Case Study: The Ramifications Of Park Fencing
Indiana University Bloomington
The Ramifications of Park Fencing on Wildlife
Leon Cohen
SPEA-E 482
4 June 2014 Boundary fencing has been a vital component to wildlife conservation strategy for over 50 years in both the domestic and international realms. It hasn’t been seen until recently, as these ecosystems under management respond to their environments, that these boundary fences have had a profound effect on both its biotic and abiotic factors. The decision to implement a certain management strategy is largely dependent on many factors unique to the area. The following text will analyze the costs and benefits of the use of fencing in natural areas seeking ecological stability through this conservation management technique. …show more content…
Focus will be placed on the natural reserve areas of South Africa throughout this analyzation, with a situational comparison to the United States, its similar conservation management strategies, and the outcome it reached as the two countries have shared bold conservation goals throughout history. Wildlife conservation is executed with each action made to reach a specific goal, with its potential benefits outweighing the potential costs. As conservationists cater their management practices towards a single goal, unintentional consequences may occur to surrounding wildlife with detrimental effects. The construction of border fencing around game and nature reserves have often experienced similar consequences impacting the local ecology of such areas. Wildlife is its own living entity that has followed mere tradition to further the wellbeing of their respected species in a familiar habitat. As border fences were constructed, the physical barrier that it imposes on wildlife has shown to inhibit their natural behavior (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). One such behavior is migration, and this is usually motivated by the search of various resources as seasons influence their availability (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). Physical barriers like fences impede this instinctual action by forcing wildlife to a specific area amidst the need to recolonize (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). Behaviors like migration are as naturally-occuring as the abiotic changes to an ecosystem that are affected by the environment. As dry brush builds up over a period of time, raging fires can form from lightning strikes and anthropogenic influence. Some ecosystems rely on fire to carry out the necessary functions of reproduction and nourishment for wildlife and its food chain. When the fires result from the absence of herbivores that keep the fire-feeding brush in check, it can destroy vast areas of habitat and deter the persistence of game and predator due to a lack of food. That is, if the wildlife hasn’t already died from encountering the fire in the enclosed area. The inspiration to relocate comes from far more than a temporary search for resources or to escape from the dangers of a brush fire. As our dynamic environment changes either on its own natural means or through the influence of anthropogenic actions, plant and animal wildlife has responded by seeking a habitat their species can flourish in. As with the ecological impediments stated previously, the border fence has restricted wildlife to a changing habitat that is constantly moving in a direction unsuitable to live in (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). William D. Newmark conducted mid-range climate change models in Isolation of African Protected Areas by combining them with the area relationships each habitat had and whether or not dispersal was an option for inhabiting wildlife. In the absence of dispersal, 69% of mammals, 51% of birds, 59% of reptiles, 78% of butterflies, 8% of other invertebrates, and 52% of Proteacae native to South Africa showed likely extinction by 2050. With the option of dispersal, no wildlife except for 38% of Proteacae fared a similar, grotesque outlook (Newmark 2008). Drought is one form of climate change that places profound ecological stress on a habitat, and with the combination of little access to water and border fencing around nature reserves, it makes access to water nearly impossible (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). This scenario was seen during harsh droughts in the Kalahari for a portion of the late 20th century. In the Southern Kalahari, 80,000 wildebeest and 10,000 hartebeest died from a lack of access to water sources due to both drought and fencing, while in the Northern Kalahari, the zebra had disappeared due to similar reasons (Newmark 2008). The costs of border fencing on wildlife often goes far beyond inhibiting natural behavior. The fencing typically used in this setting is what is called a hard border fence. It is an impermeable blockade that prevents almost all plant and animal wildlife from being able to cross (Slotow 2012). Many animal species attempt to escape from their boundaries at some point, but this attempt comes with high mortality, especially in reptiles (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). A similar issue of fence mortality is seen in game both in the nature reserves of South Africa and also Yellowstone National Park in the United States during its early years. As these animals try to jump these fences, many would get their legs caught in the fencing and become easy targets by indigenous predators and hunters (National Park Service 2002). This anthropogenic impact on local ecology had a disastrous impact on the natural food chain order in both areas. South Africa once had a simple equilibrium of predator and prey, but during the tsetse fly campaigns during and after WWII, the mass slaughter of both the hunter and hunted removed keystone species of the area. This extinction of key players of ecological balance created profound debt on the habitats, creating further issues of species persistence to those even unaffected by the tsetse fly slaughters (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). The absence of game deterred predators like the lion from returning to these nature reserves, eventually leading to population control issues as the game rebounded in later years (Newmark 2008). Population control for many plant species went into a tailspin following the large absence of herbivores, as stated previously, but the ecological consequences go beyond a higher risk of wildfire. Increasing habitat isolation due to factors including border fencing has been changing the plant communities by the creation of subtle differences between the plants confined to the area of a nature reserve and those outside of it (Newmark 2008). Wildlife within the area of a fenced nature preserve must live in ways not representative of their free-roaming ancestors, and after many years, these differences have become norm. A serious issue imposing on wildlife conservation in South Africa and abroad is the inbreeding of species that are held to one geographic location without an opportunity to migrate. The absence of gene flow in these once great migratory animals are impoverishing them from the benefit of natural selection over time, leaving them to genes that leave them susceptible to disease and physical deformities (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). In Yellowstone National Park, conservationists saw a similar trend in pronghorn, where subtle genetic differences over time were noted between the individuals on both sides of the fence (National Park Service 2002). It is well known that the decision to erect boundary fences along nature reserve boundaries are not with ill-intent, and most decisions are made for a specific purpose with little knowledge of repercussion. Disease control was one specific purpose for erecting many of the fences in the nature reserves of South Africa. What conservationists quickly found out was that these fences often failed in helping them reach their goals in various disease control within habitats (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). These failures stem from three unmanageable factors that fencing are unable to aid in the containment of disease. No fence is entirely effective nor is able to remain in pristine condition after many years, especially in South Africa where nature reserves like Kruger National Park cover vast amounts of area. Animals do escape, and it is very hard to contain undomesticated wildlife (National Park Service 2002). A second factor is the impossible containment of vectors that cause and spread disease throughout many animal species. The tsetse fly campaign encouraged the unjustified and mass slaughter of thousands of game and predator species, due to the fear of local livestock falling ill and rendered useless to farmers. No matter how hard an attempt was made to eradicate the tsetse fly and it’s imposing risk of African sleeping sickness, its persistence in the region was unaffected and resulted in critical losses to the ecosystem (Player 1998). It is well known that the confinement of people in cold winter months increases transmission of the cold and flu, and the concentration of wildlife in specialized nature preserves and of livestock on farms also aided to the high transmission of disease. In the early 1990s, canine distemper had wiped out nearly 30% of the lion population in the Serengeti over a mere 9 months. The instinctual feeling to avoid sickly peers isn’t seen only in humans, and the inability to escape sickness for many animals confined by fences is a death sentence (Newmark 2008). The ecological effects of border fencing on wildlife are noted, but there are also social implications throughout human communities where fencing has had a dramatic effect. A change in South Africa occurred with the formation of economic liberalism as a tool to inspire conservation in previously unsupportive citizens. This trend was seen through capitalistic investments in land and wildlife by erecting fences to reportedly conserve wildlife while allowing interested tourists to pay money and view it (Snijders 2012). This created a negative perception of nature reserves and fencing due to the exclusivity imposed through private land that was once seen as common resource to all citizens (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). If you are wealthy and want to capitalize on wildlife, the feasibility in building a fence and calling it a reserve settles unjustly with those who can’t afford the land but have real concerns for wildlife conservation (Snijders 2012). Another serious social implication is illegal poaching and the role fences have in trapping protected wildlife. Under the veil of darkness, hundreds of poachers destroy sections of wire fencing and use it to create snares for trapping and killing (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). This makes the fences useless for their intended purposes and create large gaps for future poachers to enter through. Another issue is the fear of predators held by communities away from the nature reserves. Though predators like the crocodile and lion would be content with never seeing a human, the irrational fear of encounters automatically place these keystone species in population control as enemies. Rare human-wildlife encounters have occurred as human communities have settled closer to reserve boundaries, and the decision to turn away displaced people from settling is a hard decision made by conservationists. They do not want these animals to be deemed too dangerous to try and protect, and one attack may be all that it takes to spur public disinterest in wildlife conservation (Player 1998). As one analyzes the cost and benefit of fencing nature reserve borders, the ecological and social implications inspire liberal action with little importance to conservatives. The tables quickly turn when the subject of the financial implications of fencing come to light. Many economic and financial situations arise when border fencing dictates the use of large amounts of land. As more fences are erected, the land use options of that area can severely limit its potential (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). In contrast, the fencing can also influence other land use that has become a staple in the South African economy for hundreds of years. Ecotourism, hunting, venison production, and live trade all benefit from the fencing of closed habitats, but the ethicality of “shooting fish in a barrel” has come into question (Snijders 2012). As stated previously, fencing is a costly burden that requires consistent upkeep or else it has little purpose (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). Natural barriers like mountain ranges, lakes, and rivers are all extremely hard to fence and often must be included within nature reserve boundaries to protect the wildlife dependent on them (Slotow 2012). The unavoidable presence of natural boundaries often conflict with the political boundaries set by local communities and governments, creating heated arguments between local leaders and conservationists. In South Africa, particular debate was sparked between leaders of the Natal Parks Board and those of the Nationalist Party in which funding for the nature reserves was always being contested (Player 1998). The financial burden of border fencing and maintenance seems too great for some, while the conservation of key indigenous wildlife is priceless to others. The importance of conservation management and its practices are fully realized in the people who spend their lives devoted to protecting wildlife. Research behind wildlife conservation and its practices are often done by those who implement the practices as well. When it comes to the publication of scholarly material, many American students travel to Southern Africa to gain experience (Beinart, Coates 1995). With the birth of South Africa’s first game reserve in 1894, only 22 years after the creation of Yellowstone National Park, the world’s first national park, information about wildlife conservation is fairly new and lies heavily on trial and error (Bigalke 1966). In The United States, the U.S. Engineer Department constructed four miles of wire fence around Yellowstone National Park in 1903, only to tear it down following the several complications stated previously (National Park Service 2002). Responsibility of fence construction in South Africa fell upon the Natal Parks Board, which also assumed responsibility of the reserves themselves. For the United States, nature reserves and protected land are maintained by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Both organizations have the jurisdiction to administer tickets for federal and local violations on protected land. Both countries rely on their federal governments for financial aid, and the proposal of economically and ecologically sound requests are typically granted. Aside from fencing, both South Africa and the United States rely on financial aid to pay for the park rangers or game guards to enforce the laws, facilities within the reserves, and other various supplies. The game guards of South Africa often carry firearms to protect themselves from potentially violent poachers, which is not nearly a problem for conservationists in the United States. In South Africa, the United States, and countless other countries across the world, the race is on for conservationists to protect and maintain the wildlife unique to their land and the value it has provided in their social and economic upbringing. Though fencing around protected nature reserves have acted as a double-edged sword in conservation goals, actions can be made to increase their effectiveness and reduce potential costs.
Fencing is not a fix-all for all wildlife conservation issues, so all possible alternatives should be examined before a decision is made.
If fencing is required in order to meet an objective, choosing the right kind of fence is extremely important to the uniqueness of the habitat and issue. For the containment of large game, permeable fencing is an option that still allows smaller animals and plant life to move across boundaries (Slotow 2012). Once an appropriate type of fencing is decided upon, conservationists must decide where the fencing is absolutely necessary and so any unnecessary resources are used and begin there. Conservationists must make sure of any intended and possible effects, costs, or outcomes that the fencing may bring. The construction of fencing can be problematic in many social and ecological contexts, so an extensive impact assessment of the suggested fence must be made (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). It is inevitable that the fencing will eventually become ineffective and require repairs. Creating a careful strategy for fence maintenance will ensure that they remain effective towards their purpose and avoid costlier repairs later on (Slotow 2012). For established protected lands that currently have ineffective or harmful fencing, actions must be made to ensure that previous conservation management actions don't become counterproductive. Anywhere possible, fencing must be removed to create larger wildlife areas or connect two areas together (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). The conglomeration of protected areas greatly reduces the risk of habitat isolation and promotes a more natural gene flow and migration pattern for the wildlife. Established protected areas for large game does not require hard fencing, so replacing the current type to a more permeable fence will reduce fence line mortality and also help with the gene flow and migratory situations of all wildlife. Conservationists must be meticulous in their implementation
of management techniques, especially when erecting a fence around protected areas. When substantial research takes place before implementation, it ensures that the right actions will be taken to maximize the efficiency of their purpose and reduce or avoid potential financial and social costs (Slotow 2012).
Bibliography
Beinart, William; Coates, Peter. 1995. Environment and History: The Taming of Nature in the USA and South Africa. Routledge. 136 p.
Bigalke, R. 1966. South Africa's First Game Reserve. Fauna & Flora. (17); pages 13-18.
Lindsey, Peter A., Materson, Chap L., Beck, Andrew L., Romañach, Stephanie. 2012. Ecological, Social and Financial Issues Related to Fencing as a Conservation Tool in Africa. Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes?. Springer Science+Business Media; pages 215-234.
National Park Service. 2002. History of Pronghorn Population Monitoring, Research, and Management in Yellowstone National Park. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 76 p.
Newmark, William D. 2008. Isolation of African Protected Areas. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 6(6); pages 321-328.
Player, Ian. 1998. Zulu Wilderness: Shadow and Soul. Golden, Colorado. Fulcrum Publishing. 296 p.
Slotow, Rob. 2012. Fencing for Purpose: A Case Study of Elephants in South Africa. Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes?. Springer Science+Business Media; pages 91-104.
Snijders, Dhoya. 2012. Wild Property and its Boundaries - On Wildlife Policy and Rural Consequences in South Africa. The Journal of Peasant Studies. 29(2); pages 503-520.
Trimble, Morgan J., Van Arde, Rudi J. 2010. Fences are More than an Issue of Aesthetics. BioScience. 60(7); pages 485-486.
The Ramifications of Park Fencing on Wildlife
Leon Cohen
SPEA-E 482
4 June 2014 Boundary fencing has been a vital component to wildlife conservation strategy for over 50 years in both the domestic and international realms. It hasn’t been seen until recently, as these ecosystems under management respond to their environments, that these boundary fences have had a profound effect on both its biotic and abiotic factors. The decision to implement a certain management strategy is largely dependent on many factors unique to the area. The following text will analyze the costs and benefits of the use of fencing in natural areas seeking ecological stability through this conservation management technique. …show more content…
Focus will be placed on the natural reserve areas of South Africa throughout this analyzation, with a situational comparison to the United States, its similar conservation management strategies, and the outcome it reached as the two countries have shared bold conservation goals throughout history. Wildlife conservation is executed with each action made to reach a specific goal, with its potential benefits outweighing the potential costs. As conservationists cater their management practices towards a single goal, unintentional consequences may occur to surrounding wildlife with detrimental effects. The construction of border fencing around game and nature reserves have often experienced similar consequences impacting the local ecology of such areas. Wildlife is its own living entity that has followed mere tradition to further the wellbeing of their respected species in a familiar habitat. As border fences were constructed, the physical barrier that it imposes on wildlife has shown to inhibit their natural behavior (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). One such behavior is migration, and this is usually motivated by the search of various resources as seasons influence their availability (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). Physical barriers like fences impede this instinctual action by forcing wildlife to a specific area amidst the need to recolonize (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). Behaviors like migration are as naturally-occuring as the abiotic changes to an ecosystem that are affected by the environment. As dry brush builds up over a period of time, raging fires can form from lightning strikes and anthropogenic influence. Some ecosystems rely on fire to carry out the necessary functions of reproduction and nourishment for wildlife and its food chain. When the fires result from the absence of herbivores that keep the fire-feeding brush in check, it can destroy vast areas of habitat and deter the persistence of game and predator due to a lack of food. That is, if the wildlife hasn’t already died from encountering the fire in the enclosed area. The inspiration to relocate comes from far more than a temporary search for resources or to escape from the dangers of a brush fire. As our dynamic environment changes either on its own natural means or through the influence of anthropogenic actions, plant and animal wildlife has responded by seeking a habitat their species can flourish in. As with the ecological impediments stated previously, the border fence has restricted wildlife to a changing habitat that is constantly moving in a direction unsuitable to live in (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). William D. Newmark conducted mid-range climate change models in Isolation of African Protected Areas by combining them with the area relationships each habitat had and whether or not dispersal was an option for inhabiting wildlife. In the absence of dispersal, 69% of mammals, 51% of birds, 59% of reptiles, 78% of butterflies, 8% of other invertebrates, and 52% of Proteacae native to South Africa showed likely extinction by 2050. With the option of dispersal, no wildlife except for 38% of Proteacae fared a similar, grotesque outlook (Newmark 2008). Drought is one form of climate change that places profound ecological stress on a habitat, and with the combination of little access to water and border fencing around nature reserves, it makes access to water nearly impossible (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). This scenario was seen during harsh droughts in the Kalahari for a portion of the late 20th century. In the Southern Kalahari, 80,000 wildebeest and 10,000 hartebeest died from a lack of access to water sources due to both drought and fencing, while in the Northern Kalahari, the zebra had disappeared due to similar reasons (Newmark 2008). The costs of border fencing on wildlife often goes far beyond inhibiting natural behavior. The fencing typically used in this setting is what is called a hard border fence. It is an impermeable blockade that prevents almost all plant and animal wildlife from being able to cross (Slotow 2012). Many animal species attempt to escape from their boundaries at some point, but this attempt comes with high mortality, especially in reptiles (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). A similar issue of fence mortality is seen in game both in the nature reserves of South Africa and also Yellowstone National Park in the United States during its early years. As these animals try to jump these fences, many would get their legs caught in the fencing and become easy targets by indigenous predators and hunters (National Park Service 2002). This anthropogenic impact on local ecology had a disastrous impact on the natural food chain order in both areas. South Africa once had a simple equilibrium of predator and prey, but during the tsetse fly campaigns during and after WWII, the mass slaughter of both the hunter and hunted removed keystone species of the area. This extinction of key players of ecological balance created profound debt on the habitats, creating further issues of species persistence to those even unaffected by the tsetse fly slaughters (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). The absence of game deterred predators like the lion from returning to these nature reserves, eventually leading to population control issues as the game rebounded in later years (Newmark 2008). Population control for many plant species went into a tailspin following the large absence of herbivores, as stated previously, but the ecological consequences go beyond a higher risk of wildfire. Increasing habitat isolation due to factors including border fencing has been changing the plant communities by the creation of subtle differences between the plants confined to the area of a nature reserve and those outside of it (Newmark 2008). Wildlife within the area of a fenced nature preserve must live in ways not representative of their free-roaming ancestors, and after many years, these differences have become norm. A serious issue imposing on wildlife conservation in South Africa and abroad is the inbreeding of species that are held to one geographic location without an opportunity to migrate. The absence of gene flow in these once great migratory animals are impoverishing them from the benefit of natural selection over time, leaving them to genes that leave them susceptible to disease and physical deformities (Trimble, Van Arde 2010). In Yellowstone National Park, conservationists saw a similar trend in pronghorn, where subtle genetic differences over time were noted between the individuals on both sides of the fence (National Park Service 2002). It is well known that the decision to erect boundary fences along nature reserve boundaries are not with ill-intent, and most decisions are made for a specific purpose with little knowledge of repercussion. Disease control was one specific purpose for erecting many of the fences in the nature reserves of South Africa. What conservationists quickly found out was that these fences often failed in helping them reach their goals in various disease control within habitats (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). These failures stem from three unmanageable factors that fencing are unable to aid in the containment of disease. No fence is entirely effective nor is able to remain in pristine condition after many years, especially in South Africa where nature reserves like Kruger National Park cover vast amounts of area. Animals do escape, and it is very hard to contain undomesticated wildlife (National Park Service 2002). A second factor is the impossible containment of vectors that cause and spread disease throughout many animal species. The tsetse fly campaign encouraged the unjustified and mass slaughter of thousands of game and predator species, due to the fear of local livestock falling ill and rendered useless to farmers. No matter how hard an attempt was made to eradicate the tsetse fly and it’s imposing risk of African sleeping sickness, its persistence in the region was unaffected and resulted in critical losses to the ecosystem (Player 1998). It is well known that the confinement of people in cold winter months increases transmission of the cold and flu, and the concentration of wildlife in specialized nature preserves and of livestock on farms also aided to the high transmission of disease. In the early 1990s, canine distemper had wiped out nearly 30% of the lion population in the Serengeti over a mere 9 months. The instinctual feeling to avoid sickly peers isn’t seen only in humans, and the inability to escape sickness for many animals confined by fences is a death sentence (Newmark 2008). The ecological effects of border fencing on wildlife are noted, but there are also social implications throughout human communities where fencing has had a dramatic effect. A change in South Africa occurred with the formation of economic liberalism as a tool to inspire conservation in previously unsupportive citizens. This trend was seen through capitalistic investments in land and wildlife by erecting fences to reportedly conserve wildlife while allowing interested tourists to pay money and view it (Snijders 2012). This created a negative perception of nature reserves and fencing due to the exclusivity imposed through private land that was once seen as common resource to all citizens (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). If you are wealthy and want to capitalize on wildlife, the feasibility in building a fence and calling it a reserve settles unjustly with those who can’t afford the land but have real concerns for wildlife conservation (Snijders 2012). Another serious social implication is illegal poaching and the role fences have in trapping protected wildlife. Under the veil of darkness, hundreds of poachers destroy sections of wire fencing and use it to create snares for trapping and killing (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). This makes the fences useless for their intended purposes and create large gaps for future poachers to enter through. Another issue is the fear of predators held by communities away from the nature reserves. Though predators like the crocodile and lion would be content with never seeing a human, the irrational fear of encounters automatically place these keystone species in population control as enemies. Rare human-wildlife encounters have occurred as human communities have settled closer to reserve boundaries, and the decision to turn away displaced people from settling is a hard decision made by conservationists. They do not want these animals to be deemed too dangerous to try and protect, and one attack may be all that it takes to spur public disinterest in wildlife conservation (Player 1998). As one analyzes the cost and benefit of fencing nature reserve borders, the ecological and social implications inspire liberal action with little importance to conservatives. The tables quickly turn when the subject of the financial implications of fencing come to light. Many economic and financial situations arise when border fencing dictates the use of large amounts of land. As more fences are erected, the land use options of that area can severely limit its potential (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). In contrast, the fencing can also influence other land use that has become a staple in the South African economy for hundreds of years. Ecotourism, hunting, venison production, and live trade all benefit from the fencing of closed habitats, but the ethicality of “shooting fish in a barrel” has come into question (Snijders 2012). As stated previously, fencing is a costly burden that requires consistent upkeep or else it has little purpose (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). Natural barriers like mountain ranges, lakes, and rivers are all extremely hard to fence and often must be included within nature reserve boundaries to protect the wildlife dependent on them (Slotow 2012). The unavoidable presence of natural boundaries often conflict with the political boundaries set by local communities and governments, creating heated arguments between local leaders and conservationists. In South Africa, particular debate was sparked between leaders of the Natal Parks Board and those of the Nationalist Party in which funding for the nature reserves was always being contested (Player 1998). The financial burden of border fencing and maintenance seems too great for some, while the conservation of key indigenous wildlife is priceless to others. The importance of conservation management and its practices are fully realized in the people who spend their lives devoted to protecting wildlife. Research behind wildlife conservation and its practices are often done by those who implement the practices as well. When it comes to the publication of scholarly material, many American students travel to Southern Africa to gain experience (Beinart, Coates 1995). With the birth of South Africa’s first game reserve in 1894, only 22 years after the creation of Yellowstone National Park, the world’s first national park, information about wildlife conservation is fairly new and lies heavily on trial and error (Bigalke 1966). In The United States, the U.S. Engineer Department constructed four miles of wire fence around Yellowstone National Park in 1903, only to tear it down following the several complications stated previously (National Park Service 2002). Responsibility of fence construction in South Africa fell upon the Natal Parks Board, which also assumed responsibility of the reserves themselves. For the United States, nature reserves and protected land are maintained by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Both organizations have the jurisdiction to administer tickets for federal and local violations on protected land. Both countries rely on their federal governments for financial aid, and the proposal of economically and ecologically sound requests are typically granted. Aside from fencing, both South Africa and the United States rely on financial aid to pay for the park rangers or game guards to enforce the laws, facilities within the reserves, and other various supplies. The game guards of South Africa often carry firearms to protect themselves from potentially violent poachers, which is not nearly a problem for conservationists in the United States. In South Africa, the United States, and countless other countries across the world, the race is on for conservationists to protect and maintain the wildlife unique to their land and the value it has provided in their social and economic upbringing. Though fencing around protected nature reserves have acted as a double-edged sword in conservation goals, actions can be made to increase their effectiveness and reduce potential costs.
Fencing is not a fix-all for all wildlife conservation issues, so all possible alternatives should be examined before a decision is made.
If fencing is required in order to meet an objective, choosing the right kind of fence is extremely important to the uniqueness of the habitat and issue. For the containment of large game, permeable fencing is an option that still allows smaller animals and plant life to move across boundaries (Slotow 2012). Once an appropriate type of fencing is decided upon, conservationists must decide where the fencing is absolutely necessary and so any unnecessary resources are used and begin there. Conservationists must make sure of any intended and possible effects, costs, or outcomes that the fencing may bring. The construction of fencing can be problematic in many social and ecological contexts, so an extensive impact assessment of the suggested fence must be made (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). It is inevitable that the fencing will eventually become ineffective and require repairs. Creating a careful strategy for fence maintenance will ensure that they remain effective towards their purpose and avoid costlier repairs later on (Slotow 2012). For established protected lands that currently have ineffective or harmful fencing, actions must be made to ensure that previous conservation management actions don't become counterproductive. Anywhere possible, fencing must be removed to create larger wildlife areas or connect two areas together (Lindsey, Materson, Beck, Romañach 2012). The conglomeration of protected areas greatly reduces the risk of habitat isolation and promotes a more natural gene flow and migration pattern for the wildlife. Established protected areas for large game does not require hard fencing, so replacing the current type to a more permeable fence will reduce fence line mortality and also help with the gene flow and migratory situations of all wildlife. Conservationists must be meticulous in their implementation
of management techniques, especially when erecting a fence around protected areas. When substantial research takes place before implementation, it ensures that the right actions will be taken to maximize the efficiency of their purpose and reduce or avoid potential financial and social costs (Slotow 2012).
Bibliography
Beinart, William; Coates, Peter. 1995. Environment and History: The Taming of Nature in the USA and South Africa. Routledge. 136 p.
Bigalke, R. 1966. South Africa's First Game Reserve. Fauna & Flora. (17); pages 13-18.
Lindsey, Peter A., Materson, Chap L., Beck, Andrew L., Romañach, Stephanie. 2012. Ecological, Social and Financial Issues Related to Fencing as a Conservation Tool in Africa. Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes?. Springer Science+Business Media; pages 215-234.
National Park Service. 2002. History of Pronghorn Population Monitoring, Research, and Management in Yellowstone National Park. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 76 p.
Newmark, William D. 2008. Isolation of African Protected Areas. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 6(6); pages 321-328.
Player, Ian. 1998. Zulu Wilderness: Shadow and Soul. Golden, Colorado. Fulcrum Publishing. 296 p.
Slotow, Rob. 2012. Fencing for Purpose: A Case Study of Elephants in South Africa. Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes?. Springer Science+Business Media; pages 91-104.
Snijders, Dhoya. 2012. Wild Property and its Boundaries - On Wildlife Policy and Rural Consequences in South Africa. The Journal of Peasant Studies. 29(2); pages 503-520.
Trimble, Morgan J., Van Arde, Rudi J. 2010. Fences are More than an Issue of Aesthetics. BioScience. 60(7); pages 485-486.