Webinar shares Montana experience on costs, benefits, and stewardship applications.

Virtual fencing is changing the way livestock producers manage their herds, combining advanced technology with the age-old principles of grazing management. During a recent discussion among ranchers and representatives from leading virtual fencing systems hosted by Trina Jo Bradley and the Montana Conflict Reduction Consortium, livestock producers shared their experiences, both positive and negative, with tools like Vence and Gallagher’s eShepherd.  

A New Way to Fence 

Virtual fencing replaces traditional barriers with GPS-enabled collars that deliver sound and shock stimuli to train animals to stay within invisible boundaries and can be a tool for containment, exclusion, and movement. The Vence system relies on three components: the collar, base station, and software or management. Collars track animal locations and enforce boundaries, while the base station connects collars to a software platform that allows ranchers to create and adjust virtual paddocks remotely. 

The eShepherd system, introduced by Brandon Arpan, a livestock producer running cattle in Eastern Montana, offers similar features but includes solar-powered collars with integrated RFID tags. Gallagher, eShepherd’s developer, designed the product to integrate with their other cattle management tools. “What sets eShepherd apart is that it’s fully waterproof, has a 10-year collar lifespan, and works seamlessly with existing Gallagher equipment,” Arpan explained. 

On the Ground: Learning from Experience 

Holly Stoltz, who lives and works on her families fourth-generation farm and ranch near Billings, MT uses Vence collars to manage 300 yearlings over a 640-acre area with rotational grazing. “The training process is quick,” Stoltz said. “In just four days, the yearlings learned to respect the boundaries.” 

Stoltz designed her grazing plan to rest pastures strategically, and the results were evident. “When you move them out, you can see a direct line in your grass,” she said. “This year, that pasture looks incredible—it’s rested and recovered beautifully.” However, the technology isn’t without challenges. Adjusting collars for growing yearlings proved time-consuming. “We ended up having to re-collar 50 animals because we got them too tight,” Stoltz shared.  

Battery life was another hurdle; intensive grazing rotations drained collars in just 2.5 months. Despite these issues, Stoltz praised the system’s ability to improve grazing management. “We hay and are always thin on labor, so this saved us a lot of work we would have had to do with electric fencing.” 

Brandon Arpan echoed similar benefits with eShepherd. Located in Southeastern Montana, Arpan uses virtual fencing to manage rotational grazing with precision. “We’ve moved from three-day rotations with electric fencing to 12-hour moves with eShepherd,” he shared. These frequent moves improved forage utilization while reducing labor. 

Arpan also highlighted how the system supports herd health. “If an animal’s collar stops moving for too long, we get an alert,” he said. This feature proved crucial when cattle became bogged down in a creek. “We were able to save four animals that otherwise would’ve been lost.” 

The Numbers Behind the Technology 

Virtual fencing’s has significant costs. Vence’s base stations are $10,000, and collars are $40 per year including software and support. “If you pencil the costs, they don’t pencil”, Stoltz noted and shared that external funding, like the World Wildlife Fund’s RSVP program, made adopting the technology more feasible. “They covered 50% of the cost for our collars and tower,” she said. 

Arpan outlined eShepherd’s pricing: collars cost $250 each, and a base station is $5,000. Operating costs are lower with eShepherd, at $1.50 per collar per month. “It’s a higher upfront investment, but the savings over time make it worth it,” he said. 

Challenges and Adjustments 

While virtual fencing offers some significant potential upsides, there are some significant limitations to the technology. Stoltz highlighted collar retention issues, saying, “We found collars on trails, even though there were no obstructions for them to catch on.” Both Vence and eShepherd have redesigned their collars to improve durability and fit. 

Battery life varies depending on usage. “With 100-acre paddocks, you can expect eight months of battery life,” Roseberry explained. “But smaller paddocks with tighter moves can drop that to four months or less.” 

Producers also raised concerns about technology bugs and communication delays. Arpan mentioned that while eShepherd’s collars update location every 10 minutes, delays can occur at the edge of base station range. “It might take a few hours for all collars to update in large pastures, but overall, the system works well,” he said. 

A Tool for the Future 

Despite the learning curve and some tech challenges both Arpan and Stolz see a wide array of opportunities for incorporating this emerging technology within their, and other’s stewardship. With more cost-share opportunities coming on-line, and interest in applications of the tool for other stewardship challenges, including reducing wildlife livestock conflicts, more livestock producers than ever before will have the opportunity to trial this tool. For more from conversation, please watch the video recording of Stoltz’s and Arpan’s presentations and Q and A from Montana Conflict Reduction Consortium meeting this past Fall!