Eradication of Feral Pigs From Pinnacles National Monument

McCann, Blake E.; Garcelon, David K.

doi:10.2193/2007-164

Cited by 72 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are additional examples of the successful use of such intermediate strategies, removing mammalian IAS to a barrier or maintaining a buffer zone to prevent recolonisation. These include the use of fenced ‘mainland islands’ in New Zealand, mongoose ( Herpestes javanicus , St‐Hiliare) control on Okinawa and removal of feral swine ( Sus scrofa , L.) from fenced areas in US national parks . While requiring ongoing effort to maintain the buffer zone or fence, these provide many of the benefits of true eradication but with ongoing costs, as the buffer must be maintained forever or the invasion process will repeat itself.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The large-scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous examples exist of successful mammalian invasive alien species (IAS) eradications from small islands (<10 km2), but few from more extensive areas. We review 15 large‐scale removals (mean area 2627 km2) from Northern Europe since 1900, including edible dormouse, muskrat, coypu, Himalayan porcupine, Pallas' and grey squirrels and American mink, each primarily based on daily checking of static traps. Objectives included true eradication or complete removal to a buffer zone, as distinct from other programmes that involved local control to limit damage or spread. Twelve eradication/removal programmes (80%) were successful. Cost increased with and was best predicted by area, while the cost per unit area decreased; the number of individual animals removed did not add significantly to the model. Doubling the area controlled reduced cost per unit area by 10%, but there was no evidence that cost effectiveness had increased through time. Compared with small islands, larger‐scale programmes followed similar patterns of effort in relation to area. However, they brought challenges when defining boundaries and consequent uncertainties around costs, the definition of their objectives, confirmation of success and different considerations for managing recolonisation. Novel technologies or increased use of volunteers may reduce costs. Rapid response to new incursions is recommended as best practice rather than large‐scale control to reduce the environmental, financial and welfare costs. © 2016 Crown copyright. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The large-scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The BJudas^hog technique, or using feral swine with very high frequency (VHF) or Global Positioning System (GPS) collars to locate other feral swine, has been used with some success to eradicate feral swine from islands, national parks, and fenced areas (McIlroy and Gifford 1997;McCann and Garcelon 2008;Parkes et al 2010). Although there are no toxicants currently registered by the US Environmental Protection Agency for use on feral swine in the USA, researchers in New Zealand have recently registered a bait matrix that includes sodium nitrite and is lethal to feral swine (Shapiro et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of simulated removal activities on movements and space use of feral swine

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abundance and distribution of feral swine (Sus scrofa) in the USA have increased dramatically during the last 30 years. Effective measures are needed to control and eradicate feral swine populations without displacing animals over wider areas. Our objective was to investigate effects of repeated simulated removal activities on feral swine movements and space use. We analyzed location data from 21 feral swine that we fitted with Global Positioning System harnesses in southern MO, USA. Various removal activities were applied over time to eight feral swine before lethal removal, including trapped-and-released, chased with dogs, chased with hunter, and chased with helicopter. We found that core space-use areas were reduced following the first removal activity, whereas overall space-use areas and diurnal movement distances increased following the second removal activity. Mean geographic centroid shifts did not differ between pre-and postperiods for either the first or second removal activities. Our information on feral swine movements and space use precipitated by human removal activities, such as hunting, trapping, and chasing with dogs, helps fill a knowledge void and will aid wildlife managers. Strategies to optimize management are needed to reduce feral swine populations while preventing enlarged home ranges and displacing individuals, which could lead to increased disease transmission risk and human-feral swine conflict in adjacent areas.

show abstract

“…An 0.8‐m‐tall wire‐mesh fence (>75 km) effectively controlled movements of feral swine, facilitating eradication of feral swine from several management units in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (Hone and Stone 1989). A fence in California totaling 42 km and costing $2 million enabled land managers in the Pinnacles National Monument to successfully eradicate feral swine from 57 km 2 (McCann and Garcelon 2008). Electric fences can also be effective in decreasing movements of feral swine (Hone and Atkinson 1983, Reidy et al 2008, Vidrih and Trdan 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of fences for containing feral swine under simulated depopulation conditions

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Populations of feral swine (Sus scrofa) are estimated to include >2 million animals in the state of Texas, USA, alone. Feral swine damage to property, crops, and livestock exceeds $50 million annually. These figures do not include the increased risks and costs associated with the potential for feral swine to spread disease to domestic livestock. Thus, effective bio‐security measures will be needed to quickly isolate affected feral swine populations during disease outbreaks. We evaluated enclosures built of 0.86‐m‐tall traditional hog panels for containing feral swine during 35 trials, each involving 6 recently caught animals exposed to increasing levels of motivation. During trials, fences were 97% successful when enclosures were entered by humans for maintenance purposes; 83% effective when pursued by walking humans discharging paintball projectors; and in limited testing, 100% successful when pursued and removed by gunners in a helicopter. In addition to being effective in containing feral swine, enclosures constructed of hog panels required simple hand tools, took <5 min/m to erect, and were inexpensive ($5.73/m excluding labor) relative to other fencing options. As such, hog‐panel fences are suitable for use by state and federal agencies for rapid deployment in disease response situations, but also exhibit utility for general control of other types of damage associated with feral swine. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Eradication of Feral Pigs From Pinnacles National Monument

Cited by 72 publications

References 20 publications

The large-scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe

The large-scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe

Effects of simulated removal activities on movements and space use of feral swine

Evaluation of fences for containing feral swine under simulated depopulation conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About