Here an example of a NO GO wall
https://news.1rj.ru/str/DefenceTelegram/573

From one side, it's good there is a door to put migrants out (even if many organisation complain this is against human right ... like they complain about everything other) or to allow animals to migrate (which is not the goal for them ...), but on the other side this is a serious danger for animals and we don't agree at all with such type of walls with 🔪
https://news.1rj.ru/str/WomenRightsTelegram/709

Already the fact that walls stop animal migration is problematic
https://news.1rj.ru/str/AnimalFreaks/2188
https://news.1rj.ru/str/DefenceTelegram/573

but for such things local animal scientists know much better where such walls are a no go for animals ... since migration depends even from location to location ...

put in danger animals that cannot migrate is a NO GO!

The solution? Well, maybe creating walls, where every x km we have a passage that is controlled by AI or whatever. Means that on such point there is a double wall with 2 doors, and be sure that the second door will be opened only for animals ...

What do we mean? Let we say the door on the left is opened and the door on the right closed. Between the doors there are different meters. Once artificial intelligence detects animals (or human detect animals), the door on the left is closed and animal can transit ...

But this is still huge a chaos too ... (just think the mother looking for food, going to the other side and maybe not able to return back ... poor mother and babies ...) without considering that humans could abuse such system, like said before.

Obviously we should provide interval door opening, not that migration is possible just in one side ...

On the other side, this will not work. It's like having a bird in the house, opening the door and the bird still cannot leave the house ... So this is cool in theory, but in reality it will not really work in that way.

Animals in such case are not smart, but even people ... (think about empty checkout)

Under a high-emissions scenario, we find that 35% of mammals and 29% of birds are projected to have over half of their 2070 climatic niche in countries in which they are not currently found.

We map these transboundary range shifts globally, identifying borders across which international coordination might most benefit conservation and where physical border barriers, such as walls and fences, may be an overlooked obstacle to climate adaptation.

The construction of such barriers can disturb or destroy habitats, fragment populations, prevent dispersal and migration, and directly or indirectly increase mortality via entanglement, poaching, and predation.

For example, border security fencing in Central Asia is likely to be impeding ungulate migrations (11, 41), while recently erected razor-wire security fencing along the Slovenia–Croatia border has increased mortality in herons and ungulates.

Barriers along stretches of the United States–Mexico border were found to de- crease the abundance of puma (Puma concolor) and coati (Nasua narica) (43), and the planned extension of this barrier is likely to prevent the re-establishment of dwindling or recently extirpated populations of endangered species in the United States, such as the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) and Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis).

..

Finally, maintaining and enhancing habitat connectivity across borders between area-based conservation measures will be critical to enable range shifts under climate change, and this effort should be targeted to the regions in which it will have the most impact. We have shown that this is likely to be where borders cut across broad climatic gradients in species- rich areas, such as around the tropical Andes and Amazon, the Himalayas, and east–west borders such as the United States– Mexico border. Where border security barriers are a threat to this ecological connectivity, particularly along the United States–Mexico border and parts of Asia, we must implement appropriate measures.