I did check the CCR’s, but not, I will readily admit, exhaustively. 87 pages of results came back for “livestock” — I found a definition in the sales and use tax section and I read the first 10 pages of results and within that 10 pages, the sales/use tax definition seemed to be held consistently.
Here’s what I find under “sales and use tax” CCR’s for definition of “livestock:”
1 CCR 201-5: ...”Livestock means cattle, horses, mules, burros, sheep, lambs, poultry, swine, ostrich, llama, alpaca and goats or other animal raised for food, fiber or hide production, and alternative livestock under 35-41.5-102, C.R.S. but not pet animal as defined in 35-80-102(10), C.R.S.”
No mention of bison/buffalo in that section except as the “other animals raised for food/fiber...” which then gets into the practices of the producer.
If there are conflicting definitions within the CCR’s, then I’m sure a lawyer will argue the point that the state can’t get their act together on defining livestock.
My experience with regulations and statutes on this issue in Nevada was that the DA said that if the regulations didn’t speak to the statute involved, the statute’s definition won out. This will vary from state to state, of course.
My eyes glazed over when I did a search for “livestock” in the CCR’s — man, do they spend a lot of time filibustering about livestock and mountain lions in the CCR’s.
My eyes also glazed over. I guess my point is that there is enough leeway in the definition of livestock between the Statute and rules set by the Commissioner of Agriculture it would probably take a court case to settle the definition as it applies in a specific instance.
But I do know this the legal definition of a fence was obviously set up to keep out cattle of the genus bos (sounds like a Mafia name) and maybe sheep. It sure as heck would not suffice to keep out bison. Which would either need old fashioned cattle planks (is that what they are called?) or a fence which would rival those at a Siberian Gulag.
I can see a modification to the fencing law that updates the legal fence definition for atypical livestock. Perhaps with an understanding that since these stock are not held in by traditional fencing the owner would be responsible for keeping his stock in. I imagine the cost of building a bison proof fence is a great deal more expensive than your post and barbwire fence.