AN OVERVIEW ON FERAL HOG MANAGEMENT IN BRAZIL AFTER THREE YEARS OF CONTROL REGULATION Clarissa Alves da Rosa, Marcelo Osório Wallau, Rafael Salerno, Felipe Pedrosa, Agnis de Souza, Fernando Puertas, Tiago Xavier dos Reis e La Hire Mendina Filho Palestra apresentada na 27 Conferencia sobre Pragas Vertebradas, em Newport Beach, CA, EUA, em 10/3/2016. Acesse https://sites.google.com/site/pampaja... para mais informações e material completo da apresentação Talk given at the 27th Vertebrate Pest Conference, in Newport Beach, CA, March 10, 2016. For complete paper and more information about the presentation, check our website https://sites.google.com/site/pampaja...

1. An overview on feral hog management
in Brazil after three years of control
regulation
Clarissa Alves da Rosa, Marcelo Wallau,
Rafael Salerno, Felipe Pedrosa, Agnis
Cristiane de Sousa, Fernando Puertas, Tiago
dos Reis, and La Hire Mendina Filho
1
Newport Beach, CA 3/10/2016

2. Introduction
• Feral hog research in Brazil is fairly new
• Just recently interest on the topic increased
• Very few discussions and several (political)
decisions being made without knowledge and
information
• This presentation
• Review of laws and actions
• Questionnaires with controllers and farmers
• Personal perception and perspective 2

3. Feral hogs in South America
• 1500’s fist domestic pigs
• 1900’s Eurasian Wild boar
• Argentina, Chile and
Uruguay for hunting
ranches
• Expanded all over South
America
3
1904-6
1980’s

4. Feral hogs in Brazil
• First reports in 1989, close to the border with
Uruguay
• Mid-1990’s several wild boar farms started, both
legal and illegal
• South and Southeast
• Apparently growing commerce for game meat
• Illegal hunting and crossbreeding with domestic pigs
• 2000 – 2005 economic failure caused massive release
boars into the wild
4

5. 5
Pedrosa et al., 2015
1989 from Uruguay
Mid-1990’s
imported and
released 2000-2005
Two main
population
groups
RS
SC
MG

6. 6
LECOM - UFLA
LECOM - UFLA
LECOM - UFLA

7. Historic of laws
• 1934 - fist wildlife regulation
• 1967 – “Hunting code” restricts commercial hunting
and introduction of alien species (forbids any hunting
but for subsistence)
 1989 first reports of feral hogs in RS
• In Rio Grande do Sul (RS)
• 1994 – experimentally for 3 moths in 11 counties
• 2002 & 2004 – 1 year
• Little success – hunters to be accompanied by federal
agents
7

8. Historic of laws
• In 2005, control was authorized for all the state of
RS, and in 2007 in Santa Catarina
• In SC restricting dogs and traps – low recruitment and
success
• In 2010, revoked (federal) normative that
legalized feral hog control in RS and SC
• Pressure from “animal rights” groups
• Federal government passed on the responsibility to
the states
• New laws in RS and SC, but same bureaucracy
8

9. Normative Instruction 03/2013
• IBAMA - Brazilian Institute for Environment and Renewable
Natural Resources – equivalent to US Fish Wildlife Service
• Lethal control legalized nationally
• 24 years from the first reports of feral hogs and damage to
crops and livestock predation
• Any citizen, with proper documentation, no season or bag
limit
• Main reasons
• Pressure from farming federations for achieving the OIE
status of free from Classic Swine Fever
• Brazil – 4th pork producer in the world
9

10. Documentation required
• From IBAMA
• Technical federal registration (CTF) – online
• Certificate of regularity (CR) – need to be updated every 3
months, in person or by mail. Renewal can take up to 1 month.
• Requires report of number, sex, age class, method and date of all hogs
harvested
• From the Brazilian Army (for use of guns)
• Extensive, exhaustive and time-consuming process
• Waiting time no less than 6 months, but normally ~1 yr
• Cost > $1000 (just for the authorizations, no guns yet)
• Then you are allowed to request the purchase of a gun and
apply for the transportation authorizations (~6 mo wait)
10

11. 11

12. Applicability of NI 03/2013
• On line questionnaires for feral hog hunters all
over the country
• From June to August 2015, using social networks,
hunting clubs and blogs
• Hunters were asked
• Documentation, control methods, motivation
• Bias: mostly recreational and commercial hunters
with access to internet, few farmers
• N = 126
12

13. Results from online questionnaire
• College degree (61%)
• 21% with monthly wages > 10x minimum wage
• 40 % had no permit for hog control
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
Bureaucracy Don't know how to
apply for the license
Don't know about the
NI 03/2013
Have no interest
ProportionofAnswers
Reasons for not having the permits
Bureaucracy

14. Results from online questionnaire
• From those 60% that have all documentation
required, 48% are not up to date
• Trimestral reports
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
No economic
resources to delivery
the report
Do not aknowledge
this requirement
Dificulty on making
the report
Don't known about
this requirement
ProportionofAnswers
Reasons for not submitting the reports
Economic
resources

15. Control methods
• Online questionnaire
• number of hogs killed, sex,
method of control, type of
propriety and motivation
• Two other surveys applied
locally
• Santana do Livramento, RS and
Itamonte, MG, both places
heavily affected by feral hog
invasion
• Number of hogs killed, method
type of propriety
15
Pedrosa et al., 2015

16. Control methods results
• 2112 feral hogs killed (16.8 ±25.36 per hunter)
• Only 14% (294) were piglets
• Most use both guns (70%) and white weapons (74%)*
- dog hunting
• Some switching to archery – less documents
16* Respondents could select more than one answer
0
50
100
Private property of others Own private property Protected Area
ProportionofAnswers
Type of propriety
Large amount of volunteers (recreational hunters)

17. 17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Hunting Corral traps Trench traps Stand
ProportionofAnswers
Methods (local surveys)
73%
Dogs
0
20
40
60
80
100
Hunting Stand Traps
ProportionofAnswers
Methods (online questionnaire)
recreational hunters
Larger participation of farmers
83%
Dogs

18. General comments
• Most used technique is dog hunting
• Readily available, expertise, minimum requirements
• Lack of knowledge on alternative methods (i.e.
trapping), and “common sense” that trapping does
not work
• Control being done by volunteers
• Large part of the animals harvested are being
used for human consumption
• Several don’t know about health risks involved with
manipulation and consumption of feral hog meat
• Big lack on legislation about destination of carcasses 18

19. Comparing to the official data
• Official numbers (for Brazil)
• # of hunters registered in the army (for having guns)
• ~ 20,000
• # of hunters registered in IBAMA (for population
control
• ~ 7,000 (which most are not up to date with
documentation)
• Pigs harvested
• 2013 - 396
• 2014 - 518
19

20. Disparity of the official data
• Official numbers (for Brazil)
• # of hunters registered in the army (for having guns)
• ~ 20,000
• # of hunters registered in IBAMA (for population control
• ~ 7,000 (which most are not up to date with documentation)
• Pigs harvested
• 2013 - 396
• 2014 – 518
• Our numbers:
• 126 hunters interviewed (40% not registered)
• 2112 hogs harvested in 2014
20

21. Overview of NI 03/2013
• Main aspects
• Too many documents and regulations (IBAMA +
Army)
• Reporting system does not work - unreliable data
• Do not acknowledge recreational hunting
• Holds population control back
• Most of the hunters and farmers are illegally
controlling feral hogs in their own land
21

22. 22

23. Political level
• Most of the “movement ” comes
form volunteer groups
• Aqui Tem Javali Network
• Pampa Javali Team
• Several volunteer hunting groups
• Few government actions
• Mostly from managers of some
Environmental Protection Areas
23

24. Involvement of the government
• ICMBio, via unit managers (US National Park Service)
• Ibirapuitã Environmental Preservation Area
• since 2011 with meetings with authorities and community
• support given to producers within the PA
• Itatiaia National Park – 2014-15
• partnership with local hunter and research institutions
• Meetings in RS and SC state Assembly since 2015
• Several projects, lots of bureaucracy and ideology =
nothing done yet.
• Too many “opinions” and little hands on
24

25. Main challenges
• Bureaucracy from the
government and delay in
action
• Lack of information and
research
• Lots of decisions being made
without technical
information
25

26. Final considerations
• Farmers are the most affected by
the problem and the least
assisted
• No information, skills, time and
resources to conduct proper control
• Marginal to law because of
excessive requirements
• Cultural issues
• Free-ranging domestic pigs
26

27. Final considerations
• Generate more knowledge and information
• Regional and national control plan
• More interaction between government agencies,
federations and private parties
• Improve efficiency of methodology
• Recreational hunting help reducing control cost
• Train extension agents
• Laws
• Need revision on restrictions and reports
• Taxation and restrictions on hunting equipment
27

28. 28
C.D. Sordi
Thank you for your attention
Who is up for the challenge?