2012 Georgia Wild Pig Survey Final Report

Michael T Mengak, PhD, CWB©, Professor-Wildlife Outreach Specialist, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 USA [email protected]

Summary No matter what we call them, free-ranging hogs can be very destructive to forests, farms, orchards, crops, and timber plantations. A six-page questionnaire was developed during the summer/fall of 2011 with input from members of the Georgia Feral Hog Working Group. Questions were taken or adapted from existing similar wild pig surveys recently completed in other southern states. A total of 1200 surveys were delivered to randomly selected recipients and 471 useable surveys were returned. This yielded a response rate of 39.25%. Most respondents reported having wild hog damage to land they farm and that the damage was first noticed more than five years ago. The cumulative impact of multiple years of damage can take a substantial toll -financial and emotional - on the landowner or agricultural producer. This burden is addressed throughout the survey. The most common type of damage was from rooting and grubbing. Peanuts, corn, and cotton were the crops most frequently reported damaged. Respondents were asked to self-report a dollar amount of damage to crops or crop related damage and damage to items other than crops. Respondents reported an average loss to crops and/or crop related damage (e.g., damage to equipment, etc.) due to wild pigs during 2011 of $12,646 per respondent (Range $100 - $300,000). The total losses reported by respondents during 2011 were $2,263,800. Expanding this to the southwest Extension District (41 counties) results in an estimated amount of wild pig damage to crops and/or crop related damage in excess of 57 million dollars ($57,005,321). Respondents reported an average loss to items other than crops (e.g., timber, food plots, lease values, etc.) due to wild pigs during 2011 of $5,381 per respondent (Range $25 - $100,000). The total non-crop losses reported by respondents during 2011 were $654,775. Expanding this figure to the region reveals an estimated amount of wild pig damage to non-crop values in excess of $24 million dollars ($24,256,336). Together losses due to wild pigs reportedly exceeded 81 million dollars in 2011. Respondents felt that most control measures were not highly effective and that state and federal agencies should provide more assistance with wild pig control. Questions related to knowledge, opinions and attitudes about wild pigs revealed that survey participants differed in their knowledge of wild pigs but generally opinions about the animal were negative and the perceived need for control was widespread. Clearly, there is much need for additional educational outreach concerning wild pigs. As indicated by responses to questions throughout this survey, the origin, disease risk, ecological role, and effective control methods of wild pigs are all areas in need of additional educational efforts. Future research could be directed at the impact of wild pigs on other game species. Many respondents perceived a decline in white-tail deer, wild turkey, and northern bobwhite and attributed this decline, at least partially, to the abundance and activity of wild pigs.

2

Introduction Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) are not native to United States. Most authorities believe they were first introduced by the Spanish in the mid-1500’s. Many hogs present in our forests and fields today are descendants of farm animals turned loose from family farms during the Depression and early part of the 20th century. Other feral hogs originated from animals intentionally released for stocking and hunting opportunities - a practice that is generally illegal throughout most of the South. Some stock is Photo 1. Sounder of wild pigs reported to be imported from Europe - so called “Russian Boars” or “Russian Wild Hogs.” All pigs (or hogs) are the same species and there is no biological difference between farm pigs, wild boars, or feral hogs. Farm pigs will revert to the natural color, size, and attitude of “wild boars” within a few short generations. They will be generically referred to as wild pigs in this report. No matter what we call them, free-ranging wild pigs can be very destructive to forests, farms, orchards, crops, and timber plantations. They can also be a challenging animal to hunt and are pursued by many big game hunters throughout the southeastern US. Wild pigs are reported to occur in 38 states. In most cases, they cause significant financial and ecological damage. They carry important diseases that may be transmitted to hunters, domestic livestock and pets. In a recent study in the journal Human-Wildlife Interactions, swine brucellosis was reported in up to 14% of animals tested with highest occurrence of infected animals in South Carolina, Alabama, and Hawaii. Physical descriptions of wild pigs and valuable information about their management, control, spread, ecology, and biology are available in recent publications. These are available from the Berryman Institute (www.berrymaninstiture.org/publications; Monograph No. 1 - Managing Wild Pigs: A Technical Guide); Mississippi State University Extension Service (http://msucares.com/pubs; Publication 2659 - A landowner’s guide for wild pig management); and the Warnell School Outreach Publication Library at the University of Georgia (http://www.warnell.uga.edu/outreach/pubs/wildlife.php). While information is easily available on the biology and ecology of wild pigs, less is known about their management, control, and impacts to farms, agricultural producers, and landowners. Few studies are available on public attitudes towards wild pigs and their presence in the environment. The objectives of this project were to use a statistically valid and reliable survey and methodology: 1 - to assess the extent of wild pig distribution in the Southwest Cooperative Extension District (SWED or “SW District”) of Georgia; 2 - to assess the damage (physical and economic) attributable to wild pigs in the SW District; and, 3 - to gather information on the opinions of landowners regarding the presence of wild pigs in the SW District.

3

Methods The Southwest Extension District of Georgia (http://extension.uga.edu/about/county/district.cfm?pk_id=114) includes 41 counties with headquarters in Tifton, GA. In the spring of 2011, district personnel - responding to numerous complaints and inquires for citizens, farmers, and landowners - contacted the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS) office in Albany, GA seeking guidance on wild pig management. After several meetings, it was determined that a reasonable course of action would be to form the SW Georgia Wild Pig Working Group modeled after a similar group in South Carolina. The first Working Group meeting was held in June 2011 at Abraham Baldwin Agriculture College (ABAC) in Tifton, GA. Attendees Photo 2. Wild pig rooting represented numerous wildlife management and agriculture interests damage to agriculture field in including USDA-APHIS-WS, ABAC, State Veterinarian Office, GA southwest Georgia. Department of Natural Resources (GaDNR) - Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) and Law Enforcement (LE), University of Georgia - Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources (Warnell), Jones Ecological Research Center (Jones Center), and other agencies and organizations. Several approaches were outlined to address the growing problems that wild pigs were causing in the District. One approach was a research based survey to assess the extent and general nature of the problem. This survey was conducted by Dr. Michael T. Mengak, Professor - Wildlife Outreach Specialist at the Warnell School. The results of this survey are reported in this document. During the summer and fall of 2011, funds were raised from multiple partners to support the survey described in this report. Funding partners included the Georgia Farm Bureau, the Georgia Peanut Commission, the Georgia Cotton Commission, the Warnell School at UGA, the office of the Associate Dean of Extension- College of Agriculture and Life Science, UGA, the Georgia Forestry Association, and the Quality Deer Management Association. Additional support was received from the SW District of the UGA Cooperative Extension Service, USDA Wildlife Services, the Jones Ecological Research Center, and the Southern Extension Forester. The SW District provided access to their databases of names of producers, clients, landowners, farmers and citizen who had previously attended a Cooperative Extension Service educational program. The database was a MS Excel spreadsheet consisting of four separate parts with more than 17,000 names and addresses. The four parts were merged; duplicates and businesses were deleted resulting in a useable database of over 12,000 names. From this list, 1,300 names and addresses were randomly chosen using the random number generator in the MS Excel spreadsheet. In addition, the Jones Center supplied a database of their cooperating landowners (approximately 140 names). From the Jones Center list, 37 names and addresses were randomly chosen in the same manner and the two lists were combined to form a single list of 1,337 names and addresses.

4

A six-page questionnaire was developed during summer/fall 2011 with input from members of the SW Georgia Wild Pig Working Group. Questions were taken from similar wild pig surveys recently completed in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. In addition, questions were taken from a recent survey of Georgia residents regarding attitudes towards black bears in Georgia. All questions were modified (re-written or re-phrased) to apply to Georgia and to wild pigs. Members of the working group task force on research reviewed the questions, suggesting changes and additional questions. The Farm Bureau and two commissions commented on early drafts of the questionnaire. The SW District Cooperative Extension Service also reviewed the questions. Experts in survey research also provided input in the survey design. These included Dr. Craig Miller, Senior Scientist, Illinois Natural History Survey and Dr. Gary Green, Associate Professor, Warnell School-UGA. The final questionnaire was approved by the University of Georgia Office of The Vice President for Research - Institutional Review Board (IRB-Approval # 2012-10023-0; approved 12 December 2011). The final questionnaire is included in Appendix A of this report. In addition, an information letter (Appendix B) and list of frequently asked questions (FAQ - Appendix C) was developed and included in material sent out to all randomly chosen survey participants. The first mail package consisted of: 1 - the questionnaire, 2 - the information letter, 3 - the FAQ sheet, and 4 - a postage paid preaddressed return envelope. The first mailing of 1337 survey packets was sent from Athens, GA on 23 January 2012. Returned and undeliverable surveys were deleted from the dataset and 1100 reminder postcards were sent to the original mailing list on 7 February 2012 (15 days). Again, deleting returned and undeliverable surveys resulted in a list of 900 participants from the original list of 1337. A Photo 3. Sounder of wild pigs caught in a simple to complete survey packet was mailed to each construct hog trap. these 900 individuals on 23 February 2012 (16 days). Accounting for undeliverable surveys (due to bad address, deceased individuals, miscellaneous undeliverable reasons), 1200 surveys were delivered. All data were entered into an on-line electronic version of the survey (Survey Monkey®). Once all information was entered, original raw data and summaries were downloaded into MS Excel spreadsheets for analysis. Data analysis consisted of frequency histograms, counts, and percentage responses for qualitative and binomial (YES-NO) questions, and means (and standard deviation) for numerical data. Opinion questions were phrased in such a way that they could be answered using a 5point Likert-type scale (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Unsure, Agree, Strongly Agree). Opinion questions were first summarized by reducing to a 3-point scale (Strongly Disagree/Disagree were combined; Agree/Strongly Agree were combined). Data are presented as frequency histograms, pie charts, tables 5

or numeric responses (average and standard deviation). A response to each question or question cluster is discussed individually below and throughout the remainder of this report.

Results and Discussion Background Using statistics on Georgia agriculture from the Georgia Statistics Database at the UGA College of Agriculture & Life Sciences (www.georgiastats.uga.edu, Accessed 17 June 2012), a background profile on the state of agriculture in the 41 counties of the SW Cooperative District was assembled. The most recent figures in the Georgia Statistics Database are from 2007. The number of farms in the SW district totaled 11,205. Total land area in farms was 4,263,302 acres. Harvested cropland in 2007 was 1,902,281 acres and average farm size varied from a low of 145 acres in Lowndes County to a high of 869 acres in Calhoun County. Total land area of the 41 counties in the SW District is 9.735 million acres. The five largest counties by total acreage are Clinch County (517,760 acres), Decatur County (382,080 acres), Worth County (364,800 acres), Colquitt County (353,280 acres), and Thomas County (350,720 acres). A total of 1200 surveys were delivered to recipients and 471 useable surveys were returned. This yielded a response rate of 39.25%. Other surveys of this nature typically report response rates of 2240%. Josh Agee (UGA, MS Thesis 2008) used a similar self-administered mail survey sent to residents of middle Georgia regarding attitudes toward black bears and reported a response rate of 34.6%. Survey Results Question 1: Please tell us about where you own or rent land. List the County in which you own/rent land and indicate the number of acres you own/rent. (Please indicate each county where you own/rent). Survey participants were asked to respond by selecting 1 of 8 categories. The first seven categories were portioned into 50-acre increments (1-50 acres, 51-100 acres, and so on). The eighth category was “Over 350 acres.” For this analysis, the mid-point of each of the first seven categories was used for analysis. So, a response of “1-50 acres” was recorded as 25 acres. For the 8th category, responses were recorded as 400 acres. While this is not a precise estimate of acreage covered by this survey, the initial survey reviewers felt that survey participants would be reluctant to provide exact acreage figures. Therefore, the estimates of acreage included in this report should be considered to be a conservative estimate of the land impacted by wild pigs and reported by survey respondents. The actual acreage is likely higher than reported here.

6

Table 1. County of operation reported by 473 respondents (respondents owned or leased land) to the Georgia wild pig self-administered mail questionnaires conducted between 23 January 2012 and 15 March 2012 for the SW Cooperative Extension District in Georgia, USA. Answer Options Baker County Ben Hill County Berrien County Brooks County Calhoun County Clay County Clinch County Colquitt County Cook County Crisp County Decatur County Dooly County Dougherty County Early County Echols County Grady County Houston County - Perry Irwin County Lanier County Lee County Lowndes County Macon County Marion County Miller County Mitchell County Peach County Pulaski County Quitman County Randolph County Schley County Seminole County Stewart County Sumter County Taylor County Terrell County Thomas County Tift County Turner County Webster County Wilcox County Worth County OTHER Other (please specify)

1-50 acres 2 2 5 1 0 0 4 7 1 0 1 0 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 3 1 0 2 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 3

51100 acres 0 3 4 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 4 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 4 1 2

101150 acres 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 0

151200 acres 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 2

201250 acres 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 3 2

251300 acres 1 0 2 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0

301350 acres 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1

Over 350 acres 7 3 9 10 11 8 3 16 5 8 11 15 8 12 1 5 3 13 3 13 6 6 3 8 22 2 9 7 9 2 6 5 15 6 12 8 8 8 8 11 20 12

Response Count 10 11 25 21 13 12 10 31 7 11 17 18 13 22 4 13 5 20 7 20 15 19 4 16 32 4 16 10 18 7 13 9 23 14 16 14 17 20 12 22 29 22 26

7

This question was answered by 97.2 % (N = 458) of respondents. Of the respondents, 94.3% (N = 432) reported owning or leasing a total of 182,625 acres (Table 1) in the region or an average of 422.7 acres per respondent to this survey. This represents approximately 4.3% of the total land area of farms in the SW District. An additional 26 respondents reported owning or leasing land outside the 41-county region covered by this survey. The five leading counties (based on acreage reported in the survey) were Mitchell County (9,950 acres), Worth County (9,425 acres), Colquitt County Photo 4. Typical scene of wallowing hogs. (8,075 acres), Sumter County (8,050 acres), and Dooly County (6,575 acres). The largest number of respondents (N=32) was from Mitchell County and the fewest number of respondents were from Echols and Marion Counties (N=4 responses each). Most respondents (N=345) reported owning or leasing over 350 acres of land (Table 1). The number of responses totals 620 because respondents often owned/leased land in more than one county. They were not asked to choose a county, so responses to later questions in the survey probably refer to all lands they own/lease and not to any particular parcel. Thus, responses are likely a general overview of the perceived overall nature of wild pig issues and not specific to any one piece of land. Question 2. What is the Primary use for this land? (Please select one) This question was perhaps the most troublesome question on the survey. Respondents were asked to choose the Primary use of the land. This was meant to assess the major land use purpose as identified by survey respondents. However, very few respondents selected a “primary” land use. Rather, nearly every respondent selected two or even three “primary” uses. This obviously negates the purpose of the question; that is, to assess primary use. Instead, the responses provide insight into the range of uses for the lands in question. As such, we can better understand the range of impacts wild pigs may be having on the various types of land use in the survey area. The question was answered by 92.4% (N=435) of the respondents. Since respondents often selected more than one response, totals exceed 100%. Row crops production was selected by the majority of respondents (62.8%, N=273) while timber production was the second most frequently chosen response (24.6%; N=107) (Table 2). Respondents were given the opportunity to list the crops they produced if they selected “row crop production” as a major land use function and 86.4% (N=236) supplied information on the crops they produced. The number of crops produced ranged from 1 to 7 (Figure 1). Most (30.5%) producers reported producing 3 crops followed by 2 crops (28.0%), 4 crops (16.9%), 5 crops (10.6%), 1 crop (7.6%), 6 crops (5.5%), and 7 crops (0.8%). The most frequently grown crops were peanuts (28.4% of respondents grow peanuts), cotton (25.7% of respondents), corn (17.4% of respondents), and wheat (8.3% of respondents) (Figure 1). 8

In the “livestock production” category, cattle were the most frequently (64.2%) selected response (Figure 2). A total of 93 people (Table 2) selected this response category but only 81 (87.2%) people (Figure 2) listed the livestock they raised. In the “other” category (Table 1) for land use (selected by 44 respondents) - home, home & pasture, home and garden - were the most frequent responses selected by 14 respondents. Pecan production was selected by 10 respondents. Other responses included: aesthetics (N=1), bee keeping (N=2), CRP-longleaf (N=1), daylily nursery (N=1), hay (N=4), organic-U-pick farm (N=1), food plot/garden (N=1), investment (N=2), land near lake (N=1), nursery (N=1), pasture (N=1), poultry/row crop (N=1), quail habitat (N=1), timber/pecan (N=1), and vegetables (N=1). Table 2. The various uses of land as reported by 471 respondents to the Georgia wild pig assessment survey administered 23 Jan 2012 to 15 March 2012 to landowners in the SW Cooperative Extension District of Georgia, USA. Primary Land Use Row Crop Production Timber Production Livestock Production Hunting Mixed Use (no use exceeds 50% of acreage) Recreation Other Total answering question Number skipping question

Response Percent

Response Count

62.8 24.6 21.4 15.2

273 107 93 66

11.0 3.0 44

48 13 435 36

Respondents were asked to report if wild pigs were currently present on their land. If they provided a negative response, the survey instructed them to skip ahead to more general opinion questions about wild pigs. However, if they responded positively they were lead to a series of additional questions about wild pig damage, methods adopted to deal with damage, degree of damage, and perceived impacts on other wildlife and wildlife habitat. If they responded as “unsure” the question implied that they should continue with each question rather than skip ahead as they would have if they answered in the negative. While not specifically stated in the question or in the survey instructions or introductory material, the question was meant to apply to the most recent year (2011). Later in the survey, other questions specifically asked about the current and prior years. It was assumed all responses (unless otherwise noted) apply to the most recent calendar year (i.e., 2011). The next 2 questions (one with 2 parts) related to the presence or absence of wild pigs and the presence or absence of damage. Question 3 about presence/absence of wild pigs had three answer choices - YES, NO, and UNSURE. If a respondent selected “NO”, they were instructed to skip ahead to Question # 17. If they selected “YES”, they were instructed to continue with question part 3a and part 9

3b and the remainder of the survey. If they chose “UNSURE”, they had the self-determined option of continuing the questions in sequence OR skipping ahead to Question 17 (see Appendix A). In Question #4, it was asked if wild pigs ever caused damage to the respondents land. The significance here is that it was possible for a respondent to answer “UNSURE” to Q3 and rather than skip ahead to Q17, instead go to Q4. In this scenario a respondent may not have wild pigs (currently) present on their land (a “NO” response to Q3), but they might have previously had wild pig damage so they would answer Q4. In this scenario, there could be more responses to Q4 and later questions than would be assumed by simply subtracting the “NO” answers to Q3 from the total number of respondents. Answers to Q4 are a combination of the respondents who answered “YES” and “UNSURE” to Q3.

Percent of Respondents Growing each Crop

Row Crops Frequently Produced 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

Crop Reported Grown

Figure 1. Crops most commonly produced by respondents to the Georgia wild pig survey question on row crop production. Responses collected between 23 Jan 2012 and 15 Mar 2012 for residents in the SW Cooperative Extension District, Georgia, USA. Responses will total > 100% because multiple responses were possible.

10

Number of Responses

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Cattle

Cattle & other

Cows

Cows & other

Dairy Heifers

Horses

Poultry

Honey Bees

Livestock uses

Figure 2. Livestock raised by respondents (N=81 responses) to the 2012 Georgia wild pig assessment survey. Responses represent the number of people selecting livestock production as the primary use of lands they own/rent in the SW Cooperative Extension District, Georgia, USA. Survey was conducted between 23 Jan 2012 and 15 Mar 2012.

Question 3. Are feral hogs present on your land? (Circle one answer) From our 471 useable surveys, 98.5% (N=464) of survey respondents completed this question. Of these, 70.0% (N=325) reported that wild pigs were present on their land. Only 3.2% (N=15) were “unsure”, while the remainder (26.7%, N=124) responded “No.” Therefore there are 340 (325 “YES” plus 15 “UNSURE”) potential responses to the following questions. Question part 3a asked if the respondent hunted or shot wild pigs on their land. Here, 329 people responded to this sub-question and 80.9% (N=266) reported affirmatively - they hunt or shoot wild pigs. Only 19.1% (N=63) do not hunt/shoot wild pigs. When asked if they allow others to hunt/shoot wild pigs on their land, 84% (N=278) reported that they allow hunting/shooting of wild pigs while 16.0% (N=53) do not allow this activity. Question 4. Have feral pigs ever caused any type of damage to your land? (Circle one answer) Over 9% (95.5%, N=317) reported having damage at some time due to wild pigs on their land while only 4.5% (N=15) reported never having damage from wild pigs. A negative response to this question instructed respondents to skip ahead to Q17 and more general opinion questions about wild pigs. An affirmative response leads respondents to the questions below (questions 5-16).

11

Question 5. When did you first notice feral hogs or feral hog sign on your property? (Select one answer) Of the 340 potential respondents (that is, respondent answered “YES” or “UNSURE” to Q3 or answered “YES” to Q4), 92.9% (N=316) of respondents answered this question. The majority of respondents (56.5%) reported first noticing wild pigs or evidence of their presence more than 5 years ago - before 2007. Wild pigs or evidence of their presence was first noticed with the last 5 years by 26.3% (N=83) of people who answered this question (Figure 3). This indicates that people have been dealing with wild pigs and the damage they cause for many years. When did you first notice feral hogs or feral hog sign on this property?

4.1%

13.3% 2011 was first year Within the last 3 years

56.3%

26.3%

Within the last 5 years More than 5 years ago

Figure 3. Reported time when wild pigs or evidence of their presence was first noticed by respondents to the wild pig assessment survey administered to residents of the SW Cooperative Extension District of Georgia, USA. Survey was administered between 23 Jan 2012 and 15 Mar 2012. A total of 316 people completed this question out of 471 useable surveys returned to us.

The cumulative impact of multiple years of damage can take a substantial toll -financial and emotional - on the landowner or agricultural producer. While the financial toll may be obvious in lost crop values and equipment damage, the emotional toll is more difficult to quantify. Emotional toll may be simply worrying about potential damage (addressed in a later question). Other subtle impacts would occur if a producer made a decision to not plant a particular crop even though he/she might expect a greater financial return and instead planted a lesser value crop but one that might be less susceptible to damage from wild pigs. While this type of lost revenue is very real and important to an individual producer, this impact was not assessed in this survey. Future surveys and follow-up research may address this subject and attempt to quantify the impact of foregone revenue (which is a form of lost 12

revenue and therefore negative economic impact) due to the possibility of wild pig damage. An additional impact of wild pigs would occur if a producer completely abandoned farming due to economic losses (real or potential) from wild pigs. This issue was also not addressed in this survey but could be included in future or follow-up impact research. Question 6. Tell us the crops you grow or produce that were damaged by feral hogs. Survey respondents were given a choice of 10 crops based on input from survey reviewers (mostly county extension agents) who had direct knowledge of crops commonly produced in the study area. Two-hundred ninety five people answered this question. Damage to peanuts was the most frequently reported; 74.9% (N=221) of producers reported damage to their peanut crops (Figure 4). Peanut damage was followed by damage to corn (54.6% of respondents reported damage) and cotton (36.9% of respondents reported damage). Respondents were given the opportunity to supply an open-ended response to this question by selecting “other” from the crops listed. Seventy respondents supplied information on other crops damaged by wild pigs. The most frequently supplied responses were to wheat crops (35.7%, N=25) followed by food plots (17.1%, N=12), pecans (14.3%, N=10), and hay/pasture (10.0%, N=7). Other responses included: blackberries (N=2), grain sorghum (N=4), oats (N=3), and miscellaneous crops (1 each).

Resespondents (%) reporting damage to each crop

Crops you grow or produce that were damaged by feral hogs. 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Figure 4. Frequency (%) of crops reported damaged by wild pigs in southwest Georgia based on 295 responses provided people who replied to this question. Survey was conducted between 23 Jan 2012 and 15 Mar 2012 in 41 counties of the SW Cooperative Extension District in Georgia, USA. 13

Question 7. During 2011, what types of damage have you had? Respondents were asked to choose the type or types of damage they suffered from a list of damage events. In question #4, 317 people responded affirmatively that they had experienced damage from wild pigs. Three hundred ten people responded to this question. The most frequently (84.3%) selected type of damage was from rooting and grubbing (N=263). Other reported types of damage included damage to non-timber cash crops (63.9%, N=198), damage from wallowing activity (61.0%, N=189) and damage to food plots (45.5%, N=141). Sixteen types of damage were reported (Table 3) from the list we supplied and respondents reported several other types of damage. The type of damage most often reported in the “other” category was damage to “cover crops” - reported 3 times.

Photo 4. Wild hog rooting in landscape setting causes considerable damage and expense. In this photo a landowner’s front yard is severely rooted.

Table 3. Damage reported by 310 respondents to the Georgia wild pig impact assessment survey. Survey was conducted between 23 Jan 2012 and 15 Mar 2012 by mail questionnaire sent to residents in the 41 county SW Cooperative Extension District of Georgia, USA. Responses exceed 100% because multiple answers were possible. Type of Damage

Response Percent

Rooting or grubbing Damage to non-timber cash crop Wallows Damage to food plots Damage to pastures Damage to streams and ponds Loss to timber Damage or consume livestock feed/grain Damage to fences Landscape damage (Garden, Yard) Damage to equipment Loss of land value Damage/injury to livestock Loss of lease value Damage/injury to pets Loss of stored commodities Other types of damage not listed above Total Number who answered this question

84.8 63.9 61.0 45.5 32.3 25.2 18.7 16.1 15.5 15.5 7.7 5.5 3.2 2.9 1.3 0.6

Response Count 263 198 189 141 100 78 58 50 48 48 24 17 10 9 4 2 18 310 14

Question 7a. From the above list, tell us the ONE type of damage that was most important to you. Answers to question #7 above provide a general insight into the types of damage that might be caused by wild pigs. Respondents were given the option of telling me about the many types of damage they experienced. While it is important to get an overview of the various ways in which wild pigs can cause damage, it is also important to learn what type of damage is most important to the individual producer or survey respondent. In question 7a, respondents were asked to choose ONE type of damage that they felt was the most important damage to their particular set of circumstances. Though asked to select the one type of damage from the list above (Table 3), several respondents wrote in two of more types of damage that were most important. However, the most frequently reported damage that was most important was “Damage to cash crop (non-timber).” This response was selected 60% (N=181) of the time by the 302 respondents that replied (Figure 5). Additional damage considered “most important” to survey respondents was damage caused by rooting or grubbing (10.3%, N=31), damage to food plots (7.0%, N=21) and damage to pasture (3.6%, N=11).

Most important type of damage 1.3% 1.3%

CASH CROP

12.3%

1.3%

ROOTING

3.0%

FOOD PLOTS

3.6%

PASTURE TIMBER

7.0% 59.9% 10.3%

ALL TYPES PECANS ROOTING & WALLOWS ALL OTHER RESPONES

Figure 5. The most important damage caused by wild pigs as reported by 302 respondents answering this question. Survey was administered by mail between 23 Jan 2012 and 15 Mar 2012 to landowners in the SW Cooperative Extension District, Georgia, USA.

While not specifically a choice on the questionnaire (Question #7), several respondents to Q7a reported “damage to peanuts” as important to them (5%, N=15). These responses were re-coded as damage to cash crop (non-timber) and included in the totals for that response. Clearly, damage to crops, including damage to peanuts is very important to survey respondents (Figure 5). 15

Question 7b. How do you define importance? In question 7a above, participants were asked to select the ONE type of damage “most” important to them. In question 7b, they were given the opportunity to tell me how they (individually) defined “most important.” The most frequently selected response was “Cost me the most money.” This response was selected by 75.3 % (N=219) of respondents out of 291 that responded to this question. “Had a negative impact on how I use my land” was selected by 23.4% (N=68) respondents and “changed the appearance of my land in a bad way” was selected by 22% (N=64). Thirty-two respondents selected the option “other” and reported a variety of answers such as the negative impact wild pigs have on equipment, the difficulty of operating equipment in rooted fields, the risk of disease, damage to pine seedlings or various other ways to define importance of wild pig damage. Question 8. How has the wild pig population changed compared to last year, 3 years ago, 5 years ago? The problem of wild pigs is not improving. The majority of respondents felt that wild pig populations were the same or higher in each of the 3 time periods. Eighty-two percent (N=246) felt that wild pig populations were the same or higher compared to last year (2010). Eighty-three percent (N=248) felt that the wild pig populations were the same or higher compared to 3 years ago (2008). Seventy-eight percent (N=230) felt the wild pig populations were the same or higher compared to 5 years ago (2006). Few respondents thought the wild pig populations were lower compared to previous years (Table 4). Recapping the results so far show us that 70% of respondents felt that wild pigs were present on their land (Question 3) and 95.5% of respondents experienced damage from wild pigs to their land (Question 4). Furthermore, most (77% or more) felt that populations of wild pigs were the same or greater than 1-, 3-, and 5-years ago. The problem is not getting better and the potential for more damage and economic loss in the future is increasing. We asked survey participants if they sought outside help to assist with damage (Questions 9, 9a, 9b, and 9c) or if they conducted any control measures on their property (Question 13).

Table 4. Perceptions of the status of wild pig populations in southwest Georgia based on responses provided by participants in mail-survey conducted between 23 January 2012 and 15 March 2012 in the southwest Cooperative Extension district, Georgia. Current wild pig population compared to Last year (2010) 3 years ago (2008) 5 years ago (2006)

LOWER 11.3 10.4 13.9

PERCENT OF RESPONSES SAME HIGHER UNSURE 30.5 15.8 10.1

50.0 67.7 67.6

7.3 6.1 8.4

RESPONSE COUNT 302 297 296 16

Questions related to control - This next series of questions are related to control measures used by survey respondents. Question 9. When you have had damage, did you seek outside help (Select one). Respondents were nearly evenly split on the question; 49.8% (N=156) sought outside help to address wild pig damage issues while 50.2% (N=157) did not seek outside help. If respondents expressed that they sought outside help (that is, answered “YES” to question #9) to address damage problems related to wild pigs, they were asked to indicate who they contacted. Of the 156 survey participants who indicated that they sought outside help, 103 offered information on who they contacted. The most frequently selected source of outside help was a private hog control company (Figure 6). The second most frequently selected source of help was Georgia Wildlife Resources Division while the least frequently selected source was USDA APHIS Wildlife Services. An additional 62 people selected “other” on this question. Only 156 people responded that they sought outside help but 165 people selected an answer to the second part of the question, (103 who selected one of the five named choices plus 62 who selected “other”). This discrepancy often exists in survey response analysis. No attempt has been made to re-code responses into the “other” category to fit into one of the named choices. Summary responses listed as “other” are only reported. The most commonly indicated response in the “other” category for outside help with wild pig damage was “hog hunters” selected by 30.6% (19 of 62 responses) of respondents. This answer is a recoded summary of actual responses. Actual responses included such replies as “hunters”, “hog hunters”, “local hunters”, and “individual hunters.” The second most frequent reply was “dog hunters” selected by 27.4% (17 of 62 responses) and included such replies as “friends with dogs”, “hunters with dogs”, “anyone who hunts with dogs”, and “private hog hunters with dogs.” Other response categories include: anyone (10 of 62 responses); trapper, neighbor or self-hunt (3 responses each); dog hunter with night vision equipment or hunt & trap (2 responses each); night vision hunter, sniper team, trap & shoot (1 response each). Question 9a. Did this outside help reduce the damage? One hundred seventy-one people responded to this question. Most respondents (51.5%; N=88) felt that outside help did reduce damage while 29.5% (N=50) responded that the outside help did not reduce damage and 19.3% (N=33) were unsure if the outside help resulted in a reduction in wild pig damage.

17

If YES, please tell us who you contacted. (Please select all that apply) 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Cooperative Extension Service

Georgia Forestry Georgia Wildlife Private hog Commission Resources control company Division

USDA Wildlife Services

Figure 6. Sources of assistance used by respondents with wild pig damage who replied to the Georgia wild pig survey. Bars represent the percentage of respondents (N=103) who reported the source used for help with wild pig damage. Survey was conducted between 23 January 2012 and 15 March 2012 among landowners in the southwest Cooperative Extension District, Georgia.

Question 9b. Would you seek outside help again from this source? This question had 169 responses. Nearly 78% (N=131), replied that they would use the same source of help to reduce future wild pig damage. Thirteen percent (N=22) reported that they would not use the same source for future help and 9.5% (N=16) were unsure whether or not they would use the same source of assistance in the future. Question 9c. Would you seek help from another source? This question had 174 responses. Sixty-six percent (N=114) would seek help for another source; 14.4% (N=25) would not seek another source of help; and 20.1% (N=35) were unsure. Question 13. In the last year, which control measures have you used on feral hogs on this property? This question sought information on control measures used by producers or landowners and augments information obtained from questions 9 through 9c above. This question was answered by 299 respondents. Respondents could select more than one answer so responses will total more than 100%.

18

#13 -- In the last year, which control measures have you used on feral hogs on this property? 70.0%

Percent of Responses

60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Dog Hunting

Night Shooting

None

Opportunistic Still Hunting shooting

Trapping

Figure 7. Methods used to control wild pigs as reported by 299 respondents to the southwest Georgia feral hog survey conducted between 23 January 2012 and 15 March 2012 in the southwest Cooperative Extension District, Georgia.

The most frequently selected response (most frequently used control measure) was trapping selected by 58.9% (N=176) people. Other responses are related to hunting (Figure 7). Hunting and trapping are the most commonly used methods recommended for wild pig control. Several survey respondents called me to report “successful” pig control techniques. These “home-made” methods are not condoned by the wildlife management community. There are no poisons, toxicants, or repellents registered for use on wild pigs. Question 15. Which control measures work best? Open ended questions give respondents the opportunity to express individual answers but are difficult to analyze. A diversity of answers was provided but for analysis the answers were recoded to common categories. These categories will be used in the summary. Responses were provided by 284 survey participants. The most common control measures were hunting (cited 102 times), shooting (cited 47 times), and trapping (cited 35 times). Hunting includes stalking, still hunting, dog hunting, and night hunting. Shooting is, arguably, not different from hunting and could logically be combined with hunting. Trapping is almost always followed by dispatching of the trapped animals so this would have the same result as shooting. Taken together, lethal control was suggested by at least 184 (65%) of the respondents. 19

This question (Q15) and question 13 provide insight into methods currently used by landowners to control wild pigs. Perhaps just as interesting was the fact that 69 (25%) of respondents to Question 15 told me that nothing works. This reflects a feeling of hopelessness and despair but also provides valuable evidence of the need for additional education. Interestingly, only 3 respondents selected “fencing” as a useful control measure. Well-built fences can provide effective hog control but they are expensive thus their applicability on large fields is limited. Fences can provide effective wild pig control around food plots, gardens, and other small patches. Trapping methods are likely to be more effective at providing a broader scale control but landowners need access to trap materials, easy to use gates, and educational materials on trapping techniques. Trapping as a passive activity is less time consuming and less costly than hunting (shooting, dog hunting, night hunting, etc.) and may be more acceptable to landowners with already limited time and budgets. With proper training, traps can be deployed by landowners and would preclude the need for expensive hunting control. Hunting, while a valuable tool, can be time consuming. If contracted out to professional hunters it can be costly to the landowner. Some landowners are not prone to allow hunters onto their property due to perceived risk and liability issues. Proper educational programs can address and remove some inherent barriers to effective wild pig control. Question 16. Which control measures do not work? There were 209 responses to this question and like question 15, results are difficult to interpret. The answers were re-coded into broad categories and summarized the responses. The most common answer was “all” - reported 94 times. This answer likely reflects the frustration and experience of landowners who may have tried a variety of wild pig control methods only to find that nothing is a permanent solution. Other common responses included - hunting (33 respondents), trapping (28 respondents), and dogs (22 respondents). The range of responses along with numerous hand-written detailed responses to this and the preceding question reveal the widespread frustration with selfapplied pig control methods. Numerous respondents reported that hunting, trapping, and dogs (chasing and hunting) fail to achieve wild pig control. Opportunities exist for educational programs designed to improve the application of control methods and to inform landowners of both the potential and the limitations of various control methods. Question 17. Who currently offers assistance in feral hog management? This question and the next were aimed at assessing the current state of knowledge regarding wild pig control programs and to assess landowner’s willingness to seek help if offered by state and federal agencies. There were 314 responses to this question. The most frequently offered (N=115 responses; 36.6%) response was “Private.” This is a re-coded answer from such responses as “individual hunters with dogs” and “dog hunters.” Numerous respondents provided a specific name (and sometimes phone number) of a company or a specific person that is engaged with wild pig control in this area. The second most frequent response was “don’t know” (N=98; 31.2% of responses). The third most frequent response was “no one” (N=64; 20.4%). This indicates that a majority (51.6%) of respondents 20

had difficultly locating a source of assistance or was not aware of the possibilities in their local area. There is a need for additional educational resources and outreach in order to assist landowners with locating assistance for wild pig damage problems. Question 18. Who should be offering assistance for feral hog management? It would be cumbersome to try to list all the individual responses. These are summarized and are available from the author. There were 304 responses to this question. Many respondents offered multiple answers to this open-ended question. Individual answers were grouped by the most prevalent sentiment expressed in the response. For instance, the detailed response ‘No government people!!! Enough legislation already! Need to be able to poison feasably [sic]. Only way to ever control them’ was re-coded as “PRIVATE.” Ten (3.3%) respondents said the “no one” should offer assistance while 47 (15.5%) respondents said that private entities should offer assistance. Seventy-four (24.3%) respondents were unsure who should be offering assistance. The majority (N=173; 56.9%) of respondents, however, replied that some form of government assistance was needed. There were a wide range of answers to this question that I collectively re-coded as “government.” Because respondents often included state and federal organizations in their answer, no attempt was made to separate them but rather combined all public sector government groups into one super category. It is not clear that separation would be meaningful because if public programs (education or management) become available to deal with wild pig issues many local, state and federal agencies will participate. Such state and federal entities as “FSA”, “extension service”, “CES”, “fish and wildlife”, “game and fish commission”, “DNR”, “game wardens’, “game rangers”, “state”, and “department of agriculture” were some of the more common responses included in the category of ‘GOVERNMENT’. Other interesting responses were “forestry department”, “county should offer bounties”, “county NRCS”, and “wildlife management” were also included in the ‘GOVERNMENT’ category the meaning (e.g., “wildlife management”) of some responses was unclear. Some responses clearly indicated a high level of frustration among respondents toward the general wild pig problem. Some respondents suggested a need for additional research or education efforts. Others suggested solutions such as sterilization, toxicants, and payments to night hunters. In summary, the nine questions related to wild pig control reveal both of a range of activities directed at controlling wild pigs and a general level of frustration with the oftentimes ineffective range of options available for control. Collectively, there seems to be a need for more effective control measures and greater education to inform landowners about wild pig biology and ecology, management and control options. Perceived impact of wild pigs Questions 10-12 deal with the perceived impact of wild pigs on other wildlife species, wildlife habitat, and landowner satisfaction derived from the presence of wildlife on land they own or lease. 21

Table 5. Reasons cited by 295 survey respondents for increases in wild pig populations based on a mail survey conducted between 23 January 2012 and 15 March 2012 across the southwest Cooperative Extension District, Georgia. Reasons cited for Original Response increased in wild pig Response Response population Percent Count Illegal release/transfer 53.2 157 Natural Causes 48.1 142 Lack of hunting pressure 46.1 136 Hunting clubs release them 38.3 113 Neighbor’s management 15.3 45 Wildlife department policy 7.1 21 Domestic producers 6.4 19 Timber management is changing 4.1 12 Local government 2.4 7 Stock laws 1.7 5 Other (unclassified) 34

Modified Response Rate1 Response Response Percent Count 53.2 157 53.9 159 46.1 137 38.3 113 15.3 46 7.8 23 6.4 19 4.1 12 2.4 7 1.7 5 142

1

Responses originally included as “other” are reclassified into one of the indicated reasons Remaining reasons that could not be classified include “drought” (listed 2 times), “good habitat” (listed 4 times), “unsure” (listed 4 times), “hunting moves them”, “hogs are getting smarter”, and “kill them all” (listed once each). 2

Question 10. If feral hogs are increasing, what is/are the reason(s). (Select all that apply) This question was answered by 295 respondents. Respondents could select multiple answers for this question and therefore the percentage total will exceed 100%. The most frequently chosen reply (53.2%; N=157) selected as the reason for increases in wild pigs was the illegal release/transfer of the animals (Table 5). The second most commonly cited cause of wild pig increase was due to natural causes (48.1%; N=142) followed by lack of hunting pressure (46.1%; N=136). Like other questions in the survey, when given a list of pre-determined choices, respondents were also given the choice of “other” and then asked to specify or explain their selection of “other.” In this case, 34 respondents selected “other.” However, in the “other” category, the most frequently listed reason was related to natural causes (N=17). That is, respondents provided answers such as “high reproductive rates”, “they reproduce rapidly”, “breeding”, “massive breeding”, “reproduce too fast”, “no predators”, and “not many predators, sows have pigs 2-3 times a year.” When adding the responses in the “other” category that should logically be included in the “natural causes” category, this increases the value for this reason from 48.1% to 53.9% - making it virtually tied (N=159) with illegal release/transfer as the most frequently cited reason(s) for increases in wild pig populations. No other response in the “other” category was cited more than 4 times; therefore, moving them to another category does not change the 22

result (Table 5). Wildlife department policy and drought were cited in the “other” category 2 times each, good habitat and “unsure” were cited 4 times each, farmer release and “hunting moves them” were cited once each. Questions related to the economic losses attributable to wild pigs. Question 11. Have you noticed a decline in other wildlife or game (YES or NO)? Question 11a-d. Questions related to species which may have declined, changes in income and enjoyment related to perceived decline (multiple choices). Question 12. What damage to wildlife or habitat has been caused by feral hogs (Select all that apply). Question 14a-b. Estimate the dollar value of losses to crops or related to crops (i.e., equipment, etc.) and the dollar value of losses to non-crop values (i.e., timber, lease values, food plots, etc.) due to wild pig activity (Enter dollar value). In this series of questions, respondents were asked to share their perceptions of wild pig impact on other wildlife species and to indicate if these perceived declines changed the income they would otherwise receive from wildlife or if the activity of wild pigs changed the landowner’s enjoyment of wildlife. Respondents were also asked to provide an estimate of the total dollar loss incurred from damage attributable to wild pigs. Note that this is a self-reported dollar value and not based on any formal assessment or legal appraisal. The answers and monetary value are only the crude values assigned by the survey respondents. The dollar value may over or under estimate the actual value based almost entirely on the ability of the person completing the survey to accurately estimate his/her loss and to correctly identify wild pigs as the culprit or cause of the loss. Question 11. Three hundred ten respondents answered this question; 54.5% (N=169) reported that they have noticed a decline in other wildlife or game species on their properties. Since this was a dichotomous question (only two possible answers), 45.5 % (N=141) of respondents reported that they did not notice a decline in wildlife or game species. If respondents responded affirmatively to this question, they were lead to a series of additional questions designed to gather further information on the nature of the decline and damage. Question 11a. If the survey respondent answered “YES” to question 11 (that is, they have noticed a decline in other wildlife or game), this question asked if they believed the decline was related to wild pigs. If a respondent choose a “NO” answer to Question 11, they were instructed to skip ahead in the survey to question 13. Of the 169 respondents that reported a decline in other wildlife or game, 145 answered the second part of the question. Of the 145 responses received, 89.7% (N=130) felt that the decline was related to wild pigs while 10.3% (N=15) believed it was not related to wild pigs. Presumably the 24 people who chose not to answer Question 11a may not have an opinion as to the cause of the decline they noticed to have occurred.

23

#11b -- What species of wildlife do you believe have been affected by feral hogs? (Please select all that apply) 90.0%

Percent of Responses

80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

White-tailed deer

Bobwhite Quail

Wild Turkey

Rabbits

Gopher Tortoise Species or wildlife group affected

Waterfowl

Songbirds

Figure 8. Wildlife species or group of species reported to be negatively affected by wild pigs based on 172 responses received from landowners and agricultural producers in the southwest Cooperative Extension District, Georgia, USA. Survey was conducted between 23 January 2012 and 15 March 2012.

Question11b. Respondents were asked about the species of game or other wildlife that has been affected by wild pigs. One hundred seventy-two responses were received - respondents could choose multiple species as affected. White-tailed deer (77.9%; N=134) and bobwhite quail (77.5%; N=133) were the species most often reported to be affected by wild pigs (Figure 8). The nature of the impact will be discussed below. Question 11c & 11d. Survey respondents were asked if the declines (in wildlife or game) affected their income (Question 11c) and their enjoyment of wildlife (Question 11d). Regarding income, 188 people answered this question and the majority (60.6%; N=114) reported that declines in wildlife had not affected their income. That is, “No Change” was the most frequently selected response to Question 11c. Nearly 19% (18.6%; N=35) of respondents reported a decline in income due to a decline in wildlife related to wild pigs and 3.7% (N=7) reported an increase in income. However, 17.0% (N=32) were unsure if declines in wildlife affected their income. It is likely that most respondents were not using wildlife as an income generating mechanism on their land. Perhaps they are not leasing or charging hunters any fees to access their property and this is the reason so many reported that wild pigs have not changed their income. Relatively few landowners reported increased income due to declines in wildlife. This may be the result of lease fees from wild pig hunting. A more complicated relationship may be that wild pigs have lowered the populations of other species of wildlife (for example, white-tailed deer). If

24

the deer were causing economic damage, then a lower population (due to wild pigs or any other cause) could actually result in an increase in landowner income from lower crop loses. Related to the decline (or lack thereof) in income due to lower wildlife as a result of wild pigs, most (76.2%; N=138) respondents reported that their enjoyment of wildlife has decreased as a result of wild pig related declines in wildlife or game species. This likely reflects the frustration landowners have with damage caused by wild pigs and less wildlife on their property. The lower wildlife populations could be impacting the landowners hunting but not their income if they hunt but not lease. Only 15.5% (N=28) of respondents reported that declines in wildlife resulted in “no change” to their own enjoyment of wildlife while 1.7% (N=3) reported that declines in wildlife species “increased” their enjoyment and 6.6% (N=12) where “unsure” if the decline in wildlife affected their enjoyment. Question 12. Respondents were asked to indicate the type of damage to wildlife or habitat that has been caused by wild pigs. One hundred ninety-one people answered this question and they could select multiple types of damage. The most frequently selected damage types were damage to turkey/quail nests (73.3%; N=140) and damage to habitat (72.8%; N=139). Damage to food plots was selected nearly as often (71.7%; N=137, Figure 9). Respondents could select “other” and specify the type of damage they observed. Responses included - creek water has high E. coli bacteria count (N=1), crop loss (N=3), damage to ditches (N=1), damage to pasture (N=1), hogs eat deer fawns (N=1), damage to orchard floor (N=1), rooting in streams (N=1) and damage to everything (N=1). One respondent called and conveyed his opinions on feral hogs and his frustration that various government agencies with authority over water quality issues were blaming farmers for surface water pollution that this person felt was attributable to wild pigs. Whether or not his criticism is justified is beyond the scope of this report but it conveys the frustration of farmers/landowners and the complexity of the wild pig issues on the ground. Such concerns will need to be addressed in the future through additional research and outreach education programs.

25

#12 -- What damage to other wildlife or habitat has been caused by feral hogs?

Percent of Responses

80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Damage to turkey or quail nests

Damage to habitat

Damage to my food plot

Damage to Damage to forest roads vegetation Type of damage caused by wild pigs

Damage to fire lanes

Figure 9. Major types of damage (% of respondents reporting each type of damage) attributed to wild pigs by 191 respondents to this question in the southwest Georgia wild pig mail survey administered between 23 January 2012 and 15 March 2012.

Question 14a & 14b. Finally in this series of questions related to wild pig damage, respondents were asked to self-report a dollar amount of the damage to crops or crop related damage (Q14a) and damage to items other than crops (Q14b). Respondents (N=179) reported an average loss to crops and/or crop related damage (e.g., damage to equipment, etc.) due to wild pigs during 2011 of $12,646 per respondent (Range $100 - $300,000). The total losses reported by respondents during 2011 were $2,263,800 (Table 6). This figure, while substantial, represents a fraction of the total loss landowners and agricultural producers suffer from wild pigs in southwest Georgia. As reported on page 3, total land area in the district exceeds 4.26 million acres of which over 1.9 million acres is in farms. Average land area owned or leased by survey respondents is 422.7 acres per respondent. Respondents reported an average of $12,646 dollars in damage or an average loss of $30 per acre attributed to wild pigs. The total land area in farms in the southwest district is 1,902,281 acres. This average produces an estimated 57 million dollars ($57,005,321) from wild pig damage to crops and/or crop related damage in Southwest Georgia. Respondents (N=125) reported an average loss to items other than crops (e.g., timber, food plots, lease values, etc.) due to wild pigs during 2011 of $5,381 per respondent (Range $25 - $100,000). The 26

total losses reported by survey respondents during 2011 were $654,775 (Table 6) yielding a loss per acre of $12.75. This $12.75 loss converts to an estimated amount of wild pig damage to non-crop values in excess of $24 million dollars ($24,256,336). Together losses due to wild pigs may have exceeded 81 million dollars in 2011. The caveat is this is a crude estimate of damage as reported by survey respondents. Further refinement of these figures will require additional research that may need to be site specific rather than region-wide. However, the figures give an approximate starting point for future discussion around the overall negative financial impacts of wild pigs in the SW District. These figures may be conservative or excessive. Accuracy depends on the skill, ability, and honesty of the survey respondent to self-report losses. Damage from wild pigs takes many forms. One survey respondent reported that a sounder of pigs may damage 2-5 acres in a 100-acre peanut field. The damage may be scattered across the entire field. Losses thus take the form of lost harvest and also wasted fertilizer, irrigation water, tractor time, and operator time. Such losses are subtle and not easy to quantify across the entire southwest district. However, such losses are very real and perhaps significant to an individual. As is often the case with wildlife damage, a small percentage of producers may bear the majority of the damage. Damage is not equally shared by everyone. To the extent that damage is scattered among producers and diffuse across the landscape, the figures reported here may be conservative. The estimate of damage in this survey refers only to the 41 counties in the Southwest Cooperative Extension District. Additional surveys in other regions of the state will be necessary to expand these numbers to the entire state. Surveys in subsequent years will be necessary to track trends in wild pig damage.

Table 6. Loss (dollar value) reported by landowners to crops and items other than crops due to wild pigs in the southwest Cooperative Extension District, Georgia. Responses relate to the crop year 2011. Survey was conducted between 23 January 2012 and 15 March 2012.

Statistic Average dollar loss Minimum loss reported Maximum loss reported Standard deviation Sample Size

Losses to crops and/or crop damage $ 12,646 $ 100 $300,000 $ 29,233 179

Losses to items other than crops $ 5,381 $ 25 $100,000 $ 14,375 120

27

An alternative argument could be that the figure reported here ($81 million) is an over-estimate. If the damage estimate reported here is double the actual amount then the losses are still very substantial; if triple the actual amount, the financial impact is still vast. There can be no doubt that the ecological impacts and financial losses attributable to wild pigs are significant. Relief is required and would most likely take the form of outside (government) assistance. Individuals should not be made to bear the full cost of the wild pig problem within Georgia. Techniques such as dog-hunting and night shooting will not sufficiently reduce wild pig numbers to provide a significant reduction in regional damage. These techniques target, at best, a small number of individual pigs. Widespread application of trapping will be necessary to reduce wild pig numbers. Section II. General statements of knowledge and attitudes toward feral pigs. In this section, respondents were presented with a series of statements to evaluate their attitudes and general knowledge about wild pigs. Participants were given a list of statements and asked to respond on a 5-point Likert-scale with choices of: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Unsure, Agree, and Strongly Agree. A total of 448 responded to the questions in this section resulting in 439-445 responses to each statement (Table 7). For most (8 out of 13) statements, respondents generally had strong opinions (> 75% selecting either “strongly agree”/“agree” or “strongly disagree”/”disagree”). In other words, respondents usually did not select “unsure” as their response. Seventy-two percent of respondents felt that feral hogs were common where they lived and 67% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that feral hogs are not a threat to the safety of people. Eighty-seven percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that feral hogs are a nuisance but 32% were unsure if feral hogs are a source of disease while nearly 61% agreed or strongly agreed that feral hogs are a disease source. Ninety percent of respondents did not enjoy seeing feral hogs around their property and 81% worried about problems feral hogs might cause to their property. Eighty-six percent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that people should learn to live with feral hogs near their home or farm. Eighty-one percent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that feral hogs were an important part of the environment while 82% agreed or strongly agreed that feral hogs should be eliminated where ever possible. Overall, respondents were less adamant about their view of the relationship between feral hogs and other game species (especially deer and turkey). Nearly 69% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that feral hogs detract from deer hunting opportunities but nearly 24% were unsure. Only 57% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that feral hogs have a negative impact on local deer populations while almost 31% were unsure. However, 83% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that feral hogs cause a great deal of damage to food plots. Seventy-eight percent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that feral hogs are a welcome addition to the suite of big game species they can hunt (Table 7). 28

In summary, a strong majority of respondents (> 75% in most cases) do not enjoy seeing wild pigs on their property; worry about problems wild pigs may cause; do not feel that wild pigs are an important part of the natural environment; do not view wild pigs as a welcome big game animal; and, agree that wild pigs should be eliminated where ever possible. However, almost one-third of respondents (3032%) are unsure if wild pigs are a disease threat or if they have a negative impact on deer and turkey populations. The former reflects a need for additional education while the latter could be a valuable avenue of future research. In light of some recent evidence that coyotes may be suppressing deer populations, the additional stress on deer due to wild pigs is worthy of further investigation. Section III. Demographic Questions (DQ1 - DQ7). Relatively few demographic questions were asked on the advice of reviewers such as the Cooperative Extension district personnel and farmer advocacy groups (FSA, Peanut Commission, Cotton Commission). It was generally believed that asking questions about such things as income, age, and education level would be viewed as too personal and would deter participation in the survey. A few general questions about length of tenure on the land and length of time engaged in farming, general nature of employment, gender, and county of residence were asked. Finally, two general questions about wild hogs were also included. Even if respondents failed to complete most of the previous questions on the survey, the questionnaire directed them to the last page and these few final demographic/general knowledge questions. DQ1. In what county do you live? The highest proportion of respondents (N=27; 5.8%) reported living in Colquitt County (Table 8) followed by Mitchell (N=22; 4.7%), Berrien (N=19, 4.1%), Worth (N=18; 3.9%), and Macon and Wilcox Counties (N=16; 3.4% each). The top 5 counties based on acreage owned/leased (Table 1) were Mitchell, Worth, Colquitt, Sumter, and Dooley. These are not the same ranked order as the county where respondents reside perhaps indicating that many survey respondents are absentee landowners. If they actively work on the land, they may reside in one county and lease land in another county. Alternatively, the respondent may be older, retired and living in one county but leasing their property in another county. If the respondent is an absentee farmer, they may have less direct knowledge of the impact of wild pigs on property they farm. If they reside in one county but own land in a different county, future educational outreach efforts will need to consider a regional or multi-county presentation in order to reach the affected clientele. Future education efforts cannot be constrained by the traditional county delivery system but must cross county boundaries in a cooperative fashion.

29

Table 7. The views of 448 respondents to statements about the role or impact of feral hogs based on a mail survey conducted between 23 January 2012 and 15 March 2012 with landowners in southwest Georgia Cooperative Extension District. Answer Options I enjoy seeing feral hogs around my property I worry about problems feral hogs might cause to my property Feral hogs are an important part of the environment Feral hogs are not a threat to the safety of people Feral hogs are common where I live People should learn to live with feral hogs near their homes or farms Feral hogs are a nuisance Feral hogs are a source of disease Feral hogs should be eliminated where ever possible Feral hogs detract from deer hunting opportunities Feral hogs have a negative impact on our local deer population Feral hogs cause a great deal of damage to deer & turkey food plots Feral hogs are a welcome addition to the number of big game species I can hunt

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Unsure

81.6%

8.6%

2.5%

4.6%

2.7%

440

11.5%

3.4%

3.6%

23.3%

58.1%

442

68.0%

13.1%

10.8%

3.8%

4.3%

443

42.2% 7.2%

25.1% 9.7%

13.8% 10.9%

10.8% 39.1%

8.1% 33.0%

443 442

66.1% 5.6% 4.1%

20.0% 2.0% 3.2%

6.5% 4.7% 32.3%

4.3% 20.0% 21.4%

3.2% 67.6% 39.1%

445 445 443

5.6%

4.5%

7.4%

22.0%

60.5%

445

3.2%

4.5%

23.7%

24.6%

44.0%

443

6.4%

6.1%

30.8%

22.7%

34.0%

441

2.1%

0.5%

14.1%

31.0%

52.4%

439

58.8%

19.5%

10.4%

7.9%

3.4%

442

Agree

Strongly Agree

Response Count

DQ2 & DQ3. How many years have you farmed and how many years have you resided on the property? Respondents were asked “How many years have you farmed or owned this land”? The implication is that the word “this” in the sentence referred to the same parcel of land addressed in Question 1 at the beginning of the survey and therefore, the respondent was providing answers to the same parcel of property throughout the survey. The question was answered by 452 respondents who reported that the average number of years they had farmed/owned their land was 34.6 years (range 0-140 years; standard deviation = 17.7 years). Two respondents reported that they farmed or owned the land for zero years. Four respondents reported that they farmed or owned the land for 100+ years and both wrote on the survey that the land had been in the family for multiple generations. If the values of zero and 100+ are removed the average tenure on the land is 34.0 years (range = 3-80; std. dev. = 15.7 years). 30

The question “How many years have you resided in Georgia” was also asked. The question was answered by 456 respondents. The average time a respondent was domiciled in Georgia was 56.7 years (range = 0-94 years; standard deviation = 15.9 years). DQ4. Respondent gender. The vast majority of respondents were male (96.4%; N=466 responses). DQ5. Before you received this survey, did you know feral hogs could be a problem? The vast majority of respondents responded in the affirmative (97.6%; N=468 responses). DQ6. Are you a non-agricultural landowner such as a forester, consulting forester, wildlife biologist, real estate agent, etc.? This question was answered by 466 respondents. Eleven percent (N=53) said they were a nonagricultural landowner. DQ7. Are feral hogs considered native wildlife in Georgia or a non-native species? Finally, this question was answered by 463 respondents. Only 55.7% of respondents (N=258) correctly knew that wild pigs are a non-native species. In comparison, 15.1% (N=70) thought that wild pigs are native to Georgia but 29.2% (N=135) were “unsure” of the origin of wild pigs. Clearly, there is much need for additional educational outreach concerning wild pigs. Not just the origin but, as indicated by responses to other questions throughout this survey, the disease risk posed by wild pigs, ecological role of wild pigs, and effective control methods.

31

Table 8. County of residence reported by 468 respondents to the wild pig mail survey administered between 23 January 2012 and 15 March 2012 within the southwest Cooperative Extension District of Georgia, USA.

County of residence Colquitt Mitchell Berrien Worth Macon - Wilcox 1 Brooks - Decatur - Tift - Turner Early - Lowndes - Sumter Dooly - Irwin Randolph - Taylor - Thomas Lee - Pulaski Dougherty - Seminole - Webster Grady - Terrell Calhoun - Clay - Crisp - Miller Baker - Ben Hill - Clinch - Quitman Lanier Cook - Houston - Stewart Coffee Echols - Laurens - Marion - Peach - Schley Twiggs Bibb - Bleckley - Bullock - Charlton - Crawford - Gwinnett More than one county listed Respondent lives out of state 1

Number of Respondents (%) 27 (5.78) 22 (4.71) 19 (4.07) 18 (3.85) 16 (3.43) 15 (3.21) 14 (3.00) 13 (2.78) 12 (2.57) 11 (2.36) 10 (2.14) 9 (1.93) 8 (1.71) 7 (1.50) 6 (1.28) 5 (1.07) 4 (0.86) 3 (0.64) 2 (0.43) 1 (0.21) 5 1

Number of respondents and percent of responses is for each county listed on the line.

32

Acknowledgements Funding and support for this project was provided by the Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, UGA Cooperative Extension Service, Georgia Farm Bureau, Georgia Peanut Commission, Georgia Cotton Commission, Georgia Forestry Association (GFA), and the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). Many people assisted with this project and their support is gratefully acknowledged. Ms. Susan Bruno was invaluable in her assistance with all phases of survey logistics and data entry. The spring 2012 Warnell Wildlife Damage Management class labeled and stuffed envelopes, Ms. Joyce Black, Warnell Clerical Office assisted with preparation of mailing labels. Dr. Beverly Sparks, Associate Dean of Extension provided financial support along with Mr. Steve McWilliams (GFA), and Mr. Brian Murphy (QDMA). Mr. Don McGough, Georgia Farm Bureau, supported this survey from the beginning and secured critical financial support from others. Mr. Daymond Hughes, USDA Wildlife Services first suggested the need for this survey and organized the Georgia Feral Hog Working Group. Mr. Ken Lewis, UGA Cooperative Extension SW District, reviewed the survey and provided the list of names for the survey. Several others reviewed the survey and provided comments and support throughout the process. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, to the landowners and farmers who donated their time to complete the survey and share their experiences, your participation was critical to this project. J. Sweeney, G. Green, D. Hughes, M. Ondovchik, and N. Poudyal reviewed earlier drafts of this report. Photo Acknowledgements Title page (top photo) - USDA Wildlife Services file photo Title Page (bottom photo) - USDA Wildlife Services (D. Hughes or J. Smith) Page 3 - J. Cumbee - USDA Wildlife Services Page 4 - D. Hughes, USDA Wildlife Services Page 5 & 8 - W. Gaston, USDA Wildlife Services Page 14 - USDA Wildlife Services file photo

Wildlife Management Series Publication -- WMS-12-16

July 2012

Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Athens, Georgia 30602-2152 Telephone 706.542.2686 Fax 706.542.8356

In compliance with federal law, including the provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the University of Georgia does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, or military service in its administration of educational policies, programs, or activities; its admissions policies; scholarship and loan programs; athletic or other University-administered programs; or employment.. In addition, the University does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation consistent with the University non-discrimination policy. Inquiries or complaints should be directed to the director of the Equal Opportunity Office, Peabody Hall, 290 South Jackson Street, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.Telephone 706-542-7912 (V/TDD).Fax 706-542-2822.

33

Appendix A GEORGIA FERAL HOG SURVEY

Survey ID # _________

Feral hogs are present in many southern states. Some people view them as a valuable wildlife resource while others consider them to be a nuisance animal. Although landowners and others in Georgia may come into contact with feral hogs, little is known about damage they cause in our state. Therefore, your help is critical for determining the type and extent of damage from feral hogs. Your answers are important. Your answers will increase our understanding of how feral hogs affect landowners. The answers you provide will also help us develop more effective programs to deal with feral hogs. Results will also be shared with state and local officials to make them aware of the concerns people have about feral hogs. Individual responses will be kept strictly confidential. Please take a few minutes to answer the following questions about your views on feral hogs. Whether you have feral hogs on your property or not, your answers are important to us. Your time is valuable and we appreciate that you are willing to share some of your time with us to complete this survey. If you have questions or would like a copy of the results, please contact us at the address on the last page of this survey. THANK YOU for your time. Southwest Georgia Feral Hog Damage Assessment Section I. The following questions are important in helping us understand feral hog damage in Georgia and how people feel about feral hogs in this area. Please answer every question as completely as possible. 1. Please tell us about where you own or rent land. List the County in which you own/rent land and indicate the number of acres you own/rent. For each parcel or tract you own or rent, please place a mark (X) in the column to indicate the number of acres you own or rent in that county. COUNTY where you own/rent land

1-50 acres

51-100 acres

101150 acres

151200 acres

201250 acres

251300 acres

301350 acres

Over 350 acres

If you need more space  please use the BACK of this survey. 2. What is the Primary use for this land? (Please select one) ____ Hunting ____ Recreation (non-hunting) ____ Timber Production ____ Livestock Production – List animals raised ____ Row Crops – List crops produced ____ Mixed use (no one use is more than 50% of acreage) ____ Other (please specify) 3. Are feral hogs present on your land? (Please circle one)

YES

NO

UNSURE

If YES, please continue below. If NO, please skip ahead to Question 17. 3a. Do you hunt/shoot feral hogs on your land? Please circle one. 3b. Do you allow others to hunt/shoot feral hogs on your land? Please circle one.

YES

NO

YES

NO

34

4. Have feral hogs ever caused any type of damage to your land? Please circle one.

YES

NO

IF YES, please continue below. IF NO, please skip ahead to question 17. 5. When did you first notice feral hogs or feral hog sign on this property? (Please select one) ____ 2011 was first year ____ Within the last 5 years

____ Within the last 3 years ____ More than 5 years ago

6. Please tell us the crops you grow or produce that were damaged by feral hogs. (Please select all that apply) _____ Blueberry _____ Fruit Trees _____ Soybeans _____ Watermelon

_____ Cotton _____ Peanuts _____ Timber _____ Other (Please list)

_____ Corn _____ Pasture _____ Vegetables

7. During 2011, what types of damage have you had? (Please select ALL that apply) ____ Damage cash crop (non-timber) ____ Damage or injury to pets ____ Damage or consume livestock feed or grain ____ Damage to pastures ____ Damage to equipment ____ Loss of land value ____ Loss of stored commodities ____ Loss to timber ____ Other (please specify)

____ Damage to food plots ____ Damage or injury to livestock ____ Damage to streams or ponds ____ Damage to fences ____ Landscape damage (e.g. personal garden, yard) ____ Loss of lease value ____ Rooting or grubbing ____ Wallows

7a. From the list above, please tell us the ONE type of damage that was most important to you. 7b. The type of damage caused by feral hogs is viewed differently by landowners. The importance of that damage also differs. In Question #7a above, you told us which type of damage was MOST IMPORTANT to you. How do you define importance? ______ Cost me the most money ______ Changed the appearance of my land in a bad way ______ Had a negative impact on how I use my land ______ Other (please explain) 8. Considering the current population of feral hogs on this land, how has the population changed in the following time spans? (Please circle one answer in each row) Compared to last year

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

UNSURE

Compared to 3 years ago

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

UNSURE

Compared to 5 years ago

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

UNSURE

35

9. When you have had damage, did you seek outside help? (Please circle one)

YES

NO

If YES, please tell us who you contacted. (Please select all that apply) ____ Cooperative Extension Service ____ Georgia Wildlife Resources Division ____ USDA Wildlife Services ____ Other (Please list)

____ Georgia Forestry Commission ____ Private hog control company

9a. Did this outside help reduce the damage?

YES

NO

UNSURE

9b. Would you seek outside help again from this source?

YES

NO

UNSURE

9c. Would you seek help from another source?

YES

NO

UNSURE

10. If feral hogs are increasing, what do you think is/are the reasons? (Please select all that apply) ____ Domestic producers ____ Illegal release/transfer ____ Local government ____ Neighbor’s management practices ____ Timber management is changing ____ Other (please specify)

____ Hunting clubs are releasing them ____ Lack of hunting pressure ____ Natural causes ____ Stock laws ____ Wildlife department policy

11. Have you noticed a decline in other wildlife or game? (Please circle one)

YES

NO

YES

NO

IF NO, please go to Question #13. 11a. IF YES, do you believe the decline is related to feral hogs?

11b. What species of wildlife do you believe have been affected by feral hogs? (Please select all that apply) _____ Bobwhite Quail _____ Gopher Tortoise _____ Rabbits _____ Songbirds _____ Waterfowl _____ White-tailed deer _____ Wild Turkey _____ Other (Please list) 11c. Have these declines increased or decreased your income? DECREASED

INCREASED

NO CHANGE

UNSURE

11d. Have these declines increased or decreased your wildlife enjoyment? DECREASED

INCREASED

NO CHANGE

UNSURE

12. What damage to other wildlife or habitat has been caused by feral hogs? Please select all that apply. _____ Damage to fire lanes _____ Damage to forest vegetation _____ Damage to roads _____ Other (Please list)

_____ Damage to my food plot _____ Damage to habitat _____ Damage to turkey or quail nests

36

13. In the last year, which control measures have you used on feral hogs on this property? ____ Dog Hunting ____ None ____ Still Hunting ____ Other (please specify)

____ Night shooting ____ Opportunistic shooting ____ Trapping

14. From your experience with feral hog damage: 14a. Please estimate your losses to crops and/or crop related damage (i.e., equipment damage, etc.) by feral hogs during past year.

$

.00

14b. Please estimate your losses to items other than crops (i.e. timber, food plots, lease values, etc.) caused by feral hogs during the past year.

$

.00

15. In your experience, which control measures work best? List them or write “NONE.”

16. In your experience, which control measures do not work? List them or write “ALL.”

17. Based on your experience, who currently offers assistance for feral hog management on private lands? Please be specific and include any previous sources you listed above.

18. Based on your experience, who should be offering assistance for feral hog management in your area?

37

SECTION II. Please give us your views about feral hogs in your area. Your views help us better understand how citizens and landowners feel about feral hogs. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about feral hogs by circling one number on each row that matches your view about feral hogs. Strongly Disagree

Disagree

I enjoy seeing feral hogs around my property

1

2

3

4

5

I worry about problems feral hogs might cause to my property

1

2

3

4

5

Feral hogs are an important part of the environment

1

2

3

4

5

Feral hogs are not a threat to the safety of people

1

2

3

4

5

Feral hogs are common where I live

1

2

3

4

5

People should learn to live with feral hogs near their homes or farms

1

2

3

4

5

Feral hogs are a nuisance

1

2

3

4

5

Feral hogs are a source of disease

1

2

3

4

5

Feral hogs should be eliminated where ever possible

1

2

3

4

5

Feral hogs detract from deer hunting opportunities

1

2

3

4

5

Feral hogs have a negative impact on our local deer population

1

2

3

4

5

Feral hogs cause a great deal of damage to deer & turkey food plots

1

2

3

4

5

Feral hogs are a welcome addition to the number of big game species I can hunt 1

2

3

4

5

Unsure

Agree

Strongly Agree

38

Section III. Please tell us about yourself. All answers are strictly confidential and specific responses will not be shared with others. 1. In what county do you live?

_____________________ County

2. How many years have you farmed or owned this land?

______ Years

3. How long have you resided in Georgia?

______ Years

4. Are you male or female? Please circle one

MALE

FEMALE

5. Before you received this survey, did you know that feral hogs could be a problem for landowners? Please circle one

YES

NO

6. Are you a non-agricultural landowner such as forester, consulting forester, wildlife biologist, real estate agent, etc. Please circle one

YES

NO

7. Are feral hogs considered native wildlife in Georgia or a non-native species? Please circle one

NATIVE

NON-NATIVE

UNSURE

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY. PLEASE RETURN THIS SURVEY IN THE POSTAGE PAID ENVELOPE PROVIDED. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY, PLEASE CONTACT:

Dr. Michael T. Mengak Professor -- Wildlife Specialist Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources 180 E. Green St. University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 Phone: 706.583.8096 Email: [email protected]

39

Appendix B

Office of the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, Water and Soil Resources, Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism

January 5, 2012 Dear Georgia resident: We need your help! You are one of a small number of Georgia residents invited to participate in a research project about Feral Hogs and Agriculture/Forestry. Even if you feel that you have very little contact or problems with Feral Hogs, your views are important to us. We will provide all the information you need to participate. The purpose of our study is to learn more about the status and distribution of Feral Hogs and issues related to their presence on private property. You may or may not be interested in the Feral Hogs issues. The goal of our research is to learn how a full range of people feels about these animals. Some people may think it is beneficial to have Feral Hogs but others may feel that they are a nuisance and should be eliminated. Our goal is to find out what you think. The enclosed survey contains questions about your experience with Feral Hogs, your preferences regarding different Feral Hog issues, and other characteristics. As you fill out the survey, you may write any comments you wish in the margins to help us to better understand the issues. By completing this survey you will help us inform future decisions about Feral Hog management, agriculture, forestry, wildlife, and economics. Completion of the survey should take about 15 minutes. All of your responses will be kept strictly confidential, and only the cumulative results of analyzing the full set of responses from all respondents will be reported at the conclusion of the study. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary, but strongly encouraged. Please skip any questions you can not or prefer not to answer. Thank you for the invaluable help that you are providing by participating in this study. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me now or at a later date. My phone number is 706-583-8096 and my email address is [email protected]. Sincerely,

Dr. Michael T. Mengak Certified Wildlife Biologist Professor, Wildlife Ecology Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 Phone: 1-706-583-8096 Participants must be 18 years of age or older. You can refuse to participate or stop taking part at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. There are no anticipated risks or discomforts associated with this research. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant should be directed to the Chairperson, University of Georgia Institutional Review Board, 612 Boyd GSRC, Athens, GA 30602-7411; Telephone (707) 542-3199; Email address [email protected].

40

Appendix C Some Questions You May Have About This Study 1. What is the purpose of this study? The purpose is to increase our understanding of the impacts Feral Hogs may be having on agriculture and natural resources in Georgia. 2. How did you choose me as a possible participant? Your name was randomly chosen from a list of Georgia residents. 3. How will the results of the survey be used? Public officials and other groups must often make decisions about whether or not to proceed with environmental programs and policies that cost money. This study will help us improve methods for Feral Hog control, management and other activities. Results will tell us much more about the extent of the Feral Hog problem and the cost to landowners and citizens. 4. Will my responses be confidential? Absolutely. Only individuals directly associated with the research project will ever see the survey booklets themselves. 5. How will I benefit from participation? While you will receive no direct benefit, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you have participated in an important research project that will support future efforts to manage Feral Hogs and address the numerous issues related to these animals. Please note: • • • • •

Participation in this research is completely voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or other loss. You may discontinue participation at any time. You may decline to answer any question in this survey. If you have any questions or concerns related to this research, please contact Professor Mike Mengak at 706-583-8096 or [email protected]

41