HomeMy Public PortalAbout20010221 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 01-05 Regional Open . ice
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
I
Meeting 01-05
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS j
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
7:30 p.m.
Wednesday, February 21, 2001
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, California
AGENDA*
7:30 ROLL CALL
** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Public
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
BOARD BUSINESS
7:35* 1 District Feral Pig Control Program Update and Authorization to Hire Land Management and
Resource Company to Implement the Second Year of a Feral Pig Control Program on District
Lands; Receive and Comment on Presentation by Doug Updike of the California Department of
Fish and Game on Feral Pig Research Collaboration Opportunities; Determine that the
Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Based on the Findings Contained in this Report; Authorize the General Manager
to Hire an Intern/Consultant to Work with California Department of Fish and Game and
Sonoma State University on a Scientific Study of the Environmental Impacts Caused by Feral
Pigs on District Open Space Lands with a Budget Not to Exceed $8,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-
2002; Authorize the General Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Contract with Land
Management and Resource Company to Implement the Second Year of the Feral Pig Control
Program with a Budget Not to Exceed $35,000 in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 -J. Isaacs
g g I
* REPORTS - Brief Reports or announcements concerning pertinent activities of
8:30 INFORMATIONAL REPO S
P g
District Directors and Staff
8:50* ADJOURNMENT
* Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of
order.
** TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item
is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during
Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may
comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates.
*** All items on the consent calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members,
the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the
Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar.
330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200
Fax:650-691-0485 + E-mail:mrosd®openspace.org •Web site:www.openspace.org
Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton
Regional Open ice
---------------------
R-01-22 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 01-05
February 21, 2001
AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
District Feral Pig Control Program Update and Authorizatio Hire Land Management and
Resource Company to Implement the Second Year of a F ral Pig Control Program on District
Lands
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMEN NS
1. Receive and comment on a presentation by Doug Updike of the California Department of
Fish and Game on feral pig research collaboration opportunities.
2. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) based on the findings contained in this report. i
3. Authorize the General Manager to hire an intern/consultant to work with the California
Department of Fish and Game and Sonoma State University on a scientific study of the
environmental impacts caused by feral pigs on District open space lands, with a budget not to
exceed $8,000 for fiscal year 2001-2002.
4. Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Land Management
and Resource Company to implement the second year of the feral pig control program with a
budget not to exceed $35,000 in fiscal year 2001-2002.
INTRODUCTION
At your regular meeting on August 9, 2000 you authorized the hiring of Land Management and
Resource Company to implement the first year of a trial three-year feral pig control program in
the South Skyline Area(see Report R-00-102). You also directed staff to come back to you with
an update of the program before entering into the second year contract, and to bring back to you
at that time the results of staff s research on alternative population control methods. The
following report summarizes the results of the current control program,presents justification for
the recommended implementation actions for fiscal year 2001-2002, and discusses the
effectiveness and feasibility of other potential population control methods.
BACKGROUND
The important factors affecting feral pig populations are the lack of natural predators and their
high birth rates. With the exception of a few piglets taken by a coyote, bobcat, or bird of prey,
the feral pig's only natural predator in the Santa Cruz Mountains is the mountain lion.
Depredation by humans is the primary mortality factor for adult pigs.
330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200
Fax:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org •Web site:www.openspace.org
Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton
R-01-22 Page 2
Feral pig populations have the potential to double every year. Under ideal conditions, in the
central coast area(from Santa Barbara to San Mateo), feral pigs breed at the age of 6-7 months,
producing 1-2 litters per year of up to 10 piglets per litter. As with many wild animals,
reproductive success of feral pigs parallels the food supply. The number of offspring decline
during times of drought or reduced food supply. When conditions improve, the litter sizes
increase. High reproductive success, coupled with their adaptable food requirements, allows for
this non-native species to maintain a viable population, even if depredation rates exceed 70%of
the population.
The negative ecological impacts of feral pigs on District lands are not thoroughly understood.
Feral pigs are omnivorous, but mainly feed on roots, bulbs, grains, and invertebrates. In many
National Parks feral pigs are regarded as a source of unnatural disturbance, due to intensive
rooting activities, which can disrupt and damage native plant communities, giving non-native
plant species a competitive advantage. The U.S. Forest Service considers feral pigs to be
generally undesirable because they are in direct competition with various wildlife species for
seasonally available food, as well as causing extensive damage to recreation areas and roads.
UPDATE ON CURRENT PIG CONTROL PROGRAM
In September 2000, as a part of a trial three-year program, the District hired Land Management
and Resource Company (Dick Seever) to implement a pig control program in the South Skyline
Area. Since that time the contractor has spent 54 days on Long Ridge Open Space Preserve
placing traps in strategic locations, baiting traps, and scouting new areas. He has trapped and
removed 68 pigs (17 sows, 16 boars, and 35 juveniles) from District lands. Many neighbors and
visitors have voiced positive comments about the program.
At previous Board meetings, staff emphasized the importance of a regional effort to control feral
pig populations. On neighboring State Park lands employees are being trained to trap and shoot
pigs. So far they have taken approximately 12 pigs and plan to increase their efforts in the
coming year. Members of the South Skyline Association(SSA), also neighbors to the District,
have done their part to obtain individual depredation permits and remove feral pigs from the
area. The pig committee of the SSA is very active in educating residents about feral pigs and
potential control methods available. Although Santa Clara and San Mateo County Parks
employees are not currently controlling feral pigs, they are aware of the increased rooting
activity and may choose to enter into such a program in the near future.
As a follow-up to the 1997 intern report on pig rooting activity, District staff created a four-part
feral pig monitoring program in 1999. This includes photo plots, study plots, mapping, and
journal entries. Year 2000 was the first full year of implementation. Six study plots were chosen
at which photos were taken quarterly. Staff and a consultant documented and collected plant
species from each of the six plots during the last two quarters of the year. Mapping the pig
rooting activity proved to be challenging due to the wide geographic area of study, steep terrain,
varied vegetation, changing nature of pig behavior, and lack of adequate maps. The journal
entries track miscellaneous pig-related information including pig sightings, new rooted areas,
road-killed pigs, and dates and hours of staff time spent in the field. Similar to the experiment
being conducted by Deb Kinsey, a San Jose State graduate student, staff took the opportunity to
R-01-22 Page 3
seed and rake a large rooted area in the former Paul property meadow at Long Ridge Open Space
Preserve with the District's native seed mix. Staff observed the seeded area one month later and
found significant numbers of seedlings beginning to sprout. Staff plans to monitor the area to
determine if native plants can become established and sustain over time in these disturbed areas.
JUSTIFICATION FOR SCIENTIFIC STUDY
The challenge in assessing feral pig control methods is understanding the numerous variables
influencing the pig populations and the natural resources. Currently, staff has no quantifiable
way to measure population size, range, or even environmental impacts of feral pigs. Research on
pig populations would benefit not only the District, but also other public and private landowners
within the San Mateo coastal region. Although District staff has begun monitoring efforts to
learn more about pig behavior and the impacts of their rooting on grassland plant composition,
additional study is needed to fully understand the environmental impacts to District preserves.
The District is being offered a unique opportunity to participate in a research project with the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Sonoma State University, who are
currently conducting a study at Salt Point State Park in Sonoma County which focuses on the
following five questions:
1) Do pig disturbances alter the species composition of grassland communities, and do their
activities favor or harm native plant species?
2) Are pig disturbances the cause of distinct patchiness that occurs in grassland vegetation?
3) Are the effects of pigs on grasslands consistent across different sites, or is there considerable
spatial variation?
4) What are the patterns of plant colonization on disturbed habitats, and how do they vary in
space and time?
5) How do feral pigs affect soil moisture and fertility in the areas they disturb?
The District would provide study site locations in the Santa Cruz Mountains in which to
duplicate the methods and analysis used on the Sonoma County sites. The comparison of results
from two geographical locations would strengthen the certainty of the results and would provide
insight as to what ecological impact feral pigs may have on the landscape. Additionally, District
staff will explore the opportunity to expand the research scope to include erosion and
sedimentation studies. Findings of these studies could contribute greatly to the information
available to land management agencies and private landowners to help effectively address the
management of feral pig populations regionally and throughout California.
District staff would set up the study sites, systematically collect data, and monitor the sites.
CDFG and researchers y
from Sonoma State University are able to travel here to assist staff in
choosing good study sites and train staff and interns for data collection. If approved by the
Board, staff would hire an intern to conduct the monitoring and data collection. Volunteers
would also be used to assist in the study.
Y
R-01-22 Page 4
Raw data will be given to Sonoma State University for analysis and reporting. Data collection
should continue for at least three years. A detailed abstract for the research project describing
methods and analysis procedures will be available at your February 21, 2001 Special Meeting.
We are very fortunate to have Doug Updike, Senior Biologist Specialist for Bear and Wild Pigs
for the California Department of Fish and Game and one of the principals involved in this study,
scheduled to give a presentation about this project at your Special Meeting. He will present an
overview of the research currently conducted by CDFG and Sonoma State University, and how
the District can become involved. He will also be able to answer questions regarding feral pig
population control.
JUSTIFICATION FOR TRAP AND SHOOT CONTROL METHOD
Staff recommends that the District continue current feral pig control efforts in conjunction with
the above research proposal. The intent of population control activities is to sustain pig numbers
as much as possible at an"acceptable" level and to protect areas of special concern. Any
frequent disturbance to natural resources will have a negative impact over time, and given the
high birth rates of pigs, it is advisable to continue with the trap and shoot program to avoid a
population explosion, which would result in frequent, high intensity disturbance. However,
without systematic monitoring and research,the success of the District's (and neighbors') effort
will remain uncertain.
The following agencies in the Bay Area currently hire Land Management and Resource
Company to implement a trap and shoot feral pig control program: East Bay Regional Park
District, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, San Francisco Public Utilities District, California
State Parks—Mount Diablo, and Contra Costa County Water District.
All of these agencies have found that after one to two years of heavy trapping efforts, they have
seen a sharp decline in rooting and wallowing activity. The maintenance costs of keeping the
population at low levels are estimated to be around 60% of the initial year's costs. When the
population size decreases, the time required to trap each pig increases. All of these agencies
approached this problem by annually budgeting money for a trapping maintenance contract to
remove as many pigs as possible from their lands each year. Currently,the District is paying the
trapper on a per pig basis, which at this time is the most cost effective with immediate results. If
the District deems the trial three-year program to be successful, the likely next step would be to
enter into a maintenance contract for subsequent years.
The participating agencies strongly emphasized the need for cooperative efforts with bordering
landowners for successful reduction of pig populations. Pigs roam and quickly learn where the
trapper is operating and where there are safe places to survive and reproduce. District staff is
strongly encouraging neighboring landowners such as California State Parks, Santa Clara and
San Mateo County Parks, and private parties to increase their efforts in controlling feral pig
populations.
R-01-22 Page 5
REVIEW OF POTENTIAL CONTROL METHODS
In researching potential pig population control methods on public lands it was clear that the best
management options will likely change as more research is conducted on this topic, including the
studies in which the District might participate. Staff anticipates the District will adapt control
methods as more information becomes available, however, the following alternatives are
currently considered:
No Action
Due to the high reproductive rate of feral pigs,this alternative is not recommended. Pig
populations have the potential to double every six months, and very high numbers of pigs can
cause frequent, intense, and long-term disturbance to District and neighboring lands.
Public Hunting
This alternative is not a viable option given the restriction of hunting activities on District lands.
Recreational use compatibility and adjacent residential properties are also a concern.
Introduction of Predators
The feral pigs' only significant natural predator in the Santa Cruz Mountains is the mountain
lion. Mountain lions primarily feed on deer, and will eat other small and large mammals.
Because their diet is not specific to pigs, it is not possible to sustain enough lions to control pig
populations without disturbing other prey species population levels. Another issue that limits the
number of lions that can be sustained on District lands is the large home ranges of these solitary
animals. An adult male's home range often spans over 100 square miles; females generally range
20 to 60 square miles. This alternative is not a viable option.
Poisoning
There are no toxicants specific to pigs registered at this time. The risk of inadvertently poisoning
species other then pigs is also very high. This is not a viable option.
Live Capture and Relocation
There are no takers for captured feral pigg at this time. Scientific research facilities are not
interested in feral animals because of potential contamination of their pathogen-free lab animals.
There are no other agencies or private institutions with a demand for live pigs in this area.
Furthermore, it is illegal to relocate any game animal without permission from the California
Department of Fish and Game and they are extremely unlikely to support the relocation of feral
pigs.
Exclusionary Fencing
Permanent temporary, or rotational sturdy heavy-mesh wire fences and electric fences are
Y Y
effective to keep pigs out of an area. It is much too costly and visually undesirable to erect
fences around every preserve owned by the District. However, fences can be effective and cost-
efficient when used to exclude pigs from sensitive habitats, or special use areas (e.g., water
sources, private lands). It is important to design fences to protect habitats from pigs and still
allow other animals movement into the area as necessary.
R-01-22 Page 6
Pinnacles National Monument has undertaken the task of fencing the entire Park to exclude pigs.
They began in 1984 and are continuing with the task of fencing 28 miles through difficult terrain.
The fence is specifically designed to allow passage of deer and other mammals while excluding
pigs. They estimate costs for fence materials to run$9,000 per mile, with the labor to install the
fence another$20,000 to $50,000 per mile (price changes due to remote locations/difficult
terrain costing more time).
Staff recommends sensitive areas be fenced if they are threatened by feral pig activity, subject to
further staff assessment. Fences should be monitored to evaluate the effectiveness versus the
cost of materials and time. Park neighbors and homeowners' associations should consider
fencing to protect their property. The results are best if used in conjunction with other methods.
Chemical and Immunological Contraception
Chemical contraception has been tested on urban deer populations. The chemical agents used are
exogenous synthetic steroid hormones that alter the animal's reproductive hormone balance. The
hormones are administered either through daily ingestion (not practical for any wild population)
or through subcutaneous implantation. Subcutaneous implantation of the steroids requires
capturing the animal and administering the drug before releasing it. In deer populations, only
limited success in preventing pregnancy has been shown with this method. The time span of the
effective hormone release varies with the specific steroids used, but is anywhere from six months
to two years. There is also the question of whether it is safe to administer steroid hormones to a
game animal. The CDFG is unlikely to allow this method, when these chemicals might enter the
human food chain. This method is not recommended.
Immunological contraception requires the animal be injected with a vaccine that stimulates its
immune system to produce antibodies against a protein involved in reproduction. Porcine zona
pellucida(PZP) is an immunocontraceptive that has been tested with deer. The
immunocontraceptive stimulates the female to produce antibodies that bind to the series of
proteins surrounding the ovum(the zona pellucida), which in turn prevents sperm from attaching
to the ovum. This drug can be administered remotely with syringe darts, and requires two
booster shots. The process must be repeated yearly. Protein-based contraceptives will likely be
deactivated when ingested by non-target species, making this a safe method for game animals.
This method is a humane way to deal with the problem of population control. The main
concerns with this method are the difficulty in administering the drugs to a large percentage of
females, and the logistics involved with re-administering the vaccine on a regular basis to wild
populations. Research is underway to create a vaccine which does not require booster shots, but
would still require yearly injections. It is recommended that staff continue to follow the
possibility of using this method as more research is completed.
Surgical Contraception
Surgical methods include castration, vasectomies and ovariectomies. Castration will cause the
boars to lose their desire to breed with sows and thereby lose their territoriality. Vasectomies
will leave the boars with the desire to breed and preserve their territorial nature. The
recommended methods are vasectomies, and ovariectomies, which are currently being practiced
through UC Davis. The Little Blue Society in cooperation with the Veterinary Medical Teaching
R-01-22 Page 7
Hospital at UC Davis has submitted a proposal to staff, which outlines this surgical process.
Copies of the proposal will be available at your February 21, 2001 Special Meeting. Evidence
with feral cats, who have similar breeding rates to pigs, show that continual implementation of a
surgical contraception program over the course of 5 to10 years (lifespan of a pig is about 5
years), can potentially greatly reduce the population size. This program would need to continue
in perpetuity similar to a trap and shoot program, however no pigs would be killed. Animal
safety may be a concern during the containment and surgery phases, yet it is anticipated that few
or no pigs will die with this process. Over time the population size would decrease and the
number of pigs requiring surgery would be lowered,providing the possibility for a more cost-
effective program and smaller populations in the future. The cost per pig is approximately $610.
CDFG has shown interest in possibly allowing surgical contraception under a different
Memorandum of Understanding if done in conjunction with a scientific study to show the results
of surgical contraception on pig populations. A concern regarding this method is that after a pig
is caught, altered, and contained for a short period, it is then returned into the preserves to
continue rooting on public and private lands. It is unlikely that 100% of the pigs could be caught
and sterilized; thus remaining fertile animals would continue to reproduce at high rates. Staff
recommends continuing research into this alternative to evaluate if it is a viable option.
Trap and Shoot
This method is currently used and currently the most effective and least costly, with immediate
results.
Lethal Injection
The cost of lethal injection per pig is between $411 to $461, not including the cost of trapping.
This includes the cost to trap the pig and have a licensed veterinarian administer the injection.
This method is supported by some animal rights organizations as a more humane way to put the
pigs down, yet pigs are still trapped and killed. This method is not recommended, as the
injection process is much more costly and produces the same result as the trapping and shooting
method.
Options for Carcass Disposal
Currently, the pig carcasses are sent to a tallow factory. Cost of disposal is $25 per pig, which is
included in our per pig trapping cost. Staff looked into other ways to use the meat, but
unfortunately donating meat for consumption by either humans or zoo animals requires USDA
inspection. USDA inspection of the meat requires live inspection of the animals (i.e., live
transport) which would be costly for the District. Staff is researching the option of donating
carcasses to local wildlife rehabilitation centers. It is recommended that staff continue attempts
to find an organization that could provide the inspection and use the meat, at little or no cost to
the District.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Project Description
The proposed project is for a capture and removal program on feral pigs in the South Skyline
Area to reduce the damage to the natural resources. Within the past four years there has been a
I
R-01-22 Page 8
marked increase in the distribution and activity of feral pigs in the South Skyline Area. The
damage caused by the feeding and rooting activities of the feral pigs has had negative effects to
the natural resources. These include increased erosion and soil movements adding to the
sediment in stream courses, threat to sensitive flora and fauna, and competition with native
species. The number of pigs to be taken during the three-year trial period is unknown. A
speculative estimate for the second year of the program based on the frequency and intensity of
rooting in the area would be roughly 100 to 150 animals.
The California Department of Fish and Game is the lead agency under the MOU agreement. The
District and anyone hired by the District is required to meet all the requirements under the
agreement.
CEOA Determination
The District concludes that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA (the California
Environmental Quality Act)under the CEQA Guideline Section 15308. This exemption applies
to actions taken by regulatory agencies under state law for the protection of the environment
where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.
Fish and Game Code 4181 permits any owner of land that is being damaged or in danger of
being damaged by feral pigs to apply to the Department of Fish and Game for a permit to take
and dispose of the mammals under regulations adopted by the commission. The Department of
Fish and Game has adopted a comprehensive set of administrative regulations(set out in Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations) which regulates the trapping, depredation and disposal of
feral pigs. The adoption of these regulations was subject to environmental review as required by
CEQA. The MOU by and between the DFG and the District identifies actions appropriate for
feral pig control specific to District-owned lands in accordance with these regulations. The
MOU may be terminated if any conditions are violated.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
A meeting notice has been mailed to the neighboring property owners in the South Skyline Areas
where the second year of the program will commence. Notices were also sent to an additional
140 interested parties.
Prepared by:
Jodi Isaacs, Resource Management Specialist
Sumudu Welaratna, Intern
Contact person:
Jodi Isaacs, Resource Management Specialist
R-0 1-22 Page 9
REFERENCES
Fenciniz
Lisa Smith, Pinnacles National Monument, (831) 389-4485
Dave Garcelon, Institute for Wildlife Studies, (707) 822-4258
Contraception Alternatives
Mary Paglieri, Little Blue Society, (408) 402-0393, paglieri@rahul.net
Jim Nee, Santa Cruz County Agriculture Commissioners Office, (831) 763-8080
Dr. Aaron Burr, Veterinarian, (650) 747-9761
Dr. Ben Gonzales, California Department of Fish and Game, (916) 358-1464
Juanita Humphrey, Assistant Dean of Research, UC Davis Vet School, (530) 752-6865
San Francisco SPCA General Email, publicinfo@sfspca.org
Teri Bamato, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, UC Davis, avar@igc.org
Relocation/Carcass Disposal
Ian Gardener, UC Davis Veterinarian School, (530) 752-6992
Warren Fong, Commissary Manager at San Francisco Zoo, (415) 753-7080
Lisa Counts, Veterinary Manager at Marine World, (707) 644-4000 ext. 243
Wild Care, wild animal rehabilitation center, (415) 289-7325, wildcare@pacbell.net
Marine Mammal Center(415) 289-7325
Randall Museum, (415) 554-9605 ext. 22
Oakland Zoo, (510) 632-9523
Lethal Injection
Dr. Aaron Burr, Veterinarian, (650) 747-9761
Dave Garcelon, Institute for Wildlife Studies, (707) 822-4258
Trappiny, and Shooting
Dick Seever, Land Management and Resource Company, (707) 292-6270
Bud McCreary, Big Creek Lumber, (831) 457-5025
Joan Kerdavaz, State Parks, (415) 330-6323
Environmental Consultants
Gary Hoefler, Independent Environmental Consultant, (650) 364-1580
Ajaency Contacts (also conducting trap and shoot programs)
Joanne Kerdavaz, California State Parks—Mount Diablo, (415) 330-6323
Mick Klasson, Contra Costa Water District, (925) 513-2082
Roger Hartwell, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, (510) 287-2037
Joe DiDonato, East Bay Regional Park District, (510) 544-2346
Mark Muller, San Francisco Public Utilities District, (650) 652-3202
General Information/Pia Authorities
Reginald Barrett, Dept. of Forestry and Resource Mgmt, UC Berkeley, (510) 642-7261
Doug Updike, California Department of Fish and Game, (916) 653-1937
R-0 1-22 1 Page 10
Jim Swanson, California Department of Fish and Game, (707) 944-5528
Dave Moore, Pig Coordinator San Mateo County, (650) 363-1906
Jim Nee, Biologist, Santa Cruz County Ag. Commissioners Office, (831) 763-8080
Texts
Barrett, R., and Spitz, F.1991. Biology of Suidae. IRGM, Grenoble.
Braysher, M. 1993. Managing Vertebrate Pests: Principles and Strategies. Bureau of Resource
Sciences, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Choquenot, D., McIlroy, J. and Korn, T. (1996) Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Pigs. Bureau
of Resource Sciences, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Olsen, P. (1886) Australia's Pest Animals: New Solutions to Old Problems. Bureau of
Resource Sciences, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Journals
Barrett. R. (Not published yet), Hog Control Methods in Hawaii. Summary of Paper in
Preparation.
Barrett. R. (1982), Habitat Preferences of Feral Hogs, Deer and Cattle on a Sierra Foothill
Range. Journal of Range Management, 35 (3): 342—346.
Barrett, R. (1978), The Feral Hog on the Dye Creek Ranch, California. Hilgardia, 46 (9): 283-
355.
Barrett, R., (1970), Management of Wild Hogs on Private Lands in California. Cal-Neva
Wildlife: 71-78.
Barrett, R., Pine, D., (1980), History and Status of Wild Pigs, Sus Scrofa, in San Benito County,
California. California Fish and Game 67111: 105-117.
Barrett, R., Goather, B., Gogan, P., and Fitzhugh, E. (1988), Removing Feral Pigs from Annadel
State Park. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 24: 47-52.
Hoffman, E. (1986), Wild Hog in the Woods. Pacific Discovery, July-Sept.: 23-30.
Shultheis, R. (1986), Hog Wild: On the Trail of the Pig that is Eating California. Image, 25-28.
Sterner, D., Barrett, R. (1991), Removing Feral Pigs from Santa Cruz Island. Transactions of
the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 27: 47-53.
Stout, R., Knuth, B., and Curtis, P. (1997), Preferences of Suburban Landowners for Deer
Management Techniques: a step towards better communication. Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 25 (2): 34-359.
Updike, J. and Waithman, J. (1996), Dealing with Wild Pig Depredation in California: The
Strategic Plan. Proceedings 17th Vertebrate Pest Control Conference, UC Davis.
Warren, R. J. White, L. Lance, W. (1993), Management of Urban Deer Populations with
Contraceptives: Practicality and Agency Concerns. Urban Deer: a Manageable
Resource?
Wood, G., Barrett, R. (1979), Status of Wild Pigs in the United States. The Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 7 (4): 237-345.
SOUTH SKYLINE ASSOCIATION
February 20, 2001
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos,CA 94022
Members of the Board:
The South Skyline Association expresses its appreciation for the good work
MROSD is doing for the environment in attempting to minimize wild/feral pig
damage on your lands. We urge you to continue and expand your control program.
We see three vital results from the program so far. It has:
1. Slowed down the wild/feral pig population growth in the region, appearing to
`buy time' to develop a more complete control program,
2. Brought in wild/feral pig expertise in the form of your contractor, Mr. Dick
Seever. We believe he now understands our pig problem in our habitat as well as any
expert can, and can advise you (and us) on the likely results of different courses of
action. Also,
3. Educated the local landowners in pig trapping. Your contractor has willingly
shared his trapping expertise with us, greatly improving our ability to share the
burden of controlling the wild/feral pig population.
The South Skyline Association is fully committed to supporting a regional
approach to minimize the environmental degredation we see from pig rooting,
wallowing, and other destructive actions. State Parks has now started a depredation
program which should grow in time. We have set the goal of expanding the region
that is working together on a pig control program. To this end we propose we work
cooperatively with you and other organizations to make our individual efforts more
effective and to increase the regional scope.
With the involvement of State Parks we should set a goal for this year of
significantly reducing the regional pig population, so that pig damage is reduced.
Your trapping program for your fiscal year has removed 80 pigs, and the local
landowners have removed 25, as best as can be counted, during the last year or so.
We know how a pig eliminated now is worth more than one later. We urge you to
continue and to increase your program for your next fiscal year, and to immediately
restart trapping. We will make every effort to follow suit, appropriately increasing
the community take to help achieve meaningful control.
Sincerely,
Larr Myers
President
Route 2, Box 400 - La Honda, CA 94020
22400 Skyline Boulevard#35
La Honda CA 94020
20 February 2001
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos CA 94022
Members of the Board:
I am writing to applaud your efforts and to urge you to continue your program of wild/feral pig control in
the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. I walk there frequently,and although I am no expert,I have
observed that the trapping done so far appears to have slowed the rate of population growth of this invasive
species.
Rooting is still occurring,and is especially extensive along the Hickory Oaks Trail. Ironically enough,after
an initial disturbance,the study area marked by wooden pegs and string was untouched until last week.
Judging from the disturbed ground,the pink Calochortus that I saw last summer adjacent to it may be gone,
the bulbs all uprooted and eaten. Still,the pig rooting I see at Long Ridge has only spread a little,and the
milkmaids and some lupines are already blooming.
I
New litters are arriving now,judging from the appearance of small tracks. It would be a shame to stop the
project at this point,when progress can still be made. While resources spent on this may impact other
programs,the job will only become more difficult and expensive if it is postponed.
Sincerely,
Ann Waldhauer
I
I
I
I
An Open Letter To All Other MROSD Docents
I believe it is unethical for MROSD to participate on any level in the extermination of a species; that this
is irresponsible to its public trust and to the precepts of the MROSD docent program. On August 9,
1999, the Board Of Directors voted to initiate a wild pig trapping and killing program up on Skyline.
$20,000 was allocated for"pig control"for this fiscal year. Not a penny of it was spent on a single study
of the pig population or on exploring alternatives to killing. Not a penny. Not an tour. This is the
investment MROSD makes in wild life before it resorts to killing. At the last meeting, mention was made
of investigating alternatives as a folkriwup to a year of killing. But do ask the Board how many staff
members, research hours and money it will actually dedicate to this aspect of the program. These are
not ecologically responsible or socially respectable practices. And I can't work at the Daniels Center
promoting to children the ecological practices of an organization 1 can't respect So I am hereby
resigning from the MROSD Docent Program.
If you care to hear my reasons, if you care about the kind of organization you are representing, read on.
As you all know, my husband and I are very serious amateur naturalists, and bought our house on
Skyline specifically because we wanted to five among its wildlife. Over a year ago,we became MROSD
docents. The Board meetings relating to the wild pig population on Skyline were the first we had
attended. The experience has completely changed our way of looking at Open Space as a neighbor,
the objectives of the MROSD, and our own participation in the organization. For the first open muting,
District Resource Management Specialist, Jody Issacson, had been asked to submit as much
background information as was available and to advise the Board. Jody reported that in order to really
isolate the environmental impact of the wild pig population on Skyline, carefully conducted, long term
study of a wide range of species-specific variables would be necessary. She said study was also
needed to determine whether or not"negative" impacts attributed the pig population are, in fact,
permanent; and whether in spite of short tern concerns, those impacts might actually be beneficial to
the area, long term.
The Districts own Resource Management Specialist offered prudent rational advice, cautioning against
taking evidence at face value and rushing to judgment. She advocated gathering information, which
was adequate to make fully informed decisions on a life and death issue. But none of the Board
members considered her recommendations as a serous proposal. Several members expressed views
which indicated a strong predisposition toward eradicating the pigs prior to any evidence or
considerations submitted at the meeting, and two members openly stated that they had already decided
the pigs had to be gotten rid of(killed).All that any of the members seemed to draw from Jody's
presentation were selected phrases or scenarios which when taken out of context, could be used to
promote the same biases they walked in with. So much for expertise. Dick Schwind did his unabashed
best to shock and inflame sentiments with slides of pig rooted sites. But when pressed, he made a very
key admission, underscoring what Jody had said: that these areas, like wild fire sites,
Page 1 of 3
typically regenerate very well within 5-6 months, often paving the way for growth of vegetation.
However, the significance of this fact was likewise completely disregarded by Board members.
The majority of speakers at the meeting represented homeowners associations and businesses on
Skyline, who put their own aesthetic values and economic concerns squarely above the interests of the
wildlife there. One of those organizations was South Skyline Association (SSA), with which my husband
and I were well acquainted. For the two years we had lived on Skyline, SSA had been leaving its
newsletters in our mailbox with monthly articles promoting the fun and profit to be mace from killing wild
pigs. Some issues were dominated by the topic. suggesting barbecues to promote community solidarity
in extermination ; promoting private trapping with group discounts on hardware; featuring
drawings of wild pigs strung up in trees for gutting, and glorified accounts of clandestine hunting
explob. No different than in any hunting magazine.And they were appealing to MROSD to sign a
"Memorandum Of Understanding"--a contractual agreement to participate in a regional trapping and
killing program with them, binding all participants to uphold the letter of the agreement, and to present a
unified face to the media and to the public on the issue.
It was quite ludicrous to how factory farmers of non-native species such as x-mas Uses,wine grapes
and destroying the native ecosystem on Skyline to create profit driven monocultures--
advocate exterminating wiled pigs on grounds they are"non-native and "destructive to the
environment". It was dumbfounding that aesthetic and economic coricerns from these comers carried
more weight with Board members than the recommendations of their own expert. We could only
deduce that the District saw this as an opportunity to win friends and influence the neighbors it has
alienated over previous issues.
The"Memorandum Of Understanding" (MOU)was ill-conceived. You could drive a truck through the
holes it left open. But supporters of the MOU seemed to have a steamroller more in mind. Terms
allowing organizations in the alliance and individual particoants to trap and kill were loosely drawn and
open to broad interpretation. Virtually no consideration was given to neighbors in the region who might
be unwilling to participate or in total opposition to such a plan. Regardlessly, the Board members voted
unanimously at the first meeting to sign the MOU.
Interestingly, when concerned citizens pointed out legal entanglements implied in the agreement,
questioning CDFG about its ability to manage separate interests of the MOU organizations and the
rights and Interests of non-participants, CDFG abrWtly withdrew its support from the alliance. Nor did
Fish &Game send a representative to either of the meetings as the District had requested. MROSD
was rescued from itself. So now Open Space has its own license to trap and its own pig killers.
My husband and I had put our confidence in the ecological perspective and protective
policies of MROSD. We had become docents to help further its objectives. We went into the first
meeting on the wild pigs assuming the District would implement studies on its own lands,
Page 2 of 3
analyze geographic cWcumstances on an individual basis, and solutions other than killing
(fences, birth control, etc.)would be explored to respond to substantiated problems. But at that first
study.Without so much as taking a count
meeting, the Board re' out�hand doing even a le tud
g �g Y g
on the number of animals involved, MROSD unanimously moved to sign the Memorandum.
The Board's knee-jerk resort to killing and absolute eagerness to ally Open Space with groups like SSA
was mind numbing. Furthermore, we were revolted by the joking remarks made by Board members
about the animals they were condemning to death In signing the agreement. Suddenly,we had quite a
different image of MROSD from the one projected to the public.We left the Board meetings feeling
bitter) disappointed and alienated. As docents we had invested a deal of time energy and our
Y P Po god �Y
personal ethics toward educating future generations of Open Space stewards. We had talked to Mike
Williams about leaving our property to Open Space. Now, nothing could be farther from our interests.
Evolution is never-ending gradual change, implemented by forces of Nature. "Forces of Nature" include
the new and old migrations of species seeking food sources, whether in Africa or California. Food
resources are not freely available to wild animals on developed land, and are fast shrinking for all
species everywhere because of the actions of Homo sapiens. The Skyline ridge is still evolving. After
surviving 300+years in California, it seems obvious that its wild pigs population is a part of the natural
evolution of the Skyline area. In point of factt, their Impacts have been far less disastrous to Skyline
ecosystems,far less permanent, and more in concert with Nature than these of the people who live
there or routinely visit the area.
My husband and I have both resigned the MROSD Docent Program in response to the Districts
irresponsible methodology, and we, along with other neighbors on Skyline, will continue to oppose the
policy and practices of MROSD's wild pig killing program.
Mary Bsener Hackenbrook
Skyline Blvd., Palo Alto
Page 3 of 3
Mary A.Paglieri Executi• .'director
A,
j'
HUMANIMAL ECOLOGY
-CIVILIZED SOLUTIONS FOR A CIVILIZED WORLD"
(650)365-8623•email: littlebluesociety.org
Civilized Solutions For Civilized World
LITTLE BLUE SOCIETY
POSITION PAPER ON FERAL PIG MANAGEMENT
Prepared by: Little Blue Society
Feburary 20, 2001
CONTACT: (650) 365-8623
email: mary@littlebluesociety.org
What Is Little Blue Society?
The mission of Little Blue Society (LBS)is to participate in and promote research and
education into the relationship and conflict between wild animal populations and the
human population. The goal is to seek ethical,biological and ecologically sound,
effective short and long-term solutions to deal with the joint use of habitat by animals
and humans. Our work is independent and collaborative with a strong emphasis on
advancing change through informed citizenship.
LBS remains committed to reforming society's views on ecology and non-human life, in
order to promote a sustainable and just balance between meeting present human
needs, and conserving the natural environment for future generations.
LBS's Programs
Public education. We partner with cities and counties to develop community seminars
and forums, staffed by experts, to inform the public in problematic areas on humane
methods for peaceful coexistence with wildlife. Our comprehensive educational
materials include detailed instructions on how to avoid attracting wildlife, how to
modify habitats, and advice on reacting to and, when appropriate, repelling animals.
Consultation to businesses and government. Our experienced staff provides expertise
to land managers, city and county planners, real estate developers, farmers, and
ranchers, on how to design and modify areas of human and domesticated animal
habitation so that it positively impacts wildlife and the environment.
Our Position
The Little Blue Society (LBS) proposes that the MidPeninsula Open Space District
(MidPen) use an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, with emphasis on non-
lethal measures, to control wild pig impacts on MidPen lands. Wide spread lethal pig
removal would be a waste of MidPen time and money. Even before non-lethal control
is implemented, LBS recommends that the District should conduct a study to determine
where pig impact is occurring, decide if the identified impact is damaging park
resources, and determine whether the damage should be ignored, minimized, or
stopped. Additionally, MidPen should learn the approximate abundance and
distribution of pigs using the park.
Managing any wild animal population of unknown size is impossible. Management
plans for a pig population of 30 would be quite different from a plan for a population of
200.With that demographic information,MidPen could decide the best non-lethal ways
to control the impact.
Little Blue Society can assist in all studies recommended in this proposal.
Discussion
• MidPen personnel must recognize that it will be impossible, from a practical
standpoint, to permanently eliminate wild pigs from MidPen lands. To do so would
require a long term program of perimeter fencing followed by the annual killing of at
least 80 percent of the resident pig population. A host of factors in wild pig biology
make their elimination simply a pipe dream. Therefore, local pig control, not
elimination, is the only reasonable alternative. This implies that MidPen must decide
what is an acceptable amount of pig impact,where on MidPen lands the impact will be
tolerated, and to recognize that all impact cannot, categorically,be considered damage.
Pig abundance and distribution will change somewhat from year to year, depending on
rainfall and other factors, so the census would need to be repeated every 3 to 5 years.
Each new census would enable MidPen to update their control strategies and keep them
most effective. The absence of periodic census information would result in crisis
management of pig damage.
• LBS recommends use of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for pig
control. The IPM program should be started after censusing the population and its
damage. The focus of the IPM program would be on sensitive sites like wetlands,
creeks, endangered species habitats, and hiking trails, as well as on key pig habitat, e.g.,
favored watering and feeding areas,bedding grounds, and wallows. Non-lethal
measures would include,but not be limited to, fencing, repellents, and frightening
devices. IPM dictates that all practical non-lethal control measures be exhausted before
even considering lethal control.
Pig rooting on lands rarely seen or visited by park visitors, may be of little
consequence. However, rooting near a visitor center or at an environmentally sensitive
site would likely be considered very damaging to park resources. Those locations
should be designated for detailed study of pig impacts and, if warranted, more intense
pig management.
• after allowing adequate time for non-lethal measures to bring the adverse pig
impacts under acceptable control, lethal measures could be considered. Administrators
must realize that lethal measures, like non-lethal ones, must focus on sensitive sites
and key pig habitats. MidPen would waste time and money trying to eliminate or even
substantially reduce pig damage by the extensive killing of pigs. It is true that
destroying several or many pigs damaging particular sites would remove some of the
offending animals. However, sooner or later other pigs would move into the resulting
vacuum at the sites, causing additional damage, and requiring more killing. This cycle
would be repeated indefinitely.
Conclusion
training,The Little Blue Society offers consultation service, personnel ainin g, and field
assistance for the solution of human-wildlife conflicts. We have the expertise to aid
MidPen in dealing with the problem of adverse wild pig impacts. However, LBS
requires that the main focus of animal control be on non-lethal means. We would be
happy to meet with MidPen administrators to further discuss our possible involvement
in this issue.
PROPOSAL
Civilized Solutions for a Civilized World
Zero Population
Humane, Long-term Management of Sus Scrof a
Prepared By: Little Blue Society
September 8, 2000
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
Assumptions:
• In order to preserve the natural ecology and prevent the loss of property to
residents by feral pig activities, a permanent, long-term population control plan and
preventative action plan to address specific problem areas need to be adopted and
implemented.
• Mid-Penninsula Open Space Agency,The Skyline Homeowners Association, and
the residents living in surrounding areas, want an alternative, humane population
control method to be implemented in place of traditional lethal controls.
Introduction
Exhibit I
• Zero Population (Sus Scrofa)
• Objective
• Maintenance
• Projections
Exhibit 11
• Implementation
• Trapping and Holding
• Surgical Alteration
• Tagging and Tracking
• Mitigation for Possible Liability (AMDUCA-American Medicinal Drug Use
Consensual Non-interference
Control Act)
• $3,500 - equipment-laprascope $250.00-per female
• $100.00- per hour $125.00- per male
$0.32 - $0.45 - mileage
Exhibit III
• Community Outreach and Preventative Strategy
• Community Education
• Addressing problematic areas through preventative strategies
• $200.00 Public Informational Meeting
• $75.00 per consult, includes comprehensive report
Exhibit IV Survey, Monitoring (to be added)
Civilized Solutions for a Civilized World
Board of Directors
Mary A. Paglieri
President
James Nee
Michael S.G. Li
Michael Morgan Esq.
Robert B. Paglieri
Introduction
The biological fact is that ecological communities have been altered, in some
cases beyond recovery. The destruction of natural habitat and reductions in
biodiversity is not so much the fault of invasive non-natives as it is ultimately our own
doing.
The feral pig (sus scrofa) has been listed as a game mammal in California since
1957. The California Fish and Game Commission encourages their conservation and
maintenance for the benefit of a handful of citizens, who enjoy the sport of pig hunting.
However, when wild pigs cause economic damage, Fish and Game allows them to be
removed and disposed of under special regulations that allow for the taking of
offending animals.
According to "California Mammals", E.W. Jameson,jr., and Hans J. Peeters ( UC
Press, 1988), the total population of wild pigs may exceed 70,000. The annual take by
sport hunters is an estimated 28,000 to 36,000, second only to the Black-tailed Deer and
Mule Deer. Such high mortality, even combined with natural deaths is still not enough
to stop serious pig damage to local economic and environmental resources.
Research shows that at least 80 percent of the wild pig population must be
cropped annually to result in a reduced population the following year. Therefore, it
must be recognized that wild pig control through hunting has absolutely no effect in
reducing their numbers in the long-term to an environmentally sustainable level.
We are quickly approaching the day when we will have to look beyond the
immediate issue of "non-natives" to a time where there will be little else. Non-natives
will have to be accepted by scientific communities, and those who still view ecosystems
as static entities, as having integrated into forming a contemporary "ecosystem".
However, we should not underestimate the importance of habitat protection and
preserving what we have left of natural habitats, until laws can be created by demand
of an informed public, that protects our natural resources for the good of all.
Litt Blue Society's
the dynamics of systems is integral to le So
Understanding y y gr' tY
app p roach. People have been led to think of wildlife control in a straight g line,
but nature
is dynamic in its function. It does not always react the way we think it will. Though
commonly used, traditional course of constant population manipulation through lethal
controls actually increases numbers of wildlife undergoing management, because the
removal of adult animals leave more food available, increasing survivor ship of young
and opening habitat for dispersing animals from surrounding areas. Lethal methods
actually exacerbate the situation.
But in addition to the biological issues of human ecology, there are moral issues
as well. This simply means that we don't make decisions solely based on ecological
science,but on ethical grounds as well. It has been my experience that perceptions of so
called non-natives vary depending upon whether one is a conservationist, farmer,
ecologist, an animal rights proponent, a grazier, a john or jane doe off the street.
Certainly,
the eradication waged against these non-native species change
our percepti
ons and hence our treatme
nt of these animals. But no life is without worth.
The probability tY
bi is that feral pigs s have at le
ast individ
ual "inherent" worth. And this
recognition should be made loud and clear in policy implementation, as well as
cal philosophical debate in dealing education and ethical//p p g with non-natives.
Little Blue Society is a think tank. Our research is at the level of pragmatic
designs, practices, and policies, not social theories or laboratory experiments. We craft
solutions that are both biologically and ecologically sound. Our fully integrated
systems approach reveals lasting, elegantly frugal solutions with multiple benefits,
which enable us to transcend ideological battles and unite all parties around shared
goals.
signed/ Mary A. Paglieri,President,CEO
EXHIBIT I
Zero Population (Sus Scrofa)
OBJECTIVE
To permanently control the population of feral pigs through a
Trap/Alteration/Tag/Release Program (TATRP). Releasing the altered animals will not
create a drop in population, causing compensatory breeding by remaining pigs, or
immigration of new pigs from adjacent areas to fill the vacancy.
MAINTENANCE
i
After the initial TATRP is implemented on known populations,maintenance trapping
will be used as needed to target new, untagged animals that are sighted in the area.
PROJECTION
Although there haven't been any studies of this nature done on feral pig populations to
date, we are basing the outcome of this experimental study to parallel that of results
derived from fifteen years of population control studies we have conducted on feral
cats:
A Trap/Alter/Release program was implemented at Pete's Harbor, Redwood City
(1987) on a feral cat population,numbering sixty five animals. After the initial trapping,
maintenance was used as needed to alter new ferals and unwanted cats and kittens
abandoned by people into the area. Although the altered animals were fed daily by
volunteers, over a period of three years, the population steadily declined, stabilizing at
eight cats. In addition to the inability to breed, the altered animals were also subject to
natural controls; disease, accidents...etc. Within another two years, the area was clear
of any stray/feral cats.
It is the sincere hope of the staff of Little Blue Society that the extra efforts required for
the humane capture, altering and release of feral pigs will reward us with an increase in
our understanding of these animals which will help us to limit their range and damage
in a more permanent, humane and civilized fashion.
EXHIBIT II
Implementation n
Trapping-an&ilol .g
Locations and timing will be researched, allowing for the implementation of a trapping
strategy that is most beneficial and cost effective. Trapping strategy will be modified as
needed to allow for the simultaneous capture of sows with their young.
• Baiting will be used to establish trapping areas that are easily accessible by
trappers and medical personnel.
• A temporary/portable holding corral (possibly electric fencing) will be
constructed to house the pigs as they are trapped. The animals will be held for a
short period of time until a reasonable number is collected before the Zero
Population Veterinary Team is dispatched to perform the surgical alterations.
• Intense trapping efforts will commence pre-breeding season and continue
through the breeding season to eliminate the likelihood that sows are in an
advanced stage of gravidity.
In the e-y-ent_that sows a e_.sep ra from their young
• Piglets will be trapped and altered as part of the program.
• Sows in late-term pregnancy will either be radio collared and released or held
until young are born.
s u �
The Zero Population Veterinary Team will consist of two veterinarians and three
interns, who are experienced and specializes in Large Animal Medicine and Surgery.
• Boars will be vasectomized, as not to disrupt their territorial instincts.
• Ultrasound will be used to determine reproductive status of captured sows.
Early term pregnancies will be terminated.
• All sows will undergo permanent alteration through laproscopic
ovariectomies.
• All subjects will be given an antibiotic injection to prevent post surgical
infections that could develop after release.
• If any trapped animals are found to be incurably injured, they will be
humanely euthanized by the attending veterinarian.
Tagging an _Trasking
• Altered animals will be ear-tagged (both ears) and/or painted for easy
identification.
• Boars will be ear-tagged with a different color from the sows.
' t marked or ra
dio col
lared funds permitting) so
w will be am m )
tum sows (
os ar g P P
that the litter can be located
111i itigationlor 'o sible Liability
• The Mid-Peninsula Open Space Agency will be responsible for acquiring the
appropriate permits from Fish and Game.
The American Medicinal T?rug UseCmt &Act__I AM UCA)
animals, there could be liabilities if an animal undergoing Since feral pigs are game arum g g the
Zero
Population control program is hunted and consumed, and people are made ill by
any residual drugs that are still in the animal. This can be avoided/eliminated by:
9 Using drugs/anesthesia that have a very short half-life.
* The Mid-Peninsula Open Space Agency will alert the members of the
community and appropriate agencies via flyers and mailings that pigs
undergoing the Zero Population control program are ear-tagged for easy
identification, and should not be hunted and consumed.
Non-Interference
• Hunting or shooting of any tagged animals will be prohibited, as it will
interfere with measuring the efficacy of this program. Violations should be
punishable by an enforceable fine.,
* Any residents/land owners in the Zero Population program area having
problems with pig activities should be advised to contact Little Blue Society, so
that conflict mitigation and resolution strategies can be implemented. (This
information can be included in the flyers and mailings).
EXHIBIT III
Community Outreach and Preventative Strategy
Little Blue Society uses a two step approach when the animal and human use of
geographical areas come into conflict; to hold an educational meeting to inform the
general public on how they can safely and peacefully share habitat with wildlife. And to
investigate and implement innovative solutions to mitigate and resolve conflict
situations.
Cbmmunity,-Exhication/Actim
An educational, informational meeting will be provided,with a panel discussion by
wildlife experts well versed in feral pig ecology. Also to inform residents of the Zero
Population program, and encourage the community to report pig sightings to Jodie
Isaacs to help us locate animals we may miss otherwise.
Addressing-ProMematicAreas
While the Zero Population control program is in place, Little Blue Society will do walk-
through investigations of properties and areas that are currently experiencing problems
from feral pig activities, and recommend necessary modifications to prevent future
damage.
A comprehensive report with recommended changes will be provided per/property, as
part of the damage mitigation consultation.
Costs
Zero Population Veterinary Team $100 / hourly rate
(Total: two Veterinarians and three Interns)
Laprascope $3,500
Alteration of one animal
Includes all drugs and supplies
Male/Boar $125.00
Female/Sow $250.00
$0.32 (2") and $0.45 (4WD) $120.60 (roughly, 134 miles)
Educational Panel $200
Damage Mitigation Consultation $75 per consult
with comprehensive written report
Cost of Lapiascop-e-$3,500
Eiguresl2ased-on-40-pigs-
20 sows and 20 boars- $7,500
Average of 2 pigs altered per 1.5 hours - $3,000
Average 5 pigs held for surgery /per round trip equaling 8 trips ($0.45) - $964.80
Educational Panel/Community Action-$200.00
Total Cost: $15,164.80
2/21/01
NAME: Eva M. Spitz-Blum
LOCATION: Shingle Mill Ranch, Highway #9 near Skyline, San Mateo
County
TELEPHONE: 408 867 1722; E-mail: C espitzblum@earthlink.net
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.Box 620066 WOODSIDE, CA 94062
TOPIC ADDRESSED: PIGS WITHOUTBORDERS
TIME: Two (2) minutes.
MROSD--PIG MEETING
2/21/01
Good Evening, Ladies and Gentlemen:
1 am here on behalf of the 600 acres ShingleMill Reserve to
congratulate and to thank you for your efforts to hold the four-
footed rototillers in check. Wild boar is a boar without borders.
What happens on your lands, happens on ours. And so it is also
with another invader, the starthistle.
Ever since wild pigs established wallows along Oil Creek and
Waterman's Creek here on ShingleMill, my take of starthistles has
increased exponentially. Star thistles love disturbed soil. The job
of wild pigs is to disturb soil. Result, both boar and thistle thrive.
And what happens on our lands, will also happen on yours, for
starthistles are, like the pigs, without borders.
So from neighbor to neighbor, here are our assurances that
we will cooperate in controlling these two exotic invaders.
/7