was the least restrictive for elk, mule deer, and pronghorn and effectively confined domestic cattle and bison.

The use of stable isotope ratio analysis to distinguish multiple prey kill events from mass kill events

“…They are managed as a game animal, and pronghorn population size in Wyoming has fluctuated with hunting pressure as well as weather and non-human predator pressure (primarily coyotes and eagles predating young pronghorn). Unlike deer, pronghorn avoid jumping fences (although they often are able to pass under wire-strand fences) and therefore are restricted in their movements in developed areas of the state (Karhu and Anderson, 2006;Stone, 2006;Yoakum, 2004c). Interstate highways, particularly I-80 in southern Wyoming, also restrict their modern movements.…”

Effectiveness of cattle operated bump gates and exclusion fences in preventing ungulate multi-host sanitary interaction

“…Several reports have examined the efficacy of a variety of psychological, physical and biological barrier alternatives to traditional methods to evaluate their potential to be used for excluding or containing wild ungulates. Frightening devices , laser lights (VerCauteren et al, 2006a), propane gas exploders (Gilsdorf et al, 2004), livestock protection dogs (VerCauteren et al, 2008;Gehring et al, 2011), human-used bump gates (VerCauteren et al, 2009), electrified enclosures (Karhu and Anderson, 2006;Reidy et al, 2008) and fencing (VerCauteren et al, 2006b;Lavelle et al, 2011;Phillips et al, 2012) have all been evaluated and have varying efficacy in deterring wild ungulates from cattle resources. A fence design has been tested to successfully exclude elk without impeding other wildlife, including smaller ungulates , which is based on the fact that different body size impacts the ability to breach.…”

Use of wildlife webcams - Literature review and annotated bibliography

“…Studies conducted for many different purposes make use of remote photography. Remote photography is used in studies of wildlife crossing structures (Braden and others, 2008;Donaldson, 2007;Fiehler and others, 2007;Kleist and others, 2007;Ng and others, 2004), wildlife use of water catchments (Lynn and others, 2008;O'Brien and others, 2006), wildlife reaction to fences (Karhu and Anderson, 2006;VerCauteren and others, 2007), wildlife presence and population estimates of species (Foresman and Pearson, 1998;Harrison, 2006;Hristov and others, 2008;Huckschlag, 2008;Kelly and others, 2008;Larrucea and others, 2007;Locke and others, 2005;MacNulty and others, 2008;Marnewick and others, 2008;Moruzzi and others, 2002;Scheibe and others, 2008;Silveira and others, 2003;Song and others, 2008;Srbek-Araujo and Chiarello, 2005;Stewart and others, 1997;Watts and others, 2008;Yasuda and Kawakami, 2002), the effect of human presence and disturbance on animals (DeLap and Knight, 2004;George and Crooks, 2006;Langston and others, 2007;Salgado Kent and Crabtree, 2008), wildlife reproductive behaviors (Langbein and others, 1998;Maniscalco and others, 2006;Newbery and Southwell, 2009), nest studies (Cain and others, 2003;Grivas and others, 2009;Hanula and others, 2000;Hebert and Golightly, 2007;Hudson and Bird, 2006;King and others, 2001;Kristan ...…”

“…The maintenance/monitoring frequencies reported in the articles we reviewed varied widely. Frequencies were wide ranging with daily (Hanula and others, 2000;Langston and others, 2007;Marnewick and others, 2008;McQuillen and Brewer, 2000;Mills and others, 2005;Pietz and Granfors, 2000;Thompson and Burhans, 2003), every 2-3 days (King and others, 2001;Rogers and others, 2005;Steen, 2009;Stein and others, 2008), once a week (Donaldson, 2007;Larrucea and others, 2007), every two weeks (Grivas and others, 2009;Karhu and Anderson, 2006;O'Brien and others, 2006), and once a month (Song and others, 2008) maintenance reported. Maintenance frequencies seemed tied to the type of technology used.…”

“…They used back-up batteries in case of power failure. Most frequently, cameras and other equipment, such as motion sensor triggers, were powered by batteries (Foresman and Pearson, 1998;Huckschlag, 2008;Karhu and Anderson, 2006;King and others, 2001;Locke and others, 2005;McGee and others, 2005;McQuillen and Brewer, 2000;Pietz and Granfors, 2000;Renfrew and Ribic, 2003;Rogers and others, 2005;SrbekAraujo and Chiarello, 2005;Staller and others, 2005;Steen, 2009;Stein and others, 2008;Thompson and Burhans, 2003). Battery failure can compromise the collection and recording of video or photography (Lewis and others, 2004).…”