Wild pigs, I just don't get it

[Flintknapper]

FLAvalanche wrote:

Lack of hunting pressure + diverse, adaptable animal + dwindling hunters = pig bomb.

Here is the fault in your assessment (as I see it).

I know you are an experienced hog-hunter as well....so perhaps this will resonate with you.

Hunting pressure does NOT equal fewer hogs! SUCCESSFUL hunting will result in small numbers of hogs being taken BUT the vast majority will simply move or change their habits.
================================

Addressed to everyone else:

Personally, it is not my endeavor to "swap hogs" with my neighbors. Moving hogs from one property to another does nothing to diminish their numbers, it only serves to give one person temporary relief.

Every failed attempt to kill or capture a hog results in a learning experience for that animal.

The idea that hunting pressure (if limited to shooting) would significantly reduce their numbers is laughable. Todays "hog hunter" must be smart and really know his quarry, otherwise....you'll just move them around and help educate the herd.

Yes, it can be argued that "every dead hog helps".....but only if the rest of them do not become harder to hunt because of someones sloppy methods.

I am sorry to labor this point, but sheer numbers of people in the woods and "try" is hardly a good plan of attack UNLESS those people are good, well educated, careful hunters....as concerns hogs.

Please forget most of what you have seen on T.V. about hog-hunting, its not that easy most places.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Here is what seems to be established as fact:

1. Texas has very little or no public land.
2. Texas has a lot more hogs than California.

AB argues that #2 follows from #1. Others argue that it is habitat or some other reason. Unfortunately no one seems to have any evidence to make a convincing argument. I certainly don't. Anyone else?

Well let's look at some other 'facts,' shall we?

California has 163,707 square miles with 33,871,648 people meaning an average of 206 people per square mile average. Texas has 268,820 square miles with 24,782,302 people for an average of 92 people per square mile. So, we could make the argument just as easily that because Texas has less people per square mile it has more hogs.

So less people means more habitat.

Let's look at the deer populations. California has a whopping estimated 450,000 deer. Texas 4,250,000 deer. Is the difference due to public hunting land you think? Considering that California had somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 million deer in the 1960s, it isn't the public hunting lands that have reduced the deer population so drastically, but the reduction of habitat due to encroachment by humans. Keep in mind that California's human population more than doubled between 1960 and 2000.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-09-18/bay-area/17159197_1_deer-hunting-deer-population-deer-seasons
http://www.censusscope.org/us/s6/chart_popl.html

Of course you can hunt in a big bunch of the 18,000 square miles or so of the Mojave Desert there in California, only there aren't really any hogs there. There is another 5270 square miles of Death Valley, but virtually nothing in the way of hogs being returned from there either. Roughly 14% of the state is composed of these 2 areas and they are pretty much horrible hog habitat and so horrible hog hunting, though they are public hunting lands.

In fact, a lot of eastern California and Southeastern California is horrible habitat for hogs despite the plethora of public lands for hunting.

2001 Pig Tag Returns
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/pig/pigmap.html

Maybe the reason why California doesn't have so many hogs is because a tremendous amount of the land that would be great hog habitat is occupied by fairly dense populations of humans and all of their construction and many of the areas not occupied by dense human populations are crappy hog habitat such as the much of the Great Basin and various deserts. Go figure.

 

[~z]

Well researched
Well stated
~z

 

[FLAvalanche]

Hunting pressure does NOT equal fewer hogs! SUCCESSFUL hunting will result in small numbers of hogs being taken BUT the vast majority will simply move or change their habits.

I whole heartedly agree and that was the point I was trying to, albeit poorly, make. You'll see in my last post that I noted that pressure on the hogs will simply make them move and Florida's WMAs are proof of that.

Hunting pressure will not lessen the hog population effectively. However no pressure is just as bad.

 

[308win]

It seems to me that the law of diminishing returns applies as well, to wit:

• the young and dumb get got early
• the ones that survive get smarter and harder to get and will educate their young
• pretty soon you are left with a strain of smarter harder to get hogs

Then you have to radically change your hunting methods.

 

[FLAvalanche]

It seems to me that the law of diminishing returns applies as well, to wit:

• the young and dumb get got early
• the ones that survive get smarter and harder to get and will educate their young
• pretty soon you are left with a strain of smarter harder to get hogs

Then you have to radically change your hunting methods.

I don't know 308win.

Flint may add more to this as he has 20 years more experience with hogs than I.

I rarely see the young and dumb. I've had several females with full litters over the past 2 years I've had a camera up. I've watched them all grow to relatively good size and then move on. I've never once seen a mother show up with 8 one night and 7 the next. I've found that impressive because I've had coyotes, panther and, I know, a record setting bobcat that regularly come through my area. I have never once found a pig carcass I didn't cause or signs of one being taken. I find plenty of rabbit and bird leftovers but never pig. Judging by what I've seen them do to my carcasses, anything that happens across them leave nothing but a bloody smear, some scraps and the hooves. I've never seen that outside of the hogs I killed first.

Now that means one of two things. You're dead wrong or you're absolutely spot on and it happens over a longer period of time than I have hunting hogs and I'm just catching the final phase of your point.

Given the hog's intelligence level it wouldn't suprise me if you're right. Like I've said, take away the nuisance and they are an impressive animal. Smart, strong, ressilent and a nose that waivers on the level of clairvoiance.

 

[chas08]

the young and dumb get got early
the ones that survive get smarter and harder to get and will educate their young
pretty soon you are left with a strain of smarter harder to get hogs

I agree with that. I also believe that you can "Dumb Down" a heard by killing off the older sows. I have no scientific research or statistics to back that up. I have noticed that after a good run of killing "the biggest hog in the bunch" for a few weeks or months that trap catches would increase with younger pigs/hogs.

 

[Flintknapper]

chas08 wrote:

I also believe that you can "Dumb Down" a heard by killing off the older sows. I have no scientific research or statistics to back that up. I have noticed that after a good run of killing "the biggest hog in the bunch" for a few weeks or months that trap catches would increase with younger pigs/hogs.

Absolutely true, in fact it is even a tactic we purposely use when "shooting out" a sounder. Start with the Alpha Sow, then when (if) they show up again, take out the new leader. Continue until they stop coming to the bait site or you have removed all leadership...in which case the sounder will usually break up.

Last year...we had a group of mature hogs that would not go anywhere near a trap. Over a period of nearly three months....my daughter was able to take all four of the mature sows in the herd....as well as 3 very nice boars that came visiting.

After the last sow was removed....the herd disbanded (except for one gilt that stayed around).

We didn't get them all....but it was clearly easier each time we went afield (about once a week).

 

[Shadow 7D]

surprised that the animal rights people and PETA aren't protesting the poor farmers, maybe they realize that the hogs eat the soy beans for their vegiburgers. I feel for you, hogs are definitely smarter game than deer.

 

[Flintknapper]

308win wrote:

the young and dumb get got early
the ones that survive get smarter and harder to get and will educate their young
pretty soon you are left with a strain of smarter harder to get hogs

Then you have to radically change your hunting methods.

We have a winner!

 

[CTPhil]

It seemed as if you were trying to take sides and support the position of the OP. If, as you say....you were merely pointing out where all of us had "misunderstood" the OP's points, then please accept my apology for the application of guilt by association.

Just for the record, I'm the OP, and I don't have a position, I just asked a question!

My question has been very well answered thank you, but please carry on, this is a most informative exchange!

 

[Flintknapper]

I was referring to AB's post.

I should have made that clear, sorry.

 

[kd7nqb]

I would gladly hunt pigs if they were in my area. But then again I know that the people who rely on that land for their livelihood would be hurt by them being here so I don't wish that on them.

 

[FLAvalanche]

I've been enjoying these pig threads because you get to see the subtle differences in the way they act in different places.

Absolutely true, in fact it is even a tactic we purposely use when "shooting out" a sounder. Start with the Alpha Sow, then when (if) they show up again, take out the new leader. Continue until they stop coming to the bait site or you have removed all leadership...in which case the sounder will usually break up.

THIS I have noticed. I can take it one step further too. Here, if you take the alpha female with a bow the sounder will return, usually with a new larger female in charge or the next oldest female in the sounder in charge. It doesn't spook them.

Take the alpha female with a firearm and the sounder WILL NOT return.

Take a younger female from that sounder with a firearm and you've got about 50-50 odds of that sounder coming back.

 

[wombat13]

Well let's look at some other 'facts,' shall we?

California has 163,707 square miles with 33,871,648 people meaning an average of 206 people per square mile average. Texas has 268,820 square miles with 24,782,302 people for an average of 92 people per square mile. So, we could make the argument just as easily that because Texas has less people per square mile it has more hogs.

So less people means more habitat.

Less people doesn't necessarily mean more habitat. It depends on how densely the people are packed. Here is another source (USDA) that supports your point, however.

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/maps/mappdfs/m5150.pdf

Let's assume that pigs can live in the following types of land: forest, range, pasture, and crop. If that is correct, 89% of TX is potential pig habitat, but only 43% of CA is potential pig habitat. Combined with the total land area, that means TX has 239,000 sqmi of pig habitat and CA has 70,000 sqmi of pig habitat (a ratio of 3.4X). This almost certainly overstates the point however. According to the USDA, 47% of CA is federal land while only 2% of TX is federal. Federal land is not included in the above categories. It is nearly certain that some, perhaps much, of this federal land is pig habitat. Therefore, the real difference in pig habitat is likely somewhat less than 3.4 times as much in TX as in CA.

The USDA study cited earlier estimated that TX has 5X the number of pigs as CA. The available pig habitat is likely at most 3.4X as large in TX as in CA. Therefore, the available habitat difference may explain much, but certainly not all, of the difference in pig population between the two states.

 

[chas08]

Well let's look at some other 'facts,' shall we?

wombat13 since you're into facts, Did you read post # 77. There are some interesting facts presented there that I find plausible. And as for fences, they mean very little down here amongst neighbors, much less to hogs. Also, for what it's worth, just about all fact started life as some form of conjecture.

 

[FLAvalanche]

Let's assume that pigs can live in the following types of land: forest, range, pasture, and crop. If that is correct, 89% of TX is potential pig habitat, but only 43% of CA is potential pig habitat. Combined with the total land area, that means TX has 239,000 sqmi of pig habitat and CA has 70,000 sqmi of pig habitat (a ratio of 3.4X). This almost certainly overstates the point however. According to the USDA, 47% of CA is federal land while only 2% of TX is federal. Federal land is not included in the above categories. It is nearly certain that some, perhaps much, of this federal land is pig habitat. Therefore, the real difference in pig habitat is likely somewhat less than 3.4 times as much in TX as in CA.

Take a look at the USDA map I linked to. As of 2004 three states reported hog populations in ALL THEIR COUNTIES. Florida, California and Hawaii.

Why does California have less pigs? Because they're lucky.

The one "fact" I do know for certain? It's going to get worse.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Less people doesn't necessarily mean more habitat. It depends on how densely the people are packed. Here is another source (USDA) that supports your point, however.

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/N...pdfs/m5150.pdf

That is why I specifically noted the per square mile average for both states and noting that California has more than double the density of humans per square mile for the overall state than Texas.

If you take a closer look at California, those areas of the best habitat for hogs tend to be the areas with higher concentrations of people. The concentrations I stated were for the entire state without taking into account the absolutely desolate areas that are largely devoid of water necessary for hogs and actually contain few people.

The USDA study cited earlier estimated that TX has 5X the number of pigs as CA. The available pig habitat is likely at most 3.4X as large in TX as in CA. Therefore, the available habitat difference may explain much, but certainly not all, of the difference in pig population between the two states.

Well I respect your math skills. Now please factor in the rate of reproduction of hogs and the fact that hogs have been in Texas since 1539 and a larger population in 1685 and did not arrive in California until 1769.
http://texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/feral/feral-15.htm
http://texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/feral/feral-6.htm

I am sure that once you factor in the additional breeding time, you will be able to account for the greater density of hogs in Texas and hence dovetail this information with the substantially lower density of people in Texas than California in areas that are good habitat for both. FYI, females can reproduce starting at about 6 months of age and gestation is usually about 115 days. Litter sizes range from 4-6 to 12. The ratio of young is nearly perfectly equal with 50% male and 50% female. You will have to account for changes in human population over each time period, estimate feral population growth relative to both natural predation and re-introduction of new breeders from the captive population (of which when you check the histories you will find the number of early Texas colonies with hogs to far excede those of California), human predation pressures, etc.

I look forward to your calculations.

 

[bison]

Speaking from experience, there are plenty of areas of CA that are indeed overrun with hogs. Admittedly it's mostly to all private land and usually somewhat remote, and unlike what I think is the case in other states it's usually somewhat remote rolling oak hillsides rather than farmland. As an example, the hills around Lake Sonoma - I hunted a private property that was 7 miles in from the paved road and not only was the property I hunted 80% torn up but so was all seven miles on the way in! The erosion that these critters cause on hillsides is immense.
Of course in CA the word "hunter" is a dirty word. Areas that have pig problems like the Crystal Springs watershed (San Francisco's water supply) and Marin Water District have to deal with loonies who seriously propose capturing the pigs and either relocating them (where??) or injecting them with birth control (good luck!). So they end up very quietly spending taxpayer dollars to hire professional hunters to get rid of as many as they can (oh, and they have to throw away the meat as it's not USDA certified).
Hogs, like turkey and mountain lions, are expanding in CA. We'll see how many people defend them when their rose gardens and lawns get torn to shreds!

 

[Flintknapper]

chas08 wrote:

Well let's look at some other 'facts,' shall we?

wombat13 since you're into facts, Did you read post # 77. There are some interesting facts presented there that I find plausible.

Well done...as per usual for DNS, but completely unnecessary for all....except those who choose to entertain themselves with statistics, figures, charts and studies.

I.E.....Texas is a State comprised of a larger land mass than Rhode Island.

If you've been to both places...it is self evident and does NOT require documentation, satellite imagery or scientific study. Just the same, some will not accept it as "fact".... if lacking all of the above "evidence". Sheeesh...

Mr. Wombat, did you remove your rather exhaustive reply to me? I purposely did not "quote it" to allow you to reconsider.

Or perhaps the Mods did it for you.

In any case, I am more than willing to have civil debate and discussion with you, but I am NOT willing to provide encyclopedic proof of every small point (for your benefit)....when the subject is common knowledge to others.

 

[FLAvalanche]

We'll see how many people defend them when their rose gardens and lawns get torn to shreds!

I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Will you please come kill these hogs, they're destroying my rose bushes!".

It's all fun and games until someone's roses get uprooted.

You know who pays the best for hog removal down in this neck of the woods? Golf courses.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I do agree a bit with the population thing in cali, grew up there, know lots of farmers that made more selling off boundry acerage for develpment than their orchards and feilds made in 10 years, it is pretty dry, even in notheren cali, until the pigs hit the foot hills and coastal plains, not much in those but vineyards and trees.

As for hunting them, gladly, if a bow doesn't spooks them, would a large bore silenced, like a 50 Beowulf work?

 

[FLAvalanche]

There is someone here that hunts hogs with a .50 Beowulf and I'm actually looking to buy a Beowulf upper for pigs also.

I think it's a great short range pig caliber, which most of my pig hunting is. I've yet to shoot a hog over 30 yards.

 

[Flintknapper]

The 50 Beo can be loaded subsonic...and with use of a silencer (where legal) it can help in getting follow up shots....when more than one hog is present.

I use a .458 SOCOM.....but ballistically they are similar.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I was wondering about using silenced because pigs are shot under a varmit/pest regs, and not under hunting, so I wouldn't think hunting regs matter, but agiain that all depends on your state.
Personally, I'm the sort of person who'ld use a Ma Deuce (M2 Browning) to take out the whole pack, question is, do you start at the front or do you start at the back?

Out of Fantasy land, if you take out the boar and older sows, is it easier to trap the rest?