Virtual Fencing Can Help Buffalo Roam and Antelope Play
Hundreds of thousands of miles of fences ensnare and sometimes kill wild animals. GPS technology offers an alternative.

"Oh, give me a home, where the buffalo roam, where the deer and the antelope play," goes the venerable Western folk song "Home on the Range."
Fences strung throughout the western United States to corral cattle and other livestock, however, block buffalo from roaming and restrict the play of deer and antelope. The deployment of virtual fencing may free wildlife to prance unfettered by barbed wire across the vast landscapes of the American West. Ranchers will also benefit from this cheaper and more flexible tool for managing the grazing of their herds.
How does virtual fencing work? "Animals (primarily cattle) wear GPS-enabled collars that emit sound, vibrations, and mild electric pulses to guide their movement to encourage them to stay within—or deter them from entering—designated areas," explains a November 2024 policy brief from the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) in Bozeman, Montana. Virtual fencing software and collars communicate through cell networks, base stations, or satellites.
By one estimate, more than 620,000 miles of fences crisscross the western United States. These barriers present significant challenges to the movement of wildlife such as mule deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and sage grouse. The Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks service has estimated that on average, one ungulate (hoofed mammal such as a deer, elk, or pronghorn) was found tangled for every 2.5 miles of fence. A 2023 study reported that half of radio-collared pronghorn, along with thousands more from the herd, died in deep snow when fencing stymied their migration to warmer pastures.
Livestock are trained for several days to respond to the signals emitted by the collars before being set loose to graze. Ranchers can keep track of the location of each animal, manage their herds, and even encourage them to graze on undesired or invasive species by adjusting virtual boundaries through apps on their cellphones or computers. Virtual fencing can also prevent overgrazing and protect ecologically sensitive areas such as wetlands, riparian zones, erodible soils, and wildlife corridors.
Researchers at Cornell University, with the support of the Bezos Earth Fund, are working to extend the benefits of virtual fencing to farmers and ranchers in low- and middle-income countries. Instead of collars, the Cornell team is developing a rugged small ear tag that incorporates geolocation, behavioral sensors, and boundary-setting stimuli.
PERC has launched a virtual fence conservation fund that will distribute $250,000 to encourage ranchers and conservationists to adopt this technology on public and private lands. Deploying virtual fences that enable buffalo to roam and antelope to play is a win-win for both ranchers and conservationists.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Virtual Fences on the Range."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There's something GREAT here to be learned! From THIS, we could beef-enefit biggly, till the cows cum home! Here's the beef:
We could ALSO put GPS-guided shock collars on Queen Spermy Daniels, Emperor Trump, and all of Their Trumpanzees, to make sure that they all stay within the confines of the USA's Cunts-Tits-Tuition!!!
But what does it do to the Squirrel population?
The Squirrel populations adhere to the USA Cunts-Tits-Tuition, and the herds of free-range-roving Queen Spermy Danielses? They do SNOT! So the Squirrel populations are deprived and depraved of their reproductive "equitable access" to the herds of free-range Queen Spermy Danielses!!!
THIS IS SNOT FAIR!!! A "tech" solution seems to be at hand, here, so let's get ON with shit, and get shit ON!!!
(I for one am willing to share the videos, at reasonable prices, sexcluding sexorbitant tariffs, of course. Herd the herds over my way!)
Ronald, Ronald, Ronaled !!! What are you addressing ??
Get to the real problem :
"The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States."
Deploying virtual fences that enable buffalo to roam and antelope to play is a win-win for both ranchers and conservationists.
Sounds like it's more win-win-WIN-WIN-WIIIIIIN for ranchers, conservationists, environmentalists, bureaucrats, and top-down Bill-Gates-style technocratic statists (and their fanbois) respectively. Which, on the whole, fucks over your average beef consumer and beef producer and exploits "conservationism" as a fig leaf for your MOAR TESTING and "Once people eat lab meat we can give the ranch land back to nature." idiocy.
GPS collars can encourage grazing on invasive species and prevent overgrazing in ecologically sensitive areas? If the invasive species were significantly tastier and/or more nutritious encouraging grazing wouldn't be a problem and conversely if ecologically-sensitive areas were burgeoning scrabble 2 ton ungulates wouldn't graze their. You and people like Gates/Bezos just want to use the technology to elide property rights and expand where you can tell ranchers, or bypass them and tell their herds directly, where on their own property they can and can't graze.
In what regard? The most I can see from this, is that it poses a cybersecurity risk, where in a hostile group could turn off or use the tags to move the cattle as part of a cyber attack. While a definite risk to take into consideration, depending on how the tools are built it could be mitigated. The down stream benefits to ranchers, wildlife, and the cows themselves seems like this will be a very good deal for some people.
I can see who has never been around cattle.
These barriers present significant challenges to the movement of wildlife such as mule deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and sage grouse.
I can also see who doesn't know what a sage grouse is.
Also, we learned that chain link fences can keep mosquitoes out.
And viruses when placed 6' apart.
Just think of all the lives that could've been saved by the Bezos Earth Fund installing gloryholes in men's rooms in every major city in the country in 2019! Win-win!
I believe asking why it's an issue and explaining the benefits as I see it is an invitation to explain why it may be a problem worth such a reaction.
The most I can see from this, is that it poses a cybersecurity risk, where in a hostile group could turn off or use the tags to move the cattle as part of a cyber attack.
I'm not responsible for your dim wit. If you can foresee "a hostile group" exploiting it, then you should be able to grasp the idea that "a hostile group" is advocating it or that "a benevolent group" could similarly turn control over to "a hostile group" turning the win-win into a lose-lose.
You'll note that they aren't targeting US ranchers who, as I indicate, could afford and use the technology (and do use in very limited amounts) if it had any real sort of ROI. They're looking to foist it on low- and middle-income ranchers.
You act like this is your first experience with enshittification, pyramid schemes, and socialist philanthropists. Which, if you're like 14, I can't really blame you. My 12 yr. old can recognize, but doesn't really grok them, but if you're getting to 16 or older, you really should have outgrown the "Golly gee willickers!", pollyanna-esque naive optimism.
"with the support of the Bezos Earth Fund"
OK - now I know which side I'm on. No doubt Bill Gates is in the background as well.
He's embarrassed to show his face after the Lolita Express kerfuffle. But he's always lurking in the background.
Good idea, but even better if you could remote control them. An RC cow
Why does that animal in the picture have a claymore mine around his neck?
Because they are "re-introducing" wolves?
So your looking to save animals? How about the hundreds of thousands of birds killed by windmills?
Who establishes the 'correct' number of buffalo and antelope which we must conserve?
Is it sorta like the 'correct' temperature of the earth?
Smells of a new bureaucracy...
Well, there is some minimal breeding population required if you want to conserve them at all as wild animals. I like having wild animals like that not go extinct, but that's just my preference. The world probably won't end if they do.
I'm sure farmers will be as happy as clams at high tide to let buffalo, deer, and antelope wander all over their pastures, not to mention predators. Or maybe they intend to collar all wild animals too.
It's Ron "The tragedy of the commons is a terrible, inhumane, anti-libertarian, socialist morass... that we should expand at every opportunity... for nature!" Bailey.
It reads like he just copied a few press release paragraphs and changed a few words to confuse plagiarism searches. Although I do wonder about that sage grouse line. I would have thought even Ron knew enough, but he was probably copying too much to notice.
Cattle fences are zero barrier to predators and deer. They don't even slow them down.
Buffalo, maybe, but all fences are "suggestions" to cattle and moreso to buffalo. If a buffalo decides to push through a fence, it's going down and the buffalo is hardly even going to notice it was there.
Good heavens! Then it's a darned shame the only fences that ever get built are cattle fences.
I wonder where my father got the idea to build tall fences with chicken mesh at the bottom. I wonder what he thought he was keeping out.
Ron, please stick to talking about subjects you know something about, and by that I mean STFU forever.
By one estimate, more than 620,000 miles of fences crisscross the western United States.
Ladies and gentlemen, a 20th Century Science reporter failing a rationality/intelligence test put forth by a late-19th/early-20th century religious scholar:
All of a sudden and for no particular reason at all ranchers decided to put up *and maintain* 620,000 miles of fence.
I suppose that 620,000 miles of existing barbed wire is just going to disappear in a poof of good intentions. Or is Bezos going to put on a Stetson and get busy with the wire cutters?
"To support native/natural/God-intended migration and combat property border problems in the American Southwest, we're going give free shit to third world collectivists and socialists who tow the line... for the environment. Win-win!" Bezos Earth Fund
Um ... OK. Let me find my jibber jabber translator. (Backs away carefully, not looking mad.casual in the eyes....) And it's toe the line, by the way.
Actually it's "tow the lion".
Ron references the 620,000 mi. of fence in N. Am. but the Bezos Earth Fund says, "extend the benefits of virtual fencing to farmers and ranchers in low- and middle-income countries". Which means the technology doesn't work and isn't profitable, otherwise N. Am., European, and "high-income countries" would be using it. The generous interpretation is that Bezos and Cornell are padding resumes, blowing smoke, and recouping losses. A slightly less generous interpretation is that farmers and politicians in low-income countries are bought off in support of an environmentalist, pro-equity, top-down control agenda more cheaply.
To wit: You, me, and Zeb's tow/toe the line/lion debate doesn't mean dick if the man paying a bunch of low-income pipers insists the tune is called "Dedos el león."
This technology will never become used on a large scale. I'm a rancher.
* Collars can get hung up on trees, leaving an animal to choke, starve or dehydrate to death.
* No device, no matter how tough, is a match for the scratching and rubbing behavior of a 1-2 thousand pound animal. My cattle regard steel cattle panels as "suggestions" and can shred them like tissue paper. You get a 1,000-pound cow or 2,000-pound bull who decides that the thing on its neck is itchy and it is going to shred it on a tree or other surface. Replacement costs for these in large scale will be outrageous.
* Recharging/changing batteries for a herd of hundreds of cattle will be a completely unmanageable undertaking.
These are a lot more complicated than wildlife tracking collars, and require the ability to give a correct to an animal when it passes the marked boundaries. That means a tight-fitting collar and electrical contacts reliably touching the animal's neck, further exacerbating choking dangers, and risking skin irritation and neck wounds due to rubbing. Since a good-sized percentage of a beef herd is growing steers, it will be difficult or impossible to consistently keep the collars properly-sized for the steers.
Also, a lot of beef cattle are rarely handled. You'd have to do regular roundups and put them all through a squeeze chute to check their collars regularly, which is time-consuming and stressful for man and beast.
Yeah, you can do all this with a small herd, ten or twenty cattle, or a pampered herd on a university farm, but those aren't the ones that need the fenceless systems.
Thanks for posting. I have no experience whatsoever in ranching and I doubt the author does either. Just because something looks good on paper doesn't mean it will work in the real world.
I have yet to see a deer unable to jump over the (estimated) mile(s) of fencing I've helped put up
If that's true you're not eating them correctly.
The deer in my backyard jump a 6 foot privacy fence without hesitation.
If this takes hold I'll look forward to the "With the Best of Intentions" episode this is in in a couple years.
yes! lol
"Ranchers will also benefit from this cheaper and more flexible tool for managing the grazing of their herds."
"PERC has launched a virtual fence conservation fund that will distribute $250,000 to encourage ranchers and conservationists to adopt this technology on public and private lands."
If this technology is genuinely cheaper than physical fencing, it shouldn't be necessary to pay ranchers to adopt it.
https://reason.com/2024/06/22/the-government-wants-to-track-your-steak/
Next thing you know the federal government will require that all cows be given their own cell phone.
And Bezos gets a billion dollar grant to teach the cows how to use the phones. right?
I wouldn't mind that grant. I would have fun spending the money at least.
"Researchers at Cornell University, with the support of the Bezos Earth Fund . . . "
Come on Mr. Journalist, did you even try to research how many real, live, actual farmers/ranchers were involved in this madness?
My guess is they used Cornell students that volunteered to cosplay as cows for a few weeks.
There's always a gang of Furries somewhere on campus.
Cosplay? Weeks?
I refuse to believe that Cornell doesn't have a longstanding, year-over-year club or student organization, or several, whose membership is composed of bloated, gassy, vegans.
Its just a trial run for human collars!
Have you even seen Running Man bro?
An adult cow is a fairly large animal in both height and width. A break in the fence line where wildlife usually cross with two concrete pillars X amount of inches apart would stop every adult cow while allowing most other wildlife to pass.
The premises are shit and the story is shit. Sage grouse can fly. Cattle fences can normally be leapt by deer and pronghorn. Cattleguards already create breaks in fences for vehicles and such that cattle can't cross but, again, pronghorn and similar can *easily* leap across.
Even with all of the above, Ron Bailey says and cites fencing in the United States and N. American species and Cornell and Bezos' organization says they're targeting "low-income countries". Places where there is almost certainly less fencing and migratory deaths from less snowfall, with less fencing, is even less of a concern.
It's terrible, low-rent, pseudo-scientific, "Look at how socially- justly and environmental-socially-responsibly we're spending our grant money!", promotional material.