Grazing Streamside Pastures
“Fencing Where Necessary but not Necessarily Fencing”
by Chris Attema

I prefer to provide clear, concise and straightforward advice in response to producer questions. On the issue of fencing requirements for streamside pastures I can’t do this – and this reality is as frustrating to me personally as it is to you as a producer.

On the issue of stream fencing for sheep producers there is a disconnect between the safe and politically correct regulatory position advice, the practical reality and the answer you as a producer may want to hear.

Lets look at the two extremes first.

The regulatory position through the federal Fisheries Act, which is enforced by both Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is that sheep having access to waterways creates the potential for deposition of deleterious substances and/or damage to fish habitat. The regulations can be interpreted as requiring total fencing of waterways.
The enforcement of the Fisheries Act occurs both on the basis of priority watersheds as well as complaints. Complainants remain anonymous, and on occasions appear to be used as a means for disgruntled neighbours to harass producers by making complaints to Environment Canada. In response to complaints, Environment Canada can and has threatened fines and issued orders to prevent livestock from direct access to the waterway. In order to be completely safe from a potential Fisheries Act violation the only course of action is to fence in all situations.

Of course this is an unrealistic and simplistic position, and one that the livestock commodity groups and the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency have been attempting to change for some time. The economic impact of fencing of all watercourses would be devastating to livestock and sheep producers. The best estimate to date to fence all Ontario waterways necessary to ensure livestock exclusion is approximately a half billion dollars. This represents only the initial costs of building the fences. There is significant additional cost in fence maintenance and replacement in times of flooding with ice, as well as the economic impact of losing many acres of productive farmland.

It many situations it is also very doubtful that there would ever be a measurable environmental benefit to stream fencing. Due to the effects of ice movement in springtime, permanent fencing of watercourses will incorporate many acres of floodplain. This land has been used effectively as pastureland for generations. A fencing requirement could lead to this land being lost from production (a direct economic loss to the landowner) or, worse, being broken up for crop production leading to increased sedimentation and nutrient loading of watercourses.

It is also important to recognize that impact of sheep and their behavior in or near watercourses is fundamentally different from other types of livestock. Sheep are smaller and lighter, and are less likely ‘punch holes’ and cause direct damage to the stream bank. Sheep will also avoid standing in a stream. When watering from a watercourse or pond, sheep will reach for a considerable distance to avoid getting the front hooves wet.

Does this mean that we advocate a position of no activities to control and manage sheep access to streams and natural watercourses, under any circumstances?

Absolutely not. In some situations, with many animals with long-term access to a short length of watercourse, and in situations where there is visible and obvious instability of the stream bank and near stream bank (riparian) area stream fencing is a practical and environmentally sound action. From an aesthetic and sheep industry image perspective alone this position makes sense.

In most situations there are also technically valid, simple and practical alternatives to stream fencing. The overall goal of grazing streamside pastures is to develop and maintain a healthy sod on the stream bank to prevent erosion1. This objective can also be achieved by providing alternate water sources, which is known to change livestock behavior and reduce the number of visits to the stream bank. Other practices such as good rotational grazing – avoiding overgrazing and providing for adequate rest periods between grazing –are especially important for streamside pastures.

Ontario’s livestock industries advocate an approach rooted in practical reality, and have been very active in attempting to find a balanced solution to the challenges of grazing streamside pastures. The best solution is site-specific and considers the goals of minimal environmental impact, the economic and practical needs of sheep producers and the requirements that will satisfy the regulatory agencies.

We have attempted to achieve this through the development of a multi-agency Buffer Best Management Practices booklet. The proposed document included a scoring system that could help you to self evaluate and assess the best streamside pasture management practices. We had also expected that the Nutrient Management Act (Bill 81) would have provided some clear direction and answers for producers.

Unfortunately, these activities are at a standstill or are on hold. It now appears that the Nutrient Management Act standards for livestock access to watercourses are too far off in the future to provide clear direction for you in the short-term.

Secondly, without ‘buy-in’ into the proposed self-evaluation scoring system from the Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, there is little point in moving forward. We cannot advocate a solution where producers that comply with the Best Management Practices booklet are still subject to complaint-driven fines and orders.

Over the past few months, we have met with Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food staff in attempts to push this issue forward. We remain committed to the concept “fencing when necessary, but not necessarily fencing”. We envision achieving this through a rational site assessment and scoring system that is recognized as valid and acceptable by the regulatory agencies. We also promote the provision for practical management alternatives for situations where it is extremely costly or difficult to fence.

Our frustration continues to be our slow rate of progress due to factors beyond our control, and our inability to provide clear, concise and practical guidance to producers facing this issue.

1 - Grazing Stream Side Pastures, University of Wisconsin, 1999. http://www1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/A3699.PDF

Chris Attema is OSMA’s Water Quality Specialist, a position shared equally between three livestock oganizations: OSMA, Ontario Pork & Ontario Cattlemen’s Association.

Funding to support the establishment of the Water Quality Specialist was secured through the Agricultural Adaptation Council’s CanAdapt program. The total grant awarded was $65,572.00 over two years.