Social identity and acceptability of wild pig (Sus scrofa) control actions: A case study of Texas hunters

ABSTRACT

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) pose significant challenges to wildlife managers. This research explored Texas hunters’ acceptability of wild pig control actions, and whether acceptability varied according to hunters’ affiliation with four different categories of natural resource organizations as an indicator of social identity. Results of a survey (n = 37,317) revealed that most hunters were accepting of all control actions except toxicants and non-lethal deterrents. Mean acceptability scores for each action differed significantly across the four affiliation categories, but effect sizes were minimal. Hunters affiliated with agricultural organizations were the most accepting of control actions, while hunters with no organizational affiliations were least accepting. Findings suggested that while the type of organization with which a hunter affiliates provides some basis for predicting acceptability of control actions, the association is likely not significant enough to warrant differentiating wild pig outreach messaging on the basis of affiliation.

KEYWORDS:

• Feral pigs
• attitudes
• acceptability
• social identity
• hunters

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the Texas A&M University System, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, and Texas Wildlife Services for their support with the inception, funding, and delivery of this project. We also thank the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Feral Swine Damage Management Program, and the National Wildlife Research Center for making this research possible. We specifically wish to thank Mr. Michael J. Bodenchuk for his insightful assistance during the formation of this study, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for access to hunter licensee data. Additional support was provided by Colorado State University. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be constructed to represent any official State of Texas, Texas A&M University System, USDA, or United States Government determination or policy.

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA, U.S. Government determination or policy, nor does it represent those of Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, the Texas A&M University System, or the State of Texas.

Notes

1. All control actions by percentages where ‘somewhat unacceptable’ was collapsed within the ‘unacceptable’ category. Similarly, ‘somewhat acceptable’ was collapsed within the ‘ acceptable’ category, resulting in three new categories of either unacceptable, neutral, or acceptable.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, College Station, TX, USA.