Add new comment

Thanks Al, this is precisely the kind of information that we need as we move forward.  Obviously, the RDOS does not have much experience with wild horse control.  To this point, we have drawn on the services of a range consultant regarding these kinds of design issues.  We were also expecting the fencing contractor to provide some guidance on specifics.  It is certainly good to see how they are doing this in other jurisdictions.

Your point about bear and deer exclusion is interesting because I have some calls already from people excited about the potential of excluding these animals as a beneficial by-product of horse control.  My guess is that the fence, as it is currently envisioned, will be very porous in this regard.  As you can see by the map, we have included a cattle guard on virtually every back road that the fence encounters (the logic being that cattle guards are expensive but fence maintenance is even more expensive—we do not want people cutting it).  I am not sure how bears and deer deal with cattle guards, but my assumption is that these animals have no problems crossing such barriers.

As for clean-up, especially along the KVR trail, the central issue is ownership.  As you know, the PIB has expressed an intention to reacquire the KVR right away that bisects band lands (which includes most of the track in Area F).  The RDOS has an interest in maintaining this land as a public access, non-motorized trail. We will see how this plays out.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Registered users of this site do not have to do this.