By: Josh Helcel,
Extension Associate
Texas A&M Agrilife
Extension Service
Seasonal variation in resource availability can have a
significant influence on wildlife behavior. A number of environmental factors
such as annual rainfall, temperature, and grazing conditions can all influence
resource availability throughout the year. Many Texas landowners provide
supplemental feed and water to both sustain and retain desired wildlife species
on their property throughout the year. Generally,
wildlife species including feral hogs (Sus
scrofa) frequent supplemental resources like game feeders during the “lean”
times of the year such as late winter and mid to late summer. Landowners and
wildlife managers can use this to their advantage when enacting feral hog
abatement efforts. By manipulating supplemental feed distribution and access
while coordinating trapping and shooting efforts accordingly, success can be
greatly increased.
 |
Exclusion
fencing can save on feed costs and also redirect feral hogs
to access desired trapping and shooting
locations
|
One
effective way to concentrate animals near trapping or shooting locations is to
selectively exclude feral hogs from supplemental
feed sites on your property. To determine which feed sites are best
left accessible to feral hogs, begin by identifying feral hog bedding areas and
travel routes. Generally, thick cover near a permanent water supply will make
an ideal bedding area for feral hogs. Travel routes between bedding areas and
the nearest supplemental feed site are great places to then construct corral traps and/or place
box traps. Selectively leaving
ideal supplemental feed sites active and accessible to feral hogs can funnel
and direct them between bedding and feeding areas. Daytime and nighttime shooting pressure at
active feeders can then pressure feral hogs right into your traps.
Depending on the size of your
property, it is recommended to leave at least two active supplemental feed
sites that feral hogs can access. By doing this, shooting efforts can be
alternated at the different accessible feeders to then pressure feral hogs to
access pre-baited trap sites.
When the feral hogs are readily accessing the bait in the trap sites, corral
trap doors and box traps can then be set. The goal here is to use times of low
natural resource availability as well as feral hog response to both daytime and
nighttime pressure to control their movements and capture or shoot as many as
possible. Each property and situation is different; however in my experience
this method will allow for quite a few feral hogs on a property to be
successfully harvested. Also, it generally doesn’t take too long before the
remaining feral hogs respond to the increased pressure by leaving the area
altogether.
 |
|
Figure 1.—Example of utilizing inactive and excluded supplemental feed
sites to direct feral hog movements. Trap locations are set on travel routes: 1)
between bedding areas and accessible feed sites, and 2) between bedding areas
and water access
|
Inactive vs. excluded supplemental
feed sites for target species
Depending on
your specific management goals, it may be desirable to exclude feral hogs from
some supplemental feed sites while allowing target species such as white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to
access and consume supplemental feed. As an added benefit, the cost of
excluding supplemental feed sites is often easily offset by the savings
incurred from feral hogs not consuming inaccessible supplemental feed. In other cases, it may be best
to simply inactivate or turn off non-ideal supplemental feed
sites during late winter and mid to late summer feral hog abatement efforts.
Keep in mind that this can potentially cause target species such as
white-tailed deer to leave your property in search of food depending on the
availability of resources. Generally, the right combination of inactive and
excluded supplemental feed sites will direct feral hog activities as desired
while providing adequate supplementation to retain target species on your property.
 |
White-tailed deer can access feed protected by
20, 28, and 34 inch utility
panels while excluding feral hogs (Timmons
et. al 2011)
|
Why not just exclude all of my
supplemental feed sites?
This is certainly an understandable question, and there is
nothing wrong with taking this approach. Excluding all supplemental feed sites
will save money on feed costs and can potentially force feral hogs to leave
your property in times of low natural resource availability. It will also
potentially retain target animals at the desired feed sites. If your specific
management goals involve year round feeding at all supplemental feed locations,
then this may be the best option for you. However, consider the following benefits of
selective exclusion and/or deactivation:
Selective exclusion
and/or deactivation can concentrate feral hogs where you want them
§
Fewer traps and game cameras are needed
§
Easier to pattern animals for trapping or
shooting
§
Less bait is needed for trapping
§
Less time is spent checking / baiting traps
§
Other population reduction techniques such as snaring
feral hogs can be used
more easily on predicted travel routes
Potential to trap or
shoot higher feral hog numbers
§
Can lead to a decrease in overall feral hog
impacts throughout the year
§
More overall income from the sale of feral hogs
to approved holding facilities
Year round lease and
day hunting income can be made from feral hog accessible harvest sites
§
Provide hunting opportunities to others
§
Allow others to pay you to help control feral
hog numbers
Conclusion
Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service often recommends
utilizing all available resources to reduce feral hog numbers. Trapping,
shooting, snaring, trained dogs, and aerial gunning are all legal and proven
population reduction methods. Incorporating non-lethal strategies such as
exclusion fencing at select supplemental feed sites can also serve in
concentrating feral hogs in areas where populations can be more effectively
controlled. By combining multiple
methods as well as understanding when and how each technique is most effective,
greater success can be achieved. For example, shooting in itself is generally a
low harvest method for feral hogs. However, shooting can be an excellent tool
for pressuring feral hogs and directing their movements. Engeman et al. (2007)
observed in one study that although sport hunting remove[s] only a small number
of animals, [feral] hog damage in areas open to hunting was less than half that
in unhunted areas. Times of low resource availability provide a great
opportunity to take advantage of feral hog’s response to pressure, and they can
be pushed from one supplemental feed or trap site to the next while being
trapped or harvested at each stop. With a little creativity, planning, and luck
you can develop a management system that works best for your property and stacks
the odds in your favor.
The hyper-linked resource document below will provide you with quick access to many of our online feral hog resources including publications, fact sheets and videos.
For free educational programming or technical assistance with feral hogs
please contact us:
Our services are provided free of charge through a Clean Water Act
319(h) non-point source grant from the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation
Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Literature Cited
Engeman, R.M., A. Stevens, J. Allen, J.
Dunlap, M. Danial, D. Teague, and B. Constantin. 2007. Feral swine management
for conservation of an imperiled wetland habitat: Florida’s vanishing seepage
slopes. Biological Conservation 134:440-446.
Timmons, J. B., J. Rattan, T. Campbell,
D. Long, B. Higginbotham, D. Campion, M.
McFarland, N. Dictson, and J. C. Cathey. 2011. Using Fences to Exclude Feral
Hogs from Wildlife Feeding Stations.
Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service. L-5533.