WALLOWA COUNTY — For the past month or so some of the latest technology in livestock management has been in use at the East Moraine Community Forest in Wallowa County, but looking around the 1,835-acre property you might not even realize it’s there.

Fencing lines the perimeter of the moraine, but once inside the community forest there isn’t a structure to the found. At least, not one you can see. However, visitors might notice two new towers near the moraine, along with collars on the cows.

That’s because the East Moraine Community Forest is one of three places in Northeastern Oregon where Oregon State University is testing the capabilities of virtual fences with managing cattle, said Pete Schreder, OSU Extension Agent in Wallowa County.

He said virtual fences have the potential to change how ranchers manage their livestock.

The system includes solar-powered towers that create a virtual fence line. The collars, which are fitted with GPS transceiver, will make a noise if the cow approaches the virtual fence line. If the sound doesn’t persuade the cow to move away, the collar can send an electric pulse that doesn’t harm the animal.

While all three locations — East Moraine, Hall Ranch and Starkey — are testing the overall efficacy of the fences, each project also has a specific area of focus.

“On the university side, we’re trying to put it in specific applications to really demonstrate or test its capabilities,” Schreder said.

The Hall Ranch test focuses on protecting riparian corridors with virtual fences, while Starkey is exploring how to utilize the technology to assist with grazing rotation and distributing cattle across the landscape. The East Moraine project is looking at how virtual fences can be used to manage cattle on a property that is also used for recreation, while also protecting certain areas.

Wallowa County owns East Moraine Community Forest. Community Forest Manager Katy Nesbitt said it was purchased through fundraising efforts of the Wallowa Land Trust, Wallowa Resources, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department and Wallowa County, which now make up the Wallowa Lake Moraines Partnership.

The community forest is a public multi-use property, Nesbitt said. It is managed for timber, livestock, wildlife habitat, cultural resource conservation and recreation.

“We manage the East Moraine as a working landscape. Cattle have been a part of that landscape for decades,” she said.

Schreder explained one of the concerns that evolved while working on the master plan for the moraine was livestock management, and fencing was an obstacles. This was in part due to the cost of fences, but also due to concerns of how fencing would affect recreation use and wildlife.

“We started to explore some other options and one was virtual fencing,” he said.

Looking at the numbers

Schreder, in partnership with Wallowa Resources, looked into how to use virtual fencing at the moraine. They applied for grant funding through the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and were awarded $230,000.

Nesbitt said the project also received a private donation.

“Fencing is expensive no matter what,” Schreder said.

Typical barbed wire rangeland fencing in an area such as the community forest costs anywhere from $18,000 to $24,000 per mile, Schreder said. He estimated he would need roughly 3 miles of fencing at the moraine for cross fencing and to fence out the exclosure areas. Schreder estimates the cost just to install the interior fencing would be around $75,000.

“Then you’ve got annual maintenance because now you’ve got a physical structure. Just on the maintenance you’ve got animal damage and wildlife damage,” he said. “There’s several thousand dollars just to have somebody go out and maintain it.”

When it comes to virtual fencing there is an initial cost as well as an annual cost. Schreder said the moraine project employs a technology called Vence, which utilizes towers and collars. The towers cost around $6,000, and due to the rugged terrain at the moraine, they needed two towers. Schreder added they put the towers on trailers for the research project.

There also is the price of the animal collars. The technology is developing and evolving, Schreder said, so the collars are rented rather than owned. Each collar costs $48 per year.

However, Schreder said he believes the price will come down as the technology solidifies.

Benefits and limitations of technology

Flexibility is one of the major benefits of virtual fences, Schreder said.

“When you put in a hard fence then you’re committed to that rotation into perpetuity until you move the fence or it wears out,” he said. “The nice thing about the virtual fences, you can vary that design throughout the year. So, you’re not bound to those physical structures and I think in the future that’s going to be a much better way to manage pastures on the landscape because you can vary your rotations endlessly.”

Schreder added it doesn’t take the cows long to learn the system. The cattle are introduced to the technology in an area they are familiar with, such as a home pasture or smaller range land. At first, you associate the virtual fence with a physical fence. Schreder explained one way to do this is by laying the virtual barrier over an existing physical barrier, so as the cows are grazing and they get close to the physical fence, they start getting the audio cues from the virtual one. Then if they get too close the cows get the physical cue of a shock.

Schreder said they give the cattle a couple of days to get acclimated before moving one of the virtual fence lines away from the physical fence. That gives the cows the opportunity to test and learn those cues for another few days.

“Within five to seven days they’ve really learned to respect the cues,” he said.

There are some limitations when it comes to virtual fences. Schreder said with virtual fences there has to be plenty of space for the cattle to maneuver. On smaller pastures, such as a 100-acre site on a ranch, there are likely to be more restrictions and barriers with tight spots and corridors where you can’t put a virtual fence because it doesn’t give the cattle enough room.

For example, he said, you can’t build narrow corridors with virtual fences like you could with an alley fence because the cattle would bounce off both sides with the cues. However, on larger landscapes between 500 and 1,000 acres, Schreder said, you can come up with other ways to accommodate these pinch points.

“No system’s perfect. I mean, even physical fences, animals get through,” he said. “It’s understanding where and how to put the virtual fence system on the landscape.”

Smaller pastures also can mean the cattle are more likely to get close to the virtual fence lines, making the collars beep and trigger more often and shortening the battery life. However, on larger and more open landscapes, the collars interact periodically with the fence line and the batteries last up to eight months.

“So, those would be some of the shortfalls,” Schreder said. “Understanding the size of the landscape in which you’re trying to use it is important in some of those limitations.”

Schreder has run into some issues with keeping the collars on bulls since their heads are usually smaller than their necks.

Bulls typically stay with cows during the breeding season, Schreder said. Since the cows respect the fence line and the majority of the bulls stay with them, there aren’t many issues with the bulls crossing the virtual fence.

However, bulls will wander away from the cows later in the breeding season and can start crossing the lines if the bulls aren’t removed

Schreder said the collars work better with bulls that have horns.

“I think in time they’ll come up with a solution on how to better collar the bulls that aren’t horned,” he said.

Schreder said numerous companies are exploring virtual fence technology, each looking for their market niche. This competition will lead to better products for the consumers.

“That’s why they don’t want to sell you the collars right now because the technology is changing so much, but I think in the next three to five years, it will be refined enough that all of those pieces will be kind of honed in,” Schreder said. “As that gets solidified, I think it’ll make big leaps and bounds here in the future really quick.”

On the moraine

Virtual fences are being utilized in a number of ways at the East Moraine Community Forest, Nesbitt said. The moraine is divided into two sections, so the cattle can be rotated between the two areas for grazing.

Along with getting the cattle to use the grass appropriately, there also is a conservation element to the project. Nesbitt said the virtual fences protect areas of concerns, such as the riparian zone and the places where Spalding’s catchfly, a rare plant, grows.

Nesbitt added the lack of physical interior fences also makes the space safer for wildlife. The moraine is an important winter habitat for mule deer and elk.

“Fences are brutal on wildlife,” she said. “Fewer fences are good for our ungulate friends.”

The lack of interior fences also is beneficial for people, who don’t have to worry about opening and closing gates while hiking, biking or horseback riding on the moraine.

A successful pilot project looks similar for Nesbitt and Schreder — and would mean better overall range management.

“We’re always looking at ways to improve how we manage the property,” she said.

A successful project would allow the team to protect sensitive areas and maintain reasonable stubble height while reducing interior fencing. It’s also an opportunity to teach the public about this technology.

“So, you’re not bound to those physical structures and I think in the future that’s going to be a much better way to manage pastures on the landscape because you can vary your rotations endlessly.”

— Pete Schreder, OSU Extension agent, on virtual fencing