Wild Pig Attacks on Humans John J

Home , Animal attack, Wild boar

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Wildlife Damage Management Conferences -- Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for Proceedings

2013 Wild Pig Attacks on Humans John J. Mayer Savannah River National Laboratory

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc

Mayer, John J., "Wild Pig Attacks on Humans" (2013). Wildlife Damage Management Conferences -- Proceedings. 151. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/151

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wildlife Damage Management Conferences -- Proceedings by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Wild Pig Attacks on Humans

John J. Mayer Savannah River National Laboratory, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina

ABSTRACT: Attacks on humans by wild pigs (Sus scrofa) have been documented since ancient times. However, studies characterizing these incidents are lacking. In an effort to better understand this phenomenon, information was collected from 412 wild pig attacks on humans. Similar to studies of large predator attacks on humans, data came from a variety of sources. The various attacks compiled occurred in seven zoogeographic realms. Most attacks occurred within the species native range, and specifically in rural areas. The occurrence was highest during the winter months and daylight hours. Most happened under non-hunting circumstances and appeared to be unprovoked. Wounded animals were the chief cause of these attacks in hunting situations. The animals involved were typically solitary, male and large in size. The fate of the wild pigs involved in these attacks varied depending upon the circumstances, however, most escaped uninjured. Most human victims were adult males traveling on foot and alone. The most frequent outcome for these victims was physical contact/mauling. The severity of resulting injuries ranged from minor to fatal. Most of the mauled victims had injuries to only one part of their bodies, with legs/feet being the most frequent body part injured. Injuries were primarily in the form of lacerations and punctures. Fatalities were typically due to blood loss. In some cases, serious infections or toxemia resulted from the injuries. Other species (i.e., pets and livestock) were also accompanying some of the humans during these attacks. The fates of these animals varied from escaping uninjured to being killed. Frequency data on both non-hunting and hunting incidents of wild pig attacks on humans at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina, showed quantitatively that such incidents are rare.

Key Words: attack, boar, feral hog, Sus scrofa, wild pig

Proceedings of the 15th Wildlife Damage Management Confer- ence. (J. B. Armstrong, G. R. Gallagher, Eds). 2013. Pp. 17-35.

______

INTRODUCTION The reported ferocity of wild pigs (Sus ancient Greek and Roman empires (Ricciuti scrofa) is legendary (Blansford 1891, Ricciuti 1976). Fatal wild pig attacks on humans were 1976, Wilson 2005). Being capable of tena- recorded on headstones in the Severn Temple ciously defending themselves against natural graveyard in England dating back to the 12th predators and conspecifics, this aggressive be- century (Severn Temple 2004). In the Western havior among wild pigs has also been docu- Hemisphere, accounts of such incidents date mented to include attacks on humans under a back to 1506, when introduced feral pigs were variety of situations (e.g., including both hunting reported to have often attacked Spanish soldiers and non-hunting circumstances). Images of such hunting rebellious Indians or escaped slaves on attacks were depicted on prehistoric cave paint- islands in the Caribbean, especially when these ings (e.g., at Bhimbetaka, India) as early as animals were cornered (Towne and Wentworth 50,000 years BP (Kamat 1997). These incidents 1950). Reports of wild pig attacks on humans were described in writings produced in both the

17 have continued through the present (Mayer and Location - zoogeographic realm; coun- Brisbin 2009). try; state (United States only); native or In spite of the fact that such attacks have introduced portion of species global been known to occur, little information has been range; general habitat category (i.e., ru- compiled to identify those traits that typify these ral, suburban, urban) incidents, the human victims or the animals in- Date/Time - year; month; season (ad- volved. Aside from several articles (e.g., medi- justed for northern vs. southern hemi- cal reports) describing mostly individual human sphere); general time of day (i.e., day- victims and their injuries resulting from such light, nighttime); time/hour of day attacks (e.g., Gubler 1992, Hatake et al. 1995, Cause of Attack - unprovoked, animal Memeloni and Chand 2002, Manipady et al. threatened, sudden close encounter, 2006, Shetty et al. 2008, Attarde et al. 2011), wounded animal, unknown studies characterizing these incidents are lack- Attack Circumstances - non-hunting or ing. In fact, the validity of such attacks has even hunting circumstances been questioned recently (Goulding and Roper Attack Scenario -attack proximity (i.e., 2002, Wilson 2005). Therefore, the purpose of close rush from cover, close rush in the this study was to characterize wild pig attacks on open, far rush in the open); attack dura- humans. This entailed a categorization of the tion (in sec or min); type of attack (sin- different aspects or parameters of these events. gle or multiple attack; see definition be- A characterization of this phenomenon could low); victim’s defense [(i.e., es- lend itself to a better understanding of this be- caped/fled, fought back alone, fought havior and these incidents, and possibly enable back aided by companion(s), fought the prevention of such attacks in the future by back aided by companion(s) and dog(s), identifying at-risk behaviors. fought back aided by companion(s) and passer(s)by, fought back aided by METHODS dog(s), fought back aided by I compiled all available information or doc- passer(s)by] umentation that I could find on wild pig attacks Wild Pig - sex; reported body on humans. This involved a search of both the mass/weight (est. or actual); size de- scientific and popular literature, including news- scription; general social grouping cate- papers and sport hunting magazines. Both un- gory (i.e., solitary or group); number of provoked and provoked attacks were examined animals (i.e., both involved in attack and in an effort to assemble a complete picture of present at scene); fate of wild pig (i.e., such incidents. For the purposes of this study, escaped/uninjured, escaped/injured dur- an attack is defined as a situation where a human ing attack, killed during attack, was (1) charged/aggressively threatened, (2) found/killed after attack, unknown) chased, (3) treed, or (4) physically contact- Human Victim - sex; age (in yrs); gen- ed/mauled by a wild pig. This study excluded eral age class grouping (i.e., neonatal - any reports dealing with trapped, penned, cap- newborn infant, minor - post natal-10 tive or recently captured/held animals (e.g., by yrs old, adolescent/teen - 11-19 yrs old, hand or using hunting dogs). Although attacks adult - 20-59 yrs old, senior - 60 yrs on humans, including injuries, have occurred old+); transport mode (e.g., walking, under such conditions (e.g., San Antonio News cycling, horseback riding, etc.); social 2006, BBC News 2007), this is a common haz- category (i.e., alone or in a group); vic- ard in dealing with large, potentially dangerous tim’s outcome (i.e., human animals being kept or held under these condi- charged/aggressively threatened, human tions (Freer 2004). chased, human treed, human physically

contacted/mauled); nature of injuries The attack parameters examined included [i.e., none, minor, serious (requiring the following: hospitalization), fatal]; type of injuries

(e.g.,lacerations/punctures,abrasions/bru (SRS), an 800 km2 U. S. Department of Energy ises/contusions, fractured/broken bones, facility located in western South Carolina, were muscle/tendon strains or tears, etc.); in- analyzed. These data were obtained from vari- jured portion of body (e.g., abdomen, ous SRS records and files, and included non- arm, hand, head, leg, etc.) hunting and hunting circumstances. The two Other Animals Present with Victims - general frequencies/probabilities were simply species; fate of those animals (i.e., es- based on the number of total documented em- caped/uninjured, injured, killed) ployee or hunter manhours in the field versus the reported number of incidents. Single and multiple attacks (under Attack Scenario above) are defined as follows: a single RESULTS attack is one in which one or more wild pigs at- A total of 412 attacks were compiled that tack one or more human victims at one location collectively involved a minimum of 427 wild and time, at which point the incident ends; and, a pigs and 665 human victims. The number of multiple attack is where one or more wild pigs wild pigs is stated as a “minimum” since several attack sequential human victims, the locations of the attacks involved a group or sounder com- being separated by both space and time. This posed of an unreported number of animals. The- latter scenario can continue with several spatial- se attacks occurred between 1825 and 2012, ly separated attacks by the same animal(s) with- with 70% having taken place between 2000 and in the same general time frame of minutes up to 2012. a few hours. The attacks took place in all seven nonpolar Similar to comparable studies of large carni- zoogeographic realms (i.e., Australian – 33, vore attacks on humans (e.g., Beier 1991, Ethiopian – 1, Nearctic – 101, Neotropical – 1, Cardall and Rosen 2003); data came from a va- Oceanic – 15, Oriental – 126, and Palearctic – riety of sources. The various data sources en- 135), 47 countries and 21 US states. Most were compassed the following (number): scien- located in the Northern Hemisphere (88%). The tific/medical literature (25); news media (377); United States had the largest percentage of these popular books/magazines (57); organizational incidents (24%), followed by India (19%), Pa- reports and files (39); facility/site reports and pua New Guinea (6%), and England and Ger- files (4); personal interviews/communications many (each at 5%). The remaining countries (15); and personal observations (4). Given the individually encompassed less than 5% of the diversity of sources, only partial information total. Of the 21 states, Texas (24%), Florida regarding the aforementioned attack parameters (12%) and South Carolina (10%) each had the was available on a number of these attacks. In largest percentage of attacks in the United States spite of that, all available information was in- sample, with the rest each at less than 10%. The cluded to glean the maximum characterization attack locations were mostly in the native por- detail possible for each parameter. tions of the species global distribution (63%), Although such attacks are typically reported and overall, mostly in rural locations (73%), fol- to be rare, to date there are no data actually lowed by suburban (22%) and urban (5%) set- quantifying that probability. In an attempt to tings. However, the numbers of attacks in sub- quantify the probability or potential frequency of urban and urban areas have been increasing such attacks, data from the Savannah River Site since the mid-1990s (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Annual number of wild pig attacks on humans in developed (i.e., suburban and urban) areas (N=110) between 1990 and 2012.

Attacks occurred throughout the year and that occurred at night (52%) were the result of 24-hour daily time period (Figure 2). Seasonal- the animals either being threatened or involved ly, most (33%) of these attacks occurred in the in a sudden close encounter with the victim. winter, with the fewest taking place in the sum- Most were single attacks (94%). However, mul- mer (17%). January, October, April and No- tiple attacks occurred more frequently (21%) in vember were the peak months. Most attacks developed areas (i.e., suburban or urban) com- (91%) occurred during daylight hours, with pared to rural locations (3%). The most com- peaks primarily in the mid-morning and second- mon attack proximity was a close rush in the arily in the late afternoon. open (67%), indicating that the human victim The attacks took place mostly under non- saw the animal before the attack. The least hunting circumstances (76%). As might be ex- common attack proximity was a distant rush in pected, no attacks under hunting circumstances the open (12%); most of these (52%) resulted in took place in either suburban or urban habitats. the victims being charged, chased or treed. Overall, the most common identifiable cause of Most attacks took place in less than a minute, these attacks was the animal being threatened with reported durations ranging from 15 seconds (41%). However, within the two circumstance up to a combined total of 5.5 hours for one pro- subsets, causes in non-hunting situations were tracted multiple attack that occurred in a devel- mostly unprovoked (49%), while wounded ani- oped area. During the 5.5 hour-long multiple mals were the most common cause within the attack, five victims were successively attacked hunting subset (48%). The majority of attacks by one wild pig in a large suburban area.

100 90 80 70 Number 60 of 50 Attacks 40 30 20 10 0 Winter Spring Summer Fall Season

35 11 10 30 9 8 25 7 Number 20 Number 6 of of 5 Attacks Attacks 15 4 10 3 2 5 1 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Hourly Time Period

Figure 2. Seasonal (N=277), monthly (N=270) and hourly (N=60) frequencies of the number of wild pig attacks on humans.

Most victims fought back alone (39%), were the canine morphology of yearlings through aided by companions (30%) or escaped/fled adults in photographs taken following the attack; (21%) from the attacking animal. Overall, 36% see Mayer and Brisbin 1988), most were males of the victims were aided in their defense by (81%). Of the 92 wild pigs that were verbally other people (i.e., companions, passersby or described by victims or witnesses, most (87%) both). The remaining defenses each constituted were described as being physically large animals less than 5% of the total. (e.g., “big,” “huge,” “immense,” “heavy,” The wild pigs involved in these attacks “enormous”). Of the 65 animals for which an were mostly solitary animals (82%); however, estimated or actual total body mass was report- groups or sounders of 2 to 20 animals were also ed, the mean weight was 129 kg, with a range reported attacking humans. Typically, only one from 33 to 499 kg. Overall, most wild pigs es- or two of the animals in these larger social caped uninjured following the attack (60%), groupings were involved in the attack. In 15 with the same being true under the non-hunting incidents the entire group of animals was in- circumstances (73%). In contrast, under hunting volved in the attack; this included the sounder of circumstances, most of the attacking animals 20 wild pigs. However, the largest group size in were killed during the attack (49%), with the which all of the pigs were involved in physical next most common fate being escaped/uninjured contact/mauling was six animals. The other larg- (21%). Within the developed locations (i.e., er groups were only involved in attacks in which suburban or urban), a higher percentage (40%) the human victim was charged/aggressively were killed (i.e., either during or after the attack) threatened, chased or treed. For the wild pigs as compared to the same fate at the rural sites with a reported or discernible sex (e.g., based on (28%).

The human victims involved in these at- by a wild pig while walking along a suburban tacks were mostly males (78%), with 99% in the street at night (Kim 2008). The mean age varied hunting circumstances. Most victims were among the three general habitat types as follows: adults (82%), with 93% under the hunting cir- rural – 40 yrs. old; suburban – 45 yrs. old; and cumstances. Males also were more common in urban – 31 yrs. old. The lower mean for the the rural (81%) and suburban (75%) locations urban attacks may have been due to the small compared to the urban sites (54%). Of the 212 sample size of known-aged victims (N=7) rather victims for which a specific age was known, the than an actual younger average age. The most mean was 41 yrs, and ranged from a neonate up frequent age group was people in their fifties to two 80-yr olds. The neonate was born to a (Figure 3). Of the various transportation modes pregnant woman from a remote village in Papua used by the victims (N=661), traveling on foot New Guinea who went into labor in a rural was the most frequent (i.e., walking – 93.2%, location in 1985. While the mother was cycling – 2.3%, horseback – 1%, golf recovering from the delivery, the newborn was cart/ATV/utility vehicle – 0.6%, ox cart – 0.6%, attacked and fatally injured by a wild pig before sleeping/reclining – 0.6%, dugout canoe– 0.5%, the baby’s mother could intervene (Barss and motorcycle – 0.5%, automobile – 0.2%, camel- Ennis 1988). Of the two 80-year olds, the first back – 0.2%, combine harvester – 0.2%, cross- was a woman in England who was attacked in country skiing – 0.2%, wheelchair – 0.2%). 2007 while walking her dog; she successfully Collectively, the most common human victim of repelled the three attacking wild pigs by fighting wild pig attacks was an adult male in his fifties back (Morris 2007). The second was a man in who was traveling alone and on foot. South Korea who was fatally attacked in 2006

Male Female 50 45 40 35

Number 30 of 25 Human Victims 20 15 10 5 0

Age Category

Figure 3. Age class (decades in years) frequency of female and male human victims (N=227) of wild pigs attacks.

Of the 665 human victims, the most com- ly due to wild pig attacks (annual range of 0 to mon outcome was being physically contact- 11). Only four fatal wild pig attacks have ever ed/mauled (69%), followed by those victims that been reported in the United States, three of these were charged/aggressively threatened (17%), resulting from attacks by wounded animals dur- treed (9%) and chased (5%). Overall, most of ing hunting circumstances. The most recent oc- the victims had at least some injuries (69%). curred in Texas in 1996. Most victims sustained Among the injured victims, the severity of the injuries to a single part of their body (61%), typ- wounds varied from minor to fatal, with most ically the lower part of the body from the waist being classified as serious (63%). A small per- down (56%). The legs/feet were collectively the centage of the victims (3%) who were either most frequent part of body injured (39%), fol- charged, chased or treed also sustained injuries lowed by abdomen (12%), equally by thorax, (four minor; one serious), mostly through falls arms and hands (each at 11%), head/neck (8%), sustained in trying to escape/evade the attacking buttocks (5%) and groin (4%). Leg wounds animal(s). Fatalities were reported in 15% of the were often on the posterior thigh. Age variation attacks where physical contact/mauling oc- occurred with the two general body regions (i.e., curred, and were twice as high for victims who upper/waist up and lower/waist down), with were traveling alone. The percentage of fatali- mostly upper body for minors (80%) and adoles- ties was more than double in hunting (28%) vs. cents/teens (56%), and mostly lower body for non-hunting (12%) circumstances. Similar to adults (58%) and seniors (56%) (Figure 4). Col- the general tendency, the most common human lectively, the victims who were “treed” sought victims (43%) involved in the fatal attacks were escape/refuge up in trees (58%), on top of vehi- adult males who were walking alone. Based on cles (4%), up on buildings/structures (10%), and attacks between 2003 and 2012, an average of up on miscellaneous objects (28%; e.g., dump- 3.8 persons was fatally injured each year global- ster, furniture, large boulder, tall fence).

Lower Body Region Upper Body Region 100

Percent 60 of 50 Total Injuries 40

0 Minor Adolescent Adult Senior Age Group

Figure 4. Age variation in the occurrence of injuries among 244 human victims in the two general body regions (i.e., upper/waist up and lower/waist down).

The nature of injuries sustained by the hu- strains or tears (1%). In general, injuries caused man victims included lacerations/punctures by wild pigs are characterized as multiple pene- (75%), abrasions/bruises/contusions (15%), frac- trating wounds caused by the teeth (i.e., primari- tured/broken bones (9%), and muscle/tendon ly the canines, but can include the incisors and

23 premolars). Such penetrating wounds in the attack. Such trauma was reported to be mani- form of punctures can be 1 to 5 cm in depth and fested as severe internal injuries/bleeding and 1 to 3 cm in width, while longitudinal lacera- concussions. Specific fractures/broken bones tions can be up to 20 cm in length with depths (number of victims) included the crania/frontal comparable to or exceeding those of the punc- bone (1), crania/zygomatic bone (1), mandible ture wounds. The edges of these lacera- (1), cervical vertebrae (2), clavicle (1), thoracic tions/punctures were described as ragged or not vertebrae (1), ribs (2), arm bones/unspecified clean cut (Manipady et al. 2006). One laceration (1), radius (2), ulna (2), hand/unspecified (1), on a victim’s posterior calf required more than lumbar vertebrae (1), pelvis (1), leg 100 stitches to close (Horansky 2011). The low- bones/unspecified (3), femur (1), and tibia (2). er canines can result in punctures typically be- One thoracic fracture resulted in the victim between 1 to 3 cm in depth, while the incisors and ing paralyzed below the upper chest. In addi- upper canines tend to cause only abrasions, tion, serious infections or toxemia can result bruising/contusions and shallow punctures. The from penetrating injuries sustained during a wild depth and extent of extreme longitudinal lacera- pig attack. Such infections resulting from pig tions (number of victims) can even result in bites/goring can be caused by a variety of patho- pneumothorax/sucking chest wounds (7), disem- gens (Table 1). Fatalities among the human vic- bowelment/intestinal prolapse (11) and dismem- tims were primarily due to exsanguination; but berment (4). Some tissue loss due to very ag- in three cases, death was individually diagnosed gressive bites also occurred. Blunt force trauma as being due to toxemia/septicemia, was also caused by the attacking animal’s craniocerebral injury (in the form of a deep pen- head/snout and hooves, with some victims being etrating fracture) or a heart attack. brutally butted/rammed or trampled during the

Table 1. Listing of pathogens associated with puncture wounds inflicted by domestic or wild pigs.

Pathogens Isolated from Description of Human Description of Attack Description of Injury Reference Victim's Wounds Victim

Streptococcus 6 cm laceration with agalactiae (Lance- deep penetration to the gored by a boar's tusk 50-yr old male Barnham 1988 field group B, type posterior aspect of the II) lower thigh

lacerated hand while alpha-haemolytic Strep- cutting teeth from lacerated hand 20-yr old male Barnham 1988 tococcus milleri piglets

Streptococcus equisimilis (Lance- field group C, T- puncture wound on the antigen non- gored by a boar 29-yr old female Barnham 1988 back of the thigh typable) Pasteurella aerogenes Proteus sp.

Bacteroides sp. coagulase-negative deep laceration 5 cm bitten by a pig 32-yr old male Barnham 1988 Streptococcus wide on the thigh Pasteurella multocida gram-negative bacteria gored by a pig laceration on leg 25-yr old male Barss and Ennis 1988

Table 1. Listing of pathogens associated with puncture wounds inflicted by domestic or wild pigs. (Continued)

Pathogens Isolated from Description of Human Description of Attack Description of Injury Reference Victim's Wounds Victim antibiotic-resistant pig bites/gorings no details no details Barss and Ennis 1988 Staphylococcus aureus gram-negative organisms pig bites/gorings no details no details Barss and Ennis 1988

Flavobacterium group pig bite bite wound on hand 51-yr old female Goldstein et al. 1990 Iib-like isolate bite wound on right knee, lacerations on bitten and gored by a left thigh and forearm, 24-yr old female Gubler 1992 boar fragmented tibial frac- Pasteurella multocida ture of right knee Bacteroides fragilis bite wound on right knee, lacerations on bitten and gored by a left thigh and forearm, 24-yr old female Gubler 1992 boar fragmented tibial frac-

ture of right knee

Actinobacillus suis pig bite bite wound on knee 37-yr old male Escande et al. 1996 Staphylococcus spp. pig bites no details no details Gundez et al. 2007 Streptococcus milleri Streptococcus sanguis Streptococcus suis Diphtheroides pig bites no details no details Gundez et al. 2007 Pasteurella multocida Other Pasteurella spp.

Haemophilus influenzae Actinobacillus suis Flavobacterium Iib- like organisms pig bites no details no details Gundez et al. 2007 Bacteroides fragilis other anaerobic gram- positive bacilli

In 18% of these attacks, other animals (i.e., jured in over 1.5 million hunter manhours; and including dogs, camels, domestic pigs, horses non-hunting - 3 remote workers attacked (i.e., 2 and oxen; totaling 70 individuals) were accom- charged/aggressively threatened and 1 treed) in panying and/or present with the human victims over 3.9 million remote worker manhours. Un- at the scene. Dogs were the most common spe- der both sets of circumstances, the probability or cies overall (71%), as well as in both non- potential frequency of such an attack would be hunting (54%) and hunting (89%) situations. less than a one in a million chance of occur- The breakdown of the fate of these animals was rence. This is by definition a rare event. as follows: uninjured or escaped - 79%, injured - 12%, and killed - 10%. All of the fatalities were DISCUSSION dogs, mostly occurring under the hunting cir- Wild pigs normally show little to no ag- cumstances (71%). Dogs assisted in defending gression toward man, and typically try to flee the human victims in 49% of these attacks. when they encounter humans (Goulding 2003, Based on data from the Savannah River DEFRA 2004, Manipady et al. 2006, Kose et al. Site, South Carolina, the probability or potential 2011). In places where wild pigs are not perse- frequency of being attacked by a wild pig was cuted, humans reportedly can safely walk very determined under both hunting and non-hunting close to these animals (Galhano-Alves 2004). In circumstances as follows: hunting - 1 hunter in- spite of that, wild pigs do have the potential to

25 be dangerous (Goulding et al. 1998, Wilson of these animals found in those habitats com- 2005). This is typified by the news media, pared to developed areas (Mayer and Brisbin which generally portray these animals as “pri- 2009). Chauhan et al. (2009) found similar re- marily dangerous and destructive.” The single sults for wild pig attacks in five Indian states, most frequently cited issue concerning wild pigs with most of the attacks (95%) occurring in for- in the press in England is the fear that these an- ests and cropland versus that for villages (5%). imals will attack humans (Goulding and Roper Anecdotal accounts from other sources corrobo- 2002). Although not the extreme threat as im- rate the higher incidence in rural areas (e.g., plied by the British news media, both provoked Manipady et al. 2006, Gundez et al. 2007). and unprovoked attacks by these animals on In contrast to the prevalence of these at- humans do occur. Under hunting circumstances, tacks in rural areas, a number of attacks did oc- provoked attacks are often reported as the con- cur in developed areas (i.e., suburban and urban sequence of the animal being wounded by the habitats); including 15 solitary wild pigs that hunter (Rappaport 1968, Barss and Ennis 1988, each entered occupied buildings prior to attack- Gundez et al. 2007). Unprovoked attacks by ing the victims. Based on the attacks included in wild pigs have been reported on non-hunters the present study, there has been an increase in who were merely walking through or working in the frequency of these incidents in developed areas inhabited by these animals (Hatake et al. areas over the past decade (Figure 1). This in- 1995, Gundez et al. 2007, Shetty et al. 2008). In crease in the numbers of attacks in suburban and general, such attacks by wild pigs on humans are urban areas has been concurrent with the global- anecdotally reported to be rare (Wilson 2005, ly observed increase in the overall numbers of Kose et al. 2011); this is especially true for un- wild pigs in these developed areas (Kim 2008, provoked attacks (Rappaport 1968). Massei 2010, Céline et al. 2012, Cahill et al. The general geographic and habitat loca- 2012, Feral Hog COP 2012). These growing tions of the attacks are consistent with where numbers have resulted in more encounters be- this species occurs in the wild. The higher pro- tween wild pigs and people. This problem is portion within the native range is consistent with exacerbated by people who intentionally feed the more widespread distribution in those areas wild pigs. Many of these animals had reportedly compared to the introduced portions of the spe- initially wandered into the developed area look- cies global range (Tisdell 1982, Lever 1985). ing for food (e.g., Higashinada Ward Office The high number of attacks in the United States 2003, The Independent 2004, Asia Pacific News was likely the result of my proximity and access 2007, Cihan Media Services 2010). The pres- to news sources. Wild pig attacks on humans in ence of food in the form of either handouts from India, England and Germany are all considered humans or uncovered edible garbage would be a newsworthy, and are frequently reported in the sufficient incentive for these animals to return to press. This is especially true in India, where these developed areas to forage. The mere pres- victims are paid compensation for such maulings ence of wild pigs in unfamiliar surroundings in or loss of life due to a wild animal attack (Trib- which these animals encounter buildings, traffic une News Service 2008, The Hindu 2009). The and large numbers of humans may be sufficient two US states (i.e., Texas and Florida) with the to make them feel threatened. Several of these highest numbers of attacks also have the largest animals also were found to have been injured in estimated populations of these animals. The vehicle collisions just prior to the reported attack high number in South Carolina is likely the re- on one or more humans. A number of urban sult of my proximity/access to news sources. areas both in the United States and other coun- Given the wild pig’s habitat preferences (Mayer tries have reported such attacks taking place, and Brisbin 2009), confrontations between this with the highest incidence of attacks compiled in species and humans are rare (Kose et al. 2011). this study being in Berlin, Germany. Since the Most of these attacks took place when the hu- fall of the Berlin Wall, the German capital has mans entered natural or undeveloped habitats had numerous problems (e.g., attacks on hu- occupied by wild pigs. This higher number in mans, vehicle collisions, rooting and property rural areas follows the higher numbers/densities damage) with its urban wild pig population, re-

26 ported to be as large as 10,000 animals being caped the attack by climbing up out of the ani- found within the city limits (BBC News 1999, mal’s reach (e.g., up a nearby tree, on top of a Walker 2008, Mangasarian 2010). vehicle, etc.), the attacking animal typically The seasonal increase in attacks during the turned and left the scene having dealt with the fall and winter months most likely coincides apparent threat. with wild pig breeding and farrowing activities, Barss and Ennis (1988) reported that 23% respectively. Increased aggression has been ob- of wild pig attacks were unprovoked. Although served in mature males during the breeding sea- the general occurrence of wild pig attacks on son and in sows after farrowing (Eguchi et al. humans is indisputable, the causes of these inci- 2001, Manipady et al. 2006, Gundez et al. 2007, dents are not always clear. From the perspective Mayer and Brisbin 2009, Kose et al. 2011). of the victim, an attack may appear to have been Both circumstances could potentially result in unprovoked. However, the wild pig in question these solitary animals attacking people encoun- may have been previously threatened, chased or tered during these periods of time. Attacks by injured immediately prior to happening upon groups of animals increased slightly in the that victim. Still feeling threatened or suffering spring, which coincides with when sows would from injuries, the animal then defensively at- be moving around foraging with their young. tacked the next person it encountered. Several Sows are protective mothers, and readily defend of the attacks reviewed in this study were known their unweaned litters of piglets against any per- to be the result of such a priori circumstances. ceived threat (Goulding 2003). Chauhan et al. One case involved two teenaged girls who were (2009) similarly found peaks for attacks during the victims of an apparent unprovoked attack by the fall and winter months. a wild pig in Spain. It was learned later that the In areas where wild pigs are relatively un- wild pig had been attacked by several dogs im- disturbed, these animals tend to be diurnally ac- mediately prior to its encounter with the two tive. However, intense hunting pressure or hu- teens (Costa Tropical 2007). Other attacks re- man activity during the day will drive wild pigs viewed involved wild pigs that had been previ- to become more nocturnal in their activity pat- ously injured by explosive devices (e.g., a land terns (Mayer and Brisbin 2009). The higher fre- mine, “flower ball” explosive baits used by Pa- quency of attacks during daylight hours may kistani farmers to kill wild pigs depredating reflect the activity patterns of the human victims crops), collisions with vehicles or encounters rather than those of the wild pigs. Such encoun- with hunters. In each of these cases, the wound- ters may be the result of the victims blundering ed animals attacked the next human they came upon the wild pigs either in their bedding sites or into close contact with. With these cases, the escaping another disturbance that caused the animals in questions were identified as having animals to flee their beds. Chauhan et al. (2009) been injured prior to the attack. Undoubtedly, also found that most attacks occurred during other cases exist where the animals involved in daylight hours (95%). such attacks had been previously injured, but These animals are intelligent, alert and easi- that fact was unknown to the victims, compan- ly startled (Barss and Ennis 1988). Sudden en- ions or passersby of the incident. Given the lack counters do occur between humans and wild of information, these attacks would most likely pigs where the person is within that animal's be classified as unprovoked. flight-or-fight threshold, the result being that the The fact that most of the wild pigs involved pig poses a defensive attack at the person in these attacks were solitary (82%), male (81%) (Manipady et al. 2006). For example, Phillips and large (87%) is consistent with the social unit (1935) noted that wild pigs in the tea districts of behavior of mature boars in this species (Mayer Sri Lanka sometimes lie up in the tea fields, and and Brisbin 2009). Of the attacks involving workers, who inadvertently stumble upon these groups of wild pigs, the attack was typically car- animals, are occasionally injured by them. Simi- ried out by only one or two animals. Several lar circumstances have been recently reported these animals were specifically described as be- for attacks around sugar cane fields in India ing the “biggest one in the group.” Since most (Das 2004). In instances where the humans es- sounders of wild pigs are composed of single or

27 multiple family groups (Mayer and Brisbin over an 8-year period in England involved phys- 2009), it would follow that the largest animals in ical contact between the pig and the victim. such social units would be the maternal females. Wild pig attacks on humans are typically As previously noted, such females are reported not fatal, but such maulings can result in severe to be very aggressive in defending their young injuries to the victim. In the more serious at- (Goulding 2003), which could account for the tacks, the wild pigs knock the human to the resulting attack if these animals felt threatened. ground and then maul the prostrate victim. Such Overall, the total body weights reported for the victims tend to sustain injuries to multiple parts wild pigs involved in these attacks were general- of their bodies compared to the victims who ly in the extreme upper end of the range for this were able to remain standing/upright. In some species (Mayer and Brisbin 2009). It is conceiv- cases, the wild pig attacks the victim, retreats able, though, that such estimates were exaggera- and then returns attacking again, which contin- tions given the traumatic circumstances associ- ues until the victim is completely incapacitated ated with these incidents. (i.e., no longer presents a perceived threat). The The human victims represented a widely consequences of such repeated attacks are typi- diversified but decidedly male and older popula- cally extensive multiple injuries over the vic- tion component. Although unknown, this is tim’s entire body (Manipady et al. 2005, Gundez likely indicative of the human demographic pre- et al. 2007). sent in the areas where the attacks took place. Wounds inflicted by a wild pig have a high Unlike the reported attacks by large carnivores risk for infection (Freer 2004), which can occur on humans (e.g., Beier 1991), the goal of a wild even for victims who have been hospitalized pig attack is typically defensive rather than (Rajendra and Chandru 2011). As such, most predatory. Therefore, children would not be mauling victims in wild pig attacks are treated more vulnerable than adults to wild pig attack with various antibiotics (e.g., Barss and Ennis under most conditions. In the Indian sample, 1988, Gubler 1992, Gundez et al. 2007, Attarde Chauhan et al. (2009) reported that most of the et al. 2011, Kose et al. 2011). Although a virus victims were male (68%) with the highest age that is rarely reported in this species (Morehouse grouping (32%) in the 41 to 50 yr. old category. et al. 1968), some victims were also given vac- The percentages decreased in both the older and cinations against potential rabies infection (e.g., younger age class categories in that study. A Gubler 1992, Gundez et al. 2007, Kose et al. higher percentage of males was also found in the 2011). forested and cropland cases compared to the at- Although not common (e.g., 4% of the attacks located in villages (Chauhan et al. 2009). tacks reported by Chauhan et al. (2009); 15% The fact that most of the victims were phys- reported in the present study), fatal injuries can ically mauled in these attacks seems biased to- be caused by wild pig attacks. Some victims ward the severe extreme of the outcome of such who are wounded by wild pigs die immediately incidents. However, this should not be unex- (Manipady et al. 2005). For adults with most pected given that most (69% news media) of the injuries to the lower region of the body, this is source documents were predisposed toward a typically due to lacerated femoral arteries. Since greater severity of such incidents (i.e., being these attacks most commonly occur in rural or more “newsworthy”). As such, care should be remote areas, fatalities are often either not re- taken with respect to the use/interpretation of ported or not attributed to attacks by wild pigs such information provided by these documents. (Barss and Ennis 1988). However, the information is still useful in char- The age-related differences between the acterizing the parameters/variables of these at- victims’ two general body regions (i.e., upper tacks, especially since the human outcome was and lower) that sustained the most injuries dur- negative. Conversely, victims who were ing attacks is associated with the height of the charged/aggressively threatened, chased or victims versus height of the pig. Means for the treed, but did not suffer any physical injuries, two general human body regions for the four age would be less likely to report the attacks. Wil- ranges used in this study (i.e., minor, adoles- son (2005) reported that only 2 of 12 attacks cent/teen, adult, and senior) were based on data

28 obtained from Fredriks et al. (2005) and mal(s), injuries can then be sustained to the en- McDowell et al. (2008). These data represent tire body (i.e., both upper and lower regions). combined gender and ethnicity samples. The This happened more in adolescents (46%) and heights for wild pigs were based on the range of seniors (42%) than to either minors (25%) or shoulder heights for adult wild pigs obtained adults (28%). from Mayer and Brisbin (2009). A pig’s mouth The effect of other animals being present during an attack would be vertically located at or with the human victims at the attack scenes is slightly below its shoulder, which in adult ani- unclear. Most of these animals survived the in- mals would put it in the aforementioned range cident uninjured, and in some cases aided the (i.e., 52-106 cm). Given that height range and humans in their defense against the attacking the means for the body regions of the four hu- pigs. However, dogs walking with their human man age ranges, the wild pig’s vertical range of owners has been suggested to represent a hazard impact to the two body regions would be 86% in or risk with respect to wild pigs (Goulding 2003, the upper region for minors, 69% in the lower DEFRA 2004, Wilson 2005), with the pig’s ag- region for the adolescents/teens, 77% in the gressive behavior being influenced by the dog’s lower region for adults, and 70% in the lower presence. Wild pigs may consider dogs to be region for seniors (Figure 5). This explanation predators, and, as such, will attack them as a is consistent with the findings from the attack defensive response. In a few of the cases, the victims (Figure 4). In general, a wild pig’s wild pigs even attacked dogs that were being mouth is vertically located at approximately the walked on a leash by their owners. In some of same height as most of the upper body in most the cases reviewed, the human owners inter- minors. This location changes to the lower body vened to save their dogs, only to then be at- in adolescents, adults and seniors. When victims tacked themselves by the wild pigs. are knocked to the ground by the attacking ani-

Figure 5. Graphic comparison of the mean heights for the four human general age class groupings (illustrated as two-dimensional columns) and the range of an adult wild pig at the shoulder (bounded as dashed lines). The bolded lines at about the midpoint of the columns indicate the approximate waist or division between the general upper and lower body regions. The mean human heights and body region proportions were developed from data provided in Fredriks et al. (2005) and McDowell et al. (2008).

Of the attacks reviewed in this study, six Unresolved Attack Circumstances animals were found to have a history of repeated There are three types of circumstances as- attacks on humans. These included from two up sociated with wild pig attacks on humans that to four separate single attacks by each animal. need to be presented and discussed. The issues All of these animals were reported to be large, regarding these sets of attack circumstances cen- and four were identified as males. Another was ter on the validity of these incidents as one of further described as being the “largest animal in the four types of attacks. Each of these is dis- a herd of 8-10 wild pigs.” These attacks were cussed in the following paragraphs: separated in time from a period of a few weeks Escaped tame or captive-reared wild pigs - up to one year. Most of the victims were Familiarity with humans as the source of food seriously injured by these animals, four fatally. provided in captive/penned situations may Four of these animals were eventually killed. encourage wild pigs, which escape such Wild pigs are opportunistic omnivores that confinement, to seek people out when these can function as aggressive predators. Mature animals become hungry. A wild pig running up individuals have been documented to prey on to a human seeking food or a handout could large animals such as wild and domestic easily be mistaken for an attack. “Attacks” by ungulates (Mayer and Brisbin 2009). Being recently escaped wild pigs (e.g., in England) scavengers, wild pigs have been specifically would likely represent such circumstances. In documented to feed on human corpses or those cases, the pigs left the scene after the hu- remains in post-combat, rural accident (e.g., mans either escaped or evaded those animals and plane crash) and crime (e.g., homicide) did not provide them with any food or handouts. situations (Barss and Ennis 1988, Williams et al. Approaching wild pigs - In some cases, the 1998, Rockenbach 2005). In addition, there is at victims were reportedly attacked merely because least one instance on record of a wild pig in one or more wild pigs approached them or southern France that became a confirmed moved in their direction. Whether the people repeated man-eater. That animal focused its were inadvertently in the path being traveled by attacks on one village until finally being hunted these animals or were in fact objects of curiosity down and killed (Elman and Peper 1975). In or investigation by inexperienced, immature four of the attacks reviewed in the present study, pigs, the apparent approach of a wild pig does the wild pig either partially or mostly consumed not always mean that one is being attacked or the remains of the human victim that had been threatened. Several of these victims either ran or fatally injured by that animal in the attack. climbed trees to escape these animals. In some Three of the four attacks were explicitly instances, such attacks perceived by the victims characterized by the investigating authorities as are in reality just wild pigs moving toward the being predatory. In two additional attacks, the humans in question. Upon realizing the pres- pig’s motivation was also described by either the ence of such humans, some of these pigs retreat- victim or the victim’s companion as predatory; ed in the opposite direction (reportedly “broke of those, one victim survived with serious off the attack”). injuries while the other was fatally injured. In a Accidental collisions - Some attacks are 2009 attack in India, a 3-year old girl, walking merely cases where wild pigs collided with the on a trail with her father, was grabbed by a wild human “victims.” This included both people pig, which then tried to flee with the minor child traveling on foot and riding bicycles or motorcy- in its mouth. The father chased the animal, cles. In many of these “attacks,” the wild pig fighting with it until his daughter was released. left the scene immediately following the physi- Both the father and daughter were seriously cal collision with the victim. In some of these injured during the attack; the child later died of cases, it is possible that the victims were inad- her injuries (Pradesh 2009). Although attacks vertently blocking the path that the running or by these animals are primarily defensive in escaping wild pig was attempting to use. Such nature, the potential for an attack of a predatory incidents were likely just accidental collisions as nature cannot be completely discounted. opposed to aggressive attacks. As such, acci-

30 dental collisions would not qualify as a valid run the animal; however, wild pigs can attack. run faster than humans, so trying to out- run them may be futile if the pig persists At-risk Behaviors in the chase over a long distance. Several at-risk behaviors were evident based If a wild pig charges at you at a close on review of the 412 attacks. Most are con- distance, climb a tree or other elevated sistent with dealing with any large, potentially object to get out of the animal’s reach, dangerous animal. These are as follows: getting at least 6 feet off of the ground; Traveling alone and on foot through un- these animals can't climb, but large wild developed areas, especially areas with pigs can work their way up a tree trunk, dense thickets or understory vegetation "walking" up the trunk with their front Walking with a dog (leashed or un- legs, to reach objects that are 4-5 feet leashed) through undeveloped areas above the ground level. Threatening or chasing a wild pig (e.g., If evasion or escape is not possible, turn out of a crop/farm field or developed ar- and face the animal and prepare to ea) aggressively fight back with anything at Approaching an obviously wounded or your disposal; under hunting circum- injured wild pig stances, victims have fought back with Approaching or attempting to feed or weapons being used for harvesting game pat/touch a wild pig, especially those (e.g., guns, bows/arrows, spears); for the seen in suburban or urban areas non-hunting circumstances, victims used Blocking the path of a moving wild pig a variety of items that they had with (e.g., one trying to escape a pursuer or them to fend off the attacking pig(s) leave the area) (e.g., camera tripod, hammer, bicycle, chair, machete, parang, shovel, Certain combinations of habitats in areas cane, dog leash). with wild pigs also represent an increased risk. While fighting back, try to stay on your This is especially true for agricultural lands that feet and avoid being knocked to the are adjacent to forested areas (Manipady et al. ground; people who fall or are knocked 2005, Gundez et al. 2007, Rajendra and Chandru down during a mauling attack sustain in- 2011). juries to multiple parts of the body, and these injuries are more likely to be fatal. Defensive Strategies If you fall or are knocked down, get on- Lastly, again based on an overall review of to your back with your feet facing the the attacks in this study, there are several ways animal, start kicking rapidly with your that one can avoid being involved in or reduce feet against the end of the snout or head, the severity of an attack by a wild pig. These making sure that one of your foot are as follows: doesn't get caught in the pig's mouth. Be cautious and alert to the potential Continue to fight back until the animal sudden presence of wild pigs when trav- breaks off the attack; most wild pig at- eling through areas that these animals tacks on humans last less than one mi- inhabit. nute in duration; if the animal tires of If wild pigs are encountered, either de- the attack and attempts to leave, do not tour around the animals, giving them a try to pursue the animal or inadvertently wide berth, or, if they are too close, block its potential escape route. slowly back away while being careful Seek immediate medical care for any not to make any sudden or potentially wounds sustained in the attack; in rural threatening movements. areas, victims should use good and im- Should a wild pig begin an aggressive mediate wound treatment, and seek approach from a far distance, try to out-

medical attention at the nearest hospital upon their return to a developed area. LITERATURE CITED ASIA PACIFIC NEWS. 2007. Wild boars attack In one incident, the victim was reported to pedestrians in Ehime Prefecture. have escaped a prolonged mauling by lying mo- http://onlypunjab.com/fullstory2k7-insight- tionless and feigning death. The pig, which ap- news-status-6-newsID-3419.html. Accessed parently either lost interest or perceived the 23 Apr 2007. threat to have ceased, left the scene of the attack. ATTARDE, H., S. BADJATE, and S. R. SHENOI. Although “playing dead” may have worked in 2011. Wild boar inflicted human injury. that instance, there is no empirical basis to sup- Journal of Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery port that as a defensive strategy to employ in the 10:77–79. event of a wild pig attack. BARNHAM, M. 1988. Pig bite injuries and infection: report of seven human cases. Epide- CONCLUSIONS miology and Infection 101:641-645. Wild pig attacks on humans do occur, but BARSS, P., and S. ENNIS. 1988. Injuries caused such incidents are rare. Attacks have been re- by pigs in Papua New Guinea. Medical ported throughout the year and wherever these Journal of Australia 149:649-656. animals are found. In areas where the number of BBC NEWS. 1999. Berlin’s boar brother. these animals continues to grow, the frequency http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/57 of these incidents can be expected to increase. 8665.stm. Accessed on 10 Jan 2005. The consequences of such attacks on the human BBC NEWS. 2007. Wild boar attacks man in victims can be very serious; however, the inju- farm pen. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ ries sustained by victims in wild pig attacks do england/essex/6500995.stm. Accessed on not commonly result in fatalities. Although the 10 Mar 2009. general occurrence of these attacks is recog- BEIER, P. 1991. Cougar attacks on humans in the nized, three unresolved sets of circumstances United States and Canada. Wildlife Society still exist with respect to what constitutes an at- Bulletin 19:403-412. tack. These specific circumstances should be BLANSFORD, W. T. 1891. The fauna of British taken into account when trying to determine the India, including Ceylon and Burma – validity of such future incidents as attacks. With Mammalia I & II. Taylor and Francis, Lon- respect to reducing the potential for these inci- don, United Kingdom. dents, the aforementioned information on both CAHILL, S., F. LLIMONA, L. CABAÑEROS, and F. at-risk behaviors and defensive strategies should CALOMARDO. 2012. Wild boar conflicts in be made available to people either liv- urban areas: the Collserola Mountains Nat- ing/working in or traveling through areas inhab- ural Park and the lessons to be learned from ited these animals. similar experiences with other ungulates. Page 36 in 9th International Symposium on ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Wild Boar and Other Suids. 2-6 September I would like to thank the various victims of 2012, Hannover, Germany. wild pig attacks who granted me personal inter- CARDALL, T. Y., and P. ROSEN. 2003. Grizzly views that provided information which was used bear attack. The Journal of Emergency in this study. I am also grateful for the efforts of Medicine 24:331-333. the SRNL Technical Library staff, especially S. CÉLINE, P., M. HEYMANS, S. CAHILL, J. A. Isaacs-Bright and C. F. Pittenger, for their CASAER, and A. LICOPPE 2012. Wild boar help in tracking down many of the articles and (Sus scrofa) in peri-urban areas: prelimi- sources used in the effort. L. A. Bagwell and J. nary results of a survey. Page 53 in 9th In- J. Mayer III provided advice and criticism on an ternational Symposium on Wild Boar and earlier draft of this manuscript. Support for this Other Suids. 2-6 September 2012, Hanno- study was provided by the U. S. Department of ver, Germany. Energy to Savannah River Nuclear Solutions CHAUHAN, N. P. S., K. S. BARWAL, and D. LLC under contract DE-AC09-08SR22470. KUMAR. 2009. Human-wild pig conflict in

selected states in India and mitigation strat- GALHANO-ALVES, J. P. 2004. Man and wild egies. Acta Silvatica & Lignaria Hungarica boar: a study in Montesinho Natural Park, 5:189-197. Portugal. Galemys 16:223-230. CIHAN MEDIA SERVICES. 2010. Hungry wild GOLDSTEIN,E. J. C., D. M. CINTRON, T. E. boars attack people in western Turkish city. MERKIN, and M. J. PICKETT. 1990. Recov- http://www.cihanmedya.com/media_service ery of an unusual Flavobacterium group s/product.do?method=detail&productId=22 IIb-like isolate from a hand infection fol- 43&productDetailId=112066860&activePa lowing a pig bite. Journal of Clinical Mi- ge=0&productEvent=MaxNew&categoryId crobiology 28:1079-1081. =0. Accessed 4 Nov. 2010. GOULDING, M. J. 2003. Wild boar in Britain. COSTA TROPICAL. 2007. Two Motril teenagers Whittet Books, Ltd., Suffolk, United King- seriously hurt after wild boar attack. dom. http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publ GOULDING, M. J., and T. J. ROPER. 2002. Press ish/article_13557.shtml. Accessed 14 Nov. responses to the presence of free-living 2007. wild boar (Sus scrofa) in southern England. DAS, R. 2004. Wild boar kills village boy. The Mammal Review 32:272-282. Tribune,India. http://www.tribuneindia.com GOULDING, M. J., G. SMITH, and S. J. BAKER. /2004/20040128/haryana.htm. Accessed 9 1998. Current status and potential impact of May 2007. wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the English coun- DEFRA (DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, tryside: A risk assessment. Central Science FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS). 2004. The Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisher- ecology and management of wild boar in ies and Food, London, United Kingdom. southern England. Central Science Labora- GUBLER, J. G. H. 1992. Septic arthritis of the tory, Hutton, York, United Kingdom. knee induced by Pasteurella multocida and ELMAN, R., and G. PEPER. 1975. Hunting Amer- Bacteroides fragilis following an attack by ica’s game animals and birds. Winchester a wild boar. Journal of Wilderness Medi- Press, New York, USA. cine 3:288-291. EGUCHI, Y., T. TANAKA, and T. YOSHIMOTO. GUNDEZ, A., S. TUREDI, I. NUHOGLU, A. 2001. Some aspects of farrowing in Japa- KALKAN, and S. TURKMEN. 2007. Wild nese wild boars, Sus scrofa leucomystax, boar attacks. Wilderness and Environmen- under captive conditions. Animal Science tal Medicine 18:117–119. Journal, 72(7):J49-J54. HATAKE, K., T. TANIGUCHI, M. NEGORO, H. ESCANDE, F., A. BAILLY, S. BONE, and J. OUCHI, T. MINAMI, and S. HISHIDA. 1995. LEMOZY. 1996. Actinobacillus suis infec- A case of death of a woman attacked by a tion after a pig bite. Lancet 348:888. wild boar. Research and Practice in Foren- FERAL HOG COP (COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE). sic Medicine 38:275-277. 2012. Feral hogs in your backyard. HIGASHINADA WARD OFFICE (KOBE-CITY, JA- http://www.extension.org/ pages/ 63619/ PAN). 2003. Wild boars: about wild boars. feral-hogs-in-your-backyard. Accessed 9 http://www.city.kobe.jp/cityoffice/81/e/wil Jan 2013. d/index.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2007. FREDRIKS, A. M., S. VAN BUUREN, W. J. M. VAN HORANSKY, A. 2011. Marble Falls man attacked HEEL, R. H. M. DIJKMAN-NEERINCX, S. P. by feral pig. KVUE News. VERLOOVE-VANHORICK, and J. M. WIT. http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Marble- 2005. Nationwide age references for sitting Falls-man-attacked-by-feral-pig- height, leg length, and sitting height/height 125454263.html. Accessed 18 Jul 2011. ration, and their diagnostic value for dis- KAMAT, K. L. 1997. Cave paintings of India: proportionate growth disorders. Archives of prehistoric rock paintings of Bhimbetaka. Disease in Childhood 90:807-812. http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/rockpain/6 FREER, L. 2004. North American wild mamma- 016.htm. Accessed 10 Jul 2007. lian injuries. Emergency Medicine Clinics KIM, G. 2008. Wild boars threaten many S. Ko- of North America 22:445-473. rean cities. The Seoul Times.

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/re guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1982175,0 ad.php?idx=6806&PHPSESSID=6d1d44db 0.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2007. c61afc47355da2bd696a602f. Accessed 7 MOREHOUSE, L. G., L. D. KINTNER, and S. L. Jul 2008. NELSON. 1968. Rabies in swine. Journal of KOSE, O., F. GULER, A. B. BAZ, S. AKALIN, and the American Veterinary Medical Associa- A. TURAN. 2011. Management of a wild tion 153:57–64. boar wound: a case report. Wilderness and PHILLIPS, W. W. A. 1935. Manual of the mam- Environmental Medicine 22:242-245. mals of Ceylon. Dulau & Co., Ltd, London, LEVER, C. 1985. Naturalized mammals of the United Kingdom. world. Longman, London, United King- PRADESH, A. 2009. Boar attacks child. dom. http://www.thehindu.com/2009/09/20/storie MANGASARIAN, L. 2010. Berlin’s wild boar s/2009092058970600.htm. Accessed 27 population cut in half by hunters, coldness. Sep 2009. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010- RAJENDRA, K. R., and K. CHANDRU. 2011. 03-12/berlin-s-wild-boar-population-cut-in- Death – who caused it? Wild boar or Doc- half-by-hunters-coldness.html. Accessed 22 tor – case report. Anil Aggrawal’s Internet Apr 2010. Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicol- MANIPADY, S., R. G. MENEZES, and B. K. ogy, 12(2). http://www.anilaggrawal.com BASTIA. 2006. Death by attack from a wild /ij/vol_012_no_002/papers/paper001.html. boar. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine Accessed 8 Dec 2011. 13:89-91. RAPPAPORT, R. A. 1968. Pigs for the ancestors: MASSEI, G. 2010. Too many pigs? Population ritual in the ecology of a New Guinea peo- trends and control methods for wild boar ple. Yale University Press, New Haven, and feral pigs. Page 29 in 2010 Internation- Connecticut, USA. al Wild Pig Conference – Science and RICCIUTI, E. R. 1976. Killer animals. Walker Management. 11-13 April 2010, Pensacola, Publishing Company, Inc., New York, Florida, USA. USA. MAYER, J. J., and I. L. BRISBIN, JR. 1988. Sex ROCKENBACH, S. I. 2005. “War upon our bor- identification of Sus scrofa based on canine der”: War and society in two Ohio valley morphology. Journal of Mammalogy communities, 1861-1865. Ph.D. Disserta- 69:408-412. tion, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. MAYER, J. J., and I. L. BRISBIN, JR., editors. SAN ANTONIO NEWS. 2006. Wild hog attacks 2009. Wild pigs: biology, damage, control man. http://www.ksat.com/news/9424590 techniques and management. SRNL-RP- /detail.html. Accessed 21 Feb 2009. 2009-00869. Savannah River National La- SEVERN TEMPLE. 2004. Graveyard: those who boratory, Aiken, South Carolina, USA. have left the covenant. Severn Temple MCDOWELL, M. A., C. D. FRYAR, C. L. OGDEN, Covenant. http://www.sophist.talktalk.net/ and K. M. FLEGAL. 2008. Anthropometric dead.htm. Accessed 27 Jun 2007. reference data for children and adults: Unit- SHETTY, M., R. G. MENEZES, T. KANCHAN, B. ed States, 2003-2006. National Health Sta- S. K. SHETTY, and A. CHAUHAN. 2008. Fa- tistics Report No. 10, U.S. Department of tal craniocerebral injury from wild boar at- Health and Human Services, Washington, tack. Wilderness and Environmental Medi- D.C., USA. cine 19:222–223. MEMELONI, P. H., and A. M. CHAND. 2002. THE HINDU (ONLINE EDITION OF INDIA’S NA- Killed by a boar. International Journal of TIONAL NEWSPAPER). 2009. Wild boar kills Medical Toxicology and Legal Medicine farmer. http://www.thehindu.com/009/08 5:10. /09/stories/2009080951920400.htm. Ac- MORRIS, S. 2007. Woman, 80, saves pet from cessed 13 Aug 2009. wild boar on Dartmoor. The THE INDEPENDENT (LONDON). 2004. Hungry Guardian/Guardian Unlimited. http://www. wild boar attacks man in apartment. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158

/is_200040101/ai_n9685504. Accessed 24 Apr 2007. TISDELL, C. A. 1982. Wild pigs: environmental pest or economic resource? Pergamon Press, New York, USA. TOWNE, C. W., and E. N. WENTWORTH. 1950. Pigs from cave to cornbelt. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, USA. TRIBUNE NEW SERVICE. 2008. Leopard, wild boarinjure two. http://www.tribuneindia. com/2008/20080207/himachal.htm#10. Accessed 9 Feb 2008. WALKER, M. 2008. In Berlin’s boar war, some side with the hogs. The Wall Street Journal 252:A1 WILLIAMS, D. J., A. J. ANSFORD, D. S. PRIDAY, and A. S. FORREST. 1998. Fo- rensic pathology: colour guide. Elsevier Health Services, Elsevier Press, New York, USA. WILSON, C. J. 2005. Feral wild boar in England: status, impact and management. DEFRA, RDS National Wildlife Management Team, Exeter, United Kingdom.