Attitudes and Financial Impact of Wild Pigs in the United States

Michael Mengak, Craig A. Miller, Erin Harper

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

There have been several studies in the US examining the financial impact of wild pigs. This presentation will present comparisons of financial damage across states and also examine attitudes about wild pigs and control activities undertaken by the public. This presentation will include economic damage estimates from several recent surveys. Nationwide estimates suggest damage from wild pigs may exceed $1.5 billion USD/year and our research in Georgia estimated damages over $84 million USD/year in 2011. Estimates include damage to crops, livestock, and other property. Though rarely quantified, ecological damage such as reduced water quality is known to be locally significant. Research suggests that the public has divergent approaches to wild pig control, lacks sound information about control strategies, undertakes a range of legal and non-legal activities, and suffers significant financial losses from wild pigs. Not all producers experience similar amounts of damage and therefore, attitudes regarding the significance of the wild pig problem in Georgia differ widely among citizens. Respondents from the 2011 Georgia wild pig survey felt most control measures were ineffective and that state and federal agencies should provide more assistance. Many survey respondents perceived a decline in some native game species. Collectively, our surveys indicate high levels of damage from wild pigs, frustration with control methods often perceived as ineffective, and a general understanding of the negative financial and ecological impacts of wild pigs.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationIWMC2015 ABSTRACTS: Vth International Wildlife Management Congress
Pages113
StatePublished - 2015

Keywords

  • INHS

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Attitudes and Financial Impact of Wild Pigs in the United States'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this