The Status of Feral Swine in the U.S.

Archer 1

The Status of Feral Swine in the United States

Amanda Archer
Professor Tredick
Wildlife Management Issue Analysis
April 24, 2017
The Status of Feral Swine in the U.S. Archer 2

As a result to the settlement of man in the United States, there have been numerous
introductions of both Eurasian wild boar and its domesticated version that have been released
into the wild either intentionally or by accident. The current populations of free-living swine
consists of different combinations of feral hogs, wild boar, or hybrids between the two found in
four major locations throughout the United States (Mayer and Brisbin 2008). Although mainly
found in the Southeast of the United States South Carolina through Texas feral swine are
also located throughout California, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and on eight major islands in
Hawaii. The first swine to run wild in the United States were escapees from Fernando De Sotos
entourage as they provided them food during their 3,000 mile journey across the Southern U.S.
(Hanson and Karstad 1959). In the mid-twentieth century, free-ranging practices became illegal
and many unclaimed feral pigs were abandoned in the Southeast. The European wild boar was
introduced in 1912 at the Hooper Bald shooting preserve in North Carolina where many of them
had escaped. They dispersed into the Appalachians and spread rapidly, breeding with other feral
stock in the area (Wood and Barrett 1979). These wild pigs are an economic pest with a
significant negative effect on their host environments. They also prove to be very difficult to
control or eradicate. Nonetheless, feral swine are also considered to be a highly-desirable game
animal by hunters and state agencies. For these reasons, feral swine management has become a
controversial issue for many parts of the United States in recent years (Mayer and Brisbin 2008).
There are several issues with the wild pigs that occupy the Southeast of the United States.
The focus is on the populations in the Southeast because it involves the most area of land,
affecting over 108,000 square kilometers along the coastal plains (Wood and Barrett 1979). The
first issue with the explosive pig populations is the environmental damage they cause to natural
plant ecosystems and communities. Feral swine dig aggressively with their snout to forage for
food. This rooting activity loosens the soil and causes accelerated erosion, reduced plant
succession, and reduced earthworm activity. Damage from the rooting and trampling directly and
indirectly impacts plant regeneration, plant community structure, soil properties, nutrient cycling,
and water infiltration. Additionally, feral swine may also help the spread the plant root-rot fungus
disease to native vegetation by their rooting techniques (Seward et al. 2004).
Feral swine also impact native wildlife based on the complexity of their habitat and
density. In Florida alone, feral swine have contributed to the decline of at least 22 plant species
and four amphibian species listed as either rare, threatened, or endangered. Many of these
The Status of Feral Swine in the U.S. Archer 3

animals are at risk because of competition or predation by non-native species such as the feral
pig (Seward et al. 2004).
Feral pigs not only contribute to wildlife depredation but they are also a pest to
farmers by causing livestock depredation, disease, and crop damage. Although animal matter
only makes up a small percentage of their diet, feral swine prey livestock such as lambs, goats,
and newborn cattle. It is hard to predict the economic loss of feral swine depredation of livestock
because signs of coyote predation is very similar and it is often misidentified. In 1990, 1,243
sheep and goats were documented as being lost to wild pigs in Texas. This is an estimated loss of
$63,000 (Seward et al. 2004). Disease spread to livestock from feral swine is another
documented economic loss to farmers in the United States. Feral swine are proven carriers of at
33 least 30 different viral and bacteriological diseases. For example, earthworms are a large
source of swine diet but also serve as intermediate hosts for swine lungworm. Mostly all pigs
weighing 30 pounds or more in Hanson and Karstads study have been found infested with
lungworms (Hanson and Karstad 1959). In Florida, 45 significant parasites and infectious
diseases have been linked to invasive feral swine. Human safety is also put at risk with the
invasion of feral swine across the Southeastern United States. Humans are susceptible to eight of
these diseases through tick transmission such as brucellosis, leptospirosis, and toxoplasmosis
(Seward et al. 2004).
Similar to the destruction feral pigs have on natural ecosystems, they damage agricultural
crops through consumption, rooting activities, and trampling. Crop damage by feral swine is the
greatest economic loss in the United States, resulting in over 800 million dollars of damage each
year. This is calculated according to as estimate of 4 million feral swine inhabiting the U.S., and
approximately 200 dollars in damage by one pig each year. Crops most at risk for damage by
wild pigs are hay, small grains, corn, and peanuts. Additional damages to irrigation ditches, water
supply, and fences have been recorded as well (Seward et al. 2004).
Feral swine are extremely difficult to manage due to their reproductive potential and
adaptability. Habitat management is impossible to use as a tool to decrease swine populations
because feral swine are generalists. Their omnivorous diet allows them to utilize a variety of
food sources and to thrive in a wide range of environments (Seward et al. 2004). Sows reach
sexual maturity at an early age and are known to have multiple litters a year, each containing 3-8
piglets (West et. al 2009). No matter what the situation is, they are able to adapt and survive with
a viable population. Feral swine can be best compared to rats in a city being able to live and
reproduce under any conditions.
In response to the increasing populations of swine and their implications in the United
States, management requires a national approach. Congress granted $20 million to the USDA
APHIS (United States Department of Agricultures Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service)
to create a feral swine damage management program in 2014. The overall objective of the
program is to minimize the damage inflicted by feral swine. Key components to the successful
implementation of feral swine management involve field operations, disease and population
The Status of Feral Swine in the U.S. Archer 4

monitoring/research, planning and evaluation, public outreach, and regulatory actions (West et
al. 2009).
Upon request, USDA APHIS will assist landowners and land-managers through several
techniques to eliminate or alleviate the damage done by feral pigs. For precautionary measures,
landowners should vaccinate pets or livestock to avoid the transmission of diseases. Working
with a veterinarian to keep livestock vaccinated, parasite free, and in good condition aids disease
resistance in areas with high populations of feral pigs. One management technique that can be
used is the installation of fences. This combined with habitat modification can exclude feral
swine from crops. For immediate removal and prevention of damage, harassment is another
option for landowners. Traps and snares can help manage pigs in a small area but the type of
trap, bait, and location must all be considered. Trapped pigs must be humanly euthanized and not
released into another location. The challenge with these management options are that they do not
take large scale populations into account. Each option may alleviate the problem for a short
amount of time, but pigs are smart creatures. Improper fencing or trapping will educate the pigs
in better destructive methods and makes it more difficult to capture them in the future (West et
al. 2009).
The relocation of pigs is not a feasible management option in any situation. Former
mangers caught trapped pigs in nuisance situations and relocated them to preserves as game
stock for hunters in Southern states. Due to illegal pig stocking by hunters, the range of the pig
has greatly expanded and populations are getting to big for us to control (Wood and Barrett
1979). However, hunters do play a crucial role in managing feral pig populations because man is
their only predator. The absence of large native predators to the pig allows their populations to
grow exponentially (Hanson and Karstad 1959). Most states define all wild pigs as game animals
because the pigs significance as a recreational resource is minimal and sport hunting has had
negligible effects on overall swine population management. This is an example of compensatory
mortality where hunting mortality replaces natural mortality and added hunting has no change on
the pigs annual survival. Some hunters reported that the pigs placed in hunting areas behaved
more like domestics than wild game and that they do not have a special interest in hunting them
(Wood and Barrett 1979). Others, such as avid feral swine hunters and landowners that generate
revenue from hunting leases, consider them a desirable big game species and encourage more
feral swine. A recent increase in hunters in the United States may serve to alleviate disease
transmission and predation by reducing the number of feral swine at the livestock interface only.
Ranchers and farmers should be encouraged to hunt feral swine, grant hunting permission, and
participate in state hunter access programs in order to provide economic benefits to the states
(Seward et al.2004). This can be somewhat beneficial by keep populations at a steady rate rather
than a continuous increase.
The USDA APHIS oversees and cooperates with specific management objectives of each
state (West et al. 2009). For example, the Wildlife Services Division of the Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture is currently working with the USDA APHIS in eliminating feral
The Status of Feral Swine in the U.S. Archer 5

swine. They set a goal of targeting 10,000 swine for elimination in 2016 and ended the year with
a total of 11,206 eliminated. Division employees implemented their tactics with shooting aided
by night vision and thermal technology, aerial gunning, and coral trapping. These harvest
methods proved to be successful for them. Assistant director of the Oklahoma Wildlife Division
Scott Alls stated,

Ecologically speaking, feral swine are a detriment to the environment, from disturbing
or destruction of sensitive habitats to competing with native species for food. The
elimination of feral swine off the landscape is always a plus for native
wildlife. Hopefully this next year we will increase our numbers as well.

The Oklahoma population of feral pigs are growing exponentially, reaching the highest
number in the United States of over one million pigs. We see similar trends in other states such
as Texas and California (Frey et al. 2017).
Management is now focusing their efforts solely on the elimination of pigs through
ground shooting, aerial shooting, and toxicants because of success rates such as the Oklahoma
study. Ground shooting can be an effective control measure when only a few individual Feral
swine are present in an area. It can be labor-intensive and is unlikely to have the disarmed
damage relief effects because it only targets a few individuals. Aerial shooting is effective with
quickly and efficiently reducing feral swine population numbers. It is best conducted in open
grasslands and is used for targeting large groups of swine. Toxicants have the potential to be a
cost-effective tool for reducing populations. However, researchers have not yet found or
registered a toxicant to apply to feral swine that will not have an adverse effect on the
environment and non-target species (West et al. 2009).
Since research on feral pig biology and toxicants is lacking, I would create a further
research study on finding a toxicant that can be used to manage feral swine populations. In
Australia, toxicant baiting using Compound 1080 has been used to reduce feral swine
populations in some areas by 58 to 73% depending upon the length of the poisoning campaign
(Seward et al. 2004). However, careful consideration and monitoring must be applied when
using toxicants such as compound 1080 because other non-target species may be harmed when
using this compound. In the United States, we use Compound 1080 to control coyote populations
and it is an increasing issue in non-target species today. Is there a toxicant that can be used to
decrease feral swine populations besides Compound 1080? My hypothesis states that there is a
toxicant or delivery system that can be introduced into the United States that specifically targets
feral swine without detrimental environmental effects.
The first step to going about my research study must involve extensive research on feral
swine populations. We know very little about the biology of the feral pig and without further
research on the animal, control of them cannot be established (Hansen and Karstad 1959). One of
the greatest needs for feral swine management is a practical means for indexing populations.
The Status of Feral Swine in the U.S. Archer 6

Knowledge of relative swine population abundance and spatial distribution is essential for
optimally locating control sites and evaluating control efficacy if we want to test possible
toxicants. The best method in comparing distribution and relative abundance of feral swine in a
given area is a passive-tracking method (Seward et al. 2004). With passive tracking, plots and
line transects will be set up at half-mile intervals. Each plot will be smoothed and raked over
with soil. After a 24 hour period, plots will be examined for feral swine tracks and the number of
track intrusions will be recorded. Then, the plot will get resurfaced by erasing the tracks and
smoothing soil for the next days observation. Each plot should be observed for several
consecutive days (Engeman and Allen 2000). The technique is easy to use and allows managers
and scientists to index feral swine density around agricultural operation sites. If density is low,
we know that placing toxicants in that area is probably unnecessary. If density is high, we can
use that area to test our hypothesis.
For any toxicant to become a viable technique in the United States, researchers must
develop either toxicants or delivery systems that are species specific. Of these, development of a
species-specific delivery system is most likely (West et al. 2009). Developing a toxin that is
species-specific to just feral swine is going be difficult and very time consuming. However, with
the research that will be collected on the biology and behavior of pigs, we can develop a special
delivery system, much like the coyote-getter used in the U.S. today, to target pigs specifically.
Researchers in the United Kingdom have developed the Boar Operated System (BOS), which
consists of a bait platform and sliding cover. Australian researchers have developed a device to
distribute baits to wild pigs but not to other species, called the Boar Buffet. Both of these systems
exploit pigs feeding behavior, size, and strength to provide adult pigs access to bait, while
limiting access to most other species (West et al. 2009). The implications of this management
option can be a powerful and cost-effective tool for controlling or eliminating feral swine
populations if we develop a similar system in the United States. If used correctly, the toxicant
and delivery system can humanly kill wild pigs with no effect on the larger environment and
non-target animals. This reduction in invasive wild pig populations can, in turn, result in less
damages to natural wildlife, livestock, and crops and save the U.S. millions of dollars each year.
The Status of Feral Swine in the U.S. Archer 7

References

Engeman, R., & L. Allen. 2000. Overview of a Passive Tracking Index for
Monitoring Wild Canids and Associated Species. Integrated Pest Management
Reviews, 5(3), 197-203.

Frey, D., J. John, & D. Kobilinsky. 2017. Oklahoma Exceeds Feral Pig Elimination Goal. The
Wildlife Professional, 11(2), 12.

Hanson, R., & L. Karstad. 1959. Feral Swine in the Southeastern United States. The
Journal of Wildlife Management, 23(1), 64-74.

Mayer, J., & I. Brisbin. 2008. Wild Pigs in the United States: Their History, Comparative
Morphology, and Current Status. University of Georgia Press.

Seward, N., K. VerCauteren, G. Witmer, & R. Engeman. 2004. Feral Swine Impacts on
Agriculture and the Environment. Sheep & Goat Research Journal, 12.

West, B. C., A. L. Cooper, and J. B. Armstrong. 2009. Managing wild pigs: A technical guide.
Human-Wildlife Interactions Monograph 1:155.

Wood, G., & R. Barrett. 1979. Status of Wild Pigs in the United States. Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 237-246.