Managing Feral Swine: Thoughts of Private Landowners in the West Gulf Region
[ad_1]
1. Introduction
Feral swine (Sus scrofa) are an invasive species in the United States (US), introduced in the 1500s by Spanish colonizers who traveled and settled down throughout the southern United States with their domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) [1]. In the 1800s, Eurasian wild boars (Sus scrofa) were introduced into further northern regions of the US for hunting. The longstanding southern populations of domestic pigs interbred with the newly introduced northern wild boar populations, resulting in hybrid offspring known today as “feral hogs”, “feral swine”, “wild pigs”, and other variations [2]. Since their introduction, these feral swine populations have rapidly spread across the US, with estimates of there being around seven million in the country [3], with nearly half of them concentrated in the West Gulf Region (WGR), including Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. The presence of feral swine imposes numerous challenges for private landowners and land managers, causing extensive damage in the areas they inhabit.
Due to their early maturation and high reproductive rate [4,5], feral swine groups, known as “sounders”, can rapidly increase in size, sometimes comprising over 50 individuals in a sounder. This growth can lead to widespread destruction across the landscape, impacting various stakeholders in the WGR. For land managers, the foraging behaviors of feral swine, known as “rooting”, can disrupt normal soil chemistry, mix soil horizons, and subsequently alter local vegetative communities, contributing to the spread of other invasive species [6]. On a larger scale, this soil disturbance may worsen soil erosion and cause damage to sensitive ecological areas and critical habitats for species of concern, particularly within wetlands [7]. The southeastern US, which includes the WGR, harbors 43% of the nation’s palustrine and estuarine wetlands [8], which are facing severe impacts from the presence of feral swine. Both within and beyond the WGR, feral swine prey on numerous vulnerable and endangered species in these wetlands, such as the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), and reticulated flatwoods salamanders (Ambystoma bishop) [9,10,11].
Feral swine, as an invasive species, are a worldwide issue. For example, according to Risch et al. [12], feral swine are identified as one of the “100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species” given that this species is both a large predator and herbivore throughout their native and non-native range [12]. In addition to their direct impact on wildlife and plants, they can disturb ecosystem structures through rooting and digging behavior [12,13]. Given all the damage that feral swine can cause to different natural resources and ecosystems, they are becoming a worldwide issue. For example, Clarissa Alves et al. [14] reported the feral swine problems in Brazil and found that the lethal control method of hunting with dogs was the main technique used for controlling feral swine. Bengsen et al. [15] summarized the feral swine issues in Australia and New Zealand, and projected their further expansion and distribution in both countries and damage to the environment, agriculture, and natural resources. Massei et al. [16] reviewed possible methods, including lethal (i.e., shooting, trapping) and nonlethal (i.e., fencing, translocation, etc.) methods, to mitigate the impact of feral swine and concluded that combining different control methods and establishing posteradication monitoring to ascertain the eradication succeeded for the island area.
For private landowners, feral swine add significant threats to forestlands, croplands, and pasturelands [13]. For example, the average economic loss due to feral swine damage was estimated at 67.13 USD/ha, 42.96 USD/ha, 27.31 USD/ha, and 57.54 USD/ha for landowners in the region who owned cropland, forestland, pastureland, and multiple land types, respectively [13]. In hardwood forests, a key component of the feral swine diet is acorns [17], and their presence leads to a reduction in acorn availability and limits forest regeneration [18]. Moreover, feral swine foraging can result in forest regeneration failure by rooting seedlings and disturbing the roots of recently planted pines and hardwoods [19]. In agricultural lands where feral swine are present, crop yields can decrease [20,21,22], and complete decimation of crop fields is not uncommon [23]. In pasturelands, the risks stem from feral swine interactions with livestock. Rooting by feral swine in pasturelands can encourage the growth of undesirable grass species, altering the plant composition in those areas [24] and affecting overall livestock health due to reduced food availability. Additionally, feral swine can transmit diseases to domestic livestock, including swine brucellosis, pseudorabies, classic swine fever, and African swine fever [25]. These diseases are known to cause birth defects and/or death in both livestock and wildlife species [26]. While these diseases have been eradicated from the pork industry in the US, feral swine could serve as reservoirs, potentially reintroducing them to domestic pigs and causing significant losses to the US pork industry [27].
To mitigate the damage and negative effects caused by feral swine, effective management/control is essential. Currently, feral swine are primarily controlled through both lethal and nonlethal measures. Common lethal controls include shooting/hunting (either aerial or ground-based), trapping and euthanizing, and poisoning. Common nonlethal controls involve trapping and relocating, installing fences, harassing (e.g., noise, lights), and using repellents (e.g., scents, pepper spray). Previous studies have demonstrated varying levels of success with these control measures. Lethal methods like shooting are cost-effective in reducing the feral swine population [28], but some researchers argue that it fosters a “hunting culture” that increases tolerance of feral swine presence [29] or may encourage illegal transport for recreational purposes into areas where feral swine did not previously inhabit [30]. Moreover, shooting is often perceived as a “short-term solution” since hunting has not proven to significantly reduce the local feral swine populations [31]. Methods like trapping are popular due to their speed, reusability, and ability to capture a large group at once, but some studies (e.g., [16,25]) indicate a loss of efficacy in regions with abundant food availability or in sounders that have developed trap shyness. Additionally, trap utilization tends to be labor-intensive, potentially discouraging frequent usage by some landowners.
In the West Gulf Region, the current feral swine population is reported as 2.4 million in Texas [32], 700,000 in Louisiana [33], and 200,000 in Arkansas [34]. Managing and controlling feral swine, particularly on private lands, are of growing importance, given that most lands in this region are privately owned [35]. Therefore, the specific objectives of this study were to (1) enhance the understanding of private landowners’ experience in feral swine management in the West Gulf Region and (2) examine their preference and support for various feral swine control measures. The findings of this study foster a better understanding of private landowners’ experiences with feral swine and their preference and support for various management and control measures. Such knowledge is invaluable to wildlife management personnel, natural resource managers, and policymakers in the study region and other areas faced with similar feral swine problems. A nuanced understanding of the perspectives of landowners fosters information sharing between landowners and land managers as well as management participation/compliance, which are essential for developing comprehensive, effective, and sustainable strategies to manage feral swine and other invasive species.
4. Discussion
Feral swine, as a highly destructive invasive species, have extensively spread across the United States. Given their rapid population growth and consequential damage to various ecosystems, it is imperative to manage feral swine to safeguard wetlands, forestlands, agricultural lands, livestock, infrastructure, and more [41]. Managing feral swine cannot be solely accomplished by land/natural resource managers or on public lands alone: private landowners play a significant role given the size of the land they own collectively, especially in the southern US. Therefore, it is crucial to examine what private landowners think about feral swine control and their support and the acceptability of management/control measures.
The findings indicate a notable level of awareness among private landowners in the WGR regarding the presence of feral swine on their properties. A significant majority of these landowners were not only familiar with feral swine but also acknowledged the active presence of feral swine on their land. The results indicated that private landowners in ETX found greater ranges and wider distribution of feral swine than in the other two states of AR and LA. This could be attributable to a bigger feral swine population [32] and the early feral swine history in Texas. Specifically, feral wine were imported and introduced to Texas by ranchers and sportsmen for sport hunting in the 1930s [17,24,28]. The knowledge of the feral swine prevalence among private landholdings underscores the importance of acquiring detailed information on the abundance of this invasive species across the WGR. Gaining insights into the extent of feral swine infestation in this region is crucial for informed decision making by resource managers. These data serve as a key indicator of the urgency associated with providing timely and targeted technical assistance for feral swine control. By understanding the scope of the issue, managers can tailor their interventions to effectively address the specific challenges posed by feral swine in the WGR. This proactive approach ensures that resources are allocated strategically, maximizing the impact of control measures and fostering a more resilient landscape.
Furthermore, this study sheds light on the shared perspectives of private landowners regarding their endorsement of various feral swine control measures across the WGR. Notably, a substantial majority of private landowners expressed strong support for measures such as “Capture and Kill” and “Targeted sharpshooting on the ground over bait sites”. This may be due to the fact that lethal control methods such as capture and kill and shooting can be effective, especially when single or small groups of feral swine are found on the property, which is also the method most commonly used by landowners [16,25]. Additionally, there is notable enthusiasm for educational- and incentive-based initiatives, as evidenced by the positive reception of statements like “Educate people on how to prevent damage” and “Provide technical assistance for landowners/farmers to control feral swine”. These findings resonate with the attitudes observed among Tennessee landowners, as reported in [42], where respondents similarly favored capture and kill, targeted sharpshooting, education, and the provision of technical assistance. The consistency in attitudes toward these management options not only reaffirms the prevailing sentiments within the WGR but also underscores the broader regional alignment in strategies favored by private landowners. The robust support for these specific management options provides a compelling rationale for the development and implementation of more appropriate feral swine management plans at both the state and federal levels. Recognizing the resonance of these measures with private landowners, such plans can be designed to be not only effective but also aligned with the preferences and priorities of stakeholders. This alignment ensures that management protocols are not only robust in addressing feral swine issues but are also cost-effective, accessible, and enjoy broad-based support, thereby enhancing their overall efficacy in mitigating the impact of feral swine across the region.
Additionally, the findings underscore a resolute stance among private landowners in the WGR against adopting a passive approach, as evidenced by their strong opposition to the option of “Do nothing” when it comes to addressing feral swine issues. This inclination reveals a clear desire and expectation among private landowners to take proactive measures in controlling feral swine on their properties. Conversely, the method of “capture and relocate” encountered robust resistance from private landowners in this region, aligning with the conclusions drawn by [42] in their study of Tennessee landowners. The documented low support for capturing and relocating feral swine can be attributed to the recognized risks associated with translocation. This sentiment aligns with the concerns highlighted by [24], where translocating feral swine was identified as a potential vector for spreading diseases into new areas. The perceived risk of introducing diseases to regions that were previously unaffected raises substantial apprehensions among private landowners. This concern is particularly relevant to livestock producers and others whose livelihoods are directly impacted by diseases. Consequently, the aversion to the “capture and relocate” method is grounded in a collective understanding of the potential adverse consequences associated with disease transmission, reinforcing the need for careful consideration of the ecological implications and associated risks when devising feral swine management strategies in the WGR.
The results of this study reveal a notable diversity in the levels of support among private landowners for various feral swine control options, aligning with the observations made by [41], who identified significant variations in people’s perspectives on management actions. The complexity of feral swine control and management becomes evident as no single measure universally satisfies the objectives of all stakeholders. Consequently, private landowners and natural resource managers employ a range of tools and strategies to control feral swine populations effectively. These nuanced findings hold valuable implications for wildlife management personnel and feral swine managers operating in the WGR. Recognizing the spectrum of private landowners’ perspectives on different management options is crucial for assessing the feasibility and acceptability of various approaches. The data obtained from this study can inform the development of strategies with a high likelihood of acceptability, a key factor for successful implementation. The insights garnered from this research not only contribute to the refinement of feral swine management plans but also serve as a valuable resource for wildlife managers and agencies engaged in outreach and education services for private landowners. Crafting strategies that align with the diverse but differentiated preferences identified in this study is integral to fostering successful collaborations among stakeholders and ensuring the effectiveness of feral swine control initiatives. Beyond its practical applications, this study adds depth to the existing literature on the human dimensions of feral swine management and control, thereby advancing our understanding of the complex interplay between stakeholders and management strategies.
5. Conclusions
This research delved into the experiences of private landowners grappling with the presence of feral swine across the expansive West Gulf Region (WGR) and explored their endorsement of various control and management measures. This study revealed that private landowners within the WGR were actively contending with the challenges posed by feral swine on their properties and shared a commonality in their support for diverse controlling actions.
Specifically, a significant majority of private landowners expressed favorability toward the implementation of the lethal measure “Capture and Kill” for controlling feral swine, highlighting their proactive stance in addressing this issue. Conversely, there is a collective opposition to the passive approach of “Do nothing”, indicating a prevailing willingness and expectation among private landowners to undertake tangible actions for feral swine control. To deepen our understanding, further investigation into the extent of efforts private landowners have invested in managing feral swine on their lands is warranted. Additionally, exploring factors such as economic status and damage loss could unveil influential determinants shaping private landowners’ decisions regarding feral swine control actions.
Furthermore, this study underscores private landowners’ robust support for receiving education and technical assistance in feral swine management and control. This enthusiastic response signals a clear need for expanded outreach and education programs tailored to the specific needs and preferences of private landowners. As we navigate the complexities of feral swine management, these findings provide valuable insights that can guide the development of targeted initiatives, fostering a collaborative approach between stakeholders and ensuring the efficacy of control measures within the West Gulf Region. The findings of this study can help wildlife management personnel and natural resource managers better understand private landowners’ experiences with feral swine and their preference and support for various management and control measures. These results can also aid policymakers in developing more effective feral swine management and control policies and programs in the West Gulf Region and beyond.
[ad_2]
