Virtual fencing replaces cross-fence. It does not replace your boundary fence — and that isn't our opinion, it's how USDA classifies it for funding purposes.
We sell both. We sell Nofence collars and we sell the wire, posts, insulators and energizers you'd build a perimeter with. So we have no particular reason to talk you out of either. What follows is what we'd tell you on the phone.
What USDA says
When NRCS made virtual fencing eligible for EQIP funding in 2024, it defined the practice carefully. Its guidance frames virtual fence as an alternative to interior or cross-fencing — explicitly not a replacement for perimeter fencing.
State offices have followed suit. North Dakota's EQIP guidance allows virtual fence scenarios "for cross fencing only."
So the agency writing the checks has already drawn the line. If your plan is collars instead of a boundary, you won't get it funded — and the funding rule exists because the underlying logic is sound.
Why the boundary is different
A cross-fence and a boundary fence are doing different jobs, and only one of them is about grazing management.
A cross-fence moves. It exists to control where stock graze this week. It's temporary by design, and it should be — that's the whole argument for rotational grazing. Replacing that with software is a genuinely good trade.
A boundary fence is a legal and physical line. It keeps your animals off the highway, out of the neighbour's corn, and off ground you have no right to graze. It works whether your battery is flat, your phone is dead, the cell tower is down or the collar has come off. It is the thing that means an animal pushing through gets stopped rather than merely reported.
Every virtual fence system on the market tells you what happens when a determined animal keeps walking: it goes through, and you get an alert. That's the design. It's honest, and it's fine — as long as there's something behind it.
The three scenarios that decide this for you
You share a boundary with a road
This one isn't a judgement call. An animal on a highway is a liability event, and "we had a GPS alert" is not a defence. Build the fence.
You share a boundary with a neighbour
Fence law varies by state, and in most places you have an obligation to your neighbour that a subscription service does not discharge. Whatever your relationship, a physical line is what keeps it good.
You share a boundary with ground you don't lease
Public land, a conservation easement, a watershed, a crop field. Same logic — you need to be able to say the animals cannot get there, not that you'd know quickly if they did.
What that means for what you build
Here's the part that's actually useful: if you're going to run collars inside, you can build a simpler perimeter than you otherwise would.
A perimeter that only has to be a boundary — not a grazing-management tool — doesn't need to be subdivided, doesn't need gates every few hundred feet, and doesn't need to anticipate how you'll want to graze in five years. It needs to be solid, well-braced, well-grounded, and left alone.
That's usually:
- Hi-tensile wire, correctly tensioned, on a spacing suited to your species and terrain.
- Proper corner and end braces. This is where perimeters fail, and it's the part people skimp on.
- An energizer sized to the whole run, with grounding to match — the single most common reason a fence reads low.
- Line posts appropriate to the country. Fiberglass is a reasonable answer on a lot of ground.
Then the collars do the interior. No cross-fence to build, no gates to hang, no layout to commit to before you've learned how the ground actually grazes.
That combination — a good perimeter and virtual cross-fencing — is a genuinely better system than either on its own. It's also cheaper than fencing the whole thing conventionally, which is the comparison most people are actually making.
The predator question
Worth stating separately, because it's the one that costs animals.
A virtual fence is not a predator barrier. Very few fences stop a determined predator anyway — the difference is what happens when one gets in. With collars, your animals' survival instinct wins: they push through the pulses and scatter rather than being boxed into a corner. You'll see it in their activity data or get an escape alert, and the GPS gives you a practical way to find an animal that's been scattered or hurt.
That's a real advantage in some respects and a real exposure in others. If predator pressure is your primary problem — and for sheep and goats it often is — pair virtual fence with a physical perimeter or guardian animals. Don't substitute one for the other.
Where collars genuinely win
None of this is an argument against virtual fence. We sell it because it does things wire can't:
- Grazing ground that was never going to be fenced — brush, creek bottoms, rock, steep country.
- Leased parcels where setting posts makes no sense.
- Moving stock daily without building or moving anything.
- Fencing animals out of riparian areas and sensitive ground.
- Knowing where every animal is.
That's a lot. It's just not a boundary.
How to work out what you need
Our Virtual Fence Savings Calculator prices collars against building the equivalent cross-fence from our catalog, at our real prices. It assumes you have a perimeter — because you should.
If you're building or rebuilding one, the perimeter fencing guide covers spacing, bracing and wire, and how to ground an electric fence covers the thing that goes wrong most often.
And if you want someone to look at the whole picture — perimeter, interior, water and where the collars fit — call 888-251-3934. A grazier, not a call center.
Perimeter fence supplies →
Nofence virtual fencing →
Does EQIP pay for virtual fencing? →
USDA NRCS guidance "Virtual Fence Systems for Managing Livestock" (1 October 2024) and North Dakota NRCS EQIP General Guidance FY2026, both accessed September 2026. Fence law and boundary obligations vary by state — this is general information, not legal advice.
0 comments