MISSOURI'S FERAL HOG TASK FORCE: ADDRESSING INCREASING FERAL SWINE POP ULA TIO NS

R. EDWIN HARTIN , USDA , APHIS, Wildlife Services , Columbia , MO , USA THOMAS A. HUTTON , USDA , APHIS , Wildlife Services , Columbia, MO , USA

Abstract: Feral hog (Sus scrofa) populations are expanding in size and distribution in Missouri and other parts of the United States. Increases of this invasive species are a serious concern because of the damage they cause and diseases they carry . Affected stakeholders in Missouri formed a task force in 1998 with sixteen member agencies and organizations to develop a program for the control /eradication of feral hogs in the state . The task force identified three objectives with appropriate supporting strategies to help achieve the ultimate goal: protection of Missouri 's public health , agricultural economy, and natural resources through eradication of feral swine in Missouri. The task force has been an essential vehicle in working toward these objectives during a time when member agencies and organizations are tight on funding . The collaboration has accomplished several tasks that could not have been implemented by any single participant. This paper presents the successes and shortcomings of Missouri ' s efforts and provides recommendations to other states that may implement feral hog control.

Key words: disease surveillance , education , feral hog distribution , feral hog eradication , feral hog legislation, feral swine , law enforcement , outreach program

Proceedings of the 12th Wildlife Damage Management Conference (O .L. Nolte , W.M. Arjo , D.H . Stalman , Eds). 2007

INTRODUCTION estimated to be approximat ely $800 million Feral swine (Sus scrofa) populations annually (Pimentel et al. 2000) . Thi s are expanding in size and distribution in estimate is approximate, and probably Missouri and other parts of the United conservative , becau se environmental States. Increases of this invasive species are damage costs attributable to feral swine are a serious concern to agricultural producers , not easily quantified nor are the costs of livestock health officials, human health potential disease outbreaks . professionals , wildlife agencies , private Pimentel et al. (1999) thought that landowners , and conservation organizations . there were 4 million feral pigs in the United Feral bogs are well known for damaging the States , while Muller et al. (2002) estimated environment , destroying crops and pasture , in 2000 that 3 million were present in Texas competing with native wildlife, degrading alone. Whereas some of these populations aquatic systems, increasing soi I erosion, and have been present for many years, others are spreading diseases to people , livestock, pets recent establishments (Gibson et al. 1998) . and wildlife . Texas state with the largest In 1988, twenty-three states reported having feral hog population , reports the annual feral swine populations (SCWDS 1988, damage to agriculture at $51.8 million Mayer and Brisbin 199 l) . Invasive swine (Adams et al. 2005). The total damage have continued to expand their range and caused by feral swine in the United States is were present in more than 30 states in 2002

188 (Bergman et al. 2002) and in 39 states in allow individual counties to decide who was 2004 (SCWDS 2004). Since the 2004 responsible for fences to control livestock . update , feral swine have also been reported St. Charles County was one of the first to in Iowa (Bill Bunger , Iowa DNR , personal require confinement of hogs, but did not do communication), Michigan (Timothy so until 1884. Other counties gradually Wilson , APHIS , personal communication), followed suit and "free range" ended for the Pennsylvania (Chris Croson, APHIS, whole state in 1969 (T. Hutton, unpublished personal communication) , Maryland (Dan report). Emanueli , APHIS , personal communication) Since 1969, there have been feral and New Jersey (Beth Jones, APHIS , hogs in a few Missouri Counties, primarily personal communciation). south of Interstate 44. These populations have been sporadically augmented by MISSOURI FERAL HOG TASK intentional releases or accidental escapes in FORCE MISSION those, and other counties. Locations that The mission of the task force is to have had hogs for the least ten years include protect Missouri's public health , agricultural Mark Twain National Forest (MTNF) in economy , and natural resources by Barry and Stone counties in southwest eradicating feral hogs from Missouri . The Missouri and Howell county in south central task force does this by : Missouri . I . Implementing control measures to In the early 1990s , the situation reduce /eradicate feral hog populations and began to change as some people began utilizing strategies to minimi ze additional breeding and promoting European wild boar releases /escapes. The task force reviews (Sus scro.fa) as a form of alternative population control techniques and agriculture and for hunting on controlled­ recommends the most effective approaches shooting areas. Also in the early 1990s , to private landowner s and agency personnel. domestic pork prices plummeted and some The task force also tests trap designs and hogs were released by their owners to avoid related baits and lure s for effectiveness . losing money trying to raise them. Hunters 2. Documenting geographic location s of all also developed a keen interest in hunting sightings , kills and the damages they cause , hogs from trips to the southern United States and monitoring population trends at eac h where feral hogs are plentiful. Swine are location. illegally released swine to establish huntable 3. Obtaining blood samp les from hunters populations closer to home (8. Kohne, and agency personnel for disease testing at MDC , personal communication). Hunters the Missouri Department of Agriculture's do take a large number of hogs , but Diagnostic laboratory in Jefferson City , generally stop short of eradication due to the Missouri . difficulty of removing the last few spec imen s within each discreet HISTORY OF FERAL HOGS IN subpopulation. Some hunters intentionally MISSOURI leave enough "see d stock" to insure future During the settlement of Missouri, hunting opportunity. livestock were legally allowed to roam freely and it was the responsibility of MISSOURI FERAL HOG TASK landowners, not livestock owners, to fence FORCE ORGANIZATION their properties to exclude hogs and other Feral hogs became an issue in livestock . State law was changed in 1873 , to Missouri in 1991 when a small population was detected living in the lrish Wilderness diseased hog population . As a result , sixteen of the Mark Twain National Forest in agencies and organizations interested in Oregon County. Hunters harvested a few of livestock health, agricultural productivity the hogs which were positive for and natural resource conservation joined pseudorabies. Consequently, the Missouri forces to form the Missouri Feral Hog Task Department of Agriculture was forced to Force (Table 1) when feral hog populations quarantine that portion of the MTNF . This developed at other sites in Missouri in the quarantine cost the MTNF a substantial sum late 1990s. due to the difficulty of eradicating the

Table 1. Missouri Feral Hog Task Force Members State Agencies Missouri Department of Agriculture Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) Missouri Department of Natural Resources Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture, APHIS , Wildlife Services U.S. Department of Agriculture , APHIS , Veterinary Services U.S. Depmtment of Agriculture , Mark Twain National Forest U.S. Department of Interior , Ozark National Scenic Riverways U.S. Department of Defense, Ft. Leonard Wood Army Base U.S. Department of Defen se, Corps of Engineers Wappapello Lake, Truman Lake, Stockton Lake , Clearwater Lake and Bull Shoals Lake (COE) Private Organizations Missouri Farm Bureau Missouri Conservation Federation Missouri Pork Producer's Association Missouri Cattlemen's Association MFA, Inc. Missouri Consulting Forester's Association Colleges University of Missouri- Columbia School of Natural Resources

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF hog s were technically strays, but strays that MISSOURI'S FERAL HOG TASK were damaging property and which no one FORCE would claim, they could not be immediately killed according to the 1800 laws. Update Missouri's Feral Hog Legislation One of the first efforts of the Task As in many states, Missouri's "stray Force was to update those statutes and livestock" statutes dated from the 1800s and clarify the status of feral swine by defining a were inadequate to address increasing feral "fe ral hog" , and allowing their timely hog populations in the 1990s. In general, elimination. The updated Missouri Revised the antiquated statutes assumed that Statutes, Chapter 270.400, defines feral hogs livestock owners would be anxious to as ... "any swine not conspicuously recover their animals because of their identified by ear tags or other forms of financial value. Consequently, landowners identification that was born in the wild or who found stray livestock on their property lived outside of captivity for a sufficient were required to confine the animals and length of time to be considered wild by provide adequate food and water while they nature by hiding from humans or being attempted to find the livestock owners nocturnal shall be considered feral through law enforcement channels and hogs ... Any person may take or kill a feral printed newspaper notices. Since the feral hog on public land or private land with the

190 consent of the landowner; except that , American Republican, Neosho Daily News , during the firearms deer and turkey hunting Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune, St. Joseph season the regulation of the Missouri News-Press, Columbia Tribune , Nevada Wildlife Code shall apply." Daily Mail, Wayne County Journal Banner , and St. Joseph News-Press. Task Force Funding members have been interviewed for MDC's The Task Force's activities have radio show; by KUMZ, KWOC, KZIM, been sustained largely by in-kind KJEM , KPWB, the Missouri Farm Net: and contributions from task force member by TV station KFUS . (T. Hutton, APHIS , organizations. Those organizations personal communication.). recognize the high stakes involved in feral The Task Force tries to have at least hog control and the necessity of addressing one major article published annually. Most hog populations while they are relatively recently, Missouri Farmers Association small and may be controlled. At the same Today's Farmer published an article titled time, task force members successfully "Hogs Gone Wild" to alert the public, and petitioned Missouri's congressional especially rural residents, to the problems delegation for a small federal appropriation associated with feral hogs. A popular that has proven essential in providing traps, article, "Do Pigs Have Wings?" , also bait and technical assistance to private appeared in the November 2004 issue of the landowners and agency personnel in the Missouri Conservationist. This article has control effort. Both the U.S. Forest Service been reprinted as a stand-alone handout and and Missouri Department of Conservation is available for distribution by task force have also made small grants to APHJS­ members. Wi ldl ife Services for concentrated effort on Information on feral hogs 1s and around wilderness and natural areas. available on the Missouri Department of Conservation , Mark Twain National Forest , Public Education and Information Fort Leonard Wood and COE-Wappapello The Task Force recognized the websites and in the Summary of Missouri importance of a sustained public education Hunting and Trapping Regulations. Feral program to raise awareness and to enlist the hogs have been featured at booths at the public's help in reporting feral swine Missouri State and Ozark Empire Fairs , at occurrences , eliminating them as quickly as Missouri Cattlemen's, Missouri Farm possible and marshalling funds to help Bureau, State FFA , and Soil and Water control them. This Outreach and Education Conservation District conventions , the effort continues and articles have appeared Governor 's Conference on Agriculture and in the Missouri Conservationist , MDC's All at APHIS , Wildlife Services booth at the Outdoors , Missouri Pork Producer's Missouri Natural Resource Conference. In Magazine , Missouri Farm Bureau 's Show addition, presentations have been given to Me, Missouri Cattleman, Missouri the United Bowhunters and Conservation Conservation Federation's Missouri Federation 's annual meetings, National Wild Wildlife, The Joplin Globe, and St. Louis Turkey Federation Board of Directors, Farn1 Post Dispatch, The Kansas City Star, River Bureau's Conservation Agriculture Hills Traveler, Springfield News-Leader, Conference, St. Joseph Audubon Chapter, West Plains Daily Quill , Kirksville Daily Columbia Area Archery Club, Missouri's Express , Southeast Missourian, Banner Agricultural Leadership of Tomorrow Press, Puxico Press, Poplar Bluff Daily workshop and MDC Wildlife Division's

191 Training Conference. A special "Feral Hog agriculture , forestry , native wildlife, and Workshop " was also held at the 2005 their fellow citizens . Obviously, continuing Missouri Natural Resources Conference and releases make efforts to eradicate hogs more a presentation on the Task Force was given difficult. Capture and prosecution of at the 2006 Southeast Association of Fish persons involved in these activities should and Wildlife Agencies Conference. The have a high priority as a deterrent. The Task Force has also developed a "feral hog passage of "Feral Hog Statutes" in 2002 board" for display in the Missouri provided an important tool to address the Conservation Department's "Operation problem. Game Thief' trailer that tours county fairs The chairman of the Missouri Feral and other public events. Feral hog control Hog Task Force subsequently created a law workshops have also been held for private enforcement subcommittee to determine landowners and for the COE staff at Truman ways to prosecute people involved in illegal Reservoir. hog releases. The subcommittee included Hog information magnets have been law enforcement personnel from the distributed to individuals and agencies Missouri Department of Conservation , Mark throughout the state to help gather sighting Twain National Forest, U .S. Army Corps of information. The magnets provide phone Engineers , A.PHIS, Veterinary Services and numbers of the major agencies within the Missouri Department of Agriculture. The Task Force. Informational posters have subcommittee 's task was to determine the been posted throughout the state at public best approach to enforce state and federal access areas requesting information on feral laws on public and private lands . A special hog sightings. "sting" operation was conducted in early 2005 and several people were prosecuted for Resolutions in Support of Feral Swine illegally releasing hogs. Most releases took Control place on Federal and state lands in hopes of Both Missouri Farm Bureau and the establishing huntable populations. Illegal Missouri Conservation Federation passed hog hunting guides on the Mark Twain resolutions calling for the National Forest were also pro secuted . control /eradication of feral hogs from Missouri. In subsequent action , both the Missouri Feral Swine Database Midwest and National Associations of Fish USDA , Wildlife Services personnel and Wildlife Agencies adopted resolutions developed the Feral Swine Database urging Congress and the President to place Submittal Sheets to gather uniforn1 higher priority on, and provide adequate infonnation from agency personnel and the funding for, feral hog control in the United public on each reported hog States. sighting /removal. The Task Force developed a map via GIS in 2005 to show the locations Law Enforcement Subcommittee of all hog sightings for a five year period in Some people who are releasing relation to land ownership. Most hogs swine may be unaware of their negative occurred on, or in close proximity to, federal characteristics and will discontinue releases or state managed lands in Missouri. upon learning of the feral hog statutes and associated penalties. Other people are Regional Working Groups making releases knowing the consequences In areas with sizeable, long-tem1 full-well and disregarding the interests of populations, formation of regional working

192 groups has facilitated feral hog control at the Since the pseudorabies-infected feral local level. Two such groups have been swine from the Irish Wilderness were organized to date in southeast and southwest eliminated in the early l990s , feral hog Missouri respectively and have cooperated blood samples from Missouri have been in control efforts on public and private land. relatively disease-free. Four hundred Both groups were very active in 2005 and eighty-five feral hog blood samples were 2006 in removing feral swine in their areas submitted from March 1995, through and collecting useable blood samples for December 2006 for pseudorabies and swine disease testing. Two hundred twenty and brucellosis testing . Only one hog taken in 306 feral swine that we know of were killed Cole County during 1999 tested positive for in 2005 and 2006 respectively. Undoubtedly swine brucellosis. This animal was one of a that is just a fraction of the total removed by group estimated to total 5 to 6 animals that hunters and private landowners during the were eliminated by a combination of public same period. Timely, sustained efforts hunting and dedicated shooting within six appear to have successfully eliminated feral months of their release. Three feral swine hog populations at some locations. from Benton , Taney and Barry counties have tested pos1t1ve for tularemia in Disease Surveillance statewide testing of 147 feral pigs since Feral swine can carry 30 important March 2005. viral and bacterial diseases (Davidson and Missouri has successfully eliminated Nettles 1997, Samuel et al. 200 l, Williams the infected populations in the Irish and Barker 200 I) in addition to 3 7 parasites Wilderness and Cole County incidents that affect people , pets , livestock or wildlife mentioned above. The Task Force also (Forrester 1991 ). Bru cefla suis and the intercepted an illegal hog hunting operation pseudorabies virus are infectiou s pathogens in Dade County before it began operation. of immediate economic importance to In the process , investigators discovered that dome stic swine producers and are the focus 12 of the animals were wild-caught swine of national eradication campai gns (Gresham illegally imported from Florida . Disease et al. 2002). Missouri 's classification as testing established that 6 of the 12 Florida "disease free " could be jeopardized if wild pig s were positive for pseudorabies . While hogs carry either swine brucellosis or all infected swine are believed to have been pseudorabies and infect commercial and /or eliminated in this case , any feral swine that tran sitional herds . appear in this vicinity will have high priority Diseases can be controlled within for elimination and disease testing wild hog population s through constant monitoring and localized eradication when MAJOR SHORTCOMING/NEEDS the disease is found. USDA , WS is assisting Most of the recent expansion of the state of Missouri in disease testing by Missouri ' s feral swine population bas come providing blood sampling kits for the from illegal releases by individuals to create detection of these diseases to Conservation sizeable populations for hunting and from Agents and hunters throughout the state. accidental escapes from hunting preserves in These kits include instructions and all various parts of the state. To further combat necessary equipment to collect the blood illegal releases and accidental escapes, it is samples for submission to the Missouri essential to: 1. seek additional Department of Agriculture 's Diagnostic Lab statutes /regulations that reduce i !legal at no cost to the person submitting it. releases and the likelihood of accidental escapes; 2. continue efforts to apprehend CONCLUSION individuals involved in illegal releases and The effort to eradicate feral hogs enforce confinement standards to reduce from Missouri will be long and difficult. escapes; and 3. educate county prosecutors They are difficult to find at low population and judges to the risks associated with feral levels, become nocturnal and/or move with swine and seek aggressive prosecution of heavy hunting pressure , survive well persons making illegally releases. because they are omnivorous , and have a While many task force organizations prodigious reproductive capacity. Control have made major contributions to the control efforts must focus on 1. discouraging effort and federal appropriations have been further releases of feral swine through essential to the progress to date , Missouri's education, regulation, enforcement, and feral hog populations are increasing in size prosecution; 2. early detection of their and distribution and more resources must be presence; and 3. the elimination of herds devoted to the effort to have a reasonable where they currently exist. Hunting by the chance for success. At low population general public is not likely to eradicate hogs levels , the cost per animal will be high , but as they become more nocturnal and harder eradication costs will pale in comparison to to find as numbers dwindle. Hog total damage costs from crop destruction eradication is not likely in the state unless and/or major disease outbreaks if these substantially more funding is allocated to the populations are not eliminated. Feral hog effort to mount more aggressive control populations must be treated as would any efforts . The combined resources of federal serious disease that these animals can carry. and state agencies, commodity groups, Although the newly established populations wildlife associations , and other stakeholders may be disease-free at first, they will will be required to address this issue become infected when they come in contact successfully . with infected feral swme populations. Witmer et al. (2003) summarized LITERATURE CITED surveillance studies of feral swme ADAMS, C.E ., BJ. HlGGfNBOTHAM, D.R . populations in the United States and ROLLINS, R.B . TAYLOR, R . SKILES, AND reported infection rates of 0-46 and 0-53 % M. MAPSTON. 2005 . Regional for pseudorabies and swine brucellosis , perspectives and opportunities for feral respectively. hog management in Texas. Texas A&M University , College Station , TX, USA. Trapping and shooting were the only BERGMAN, D.L. , M.D . CHANDLER, AND A. methods actually implemented by the LOCKLEAR. 2002. Economic impact of agencies involved in Missouri ' s feral hog invasive species to Wild life Services' reduction activities. Additional research cooperators. Pages 169-1 78 in Larry needs to be conducted on these and Clark, Jim Hone, John A Shivik , alternative contro l methods. Research may Richard A. Watkins , Kmt C. develop other methods in the future at which VerCauteren , and Jonathan K. Yoder , time costs can be calculated to detennine the editors. Human Conflicts with Wildlife: relative efficiency of various methods. For Economic Considerations. Third now, new baits /attractants are badly needed National Wildlife Research Center to attract hogs effectively without Special Symposium. NWRC, Fort Collins , CO , USA. feeding /attracting other wildlife such as DAVIDSON, W.R., AND V .R . NETTLES. 1997. deer, turkeys, squirrels, and raccoons. Field manual of wildlife diseases in the southeastern United States.

194 Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Veterinary Services , APHIS , USDA. Disease Study. University of Georgia. University of Georgia , Athen s, GA , Athens , GA , USA . USA . FORRESTER, D.J. l99l. Parasites and diseases WILLIAMS, E.S ., AND l.K. BARKER, EDITORS. of wild mammals in Florida. University 200 I. Infectious diseases of wild of Florida Press. Gainesville , FL, USA. mammals . Iowa State University Press, GIBSON, P.S ., HLAVACHICK, B., AND T. Ames , IA, USA. BERGER. 1998. Range expansion by WITMER, G.W., R.B. SANDERS, AND A .C. TAFT. wild hogs across the central US. 2003. Feral swine-are they a disease Wildlife Society Bulletin 2:279-286. threat to livestock in the United States? GRESHAM, C.S., C.A. GRESHAM, M.J. DUFFY, Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage C.T. FAULKNER, ANDS . PATTON. 2002. Management Conference . 10:316-325 . Increased prevalence of Bruce/la suis and pseudorabies virus antibodies in adults of an isolated feral swme population in coastal South Carolina . Journal of Wildlife Diseases 38:653- 656 . MA YER, S.J. AND LL. BRISBON, JR. 1991 . Wild pigs in the United States: their history , comparative morphology, and current status. The University of Georgia Press, Athens , Georgia , USA. 3 I 3pp . MULLER, T., F.J. CONRATHIS, AND E.C. HAHN. 2000. Pseudorabies virus infection (Aujes zky ' s disease) in wild swine. Infectious Disease Review 2:27-34. PIMENTEL, D., L. LACH, R. ZUNIGA, AND D . MARRJSON. 1999. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous specie s in the United States . Cornell Uni versity , College of Agricultur e and Life Sciences . [thaca , NY , USA . _ _ , __ , __ , AND 2000 . Environmental and economic cost s of nonindigenou s specie s in the United States . BioScience 50:53-65 . SAMUEL, W.M. , M.J. PYBUS, AND A.A. KOCAN. 200 I . Parasitic diseases of wild mammals . Iowa State University Press , Am es, lA , USA. SOUTHEASTERN COOPERATIVE WILDLIFE DISEASE STUDY. 1988. Feral/wild swine populations in 1988 . A map prepared 111 cooperation with the emergency programs , Veterinary Services , APHIS , USDA. University of Georgia , Athens , GA, USA. 2004. Feral/wild swine populations in 2004. A map prepared in cooperation with the Emergency programs,

195