The Bad Boys of the Environment: Wild Pigs
A Few Unorthodox Thoughts
Wild pigs are the bad boys among big game. At least in the eyes of some extreme environmentalists.
They (boar, not environmentalists of course) muddy up pristine creeks, silt small streams, enlarge mud holes in marshy areas, damage or undermine dams, fertilize clean agricultural fields with natural fertilizer thereby spreading e-coli and other dreadful diseases, carry brucellosis, infect breeding stock of domestic pigs with hepatitis and parasites, tear up fields, gardens, cash crops, steal truffles from humans, eat newborn farm animals, carrion and the occasional snake.
In short, they are a scourge on the land.
Say research scientists, veterinarians, government vets, ranchers, farmers, owners of golf courses, city managers and many other interested parties that have something to gain from eradicating wild pigs. Veterinary departments of universities teach it, students repeat it, authorities repeat the repeated wisdom until it becomes established as eternal truth and the last farmers has accepted it as such. If the wild pigs haven't destroyed his barley fields yet.
But then they are a few people and scientists who maintain that wild pigs can also be beneficial to the environment. George Work, owner of the Work Ranch, is one of the most outspoken promoters of this idea. In a speech before a group of interested parties he reported on the results of scientific field research on the effect of wild pig rooting on native grasses in the grasslands of California. Rooting by wild pigs promotes the growth of native grass and inhibits growth and propagation of non-native grass types.
Writes 'Native' in one of his comments to my article: “Also amongst Mr. Works claims were his sentiments that the wild boar has essentially taken the place of the California Grizzly bear, as the latter would also root and dig for food just as the wild hogs do now.”
'Native' is an avid environmentalist who operates his ranch (nativehunt.com) and the big game on it according to sound environmental principals. He prides himself on having brought back to a healthy,sound status a ranch and the wildlife on it. The ranch, its land and environment and the wildlife associated with it were almost obliterated by the previous owners.
There are also reports of boar impacting negatively seabird populations in various parts of the world. I mentioned some of the studies in my posts and books
(http://wildboarhunting.blogspot.com/search?q=boar+environment
http://wildboarhunting.blogspot.com/search?q=boar+benefits;
Wild pigs indeed do visit ocean and lake shorelines to search for crabs, stranded fish and other edibles. Since they are omnivore, the will certainly not pass up a clutch of bird or turtle eggs. However, these excursions are generally of short duration. Damage should therefore be local. I find it hard to believe that it could seriously affect an entire species along an entire shoreline.
The same most likely also applies to ecosystems inland. In one of his comments to my post 'Native' writes:
“ I can tell you this from personal experience, we have imported to our 1000 acre Jolon Ranch, over 400 Pure Eurasian Wild Boar. (10 times more than Mr. Randolph Hearst himself). Native Hunt has owned this particular property for over 4 years now (completely high fenced) and all of those hogs have not had a single shred of adverse impact on the "Quail" populations there.
In fact, the numbers have "increased" with our continuing eco-friendly development which we are constantly involved in out there.
Granted, some of those birds might be nesting outside of the fence where "our" swine cannot get to them, but there are also a great number of wild swine on the outside of our fence as well. So where is the evidence that the wild swine are posing a danger to ground nesting birds?
Not at our Jolon Ranch that's for certain!”
This general condemnation of boar as the great destroyers and the scourge of the land inevitably results in attempts to eradicate the wild pig population in the affected areas. Traps, poison, shooting and professional wild pig eradicators are the darlings of establishment for wild pig control. Recently, shooting wild pigs from helicopters by professional “shooters” has gained in popularity.
Authors G Saunders and H Bryant reported in 1988 in their article The Evaluation of a Feral Pig Eradication Program During a Simulated Exotic Disease Outbreak about a study of eradication methods in an “area of 120 km2 on the southern edge of the Macquarie Marshes in western New South Wales. Shooting from a helicopter accounted for 946 pigs at a rate of 39.2 per hour. This was at an average of 1.65 shots and a cost of $11.77 per pig. A further 43 were shot from the ground or trapped. Of an estimated initial population of 1238, 80% was removed. Telemetry studies conducted in conjunction with the exercise indicated that some pigs became attuned to the significance of a hovering helicopter and modified their behavior to avoid detection (sic).”
What did the wild pigs do?
“Movements also emphasized the need to match the boundaries of feral pig eradication zones with natural boundaries, where overlapping home ranges are minimal and densities low”, conclude the authors
Wild pig eradicators working for the Nature Conservancy on Santa Cruz Island, California, made a similar experience. Trapping and poisoning did not eliminate the pigs completely. Helicopters and shooters were called in to dispose of the boar that had retreated to the steepest and most inaccessible parts of the island. Most were killed. But not all. Some of the older,wiser pigs managed to evade the copter based “shooters”. Professional hunters had to be called in to get them from the ground.
Conclude Saunders and Bryant in their report:
“Eradication of feral pigs during an outbreak of exotic disease may be an unrealistic goal, and it may be more efficient to aim to eradicate the disease within the feral pig population. This would be achieved by isolating those pigs carrying the infection; it does not necessarily require the removal of all feral pigs.”
Disregarding the term “outbreak of exotic disease” as reason for the study but not the results, this conclusion should also apply to individual wild pig populations that are indeed causing damage. As we know most of the damage to agricultural areas is caused by wild pigs that cannot find enough food in their home ranges. It would make sense to me to recruit hunters to assist on controlling or eradicating the nuisance pigs.
We know from past history what impact protracted, intensive, unregulated hunting can have on a species of game animals. Let's just remember wolves, bear, bison, beaver and others in European countries. They became extinct because of over hunting. In the States wolves are also on the list. Grizzly bear became extinct in several States. But the prime example for the devastating impact hunting can have are buffalo. The did not go extinct from a meteor impact. Humans did them in.
If technically less developed humans could do that, modern hunters definitely could control overpopulation among game species. They could also cull nuisance wild pigs quite successfully. Read my posts on hunters and the control of nuisance pigs in several States. No helicopters were needed and no 'shooters' employed.
Finally, what is good for the pigeon is good for the wild pig. Why not simply give them birth control laced bait? The answer lies in the word 'simple'.
'Native' summed it up nicely: “But for the State, that would be too simple of a solution to a wild pig problem, PJJ.”
I agree.
We are therefore left with the helicopters or the hunters. As a boar hunter myself, I do naturally prefer the hunting solution. But it will not be easy to execute or to apply. Approximately fifty percent of California is owned by private parties. Around 90 percent of all wild pigs in in our State occur on private land. The remaining wild pigs are on Wildlife Reserves, in National Parks and on other protected parcels that are not open to hunting. Or they live on public land that is virtually inaccessible to the average hunter.
Why not open private land with an over abundance of wild pigs to hunters?
How would you like hordes of sometimes inconsiderate and disrespectful people trample your nicely manicured lawn or jump into your backyard pool? Though most hunters would appreciate such rare opportunities and consequently respect the privately owned land, leave gates as they found them, not spread trash all over the property and endanger livestock, some pig hunters endeavor to emulate their quarry, I am ashamed to say.
In addition, there are important questions of liability and insurance that come with access to private land.
Private hunting clubs address those by providing their own patrol services on the leased ranches and by ensuring them. A single landowner may not be able to do this without cutting into his own work force that is otherwise needed or increasing his expenses for labor and insurance.
It is easier to close the property for hunting or lease it to a guide or to some wilderness outfitters. At least there is some control over who gets to hunt and how.
As long as hunters essentially act as individuals and not as an organized group of like minded persons, their interests will fall be the wayside. Competing interests are well organized, some well funded or they can field numerous people dedicated to their cause in order to influence politicians and the authorities in charge of overseeing the control of wild pig populations. We have several private hunting clubs in California and more in other states. But those clubs also are businesses and not necessarily advocates for individual hunters.
As of today, I have not found an organization that advocates exclusively for hunters. No, not guns in general. Hunting. No, not trophy hunting behind high fences. Let the Safari Club do that and take the brunt of attacks by animal rights groups.
Who lobbies for hunters, I ask. If you know the answer, please let me know. I believe to have found an organizations that attempts to do that, bookmarked it (I believe) and now cannot find it any more. Have you heard of them? Do you know the group?
Hunters need representation. Hunters need to be heard. The only organization that sort of straddles the divide between hunters and non-hunters seems to be COHA. It “promotes wildlife conservation and is dedicated to the preservation of our outdoor heritage. It was founded in 2006 by the California Waterfowl Association (CWA) in response to increasing political threats to hunting and science-based wildlife management in California. COHA enhances the hunting community's political advocacy capability at all governmental levels and serves as an umbrella under which diverse outdoor interests can mobilize.”
I will talk more about this group in another post.
Anti hunting forces are powerful. And there are plenty of them. Environmental activists, wildlife advocates, government organizations and administrations, park authorities and many, many more.
They speak almost with one voice when it comes to the eradication of nuisance wild pigs. Yes, even animal rights advocates find not much wrong with boar being murdered from hovering helicopters. After all, it restores indigenous plant life and fauna, they say. It is usually the first thing they do after taking over properties – eradicate non-native species.
Did you pay attention to the study quoted above: 1.65 shots per wild pig eradicated. Almost two shots.
That means the wild pig was wounded before it was disposed of by a second shot or, dare I say, maybe left to die on its own. In any case, it suffered great pain. Indirectly at the hands of animal rights activists.
No, “Anonymous”, I am not against environmentalists and animal rights activists. We need them to help us preserve healthy environments and flourishing wild life.
As you said: “If you want to keep pig hunting alive in CA as I do, you should start building bridges with the environmental and conservation movement, rather than burning them. If you don't I can guarantee you we will all lose our hunting rights in California: that's what the animal rights movement is waiting for, to divide and then conquer us.” (Anonymous, comment 04/29/2009)
But extremism of either party is destructive. It does not further common goals. Nor does it help to accuse a hunter of 'murdering Bambi' and slaughtering Miss Piggy.
True and real slaughter does not take place in the fields. For that we have slaughter houses. How about agitating a little against the abuse of animals there?
Most hunters, I venture a guess, are for environmental protection. After all, a healthy environment produces more and better game. It also refreshes the soul and has a soothing effect on our frazzled nerves.
'Native' puts it this way:
“I have hundreds of thousands of miles of public land dust under these feet of mine.
Books like yours and Bob Robs have led me and my buddies upon many expeditions up and down, on California public lands.
We did not kill much, as a matter of fact, in the 10-12 years of doing this before I purchased my places I had made only a handful of Hog Harvests.
Passed up a few because of the dreaded drag out.
But the memories! The Pictures of places where no white man had ever tread foot!
Absolutely Priceless!
Absolutely priceless!”
Many hunters enjoy unspoiled nature for itself. Hunting is the excuse to get there to enjoy it. I bet that many a hunter has passed up a good shot or missed on purpose because the actual thrill was to enjoy unspoiled nature and not the murder of Miss Piggy.
But tell that an extreme wild life activist. It transcends their willingness to accept the good in someone who does not share all of their believes and positions.
Yes, 'Anonymous” I agree that hunters should find common ground with environmentalists and animal rights activists. But common ground has to be somewhere in the middle, not one party caving in to the views of the other.
Finally, here is a thought for all those who do not murder animals but eat plants instead because they do not suffer, scream or run away.
Have you ever heard of the lie detector tests done with mimosas? When hooked up to a polygraph, mimosas showed clear signs of fear when someone stationed close to them thought about burning their leaves.
Back in 1968 Cleve Backster did just such a test. He hooked up a polygraph to the leaves of a mimosa plant. He published his results in the International Journal of Parapsychology ("Evidence of a Primary Perception in Plant Life," vol. 10, no. 4, Winter 1968, pp. 329-348).
His results were refuted in several subsequent studies by Horowitz, Lewis, and Gasteiger (1975) and Kmetz (1977). Kmetz summarized the case against Backster in an article for the Skeptical Inquirer in 1978. Much to the relief of vegetarians, I presume.
Not so fast, my environmentalists and wildlife friends. In May 2008 Conner Flynn posted this on Twitter:
“Let your plant express itself on Twitter
This device let’s your plant talk and share it’s feelings with the whole world over the Internet, and gets what the plant says posted on Twitter. It’s an electronic kit from Adafruit called Botanicalls Twitter Kit, which attaches to your plants, and conveys all the plants’ thoughts and messages to you via the Internet.
Those messages will be posted on Twitter, so you’ll know when they need water or have a lack of soil and minerals. I’m assuming they will feel free to curse you too, you non-watering bastard. So, now that plants can let us know, you can immediately care for them. Once the plant thoughts are posted on Twitter, you’ll get notified in text messages on your mobile phone by Twitter.”
I wonder what the spinach and the lettuce have to tell you when you come with your big knife to murder them for a nice, refreshing deli salad!
PJJ
