- «Fences Intro |
- «Fences 1 |
- 2 Decision Guide
2 Crane-friendly Fencing Decisions
Fencing for wetland conservation is being promoted in regions with significant crane habitat. For the background, and why wetland fencing can cause problems for cranes and other large waterbirds, see Crane-friendly Fencing Intro and Fencing issues and risks. Sometimes there are trade-offs or contradictions in managing wetlands for wildlife. This page offers a Decision Guide with checklists that factor cranes into wetland fencing decisions.
Feedback is welcome.
- Checklists
- Why fence?
- Cattle fencing
- Pig fencing
Checklist 1: Why fence?
In north Queensland, all ‘wetlands’ with shallow edges – from small farm dams to the largest floodplains – are actual or potential crane habitat.
To protect cranes and other large waterbirds, rather than the blanket approach recommended in some Plans and projects, an evidence-based approach is recommended before fencing wetlands and before excluding cattle permanently. Is fencing the only answer? What are the costs and benefits?
- Before choosing fences as the answer, what is the problem?
- Does the problem exist at the site, or is it only assumed?
- Can it be verified and measured/assessed?
- What other (mix of) methods could achieve management and environmental targets?
- Is the wetland or riparian site used by cranes? In the Wet, or Dry, or both?
- List the costs and benefits (management and environmental) for both fencing and not fencing directly around wetlands
- For example factor in a ‘conservation benefit’ for wetland sites where cattle and cranes mingle successfully (eg where spelling, rotational or cell grazing are practised); and (conversely) factor in higher risks to stock and wildlife if proposed new fencing would go underwater in the Wet
- Revegetation projects around wetlands (with cattle exclusion) should factor in the loss of Brolgas and Sarus Cranes, and other grassland/water birds like bitterns and snipe, as a biodiversity loss – unless management plans specifically include (and fund) non-grazing techniques to maintain open, short-grass woodland or other suitable crane habitat around the wetland
- These questions need to be answered before allocating grants, or mandating leaseholder fencing projects
TOPChecklist 2: Safer Cattle Fencing
If fencing must be done close to a wetland, can it be safer than standard 4-barb?
- Can more bird-friendly materials work, eg would using plain wire for the top, or top two strands, exclude cattle?
- Can the fence avoid crane flight paths (eg at Dry season roosts)?
- Can markers be used on top wires near crane flight paths (eg at Dry season roosts)?
- Must the fence completely and tightly encircle the wetland?
- Or can it be set well back from the Dry Season or Wet Season position of the water, eg by inclusion in a rotational paddock management system?
- Can rank growth be controlled by cyclical grazing and/or fire, as part of normal management programs?
↑ Wetland revegetation: 7-strand barb wire for permanent cattle exclusion (cranesnorth, SE Australia)
Farm dams are an important resource for cranes in many rural areas. A more crane-friendly option could be to fence off and revegetate only half the site, rotate cattle through the paddock and mark the fence; or replace at least some top strands with plain wire. Electric fencing may be feasible, but has major vegetation management issues in northern states.
Checklist 3: Safer Feral Pig Fencing
← Wetland protection: Upper section of pigmesh fence, with top barb Lakefield National Park, Cape York Peninsula (G & J Holmes)
Feral pigs have been named as a serious threat to north Queensland wetlands and by some, as a threat to cranes specifically. Heavy mesh fencing, usually with two top and one bottom barb wire, is being trialled to exclude pigs from sensitive sites, for example by QPWS. Effective pig fencing is expensive and funding it from public or private sources is a major investment, unlikely unless the community expects to achieve a significant environmental benefit for a high priority site.
If pig fencing must be done:
- What funds are available?
- Is the wetland or riparian site used by cranes? In the Wet, or Dry, or both?
- For crane safety, the top barb could be omitted without degrading the fence; the bottom barb is unlikely to affect cranes
- Will the fence go underwater in the Wet (breeding) season?
- The real problem with pig mesh is the ‘cage’ effect – non-flying animals including young cranes up to 14 weeks, cannot get in, or out
- Must the fence completely and tightly encircle the wetland?
- Can it be set well back from water, or (in floodplains) from the Dry Season position of the water?
- Can rank growth be controlled eg by cyclical grazing and/or fire, as part of normal management programs?
Summary: What's best for cranes?
The best solution for cranes – where fences are needed –
- use safer materials
- mark the top wire near flight paths
- fence a larger area (which could include scattered trees) well back from water
- install gates for management access
- control rank growth as part of scheduled property management (grazing, fire, chemical, or mechanical)
Fencing larger areas should be cost-effective if combined with management systems such as paddock rotation, and costs may be partly offset if fences are further from water and suffer less Wet season damage. But crane-friendly pig fencing in crane breeding areas would be very expensive – a pig mesh enclosure for one pair of Sarus Cranes would need to encircle at least 70ha.
Monitoring: Watch & learn
There are many unknown factors in the balance between wetland health, fencing costs and fauna safety. Knowledge can be improved over time through monitoring fauna use before and after fencing, logging wildlife entrapment on fences, and identifying possible fencing improvements.
«Fencing Intro or «Fences 1: Issues and Risks
Feedback
Comments and suggestions on Crane-friendly Fencing are welcome, contact details here».
