By JIM MATTHEWS - SD pig problem (you guys gotta read this)

[BADBuckfever]

Jim tells it like it is. I respect his opinion and he makes sense on this.

http://www.outdoornewsservice.com/i...radicate-wild-pigs-from-public-land&Itemid=18

 

[ltdann]

Jim tells it like it is. I respect his opinion and he makes sense on this.

http://www.outdoornewsservice.com/i...radicate-wild-pigs-from-public-land&Itemid=18

DFG wildlife branch, is Jim Matthews qouting the law correctly?

 

[BADBuckfever]

All reputable reporters do FACT checks on their work BEFORE its published in order to be accurate.

 

[ltdann]

All reputable reporters do FACT checks on their work BEFORE its published in order to be accurate.

Sure. But the allegation here is that DFG is playing fast and loose with the rules.

I wondered in a different post how DFG can sell a big game tag on one hand, and then on the other move to exterminate the same species they just sold a tag for. The answer I got was that they were acting in an advisory capacity.

Matthews states it a bit different way.

 

[BADBuckfever]

I wouldn't be surprised. The amount of politics involved in all of these agencies is disgusting.

The proposal on its face is absurd. All the screaming is coming from over-emotional Eco-Fascists in and out of the various agencies involved. I have done a lot of research about this issue and the craziest statements have been from people (some in public agencies) who speak as though the final apocalypse has arrived with some hogs gone wild in San Diego county. These are mostly educated people, you would think they understand the "scientific method" and the proper steps required to gather USABLE information in producing statistics. The only thing that DOES MAKE SENSE is the fact that POLITICS are in control of just about every single public agency in California. This seems to be purely political. There was even talk of legally designating these pigs as "nuisance" animals instead of "big game" animals so they could be dealt with. How does that work?

How many deer eat peoples crops and garden plants, but we never hear about eradicating the evil hungry deer? Deer strip plants down to the stems, aren't those native plants the deer are damaging? Talk about a slippery slope, this is way out of control.

Where is the voice of reason amongst all of these irrational people?

 

[Marty]

If the CADFG is acting in an advisory capacity; why aren't they advising the CNF (DoI) that the proposed actions are not legal ?

 

[WildlifeBranch]

I think Mr. Matthews provides some reasonable perspective and recommendations, but there are additional aspects to consider. LTDann- I do not know though whether he is correctly citing federal regulation. I would expect the Land Management Plan for Cleveland (didn't they recently complete this for the 4 southern CA forests?) would tell us how the USFS would consider wild pigs.

DFG has entered into agreements with entities such as water districts and state parks to reduce or control wild pig populations where they are not hunted to reduce damage; we first make the recommendation that hunting would be the cheapest way to control pig populations if it is feasible to do so. It is possible to develop wild pig control agreements with entities.


As we know this is a growing topic with increasing interest, we put together the following summary last week with input from our Wildlife & Fisheries Deputy Director, South Coast Regional Manager, and Wildlife Branch Chief (me):


Wild Pigs in San Diego County


DFG is responsible for managing all game animals in a responsible and ecologically sound manner, including wild pigs. They are an important game animal that also have the potential to cause damage to both property and other wildlife and their habitats. Being a non-native animal makes that potential both greater, and less tolerable, than if a native game animal were in this situation.

DFG recognizes that unacceptable impacts are, or may soon be, caused by wild pigs in San Diego County. Given the circumstances here (and see below) and tools/resources available, the Department supports efforts to minimize the impacts of wild pigs to the extent feasible. Our perspective on this situation is based on the following:

1) Even though they are a “big game” species, wild pigs are a non-native species that is capable of significant property and wildlife damage.

2) DFG would prefer to have conditions that favor native wildlife, including native game (such as mule or black-tailed deer), rather than have more non-native species competing or preying on natives. Wild pigs are already our #1 harvested large mammal, we’d much rather it be deer.

3) Each acre of wildland in So. California is extremely valuable due to the human population and development pressure. There is a tremendous investment in So. Cal. conservation planning efforts such that nearly all wildland has long-term management and conservation goals. These conservation plans were set up before pigs arrived and the pigs will likely complicate the long-term strategies as a result of their effect on the environment.

4) We have a dual mission- "The Mission of the Department of Fish and Game is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public" First, and foremost is to manage the diverse resources for their ecological values. If there is a harvestable surplus, they are used and enjoyed by the public.

5) DFG is unsure that eradication would be possible from a mainland scenario such as this, but it isn’t really known and would depend on the resources and effort put into it. This release into SD County is fairly new and somewhat unique in that regard - it was not a natural expansion of an existing population as occurred in many of the other places in the state (after their initial introduction). The current pig population in San Diego County appears to be isolated from the rest of California’s pig populations and unlikely to be connected to populations further north. It is believed that it is early enough that substantial control might be possible in SD County, [we believe control/eradication elsewhere (such as the Central Coast) as some interests desire is not feasible]. Also, while the DFG is working with the organized interagency group in San Diego County to evaluate and possibly enable an attempt at reduction (keep in mind it has not been fully approved or put in place) we have also indicated that DFG does not have funding to contribute to such an effort if it is approved.

6) We encourage the use of hunting as a tool to control wild pigs. On public lands, it is well known that the hunting pressure works well at keeping pig densities down, either by direct kill, or forcing them to refuge off of public lands.

 

[ltdann]

Thanks Dr. Loft, for the big picture.

You mention non-native species. Obviously the SD pigs are relative new comers, but pigs (in general) have been in CA since the early 1700's. Who determines what's a "non-native" species? And the follow-on question is when do they stop being "non-native" and become accepted as part of the CA landscape?

It seems to me that the designation of non-native is paramount to a death sentence in this state. I point to the Santa Rosa Island fiasco as a classic example.

As always, your thoughts and inside perspective is greatly appreciated.

 

[RoosterKiller]

I wonder if we could get a class action suit against the state and the Forest Service to stop them?How can you sell me a ticket to a game and then not have the players show up? I pay money for my pig tag and then the only access I have to fill that tag is taken away? I buy my tag to hunt specifically in the Cleaveland National Forest.If the Pigs were so abundant there I would be filling many tags per year and I'm not.I spend about 15 to 20 weekends a year out there and I have seen pigs only twice.
So then how about the pigs on private property? Is the forest Dept going to trespass in order to erradicfate the pigs? If not then their plan has one hell of a big hole in it that can never be filled.Then all of the money and effort is a big waste of my money since the Gov. does not have any of their own. They should be sued just for wasting our money on this venture.

 

[BADBuckfever]

RK, good points!

We know they are on private property, because hunters like yourself have NOT encountered that many. Many people have become upset about them being on their property. I think this is one HUGE problem with allowing people to buy land within national forest lands.

What kills me is how "helpless" these whiners are about the situation. A normal person deals with the situation on their own by calling a hunter friend to come over and make bacon or they do it themselves etc.... BUT in southern California we have such a victim mentality everywhere, people want to blame someone else and not take any responsibility for their own problems.

Whiner attitude: "I'm not paying to get rid of these pigs, they were released illegally anyway so its the government's responsibility to get rid of them." These are the same folks who vote for the eco-fascist idiots in Sacramento who are destroying our state.

PS - Eric the summary really didn't address the issues raised by J. Matthews, just kinda danced around them.

 

[BADBuckfever]

DFG summary response review:

These are in response to the 6 points in the summary.
Point #1. J. Matthews (JM) stated that according to the "US Forest Service Management Act" (USFSMA) the non-native species that are big game animals are considered DESIRED SPECIES and should be afforded the same protection as native species. This wasnt addressed. This single fact would make eradication violate the law as stated by JM.
Point #2. We all would prefer to have unlimited financial resources and have a new car every year, but that's not gonna happen either. So just because DFG PREFERS certain conditions has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Are you guys for real?
Point #3. This point completely ignores the USFSMA in protecting ALL desired species not just the ones you "prefer." This sounds like serious discrimination against the pigs for just being pigs. These animals require the same protections under the USFSMA that any other species require. Just because monies have been invested in SD county doesnt mean wild pigs can be discriminated against.
Point #4. Sounds like an excuse to eradicate the pigs, but once again these pigs are afforded protection under the USFSMA which you guys are not addressing.
Point #5. The Conservation Biology Institute has recently conducted a study on the impacts and eradication of wild pigs in southern California. Link: http://consbio.org/an-assessment-of...-feral-pigs-sus-scrofa-in-southern-california According to their research, complete eradication of a pig population is only possible if ALL of the pigs of a population will be removed. This is the point the DFG and the USFS are NOT getting. You will spend at least hundreds of thousands of TAX dollars to be in the same position again in five or ten years. That does not solve the problem and shows serious lack of leadership skills in those who are promoting this eradication program.
Point #6. A method "that works well" has not been promoted on a level that can be effective. Come on you guys. Seriously, you should have been on this from the start as JM suggested. I dont see a proactive effort in place to involve hunters on any productive level. All I can find is an outdated map put out by the USDA/USFS with a couple of areas to look at. Cuyamaca Rancho State Park refuses to even respond to my request for assistance with pig information in areas around our state park within the CNF. We are being kicked to the curb on this one and it stinks, especially from the DFG.

 

[Marty]

If an eradication program is implemented, the cost of such program should be levied against the parties who released the non-native species to the wild.

 

[nickmetz]

A nice write up on the other side of the argument, of course the answers lie somewhere in the middle, but I think that given enough pressure, the forestry service, will probably try hunting first to go with the least cost route. Don't forget to write your politicians as you write to the CNF.

 

[DFG_Bear]

DFG wildlife branch, is Jim Matthews qouting the law correctly?

I'm going to back Eric up here.

Section 2670.22 is actually out of the Forest Service Manual, not the Forest Service Management Act. The actual act never mentions pigs. Section 2670.22 of the Forest Service Manual is part of a chapter discussing how the US Forest Service manages Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. It is incorrect to extend this section to animals not within one of those designations, such as wild pigs. This section would apply to desired non-native wildlife that is Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (again - this doesn't apply to wild pigs).

More appropriately, Jim should have cited Section 2651.2 of the Forest Service Manual. It discusses how the Forest Service manages damage caused by game and furbearers on Forest Service Lands. Here is a quote of that section:

2651.2 - Game and Furbearers. Control damage caused by game animals and furbearers through hunting or trapping, where practicable, in cooperation and consultation with the State fish and wildlife agencies, and APHIS, where appropriate.

You can find the entire Forest Service Manual here: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsm.html and judge for yourself.

Furthermore, I'm unsure what state law Jim is referring to in his opening line (and a couple paragraphs down). That would be nice to know too.

Marc

 

[527varmint]

Someone mentioned this before but I'm going to chime in with this an obvious flaw to all this non-native species crap.

Is the cow native to CA? Then why should it be aloud to roam CNF and all our other public lands? The cattle do vast amounts of damage far beyond what a few pigs do! Unless they are going to stop leasing land for cattle grazing then they sure as heck have no argument against pigs! As mentioned the pigs are kept in check by the hunters. The cows go anywhere and eat anything they want!

I wonder if the ranchers are trying to control pigs that will be competition for the food?

 

[WildlifeBranch]

BadBuck-- Our summary was written over a week ago, so it was not intended to be a response to the matthews article that came out the other day.


As Marc suggests there are errors in his reporting:
-I don’t think there is a document known as the “USFS Management Act”. There is the NFMA, but nowhere does it list desired species or pigs. The NFMA of 1976 http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf does not mention pigs, “desired species”, game, or “state game animal” that I can tell.



Chapter 2670 relates to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, not wild pigs.
http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2600/2672.24b-2676.17c.doc
I’d be interested in seeing the document that says they are a “desired species”, but I do not think it exists.

I don’t agree with #2 analogy but that’s fine—to be more specific then, our mandate is to work to conserve native species and work to avoid harm caused by nonnatives (our preference perhaps). Working to control or keep pigs in check would contribute to achieving our mandates for native species conservation and management. If your preference is for non-native wild pigs over more areas of the state where they have not been, that would be your choice.

#3 We aren’t aware of any document that calls pigs a “desired species” on national forests. It may exist, but I haven’t seen it. USFS has a position paper on invasives though:
http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/invasive-species-position-paper.pdf
Even if they were desired at some time, it is clear that the CNF does not consider them desirable and that is why they are going through a public process so folks can provide their input.

#4 Our DFG mission has been around a lot longer than pigs in SD County so it can’t be an excuse developed to eradicate the pigs. I would be interested in seeing specifically what protection the “USFSMA” (whatever that is) provide to wild pigs, but I think it is none as it does not exist.

#5 DFG gets that point, we have said it. The very 1st thing we asked is “do you have access to the private lands to get the pigs that will take refuge there?” DFG is spending some staff time on this issue, but is not contributing funds. We in DFG are fully aware of the costs of eradication efforts for undesirable species and do get it. We have had Lake Davis, the island pig reduction, Angel Island deer, axis/fallow deer on Pt. Reyes, and others. That is why we said eradication is uncertain—it depends on a lot of factors and availability of resources (funding, tools, personnel). We also do not want to support an effort that would be a waste of public resources, whether at the state or federal level—we are still working with the other agencies to determine feasibility and at what level.


If you read our summary thoroughly, you will see we are supportive of an effort to maintain control on the population, and preferably through hunting as the most cost-effective method.

#6 We’ve been advocating use of hunting on the CNF for well over a year and maybe you missed page 52 of the 2011 Big Game Digest. I agree that CNF could/should be providing detail on where pigs are sighted on public land.

There is nothing stopping hunters from getting out there and taking care of the pig population on public land through hunting – it is year-round and no limit; but to think the agencies know exactly where to send people on a daily basis is asking more than can be provided (and that would be costly information to collect as well).

Also:

- CNF can likely give you reasons why impacts from permitted livestock are acceptable and from wild pigs are not. I think it is a great question (but then most of my research in the 80s was on the impacts of livestock on deer range).

-Defining nonnatives and when do they become native. Not sure we can answer that, or that there is an answer. I’m pretty sure that cheatgrass, wild pigs, pheasant, northern pike, and chukar will not be considered native within our time here. We know that all those species were introduced from somewhere else, even if it were hundreds of years ago. Wild turkey, found in California tar pits and indian middens from what—10,000 years ago? Are not considered native because they were reintroduced from other populations in the US.

- He is out of date on another item-- The wild pig tag funds now go into the Big Game Management Account in DFG as a result of SB 1058 (I think that was it). They no longer go into a dedicated wild pig account. This give greater flexibility to use such funds for any big game work.


Eric

 

[ltdann]

-Defining nonnatives and when do they become native. Not sure we can answer that, or that there is an answer. I’m pretty sure that cheatgrass, wild pigs, pheasant, northern pike, and chukar will not be considered native within our time here. We know that all those species were introduced from somewhere else, even if it were hundreds of years ago. Wild turkey, found in California tar pits and indian middens from what—10,000 years ago? Are not considered native because they were reintroduced from other populations in the US.

Eric

Your kidding! That's just crazy talk!

I read in the papers all the time about how something is non-native and therefore, undesirable. Who decides that? Is it someone in DFG? or USFWS? Or maybe its just an accepted policy? This is fascinating.

 

[RoosterKiller]

Eric, I think your rebuttle is very concise and I am happy to hear that the DFG is thinking this through. I can only hope that the forest service will come to see the waste they will cuase if they proceed with an eradication program.I have not heard one way or the other how cooperative private land owners would be to participate in such a program.I don't believe you would see the level of participation necessary to enable such a program to succeed.

 

[mezcan]

Eric, I think your rebuttle is very concise and I am happy to hear that the DFG is thinking this through. I can only hope that the forest service will come to see the waste they will cuase if they proceed with an eradication program.I have not heard one way or the other how cooperative private land owners would be to participate in such a program.I don't believe you would see the level of participation necessary to enable such a program to succeed.

Penalties/fines up to and including jail time for any private landowner harboring the terroristic feral piggie ! All landowners must contact a JHO member immediately if feral swine are found in any number on their property. No cost to the private landowner will be incurred for all costs/expenses of JHO member helping to eradicate the evil oinker will be payed in full by the indian (native San Diegans) tribe responsible for the initial release of said swine .

All processed piggies will be shared/consumed amongst all JHO eradicators at a campspot location to be decided prior to the next feral swine eradication effort !

Large amounts of barley beverage will most likely be consumed only when Master of Arms verifies all lead injection devices are safely secured .....

That about covers it. Don't you think ?

:hog chewing::shootin-rifle:

 

[BADBuckfever]

Thank you very much Mr Loft. I was responding directly to the summery. I used Mr Matthews article to make some of my points. It is very unfortunate that information is being transmitted that is possibly false or incorrect in certain details that were made to support an argument. Jim Matthews should clarify where he received his info and why it is incorrect. I have tried and find the section he was referring to in the USFSMA. I think the ACT name is incorrect, I couln't find the exact info he was referring to.

I can see that you are one of the few people to try and dialog with southern California hunters about this issue. I appreciate your willingness to be directly involved to address our concerns.

Can you speak to the attitude of those who work at the Cuyamaca Rancho State Park and possibly why they have been ignoring contacts from the hunting public? Ostracizing people as a public servant because you oppose their beliefs is discriminatory and leads me to believe this state park is not interested in serving the general public, but only those who they relate to on a ideological basis. That is wrong! Hunters deserve the same public service as any other citizens in California. If you wont address this question can you suggest SOMEONE in that agency that would be able to speak directly to hunters?