(Tables 2, 3, & 9-11)

Data collected and analyzed from 2006-2007 at the regional level suggests that pastures are by far the area that experiences the most negative impacts from wild pigs. The second most negatively impacted area at this level of analysis was owner/employee time. Information gathered from 2008-2014 at the individual level reflects these results, with pastures and owner or employee time being reported by participants as the areas most negatively impacted by wild pigs. This makes practical sense, as pastures are a commonality among many landowners, as is personal time. These are two factors that can be shared across varying populations of farmers, ranchers, landowners, and etcetera. Personal injuries rank the lowest, which could be contributed to the avoidance of

handling wild pigs. Overall, the measurement of this construct had a fairly high level of reliability, so conclusions can be drawn from the data gathered using the instrument.

When considering negative impacts of wild pigs, it is important to bear in mind that this program was conducted statewide. There are several biogeographic regions in such a large state, and not all areas are suitable for the same type of land-use (“Physical Regions of Texas”, n.d.). For instance, not all areas of Texas are appropriate for raising livestock and not all of Texas can support improved pasture for grass or hay production. Rowan and White (1994) found that climates in some areas of Texas are less suitable for ranching pursuits, thus making income earned from non-ranching endeavors more important. A smaller number of livestock owners would equal a lower percentage of

105

livestock being reported as affected by wild pigs. This is reflected in the data; a small percentage of respondents indicated negative impacts to livestock (injury, death, diseases). Climate contributes to the extent of wild pig invasions, and it can play a part in not only how an area is negatively affected by wild pigs but also in how to best address the management of wild pigs (Funk & Vitousek, 2007; Jarnevich, et al., 2010; Lucas, 2011; Muir & McEwen, 2007; Ziska, et al., 2011). Funk and Vitousek (2007) emphasized that nutrient rich habitats are better equipped to support population growth of invasive species. Thus, county Extension agents should consider the area they are working in and how that may affect the presence and impact of wild pigs.

Based on the data collected from this study, one of the most commonly cited negative impacts of feral hogs is the loss of owner or employee time. Research has shown that implementing control methods is time consuming and costly to landowners (Buhle, et al., 2005; Olson, 2006). As such, county Extension agents, Extension Specialists, and Wildlife Services personnel who act as change agents must show the worth of expending time and energy to mitigate damage caused by wild pig populations. This can be accomplished by helping landowners understand the necessity of

implementing innovative management techniques, and the change agents must assist in removing perceived barriers so that landowners are more willing to commit their time and resources (Mwangi, 1998; Prinbeck et al., 2011; Rogers, 2003). Cost versus benefit may be an important weapon in change agents’ arsenals; while implementing new control methods may be costly in both time and money, the return on investment has the potential to be high. In regards to perceived barriers, change agents must identify what

106

these obstacles are in order to tailor their approach to landowners (Mwangi, 1998; Prinbech et al., 2011; Rogers, 2003).

The item of least concern to respondents was the infliction of personal injuries. This could be attributed in part to management from a distance, such as hunting or euthanizing with the safety of a trap between human and animal. Trapping is being revolutionized with the advancement of wireless technology that allows landowners to monitor and operate the trap from afar, which increases the ability of the landowner to maintain a safe distance (Tyson, 2013). However, the adoption of this technology may be cost prohibitive for many landowners. Furthermore, lethal control methods are the most practical and often the most effective at managing wild pigs, so they are more commonly used by landowners; a wild pig that is deceased cannot cause personal injuries to an individual (Hamrick, et al., 2011). However, this does not account for injuries that result from disease carried by wild pigs. County Extension agents should consider clarifying that injuries from wild pigs do not just come in the form of physical wounds. Wild pigs harbor swine brucellosis, which can cause harm to humans (Centner & Shuman, 2014; Hampton et al., 2006). Brucellosis can be transmitted during field dressing and butchering wild pigs (“CDC – Hunters: Protect yourself from Brucellosis”, 2012).

A large percentage of participants cited pasture damage as a primary loss due to wild pigs. This is in contrast to a previous study that showed that most damage is reported in crops (Muir & McEwen, 2007). Pastures are not a source of economic income unless landowners are using pastures for grazing land or producing hay for

107

livestock. When an economic cost is not associated with a problem it may be overlooked; however, landowners are indicating that damage to pastures is a big problem. Rogers (2003) indicates that tailoring programs enhances the success of programs. Tailoring wild pig programs to address specific concerns could be an important way to attract individuals to future wild pig management workshops. Understanding what landowners perceive as the greatest negative impacts caused by wild pigs, especially in relation to their particular biogeographical area, will allow those who conduct wild pig programs to create a program that is practical for participants (Mwangi, 1998). Data collected by Rowan and White (1994) suggests that certain areas are more conducive to raising livestock; understanding which areas rely most heavily on livestock may offer insight to the monetary value of that land versus areas where

pastureland is for recreational, non-economic use. In those areas it will be important to emphasize that wild pigs are opportunistic feeders which will compete with livestock for limited resources (Giuliano, 2010).

Overall, the reliability of the measurement used to determine the negative

impacts caused by wild pigs was high; however, it is important to note that the construct “owner or employee time” caused the greatest reduction in reliability. A relatively large percentage of respondents cited the loss of time spent collecting damage and/or

removing wild pig signs as one of the greatest negative impacts, so if there is a problem with the reliability of this construct it may need to be addressed in future research.

By considering landowners’ greatest concerns, program conductors are including them in the planning process for the programs; constructing a program that addresses

108

what participants need to know creates a healthy environment for adult learning (Knowles et al., 2005). This objective is important because adults have varying

experiences, and this data reveals what some of those experiences are in relation to wild pigs (Knowles et al., 2005).