The methods used to remove feral swine include aerial shooting, trapping in large “corral” traps, drop nets, snaring, shooting in the daylight hours, and night shooting with specialized equipment. Each method has its utility as well as limitations. In areas with large connected populations, method selection may be based on the amount of land available for control, attitudes of neighbors towards control, time necessary to successfully implement control, and access to the habitat. Costs of control may be a secondary consideration. However, recognizing the relative cost of control in a metapopulation may assist managers when deciding between two or more equally appropriate methods. Texas Wildlife Services data were examined to determine the success rates and cost per animal removed by the various methods. Utility of each method and implementation strategies are also discussed.

Texas has the largest wild pig population in the nation, estimated at 2.6 million animals. Damage to agronomic enterprises is conservatively estimated at $52 million annually with total economic damage to agriculture and the environment in urban, suburban, and rural Texas possibly reaching 10 times that figure. In response to damage caused by this invasive exotic species, the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service (Extension) increased educational programming efforts and direct control of wild pigs via Wildlife Services. From 2006 -2013, earmarked grant funding (5 projects over the 8-year period) was obtained from the Texas State Legislature via the Texas Department of Agriculture. Project funding facilitated the development and deployment of an integrated strategy of direct control of wild pigs by Wildlife Services’ personnel and Extension-led landowner education via one-on-one contacts, group meetings, demonstrations, and publications. Website availability and mass media contacts including television and radio interviews, newspaper articles, and magazine articles were also utilized to increase public awareness and education on wild pigs and damage abatement. Landowners participating in Extension educational events were surveyed to characterize damage and control efforts as well as measure the impacts of education efforts. Direct control via Texas Wildlife Services employed all legal methods including trapping, shooting (both ground and aerial), snaring, and dogging, focusing control efforts on areas where pig damage compromised agricultural production and threatened sensitive environmental habitats and/or endangered and threatened species. This integrated approach of public education and direct control reduced the agronomic impact of wild pigs by 66% on cooperator-controlled properties in the pilot phase (2006-2007) of the project. Additional information on methodology and impacts of education and direct control from January 2006 through November 2013 is discussed.

Social, legal, biological, and political constraints dictate the need for new and improved methods of depredation management. One under-exploited approach to address these constraints may be the adaptation of methods from other damage management situations. We discuss several of these methods. Two examples are pre-baiting and diversionary feeding. The former is a standard feature of rodent control programs, but seldom if ever implemented with predators. We discuss preliminary evidence that pre-baiting increases the efficiency (and perhaps the selectivity) of some coyote management tools. Similarly, diversionary feeding is an integral component of black bear damage management for industrial timber in the Pacific Northwest. We are currently testing the hypothesis that diversionary feeding also reduces black bear depredation on livestock. Other plausible methods to reduce depredation include laser technologies, and habitat manipulation. Our efforts reflect the emphasis placed by USDA Wildlife Services and the National Wildlife Research Center on developing economically and ecologically sound strategies to manage predation on livestock, big game, and other wildlife species of concern.

Feral swine are an invasive species within the U.S. and cause millions of dollars in damage annually. The management of feral swine may contrast with traditional wildlife management objectives and provides an opportunity to review wildlife damage management in a new context. The authors examine feral swine damage management in the context of the North American Model for Wildlife Management and note where feral swine management departs from traditional management. While wildlife management agencies are actively engaged in feral swine management and control, the traditional approach will need to be modified to prevent populations from spreading. A model feral swine management program is presented for consideration.

Predation effects have been studied since the early days of wildlife management, with the goal of wildlife managers to balance wildlife populations with available habitat and management objectives. Still, research and public debate focuses on the degree to which vegetative carrying capacity (K) affects prey and the degree to which predation management could benefit prey species. K, to this point, has not generally considered the secondary effects that predators have on prey habitat availability. When setting wildlife management objectives, the relationship of predation impacts (i.e., factors that may cause mortality in a given species) to prey and available habitat and habitat availability must be examined carefully and understood. This paper discusses classic predator-prey relationships and the potential effects of secondary predation on prey. Managers must consider these effects and relationships to determine if, when, and how to implement an effective wildlife enhancement or predation management strategy.

The common vampire bat apparently is expanding its range northwards in Mexico and seems poised to enter the southern United States. Climate models predict suitable habitat in the U.S. in south Texas and parts of southern Arizona. While vampire bats’ northward range expansion is not unexpected, the fact that this species brings a strain of rabies that impacts livestock and people warrants a strategic response. Annual economic damages from bats are estimated between $7M and $9M, largely associated with deaths of livestock from rabies. To prepare for the emerging rabies issue, USDA Wildlife Services programs in Texas and Arizona have begun training employees to recognize symptoms and respond to bat presence. Surveillance of livestock at sale barns and on ranches is designed to maximize the opportunity to detect bat bites in livestock. Outreach on the issue, via one-on-one training and a DVD handout to landowners along both sides of the border, has been initiated. This paper details the extent of preparations for an emerging disease; quantifies expenditures necessary for a responsive program; and discusses some issues associated with the proximity of vampire bats to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Feral swine populations are expanding throughout the U.S., where they are causing increasing amounts of damage to agriculture, natural resources, and property and threaten human health and safety. Methods to control feral swine damage in the U.S. consist of integrated fencing, trapping, snaring, and shooting (including hunting with dogs) efforts. New methods that are being developed to control feral swine damage include toxicants and fertility control agents. For these emerging technologies to be effective at the population-level, they must function through oral routes of delivery. Concurrent to the development of orally-delivered actives, a cost-effective system that delivers biologics to feral swine while restricting access to non-target wildlife, needs to be developed. Our objectives are to 1) describe historical efforts to develop a feral swine-specific oral delivery system in the U.S., 2) present preliminary findings from an ongoing collaborative evaluation of the Australian-made HogHopper™, and 3) outline future opportunities in developing a feral swine-specific oral delivery system. While there is a real need for a feral swine-specific oral delivery system, presently there is no universally effective system suitable for all applications and field scenarios. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages that must be assessed within its management context.

We radio tagged and tracked 50 European starlings between December 2008 and January 2009 at 3 feedlots in the northern Texas Panhandle. Daily fidelity to sites of capture (home feedlots) was different among the 3 radio-tagged cohorts. Cohorts from Sites A and C were recorded at home feedlots on 48 and 59% of tracking days, respectively. The Site B cohort was at its home feedlot 95% of days. There were qualitative differences in use of home feedlots between cohorts A and C. The former were nearly obligate in their use of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), whereas the latter tended to balance their use between CAFO and a nearby urban center. Six birds (12%) used either one or both of the counterpart home feedlots. Of these, 5 permanently switched from their home feedlots and used counterpart home feedlots; one bird captured at Site B alternated between Sites A and C after abandoning its home feedlot. Use of roost sites depended on habitat composition surrounding the study feedlots. Urban habitats were used as roosts by several birds from Sites A and C, whereas birds using Site B roosted at a petroleum refinery and a reservoir. Some Site B individuals used both roost sites during the study period; however, the reservoir was the preferred roost site. Daily activities in habitats away from the home feedlot generally occurred ≤5 km from the home feedlot. For birds from Sites A and C, offsite habitats were mainly urban areas and small CAFO. Increased habitat heterogeneity, as exemplified in our study by urban habitats and CAFO near Sites A and C, seemed to reduce rates of daily use of home feedlots. Heterogeneous environments can complicate management strategies that use DRC-1339 Concentrate for reducing starling numbers at infested CAFO. First, starlings may be erratic in their daily use of a CAFO in complex environments. Secondly, urban areas, when present, may be used as refuges by poisoned birds, leading to adverse public exposure.

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) established the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program. The program funded $75M for 5 years, split evenly between the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), both programs within the US Department of Agriculture. The agencies solicited joint programs from states with high densities of feral swine in two phases. In Texas, NRCS and APHIS submitted three multi-county project areas along watersheds for Phase I funding and one eradication effort along with two crop protection projects in Phase II. The eradication project was adjacent to a Phase I project area and after extensive surveillance, it was determined to be successful, the first such project in Texas. All the remaining projects were designed with a direct management effort, a self-help effort through trap loans and a damage assessment process. Landowner in-kind contributions were identified and captured to detail the effects of the program.