The Big Thicket National Preserve (BTNP) is a unit of the National Park Service whose mission prioritizes conservation of its wildlands in the United States. One threat to natural resources of the BTNP has been impacts associated with feral hog (Sus scrofa) activities. Population numbers of this non-native game species have increased throughout Texas, including areas within the preserve. Recreational hunting permitted by the BTNP has served as a means of controlling hog numbers, although the reported amounts of hog damage to park resources appear to have increased in recent years. Population reduction of feral hogs and mitigation of their impacts require research that documents and validates feral hog impacts on park resources. Here, I evaluated (1) population trends of feral hogs for the past 20 years via data from hunter-card surveys and track-counts, and (2) feral hog impacts on native vegetation for 3 management units of the BTNP. Results from my analysis suggest a nearly 3-fold increase in hog numbers throughout the preserve since 1981. The overall damage to vegetation from hog rooting or wallowing averaged to 28% among the 3 units of the BTNP. Landscape features such as topography, soil moisture, soil type, and dominant vegetative cover types were used to predict hog damage. Floodplains had the most damage in the Big Sandy unit (45%), while flatlands were mostly impacted in the Turkey Creek unit (46%), and uplands in the Lance Rosier unit (32%). Vegetative cover was an important variable in explaining variation in hog damage throughout the 3 units of the preserve. Impacts were more widespread across different vegetative strata than previously believed. Study results also support the premise that hog damage in the BTNP parallels the increase in hog abundance over the past 20 years. A more aggressive program for population reduction of feral hogs and mitigation of their impacts is recommended for the BTNP to continue to meet its legal mandates for conservation.

Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) are considered an exotic, free-ranging ungulate distributed within numerous countries and continents to include the United States. The reproductive efficiency, lack of predators, land use practices for domestic livestock (e.g., feeding stations, introduced water sources, intense cropping practices, etc.), and diet are leading factors in the expansion of feral hogs throughout their range. Feral hogs negatively impact floral and faunal communities, agricultural lands, and residential and recreational areas to include concerns with public safety and disease transmission. My study objectives were to (1) assess feral hog abatement strategies by (A) evaluating trap designs with the inclusion of electrical fencing, and (B) evaluating candidate baits for feral hog-specificity, and (2) assess prevalence levels for feral hog diseases. I evaluated 3 corral trap designs differing in the addition of electric fence configurations. Feral hog capture success data were collected and used to determine trap design efficacy. Treatments evaluated included (A) control corral trap with no electrical configurations, (B) corral trap with 1 electrical leg, and (C) corral trap with 2 electrical legs. ANOVA analyses suggest no differences (df = 2, P = 0.758) between trap designs; however, length of trapping effort (i.e., the number of days that trapping occurred) was a significant (df = 6, P < 0.001) factor in determining trap success. Pre-baiting was an important factor in observed trapping success. Trapping success declined after fourth day of continuous trapping. I recommend short, intensive trapping efforts (e.g., <4 days) when using corral traps in feral hog abatement programs. I also evaluated 14 candidate baits (with and without repellant) replicated 40 times to determine feral hog specificity. Three evaluated baits (i.e., PIGOUT™ strawberry, corn, and rice) were selected (df = 2, P < 0.05) more frequently by feral hogs than other combinations. Non-target species (e.g., raccoons) visited baits with repellants less (df = 2, P < 0.05) than baits without repellants. Repellant had no direct impact on feral hog visitation at bait sites. Trapping data also suggests that grains commonly farmed in local or regional areas are more likely to be consumed by feral hogs and, therefore considered in baiting options. Finally, of 412 feral hogs captured, 86 were sampled for prevalence of pseudorabies and Brucella suis. The prevalence of pseudorabies and B. suis was 20.9% and 13.9%, respectively within the study area. Based on disease study results, I recommend that natural resource managers take necessary precautions to protect themselves by wearing protective equipment and equipment and properly cooking feral hog meat. Additionally, resource managers should properly administer vaccinations to domestic and companion animals, and restricting domestic and companion animals from areas of high risk (e.g., carcasses of dead hogs and wallows).

Feral hog distribution (Sus scrofa) has increased to 38 states due to high fecundity rates, an omnivorous diet, and translocation by humans; affecting various stakeholders. To assess stakeholder attitudes and feral hog distribution in the United States and within Mississippi, selfministered mail questionnaires were sent to district level state wildlife biologists nationwide (n = 614) and to Mississippi Farm Bureau county presidents (FBCP; n = 79). I used the Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity theory to assess what factors (e.g., species presence, perceived density, stakeholder land usage, risk belief, attitudes toward the species) influenced stakeholder preferences for a specific future population trend (i.e., increase or decrease). Wildlife biologists were influenced by attitudes and occupational risk beliefs. Influential factors of FBCP attitudes could not be assessed because no producers wanted an increase in future hog populations.