^Bingo! Just like the failed black bear spring season closure which took almost 20 years to reinstate!
Gov is NOT the solution.
Wild boar in Ontario
- Thread starter HuntingChef
- Start date
^Bingo! Just like the failed black bear spring season closure which took almost 20 years to reinstate!
Gov is NOT the solution.
If the area specific monitored population exceeds the desired population for boar you adjust hunting to weeding out the dominant heavy breeders.
E.g. Shoot the mother sows with recently weaned off litters. More often than not some of the litter piglets will stay close to the dead sow while the rest of the "Rotte" is in panic retreat mode.
Now, the stand hunter will pick off the litter and goes home with 3-4 good eating spit piglets ("Spanferkel") and other goodies...
Keep the government out of it they don't know what they are doing.
E.g. Shoot the mother sows with recently weaned off litters. More often than not some of the litter piglets will stay close to the dead sow while the rest of the "Rotte" is in panic retreat mode.
Now, the stand hunter will pick off the litter and goes home with 3-4 good eating spit piglets ("Spanferkel") and other goodies...
Keep the government out of it they don't know what they are doing.
Yet they've been extirpated from entire countries.
So if I shoot a wild/feral pig in my crops it will be dead or go elsewhere, sounds win-win. Except the claim is that it will supercharge breeding and they'll go nocturnal. Makes sense.
I guess the OFAH are actually an anti-hunting group? Because their biologist says its a bad idea.
https://oodmag.com/why-wild-pigs-should-not-be-hunted-in-ontario/
How about Texas PWD?
Disease spread is another issue. Reduced effectiveness of trapping is another issue. The impact of bad actors (transporting, feeding, raising and releasing pigs to create hunting opportunities) is another factor to consider.
You can't use an individualistic approach to solve population level problems. I see that mistake being made consistently in this thread.
https://oodmag.com/why-wild-pigs-should-not-be-hunted-in-ontario/
How about Texas PWD?
https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/nuisance/feral_hogs/
Disease spread is another issue. Reduced effectiveness of trapping is another issue. The impact of bad actors (transporting, feeding, raising and releasing pigs to create hunting opportunities) is another factor to consider.
You can't use an individualistic approach to solve population level problems. I see that mistake being made consistently in this thread.
Last edited:
Trimmer 905
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
No doubt,the decision to not allow hunting Wild Hogs is predicated more on theory generated exactly as has been cited here. Too often,governments listen to "experts" instead of using common sense.
The OFA article was interesting, but in my opinion he hasn't proven his case yet.
His argument against hunting is confined to two paragraphs near the end.
First he says:
Ok, so first he asserts that hunting hasn't worked in other jurisdictions. But he does not actually explain specifically *why* it didn't work. He does continue on to discuss how quickly wild boar reproduce, so i think it's safe to assume that's the implicit reason why hunting didn't work: the pigs reproduced faster than they could be hunted.
Sure enough, that's what he says in the next paragraph:
So that argument is understandable, and probably i could agree with it. Texas, with it's millions of pigs, would require a huge hunt to meet that 70% threshold, and i can't imagine how that would be attainable.
But so far, to me, he doesn't seem to be arguing anything that i did not concede above: that in places with large pig populations, hunting alone would be insufficient to solve the problem.
But while hunters could not take on 70% of a population of 2.6 million like they have in texas, 70% of a much smaller population would be much more feasible.
Last year they issued about 15k moose tags. Now, i'm sure that there are many more hunters than that who could have hunted a moose, but just to be conservative, that implies that we have the capacity to hunt at least 15000 moose, which to my mind means we could just as easily hunt at least 15000 wild boar. Using the 70% threshold as a guide, to me that means ontario could comfortably have a wold boar population of around 20,000 and be able to control it with hunting alone. Given that current estimates put the ontario wild boar population at jus 1% of that, i'd say we're a long ways from having to worry about the efficacy of hunting.
And all of that doesn't even touch on the bigger point: why would hunting need to be banned? Even if hunting wasn't enough to control the problem on its own and needed to be supplemented by other methods, what would be the harm in allowing hunters to make their own, albeit insufficient, contribution to the solution?
That's the real question.
There's two questions really: 1. Would hunting be enough to solve the problem on its own? 2) does hunting actually make the problem worse and need to be banned.
Question one i think has been well answered. But question 2 is where the arguments keep falling short. When asked about question 2, anti-hunters seem to just keep repeating the answer to question 1.
If i ask "why shouldn't we be allowed to hunt, what harm would it do?" They will respond with "well hunting isn't enough" .
Which is funny, because if we switched the subject to, say, environmentalism and reducing carbon, i might say something like "reducing carbon in canada isn't enough, we need to do something about the big polluters like china" and a lot of the same people who oppose hunting would probably still be in favour of canada doing the little bit that it can - they'd probably say something like "every little bit helps" . So when it comes to wild boar, why does every little bit suddenly not help?
The scientist in the article doesn't really explain that, he includes just one like at the end of the second paragraph:
So this would be the point that when some of the sounder is hunted, the rest scatter, making them harder to trap.
I would expect a scientist to be scientific about that kind of claim.
He's saying that they would ultimately trap fewer wild boar because the hunting at scattered them.
However, in theory, you could argue back that there would be fewer pigs that needed to be trapped, because they had been hunted and shot dead already.
Further, why could alternative and more effective trapping methods be invented?
To be scientific about it, we would need a proper large data comparison: one jurisdiction where they both hunted and trapped, and another where they trapped only. And the question there would be: was the over-all population reduction less in the jurisdiction with hunting and trapping than in the one with just trapping?
If that kind of data set exists, i'd like to see it.
I can't see how a driven hunt with 200+ participants is an individualistic approach ? Maybe because they didn't consult with government "experts" and biologists ?
15k moose tags does NOT mean they think you can kill 15k moose without hurting the population. Success rates are a big factor. Google tells me Ontario has about a 30% success rate on moose. Which means out of 15k tags, they expect less than 5k to actually get shot.
I have addressed your question 2: Dispersion leading to spread of disease, increasing range due to forced dispersion, reduction in the efficacy of trapping by creating pigs that are more weary and educated, increases to fecundity, and the impact of bad actors.
There are certain species where hunting is a net negative. The evidence points to Hogs being one of those species. Coyote is another. At least with Coyotes the impact of bad actors is likely negligible, the same cannot be said for hogs.
Clearly you don't get what I mean. You are discussing things based on individual pigs. What matters on the scale of individual pigs does not necessarily translate to population level impacts, and can actually have the opposite effect.
For example, controlling the spread of wild pigs is one reason to hunt them. But studies have shown that hunting pigs INCREASES spread rather than reduces it - and from a common sense perspective this makes sense. Hunting pressure is well known to impact movement of other species after all.
Reducing numbers is another reason. Every dead pig is 1 less pig. Except there is evidence that hunting INCREASES reproductive rates at the population level. This one is harder to rationalize for sure, but the evidence is there.
https://academic.oup.com/conphys/article/9/1/coab068/6363660
This is what I mean. Something that makes sense when you're talking about individual pigs (eg. dead pig is good) can have a net negative impact on the population level (eg. dead pig creates smarter pigs that are harder to trap, which is bad).
Y'all act like every single hunter out there would look at pigs like the massive problem they are and kill every one on sight. Sadly that is not even close to the truth. There are hunters out there who are only interested in shooting big boars, there are hunters out there who would willingly pass on a sow or young pig to ensure future populations, and there are hunters out there who will do illegal #### like feeding, raising, transporting, and releasing pigs.
I have addressed your question 2: Dispersion leading to spread of disease, increasing range due to forced dispersion, reduction in the efficacy of trapping by creating pigs that are more weary and educated, increases to fecundity, and the impact of bad actors.
There are certain species where hunting is a net negative. The evidence points to Hogs being one of those species. Coyote is another. At least with Coyotes the impact of bad actors is likely negligible, the same cannot be said for hogs.
Clearly you don't get what I mean. You are discussing things based on individual pigs. What matters on the scale of individual pigs does not necessarily translate to population level impacts, and can actually have the opposite effect.
For example, controlling the spread of wild pigs is one reason to hunt them. But studies have shown that hunting pigs INCREASES spread rather than reduces it - and from a common sense perspective this makes sense. Hunting pressure is well known to impact movement of other species after all.
Reducing numbers is another reason. Every dead pig is 1 less pig. Except there is evidence that hunting INCREASES reproductive rates at the population level. This one is harder to rationalize for sure, but the evidence is there.
https://academic.oup.com/conphys/article/9/1/coab068/6363660
This is what I mean. Something that makes sense when you're talking about individual pigs (eg. dead pig is good) can have a net negative impact on the population level (eg. dead pig creates smarter pigs that are harder to trap, which is bad).
Y'all act like every single hunter out there would look at pigs like the massive problem they are and kill every one on sight. Sadly that is not even close to the truth. There are hunters out there who are only interested in shooting big boars, there are hunters out there who would willingly pass on a sow or young pig to ensure future populations, and there are hunters out there who will do illegal #### like feeding, raising, transporting, and releasing pigs.
Last edited:
Your texas article makes a bit of a better case, but that is mitigated a great deal, i think, by the context it gives as well.
First, the texas article says that no one method is sufficient for wild pig population control:
Successful jurisdictions are using a mix of all those methods.
The OFA article makes it sound much more like a choice between either hunting or trapping, with hunting being bad an ineffective while trapping is good an effective. But the texas article allows for both trapping and hunting - specifically aerial gunning, night hunting, and ground hunting. In fact, it says that aerial gunning can be more effective than trapping.
The one thing the texas article does do is make a distinction between hunting efforts like aerial gunning, and simple recreational hunting by regular hunters. It does argue that there are jurisdictions where the introduction of recreational hunting has been followed by an increase in the pig population.
However, to my mind it does not rule out post hoc ergo propter hoc: that is, just because the pig population increased *after* the introduction of recreational hunting, doesn't mean it increased *because* of recreational hunting. Indeed, isn't it possible that the population was already on a growth trend, and the introduction of recreation hunting actually diminished the amount of growth? Or in other words, the population would have grown anyway, and without recreational hunting it would have grown even more?
And even if recreational hunting was to blame, the article explains that by pointing to various poor hunting practices, like taking only trophy male pigs while leaving the pregnant sows. I'm not convinced that a better regulated recreational hunting regimen could not be developed that would preclude those kinds of poor practices. Our deer and moose tags, for example, are already designated by #####
In any case, what was most startling to me was the end of the article. Again, articles like the OFA one you posted make it sound like there's a real simple dichotomy here: trapping good, hunting bad. The stats at the end of the texas article though make it pretty clear that however bad and ineffective hunting may be, trapping is not much better! Even with all the trapping they are doing, their reduction level is not even coming close to reaching that 70% threshold they need:
Bottom line, it's a bit rich for the government to say to hunters "no, your efforts are ineffective, leave it to us" when all the governments efforts are themselves not even half as effective as they need to be!
First, the texas article says that no one method is sufficient for wild pig population control:
Successful jurisdictions are using a mix of all those methods.
The OFA article makes it sound much more like a choice between either hunting or trapping, with hunting being bad an ineffective while trapping is good an effective. But the texas article allows for both trapping and hunting - specifically aerial gunning, night hunting, and ground hunting. In fact, it says that aerial gunning can be more effective than trapping.
The one thing the texas article does do is make a distinction between hunting efforts like aerial gunning, and simple recreational hunting by regular hunters. It does argue that there are jurisdictions where the introduction of recreational hunting has been followed by an increase in the pig population.
However, to my mind it does not rule out post hoc ergo propter hoc: that is, just because the pig population increased *after* the introduction of recreational hunting, doesn't mean it increased *because* of recreational hunting. Indeed, isn't it possible that the population was already on a growth trend, and the introduction of recreation hunting actually diminished the amount of growth? Or in other words, the population would have grown anyway, and without recreational hunting it would have grown even more?
And even if recreational hunting was to blame, the article explains that by pointing to various poor hunting practices, like taking only trophy male pigs while leaving the pregnant sows. I'm not convinced that a better regulated recreational hunting regimen could not be developed that would preclude those kinds of poor practices. Our deer and moose tags, for example, are already designated by #####
In any case, what was most startling to me was the end of the article. Again, articles like the OFA one you posted make it sound like there's a real simple dichotomy here: trapping good, hunting bad. The stats at the end of the texas article though make it pretty clear that however bad and ineffective hunting may be, trapping is not much better! Even with all the trapping they are doing, their reduction level is not even coming close to reaching that 70% threshold they need:
Bottom line, it's a bit rich for the government to say to hunters "no, your efforts are ineffective, leave it to us" when all the governments efforts are themselves not even half as effective as they need to be!
Last edited:
Clearly, you cannot see the full picture and got no experience in boar hunting.
If there is an estimated boar population of 500 animals on 1000 hectares of habitat and 350-400 animals of that population are killed during a two day drive hunt I'd wager the population is under control for at least two years. Btw. I'm talking about boars which this thread is about not texan feral pigs.
Boars and feral pigs are the same species.
And what are you basing your numbers on? Where has there been a driven hunt with 80% of the population killed in two days? Kinda feels like you're just making numbers up that sound good.
I'm basing my numbers on experience drive hunting boar in the Black Forest area. It's hands on, not from reading a couple articles and pretend to be an expert.
Actually I'll be heading there this fall again. It's gonna be fun.
Mogulrider
CGN Regular
I've helicopter hunted down South. In an hour I shot 20 and could have shot 400.
The pilot said hunting actually increased them on his 8,000 acreage hunting land in his opinion.
Their behaviour did change as huntign increased. Went nocturnal and seemed to breed more.
So the previous commenters pointing this out may be spreading truth. Not sure.
Not sure what the answer will be long term as these guys spread.
One thing I do know. They are delicious.
The pilot said hunting actually increased them on his 8,000 acreage hunting land in his opinion.
Their behaviour did change as huntign increased. Went nocturnal and seemed to breed more.
So the previous commenters pointing this out may be spreading truth. Not sure.
Not sure what the answer will be long term as these guys spread.
One thing I do know. They are delicious.
That sounds like fun, and I wish you good luck if you go back. You may not seem to realize this but I am 100% in favor of pig hunting in general, and I look forward to my first opportunity to give it a go. How many people were involved when you were able to kill 350-400 in 2 days? Was this a guided/paid for sort of thing, or do you know someone personally that can get you in on something like this? I understand hunt clubs often organize this sort of thing?
I'm not pretending to be an expert, I'm just someone who has spent the time to get educated about the topic. I started at the same place as everyone else here, someone who wants to hunt pigs. I first learned about the negative impacts of hunting pigs on the MeatEater Podcast, not exactly what I would call an anti-hunting source.
Last edited:
It's not really guided. You gotta pay a fee for participating in the drive hunt and then you are entered into a draw for which shooting station you occupy. The drive I go to is organized by a hunting lease owner with a large area. The lease owner is actually financially responsible for crop damages in their lease area. So, it's in their best interest to control the boar population.
Last time 102 registered guns/hunters and about the same for drivers plus around 30 dogs. The dogs are mostly for "Nachsuche" finding wounded or dead animals which didn't drop where shot. All shooting from stations will stop at a certain time, then the dogs with their handlers will go in if a station reports a shot runner.
I do stand hunting with a family member who owns a smaller lease not suited for a drive hunt.
Last edited:
And how much time is spent each day?
Guided/paid thing, or do you know a guy?
I'm a bit behind on the MeatEater podcast, the episode I just put on is being recorded while in the middle of a South Texas hog hunt lol
Last edited:
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
Yes, which makes a big difference. The wild boar of Europe for instance are nothing like the feral hogs of Texas in their behaviour and reproduction abilities.
You're basically saying a Chihuahua is the same as a Timber Wolf
