A Pass for Antelope in Sheep-Tight Fences

Mapston, Raymond D.; Zobell, Rex S.; Winter, Kenneth B.; Dooley, William D.

doi:10.2307/3896324

Cited by 18 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The uppermost strand was barbed and was placed 20 cm (8 in) above the upper smooth wire strand for a total vertical height of 1.2 m (46 in). A final antelope pass structure was the horizontal antelope grill by Mapston et al (1970) (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have shown antelope passage is more frequent on horizontal modified cattleguards (Bear 1969, Spillett 1965, Pate 1969, Mapston 1970. Observations of antelope utilizing cattleguards as a means of passage are numerous (Mapston et al 1970, Spillett and Zobell 1967, Pate 1969, Spillett 1965, Zobell 1%8a, 1968b. These observations indicate that antelope commonly leap 1.8-m and 2.1-m (6 and 7 ft) cattleguards when the width of the structure is no less than 1.8 m (6 ft).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bear (1969) found that, although several vertical structures adequately restricted livestock, these structures were different than recommended for antelope passage. Mapston et al (1970) concluded that a I .8-m (6 ft) horizontal grill would serve to restrict most livestock movement without restricting antelope. Sheep were not always effectively restricted by any structure, however.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Forty-six cm (19 in) Characteristics of the horizontal antelope grill. (Adapated fromMapston and Zobell. 1970)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of Antelope Pass Structures in Restriction of Livestock

Gross¹,

Holechek²,

Hallford³

et al. 1983

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study was conducted to test the restrictive efficiency of 5 antelope pass structures upon cattle and sheep. Cattle and sheep were placed under 3 stress situations, female water, female young, and male-female, to test fence restrictive ability of individual antelope pass structures. No single structure restricted all classes and types of livestock. Depending upon livestock class and type, proper selection and use of antelope pass structure will restrict livestock movement without severely restricting antelope movement. An 81.3-cm (32 in) net-wire fence most effectively restricted sheep, but cattle were most effectively restricted by a 2.4-m X 1.5-m (8 ft X 5 ft) horizontal grill. It appears that a horizontal grill within a fence line with certain modifications and placement constraints will effectively restrict sheep and cattle but permit antelope passage. Fencing has been a standard livestock management practice since cattle and sheep were first introduced on western ranges. The use of fences to divide rangelands into manageable areas can achieve important livestock management objectives. May (1968) summarized a number of key advantages of fencing western ranges. These include more uniform distribution of animals, protection of overgrazed or treated areas, segregation of livestock classes or types, increased forage production and reduction in handling of livestock. Certain fence designs, however, have the important disadvantage of restricting movement of some wild ungulate species. Wildlife managers recognize fencing as a major management problem associated with the pronghorn antelope. Certain fences can restrict pronghorn movements to obtain food and/ or water, or to escape harsh weather (Yoakum 1978, 1980). Russell (1951) included net-wire fences as an important factor contributing to reductions in pronghorn numbers throughout the West. Newman (1966) found that Wyoming antelope numbers decreased substantially when animals were restricted by livestock fences. Antelope that were not allowed free movement over a largearea were in poor condition and showed signs of starvation. Other studies noted similar results (Mapston 1972, Russell 1951). A variety of structures are presently employed on western ranges depending upon the operation, livestock type, and class. Sheep operators prefer net-wire fencing; operations involving cattle may require use of barbed wire for restrictive purposes. Mapston (1972) suggested that both net-wire and certain barbed wire fences can cause serious problems for antelope by restricting both movement and feed selection, Bear (1969) found that sheep fences, I. 1 m (44 in) in height will restrict nearly all antelope, while net-wire structures 8 I .3 cm (32 in) high will restrict only fawns. On cattle ranges where barbed-wire fences are common, antelope were less restricted but often injured during passage, which resulted in permanent crippling or death (Spillett 1965). In all cases it appears that standard livestock fences

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Forty-six cm (19 in) Characteristics of the horizontal antelope grill. (Adapated fromMapston and Zobell. 1970)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of Antelope Pass Structures in Restriction of Livestock

Gross¹,

Holechek²,

Hallford³

et al. 1983

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Littlewood

Rocha²,

Smith

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation provides a thorough summary of the available scientific evidence of what is known, or not known, about the effectiveness of all of the conservation actions for wild terrestrial mammals across the world (excluding bats and primates, which are covered in separate synopses). Actions are organized into categories based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature classifications of direct threats and conservation actions. Over the course of fifteen chapters, the authors consider interventions as wide ranging as creating uncultivated margins around fields, prescribed burning, setting hunting quotas and removing non-native mammals. This book is written in an accessible style and is designed to be an invaluable resource for anyone concerned with the practical conservation of terrestrial mammals. The authors consulted an international group of terrestrial mammal experts and conservationists to produce this synopsis. Funding was provided by the MAVA Foundation, Arcadia and National Geographic Big Cats Initiative. Terrestrial Mammal Conservation is the seventeenth publication in the Conservation Evidence Series, linked to the online resource www.ConservationEvidence.com. Conservation Evidence Synopses are designed to promote a more evidence-based approach to biodiversity conservation. Others in the series include Bat Conservation, Primate Conservation, Bird Conservation and Forest Conservation and more are in preparation. Expert assessment of the evidence summarised within synopses is provided online and within the annual publication What Works in Conservation.

show abstract