Day capstone final

82R Session

H.B. 716

To question the effectiveness of HB 716, which pertains to aerial hunting and the ability to sell seats in helicopters for the intent of hunting. The feral pig population is definitely an issue in Texas, but the numbers are not getting smaller and the problem won’t just go away on its own. Many management methods exist, but it is not possible to say that there is one probable solution. Instead, it is important to see what the experts say and identify other opinions in order to see the reasons for and against HB 716. The conclusion will discuss possible alternative methods, which may or may not be an effective substitute for HB 716. ___________________________________________________

St. Edward’s University Capstone

August 11, 2015 Cooper Day

___________________________________________________

2

2

Day 3 Table of Contents Final Submission…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...page 5 Works Cited………………………………………………………………………………………………………….page 15 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………...page 16 Submission One……………………………………………………………………………………………………page 20 Submission Two…………………………………………………………………………………………………...page 30 Submission Three…………………………………………………………………………………………………page 34 Submission Four…………………………………………………………………………………………………..page 41 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..page 47 End Notes…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….page 51

4

Pork Chopping Capstone Final Submission

4

Day 5

Pork Chopping The helicopters had been running all day, and I had become fairly accustomed to their landing and taking off as they were used to track and kill the beasts that destroy the land. I was sorting the equipment in the barn as the last run approached for landing. Mr. Rich, the man exiting the helicopter, must’ve been so excited about his successful hunt that he had forgotten where exactly he was. I could not see what he was doing, but I could sure as hell hear the sound of the rotor slicing through the barrel of his shotgun as he was walking away from the chopper. Everyone within earshot stopped what they were doing to make sure someone wasn’t seriously injured or dying. The sound of the metal rotor slicing through the metal shotgun barrel was one of the most indescribably jarring sounds one can ever experience. After the helicopter shut off, everything was silent. No one knew what to say. The pilot began looking at the damage. Mr. Rich seemed like he didn’t know where the hell he was, or he was just drunk and didn’t know what to say. My boss told everyone to get back to their business as he began talking with his client, Mr. Rich, and the helicopter pilot. That night at dinner, I heard many rumors that Mr. Rich’s mistake would cost him $25,000 in repairs. Others said that my boss was going to pay for it to ensure Mr. Rich remained a happy client. I’m not really sure what ended up happening with that, but I do know I’ve never seen anyone make such an expensive and simple mistake. Not all hunters will be this oblivious when exiting a helicopter but this incident caused me to question whether or not hunting from a helicopter for sport is a good solution to aid the management of the feral pig population.

In Texas, the feral pig population has reached an estimated population of 2 million pigs, and the growing populations causes close to $52 million in agricultural damages per year.1 Many management tools exist that attempt to kill or deter pig populations, but the population and damage both continue to rise, and there is no easy solution to this issue. The goal is not to eradicate the feral pig population, which seems impossible at this point. Instead the goal is to manage the population and reduce property damage.

6 Before 2011, private landowners could hire companies to come and hunt hogs using helicopters when necessary if the landowner acquired the proper permits. This outside expertise makes sense because feral pigs are smart animals, and they have been known to learn from their mistakes, which can make them very wary and difficult to find. Moreover, feral pig populations exist mostly in rural areas, which results in a smaller number of people who are actually affected by this issue. For many years, it was an issue to simply be resolved and dealt with by the individual landowners. But in 2011, House Bill 716, otherwise known as the “pork chopper” bill, was passed in Texas to help manage the feral pig population.2 What was once a private issue suddenly had government support. The pork chopper bill allowed hunters to essentially buy a seat in a helicopter to mow down these varmints from the air over private land (with owners’ permission) in attempt to help manage the feral pig population. Supporters of HB 716 argued that this was a costly method for landowners and that this new bill would relieve much of the cost by charging the hunters. Yet, this bill seems to only serve as a new form of sport hunting for the wealthiest of the general hunting population—only those who can afford to rent helicopters are taking advantage of this method. This obscured definition is the central problem I have uncovered when trying to even talk about this issue: if we don’t distinguish between aerial hunting as a management method and aerial hunting as the newest sport hunting fad then we can’t engage in conversations about its effectiveness for controlling feral hog populations in Texas. Defining what HB 716 does and does not allow in reference to controlling feral pig populations is the only way we can then understand if aerial hunting could be a viable tool for managing pest populations. As written and as interpreted, I am not so sure that the pork chopper bill successfully addresses the issue and serves as a necessary management tool. In fact, HB 716 has created a false dilemma because many are in favor of aerial hunting as a management method; whereas others seem to support aerial hunting as a sport for entertainment. Aerial hunting needs to be defined as either a sport or management tool because the stronger argument can only prevail once we define aerial hunting.

As a hunter, I have grown up around all different types hunting and hunters. High fenced ranches where the deer have been so docile that they’ll come to the feeder while you’re casually drinking beer and listening to music. There are ranches with no fence that the deer will scatter if they catch the slightest scent of human. Ranches with no feeders or blinds where a hunter must 6

Day 7 skillfully stalk though the terrain to have any success. I’ve met hunters who get drunk in the blind as they use an AR-15 and kill multiple deer and leave them to rot; experienced hunters who know how to get every useable piece of meat from their kill; bow hunters who sit patiently in a tree as they wait for the perfect shot; trigger happy hunters who kill the first thing they see.

When I began researching this topic, I expected there would be a distinct line between those who oppose and support the pork chopper bill. I expected the lines to divide neatly into pro- and antihunting groups. However, this is not the case. In fact, most groups with anything to say on the subject agreed that the feral pig population needs to be dealt with, but where the groups differ is on how this management should be done. I was expecting animal rights groups, such as PETA or the Humane Society, to be fighting against the bill. Both groups generally oppose killing animals for research and even food. Those who were concerned with animal rights claim that aerial hunting does not guarantee a clean kill and violates the concept of fair chase.3 There are many different ways to hunt, and I’m not the one to say who is right or wrong, but I do believe in hunting with respect and dignity for your prey. Just because we have the technology and ability to out smart animals does not give us the right to simply kill for fun. This idea that aerial hunting does not guarantee a clean kill may be valid; hunting should be a challenge; after all, this is why we refer to the sport as hunting and not shooting. However, fair chase is much more relevant since we are now talking about chasing down animals with helicopters where they essentially have no chance at all. Even valid arguments such as this are quite tricky to defend since the pork chopper bill has been presented as a necessary method for management, thus closing off conversation about other management alternatives.

I have no issue with aerial hunting as a management tool, but if you’re getting in a helicopter to have some fun and shoot a few animals, we need to call this what it is: aerial shooting. If you are looking to just shoot things for fun then maybe video games or paintball is a better fit for your needs, and if killing things is your idea of fun, I recommend you not own firearms and potentially seek professional help.

No form of hunting can really guarantee a clean kill and, therefore, the argument of cruelty can be difficult to maintain for proponents of hunting. Opponents of HB 716 seem to win the cruelty

8 argument because now any unskilled shooter has the opportunity to hop into a helicopter. As I said before, no form of hunting can guarantee a clean kill, but unskilled shooters in helicopters definitely increase the chances of wounding the targeted animal. Hunting from a helicopter also seems like a difficult stance to defend as a humane form of hunting, and does not promote the act of utilizing the meat, which in many cases of hunting, the meat is what hunters are after. Yet, because of the stigma behind feral pigs, they are not seen as a very desirable food source and most hunters do not even want to consider field dressing a pig.4 The notion that hunting pigs from a helicopter is simply a way to have fun does not help the individuals who have a real feral pig issue and are using aerial hunting strictly as a management tool. There is no research to suggest that all hunters are exploiting the pork chopper bill, but I fail to see how this bill is a socalled solution to deal with the feral pig population.

While researching what opponents had to say about aerial hunting, I came across an article that discussed PETA’s position on how to handle the feral pig population.5 The organization suggests that rather than killing the pigs, they should be humanely captured and re-located to a huge pig haven, which would be possible by surrounding a large amount of property with inexpensive fencing. Anyone familiar with feral pigs knows that there is not even a relatively inexpensive way to confine these animals, and I won’t even try to explain how difficult it would be to capture millions of feral pigs. This is a great example of how there is no known solution for more successfully culling the pig population other than killing in attempt to manage. The idea that the pigs could be rounded up and put in one place to live in some sort of haven is simply impossible.

However, proponents could gain the moral high ground if HB 716 was in fact used a only a management tool. If professionals were to use clean up crews that ensured the animals were dead then there would be less room for opponents to argue that aerial hunting is cruel. This would also be a way that feral pig meat could be collected to actually use the meat instead of letting it sit and rot. Experts have discussed the use of toxins but as of right now toxins have not proven have a method of being breed specific, and therefore risk a negative utilitarian argument if other animals are killed in the process of delivering these toxins.6 Yet, even if a breed specific delivery system is developed for such toxins there is a potential risk that the pig carcasses could pose a threat to environmental safety. Therefore, aerial hunting may be a better solution if it is presented 8

Day 9 correctly and proponents would actually have an argument in saying that aerial hunting provides a certain level of environmental safety.

I got in touch with Patt Nordyke from the Texas Federation of Animal Care Societies (TFACS) and was very surprised to hear what she had to say on the subject.7 Patt was actually at the hearing for House Bill 716 and testified against it. Her biggest concern was safety for the environment, and she argued that low flying helicopters can disturb other species and that inexperienced hunters in a helicopter run a huge risk of accidentally shooting anything that moves including cats, dogs, deer, or even people by mistake. Also, feral pigs can run up to 20 miles after being shot and may potentially run back to their nesting grounds, which tend to be close to streams. She also expressed her concern that if the feral pig dies in or near a stream there is a risk of contamination for the water in surrounding areas. Patt recognizes that the feral pig population is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but she argues that the pork chopper bill has not done anything to help manage the population because it is simply ineffective. The TFACS has attempted to inform people that feral pig meat can actually be used and not just left to rot.

Patt Nordyke explained how she doesn’t understand why we simply leave pigs to rot, and she feels that aerial hunting furthers this practice because most people don’t use a ground crew to come in and clean up the carcasses.

I was very interested in Patt’s experience attending the hearing for HB 716, so I inquired further.

She said that it was almost comical how the discussion on the proponent’s side unfolded. “Old Bubba got up there in his overalls and red bandana” and began to explain how helpful aerial hunting was as a management tool on his ranch. This old rancher basically made the case that HB 716 would give more people access to aerial hunting by making it more affordable. Patt explained to me how difficult it is to argue against an issue that involves animals—especially a species perceived as a pest—because it is “so low on the totem pole,” and no one seems to pay attention or care.

The most valid arguments against aerial hunting, the ones people actually seem to listen to, come from individuals who simply wonder if it’s a good idea to allow almost anybody to just buy a seat in a helicopter and hop in with their loaded gun ready to go. Of course the bill discusses

10 how the helicopter companies will be in charge of instructing their customers on how to be safe, and the pilots retain the right to deny any hunter they deem dangerous. While it is easy for someone to determine if an individual knows proper gun safety on the ground, it is another matter and a completely different question whether or not an individual is able to keep their wits about while moving in a moving helicopter with a loaded firearm in hand. Safety is not only a concern for those in the helicopter but also the people on the ground and maybe even those in surrounding areas. The pilots are probably experienced and have enough knowledge to not venture off of their clients property, putting neighbors in jeopardy. But accidents happen even while pilots aren’t chasing down feral pigs and not to mention plenty of accidents happen with guns as well. As far as safety goes, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to question if shooting from helicopters is best left to the professionals.

Many people also criticize the effectiveness of the pork chopper bill and wonder if it has actually helped manage the population. The answer is no. It is important to distinguish between individuals using aerial hunting as management tool and individuals participating in aerial hunting as a sport allowed for by the pork chopper bill. It is true that aerial hunting is a very successful tool, but it is understandable that some people are concerned that this tool is not being used properly. House bill 716 made it easier for individuals to access aerial hunting, and therefore it is clear why many people are also in support of the legislation. However, many people support the bill for different reasons.

Landowners can greatly benefit from aerial hunting when it is done correctly since it is an excellent management tool, and many of these landowners do use it properly as just that, a management tool. What seems to ruin many proponents credibility is when other proponents don’t really have a reason other than that they should have the right to aerial hunting because “this is America.” If aerial hunting is being used properly, then it should be available to landowners as some of the levelheaded proponents argue. In my earlier research, I refer to many of these proponents in more depth, but the most valid argument in support of the pork chopper bill is that we can’t deny the ease of access to those who use aerial hunting as a tool, such as farmers and ranchers. I found that there is a conflict of interest for some of the proponents of this bill. For example, the companies that supply helicopters for aerial hunting are obviously going to 10

Day 11 support the bill because they are making lots of money selling seats to hunters. These companies are providing a service that does contribute to the killing of many feral pigs, which in the end is helping deal with the rising pig population, but not nearly enough. However, house bill 716 is not necessarily an end all solution that the government can possibly think will simply manage the pigs on its own.

As I researched the feral pig population, one name consistently came up, Dr. Tyler Campbell. I have read much of Dr. Campbell’s work to find out more information on how the feral pig populations are being dealt with and what methods are successful or not. Part of this project led me to conduct interviews with experts in this field of wildlife management and more specifically on the management of feral swine.8 Dr. Campbell was my top candidate to interview, but I figured he would be difficult to get ahold of or that I may not be worth his time. I found his phone number online and had to build up my courage to just call him. Before class one afternoon, I begrudgingly called him hoping I didn’t sound like too much of an idiot. He answered and repeatedly asked “Hello? Are you there?” and then the call ended. My phone had horrible reception, and I didn’t know what to do. I wondered if I should try again or maybe go to a different spot on campus in hope of getting better service. I went to the edge of campus and tried again. Same thing, He answered, saying “Hello? Anyone there?” so now my second attempt was a failure as well. Next, I thought maybe I could go into a classroom and use one of the landline phones, but I couldn’t get a dial tone. I ran to my professor’s office hoping that she knew how to make an off-campus call using a landline. She replied, “Oh just dial 9.” I went back to the classroom and gave it a try. No luck. I noticed there was a number for the campus IT department, so I called them. They also replied, “Just dial 9.” At this point all I could think was that I should’ve bought an iPhone, and I was ready to throw my Android phone at the wall.

I walked to the coffee shop and prepared to tell my professor that I would need to borrow her phone to conduct an interview. As I was getting coffee, I began telling my friend about my frustration with my phone service. She handed me her iPhone and told me that her service is great on campus. Again, I called Dr. Campbell hoping that he would still be willing to talk with me. He answered and laughed wondering what had happened. I asked if he would mind answering a few questions, and our discussion began. This interview was a huge turning point in

12 my research. I had no idea what to expect, and I was very eager to find out what side Dr. Campbell took on the issue.

Dr. Campbell explained to me that house bill 716 was not a solution to the issue, but instead it created an opportunity for people to make money off of aerial hunting. The feral pig population is still increasing and something must be done or more issues are to be expected. Dr. Campbell said that aerial hunting is definitely a very successful control method, but one method alone cannot be expected to handle the issue and instead all methods must be utilized. I was surprised to learn that Wildlife Services conducts aerial control and kills up to 200-300 pigs in one day.

These are professionals though, and civilian hunters aren’t able to reach these same results. If aerial hunting alone is not enough, I wondered what ways the government could give people more incentive to manage the rising swine population. I read that some people have proposed a bounty on feral pigs to give people more of an incentive to kill pigs, however as Dr. Campbell explained, some counties have tried paying a bounty for pigs, but they went broke so quickly that it wasn’t a realistic solution. Dr. Campbell concluded by saying that he doesn’t believe the government should be finding the solution and instead private landowners must employ all the methods they can. A new method is still being researched in Australia, which is essentially a toxin that could be used to humanely kill some of the population. The issue with this method is that scientists have been unable to create a breed-specific delivery system for the toxin meaning that it would only effect the feral pig population.9 After talking with Dr. Campbell, I realized that aerial hunting is not something that should be looked down upon, but instead it should be viewed as one necessary tool for dealing with varmint populations when applicable. The problem with the pork chopper bill is that it seems to only further the negative connotation toward aerial hunting because it allows any good old boy to hop in a chopper and start raining bullets.

Overall there seems to be no clear answer on what the Texas government should do about house bill 716. I know they are simply trying to help with managing the massive feral pig population, but it would appear that the pork chopper bill isn’t exactly doing the job. Maybe legislation isn’t the answer. Perhaps Patt Nordyke has the right idea that the meat needs to be used to feed 12

Day 13 hungry people. Yet, to make this happen I believe we need to change people’s image of feral pigs. Instead of portraying them as nasty animals that are disease ridden, oversized rats that destroy everything in their path, we would need to view them as another game animal perfectly fit for human consumption. This would not be an easy shift to make on the public’s paradigm, but it’s a thought. The government could even consider organizing some sort of arrangement with homeless shelters or even prisons in which hunters or meat processors could help provide food. This arrangement could reward the supplier with some sort of tax reduction or exemption.

Any form of pay would probably result in failure just as I described above when certain counties attempted to provide a bounty for killing feral pigs. Some kind of incentive would probably be necessary in order to get hunters to actually clean a pig and then take it to be processed.

However, as Dr. Campbell explained, one method alone is not enough to manage the feral pig population successfully. I think house bill 716 should at least be revised so that aerial hunting is used as more of a management tool as opposed to sport. “Pork chopping” isn’t the solution, but instead just a great way to make some money and entertain the rich folks.

14 *Endnotes appear on page 51.

14

Day 15

Works Cited Barnett, Mike. "PETA Wants No Feral Hog Left Behind." Texas Agriculture Magazine 27.3 (2011): 2. Texas Reference Center. Web. 3 June 2015. Mike Barnett is the Director of Publications for the Texas Farm Bureau.

Campbell, Tyler A., et al. "Effectiveness And Target-Specificity Of A Novel Design Of Food Dispenser To Deliver A Toxin To Feral Swine In The United States." International Journal Of Pest Management 59.3 (2013): 197-204. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 June 2015.

Campbell, Tyler A., Lapidge Steven J., and Long David B. "Using Baits to Deliver Pharmaceuticals to Feral Swine in Southern Texas." Wildlife Society Bulletin 2006: 1184.

JSTOR Journals. Web. 3 June 2015.

Hurteau, Dave. “Legal, Ethical, Fair Chase: They are Not the Same.” Field and Stream. Field and Stream. 13 March 2012. 2 Jul. 2015.

Matsumoto, Nancy. “Have You Ever Tried to Eat a Feral Pig?” The Atlantic. The Atlantic, 11 Jul. 2013. Web. 26 Jul. 2015.

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. Coping with Feral Hogs. Texas A&M University, 2015. Web. 24 June 2015.

16

Bibliography Adams, Clark E., et al. "Regional Perspectives and Opportunities for Feral Hog Management in Texas." Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005: 1312. JSTOR Journals. Web. 2 Aug. 2015.

Barnett, Mike. "PETA Wants No Feral Hog Left Behind." Texas Agriculture Magazine 27.3 (2011): 2. Texas Reference Center. Web. 3 June 2015. Mike Barnett is the Director of Publications for the Texas Farm Bureau.

Bevins, Sarah N., et al. "Consequences Associated With The Recent Range Expansion Of Nonnative Feral Swine." Bioscience 64.4 (2014): 291-299. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 June 2015.

Campbell, Tyler A., David B. Long, and Bruce R. Leland. "Feral Swine Behavior Relative to Aerial Gunning in Southern Texas." The Journal of Wildlife Management 2010: 337. JSTOR Journals. Web. 2 June 2015.

Campbell, Tyler A., et al. "Effectiveness And Target-Specificity Of A Novel Design Of Food Dispenser To Deliver A Toxin To Feral Swine In The United States." International Journal Of Pest Management 59.3 (2013): 197-204. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 June 2015.

Campbell, Tyler A., Lapidge Steven J., and Long David B. "Using Baits to Deliver Pharmaceuticals to Feral Swine in Southern Texas." Wildlife Society Bulletin 2006: 1184.

JSTOR Journals. Web. 3 June 2015.

Delgado-Acevedo, Johanna, Randy W. DeYoung, and Tyler A. Campbell. "Effects Of Local-Scale Removals On Feral Swine Populations In Southern Texas." International Journal Of Pest Management 59.2 (2013): 122-127. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 June 2015.

Frazier, Ian. “Hogs Wild.” New Yorker. The New Yorker, 12 Dec. 2005. Web. 3 Aug. 2015.

Hurteau, Dave. “Legal, Ethical, Fair Chase: They are Not the Same.” Field and Stream. Field and Stream. 13 March 2012. 2 Jul. 2015.

Mapston, Mark. “Feral Hogs in Texas.” Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management.

Texas Cooperative Extension Wildlife Services, n.d. Web. 26 Jul. 2015.

Matsumoto, Nancy. “Have You Ever Tried to Eat a Feral Pig?” The Atlantic. The Atlantic, 11 Jul. 2013. Web. 26 Jul. 2015.

Moore, Chester. "High Fence Hogs." Texas Fish & Game 31.12 (2015): 48. MasterFILE Premier.

Web. 1 June 2015.

16

Day 17 Morthland, John. “A Plague of Pigs in Texas.” Smithsonian. The Smithsonian, Jan. 2011. Web. 2 Aug. 2015.

O’Rourke, Ciara. “Competition to Kill Feral Hogs Done; New Plans To Control Population Emerge.” Statesman.com. Austin American-Statesman, 21 Jan. 2013. Web. 2 Aug. 2015.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma : A Natural History Of Four Meals. n.p.: New York : Penguin Press, 2006. ST EDWARDS UNIV's Catalog. Print. 26 Jul. 2015.

Reidy, Matthew M., Tyler A. Campbell, and David G. Hewitt. "Evaluation of Electric Fencing to Inhibit Feral Pig Movements." The Journal of Wildlife Management 2008: 1012. JSTOR Journals. Web. 3 June 2015.

Sasser, Ray. "The Dallas Morning News Ray Sasser column: Helicopter hunter for hogs? Let's not give it a whirl." Dallas Morning News, The (TX) 12 Feb. 2009: Newspaper Source. Web. 2 June 2015.

Sherrow, Michelle. ‘Refuges’ No Sanctuary for Feral Pigs. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 12 July 2011. Web. 2 June 2015.

Smith, Ron. "Aerial Hunting And Trapping Are Cited As Best Practices For Feral Hog Control."

Southwest Farm Press 37.9 (2010): 9. Small Business Reference Center. Web. 12 June 2015.

Taylor, Rick. The Feral Hog in Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. Web. 8 June 2015.

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. Coping with Feral Hogs. Texas A&M University, 2015. Web. 24 June 2015.

Texas. Legislature. House of Representatives. Committee on Culture, Recreation, and Tourism.

Bill Analysis: C.S.H.B. 716. Texas Legislature Online. Web. 20 June 2015. PDF. Texas. Dept. of Parks and Wildlife. TPWD. Texas Parks and Wildlife, n.d. Web. 2 June 2015.

Tompkins, Shannon. “Texas Losing War on Feral Hogs.” Chron.com. Houston Chronicle, 24 Jul. 2013. Web. 2 Aug. 2015.

United States Dept. of Agriculture. “Feral/Wild Pigs: Potential Problems for Farmers and Hunters.” Agriculture Information Bulletin 799 (Oct. 2005): n. pag. Web. 2 Aug. 2015.

18

Previous Submissions

18

Day 19

Submission One

20

Foundational Research Outline Name: Cooper Day I. Topic Question: Should the State of Texas repeal the “Pork chopper” bill?

II. Underlying Social Problems: The rising feral pig population.

A. Social Problems: The rise in feral pig population is a recognized issue among most groups; however, the ways to deal with the feral pig population are not commonly agreed upon, such as aerial hunting. Some are against the current methods used in response to the increased pig population but no other solution has proven to be more effective. Yet, aerial hunting has not necessarily proven to be the most effective method either. The biggest question lies in how to effectively handle the vast, destructive swine population.

B. In 2012, the pig population was estimated to be between 1.8 and 3.4 million in Texas (Bevins, 296). Feral pigs cause an estimated $500 millions of dollars of property damage each year (Sasser).

III. Proponent Stakeholders (Pro for repealing pork chopper bill?)

A. Proponents’ Position B. General pro stakeholders (use qualifiers) 1. Animal rights groups 2. Minority of Texas population 3. Gun Safety enthusiasts C. Specific pro stakeholders 1. PETA 2. Citizens concerned about safety 3. Certain Land or Homeowners IV. Proponents’ Issues, Arguments, Evidence, and Plans/Actions A. Issue1 (Label issues as1-word nicknames arguments): Humane 1. Argument (Stakeholders answer your topic question YES because): The feral pig population needs to be dealt with in the most humane way.

2. Issue2: Safety 1. Argument: Anyone who handles a gun is not necessarily prepared to hunt out of a moving helicopter.

3. Issue3: Ethics 1. Argument: Is it right for pigs to be hunted down using helicopters and assault weapons?

D. Examples of Pro Plans/Actions 1. PETA says to basically gather feral pigs and make a refuge is a more humane and effective method.

2. Aerial hunting is just not a safe way of hunting and other methods can prove just as effective.

3. Make areas less desirable for feral pigs to populate.

20

Day 21 V.

VI.

V.

V.

VI.

VII.

Examples of Proponents’ Values (i.e. self-reliance, security, equality, liberty) A. Pro Stakeholder: Values: Animal Rights B. Pro Stakeholder: Values: Safety C. Pro Stakeholder: Values: Humane Opponent Stakeholders A. Opponents’ Position 2. General con stakeholders (use qualifiers) 1. Majority of Texas population 2. Agricultural Managers 3. Texas Hunters 3. Specific con stakeholders 1. “Pork Chopper” Pilots 2. Texas Department of Agriculture 3. Farmers and Ranchers Opponents’ Issues, Arguments, Evidence, and Plans/Actions A. Issue1 (Labelissuesas1-word nicknames arguments): Land Preservation 1. Argument (Stakeholders answer your topic question YES because): The feral pig population needs to be dealt with in the most efficient way.

2. Issue2: Balance 1. Argument: Feral pig populations need to be dealt with to maintain the proper natural balance as to not disturb other animal populations.

3. Issue3: Sport 1. Argument: Hunting is a sport and feral pigs are not a game animal, yet they must be dealt with so why not promote population control by whatever means.

4. Examples of Opponents’ Plans/Actions 1. Killing feral pigs to balance the population or keep balance.

2. Making aerial hunting available to the pubic to make money and promote the killing of feral pigs.

3. Using any method possible to diminish feral pig population, such as trapping, hunting, aerial hunting, poisoning.

Examples of Opponents’ Values (i.e. self-reliance, security, equality, liberty) A. Con Stakeholder: Values: Freedom B. Con Stakeholder: Values: Liberty C. Con Stakeholder: Values: Preservation Definitions/Explanations: Swine: Pigs.

Pork Chopper bill: House Bill 716 allows aerial hunting of pigs and coyotes.

Aerial Hunting: Hunting out of a helicopter.

Limits: (what related topics or questions will you exclude for reasons of space and focus?) Aerial hunting of pigs only, since the issue also comes into question about the hunting of other animals.

22

22

Day 23

Annotated Bibliography Barnett, Mike. "PETA Wants No Feral Hog Left Behind." Texas Agriculture Magazine 27.3 (2011): 2.

Texas Reference Center. Web. 3 June 2015. Mike Barnett is the Director of Publications for the Texas Farm Bureau. This article discusses PETA’s views on how to solve the feral pig population by creating a refuge to house a huge portion of the pigs. PETA seems to believe that culling the pig population will not work because more pigs will simply move in from surrounding areas as long as the environment is attractive. Barnett expresses how ridiculous PETA’s solution is and how the idea of using “inexpensive” fencing to humanely solve the issue is simply not feasible. To capture such a large amount of feral pigs would also prove to be very difficult as well. This source illustrates how instead of solving issues, PETA seems to just criticize the current methods. I have yet to find any scholarly sources from PETA but this article gave me insight to why certain animal rights groups aren’t reliable sources for this topic.

Bevins, Sarah N., et al. "Consequences Associated With The Recent Range Expansion Of Nonnative Feral Swine." Bioscience 64.4 (2014): 291-299. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 June 2015. Sarah Bevins is a wildlife disease biologist and has a PH.D. in ecology from Colorado State University. This article gives a great overview to all of the effects involved with the rising feral pig population including damage to agriculture and livestock, spread of diseases, and also ecological consequences caused to protected species and conservation efforts. Bevins examines specific damages to agricultural communities to demonstrate how costly the feral pig issue has become. However in certain areas Bevins found that feral pig populations had positive effects toward certain plant species by increasing mineral soil carbon and nitrogen levels. This source provides good information of the results of the increasing feral pig population. Though aerial hunting is not included, Bevins provides excellent background for feral pigs.

Campbell, Tyler A., David B. Long, and Bruce R. Leland. "Feral Swine Behavior Relative to Aerial Gunning in Southern Texas." The Journal of Wildlife Management 2010: 337. JSTOR Journals. Web. 2 June 2015. Tyler Campbell is a wildlife biologist studying wild hogs in the United States. This article gives a brief overview of the issues caused by the feral pig population but focuses on the impact aerial hunting has on the pig populations. Campbell conducted 2 studies to view the differences of the pig populations before and after aerial

24 gunning was used. Neither the home range nor the core area sizes of the feral pigs were affected by aerial gunning and Campbell ultimately concluded that aerial hunting could be used as a practical removal method of feral pigs. This study is helpful because it provides statistics on aerial hunting as a method to reduce the pig population.

Campbell, Tyler A., et al. "Effectiveness And Target-Specificity Of A Novel Design Of Food Dispenser To Deliver A Toxin To Feral Swine In The United States." International Journal Of Pest Management 59.3 (2013): 197-204. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 June 2015. This article discusses the possibility of developing a species or breed specific delivery system for toxins that can be used to help manage the feral swine population. The delivery system is known as the Hoghopper is discussed in its trial stages and the effectiveness is examined. The article concludes that Hoghopper does greatly decrease the number of other species affected by the toxin, but it was not completely successful because raccoons were still at risk, though the risk is much lower than without using the delivery system. This article was very useful because it shows what new management methods are being developed to deal with feral pigs.

Campbell, Tyler A., Lapidge Steven J., and Long David B. "Using Baits to Deliver Pharmaceuticals to Feral Swine in Southern Texas." Wildlife Society Bulletin 2006: 1184.

JSTOR Journals. Web. 3 June 2015. This article was written for the purpose of informing the scientific and agricultural communities of possible alternative methods for dealing with the vast feral swine population. Campbell focuses on a study conducted using feral pig bait that was injected with a lethal dose of serum to attract and eradicate the pigs ingesting the bait.

This process is compared to the baiting process in Australia, which is also used to diminish the pig population. However, despite the success rate of the bait method, the bait used in this study was non-species-specific and therefore is not yet suitable for managing the swine population. This article is very helpful because it examines one possible alternative for managing feral swine populations and some of the problems that exist with the baiting method.

Delgado-Acevedo, Johanna, Randy W. DeYoung, and Tyler A. Campbell. "Effects Of Local-Scale Removals On Feral Swine Populations In Southern Texas." International Journal Of Pest 24

Day 25 Management 59.2 (2013): 122-127. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 June 2015. This article focuses on the different methods for dealing with the feral pig population, such as aerial hunting and trapping. Delgado also examines how much of the population should be killed and in what areas to reduce the overall long-term ecological damage. Genetic variation also comes into play because lethal control efforts may target genetically similar individuals more vulnerable to trapping. Delgado attempted lethal removal techniques on a small population of pigs and found that the population did not take long to recover. The study concluded that swine populations would have to be exterminated on large scales requiring neighboring properties to have similar goals and methods to actually make a difference. This article is very helpful because it shows how feral pig populations are not heavily affected by minimal removal efforts. If the rising pig population is to cease, it will require much more collaborated effort.

Moore, Chester. "High Fence Hogs." Texas Fish & Game 31.12 (2015): 48. MasterFILE Premier.

Web. 1 June 2015. Chester Moore is an award-winning author who has written many publications about wildlife. This article goes into great detail about hog hunting and considers the many aspects that surround hunting. Moore explains the controversy of high fenced ranches and the many arguments for and against the topic. The information Moore gives is very informational on methods for hunting and what behavior is commonly seen in feral pigs. I found this article mostly beneficial in that it is a very similar topic to mine. I found Moore’s writing to be very clear and easy to understand for anyone reading this article, even if they’ve never hunted before.

Reidy, Matthew M., Tyler A. Campbell, and David G. Hewitt. "Evaluation of Electric Fencing to Inhibit Feral Pig Movements." The Journal of Wildlife Management 2008: 1012. JSTOR Journals. Web. 3 June 2015. Matthew Reidy is part of the Caeser Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute and has conducted much research on the feral pig population in Texas. This article discusses the issues agricultural and natural resource managers face with the rising feral pig population. The obvious answer is to reduce pig populations, but Reidy examines ways property damages can be reduced by using electric fencing. Reidy conducts several studies using 1-, 2-, and 3-strand electric fences to see what is most effective for minimizing damages.

26 This study concluded that electric fencing is highly effective in minimizing feral pig movements, which ultimately means less property damage. The 2- and 3-strand fences were more successful than the 1-strand fencing. Reidy provides statistics and evidence found in his studies that demonstrate the success of his methods. This source was very useful because it shows how damages can be minimized without killing pigs and how electric fencing can be used in harmony with extermination measures where necessary.

Sasser, Ray. "The Dallas Morning News Ray Sasser column: Helicopter hunter for hogs? Let's not give it a whirl." Dallas Morning News, The (TX) 12 Feb. 2009: Newspaper Source. Web. 2 June 2015. Ray Sasser is an experienced journalist for the Dallas Morning News. This column introduces the pork chopper bill and explains what is. Representative Sid Miller of Stephenville, TX is the sponsor of this bill and introduced it in response to the $400 million of property damage done by the feral pigs each year. Sasser also points out that it is already legal to hunt hogs from helicopters as long as the proper state permits are acquired but laws prohibited a charge for recreational fees. This source brings up reasons why recreational hunters should not be allowed to hunt from helicopters, such as the fact that most hunters are not experienced with riding in helicopters let alone wielding a shotgun while doing so. I think this source is useful because it comes from an author who supports hunting but recognizes key reasons that aerial hunting is just not a good idea.

Smith, Ron. "Aerial Hunting And Trapping Are Cited As Best Practices For Feral Hog Control."

Southwest Farm Press 37.9 (2010): 9. Small Business Reference Center. Web. 12 June 2015.

Ron Smith is a staff writer for the Farm Press Editorial. This article discusses different management methods for feral pigs and their effectiveness. Smith quotes Kevin Grant who is the state director of Wildlife Services for the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Safety. Grant explains how “there is no magic bullet� and instead all management methods must be utilized. Trapping is explained to be a very successful method as well and is much cheaper than aerial hunting. This article also introduced to me how the transportation and releasing of hogs in otherwise low populated areas is a huge issue in the spreading of the pig population. I found this article to be very helpful because it discussed many different management methods and certain issues that exist for these methods as well.

26

Day 27

28

Submission Two

28

Day 29

Submission Two Introduction: The State of Texas has the largest feral pig population in the United States, which has continued to increase and has resulted in high amounts of property damage. The damage done by feral pigs is a recognized issue that is increasing as the pig population increases as well. Texas government has implemented laws in attempt to manage the high population, such as having no bag limit and allowing hunters to use vehicles or other hunting technology that is generally ban for hunting game animals. However, more recently the “pork chopper” bill was passed to allow the aerial hunting of feral pigs in hopes that it was an effective solution. Certain people oppose this bill for different reasons even though they still recognize that something must be done to deal with the increasing feral pig population. This Capstone project will investigate the pros and cons of aerial hunting and whether or not the “pork chopper” bill should be repealed.

Exigence: This topic is important to examine at this time because the feral pig population has reached between 1.8 to 3.4 million and is only increasing (Bevins, 296). The damage cause by feral pigs has also reached an estimated $500 million dollars in property damage per year (Sasser).

Either the current measures are not effective or we simply cannot contain the population no matter what policies are enforced.

Key Terms: “Pork Chopper” Bill: House Bill 716 allows aerial hunting of pigs and coyotes.

Aerial Hunting: Hunting out of a moving aircraft.

Bag Limit: A conservation measure to limit the amount of animals that can be killed by one hunter.

30 Game Animal: Animal hunted for game or sport.

Scope: This project will cover the arguments both for and against the “pork chopper” bill, as well as the effectiveness of alternative methods of extermination. Aerial hunting has also come into question for hunting coyotes and wolves, however this project will not examine aerial hunting of other species. I will also not be determining whether or not aerial hunting or hunting in general is a sport.

Narrative: The pro and con stakeholders both recognize the issue with such a massive feral pig population; however, the issue exists in how we should act to take manage the population.

Stakeholders in opposition to the “pork chopper” bill include animal rights activists, minority of Texas population, and gun safety enthusiasts. More specifically some of these stakeholders would include groups such as PETA who question the cruelty of aerial hunting; land and homeowners who may live close to areas where aerial hunting may occur; citizens concerned about the people involved in aerial hunting. Many of these proponents however seem to lack evidence or authority to back up their claims. I think the best support that will come from these sources will be evidence provided to show effective alternative methods to aerial hunting. Stakeholders in support of the “pork chopper” bill include the majority of the Texas population, agricultural managers, and Texas hunters. Specific stakeholders would be “Pork Chopper” Pilots or businesses making money from aerial hunting; the Texas Department of Agriculture who is in support of managing the feral pig population in the most effective way possible; farmers and ranchers who seek to protect their property from damage. Those in support of the “pork chopper” bill can sometimes also lack evidence to back up their claims and some really only support their reasoning with lines such as “this is America.” However, many use evidence to show how aerial hunting is the most effective method used for managing the feral pig population. Even if Aerial hunting is highly effective it will be difficult to determine whether it is a necessary measure or if it’s simply a fun method to exercise American freedom.

30

Day 31

32

Submission Three

32

Day 33

Submission Three Normative question: Should the State of Texas repeal the “Pork chopper” bill?

Issue #1: Cruelty Proponents argue: Proper aerial hunting methods are an effective way of managing the feral pig population.

Opponents argue: Aerial hunting does not guarantee a humane kill and is therefore cruel.

Critical analysis: Proponents of aerial hunting support that this method is an effective method for managing the feral pig population. However, most proponents of aerial hunting are also individuals in support of hunting for sport and would likely not consider any legal form of hunting to be cruel. Proponents provide that aerial hunting is an effective method when done correctly with an experienced gunner and pilot. The bill was intended to increase man’s ability to manage the feral pig population.

Opponents of this bill argue that aerial hunting does not necessarily kill the animals and much of the time just leaves them injured. Having inexperienced shooters in a helicopter does not increase the chances of making a lethal shot on an animal and therefore aerial hunting is more inhumane than other forms of hunting. The animals are harassed and chased to a point of exhaustion, which is also an inhumane way to hunt and kill any animal.

Ethical analysis: The argument of cruelty seems to be a very difficult issue to debate. Neither side of this issue hold evidence in which it can be proven that the practice of aerial hunting is cruel or not.

However, proponents of aerial hunting who say that aerial hunting is an effective method for wildlife management say “it is often the best method where conditions are right for removing depredating animals” and also should be reserved for skilled pilots and gunners (Hygnstrom).

34 Therefore even proponents argue that aerial hunting can be ineffective or inhumane because of the lack in skill held by certain pilots or gunners. Yet, this is where both sides of the argument seem to fall victim to a false dilemma because both sides argue from a utilitarian perspective on different platforms. Proponents argue that cruelty is not relevant because we need to manage the feral pig problem for the greater good; opponents argue that the amount of suffering stemming from the cruelty aspect is unacceptable. However, both of these arguments seem to go nowhere because neither side can provide any concrete evidence to prove their argument or disprove the other. At the end of the day this is simply another form of hunting and cannot be deemed overtly cruel until it is proven.

Issue #2: Safety Proponents argue: Aerial hunters are required to take certain measures to ensure safety while hunting.

Opponents argue: Not all hunters are properly trained to hunt from a helicopter and it is not clear how close these hunters could/should be to urban areas and what other factors may effect general safety.

Critical analysis: Proponents of aerial hunting ensure everyone that this is a safe method for hunting and that customers must take a safety course to gain knowledge of how to hunt safely while hunting from an aircraft. Companies who are selling aerial hunts generally guarantee that their staff members are professionally trained, including their pilots. However, pilots and crews are known to be hired by ranchers meaning that the pilots cannot be extremely familiar with the land they are flying around while also having some inexperienced hunter hanging out of the helicopter with a loaded firearm ready to go.

Opponents of aerial hunting for safety reasons are definitely not limited to just animal rights groups but instead range anywhere from law enforcement to homeowners and ranchers.

34

Day 35 Hunting accidents are not highly uncommon and therefore maybe we don’t need to be sending hunters up in a moving helicopter with a loaded gun. The “training” provided to aerial hunting customers is generally done the night before the hunt or even the day of just before take off. Since 1973 there have been around 60-recorded accidents involved with aerial hunting resulting in 28 fatalities (Gaurdians).

Ethical analysis: No matter how you frame the proponent’s argument, it is almost a no brainer that aerial hunting is not a safe method. Yet, the fact that an issue of safety exists for many people other than animal rights groups shows that safety is a real concern and isn’t just some argument used in attempt to deface aerial hunting. The proponent’s argument seems to stem from a libertarian viewpoint in that they see individuals as having the right to decide whether or not to endanger their own lives and the government should not have the right to be so paternalistic in making such decisions. Yet, I have personally witnessed a man stick the barrel of his shotgun into the rotor of a helicopter, luckily they were on the ground when he made that $25,000 mistake. There is no question that hunting in general can be dangerous but maybe it isn’t the best idea to throw hunters into helicopters who are not professionals. The opponents seem to argue from more of a communitarian perspective in regards to safety because they are not necessarily as concerned about the safety of the individual’s who are involved with aerial hunting. Instead, opponents express more safety concern about the people in surrounding areas and even the environment. For example, many opponents argue that these untrained shooters cannot guarantee that they are in fact shooting at a feral pig when it could easily be a dog, cat, or even human. Also, feral pigs can run long distances after being shot and have been known to run back to their nesting area near streams or rivers; thus, there is a chance that the pigs can die near these areas of running water that could be contaminated and risk disease to others. I would have to say that the communitarian argument is much more effective here because questioning the safety of the community is much more important than worrying about what an individual should or shouldn’t have the right to do in the name of sport hunting.

36 Issue #3: Effectiveness Proponents argue: Proponents argue that aerial hunting is the most effective method for killing feral pigs.

Opponents argue: Aerial hunting might be effective but as a sport it is not proven that it is still an effective method.

Critical analysis: Proponents argue that aerial hunting is the most effective method for removing targeted animals and can be done quickly. According to some aerial hunting is labor efficient even though it may cost quite a bit per hour, the pigs can be found and killed quickly from the air even in areas that are inaccessible on the ground.

Opponents argue that aerial hunting causes pig populations to spread to areas in which they weren’t before. Ground hunting has proven to be just as effective and much more cost efficient than aerial hunting and can be done at anytime by farmers and ranchers without all of the extra effort. Since aerial hunting is expensive it can really only be used by the wealthy and even when it is used follow up methods must occur to keep the population managed.

Management methods need to be effective in long-term population control as opposed to short-term solutions.

Ethical analysis: Both sides have good reasons for and against the effectiveness of aerial hunting; however this is where the question of whether or not HB 716 is the proper solution for managing the feral pig population. Aerial hunting may be an effective method if we had professional hunters flying around Texas being paid to kill pigs instead of creating a new industry where any rich, fancy hunter can buy his way into the seat of a helicopter to kill a few pigs for fun, which has not yet been proven to help manage the feral pig population. Again, this is where the two sides are falling to a false dilemma. Proponents use the utilitarian argument that the best decision will create the greatest good for the greatest number, proponents essentially say that it is a 36

Day 37 necessary amount of suffering to promote the greatest good. However, opponents do not condone the effectiveness because it is cruel and causes pigs to suffer since there is a high chance of wounding the animals. Both sides seem to be looking at this issue from very specific viewpoints within the utilitarian ideology. The method may be effective but we are obviously not using it correctly if the pig population is still on the rise.

Discussion and Conclusion: I am definitely a supporter of hunting but I do not believe aerial hunting should be used as a form of sport hunting disguised as a control method for feral pigs. There is no easy way to conclude whether or not aerial hunting is cruel; however, the better arguments seem to be the issues of safety and effectiveness. Yet, even these arguments are difficult to provide concrete evidence for or against aerial hunting but I think one thing has been made clear through both sides arguments, aerial hunting is clearly not being used as an effective management method but is instead more of a statement that we live in America and we value or freedom and in Texas, we love our guns.

38 Works Cited Barnett, Mike. "PETA Wants No Feral Hog Left Behind." Texas Agriculture Magazine 27.3 (2011): 2.

Texas Reference Center. Web. 3 June 2015. Mike Barnett is the Director of Publications for the Texas Farm Bureau.

Bevins, Sarah N., et al. "Consequences Associated With The Recent Range Expansion Of Nonnative Feral Swine." Bioscience 64.4 (2014): 291-299. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 June 2015.

Campbell, Tyler A., David B. Long, and Bruce R. Leland. "Feral Swine Behavior Relative to Aerial Gunning in Southern Texas." The Journal of Wildlife Management 2010: 337. JSTOR Journals. Web. 2 June 2015.

Campbell, Tyler A., et al. "Effectiveness And Target-Specificity Of A Novel Design Of Food Dispenser To Deliver A Toxin To Feral Swine In The United States." International Journal Of Pest Management 59.3 (2013): 197-204. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 June 2015.

Campbell, Tyler A., Lapidge Steven J., and Long David B. "Using Baits to Deliver Pharmaceuticals to Feral Swine in Southern Texas." Wildlife Society Bulletin 2006: 1184. JSTOR Journals. Web. 3 June 2015.

Delgado-Acevedo, Johanna, Randy W. DeYoung, and Tyler A. Campbell. "Effects Of Local-Scale Removals On Feral Swine Populations In Southern Texas." International Journal Of Pest Management 59.2 (2013): 122-127. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 June 2015.

Moore, Chester. "High Fence Hogs." Texas Fish & Game 31.12 (2015): 48. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 1 June 2015.

Reidy, Matthew M., Tyler A. Campbell, and David G. Hewitt. "Evaluation of Electric Fencing to Inhibit Feral Pig Movements." The Journal of Wildlife Management 2008: 1012. JSTOR Journals. Web. 3 June 2015.

Sasser, Ray. "The Dallas Morning News Ray Sasser column: Helicopter hunter for hogs? Let's not give it a whirl." Dallas Morning News, The (TX) 12 Feb. 2009: Newspaper Source. Web. 2 June 2015.

Sherrow, Michelle. ‘Refuges’ No Sanctuary for Feral Pigs. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

12 July 2011. Web. 2 June 2015.

Smith, Ron. "Aerial Hunting And Trapping Are Cited As Best Practices For Feral Hog Control."

Southwest Farm Press 37.9 (2010): 9. Small Business Reference Center. Web. 12 June 2015.

Taylor, Rick. The Feral Hog in Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d.

Web. 8 June 2015.

38

Day 39

Submission Four

40

Submission 4 Interviews: Tyler Campbell, PhD 1. Has the feral pig population gotten out of control? a. Yes, something must be done. The feral pig population is only rising and we can expect to see more issues arise as populations increase.

2. Do you think the “pork chopper” bill has served as a successful management tool? a. No, because all management tools need to be used in order to actually make a difference. Aerial hunting has been used for many years by landowners and house bill 716 has essentially only allowed for companies to make money by selling seats in their helicopters. The bill has also caused the pig population to spread more rapidly because people are actually transporting pigs to their property so that they can sell more hunts. This has caused a huge issue because the pig populations are increasing in areas where the populations used to be much lower.

3. Has the bill effected the feral pig population? a. Not significantly if at all. In fact, it’s really difficult to say because people hunting for sport are not actually doing anything to the population because they are not using it as a true management tool.

4. At what point do you think the government needs to step in? a. I don’t believe this is an issue that the government should be involved in directly. To make a bigger difference, the private landowners need to be utilizing all of the available management tools.

40

Day 41 5. If it were up to you, what would you do? a. Again, I think landowners need to be informed of all of the possible management tools in order to reduce property damage. If feral pigs are causing so much damage in one area it is clear that they need to be dealt with by whatever means necessary within reason.

6. Do you think any sort of solution, such as a bounty would serve as a better solution? a. There have actually been counties that tried offering a bounty on feral pigs, but the issue was that they went broke very quickly and it depends on the availability of funds, which is another reason the government can’t be expected to step in and provide a solution. There is however a team in Australia who is working on developing a toxin to use on feral pigs. The toxin is essentially a “heavy salt” that humanely kills the pigs, but it is difficult to create a breed specific form of this toxin and is also hard to get passed by the EPA.

Patt Nordyke 1. Has the feral pig population gotten out of control? a. Yes, the feral pig population is definitely an issue and needs to be dealt with.

2. Do you think the “pork chopper” bill has served as a successful management tool? a. No, since the bill basically only allowed for inexperienced aerial hunters to gain access to helicopters, they are not skilled enough to really make a difference.

3. Has the bill effected the feral pig population? a. No, the bill has not effected the overall population and in fact has caused more harm to the environment because the low flying helicopters pose a threat to many species. Not only do the hunters have a chance to shoot other animals by accident, but the helicopters also disturb wildlife as they fly low to the ground in pursuit of the pigs.

42

4. At what point do you think the government needs to step in? a. Well first off, they should repeal HB 716. I think the government needs to provide people with some sort of incentive to harvest feral pig meat instead of just leaving it to waste.

5. If it were up to you, what would you do? a. Again, I would say the government should be promoting the use of feral pig meat. The pigs could probably be trapped more effectively and humanely killed for collecting the meat. Aerial hunting should not be allowed at all though because the injured pigs can run up to 20 miles. After the pigs run away they may go back to their nesting areas, which tend to be near streams that can be contaminated if the pigs die in or near the water.

6. Do you think any sort of solution, such as a bounty would serve as a better solution? a. No, a bounty system would probably be too expensive and that doesn’t encourage people to use the meat. I stand by my idea that the government should provide an incentive for utilizing the feral pig meat, which could seriously help with hunger issues happening within the poor and homeless populations.

Civic Engagement: For the civic engagement portion of my Capstone project, I plan on attempting to submit my research to an outdoor publication with hopes of being published. I think this is a great way to spread the word and get people to understand that the feral pig population will become a problem for everyone if it isn’t dealt with. Many people, especially in Texas, probably know that the feral pig population is very high, but I want people to understand that there is really no easy way to solve this issue.

42

Day 43

44

Appendices

44

Day 45

Appendix I: House Research Organization bill analysis

46 HOUSERESEARCH ORGANIZATION bill analysis 3/30/2011 HB 716 S. Miller, Christian, Deshotel (CSHB 716 by Deshotel) SUBJECT: Allowing sale of seats on helicopter hunts for feral hogs and coyotes COMMITTEE: Culture, Recreation, and Tourism — committee substitute recommended VOTE: 7 ayes — Guillen, Elkins, Deshotel, T. King, Kuempel, Larson, Price 0 nays 2 absent — Dukes, T. Smith WITNESSES: For — (Registered, but did not testify: Marida Favia del Core Borromeo, Exotic Wildlife Association; Seth Terry, Texas Farm Bureau) Against — Patt Nordyke, Texas Federation of Animal Care Societies); (Registered, but did not testify: Nicole Paquette, The Humane Society of the United States) On — Scott Vaca, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Law Enforcement BACKGROUND: Under Parks and Wildlife Code, sec. 62.003, no person may hunt any wild bird or wild animal other than an alligator, frog, or turtle from any type of aircraft or airborne device, motor vehicle, powerboat, or sailboat, or from any other floating device, except for animals and birds not classified as migratory that are hunted within the boundaries of private property or upon private water.

Under current law, an aerial hunting company may obtain a permit from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to use an aircraft to manage wildlife or exotic animals. The permit to aerial hunt is specific to nuisance animals such as feral hogs, bobcats, coyotes, and exotics and can only be used for management purposes, not for sport. The fee for this type of permit is $210 per year. In turn, the aerial hunting company contracts with landowners, who file an authorization to manage exotic animals by aircraft with TPWD. This permit is allowed under federal law, which provides that no person may hunt or harass any animal or bird from an aircraft unless they have a state permit. In addition, a landowner authorization must be signed by the landowner and the aerial permittee, and the aerial permittee must report

HB 716 46

Day 47 House Research Organization page 2 the management activity to the United States Fish and Wildlife Department annually.

DIGEST: CSHB 716 would prohibit the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission from adopting a proclamation or regulation that would ban a landowner from acting as a contractor or participating as a hunter or observer in a helicopter hunt for depredating feral hogs or coyotes.

The bill also would require the commission to amend its rules to comply with the legislation as soon as practical after CSHB 716 took effect on September 1, 2011.

SUPPORTERS SAY:CSHB 716 would allow a landowner to sell seats on a helicopter hunt for feral hogs or coyotes. Currently, a landowner can pay a company to hunt the hogs, but this can be costly for the landowner. The bill would allow landowners to defray the costs of controlling these nuisance animals and to help address the feral hog problem during a state budget crisis, when TPWD might be forced to limit its operations.

It is estimated that 1.5 million feral hogs are in Texas. Feral hogs are a prolific species that may have two litters per year, with up to 12 piglets in a litter. The problem of feral hogs has spread from rural areas to the suburbs and highways. Feral hogs devastate agriculture by trampling crops, tearing down fences, spreading diseases to livestock, and eating seeds and livestock feed. Direct damage from feral hogs has been estimated at $400 million annually.

Sympathy for feral hogs is misplaced, because they are omnivores that prey on lambs, kid goats, newborn fawns, ground nesting birds, and endangered sea turtles.

The bill would pose no safety concerns because numerous state and federal regulations govern the safe operation of all aircraft and TPWD regulations ensure the proper conduct of aerial hunts. The helicopter companies and their pilots have additional financial and personal safety incentives to screen those selected to be gunners on a hunt. Interested participants must be able to demonstrate that they have the expertise to handle weaponry properly. Those posing any danger to the pilot or the helicopter would be grounded promptly.

According to the Texas Department of Agriculture, more than 75 percent of the state has suitable terrain and vegetative cover for aerial gunning operations. Aerial hunting remains the most effective method to control

HB 716 House Research Organization

48 page 3 populations of feral hogs and coyotes, which move quickly and cannot be trapped easily.

While TPWD is working on a promising program to poison feral hogs, budget limitations could stall that effort.

Concerns about the rotting carcasses of feral hogs killed by aerial hunts are unfounded. While efforts to remove the carcasses can be made, it remains best practice to leave feral hogs where they fall. Diseases from wild hogs do not pose a significant threat to humans, even though their maladies can be passed easily to livestock and wildlife.

TPWD helped revise CSHB 716 to ensure that the change would not legalize “sport hunting” and would meet the United States Fish and Wildlife Department standards. In addition, lawmakers could amend the bill to repeal the sections of the Texas Administrative Code that punish anyone “who pays, barters, or exchanges anything of value to participate as a gunner or observer” and prohibit the use of an aerial hunt permit for sport hunting. Any ambiguity could be addressed further in the rulemaking process by the Parks and Wildlife Commission.

The commission is well aware of the need for effective control of nuisance species.

OPPONENTS SAY: Shooting guns from helicopters to hunt feral hogs would pose serious safety risks. Low-flying helicopters can encounter wind shears, power lines, trees, or other land formations while pursuing feral hogs, leading to possible air crashes. Pursuit with low-flying aircraft is inherently cruel and could lead to misplaced shots, wounded animals, and animals left to suffer and die under unacceptable conditions. A moving helicopter provides an unstable aiming platform. Since it is difficult to aim precisely and kill a running feral hog, the rate of wounded and crippled animals is likely to be significant, and wounded animals could cause even more damage. Furthermore, feral hogs tend to occupy low-lying areas and depressions where brush is dense, presenting a difficult target for aerial shooting.

Aside from the safety risks, hunting feral hogs from a helicopter would be a nuisance to nearby residential areas due to the noise from helicopters and gunfire. The practice also could raise issues with carcass removal. Some hogs weigh hundreds of pounds, making it difficult to dispose properly of the carcass. Since the meat cannot be used, the hunter does not have much incentive to retrieve the carcass. If the carcass is not handled properly, health and safety issues could arise, particularly if a carcass was left to decompose near a water source, causing contamination. Since the hunting typically occurs on private property, there are no clear regulations.

HB 716 House Research Organization page 4 48

Day 49

Operating and maintaining a helicopter is expensive, so it is possible that this bill would not produce the financial bonanzas for landowners that many have predicted. Nonetheless, hunting from helicopters is an inhumane solution to the problem of feral hogs. Killing even feral hogs or coyotes from a helicopter should not be considered a sport, and selling seats on the craft would further blur the distinction between sport and slaughter.

OTHER OPPONENTS SAY: As drafted, CSHB 716 would walk a very narrow line between predator management and sport hunting and may not meet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife standards. In addition, the bill would not address the sections of the Texas Administrative Code that restrict sport hunting.

The provision allowing the sale of seats to hunt coyotes should be removed. State law already allows these animals to be hunted from the air, but there is no evidence that coyotes create the same level of destruction to crops and land as do feral hogs.

NOTES: The author is expected to offer a floor amendment that would amend the Texas Administrative Code provisions prohibiting the exchange of money or other valuable items to be a gunner or observer and to use an aerial permit for sports hunting.

The committee substitute differs from the original version of the bill by allowing landowners to contract with hunters to hunt coyotes as well as feral hogs from helicopters.

During the 2009 regular session, the House by 125-12 passed HB 836 by S. Miller, which would have allowed those with a proper permit to participate in helicopter hunts for feral hogs. The bill died in the Senate Natural Resources Committee after being re-referred from the Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.

50

Endnotes

50

1 See Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service website for more information.

2 See Appendix I. 3 See Field and Stream article by Dave Hurteau listed in works cited page.

4 See Nancy Matsumoto’s article “Have You Ever Tried to Eat a Feral Pig?” in works cited.

5 See Mike Barnett’s article "PETA Wants No Feral Hog Left Behind." In works cited.

6 See Tyler Campbell’s article "Effectiveness And Target-Specificity Of A Novel Design Of Food Dispenser To Deliver A Toxin To Feral Swine In The United States." In works cited.

7 See full interview with Patt Nordyke on page 41.

8 See full interview with Dr. Tyler Campbell on page 41.

9 See "Using Baits to Deliver Pharmaceuticals to Feral Swine in Southern Texas." by Tyler A. Campbell and Steven J. Lapidge and David B. Long listed in works cited.