In 2003 we conducted a study to determine the consequences of feral hog (Sus scrofa) invasions in several ecoregions of Texas. We examined the observations, experiences, and actions of landowners and managers concerning feral hogs on their property. We used purposive sampling of landowners and managers who fit 1 or more of 3 selection criteria. Landowners and managers were either sent a self‐administered, mail‐out questionnaire or given a copy of the questionnaire during pesticide applicator workshops. There were 775 survey participants. The effective response rate from those landowners and managers who received a mailed questionnaire was 62% (n=284). Nearly all (95%, n = 491) of the pesticide applicator workshop participants turned in a completed questionnaire. Sampling error based on the farms (includes ranches) in Texas and in each region was ±3%, α=0.05. The majority (74%) of respondents were ranchers, and 18% were farmers. Most respondents felt that feral hogs came from the neighbor's property and were an agricultural pest. Rooting, wallowing, and crop damage were the major forms of damage caused by feral hogs. The average economic loss due to hog damage, over the lifetime ownership of the land by the respondent, was $7,515 (U.S). Hog control was an incidental process. The average cost for hog control over the lifetime ownership of the land by the respondent was $2,631 (U.S.). There was strong support for programs related to feral hog management and control, but only half of the survey participants responded to the question. The average quiz score of 11.5 indicated that respondents could correctly respond to < 50% of the 26 questions. Region was found to have an effect (P < 0.05) on all questions tested except one. Management implications included the need for educational programs about feral hogs, how landowners can make better use of feral hogs on their property, ongoing education efforts about feral hogs, and the impact of this study on the public policy and decision‐making process.

No abstract

Resource sharing among stocked striped bass (Morone saxatilis), young-of-the-year white bass (Morone chrysops), and yellow bass (Morone mississippiensis) in Watts Bar Reservoir, Tennessee, was evaluated by determining distribution patterns and prey utilization. Fish were collected in 1978 by electrofishing shoreline transects near seven sites where fingerling striped bass were stocked. Electrofishing catch rates generally were positively correlated among species but preferences for substrates were not consistently detected across sample periods. Although distribution patterns were similar, the three species appeared to utilize different sizes of prey. Striped bass consumed relatively big prey such as fish larvae and large invertebrates while yellow bass mainly ate zooplankton. White bass were opportunistic, eating fish and dipteran larvae when they were abundant but consuming smaller prey at other times. Ecological segregation of the basses by food size may affect the success of striped bass introductions, but qualitative similarities of foods eaten by youngof-the-year striped bass and many other reservoir fishes indicate the need for further studies of resource nse and species interactions.The discovery that the striped bass (Morone saxatilis) could complete its life cycle in Santee-Cooper Reservoir, South Carolina (Scruggs 1957), prompted extensive introductions of the species into freshwater impoundments throughout the United States. Introductions have been promoted because striped bass grow rapidly to a large size and consume shad (Dorosoma spp.) that are abundant in many reservoirs. Establishment of reproducing populations has been rare, however, and striped bass are maintained in most reservoirs by annual stockings of fry or fingerlings.Techniques for artificially spawning and rearing striped bass have been studied and devel-• Present address: Georgia Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, School of Forest Resources,