Evaluation of fences for containing feral swine under simulated depopulation conditions

Abstract

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.

Effectiveness of cattle operated bump gates and exclusion fences in preventing ungulate multi-host sanitary interaction

“…Several reports have examined the efficacy of a variety of psychological, physical and biological barrier alternatives to traditional methods to evaluate their potential to be used for excluding or containing wild ungulates. Frightening devices , laser lights (VerCauteren et al, 2006a), propane gas exploders (Gilsdorf et al, 2004), livestock protection dogs (VerCauteren et al, 2008;Gehring et al, 2011), human-used bump gates (VerCauteren et al, 2009), electrified enclosures (Karhu and Anderson, 2006;Reidy et al, 2008) and fencing (VerCauteren et al, 2006b;Lavelle et al, 2011;Phillips et al, 2012) have all been evaluated and have varying efficacy in deterring wild ungulates from cattle resources. A fence design has been tested to successfully exclude elk without impeding other wildlife, including smaller ungulates , which is based on the fact that different body size impacts the ability to breach.…”

Impact of baiting on feral swine behavior in the presence of culling activities

“…Fencing has been proposed for containment of emergency disease epidemics in free-ranging feral swine (Lavelle et al, 2011); however pathogen containment will likely not occur with fences alone, because of their high construction costs, incomplete effectiveness, and because they are time consuming to erect (Reidy et al, 2008;Lavelle et al, 2011). For example, in Australia it has been demonstrated that several weeks could be expected to pass before passive surveillance detected an emergency epidemic in feral swine (Hone and Pech, 1990); during this time there could be substantial spread of pathogens and related disease.…”

Wild pigs breach farm fence through harvest time in southern San Joaquin Valley

“…While field trials have produced fence designs that will contain pigs (Lavelle et al 2011), Hone and Atkinson (1983) found that pigs can breach many types of fences and learn where they are most easily breached. Previous studies found that wild pigs tend to access fields closest to a wildland edge (Geisser and Reyer 2004;Thurfjell et al 2009).…”

“…If in good repair, the perimeter fences would be considered pig-proof based on small-scale fence trials (Hone and Atkinson 1983;Lavelle et al 2011): They were approximately 3.2 to 3.6 feet (0.9 to 1.1 meters) tall and made of 2.5-inch (6.4-centimeter) mesh chain link with horizontal barbed wire strands. Single or double strands of barbed wire typically extended above the top of the chain link.…”