Conservation >

The View from Here: Border Fences

Fall has arrived at the Research Ranch and the tall grass has begun its transition from green to gold. The breezes that send the grass rippling through the swales belie an ugly secret just 15 miles south on the international border. A barricade is being constructed as you read this, stretching from the coast of California to the Gulf of Mexico. Designed to stem the ever-increasing flow of immigration from the south, the latest iteration called for in the Secure Fence Act passed by Congress in late 2006 requires construction of a double-layer fence with reinforced walls along at least 700 miles between San Diego, California and Brownsville, Texas. Areas not slated for a double-walled fence are to be blocked with vehicle barriers to halt car and truck traffic while letting humans and wildlife through.

Vehicle barriers have been constructed along many areas of the border now, including Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and the San Rafael Valley, where they seem to work at preventing vehicles from racing across the desert. Pedestrian fences, solid barriers up to 16 feet high, don’t seem to stop border crossings, but rather redirect them to more remote areas, even to those with vehicle barriers. This concentrates human traffic into areas which are also used by wildlife. Most of the border crossings occur under the cover of darkness, where the increased human traffic often scares wildlife out of the area. So what may seem on the surface to be a good idea – using a solid fence to block all traffic from high use areas, leaving the most remote areas blocked only with a vehicle barrier – may be counterproductive. Indeed, it may obliterate important corridors for the jaguar and other large mammals, which can’t move through a solid fence and won’t tolerate the increased human traffic in the few areas that will have only vehicle barriers.

As described in the September-October issue of Audubon magazine, the consequences of the fence may be disastrous for wildlife species that occupy the border region. In addition to jaguars, Coue’s deer, Sonoran pronghorn, Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owls, Gould’s Turkeys, white-nosed coatis, hooded skunks, and a variety of rodents all need gene flow from the south. American black bears in Mexico need gene flow from the north. These species all need permeability – yet a solid fence is proposed across almost all of Arizona, from Yuma to Douglas.

But there may be a light on the horizon. H.R. 2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act, allows Border Patrol flexibility in deciding where to put fences, vehicle barriers or virtual fences, and gives land management agencies and local and state officials a voice in border decision-making. It would require compliance with federal, state, and local laws meant to protect clean air, clean water, wildlife, culture, health and safety, and quality of life for people in border communities (the Border Patrol may currently waive any requirements of these laws under the REAL ID act). Please contact your congressional representative and ask them to support H.R. 2593.

This is not about immigration, as the fence merely shifts traffic rather than stopping it. It is not about the immigrants who die of dehydration or exposure or the drug runners, who threaten the safety of those of us who work near the border. It is not about the thousands of pounds of empty water bottles, backpacks, and other trash left behind by crossers. It is not about the spread of exotic plants carried as seeds on the shoes of the crossers. For the moment, we simply need to make sure an impermeable and permanent barrier is not constructed along the international border, separating ecologies and cultures. Audubon Arizona urges you to contact your congressional representative and ask for support of H.R. 2593. For more information on this issue, visit the Defenders of Wildlife website.

Click here to read Michelle Nijhuis’ article about the border fence,
which appeared in Audubon, September 2007.