Yorkshire Wildlife Trust statement of position on stock fencing
Revised: September 2014
Introduction
There are several issues around the use of fencing, from public safety to harm to wildlife.
The likelihood of an accident involving wildlife from barbed wire fencing is low, but the
consequence could be fatal for wildlife caught on barbed wire. Therefore this statement
from Yorkshire Wildlife Trust is to clarify its position, and how risks can be mitigated.
Risks to wildlife
Risks to wildlife are posed mainly by barbed wire fencing, with animals such as deer jumping
the fence but getting caught on a top strand of barbed wire. Other risks may be the
disruption of a group of badgers by fencing across a long established path, or the risk to
birds by erecting a wire fence across a regular flight line.
Risks to the public
Risks to the public mainly come from climbing fences, and particularly those with barbed
wire. Falls from fences, or cuts from barbed wire are a likely outcome. These two issues are
linked however, as fences that are topped by barbed wire are less likely to be climbed than
those without. The public can come into contact with fences when a fence runs along side a
footpath, or a footpath crosses a field boundary.
Purpose of fencing
The purpose for stock fencing is to keep livestock on an area, for their protection (to keep
them from getting on to roads), to keep them on an area to graze it. Fencing can also be
used to control access of people onto a site, either to prevent dog walkers worrying sheep,
to maintain a manageable number of footpaths (rather than a large network of desire lines)
or completely exclude people from an area.
Barbed wire is necessary for any field that is grazed by cattle, but it is also highly desirable
for any field that may be grazed by cattle in the future. Fences are erected with the hope it
last for at least 20 years, and so needs to be able to cope with changes to the grazing
regime. Therefore barbed wire is often used. Even on some sites grazed by sheep barbed
wire is desirable, as many of our sites are grazed by Hebridean sheep which are less
biddable than modern breeds, and are therefore more likely to try and jump fences. Barbed
wire is a good way to ensure the safety of the livestock and the effectiveness of the grazing.
In other areas plain wire or wooden rails are used, this is usually down to local context of
the site. An example may be where a fence is not for livestock control, but to manage public
use (e.g. keeping people on a footpath, restricting access to a sensitive area).
Mitigation measures
It is therefore essential in many situations to use barbed wire fencing, but a hierarchy of
controls can be put in place to reduce its impact or use:








Don’t fence a boundary, but use temporary electric fencing, or look into systems
used elsewhere with collar/shock systems to keep livestock in the desired areas.
Use another fencing material other than barbed wire – wood rails, or plain wire
Don’t use a top wire of barb, but put a plain wire on plastic runners so the wire can
be electrified when the field is in use.
Don’t use barbed wire near public footpaths or known wildlife runs - site barbed
wire fences 1m from a footpath, don’t use barbed wire within 1m of a stile/kissing
gate, or use barbed wire on the field edges where the public don’t go, but use plain
wire on the side with public access issues.
On old fences where barbed wire goes right up a gate, cover the barbs for a section
either side of the gate, or removal or barbed by hand could be considered to reduce
the likelihood of contact.
Create alternative routes for wildlife – eg leave internal gates open when the site
isn’t being grazed, create badger gates, leave gaps in fence.
Make the fencing more visible to prevent accidental contact – put grouse plates on
moorland fencing, these could also be used to show the height of fencing to deer in
other situations.
Using high tension wire and tensioning as much as possible – this decreases risk of
entanglement, as wires can’t wrap round a leg.
Discussion of options
Most of the options above require extra expense, either in initial construction of the fence
(eg post and rail fencing) or in staff management time (eg setting up and dismantling
electric fencing on a temporary basis). The costs and benefits of these should be weighed up
against the alternatives. Some options are more feasible to used in most cases would be:

Erecting fencing leaving an area either side of a gate/stile free from barbed wire:
Gate



1m of post and rail
Stock fencing with barbed wire
Siting a fence 1m from a footpath, so contact between a walker and fence is less
likely.
Leaving internal gates open when the fields aren’t in use, so wildlife has an easy
route to avoid barbed wire fences. However, the consequences of this should be
considered, if the site has problems with motorbikes or such like leaving internal
gates open may cause more damage to the habitat through increased use by
motorbikes.
Well tensioned HT wire is best practice, and should be the aim for any new fencing.
Measures that might be considered, but less likely to be implemented in a large number of
cases:




Badger gates on known badger runs – these have only limited success when
implemented, as any change to a badger run can disrupt use, even if an alternative
access is provided in the right place. This is most likely to be implemented when
fencing is very close to a badger sett.
Gaps in fencing, to be covered with flakes during grazing, so deer and other
mammals can pass through boundaries. This is most likely on boundaries with
woodland, and where flakes are unlikely to be stolen. It increases staff time
marginally when grazing the site.
Grouse plates or other measures to increase visibility of fences. Fencing across
moorland is most likely to be where this is used, although fencing in lowland areas
with continued bird strike or deer entanglement could also consider grouse plates or
increasing the visibility of wires. This can be designed in new fencing, or retrofitted.
Leaving external gates open to allow movement of wildlife. This is unlikely to be
implemented, as it can cause problems with fly grazing, fly tipping or
motorbikes/4x4s. Could be implemented in rare cases in remote locations.


Temporary electric fencing – although good for reducing public/wildlife/livestock
conflict, the increased staff time in setting up and maintaining temporary fencing
means this will only ever be an infrequently used method. Where a site is going to be
grazed annually, permanent fencing is usually preferred.
Electrified top wire – more expensive to set up or retrofit, and needing increased
time to manage it this is unlikely to be used often. Also getting high tension into a
wire on plastic insulators is difficult; poor tensioned wire can be a high entanglement
risk.
Conclusion
There are a number of easy to implement methods that should be adopted where
appropriate on newly erected fencing on Yorkshire Wildlife Trust sites, such as use of high
tension wire, not using barbed wire near gates etc. Other methods should be considered,
but are unlikely to be used in most cases. There is no way to specify what should be done in
every case, as the context is different each time, but Officers should use their best
judgement or consult someone with considerable livestock handling experience when
designing new fencing.
Some methods can be retrofitted to existing fences, the easiest of which is leaving internal
gates open or increasing visibility of fences and where incidents occur, these should be
considered immediately.