GPCA - Hog Policy Outline – Publication in Process, October 2019 draft

GPCA Hog Policy Outline – Publication in Process, October 2019 draft led by Nathan Klaus, Wildlife Biologist, Georgia DNR; Reviewers include Charlie Killmaster, Tripp Colter and Kevin Kramer.

Georgia Plant Conservation Alliance. For latest iterations or suggested sites to watch, write to jceska@uga.edu Purpose – The Georgia Plant Conservation Alliance is a network of more than 40 Georgia public and private natural resources organizations committed to the protection and conservation of endangered plants. The purpose of this document is to outline a position statement on the immediate necessity to address impacts of feral hogs on select sites harboring rare and endangered plants in Georgia, to provide focus for control efforts on the most critical sites, and to pledge our commitment to partnering with land management entities toward protection of rare and endangered plants from feral hogs. This document is not intended to address the statewide problem of feral hogs or supplant existing partner policies regarding hogs.

Goals/Outcomes – This policy will be updated annually by reviewing known sites at risk to damage from feral hogs and giving guidance on which sites are the highest priority. This information will be shared with the relevant land management entities and a plan cooperatively developed based on the tiered options outlined below. GPCA will work with these land management entities to help secure material support for protection of highest priority sites. The successful outcome of this policy would be to focus hog control efforts on the most at risk sites from hog damage in order to protect rare, threatened or endangered species or ecosystems of state or global significance.

Monitoring All sites listed on Appendix A – ‘Top ten most imperiled sites from feral hog damage’ have experienced significant recent hog damage that puts the species and/or the ecosystem at risk of extirpation. GPCA asks that at a minimum these sites undergo regular monitoring of hog damage. For some sites this could be quarterly visits combined with a game camera to document the timing of hog damage. For other sites at greater risk of imminent hog damage a cellular enabled game camera should be setup and monitored for hog activity to ensure a timely response to the threat of damage. In either case the timing of hog visits should be recorded in a dataset for all sites. This dataset may prove valuable to determine the pattern of hog visitation, making control methods more efficient. For example some sites may only be at risk from hogs for a few weeks a year when food is available on or near the site and may have little or no activity the rest of the year. Recognizing these patterns will allow for a more efficient and effective protection of the site from hog damage.

Response methods will be determined based partly on the patterns of hog use documented by monitoring (frequency, time of day, time of year, number of hogs), the significance of the site, the tolerance of the site to disturbance, the size of the site, input from agency biologists, regional hog populations and other factors.

Initial control methods - use a measured/economical/efficient response, continue monitoring to gauge success. Multiple methods should be employed, using one method is rarely successful.

Trapping* may be a viable option. Material costs can be low to moderate depending on the sophistication and size of the trap, however labor costs may be prohibitive as traps often need to be attended daily and the required trapping effort may last weeks or months.

Nighttime hunting* by wildlife professionals or contractors - Putting hunting pressure on hogs may change hog behavior. While hog populations may not be substantially reduced, hog use may shift to other areas which are not as critical to conservation. Material and labor costs are generally low and may amount to a few days of hunting. Some specialized equipment such as night vision scopes, specialized weapons and suppressors will be needed. Generally this method is used when trapping fails.

Removal of feeding/bait stations – generally hogs thrive with supplemental feeding. Hog populations grow rapidly from immigration and higher survival and reproductive output. Bait stations, except when actively used for hunting or trapping hogs, should be removed from ***what distance*** of the designated sensitive site and regulations put into place that prevent further baiting enacted permanently. If the feeding site cannot be moved, feeders can be fenced so they exclude hogs but remain accessible to deer. This may require coordinating with adjoining neighbors feeding hogs, possibly including collective efforts at hog control.

Intensive hog control efforts – one or more of these efforts should be employed when initial control methods have been implemented and failed to safeguard the site from ongoing hog damage.

Dedicated hog control staff* – Trapping and hunting are very labor intensive and require skill. Rarely does a property manager have sufficient free time in their schedule to run effective trapping and hunting programs. When other methods have failed partners should consider hiring seasonal employees to intensively work multiple high-priority properties within a narrow region of the state. GPCA would consider supporting this effort through fundraising and other means.

Aerial gunning* – This method may be successful at reducing local hog populations but success is dependent on the terrain and cover types. The best sites for aerial gunning are properties which include open habitats where pigs may congregate. Cost efficiency of aerial gunning is greatly diminished on areas less than 20,000 acres or areas with unsuitable cover or terrain. It may be possible to gun pigs in open pine or open hardwood forest (winter) if cover is low enough. Dense pine plantations prevent successful use of this method. Many agencies have access to helicopters but may have restrictions on their use. Careful policies should be developed that ensure bears or other nontarget animals are not killed as well as careful planning to address public concerns or media attention.

Exclusion - Welded wire fencing or other methods can be installed to exclude hogs from select sites. This is probably the least efficient method in terms of cost and time. Fences require frequent maintenance as nearby trees fall. They also pose the risk of hogs getting into a site and being unable to find a way out, causing extreme damage to a site. For that reason, fenced sites should include a cellular camera.

Fencing a sensitive site should be considered as a last resort.

Electric fencing – electric fencing may be a better short to medium term option than erecting a permanent fence. Electric fences could be deployed more rapidly and are less expensive. This option could be checked and activated during times when hog damage is anticipated. The remainder of the year it could be taken down or left in place but deactivated.

When trapping or professional hunting is being used consider closing all other hog hunting activities during those times. Recreational hog hunting disrupts movement patterns which diminishes the efficiency of professional control efforts.