ple wanting to keep animals off their property must erect a legal fence to keep animals out, as opposed to the "herd district" where an animal's owner must fence it in or otherwise keep it on the person's own property. Most eastern states and jurisdictions in Canada require owners to fence in or herd their livestock.
In modern times, free roaming cattle can be a nuisance and danger in developed areas. Most western states now limit open range to certain areas. Under open range law today, if livestock break through a "legal fence" (defined by law in terms of height, materials, post spacing, etc.), then the livestock owner is liable for damages of the fenced property. Conversely, the livestock owner is not liable in the absence of the "legal fence." An exception exists for "unruly" animals, usually meaning breeding bulls and stallions, which are supposed to be restricted by the owner.
On roadways within an open range area, in a cow-car collision on a roadway, the rancher was at one time not generally liable, but recent law changes beginning in the 1980s gradually increased rancher liability, first requiring cattle be kept off federal highways, then other developed roads, and in some cases, limited open range grazing only to certain times of the year. In some states, such as Montana, case law on the open range has, for all practical purposes, eliminated it altogether, though statutes may remain on the books. Today, a vehicle has a much higher chance of hitting a wild animal than livestock.
Laws are still in flux. In Arizona, livestock must be fenced in within incorporated areas, but are still listed only as a potential nuisance for unincorporated suburbs. Therefore in that state, bills are being pushed "to get rid of this antiquated law from 19th century. Those opposing the legislation say that "eliminating the law would put undue hardship on ranchers. However, the law has sometimes been settled via legal action. In Montana, the Montana Supreme Court in the decision Larson-Murphy v. Steiner, for a short time effectively eliminated some aspects of the open range doctrine altogether, though stating that it still applied in other cases, and required legislative action to update the state's statutes to ameliorate some inconsistent provisions of the decision. In that decision, the Court overturned a 33 year old precedent that had exempted livestock owners from most liability for wandering stock on roadways (other than certain state and federal highways built with federal funds), holding there was "no duty" to motorists under open range doctrine, in Larson-Murphy v. Steiner', the Court held that there was a relationship between livestock owners and motorists on public roads, allowing motorists a cause of action for accidents involving wandering livestock on grounds of negligence. The Montana legislature then amended the statutes governing the open range to allow motorists to sue only on grounds of gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
On roads in Idaho, an open-range state, livestock have the right of way: if an animal is hit and killed by a vehicle, the driver is liable for the price of the animal and for the repair for the damage to the vehicle. Idaho counties can and have created herd districts, which require livestock owners to "build and maintain adequate fences to keep their animals off roads and neighboring properties"; in herd districts, the livestock owner is liable.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Open range.|
Waiting for a Chinook, by C.M. Russell. Overgrazing and harsh winters were factors that brought an end to the age of the open range.
Cowboys branding a calf in South Dakota in 1888.
Loose cattle on Utah State Route 313
- Agricultural fencing
- Cattle drives in the United States
- Common land
- Drift fence
- Enclosure (England)
- History of agriculture in the United States
- Range war
- Sheep Wars
- Matthews, Mychel (October 30, 2014). "Herd Districts Protect Drivers in an Open Range State". Twin Falls Times-News. Retrieved 2014-10-30.
- Gordon Morris Bakken (ed.), "Law in the western United States", 2