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
mmengak@uga.edu
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: mmengak@uga.edu
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 mmengak@uga.edu.
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 IRB@UGA.EDU.
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 mmengak@uga.edu
41