Factors and costs associated with removal of a newly established population of invasive wild pigs in Northern U.S.

The human-mediated spread of exotic and invasive species often leads to unintentional and harmful consequences. Invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are one such species that have been repeatedly translocated throughout the United States and cause extensive damage to natural ecosystems, threatened and endangered species, agricultural resources, and private lands. In 2005, a newly established population of wild pigs was confirmed in Fulton County, Illinois, U.S. In 2011, a state-wide wild pig damage management program involving federal, state, and local government authorities directed a concerted effort to remove wild pigs from the county until the last wild pig (of 376 total) was successfully removed in 2016. We examined surveillance data from camera traps at bait sites and records of wild pig removals during this elimination program to identify environmental and anthropogenic factors that optimized removal of this population. Our results revealed that wild pigs used bait sites most during evening and nocturnal periods and on days with lower daily maximum temperatures. Increased removals of wild pigs coincided with periods of cold weather. We also identified that fidelity and time spent at bait sites by wild pigs was not influenced by increasing removals of wild pigs. Finally, the costs to remove wild pigs averaged $50 per wild pig (6.8 effort hours per wild pig) for removing the first 99% of the animals. Cost for removing the last 1% increased 84-fold, and averaged 122.8 effort hours per wild pig removed. Our results demonstrated that increased effort in removing wild pigs using bait sites should be focused during periods of environmental stress to maximize removal efficiency. These results inform elimination programs attempting to remove newly established populations of wild pigs, and ultimately prevent population and geographic expansion.

Locating and eliminating feral swine from a large area of fragmented mixed forest and agriculture habitats in north-central USA.

Illinois is one of the US states where elimination of feral swine (Sus scrofa) was determined practical, as only a few isolated populations were established. A particularly important step towards feral swine elimination from Illinois was to eliminate the population in Fulton County. We describe the approaches applied to systematically detect, locate, and eliminate feral swine in a successful county-wide elimination. Detecting and locating feral swine was facilitated by extensive outreach activities, aerial surveys to locate crop damage, and use of camera traps placed over bait in areas where reports, sign, or crop damage occurred. The population was eliminated after 376 feral swine were removed from 2009 to 2016 by trapping, sharpshooting over bait, and aerial shooting. Aerial surveys efficiently located feral swine activity over wide areas during times of the crop cycle when damage would occur and would be most distinguishable from other damage sources. Two applications of aerial shooting in 2014 were particularly efficient for rapidly eliminating most remaining feral swine after they had become difficult to locate and remove. Persistent efforts thereafter led to the successful elimination of feral swine in Fulton County by 2016. We believe this is the first documentation of a widespread feral swine elimination in mixed agriculture and forest habitats.

Futility and the obligations of physicians.

It is becoming increasingly common (at least in the United States) for doctors to appeal to futility judgments as the basis for certain types of clinical decisions, such as the decision to withhold CPR. The clinical use of futility judgments raises two basic questions regarding futility. First, how is the concept of futility to be understood? Secondly, once we have a clearer understanding of futility, what role should determinations of futility play in clinical decision-making? Much of the discussion about the concept of futility has centered on the value-ladenness of futility judgments. I argue that futility determinations need to be distinguished from two other types of value-based judgments, namely, identification of the goals of treatment and treatment decisions based on an assessment of the benefits and burdens of treatment. If this distinction is sound, it suggests a very limited role for futility determinations in clinical decision-making, a role which should serve to promote communication between doctor and patient.