Mitigation fencing and wildlife crossing structures (WCS) are common methods for mitigating the direct and indirect negative effects of roadways on wildlife. Wildlife may benefit from localized fencing and WCS through reduced road mortalities and improved habitat connectivity, though understanding wildlife responses to these treatments requires long-term study. When installed alongside WCS, mitigation fencing is often intended to funnel wildlife from the surrounding landscape towards WCS; however, wildlife-fence interactions are largely understudied and poorly documented. Monitoring wildlife responses to fencing is not only necessary for evaluating the performance of combined mitigation treatments (WCS plus fencing) but also crucial for understanding how fencing itself may impede or alter movement for different species across the landscape. Nine WCS were installed below grade on Farm-to-Market (FM) 106 in Cameron County, Texas to mitigate road mortality and facilitate movement of the endangered ocelot (Leopardus pardalis). Each WCS is flanked by a segment of chain-link fencing, with lengths ranging from 50 to 550 meters. We monitored wildlife responses to fencing using camera traps placed at the ends of each fence segment, at WCS sites, and along unfenced comparison sites adjacent to FM106. We modeled the potential influence of the following factors on fence-end (FE) detections: fence length, distance to canopy cover, amount of canopy cover per fence transect, and average hourly movement per species studied. We compared FE detections to unfenced sites to determine if fencing may be impacting wildlife presence near the roadway. We also documented paired WCS refusals with FE detections to determine the frequency of circumnavigation relative to total observed refusals per species. This research will continue to inform our understanding of wildlife movement across the South Texas landscape.