A new funding path for U.S. producers rebuilding after disaster

Under two newly issued notices, ECP-105 and EFRP-12, FSA has added virtual fencing to the list of practices eligible for disaster recovery cost-share. Operations that lost grazing infrastructure to a wildfire, flood, or tornado in FY 2025 or later can apply program funds toward GPS collar systems rather than rebuilding wire fence from scratch.

Closing a gap in existing programs

ECP and EFRP were both built around physical fencing. A producer whose interior fence went down in a flood could get help putting it back up, but the programs had no mechanism for funding an alternative approach. These notices change that by treating virtual fencing as a recognized substitute, provided a producer's operation meets FSA's criteria.

FSA has framed the shift around a few practical outcomes: less ongoing infrastructure to maintain, more flexibility in how producers manage grazing and water access, and fewer permanent structures across land where wildlife move through. The agency has also been clear that this isn't meant to replace perimeter fencing altogether. Virtual fencing is positioned as an interior management tool that works alongside a property's outer boundary, not instead of it.

Who qualifies, and where the limits are

Not every operation will meet the requirements. FSA's notices set several conditions:

Herd type and size matter first. The program is built around cattle, sheep, and goats, with a minimum of 125 head required to participate; horses, mules, and swine fall outside the scope entirely. Land characteristics matter too: FSA is generally looking at large or difficult terrain where physical fencing is costly to install and maintain, or ground that needs protecting from grazing pressure, such as riparian areas or land prone to erosion. Producers applying under the forestry program specifically need cattle grazing forest understory on qualifying private timberland.

Timing also plays a role. If a producer has already rebuilt physical interior fencing since the disaster, that resource concern is considered resolved, and the virtual fencing option is no longer available for that damage.

Funding covers the startup essentials: one base station, two transmitters, and per-neckband costs for the required minimum herd, plus extra transmitters if terrain calls for more coverage. From there, ongoing costs like data plans, neckband subscription fees, and future hardware replacement fall to the producer. It's also worth knowing this is a one-time choice: once a producer opts into virtual fencing, that funding pathway doesn't switch back to cover physical fence installation later on.

Part of a broader policy shift

This isn't happening in isolation. Earlier this year, Senators Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján introduced the FENCE Act, bipartisan legislation aimed at making virtual fencing eligible under ECP specifically. That bill was still moving through Congress when FSA issued these notices, addressing much of the same funding gap through agency policy rather than waiting on legislation. The two efforts aren't formally tied together, but both point toward the same conclusion: federal programs are starting to catch up with where the technology already stands.

Where eShepherd fits in

For a producer working through recovery, less time spent rebuilding fence means more time managing the herd and the land. eShepherd's GPS-enabled neckbands let producers set and adjust grazing boundaries remotely and keep cattle out of burned or recovering ground, so operations can get back to normal management sooner, without waiting on a rebuilt interior fence.

Read the original coverage: https://www.drovers.com/news/usda-approves-virtual-fencing-disaster-recovery

Full FSA notices: ECP-105 and EFRP-12