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

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

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

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 Pedrosa et al., 2015

1989 from Uruguay

Mid-1990’s imported and released 2000-2005

Two main population groups

RS SC

MG

6

LECOM - UFLA

LECOM - UFLA

LECOM - UFLA

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

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

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

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

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

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 toapply for the license

Don't know about theNI 03/2013

Have no interest

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f An

swer

s

Reasons for not having the permits

Bureaucracy

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 economicresources to delivery

the report

Do not aknowledgethis requirement

Dificulty on makingthe report

Don't known aboutthis requirement

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f An

swer

s

Reasons for not submitting the reports

Economic resources

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

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

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f An

swer

s

Type of propriety

Large amount of volunteers (recreational hunters)

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Hunting Corral traps Trench traps Stand

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f An

swer

s

Methods (local surveys)

73% Dogs

0

20

40

60

80

100

Hunting Stand Traps

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f An

swer

s Methods (online questionnaire)

recreational hunters

Larger participation of farmers

83% Dogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main challenges

• Bureaucracy from the government and delay in action

• Lack of information and research

• Lots of decisions being made without technical information

25

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

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

C.D. Sordi Thank you for your attention

Who is up for the challenge?