Cooperative Extension

njaes.rutgers.edu

Martin Hall Room 327

[email protected]

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 88 Lipman Drive

732-932-5000, Ext. 610

New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8525

Fax: 732-932-6633

2005 NJ Supplemental Deer Fencing Program Evaluation Survey and On-site Evaluation Results Report to New Jersey Department of Agriculture By Snyder Research & Extension Farm, Center for Wildlife Damage Control Joe Paulin, Acting Specialist in Wildlife Management John Grande, Director, Snyder Farm Jack Rabin, Associate Director – Farm Programs Greg Zotti, Student, On-Site Fence Evaluations

Contents Introduction - Deer damage problem, Fencing Program, Brief Survey Summary ............... page 2 Mail and On-Site Survey Methodology ................................................................................ page 3 Results of Farmer responses to Mail Survey......................................................................... pages 4-10 Farmer Fence Recipients’ Written Comments ...................................................................... pages 10-12 On-site Fencing Evaluations Summary and Comments........................................................ pages 13-19 Attachment, Executive Summary, Rutgers NJAES Urban Fringe, April 2008 .................... 2 pages

Introduction, Problem Review, and Summary During the 1990’s, New Jersey’s agricultural community documented increasingly high crop losses due to deer related damage. In an effort to address stakeholder concerns and to alleviate deer-related damage, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture initiated the State supported Supplemental Deer-Fencing Distribution Program. Though costly, deer fencing is a non-lethal highly effective means of reducing damage by exclusion from agricultural crops. This enables farmers to successfully produce crops while protecting another of New Jersey’s valuable resources. Since 1998 at least 1.4 million feet of high quality high tensile woven wire wildlife exclusion fence has been distributed. This report assesses effectiveness of the 2005 State Supplemental Deer-Fencing Program. In order to receive program fencing, growers were required to participate in a deer fencing installation workshop offered through Rutgers NJAES, with hands-on guidance through the process of properly constructing fencing for deer exclusion and fence longevity. The training was assessed also. Results demonstrate the return on public investment is excellent. Respondents reported virtually complete non-lethal deer damage reduction was achieved, and farmers’ revenues per acre restored, after proper fencing installation. Training had positive impact on fence installation, and likely future longevity. For example, within fields fenced by the Program, 75% of responding farmers reported crop losses of $1,000 to $20,000 per acre in the year before fencing was installed (Question 25). In the year(s) after fencing was installed, 60% of responding farmers reported zero dollars, no deer damage crop losses per acre, and another 25% reported less than $1,000 (Question 26). 93% of respondents who reported deer-related crop damage prior to fence installation reported significant reductions in deer-related crop damage after fence installation. Survey results, combined with data on fencing purchase costs to the State (which we do not have) may offer cost-benefit analysis opportunities for future policy guidance. Estimated average crop sales losses per acre from deer damage were decreased after fence installation, and average crops sale revenues per acre increases, can be compared against materials costs of the public fencing program. While not a replacement for professional wildlife management through regulated hunting, nor for depredation permits and other control, high tensile woven wire fencing offers a true non-lethal solution. Fencing saves urban fringe farms, in areas where deer populations exceed the social carrying capacity of the community, and whose very economic viability is threatened by deer-related crop losses

Page 2.

Surveys, Sample Size and Summary Rutgers NJAES designed and conducted mail and site surveys to evaluate the 2005 Supplemental Deer-Fence Distribution Program. Participating fence recipients (N=97) were sent surveys via first class mail where they were asked to rate the ease of fencing installation and construction, the effectiveness of deer fencing, and their overall satisfaction with the 2005 program. Participants were encouraged to offer comments and suggestions for future programs. Additional site visits (N=29) were conducted to evaluate the quality of fencing installations and to assess the effectiveness of the fencing in reducing deer-related crop damage. Mail survey results indicated that 93% of respondents that experienced deer-related crop damage prior to fencing installation reported significant reductions in damage the year following construction of the fence, with 60% of growers noting a total elimination of damage. Site visits revealed a similar pattern, with 100% of growers reporting significant reductions in deer related damage the following year and 52% of participants reporting total elimination of deer-related crop loss. Write-in comments revealed that several participants were unable to grow crops on their property prior to fencing due to the presence of deer, a problem that has been rectified since their participation in the 2005 Supplemental Deer Fencing Program. In both mail surveys and during on-site evaluations, the major criticism of the program was the difficulty in obtaining line posts. The following details information obtained through both mail surveys and on-site fencing evaluations: 56 Useable Survey Responses An initial contact letter was sent to all potential respondents on 5 December 2006 notifying them they would soon receive a confidential survey to help evaluate the Supplemental DeerFencing Program conducted by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture. Respondents included all recipients who were approved and received fencing during the 2005 calendar year. The survey was sent out through a second contact on 19 December 2006, along with a cover letter explaining the evaluation program, stressing participant confidentiality, and a stamped return envelope. A third and final contact consisting of a cover letter, replacement survey, and stamped return envelope was sent on 15 February 2007. Of the potential respondents (N=97) contacted from the list provided by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, 61 surveys were returned giving a response rate of 63%. Four potential respondents stated that they did not receive fencing and one respondent had not yet erected the fencing resulting in 56 usable surveys. The survey contained general information pertaining to the program, fencing installation, fencing construction, fencing effectiveness, and additional comments for improving future programs. The results are as follows:

Page 3.

Fencing Program – 2005 Supplemental Deer Fencing Survey Results 1.

How did you 1st learn about the 2005 supplemental deer-fencing program? (Please check all that apply) 53% Rutgers Cooperative Extension 36% New Jersey Farm Bureau 34% New Jersey Department of Agriculture 17% Other (County board of Agriculture, Previous Experience, Other Farmers, Family, Friends, Newspaper, Radio, and Green Bean Horticulture Web Site) 3% New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife

2.

Please rate the state fencing application/approval process. (Please circle one.)

1 Like (38%)

2

3

4

(34%)

(15%)

(7%)

5 Dislike (6%)

3.

Were you given sufficient time to pick up your fencing? (Please check one.) 98% Yes 0% No 2% Did Not Respond To Question

4.

If given the choice, which length of fencing would you prefer? (Please check one.) 9% 165’ 83% 330’ 8% Did Not Respond To Question

Fencing Installation – 2005 Supplemental Deer Fencing Survey Results 5.

How many acres did you fence in with fencing obtained from the 2005 deer-fencing program? (Please check one.) 17% Less than 5 acres 15% Between 5 and 10 acres 38% Between 11 and 20 acres 15% Between 21 and 30 acres 13% More than 30 acres 2% Did Not Respond To Question

6.

If additional fencing became available, how many more acres would you like to fence in? 15% Less than 5 acres 17% Between 5 and 10 acres 15% Between 11 and 20 acres 11% Between 21 and 30 acres 2% Between 31 and 40 acres 6% Between 41 and 50 acres 15% Between 51 and 100 acres 8% More than 100 acres 11% Did Not Respond To Question

Page 4.

7.

How many linear feet of fence did you erect with fencing obtained through the 2005 deerfencing program? 8% Less than 1000 feet 15% Between 1000 and 2000 feet 15% Between 2001 and 3000 feet 9% Between 3001 and 4000 feet 42% Between 4001 and 5000 feet 11% Did Not Respond To Question

8.

What crops do you grow inside the fence? (Please check all that apply) 53% Vegetable Crops 36% Fruit Crops 8% Field or Forage Crops 28% Nursery 9% Other (Please specify): Christmas Trees, Mums/Flowers

9.

Did you experience any conflicts with local zoning ordinances or regulations when installing the fencing? (Please check one.) 2% Yes: Please Specify: Questionable Property Boundaries 98% No

10.

Who installed the fencing? (Please check all that apply) I installed the: 83% Posts 87% Fencing A hired contractor installed the: 17% Posts 13% Fencing

11.

Was the fencing installed according to established manufacturers guidelines? (Please check one.) 94% Yes 6% No

12.

Are you satisfied with the overall quality of the fencing installation? (Please check one.) 94% Yes 6% No

13.

If you installed the fencing, where did you obtain “how to” install fencing information? (Please check all that apply.) 74% Fencing installation demonstration performed by the Rutgers NJAES Farm 38% Rutgers Fact Sheet – “High-Tensile Woven Wire Fences for Reducing Wildlife Damage” 21% Fence Manufacturer’s Installation Guide 13% Other (Please specify): Rutgers Cooperative Extension County Agent, Previous Experience, Other Farmers, Bekhart and Kencove 11% Did Not Respond To The Question 0% No information was obtained.

Page 5.

High-tensile woven wire deer fence installation seminar NJAES Cream Ridge Research & Extension Center Farm

Construction Details – 2005 Supplemental Deer Fencing Survey Results 14.

Estimate the total out-of-pocket cost (i.e. do not include materials obtained through the 2005 deer-fencing program) to install the fencing. Please include materials, equipment rental costs, gates, etc.: 7% Less than $1,000 51% Between $1,001 and $5,000 28% Between $5,001 and $10,000 6% Between $10,001 and $20,000 2% More than $20,000 6% Did Not Respond To Question Breakdown of Professionally Installed (13%) vs. Self Installed (87%) Costs Professionally Installed (13% of Respondents) 9% 0 to 2500 feet of fencing installed: Average Cost of Installation = $8,152 2% 5000 feet of fencing installed: Average Cost of Installation = $30,000 2% Did Not Respond To Question Self Installed (87% of Respondents) 9% 0 to 1000 feet of fencing installed: 11% 1001 to 2000 feet of fencing installed: 15% 2001 to 3000 feet of fencing installed: 10% 3001 to 4000 feet of fencing installed: 42% 4001 to 5000 feet of fencing installed:

Page 6.

Average Cost of Installation = $1,960 Average Cost of Installation = $3,341 Average Cost of Installation = $6,090 Average Cost of Installation = $7,660 Average Cost of Installation = $5,369

15.

Please estimate the time (in hours) required to install the fencing: Professionally Installed (13% of Respondents) 9% 0 to 2500 feet of fencing installed: Average Installation Time = 43 Hours 4% Did Not Respond To Question Self Installed (87% of Respondents) 9% 0 to 1000 feet of fencing installed: 11% 1001 to 2000 feet of fencing installed: 15% 2001 to 3000 feet of fencing installed: 10% 3001 to 4000 feet of fencing installed: 42% 4001 to 5000 feet of fencing installed:

16.

Average Installation Time = 30 Hours Average Installation Time = 73 Hours Average Installation Time = 60 Hours Average Installation Time = 275 Hours Average Installation Time = 203 Hours

Please estimate the number of people that installed the fencing: Professionally Installed (13% of Respondents) 9% 0 to 2500 feet of fencing installed: Average Number of People Used = 3 2% 5000 feet of fencing installed: Average Number of People Used = 4 2% Did Not Respond To Question Self Installed (87% of Respondents) 9% 0 to 1000 feet of fencing installed: 11% 1001 to 2000 feet of fencing installed: 15% 2001 to 3000 feet of fencing installed: 10% 3001 to 4000 feet of fencing installed: 42% 4001 to 5000 feet of fencing installed:

Average Number of People Used = 3 Average Number of People Used = 3 Average Number of People Used = 3 Average Number of People Used = 5 Average Number of People Used = 5

Summary of Questions 14-16: Professional vs. Self Installation Professional (13% of Respondents)

Self (87% of Respondents)

17.

Percent of Respondents 9% 2% 2% 9% 11% 15% 10% 42%

Feet of Fencing Installed 0 - 2500 5000 No Response 0 - 1000 1001 - 2000 2001 - 3000 3001 - 4000 4001 - 5000

Average Cost of Installation $ 8,152 $30,000 No Response $ 1,960 $ 3,341 $ 6,090 $ 7,660 $ 5,369

Average Time of Installation (Hours) 30 No Response No Response 30 73 60 275 203

Average Number of People Used 3 4 No Response 3 3 3 5 5

How many corners were installed with fencing obtained through the 2005 deer-fencing 62% 0 – 5 Corners 26% 6 – 10 Corners 6% 11 – 20 Corners 2% More Than 20 Corners 4% Did Not Respond To Question

Page 7.

program?

18.

What type of corner posts were used? (Please check all that apply) 89% Round Pressure Treated Wood Posts 2% Steel Posts 4% Existing Trees 17% Other (Please specify): 4x4, 6x6, and telephone/utility poles

19.

Were the corners reinforced with H-bracing and diagonal wires? (Please check one.) 89% Yes 9% No 2% Did Not Respond To Question

Proper H-brace corners at gates. 20.

What type of line posts were used? (Please check all that apply) 85% Round Pressure Treated Wood Posts 21% Steel Posts 0% Fiberglass Posts 4% Existing Trees 25% Other (Please specify): 2x4, 4x4, and 6x6

21.

How were the fence posts set in the ground? (Please check all that apply.) 64% Augered 42% Driven 2% Hand Dug 2% Did Not Respond To Question

22.

What is the overall height of the fencing installed? (Please check one) 21% 6 to 6 ½ feet 19% 7 feet 51% 8 feet 9% 9 to 10 feet

Page 8.

23.

How many single strand wires are installed above the high-tensile woven wire fencing? check one) 21% 1 55% 2 9% 3 to 4 13% None 2% Did Not Respond To Question

24.

How many gates were installed? (Please check one) 9% 0 26% 1 28% 2 17% 3 14% Other (Please specify): 4 to 7

(Please

Effectiveness of Fencing – 2005 Supplemental Deer Fencing Survey Results 25.

Within the acres fenced in with fencing obtained through the 2005 deer-fencing program, what level of crop damage, cost per acre, did white-tailed deer cause the year before installation of the new fencing? (Please check one) 0% 6% 34% 26% 15% 4% 11% 4%

26.

None Less than $1000 Between $1000 and $5000 Between $5000 and $10,000 Between $10,000 and $20,000 Greater than $20,000 Other (Please specify): Newly planted Did Not Respond To Question

Within the acres fenced in with fencing obtained through the 2005 deer-fencing program, what level of crop damage, cost per acre, did white-tailed deer cause after installation of the new fencing? (Please check one) 60% 25% 6% 0% 0% 9%

None Less than $1000 Between $1000 and $5000 Between $5000 and $10,000 Between $10,000 and $20,000 Did Not Respond To Question

Note: 93% of respondents who reported deer-related crop damage prior to fence installation reported significant reductions in deer-related crop damage after fence installation.

Page 9.

27.

Please rate the level of annual maintenance that your installed fence requires. (Please circle one.)

1 2 Less than anticipated (24%)

(32%)

3

4

(36%)

(2%)

5 More than anticipated (0%)

(6%) Did Not Respond

28.

What part of the fence requires the most annual maintenance? (Please check one) 19% High-tensile woven wire Fencing 15% Single Strand Wire 13% Corner Posts 13% Gates 13% Other (Please specify): weed control, falling limbs, backing into posts 11% Line Posts 8% Nothing 8% Did Not Respond To Question

29.

What method of vegetation control do you use? (Please check all that apply.) 77% Herbicide 53% Mechanical (Weedwacker and/or Mower) 4% None 0% Other (Please specify):

30.

If additional funding was to become available in the future, please rank the following items 1-4 to prioritize how the money should be spent (1 = highest priority; 4 = lowest priority) use each number only once: 55% 42% 0% 3%

ranked Posts highest priority ranked Fence Material highest priority ranked Equipment Rental highest priority ranked Installation Costs highest priority

Additional Respondent Written Comments (Note: For purposes of anonymity any information in comments which could potentially identify a respondent was replaced with …

Satisfied but want/need from program additional posts and/or fence (15) • Any additional fencing would be appreciated. Thank you. • Line poles come from out of state, have to pay shipping. It’s a problem. It’s a lot of money. • Program is great. I would like to expand my fenced in growing space in spring 2007. • Overall an excellent program. The problem was getting the additional post that we knew we were going to need. We had to pay for a trailer that was only half full. You could get farmers to commit to buying the additional post and have them delivered to the fence pick up site. • Not enough posts were given to install the fence. • Give applicants with small acreage the amount of fence required. My out-of-pocket costs were about 4 times the cost of the materials I received. It was not worth getting $500 worth of fencing so I could spend $4000 more to finish the job. • Not enough posts allocated. Page 10.

• Supply all the posts needed to do the job. Install the high-tensile fence on the field side of the posts. Deer don’t ram the fence trying to get into the field, but once caught inside they will ram it hard trying to get back to the woods. In other words, the nail side of the fence should be on the field side. • Should supply all posts for job. • I know you are not in the fencing business, but it would be great to be able to attain additional materials (fence and posts) through Rutgers Cooperative Extension. • We need more fencing. • I had serious damage to watermelon plants this year and more fencing would help. • This is a great program. I could not afford to fence in the area that is being fenced due to fence costs. To improve the program maybe the fence company could provide a package deal to all growers involved to supply and erect any future fence programs to help lower the cost of additional fence materials. • By helping with fence material you get an approved fencing. This could also be done by giving cash and requiring farmer to meet certain requirements and not be paid until fence is up. Having time to install the fence is a problem. Having fence supported, but not installed is of no value. • I dropped out of the 2005 deer fence program before receiving any fence. My reason for dropping out is that I was only granted a small portion of the fence that I would have needed. The fence program contract was written in such a way that I would have obligated myself to spend the great sum of money needed to complete the job. Applicants who received fence in 2005 were not eligible for more in 2006.

General satisfaction (9) • The fence turned out great for our farm. • I’m very pleased with the program. • Additional money, but I know that’s a problem that is difficult to solve. Otherwise the program was well managed. Thanks for the support. PS: Fully installed. • Very pleased. • We were first time fence builders. After we got the hang of it went very smooth. Next time will be much easier. Thank you. • Thank You! • Thank you for the deer fencing in the past. • Thank you. • Being able to get the fence faster. Thank you a great help.

Satisfied - had abandoned farming field or lost most crops prior to installing fence (4) • Could not grow a crop in the fenced area (prior to installation) because of deer damage. • No crops planted previous to fencing due to large number of deer present. • I farm about…acres of fruit and veg. The piece I fenced had serious winter damage due to deer eating buds. • We did not grow in this space before we fenced it because I didn't want to loose half my crop to deer.

Benefit from Rutgers fence install workshop training and support (4) • The class at Rutgers Cream Ridge Farm (2005 Deer Fence Workshop) was very good, should be repeated if there is another allocation. • My positive feedback includes the excellent quality of the installation seminar and the availability of the Bekhart personnel to field questions. A North Jersey installation seminar would have been greatly appreciated. The Snyder staff was flexible and helpful in taking delivery of the fence. An unfenced…acre pumpkin field in the back of my property adjacent to the wildlife reserve suffered an 80% loss of pumpkin crop to deer luncheons. Please feel free to send anyone who doubts the agricultural harm caused by deer over to see me. • I was grateful for the fence; the men who loaded it for me were very polite and helpful. • I hate to admit this, but the mandatory attendance at the installation workshop was a good thing. I learned some things even though I thought I knew it all. It’s a great program! Keep up the good work!

Page 11.

Delays installing fence form site work, low working capital, or labor shortage (5) • I’d like to put it up right, that’s what I’m trying to do. Stretching it is hard. It’s hard to find the right poles. I bought posts from Virginia. I bought an auger to dig holes. It’s a lot of work to put the fence up right. I looked for metal line posts, not readily available in New Jersey. I was approached by someone to install the fence who wanted $12,000. We’re just a small operation. I have to spend another $5,000 before I can put the fence up. That’s why I’m trying to start something up in south Jersey. People do not buy things up here anymore because of the deer. • Have not installed fencing yet need to clean hedgerows first and have not had time as of yet. • I have not been able to put my fence up yet because last spring a large oak tree fell right on my property line along side one of my neighbors. I was waiting to get permission from my neighbor in order to remove it. As of today, I haven’t heard anything. I plan on removing this tree when my labor force comes back. I plan on putting this fence up in the next few months. • The fence installation is still underway as grading and site preparation was more extensive than planned (brush/tree removal/clearing back of fence rows). A new post pounder was just purchased in anticipation of completing the project when the frost is gone. • I am not able to complete the questionnaire since my fencing has not been erected yet due to unsuccessful attempt to engage a contractor. My intent is to erect the fence this year as soon as possible, preferably this spring given no adverse circumstances. After I attended the installation class in October 2005 and picked up the wire and posts I called two contractors and neither of them returned my calls. After this I looked into doing it myself as I have a post pounder. I looked into additional fence equipment needed for the tractor mount for driver and also spoke to Kencove Fence for the other materials. I contacted my local farm supply dealer for the additional hardware to mount the driver. I never heard back from him. Time passed as we got buried under with …work, and marketing. Bottom line is we have to try again. Last November I spoke with a contractor in NY state who has been referred to me by a farmer I know in Warwick, NY; this contractor said we were located beyond his normal work area, no further response was heard. I will have to inquire to other contractors. Although I would like to do it myself, …I have more than we can handle on the farm.

Higher fence height recommended, needed, or desired (3) Note: 6 ½ height of woven fence was selected as a compromise in consultation with NJ farmer leaders, who felt rolls of 8’ woven fence were be too heavy and unsafe for small farms to handle without specialized equipment. 8’ is achieved when the three strands of smooth hi-tensile wire distributed are installed above the woven wire. • Would prefer eight foot vs. the six foot supplied fence. • Higher fence as some deer can jump it. • My negative feedback is sheer outrage that the State would “give” me a fence that would not, in fact, keep out the deer. I invested close to $4,000 excluding my farm labor time on the additional posts and post installation to install a fence that is inadequate. We watch the deer fly over he 8+ foot fence (Please note that deer caught inside a deer fence during the retail harvest season of a farm engaged in agri-tourism represents a very serious hazard to PYO customers). I installed 12 foot posts at the 3 ½ to 4 foot depth recommended in all instructional materials and seminar demonstrations. My farmer colleagues look at me aghast when I tell them I followed the State’s directions and recommendations. Everyone, apparently, knows that a deer fence must be at least 9 feet, preferably 10 feet (The 10+ fence around the other half of my farm, installed by my father in 1994 without State subsidy or assistance, requires no maintenance, is solid as when it was constructed, and keeps out the deer), to actually keep out deer, everyone that is except the State of New Jersey and its cost cutting foolhardiness. Providing 6 ½ foot woven wire instead of 8 foot woven wire and 12 foot posts instead of 14 foot posts, spending tax payer dollars ill-advisedly, and encouraging farmers to invest their own capital and undertake a time-consuming construction project to install a deer fence that does not work is a sick joke worthy of our agriculture-hating Garden State.

Page 12.

On-site Fencing Evaluations Participants of the 2005 Supplemental Deer-Fencing Program were contacted to arrange on-site evaluations of fencing installations. Evaluations consisted of a short interview and visual inspection of the installed fence. The purpose of the visits were to assess deer fencing installations and communicate with participants to determine the effectiveness of the fencing in reducing deer-related crop damage. Participants were selected from a list provided by the NJ Department of Agriculture (N=97) and included growers from both North and South Jersey. Attempts were made to contact all participants and resulted in (N=29) site visits. Site visits took place between April and September 2007. Of the growers visited, 48% were from the northern region and 52% from the southern region. The following summarizes information obtained as a result of the on-site fencing evaluations. On-Site Fencing Installation Evaluation What crops did deer damage the year prior to fence installation? 55% Vegetables (lettuce, peppers, beets, spinach, cabbage, kale, tomatoes, and sweet corn) 41% Fruit (pumpkins, blueberry, pear, cherry, strawberry, wine grapes, apples) 21% Nursery (arborvitae, rhododendron, pine, burning bush, maple) 21% Flowers (mums, hostas, pansies, asters, petunias) What was the dollar value per acre of the deer-damage experienced the year prior to fence installation? Average: $4,546/acre Minimum: $300/acre Maximum: $15,000/acre What was the dollar value per acre of the deer-damage experienced the year following to fence installation? Average: $58/acre Minimum: $0/acre Maximum: $500/acre Note: 52% of growers experienced no deer-damage the year following fence installation. 100% of growers experienced significant reductions in deer-related crop damage the year following fence installation. Do you feel that the fence has been effective in reducing deer-damage to your crops? 100% of growers surveyed felt that the deer fencing that they received thought the Supplemental Deer Fence Program has been effective in reducing deer-damage to their crops. Did you implement any other deer management options prior to installing the fence? (e.g., obtain a depredation permit to shoot or allow hunting on the property). 93% of growers implemented other deer management options on the property prior to fence installation (including: liquid fence, depredation permit, pyrotechnics, repellants, hunting, electric fencing, temporary fencing, and smaller fencing, i.e. less than 8’ high). Have you implemented any other deer management options on the property following the installation of the fence? 52% of growers implemented other deer management options on the property following fence installation (including: depredation permits, hunting, repellants, and pyrotechnics). Page 13.

Do you own or lease the property where the fence was installed? 83% Own 7% Lease 10% Both own and lease

On-Site Fencing Material Received Feet of Fencing Received: 10% 0-1000 10% 1001-2000 21% 2001-3000 10% 3001-4000 48% 4001-5000 Number of Posts Received: 10% 0-10 10% 11-20 21% 21-30 10% 31-40 48% 41-50

On-Site Physical Characteristics of Installed Fencing Overall height of fence (feet): 31% 6.5 feet 7% 7.5 feet 24% 8.0 feet 28% 8.5 feet 7% >8.5 feet 3% Various Heights Number of single wires: 31% No Wires 3% 1 Wire 48% 2 Wires 7% 3 Wires 7% 4 Wires 3% Number of Wires Varied Line Post Size (inches): 55% 5-6 inch round wood posts 21% Square wood posts 17% Various 7% Did not respond to question Line Post Material: 58% Round Wood 14% Square Wood 28% Various (Including: square wood, round wood. and metal) Note: 28% of participants used square wood for line posts

Page 14.

Line Post Spacing (feet): 21.5 feet Average line post spacing 35.0 feet Maximum line post spacing 08.0 feet Minimum line post spacing Corner Post Size (inch): 37% 5-6 inch round wood 20% 10-12 inch round wood 6% 2x4 square wood (2x4 and 4x4) 24% Various (Including round and square wood) 10% Did Not Respond Corner Post Material: 72% Round Wood Posts 10% Telephone Poles 10% Various (Including: square wood, round wood, and trees) 6% Square Wood (2x4 and 4x4)

On-Site Corner Construction H-Brace Construction: 79% Single H-Brace Installed 14% Double H-Brace Installed 7% No H-Brace Installed H-Brace Length: 38%