Producers’ perceptions of large carnivores and nonlethal methods to protect livestock from depredation: findings from a multistate federal initiative

We examined livestock producers’ perceptions of wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, and mountain lions, as well as their experiences with using nonlethal methods to protect livestock from depredation. All producers in the study received nonlethal predator management assistance in 2020 from USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services (“WS”) pursuant to a federally funded initiative focused on the use of nonlethal methods to protect livestock. Such methods included assistance from range riders (i.e., individuals who monitor livestock and carnivores), fladry (i.e., flags hung from rope that serve as a repellent), and other audio/visual deterrents (e.g., Foxlights). The producers did not specifically seek nonlethal assistance from WS; rather, they sought assistance from WS with controlling depredation of livestock, and WS personnel determined that nonlethal methods were an appropriate fit for the circumstances. In some cases, lethal methods may have been used prior to, following, or in combination with, nonlethal methods on a producer’s operation. In addition, producers may have employed other nonlethal methods themselves, including fencing and livestock guardian animals. Our objectives were to understand the producers’ (1) experiences with, and attitudes toward, the four carnivores of interest; (2) perceptions of the effectiveness of all management methods (lethal and nonlethal) used their operations in 2020; and (3) levels of interest in using nonlethal methods, both before and after receiving assistance from WS in 2020. Data were collected using a self-administered, mail-back questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent to all producers in 10 US states1 who received nonlethal predator management assistance from WS in 2020 (n = 89). We received 40 responses (45% response rate), nearly three-quarters of which were from Montana (n = 13), Minnesota (n = 10), and Wisconsin (n = 6). A majority of respondents produced cattle (n = 28), followed by horses/mules (n = 11), sheep/goats (n = 6), honeybees (n = 3), and chickens (n = 2). Ten respondents produced multiple livestock types

The influence of income and loss on hunters\u27 attitudes towards wild pigs and their management

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are one of the most pervasive invasive species in North America. Wild pigs pose a threat to crops, livestock, and the environment, but also provide recreational hunting opportunities. There are avenues for some stakeholder groups to generate income from wild pigs, however, stakeholders vary in attitudes towards wild pigs and their management. We investigated whether financial loss and income resulting from wild pigs influenced hunter stakeholder attitudes towards their management in Texas. We examined how land use influenced hunting landowner attitudes towards wild pigs. We analyzed 22,176 responses (8,707 landowners, 13,469 nonlandowners) fromTexas hunters to theTexas A&M Human Dimensions of Wild Pigs Survey. Attitudes towards wild pigs varied significantly based on landownership status and whether land was used for agricultural practices. In addition, landowners who received income from wild pigs on their land considered government or agency hunting to be a less acceptable method of control than those who did not generate such income. However, effect sizes for all our results were small (η2 ≤ 0.05, Adj. R2 ≤ 0.09, and McFadden\u27s R2 ≤ 0.07) and, across all groups, attitudes towards wild pigs were negative. Few respondents (3.91% of landowners, 0.56% of non‐landowners) reported generating income from wild pigs, and reported losses were approximately 4 times greater than income. Supplemental file attached

A social network analysis of actors involved in wild pig (\u3ci\u3eSus scrofa\u3c/i\u3e) management in Missouri

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) cause significant damage to agriculture and native ecosystems and can transmit diseases to animals and people. Management responses designed to reduce population numbers are needed to mitigate these threats. Identifying networks of key actors, including the ways in which they interact, is valuable for purposes of better understanding opportunities or constraints that generate or impede effective management responses. The goal of our study was to understand the network of organizations, and the personnel working within them, that were active in wild pig management, research, or policy initiatives in Missouri during 2018–2020 by 1) identifying individuals and organizations involved in the network, 2) investigating the attributes of relevant personnel, 3) determining the structural patterns of the network, and 4) examining how the network structure could be optimized to improve communication and collaboration efforts. Results from a social network analysis identified 150 personnel affiliated with 26 organizations actively working on wild pig issues in Missouri. The network was largely homogenous based on respondents\u27 attributes, had low density, and was relatively fragmented, small, decentralized with few ties per node, and separated with few brokers. We emphasize the importance of understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a network\u27s structure in facilitating effective collective action to manage wild pigs

Hunter Motivations and Use of Wild Pigs in Texas, USA

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are a widespread exotic, invasive species that pose ecological, agricultural, and human health risks in their invaded range. Wildlife managers must manage wild pig abundance and range expansion to mitigate these risks. The diversity of stakeholders involved in the issue of wild pig management complicates efforts to manage the species, and, to be successful, wildlife professionals must consider the human dimensions associated with wild pig management. The prevalence of privately owned lands in Texas, USA necessitates cooperation to enact effective management policies. In this study, we investigate the impact of hunter motivations on wild pig harvest quantity. Motivations driving wild pig hunting are diverse. While the majority of wild pig hunters in Texas are motivated by trophy value, meat-motivated hunters harvest more wild pigs per day afield. Wildlife managers should develop plans that include various management techniques to control wild pig population growth and damage. Education and outreach will continue to be important for involving private landowners in effective wild pig management

A Profile of Wild Pig Hunters in Texas, USA

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are a widespread exotic, invasive species that poses ecological, agricultural, and human health risks in invaded areas. Wildlife managers often manage wild pig abundance and expansion to mitigate these risks. The diversity of stakeholders involved in the issue of wild pig management complicates efforts to manage the species, and, to be successful, wildlife professionals should consider the human dimensions associated with wild pig management. The prevalence of privately owned lands in Texas, USA necessitates cooperation to enact effective management policies. In this study, we investigate the factors that affect a hunter’s likelihood to participate in wild pig hunting. Multiple factors affect participation in wild pig hunting activities. We found that participation in other types of big game hunting increased the likelihood of participation in wild pig hunting and that wild pig hunting does not deter individuals from participating in other types of hunting activities. Additionally, hunters’ attitudes toward wild pigs are important in determining the likelihood of participation in wild pig hunting. Finally, our results suggest that hunters are largely uninformed about wild pigs and do not hold the same perceptions, values, or tolerance levels of the species. The diversity of preferences among wild pig hunters necessitates that wildlife managers consider the desires of the public as well as natural resource needs in creating socially acceptable management plans for the species

Machine Learning as a Tool for Wildlife Management and Research: The Case of Wild Pig-Related Content on Twitter

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are a non-native, invasive species that cause considerable damage and transmit a variety of diseases to livestock, people, and wildlife. We explored Twitter, the most popular social media micro-blogging platform, to demonstrate how social media data can be leveraged to investigate social identity and sentiment toward wild pigs. In doing so, we employed a sophisticated machine learning approach to investigate: (1) the overall sentiment associated with the dataset, (2) online identities via user profile descriptions, and (3) the extent to which sentiment varied by online identity. Results indicated that the largest groups of online identity represented in our dataset were females and people whose occupation was in journalism and media communication. While the majority of our data indicated a negative sentiment toward wild pigs and other related search terms, users who identified with agriculture-related occupations had more favorable sentiment. Overall, this article is an important starting point for further investigation of the use of social media data and social identity in the context of wild pigs and other invasive species

Texas Hunters’ Perceptions Regarding the Acceptability of Toxicants to Control Wild Pig Populations

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are an invasive species in the United States. They damage agriculture, degrade water quality and ecological communities, and host a number of viruses, parasites, and bacteria transmissible to humans and animals. In states such as Texas, USA, where wild pigs cause extensive damage to agriculture and property, officials have considered allowing for the use of toxicants to control wild pig populations. To provide decision-makers with information regarding stakeholders’ perceptions of the use of toxicants to control wild pigs, we surveyed Texas hunters in 2019 to assess the level of acceptance of a hypothetical wild pig toxicant, the sociodemographic and other factors most closely associated with acceptability of such a toxicant, and the specific concerns that underlie hunters’ positions on the use of such a toxicant. We received 37,317 completed responses to an online, self-administered survey. Respondents were divided over the use of a toxicant, with 43% finding a toxicant acceptable, 18% neutral, and 39% finding a toxicant unacceptable. The factor most closely associated with acceptance of a wild pig toxicant was respondents’ desired wild pig population size in Texas (χ2 = 3,657.7, P \u3c 0.001, V = 0.26), with 70% of respondents who preferred that wild pigs be completely removed from Texas finding the use of a toxicant to be acceptable, compared to 14% of respondents who preferred that wild pig populations increase or stay the same. The most commonly raised concerns in connection with toxicant usage were potential negative impacts to nontarget animals (33%) and negative impacts to human health (24%). Our research suggests that while achieving a consensus among Texas hunters on toxicant usage is unrealistic, building majority support may be possible if the identified concerns are sufficiently addressed in product development and outreach

Social identity and acceptability of wild pig (Sus scrofa) control actions: A case study of Texas hunters

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) pose significant challenges to wildlife managers. This research explored Texas hunters’ acceptability of wild pig control actions, and whether acceptability varied according to hunters’ affiliation with four different categories of natural resource organizations as an indicator of social identity. Results of a survey (n = 37,317) revealed that most hunters were accepting of all control actions except toxicants and non-lethal deterrents. Mean acceptability scores for each action differed significantly across the four affiliation categories, but effect sizes were minimal. Hunters affiliated with agricultural organizations were the most accepting of control actions, while hunters with no organizational affiliations were least accepting. Findings suggested that while the type of organization with which a hunter affiliates provides some basis for predicting acceptability of control actions, the association is likely not significant enough to warrant differentiating wild pig outreach messaging on the basis of affiliation

The Large Marine Ecosystem approach: Application of an integrated, modular strategy in projects supported by the Global Environment Facility

Abstract This paper describes the utility and application of a methodology for monitoring, assessing and managing Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) that has been applied in projects receiving financial assistance from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) over the last two decades. In particular, the paper focuses on practical integration of the methodology, known as the Large Marine Ecosystem approach (or simply LME approach), into diagnostic and strategic planning documents required by the GEF on collaborative projects to restore and manage LMEs. Examples from several successful LME projects are provided to highlight how this methodology has been adapted and integrated by countries into LME strategic programs and project operation. This paper demonstrates that the LME approach not only provides a useful framework for holistic, ecosystem-based assessment and management of transboundary marine ecosystems but also complements GEF guidance and requirements for monitoring and evaluation on projects in its International Waters focal area