Porcine Press – Tuesday Edition
Today seems like a good day for a new edition of the Porcine Press. Why? Mostly because I couldn’t think of anything else to write about.
So, for starters, here’s a big one from South Carolina. As reported in several SC news sources, including the SunNews, the SC legislature has passed some new laws related to hunting… and in particular, to hog hunting:
New laws, passed by the legislature this year, aim to rein in three problem species – wild hogs, coyotes and renegade hunters.
All three have been spreading in recent years, according to wildlife officials and law-abiding hunters. The bills passed this legislative session won’t get rid of any of the problems, but they could slow their spread.
The hog bill received little attention but might be the most important of the changes, according to wildlife officials. One provision makes it illegal to capture wild hogs and transport them to other areas of the state. The law also allows night hunting of hogs.
Of course, the article goes on to list the standard reasons that wild hogs are “bad” and must be managed. Among the risks of disease and crop damage, they also talk about the potential damage to ecosystems. I don’t completely disagree with all of that reasoning, of course, but I really wish they’d do a little more research to support the “environmental damage” claims. (Sorry, slipping into broken record mode…)
Anyway, something that I do totally agree with is the argument that a good reason these animals are expanding so quickly across the state is that hunting clubs and landowners are trapping and transporting them. Until now, that activity hasn’t really been illegal, but it’s pretty short-sighted. I attribute it not so much to people not caring, as to simple ignorance and poor understanding of the Law of Unintended Consequences. You’d think that, with all the problems southern farmers have had with the exploding deer populations, bringing in another crop pest that is even more prolific and destructive would be the last thing local landowners would want to do. But there ya go…
As far as the night shooting, I’m definitely unopposed to that tactic. As a control method, it’s probably one of the best ways outside of largescale trapping or poison. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see night shooting opened up in other states too, before much longer. I do wish I had stock in a nightvision company right now, though, as I fully expect to see the sales of these devices to jump. I also expect to see more outfits like JagerPro taking assorted nimrods into the field to experience a night hunt.
The other note of interest to me from this SC legislative session, was the restriction on hound hunters from running their dogs on property boundaries without the expressed permission of the neighboring landowner. The problem, getting worse for years, was that some houndsmen let their deer dogs run onto neighboring properties. While the majority of legitimate hunting clubs and groups work hard to control this, there are an awful lot of so-called “renegades” who intentionally allow their dogs to range private property. Antiquated range laws allowed them to enter private land to “recover their stock”, so they’d use the old laws to essentially hunt wherever they felt like it. There was little recourse for the landowner, and many of these incidents turned into physical altercations. People have been shot and killed over it.
In my opinion, this was a much-needed ruling. I hope NC picks up the ball on this one and fashions their own law (I think they’re working on something as you can see over at the Moose Droppings blog).
In other news, I stumbled across a kind of cool article in a Nebraska news outlet, the Grand Island Independent. Like many newspapers across the country, early summer is time for articles on vacation destinations. However, most other newspapers aren’t writing about hunting opportunities. This column in the Independent’s sports section isn’t earth-shattering or hugely newsworthy, but I really enjoyed reading some good, general discussion about hog hunting, followed by a report on a group that goes down to Texas for an annual hunt. There’s not a lot of hyperbole about how dangerous or tough hogs can be, and except for some boilerplate about ecological damage, there’s not a lot damning the hogs for existing either. It’s just a nicely written piece of work.
And to wrap up, appropriately, with a little fluff from the entertainment industry. I posted earlier this week that Pig Hunt was going to be released on DVD, and that they are in the running for theatrical release (go vote now, if you haven’t). What I didn’t notice then was the new entry from South Korea, CHAW! I guess the film is being screened now at the 2010 NY Asian Film Festival, and the reviews haven’t been too bad. For example, you can see what The Brooklyn Rail had to say about it, or click over to the Fangoria site for another reasonably, lukewarm review. No, neither of these flicks are likely to be considered great art on the scale of Citizen Kane or even Satyricon, but they promise a lot of grins and some content that’s custom made for sitting around a hog hunting camp after dark, with some friends, a bottle of tequila (or scotch) and some tasty snacks.
Interesting stuff going on.
On the night hunting, I’m a tad concerned, and I think I’d like to see a law that would require some experienced person go along, too. Shooting from roads is illegal, and so folks will need to go traipsing off into the dark nights, and yet still keep their geographic wits about them. Perceptions at night change dramatically, especially with the effects of lighting, and few people have real experience with night vision equipment. I completely agree that night hunting is the only real way to start controlling pigs, but I don’t think I yet trust the public to do it right – and I think the media fallout from some yayhoos here might do us more harm.
June 29th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Also, I googled “impacts of feral pigs” to look up any online references to scholarly research. Here are two that you might find interesting, especially the second:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119251330/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
&
http://tinyurl.com/2udvcb9
(URL edited by Phillip Loughlin)
The second one talks about pigs as an impact on fox populations on the Channel Islands, but in a very unusual way.
June 29th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I guess I should have been more specific. I have no doubt that in a mostly isolated ecoystem, such as a small island, any invasive non-native would have significant and potentially destructive impacts. However, on the bigger scale, such as say, the southeastern seaboard, I’m just not sold on the extent of destruction, or even the destructive potential, of feral pigs. The arguments, such as increased erosion, predation on ground-nesting birds, or disturbance of the forest floor just don’t seem to hold much water. Potential? Maybe. But actual? I don’t see it.
To me, that’s like saying that second hand smoke is a primary cause of cancer and lung disease in the Bay Area, without ever mentioning that, on several days each year, I can SEE the air I’m breathing and that has very little to do with cigarettes.
June 29th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Phillip, I understand what you are saying – heck, I blogged about California’s loss of its large ungulates and “disturbers” in the elk and grizzly, and that we need to understand how pigs may be filling a needed niche in California habitat, if imperfectly. That’s why I listed the first study, which talks specifically about how pigs are interacting with native and non-native vegetation, and gives a very nuanced result.
However, both studies point out that all of our natural systems are island-like: For example, hogs disturb tremendous amounts of very specific ecosystems, as do elk and grizzlies. How many times have you come across a spot that the pigs had rooted out, while all around that spot the land is nearly untouched? Also, invading predators that get fed by other non-native systems occur outside of islands, too (I’m thinking of ravens and coyotes in the California desert living off of trash, and then adversely impacting desert tortoises). So even though the second study was an extreme case, extreme cases often help illuminate types of processes that may be occurring in other places. Neither of these studies are condemning of pigs, in general, but I thought you might find them interesting, nonetheless.
June 30th, 2010 at 7:04 am
True enough, Josh. I’m not saying invasives (including hogs) don’t have an impact. Not even saying that the impact can’t be negative in some cases (as we, humans, judge it).
Only that most of what I’m seeing with my own eyes is either minimal or even non-existent (e.g. turkey and quail abundance in prime hog areas). And the rooting I’ve seen may very well play a positive role as ground disturbance (in lieu of wildfire, grizzly bears, etc.). What I’m not seeing personally, or even reading about, is general destruction on the scale that warrants outright eradication or extreme, large scale measures.
I think part of my problem in this discussion is that I get caught up in the whole angle that, if you want to point fingers at ecological devastation caused by invasive, non-native species, there’s one, single species out there that is still growing uncontrolled and unchecked across the global landscape. Feral hogs may be doing some damage, but that damage pales in comparison to the devastation wrought by livestock, agriculture, and development. If folks are so concerned about non-native species destroying public land, let’s get cattle and sheep off of them… and then worry about the feral hogs.
See where this goes?
In the meantime, I get a little fed up by the damning hyperbole directed at wild hogs. They’re not a threat to public safety (pet dogs injure and kill more people). They’re not turning ecosystems into sterile deserts (they’ve been in Hawaii for over a thousand years with definite impacts, but they haven’t denuded the islands by a long shot). And finally, short of a hugely expensive, perfectly coordinated, national extermination program, efforts at eradication are doomed to failure.
We do need sensible management and control, and I agree with regulations like the one SC just passed, that ban the trapping and relocation/release of feral hogs. I agree with policies like those in CO, whereby hunters can kill feral hogs on sight, but no one can benefit financially from it (no guiding, outfitting, tresspass fees, etc.). I even believe in taking fairly extreme measures to protect specific, sensitive ecological areas.
I also feel like farmers and ranchers are right to be concerned, and should be empowered to take action to protect their investments. There’s no doubt or question that hogs destroy crops and pose a realistic disease threat to livestock. This is why I agree with things like night shooting, trapping, and aerial shooting.
I’ll drop it now, because all of this is pretty much total repetition of everything I’ve said before… many times.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Phillip, I totally agree. I don’t think what you are saying has been repeated enough, though. For example, until you clarified here, I was of the opinion that you were kinda supportive of the farming concerns.
I like this description here; I found it really helpful.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Guys, one note on the “night” hunting…SC isn’t allowing you to use a centerfire or shotgun at night…unless you are permitted. Which I’m assuming means if you have a depredation permit. Only sidearms without the aid of scopes or lasers. Sounds like they’re focused on using dogs w/ guns and lights. Interesting… http://www.dnr.sc.gov/news/yr2010/june28/june28_pig.html
I agree with you Phillip about night hunting being another great management tool for feral pigs. Thats why this law is a bit confusing to me. Only allowing iron site sidearms for night hunting means you can only hunt with dogs…Most of the dog runners I’ve met don’t even carry a gun while running dogs for pigs. They prefer to catch, tie, and knife (or release if male…) the pig.
Also, the press release doesn’t say anything about not using bows.
July 1st, 2010 at 4:36 am
Good point, C-Rig. I saw that in another report after I’d read the initial articles. Kind of a strange rule, but I can theorize a few reasons they might have done it that way.
I guess the key point is, SC hunters should definitely read and familiarize themselves with the regs (thoroughly) before heading out.
July 1st, 2010 at 4:45 am