ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

Exploring Alternatives in Wild Boar

Management
Eleanor Markarian, Environmental Studies Program, California State University
Monterey Bay

Introduction

Wild boar (Sus scrofa), also called wild pigs or hogs, are a non-native invasive species
that has spread throughout California. They are now present in 56 of 58 counties in California
and present a wide range of problems. Environmentalists, ranchers, farmers, public land
managers, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife are concerned by the impact this
species has on native plants, native animals, and ecosystems. They are also concerned about how
wild boar negatively impact water quality and contribute to the spread of fecal-coliform bacteria.
The damage they do on farms, ranches, golf courses, playing fields, and even suburban
neighborhoods is a further concern. The World Conservation Union’s Invasive Species Specialist
Group included Sus scrofa in it list of the top 100 worst invasive species, they are one of 14
mammals listed (Lowe et al., 2000). The state of California should develop policies that reduce
the population of wild boar while taking into consideration the different stakeholders
perspectives.

The wild boar in California today are a hybrid combination of European wild boar (Sus
scrofa) and feral domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus). Although wild boar is valued as a game
animal by hunters, the presence of these swine in many California counties is a concern because
they cause economic losses for farmers and ranchers, ecological threats to other species, and
health concerns for humans.

Part of the problem stems from the biological features of S. scrofa. They are omnivores
adapted to survive and thrive on a wide variety of foods. While some omnivores eat a limited
range of foods, wild pigs are generalists that can eat an incredible variety of foods (Baber &
Coblentz, 1987). This has allowed them to spread into many areas and adapt to whatever food
sources available in the area. They not only survive on foods found above ground, but their
highly developed sense of smell helps them to find and root up underground food including
roots, tubers, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians and small mammals. They have high
reproductive rates, and this means their population can grow rapidly when conditions are good.

These adaptations that have helped wild pigs spread and survive have allowed them to
successfully compete with native animals. One Monterey County rancher reported that his
grandfather noticed that the deer population declined as the wild pig population increased. When
wild pigs search for and root up underground roots, tubers, and animals, they also damage food
resources they don’t eat. This rooting damages tree roots and other plants and generally decades
the habitat, reducing its value to other species.

It is not just natural habitats wild pigs damage. On farms and ranches pigs damage
fences, irrigation systems, and crops. They introduce a variety of pathogens to livestock,
including pseudorabies, swine brucellosis, leptospirosis, Japanese encephalitis, and foot-and-
mouth disease. Their presence in agricultural lands may also cause human harm. There is

2
evidence that wild pigs were the source of the E. coli that contaminated spinach and made over
200 people sick across the United States and led to the death of three people (Jay et al, 2007).
Aside from the human suffering, this resulted in a lot of economic losses.

The presence of wild pigs in California impacts many stakeholders including ranchers,
farmers, native plant advocates, wildlife biologists, health professionals, park and public land
managers, and consumers of produce. There are other stakeholders, too. There are hunters who
value the presence of wild pigs in the state as game animals, and there are animal rights
advocates who are morally opposed to the killing of animals, even those others consider pests.

Background
History
S. scrofa domesticus was brought to California in 1700s by the Spanish establishing
missions. In this period livestock were not always fenced or penned and were often allowed out
to forage in woodlands. Escaped pigs became feral, meaning that they lived as wild animals.
With one of the highest rates of reproduction of any ungulate, the feral pig population grew
quickly.
In the 1920s European wild boar were intentionally released in Monterey County by
hunters who wanted to establish a population of this game animal in the area. Today the animals
know as wild boar in California are the descendants of these two strains of S. scrofa. Over the
last century their population has expanded into 56 of California’s 58 counties (Sweitzer et al.,
2016).

Scientific Background

S. scrofa is an ungulate mammal in the family Suidae. This species was domesticated
approximately 10,000 years ago and have been selectively bred since then, producing a number
of morphologically distinct breeds. Although the domestic pigs may appear quite different from
the wild form they descended from, they still belong to the same species. They are, however,
classified as separate subspecies, with wild pigs classified as S. scrofa scrofa and domestic pigs
as S. scrofa domestica. Descendants of feral domestic pigs or mixtures of domestic and wild pigs

3
are called wild boar. The wild form of S. scrofa is brown, gray, or black. Feral pigs may also be
these shades but may also be red or white or a mixture of colors. The wild pigs generally have a
dense, coarse coat compared to domestic pigs. Feral pigs are more likely to resemble wild boar
when they have a higher percentage of wild boar genes. Figure 1 shows a comparison of the
morphological differences between wild boar and domestic pigs. Male wild boar generally grow
to 30 to 200 kg but can reach 350 kg. Females are smaller growing to 15 to 110 kg, but
occasionally reaching 150 kg. They have a life span of 15 to 25 years (Sus scrofa, 2018).

Figure 1. Wild boar and domestic pig comparison

S. scrofa, a species originally native to Eurasia and North Africa, has spread to all
continents except Antarctica. The features of this species’ biology that has allowed S. scrofa to
thrive and spread across the globe are the ones that allowed it to successfully establish

4
populations in the various habitats of California, from the rainy northern coastal forests to the
arid desert regions. They are established in grasslands, chaparral, oak woodland, coastal scrub,
and agricultural areas.
One feature that has allowed this species to expand into such varied habitats is its ability
to survive on a wide range of foods. It is an omnivore that can adapt to the food resources
available. While it prefers plant matter over animal matter, it feeds on all types of organic matter
including animals and fungi. It is successful in getting this food by employing a number of
different types of feeding behaviors. It browses and grazes on leaves, stems, and grasses; it
forages for mushrooms, fallen fruits, nuts, seeds, carrion, eggs, and even manure; it uses its keen
sense of smell to find food underground and root it out. Underground food includes bulbs, roots,
and invertebrates. S. scrofa sometimes acts as a predator eating smaller vertebrates and
invertebrates (Ballari & Barrios‐García, 2014).
Another aspect of its biology that has enabled S. scrofa to so successfully expand its
population in California is its reproductive rate. One factor contributing to their high
reproductive rate is a large litter size. A female can give birth to as many as twelve piglets,
although average litter size is typically four to six. S. scrofa females can become sexually mature
as young as three to four months of age, although most don’t reach puberty until they are one
year old. Once they reach sexual maturity, the can come into estrus every 18-24 days, and they
can reproduce in all months. A sow can continue to breed over many years. A fourteen-year-old
sow was documented as having the capacity to breed (Sweeney, Sweeney &Provost, 1979).
The presence of a well-established population of non-native S. scrofa in California has
significant impacts on the environment and other species within the state. It is also responsible
for economic damages in agricultural areas and it may spread pathogens to people, domestic
animals, and wildlife.

5
 Figure 2. Damage field caused by wild pig rooting

As S. scrofa searches for and feeds on underground bulbs, roots, tubers, fungi, and
invertebrates, they disturb the soil. In some places the effect is the same as tilling in agricultural
areas, figure 2 shows this. While there have been a number of studies on how this effects soil,
there is no consensus on how detrimental this activity is on ecosystems. Soil texture, moisture,
microbial density and diversity, and soil biomass is often affected, however how this impacts the
soil over time is not clear. Some ecosystems are resilient and recover quickly to this disturbance.
Sometimes the species richness is not altered by pig rooting. However, there is some indication
that soil disturbance due to S. scrofa rooting results in an increase in exotic plant species
(Barrios-Garcia & Ballari, 2012).
S. scrofa can have negative impacts on other animal species through predation. Animals
can constitute up to 30% of their diet. They prey on soil organisms including insect larvae,
beetles, snails, centipedes, and earthworms. They also eat vertebrates including reptiles,
amphibians, mammals and birds. They are nest predators and eat the eggs of ground-nesting
birds, tortoises, and other reptiles (Waithman et al., 1999).

Policy Context
Policies developed to manage wild S. scrofa populations have been developed in many
US states as well as in other countries. The common approaches include managing this species as
a game animal; passing laws limiting the dispersal of S. scrofa through introductions, transport,

6
and re-release of captured swine; and, integrated methods that rely on monitoring, trapping,
hunting, and non-lethal control.
For much of its history California has relied on game laws to manage wild swine. Game
laws in California and other states arose in response to the decline in population numbers of
some native animals. In the years prior to California becoming a state there are many accounts of
how abundant these same animals were, but their populations decreased significantly largely due
to hunting. California became a state in 1850 and just two years later, in 1852, the first game
laws were passed protecting animals like elk, deer, quail and waterfowl, among others. Over the
years this original policy has been adapted and added to. While wild boar are not a native animal
in California, they are an animal popular with hunters, so they came to be managed under the
CDFW.
Wild boar were unclassified in California until 1957 when they were deemed a game
animal. This allowed a hunting season to be established, set bag limits and method of take
requirements. The Fish and Wildlife codes regarding wild boar were amended in 1992, the new
policies required possession of a pig tag for each animal taken. This includes fixing one portion
of the tag to the animal and filling out and returning the other portion to CDFW. This allows
CDFW to collect data on the number of animals taken and their approximate location and
dispersal throughout the state (Wild pig management program, 2018).
As their population increased, so did concerns over the variety of damages they caused.
Now policies regarding wild boar in California are at an intersection between game management
laws and agriculture pest management. As a result, CDFW has provided some alternative
regulations, such as issuing depredation permits to impacted farmers and ranchers. With this
permit they are able to hunt at night, something prohibited under general CDFW Game Code.
Some states developed policies to control the spread of feral swine that rely on laws that
prohibit the import, transport, and release of the species (Centner & Shuman, 2014). Most states
have enacted laws that prohibit the transport of live feral swine within the state. This was in
response to landowners trying to establish a population for hunting by moving feral swine to
their property. A few states have also enacted laws that prohibit private landowners from
charging fees so that the incentive to import feral swine to the property would be eliminated, and
landowners would have fewer reasons to maintain existing feral swine populations.

7
 In 2014 the United Stated Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service or APHIS created the National Feral Swine Damage Management Program to
address the problems created by wild boar. Through collaboration between states and other
stakeholders APHIS hopes to minimize damages caused by wild boar. There are no laws at the
federal level regarding the management of wild boar. Rather than developing national boar
management laws, this program will allow APHIS to adapt the management techniques to fit the
needs of each individual state. In states with small boar populations they will work to eradicate
wild boar. While in states with larger, well established populations they will focus on limiting
population growth and geographic expansion. This program also provides resources to monitor
the spread of pathogens known to be transmitted by wild boar; works to educate the public
regarding wild boar issues; and, creates models to predict the outcomes of various boar
management strategies, among other things (APHIS, 2016). The APHIS approach is an
integrated one that relies on a variety of approaches that are best suited to each state.

Stakeholder Perspectives
Farmers’ Perspectives

Farmers in California can be affected by wild boar in a variety of ways. They can enter
fields eating crops and damaging even those they don’t eat as they trample over fields and uproot
plantings as they root through the soil for worms and other soil organisms. As they defecate, they
introduce fecal coliform bacteria to the farm that contaminate crops. In California one study
noted that growers had a 6-10% loss of revenue when wild pigs were present (Jay et al., 2007).
Even if farmers are successful in keeping wild pigs out of their fields, they can still cause
problems when they contaminate the irrigation water. Wild pigs carry pathogens that pose a
threat of infection to humans. These include E. coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella,
Cryptosporidium, and Giardia. These waterborne pathogens can contaminate crops through
irrigation (Finzel & Baldwin, 2018).

8
 From farmers’ perspectives wild pigs are an agricultural pest that threatens their
economic success. They lose money when crops are damaged by the pigs. But they also lose
money trying to prevent pigs from damaging crops by erecting fences. They can also try to get
rid of existing wild pigs. Currently, rules governing wild pig management in California are under
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Under these rules private landowners
have three choices if they wish to control these animals: the encounter law, depredation permits,
and hunting. Under the encounter law landowners can kill pigs when they encounter them
causing damage or threatening to do so (FGC 4181.1). Landowners can apply for a depredation
permit from CDFW and trap pigs, or they can obtain a hunting license and permit from CDFW.

Ranchers’ Perspectives

Ranchers’ property and livestock are often damaged by wild pigs. The pigs can damage
fencing, root up and degrade pastures, consume forage and supplements intended for livestock,
contaminate water supplies, and infect livestock with parasites and pathogens. However, for
some ranchers the presence of wild pigs is not without benefits. Some ranchers gain income from
the fees they charge hunters for access to their property, and some ranchers act as hunting guides
earning even more money. Ranchers themselves are sometimes hunters as well. In an interview,
with a third-generation rancher from Monterey County, he explained that he hunts to control the
population but also enjoys it for the sport. For those that are both hunters and in the business of
raising livestock, their attitudes toward the wild pigs can be complicated.

Public Land Managers’ Perspectives

Public lands in California include everything from city parks to national forests. In
general, wild pigs stay in the larger tracts of public land away from cities, but as the population
of wild pigs increases, they are showing up in city parks, municipal golf courses, and even on
school sports fields. In these more developed parks they can do considerable damage to turf areas
and irrigation systems as they root through the soil. In larger forests and open space areas land
managers don’t have to worry about this type of damage, but instead have to worry about how
wild pigs adversely affect the native species and natural resources of the lands they manage.
Because of the negative effects on other species and local ecosystems, land managers have an

9
incentive to reduce or eliminate wild pigs. However, because some public lands allow hunting,
hunters may object to programs that reduce or eliminate wild pigs. This can put land managers in
a difficult position as they must balance the interests and demands of all members of the public.

Environmentalists’ Perspectives
Environmentalists are a diverse group and have varied perspectives depending on their
focus, so it can be difficult to generalize and say there is a consensus on how they view the wild
pig issue. However, most environmentalists agree on the value of protecting biological diversity,
healthy ecosystems, and clean water. Sus scrofa, is a nonnative invasive species and it is having
some effect on native species and ecosystems, and their activities often pollute natural streams
and ponds. They compete with native animals for food and resources and may introduce new
diseases and parasites into native wildlife populations.
Environmentalist often differ on the use of lethal methods to control animals. Members
of many environmental groups have concerns for the welfare of animals, even those that are
pests. Environmentalists who may support some lethal measures to control wild pigs, sometimes
object to sport hunting.

Fish and Wildlife’s Perspectives

CDFW has to meet the needs of a variety of different groups, including environmentalists,
hunters, farmers and ranchers, recreational campers and hikers, among others. In 2016 they
received $91 million in revenue from the sale of hunting and sport fishing licenses, which is
approximately 20% of their 2015/2016 expenditure of $435.3 million (Budget fact book, p 15).
Since wild boar is currently classified as a game species, it could be detrimental to their revenue
if they were reclassified as an invasive species or an agricultural pest. While some hunters would
like to have an abundance of wild boar to hunt on public land, people concerned about the impact
of the pigs on ecosystems would like the department to do more to reduce the pig population.

10
Table 1: Stakeholder Perspectives
Stakeholder Representative What does the How can the What are the
group and Examples stakeholder stakeholder concerns of the
representatives value about the contribute to the stakeholder?
project? project?
Farmers Small organic Producing crops Organized Financial
growers economically damages
Politically
Larger corporate connected Health and
farms safety
Ranchers Cattle ranchers Economic Land Government
opportunities management regulations
Dairy farmers
Recreation and Provides a Financial
Pig farmer ranch use of habitat for other gains/losses
land wild species
Public land National forest Serves needs of Wildlife habitat Public Safety
managers a variety of
City and county other Recreational Protection of
parks stakeholders opportunities property

State parks Environmental Healthy Balancing

protection watersheds conflicting
interests
Community
collaboration Funding
Environmentalists Native plant Environmental Advocate for Loss of habitat
society protection land and species
preservation Pesticide use
Clean water Biological
advocates diversity Supports Balancing
environmental interests of their
Wildlife Healthy laws base
organizations ecosystems
Fundraising
CDFW N/A Public Establish and Funding
enjoyment of enforce wildlife
resources and Balancing
environmental conflicting
Protection of laws interests
natural resources
Resource Education of
management public

11
Discussion
Three possible policies that could help alleviate the many negative impacts resulting from
the spread of Sus scrofa in California include reclassification of this species from game animal to
pest species; providing grants to organizations or individuals to fund the development of control
strategies through collaboration among stakeholders; and legalize the sale of wild pig meat. The
economic cost and benefits of each of these strategies need to be evaluated and compared. This
should include both the direct costs and benefits of implementing each policy, along with the
indirect cost and benefits. The social and cultural acceptability of each needs to be assessed as
well.

12
Table 2: Analysis of Policy Options by Criteria
Policy Option 1: Policy Option 2: Policy Option 3:
Legalize the sale of Grant offered to Reclassification as a
game (pig) meat public land pest
managers, hunters,
farmers, etc. to find a
solution
Criteria 1: Ecological Incentive to hunt Collaboration may May lead to
health more which reduces focus on most reduction of pig
pig population sensitive habitats population
Criteria 2: Economic Reduction in Funding for grant has No revenue from the
cost/benefit population overtime to come from sale of pig tags
may reduce number somewhere Farmers, ranchers
of pig tags sold May find cost and private land
Cost of regulating effective ways of owners may
quality of meat reducing pig damage experience a
Revenue may come reduction of
from taxes and/or economic losses
permits
Criteria 3: Feasibility Regulatory Public support May accelerate
requirements of safe needed to back grant population reduction
food handling may funding May reduce funding
increase cost of meat to Fish and Wildlife
Market hunting can
provide pest control
and economic
incentives

Currently wild pigs are classified as a game animal by California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. This department collects revenue from the sale of pig tags to hunters. They would lose
this revenue should wild pigs be classified as a pest animal. Farmers, ranchers, and land
managers would save money because they would no longer have to purchase pig tags.
Reclassifying wild pigs as pests would open up the possibility of controlling them by methods
other than hunting such as trapping, poisoning, or birth control. Each of these other methods
could have unintended negative consequences. For example, poisons could be ingested by other
species, or scavengers and/or predators could be secondarily poisoned through consumption of

13
pig meat. Similarly, birth control agents could be picked up by other species. Trapping would be
the least detrimental to other species as long as the traps were humane and checked regularly.

State lawmakers and the public would need to support the cost of grants to fund the
development of control strategies either through a bond measure or through budgeting it through
the legislature. This funding would have to compete with other programs in the state. How
receptive taxpayers or politicians to providing grant money will likely depend on how the state
economy is doing at the time this proposal is considered. If funding is approved, who will decide
what organizations or individuals receive grant funding? What will the grant recipients be
required to produce? Will there be any guarantee they will come up with workable and effective
proposals?

A third option would be legalizing the sale of wild boar meat. The current regulations,
Fish and game code 3039 deems that is it “unlawful to sell or barter game taken under the
authority of a hunting license” (Today’s hunter, P112). This code makes sense for species with a
very low bag limit, for example one or two per season, since a hunter would have no problem
consuming the amount of meat from those animals. However, there is no limit on how many boar
one may hunt in a given season, as long as they have a tag for each animal. Due to the size of
wild boar there is a limit to the number of pigs a hunter could make use of in a year. Hunters are
allowed to gift meat, but this provides minimal incentive to go to the effort and expense hunting
requires. If it were legal to sell wild boar meat, this would provide reasonable motivation. This
would also allow hunters to profit from an activity they love while helping to reduce the numbers
of this problem species. There is the concern of food safety. Hunters, butchers and others who
process the meat would need to both be trained and regulated on safe handling of the meat. This
could be done through a special commercial hunting license, similar to a commercial fishing
license, as well as meat inspection protocols.

Recommendation
I recommend legalizing the sale of wild boar meat for a variety of reasons. It can
provide an alternative to farm raised meat that many may find tasty. It can provide a livelihood to

14
rural residents. It can offer farmers and ranchers a cost-effective way of dealing with problem
feral swine on their land. It can help control the population of feral pigs for the benefit of other
species and their habitats. I will explain these reasons in more detail below.
Wild boar is considered a desirable meat by many both because they find it delicious, but
also because it provides an alternative to meat raised on farms. The feral pigs live on land that
retains its wild character and natural habitat value, and it can support many other species. On the
other hand, farms often destroy natural habitats. The wild swine eat a varied diet and do not
depend on corn, soybeans and other unsustainably grown crops that are used to raise commercial
pigs. There are many consumers who seek out meat that has been grown in a sustainable fashion
without antibiotics, hormones, or other pharmaceuticals. There is already a market for meat
raised free-range and organically, and this would provide another option.
While many people object to hunting, I would argue that hunting wild boar is more
humane than keeping intelligent swine confined in crowded pens on farms for the duration of
their lives. Wild pigs can exercise and move about freely, live in social groups, and have rich and
stimulating lives until they are killed.
Due to the high reproduction rates it is unlikely that wild boar would be hunted to
extinction in California, but if that did happen, it may benefit native ecosystems. Many people
I’ve spoken to initially object to the idea of hunting animals, but after explaining that detrimental
nature of wild boar, they seem to change their opinion and seem open to the idea of wild caught
meat.
Many farmers and ranchers need to control feral pigs on their land by hunting them
themselves. If they could sell the meat, they could at least make money while controlling a
problem. If wild swine could legally be sold for meat, farmers and ranchers may find hunters
willing to remove the swine from their land just for the opportunity of selling it. This could
provide a livelihood to residents in rural areas where there may not be many job opportunities. It
could also provide economic opportunities to others who butcher, process, or transport the meat.
In many states where feral pigs are controlled primarily through sport hunting, the
population continues to expand. Current hunters just aren’t taking enough pigs to make an
impact. Studies show the number of Americans that hunt is declining, so this indicates that the

15
effectiveness of sport hunting as a feral swine control strategy will decline. Market hunting is a
way of providing an incentive to those that do hunt to take more boar.
Market hunting could be more effective at reducing the feral swine population if it were
combined with changes to hunting regulations. Pig live in groups and will scatter when a shot is
fired. If they were first confined to a large corral this would allow hunters to be more effective at
getting numerous pigs. If multiple pigs were killed at one time this could help with food safety
because a mobile refrigeration trailer and butcher could be on hand to process the pigs
immediately.
Market hunting can bring one more important benefit. It will draw awareness to the
presence of wild boar in the state and the problems they cause. Changing state laws to allow
market hunting would generate a lot of discussion and media attention. Publicity can help
educate those unaware of this issue. While it may arouse opposition from some, if nothing else,
the discussion will raise awareness of wild boar specifically and the problems caused by invasive
species more generally.

Conclusion
Wild boar are a growing problem in California as well as in other states. The problem is
large enough that no single approach can effectively solve the problem. The solution I suggested,
market hunting, is a cost-effective alternative to current policies. It will work best in conjunction
with other management techniques. California is large state with many regional differences. In
the parks and open spaces near densely populated urban areas, like the Bay Area, hunting isn’t a
safe option. In these areas alternative management techniques such as trapping may provide a
better option. However, since none of the current policies are effectively managing the boar
population in California, we need to try creative new alternatives. Market hunting can provide
multiple benefits. Among those are bringing awareness to the public about the presence of wild
boar in the state; providing a source of meat that is free range and organic; proving a cost-
effective way of managing wild boar to farmers and ranchers; and, providing economic
opportunities to hunters and other rural residents.

16
Literature Cited
Baber, D., & Coblentz, B. (1987). Diet, Nutrition, and Conception in Feral Pigs on Santa
Catalina Island. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 51(2), 306-317. doi:10.2307/3801007

Ballari, S. A., & Barrios‐García, M. N. (2014). A review of wild boar S us scrofa diet and factors
affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges. Mammal Review, 44(2), 124-134.
Barrios-Garcia, M. N., & Ballari, S. A. (2012). Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced
and native range: a review. Biological Invasions, 14(11), 2283-2300.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2018). Budget fact book based on the FY 2018-19
Governor’s proposed budget. (PP 15).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2018). Today’s hunter in California, a guide to
hunting responsible and safely. (PP112)

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2018). Wild pig management program. Retrieved
December 11, 2018, from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Wild-Pig

Centner, T. J., & Shuman, R. M. (2014). Governmental provisions to manage and eradicate feral
swine in areas of the United States. Ambio, 44(2), 121-30.

Depredation, FGC 4181.1 Retrieved from

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=FGC&division=4.&titl
e=&part=3.&chapter=3.&article=2.

Finzel, J. A., & Baldwin, R. A. (2018, July). Wild Pigs

How to Manage pests in Gardens and Landscapes. In UC IMP. Retrieved from
http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7410.html

Jay, M. T., Cooley, M., Carychao, D., Wiscomb, G. W., Sweitzer, R. A., Crawford-Miksza, L.,
Farrar, J. A., Lau, D. K., O'Connell, J., Millington, A., Asmundson, R. V., Atwill, E. R., …
Mandrell, R. E. (2007). Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feral swine near spinach fields and cattle,
central California coast. Emerging infectious diseases, 13(12), 1908-11.

Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S., & De Poorter, M. (2000). 100 of the world's worst invasive
alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database (Vol. 12). Auckland:
Invasive Species Specialist Group.

Sus scrofa [ISC] (feral pig). (2018, September 27). In Invasive Species Compendium. Retrieved
October 1, 2018, from https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/119688

17
Sweeney, J. M., Sweeney, J. R., & Provost, E. E. (1979). Reproductive biology of a feral hog
population. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 43(2), 555-559.
Sweitzer, R. A., McCann, B. E., Loggins, R. E., & Simmons, R. B. (2016). Mitochondrial DNA
perspectives on the introduction and spread of wild pigs in California. California Fish and
Game, 101(2), 131-145.

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (2016)
APHIS National feral swine damage management program. Retrieved December 15, 2018, from
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/operational-activities/feral-
swine/feral-swine-program

Waithman, J. D., Sweitzer, R. A., Van Vuren, D., Drew, J. D., Brinkhaus, A. J., Gardner, I. A., &
Boyce, W. M. (1999). Range expansion, population sizes, and management of wild pigs in
California. The Journal of wildlife management, 298-308.

Wild Boar. (2018, September 10). In Animals A-Z. Retrieved October 1, 2018.

Wharton, T. (2017, September). Number of hunters on the decline, according to new federal
survey. Salt Lake City Tribune. Retrieved from
https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/outdoors/2017/09/27/number-of-hunters-on-the-decline-
according-to-new-federal-survey/

18