To Dog or Not to Dog: Perspectives on the Use of Trained Dogs in Wild Pig Management

By: Josh Helcel, Extension Associate

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

 

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service generally recommends the use of all available tools in wild pig management. With more wild pigs currently in Texas than in any other state in the U.S., it is a natural conclusion that Texans could use all of the help they can get in abating the damages associated with this exotic invasive species.  Legal control techniques currently include trapping, strategic shooting, aerial gunning, snaring and the use of trained dogs, but it is the latter of these methods that often causes polarization among landowners, producers and the dog runners themselves. This article will address a number of commonly held positions of those both against and in favor of this practice, and will also provide research-based information on the effectiveness and strategy involved in using trained dogs to control wild pigs.

Common Concerns on the Use of Dogs

Those against the use of trained dogs as a measure to control wild pigs often cite a number of concerns regarding property boundaries, livestock and native wildlife. Wild pigs attempting to evade pursuing dogs can often travel considerable distances, and the potential exists that pigs may cross one or more property boundaries during this process. The dog handler is then faced with the dilemma of calling off the pursuit in order to avoid trespassing, thereby reducing the success of this method. An even worse alternative, whether intentional or not, is that the dogs and/or handler trespass illegally onto another property. A reasonable solution is to obtain requisite permissions to access adjacent properties when using trained dogs, but in reality this is not always feasible or granted.

Common concerns associated with the use of trained dogs include the potential for trespassing and possible impacts to livestock and native wildlife. (Image Credit Opie Dauphin)

 

Another concern is that inadequately trained dogs may pursue livestock or native wildlife such as white-tailed deer instead of wild pigs. This concern is compounded by the commonly held perception that the disturbance of trained dogs on the landscape may unnecessarily stress or injure livestock and/or direct desired native species off of a property. While research has documented that wildlife species, including wild pigs can abandon areas when exposed to the sustained use trained dogs, the study also observed that this did not occur when this practice was enacted intermittently (Scillitani et al. 2010). Even so, livestock production and the wildlife industry remain primary sources of income for a large number of rural landowners, and many are simply not willing to take any chances when it comes to dog runners on their property.         

The Case for Trained Dogs as a Management Tool

There are valid considerations that must be made prior to enacting any control effort for wild pigs. However, research generally supports the use of all legal control methods in Texas for wild pigs – including the use of trained dogs. For example, studies have been conducted worldwide over decades documenting successful wild pig eradication efforts. I am currently unaware of a single successful wild pig eradication study that did not utilize trained dogs in some form; whether through hunting drives, tracking or through direct pursuit and capture (Mcilroy and Saillard 1989; Caley and Ottley 1995; Schuyler et al. 2001; Parkes et al. 2010; Muir and McEwen 2007; McCann and Garcelon 2008; Scillitani et al. 2010). This is not to say that successful eradication without dogs is impossible, but rather to evidence that effective wild pig management often requires the use of all available tools.

But there is a catch.

The use of trained dogs is a method that enacted individually will generally not reduce wild pig populations.  Additionally, documented successful abatement efforts almost exclusively utilized trained dogs as a final measure to remove residual wild pigs after all other control measures had been enacted and populations had already been significantly reduced (Caley and Ottley 1995; Schuyler et al. 2001; Parkes et al. 2010; Muir and McEwen 2007). The premise behind this was that trained dogs were best suited in removing “educated” wild pigs that were not able to be removed through any other means. Trap shy pigs, mature adults, transient boars, and pigs that have otherwise adapted human aversion through incomplete captures or other means usually fall into this category of “educated” wild pigs.

Research shows that trained dogs are often best used last, after all other control techniques have been implemented and wild pig populations are already significantly reduced.

A Trained Dog Tall Tale?

Since I began working for Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, I have learned the importance of using words like “generally” and “potentially.” This is because in wild pig management there can always be exceptions. Each management situation is unique, and every property is different. For example, due to the terrain in the steeper areas of Texas Hill Country, the assertion that the use of trained dogs might not be capable of reducing populations may not actually be true. In fact, in some instances, it can be argued that dog running is a more effective method than even corral trapping or aerial gunning.

After speaking at an event in Gillespie county, Texas a while back, two gentlemen approached me and politely informed me that they disagreed with some of the research that I had cited including the use of trained dogs. They told me that due to the thick year round canopy of Ashe juniper in the region, aerial gunning was ineffective. They went on to explain that nearly every property they encountered was a wildlife or hunting operation in some form, and that due to the continuous widespread availability of supplemental feed even trapping was often ineffective. Finally, they informed me that they routinely removed large sounders of wild pigs using only trained dogs. This was accomplished, they claimed, by their dogs adapting to drive and consistently bay large groups of pigs against the numerous, steep and often untraversable box canyons in the area. I have never personally witnessed trained dogs bay an entire sounder against a box canyon, nor is this documented in any published studies. However, the general reasonability of this claim convinced me that in some circumstances trained dogs may in fact be capable of potentially reducing wild pig populations.

Conclusion

Much like the popular pastime of conventional sport hunting, the recreational value of using trained dogs to pursue wild pigs is important to many Texans. From a management efficacy perspective, however, people often quickly diverge in opinion. Concerns with enacting this practice are valid and considerations must be made including securing legal property access, training dogs sufficiently, and knowing when and how dogs are most effectively implemented as a control technique. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service is in the business of providing research-based information, and the research continues to affirm the validity of trained dogs among the tools in our wild pig management toolbox.

For more information on wild pigs, their impacts and how to effectively reduce populations please visit feralhogs.tamu.edu.

Wild pig resources listed below are available at the AgriLife Bookstore

– L-5523 Recognizing Feral Hog Sign

– L-5524 Corral Traps for Capturing Feral Hogs

– L-5525 Box Traps for Capturing Feral Hogs

– L-5526 Placing and Baiting Feral Hog Traps

– L-5527 Door Modifications for Feral Hog Traps

– L-5528 Snaring Feral Hog

– L-5529 Making a Feral Hog Snare

– SP-419 Feral Hogs Impact Ground-nesting Birds

– SP-420 Feral Hog Laws and Regulations

– SP-421 Feral Hogs and Disease Concerns

– SP-422 Feral Hogs and Water Quality in Plum Creek

– SP-423 Feral Hog Transportation Regulations

– L-5533 Using Fences to Exclude Feral Hogs from Wildlife Feeding Stations

– WF-030 Reducing non-target species interference while trapping wild pigs

 

Click here for additional resources on wild pigs

 

 

For free educational programming or technical assistance with wild pigs please contact:

Josh Helcel, Central and North Central Texas, 512-554-3785, josh.helcel@tamu.edu

 

Literature Cited

Caley, P. and B. Ottley. 1995. The effectiveness of hunting dogs for removing feral pigs (Sus scrofa).
Wildlife Research. 22(2) 147 – 154.

McCann, B.E. and D.K. Garcelon. 2008. Eradication of feral pigs from Pinnacles National Monument. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(6) 1287-1295.

Mcilroy, J.C. and R.J. Saillard. 1989. The effect of hunting with dogs on the numbers and movements of feral pigs (Sus scrofa), and the subsequent success of poisoning excercises in Namadgi National Park. Australian Wildlife Research. 16(3) 353 – 363.

Muir T.J. and G. Mcewen. 2007. Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proceedings of an international symposium (G. W. Witmer, W. C. Pitt, K. A. Fagerstone, Eds). USDA-APHIS-WS National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Parkes, J.P., D.S.L. Ramsey, N. Macdonald, K. Walker, S. McKnight, B. S. Cohen and S. A. Morrison. 2010. Rapid eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) from Santa Cruz Island, California. Biological Conservation (Impact Factor: 3.76). 143(3):634-641.

Schuyler, P.T., D.K. Garcelon and S. Escover. 2002. Eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) on Santa Catalina Island, California, USA. Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. World Conservation Union, Species Survival Commission, Invasive Species Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom. 274-286.

Scillitani, L., A. Monaco and S. Toso S. 2010. Do intensive drive hunts affect wild boar (Sus scrofa) spatial behaviour in Italy? Some evidences and management implications. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 56, 307–318.