CASE STUDY: Feral pig

management in tropical
rainforests of Queensland
A case study to evaluate the impacts and
management of feral pigs in the Daintree,
Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA)
Introduction
The rainforests of Queenslands Wet Tropics
World Heritage Area (WTWHA) cover
approximately 900,000 ha and are important
habitats for numerous endemic, threatened
and endangered plant and animal species.
The unique rainforests are a focus for
biodiversity conservation and nature-based
tourism.
Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) are regarded as a
major vertebrate pest in the WTWHA due to
their negative environmental and economic
impacts1. The rooting behaviour displayed
by foraging pigs causes soil disturbance,
which impacts on soil structure, soil
invertebrate (eg earthworms) populations,
nutrient and water cycles, and plant species
regeneration2. The economic impacts of pigs
include damage to agricultural production,
the costs of control and the transmission
of diseases such as leptospirosis. To
reduce these negative impacts, various
management methods have been applied
by the government and private landholders,
including trapping, hunting (using dogs
and/or rifles), fencing and poison baiting.
Although potentially the most effective
and efficient method5, use of poison baiting
in the rainforests has been discouraged
because it can potentially kill native fauna
species that have similar foraging habits
and preferences to pigs. Consequently, the
WTWHA management authority encourages
trapping.
This study was based around the Daintree
bioregion, located in the northern section
of the WTWHA. The Daintree rainforests
are of the greatest conservation value in

the WTWHA because they have the highest

numbers of endangered regional or of
concern ecosystems. It is a conservation
priority to understand the magnitude of
the ecological impacts of pigs and explore
the potential use of target-specific poison
baiting. Understanding the social-human
dimensions of pig management is also key
to successful management. This is because
various stakeholder groups exist in the
WTWHA, including farmers, pig hunters,
tourism operators, tourists and Aboriginal
communities, and each group may have
different perceptions of pigs and interests
in pig management.

Aims
This project aimed to:
increase the understanding of the
ecological impacts of feral pigs in
rainforest ecosystems
assess different methods for baiting pigs
that minimise the impacts on native
species in the WTWHA
investigate novel frameworks for
cooperative management of pigs in the
WTWHA, and
determine the perceived socio-economic
and ecological costs and benefits of pigs
and their management implications in
the WTWHA.

Daintree region
DAINTREE
REGION

Partners and management

The project was undertaken in partnership
with the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO),
the University of Queensland (UQ), James
Cook University (JCU), the Wet Tropics

CASE STUDY: Feral pig management in

tropical rainforests of Queensland
Features of the study
This case study comprised four important features,
investigating both ecological and human dimensions of the
management of feral pigs:
Ecological impact assessment2: Evaluating the shortterm and long-term effects of pigs on the rainforest
using pig exclosures.
Product risk assessment delivery3: Testing targetspecificity of feral pig baits in omnivore-rich
communities where non-target species share similar
dietary preferences to pigs.

A camera trap image of a feral pig foraging in the rainforest.

Image: Andrew Bengsen

Management Authority (WTMA), Queensland Government,

Australian
Wildlife
Conservancy, Animal
Control
Technologies Australia (ACTA) Pty Ltd and the former
Douglas Shire Council (now Cairns Regional Council). The
project was funded by the Invasive Animals Cooperative
Research Centre (IA CRC).

Process
The ecological impacts of feral pigs on rainforest dynamics
were measured in terms of a range of earthworm, soil,
litter and plant characteristics. The impacts were assessed
by comparing two types of plots: fenced areas where pigs
were excluded for two and 14 years, and unfenced areas
at continual risk of pig damage in both the wet and dry
seasons.
To determine the target specificity of poison bait, non-toxic
manufactured PIGOUT bait was exposed to both pigs and
non-target species. Target specificity of the bait was tested
based on the fact that feral pigs are omnivorous, fossorial/
digging and nocturnal. Three types of bait presentation or
composition were looked at: 1. Omnivore (fish flavoured)
vs vegetarian (non-fish flavoured) composition of the bait
2. Surface-laid omnivore bait vs buried omnivore bait (at
10 cm), and 3. Restriction of bait availability to nocturnal
hours (30 min after sunset until 30 min before sunrise).
Seasonal variation in bait take was examined by presenting
omnivore bait on the ground surface during each of nine
bi-monthly sampling periods.
Stakeholders attitudes toward feral pigs and pig
management methods were explored through interviews
and/or surveys. Aboriginal rangers were interviewed on
behalf of members of their communities.

feral.org.au

Anthropology of feral pig management4: Exploring the

conflicts in feral pig management particularly with
regards to use of hunting as a control technique.
Socio-economic implications of pigs and pig management
methods5: Assessing the perceived socio-economic and
ecological values of feral pigs for different stakeholder
groups and their views on pig management methods.

Results
Ecological Impact Assessment2
Feral pigs did not have a strong impact on any of the
measured aspects of rainforest dynamics (eg earthworm
biomass, soil moisture, soil compaction, litter biomass,
litter moisture, plant seedlings, plant saplings and
trees).
Seasons had a greater impact on rainforest dynamics
than feral pigs in both the fenced and unfenced plots.
The findings above contradict the obvious visual
difference between the fenced and unfenced plots.
The results could have been influenced by edge effects
produced by small plot size.

Product risk assessment delivery3

Manufactured baits PIGOUT were rarely taken by feral
pigs in the Daintree but were highly acceptable to
dingoes. This was likely because the diet of pigs in the
rainforests was more fruit-driven, but dingoes mainly
took the baits in their breeding season.
There were no seasonal patterns in bait consumption by
non-target species.
Nocturnal bait distribution effectively prevented
diurnal omnivores (eg the yellow-spotted monitor)
from encountering and consuming bait. But given their
low bait consumption, nocturnal baiting would not be
worthwhile.
In contrast to nocturnal bait distribution, burial was easy
to implement and substantially reduced the number of
non-target native omnivores that consumed bait, but
burial did not reduce bait-take by dingoes.

 Follow-up studies examined whether non-target small

mammals could be deterred by factors that increased
their predation risks. The results were:
Illumination at bait sites using LED lights reduced bait
consumption by small mammals without inhibiting
bait-take by pigs.
Broadcasting pre-recorded calls (vocalisations) of
feral pigs or dingoes at bait sites did not deter nontarget small mammals from feeding on bait.
Follow-up studies also found that:
Unprocessed starch-rich bait reduced dingoes bait
consumption.
Bait-take by small non-target omnivores was reduced
by use of a physical barrier to baits (eg a plastic box
covering baits) with small portions of an alternative
decoy food source around the bait sites.

Anthropology of feral pig management4

Control techniques such as trapping and hunting,
are significant to some communities because of
social relationships formed by trappers and hunters.
Recognition of this can benefit pig management and
lead to more socially supportive control of pigs in the
local area.
Pest control technologies may be subject to resistance
not because of opposition to features of a technology
but because of how its implementation threatens
activities important to certain hunters and their
identities.

Socio-economic implications of pigs and pig

management methods5
Almost unanimously, the environmental costs of pigs
were perceived to be significant, as their impacts did
not match stakeholders perception of good forest
health.
Significant agricultural damage was limited to a minority
of farmers, and feral pigs had negligible economic
implications for rainforest tourism in the WTWHA.
Social benefits were attributed to feral pig control as it
is a recreational activity for pig hunters and a customary
activity for Aboriginal people in remote areas. The meat
obtained from hunting was also valued as a food source
for those Aboriginal people.
Overall pig management was regarded as the
responsibility of the government.
The restrictions posed on the ability of locals to
manage pigs in national parks and stakeholders
higher expectations of management outcomes (eg
eradication), both resulted in their dissatisfaction with
the current pig management.

Trapping was the most accepted method while there was

general antipathy toward 1080 poison baiting because
of stakeholders concerns about target specificity.
Social acceptability of poisoning, however, may become
higher once humaneness issues are overcome (eg baits
using sodium nitrite) and baits are excluded from nontarget animals through the use of self-resetting hoppers
(HogHopper).

What worked and why

In assisting fieldwork, numerous networks were
developed with government agencies, researchers and
industry groups2.
Throughout the baiting trials, camera trap sampling was
a useful tool for monitoring changes in pig population
abundance over time, particularly in response to
management actions3.
Contextualising issues of feral pig management within
its broader social and historical contexts highlighted
how disagreements over feral pig management,
including resistance to pig control technologies, could
be socially and historically determined4.
A one-page, concise tourist survey format encouraged
higher response rates. Aboriginal rangers, who worked
in the public domain, were easily approachable5.

What didnt work and why

The start of fieldwork was delayed due to the process of
obtaining an Aboriginal Research Council approval from
Traditional Owners2 which highlights the need to
seek this and other approvals as early as possible.

While pig hunting was acknowledged as a socio-economic benefit

of pigs, the opinions of locals were split as to the value of pig
hunting as a management tool. Image: Kana Koichi

feral.org.au

CASE STUDY: Feral pig management in

tropical rainforests of Queensland

Comparison of fenced and unfenced plots for ecological impact

assessment. Image: Steve Lapidge

Seasonal variation in bait acceptability by pigs could

not be tested because there were few independent
instances of bait encounter or consumption by pigs in
the field3.
Communication difficulties arose with ecologists due to
the differences in the nature of quantitative ecological
data and qualitative social research data4.
Tourists travelling the Daintree by bus were hard to
survey owing to their tight schedules5.
Perceptions of members of Aboriginal communities
were not explored because of the anticipated lengthy
human ethics application5.

2. Elledge AE (2011). Habitat preferences and

environmental impacts of feral pigs (Sus scrofa)
in lowland tropical rainforests of north-eastern
Australia. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. The University
of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
3. Bengsen AJ (2011). Target-specific vertebrate pest
control in complex faunal communities: feral pig baiting
in the Wet Tropics of Queensland, Australia. Doctor
of Philosophy Thesis. The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia.
4. Meurk CS (2011). Loving Nature, Killing Nature, and the
Crises of Caring: An anthropological investigation of
conflicts affecting feral pig management in Queensland,
Australia. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. The University
of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
5. Koichi K (2012). The perceived environmental and
socio-economic impacts of feral pigs (Sus scrofa): A
re-examination of their perceived pest status, and
management implications. Master of Science Thesis.
James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
See also:
PestSmart Toolkit for Feral Pigs
www.feral.org.au/pestsmart/feral-pigs
PestSmart YouTube Video: New tools for feral pig
control: www.feral.org.au/new-tools-for-feral-pigcontrol/
Additional project partners:

Conclusion
The ecological impacts of feral pigs may need to be
investigated further. Poison baiting has the potential to
be an effective management tool if non-target issues are
resolved with an aid of HogHopper. Nonetheless, other
management tools such as trapping and hunting could
be simultaneously utilised for socially beneficial and
acceptable control of pigs.

References
1. Harrison DA and Congdon BC (2001). Wet Tropics
Vertebrate Pest Risk Assessment Scheme. Report to Wet
Tropics Management Authority. Cairns, QLD.

Invasive Animals Ltd has taken care to validate the accuracy of the information at the date of publication [January 2014]. This
information has been prepared with care but it is provided as is, without warranty of any kind, to the extent permitted by law.

feral.org.au

FPCS2