• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Summary
 Introduction
 Objectives
 Procedure
 Findings
 Conclusion
 Appendix
 Reference
 Back Cover














Group Title: Industry Report - University of Florida. Food and Resource Economics Department ; no. 82-1
Title: Recreational and commercial importance of feral swine in Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027564/00001
 Material Information
Title: Recreational and commercial importance of feral swine in Florida
Series Title: Industry Report - University of Florida. Food and Resource Economics Department ; no. 82-1
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Degner, R. L.
Rodan, L. W.
Mathis, W. K.
Gibbs, E. P. J.
Publisher: University of Florida Food and Resource Economics Department
Publication Date: 1982
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027564
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Acknowledgement
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    Main
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    Summary
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Objectives
        Page 3
    Procedure
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Findings
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Conclusion
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Appendix
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
    Reference
        Page 64
    Back Cover
        Back Cover
Full Text
IQO


DOCUM ET


THE RECREATIONAL AN) COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE
OF FERAL SWIE IN FLORIDA





A report by
R.L. Degner, L.W. Rodan, W.K. Mathis,
and E.P.J. Gibbs









January, 1982



The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
a part of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
(Degner, Rodan and Mathis)
and
Department of Preventive Medicine
College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32610


Industry Report 82-1


4/,







ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This research was funded in part by a grant from USDA-ARS through
Dr. J.J. Callis, Director of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. We
appreciate the efforts of Drs. Neil H. Becker and E.C. Greiner of the
Department of Preventative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine,
University of Florida for their assistance and cooperation in formu-
lating the project. Our appreciation is also expressed to the many
employees of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission who
assisted throughout the study, particularly Bill Frankenburger, Chris
Belden, and Robert Butler.

Thanks also go to the county extension agents, livestock inspec-
tors, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

We also appreciate the cooperation and data provided by the thou-
sands of hunters and trappers and the many taxidermists, livestock
auction managers and livestock dealers.
/
We are also grateful for the assistance of Dr. Scott Shonkwiler in
developing the response bias estimation procedure, and to Ms. Judith
King for her help in mailing questionnaires and analyzing the
responses. Appreciation is also expressed to Ms. Alice Bliss for typing
the manuscript.











TABLE OF CONTENTS



Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................. i

LIST OF TABLES .................................................... iii

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES ........................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ........... ........... ........................ v

SUMMARY ............... ................... ....... .......... vi

INTRODUCTION ................ ............. .... .......... ...... 1

OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 3

PROCEDURE ........................................ .... ... 3
The Recreational Sector ........................................ 3
The Commercial Agricultural Sector ............................ 5

FINDINGS .................... ........ ............... ...... .... 6
The Recreational Sector ......................................... 6
Hunters ........................................... ............ 6
Trappers ........................ ..... ................. ... .. 15
Landowners ................................................. 16
Taxidermists .......................................... ... 18
The Hunting Club Market for Feral Hogs ....................... 20
The Commercial Agricultural Sector ............................ 22

CONCLUSIONS ....................................... ... .... ... 26

APPENDIX .............................. ............. .. 29
Response Bias Estimation Procedure .............................. 35
Hunter Questionnaire ................ ............................. 57
Taxidermist Cover Letter and Questionnaire ..................... 61
Livestock Auction Market Questionnaire .......................... 63

REFERENCES ....................... ................................ 64







ii










LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Questionnaires mailed, number deliverable and returned
by type of hunting license .................................. 4
2 Numbers of hunting licenses issued and estimated numbers
and proportions of persons hunting feral hogs, Florida,
1979-80 season ..................................................... 7

3 Number of trips and man-days spent hunting wild hogs in
Florida by resident and non-resident hunters .................. 10

4 Type of area hunted for feral hogs in Florida,
1980-81 season ...................................... ..... 11

5 Feral swine hunting success in Florida by resident and
non-resident hunters, 1979-1980 season ........................ 11

6 Estimated number, liveweight, and value of feral swine
killed in Florida, and number wounded, by hunter
residence, 1979-1980 season ................................. 12

7 Estimated numbers of feral swine trappers, Florida
1979-80 hunting year ......................................... 16

8 Estimated number and value of feral swine trapped in
Florida, by method of sale or use, 1980 ...................... 17

9 Estimated lease fee expenditures by resident and
non-resident hunters ........................................ 18

10 Methods used by Florida taxidermists for disposing of
feral swine carcasses, 1980 ................................. 21

11 Out-of-state shipments of feral swine trapped in
Florida, 1980 ..................... ................ ...... 23

12 Livestock auction market sales of feral swine,
Florida, 1980 ................................................. 25

13 A summary of the economic value of feral hogs killed
and trapped in Florida, 1980-81 hunting yeara ................. 28










LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Table Page

1 Florida resident hunting licenses issued, licenses
sampled, and survey questionnaires deliverable,
1980-81 hunting season, by region and county ................ 30

2 Non-resident hunting licenses, sample frequency and
estimated totals, by state of residence, 1980-81 ............ 33

3 Variables used to estimate response bias of hog hunters ....... 37

4 Estimated parameters of OLS models used to estimate
response bias of hog hunters ................................ 38

5 Proportions of hog hunters in returned sample and
estimated proportions of hog hunters in the Florida
hunter universal .............................................. 39

6 Estimated numbers of non-resident hog hunters in
Florida, by state of residence, 1980-81 season ............... 40

7 Age distributions of respondents and non-respondents .......... 41

8 Age distributions of hog hunters and other hunters ............ 42

9 Racial distribution of respondents and non-respondents ........ 42

10 Racial distribution of hog hunters and other hunters .......... 43

11 Sex of respondents and non-respondents ...................... 43

12 Sex of hog hunters and other hunters ........................ 44

13 Household size of hog hunters and other hunters ............. 44

14 Income distribution of hog hunters and other hunters .......... 45

15 Education levels of hog hunters and other hunters ............. 45

16 Estimated number of hog hunting trips, days hunted,
hogs wounded or killed in Florida, by residents,
by type of hunting area, 1980-81 season ...................... 46











Table Page

17 Estimated numbers of hog hunting trips, days hunted,
hogs wounded or killed in Florida, by non-residents,
by type of hunting area, 1979-80 season ...................... 47
18 Estimated number of hog hunting trips, days hunted,
hogs wounded or killed, by resident hog hunters, by
county or wildlife management area, 1980-81 season ............ 48

19 Estimated number of hog hunting trips, days hunted, hogs
wounded or killed, by non-resident hunters, by Florida
county or wildlife management area, 1980-81 season ............ 51

20 Estimated number, liveweight, and value of feral swine
killed in Florida, and number wounded, by region of
hunter residence, 1980-81 season ............................ 53

21 Geographic distribution of pork gifts by resident
feral hog hunters, 1980 ...................................... 54

22 Estimated number, liveweight and value of feral swine
killed in Florida, and number of swine wounded, by
non-residents, by state of residence, 1980-81 season ......... 55

23 Geographic distribution of pork gifts by non-resident
Florida feral hog hunters, 1980 ............................. 56


LIST OF FIGURES


1 Home states (shaded) of persons that hunted wild hogs in
Florida, 1980-81 season, and regions where hunting clubs
are located that received wild hogs trapped in Florida ........ 9

2 Counties included in hunting regions ......................... 13

3 Locations of livestock auction markets handling feral
swine, 1980 ........................... ........... ........... 24







SUMMARY


Florida has the largest feral swine population in the U.S. Excel-
lent habitat and lack of natural predators have resulted in a feral
swine population that may be as high as 500,000 head.
This study evaluated their importance to hunters, other elements of
the recreational sector, and to commercial agriculture.

Specific objectives were to 1) estimate the economic and recre-
ational value of feral swine harvested by hunters, 2) determine the
income from feral swine to Florida taxidermists, 3) determine the
number and value of feral swine trapped for the purpose of stocking
hunting preserves, 4) determine the number and value of feral swine
trapped and sold through commercial marketing channels, and 5)
determine the geographic dispersion of all feral swine killed or
trapped.

The major components of the recreational sector are hunters,
taxidermists, and trappers who sell feral hogs to hunting preserves.
The major components of the commercial agricultural sector are trappers
and hog feeders who sell feral swine at livestock auction markets.
Mail surveys and personal interviews provided primary data. Over
7,500 hunters and 156 taxidermists received questionnaires; about 38
percent of the hunters and 44 percent of the taxidermists responded.

Telephone surveys of 67 Cooperative Extension Service agents
(county agricultural agents or livestock agents from each county) and 45
livestock inspectors were used to identify trappers or dealers selling
feral hogs to hunting preserves. The dealers were then interviewed by
telephone and in person.
A telephone survey was also made of managers of all 14 Florida
livestock auctions that handle hogs.

Hunting licenses were sold to 260,556 persons during the 1980-81
hunting year. Approximately 17.5 percent, an estimated 45,559 persons,
hunted wild hogs. Although the survey showed that hog hunters resided
in 64 of the 67 counties, but they probably reside in all counties.

Nearly 600 hunters from 26 other states hunted wild hogs in Florida
in 1980-81.
Hunters made more than 386,000 individual hunting trips and spent
more than 522,000 man-days hunting wild hogs in 1980-81.

Forty-six percent of resident hunters and 28 percent of the out-of-
state hunters killed one or more wild hogs during the 1980-81 season.
Overall, an estimated 20,767 hunters bagged at least one hog.









A total number of 102,770 hogs were killed, and approximately
10,497 hogs were reportedly wounded.

The overall value of the hogs killed was placed at nearly $6 mil-
lion by the hunters, slightly over $58 per head.

Based on hunters' residences and reported gifts, pork from feral
hogs was distributed to hundreds of cities and towns statewide.
Residents from 16 states outside of Florida were successful hunters as
well. Considering hunter residency and the distribution of gifts, pork
from feral swine killed in Florida during the 1980-81 season was
probably transported to 18 other states.

An estimated 4,149 persons holding Florida hunting licenses trapped
or caught about six feral hogs each in 1980-81 for an estimated
statewide total of 25,000 head. These had an average value of $28 each
according to trappers, for a total value of about $700,000.

Florida landowners also benefit economically from feral hog hunt-
ing. About one-fifth of the state's hog hunters lease private land for
hunting. The median lease fee for all hunters (prorated to reflect only
the amount for wild hogs) was $75. Approximately $1.2 million is spent
annually by hunters for hog hunting leases.

About 60 percent of the state's taxidermists mounted 780 wild hogs
during 1980 and the average number mounted was about nine head, based on
the taxidermist survey. However, based on the hunter survey, the
estimated statewide total number mounted was 2,451 head. The latter
figure is probably more accurate because of the larger sample size.

The average mounting fee reported by taxidermists ranged from $95
to $295 and averaged $153.

Gross income to taxidermists statewide from mounting feral hogs is
estimated at about $119,000 if the estimates of hog numbers from the
taxidermists, and $389,000 if the estimates of hog numbers from the
hunter survey are used.

Taxidermists disposed of nearly three-fourths of the hog carcasses
by sending them to municipal disposal areas. Slightly over 10 percent
were taken to private disposal sites, and about 8 percent buried. Small
numbers were disposed of by selling or using for pet food.
Some feral hogs are sold to hunting preserves by a small number of
hog dealers. One large hunting ranch in Florida regularly buys hunting
stock from trappers, but most wild hog hunting stock is sold to hunting
clubs in other states.
An estimated 800 head of feral hogs, mostly boars and barrows, were
sold to hunting preserves in mid-south, southwest, and New England
states in 1980. The total delivered value of the feral hogs was approx-
imately $81,000.








Feral hogs make a relatively small contribution to the commercial
agricultural economy. Of the 14 livestock auction market managers
interviewed, eight reported handling a total of 1,620 head in 1980,
about 0.3 percent of all hogs marketed through auctions in Florida in
1980.
Feral hogs sold at livestock auctions brought considerably lower
prices than domestic hogs. The estimated overall price for feral hogs
was about 16 cents per pound, compared with 37 cents for domestic hogs
in 1980. The overall value of feral hogs sold through livestock auc-
tions in 1980 was about $17,000.

The overall value of feral hogs to hunters, trappers, taxidermists,
and landowners who lease hunting land is estimated to be approximately
$8.3 million per year.


viii










THE RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE
OF FERAL SWINE IN FLORIDA

R.L. Degner, L.W. Rodan, W.K. Mathis,
and E.P.J. Gibbs*


INTRODUCTION


Florida has the largest feral swine population of any state in the

United States. Excellent habitat and the lack of natural predators have

resulted in a feral swine population that may be as high as 500,000
head. Feral swine have been observed in 66 of Florida's 67 counties

(McVicar, et al., 1981).

The ancestry of Florida's feral swine population can be traced back

to hogs that were imported by early Spanish explorers. Their appearance
is similar to swine in unimproved swine herds in remote Spanish

villages. Such animals are dark colored, with coarse, bristly hair,

broad shoulders, and narrow hindquarters. Their snouts are typically

long and narrow and their temperament aggressive. Many feral hogs in
Florida have characteristics of domestic breeds due to chance and
intentional introduction of domestic breeding stock.

Although feral swine are not technically viewed as a wild game

species, in most Florida counties they provide considerable sport for



R.L. DEGNER is an associate professor of Food and Resource
Economics; W.K. MATHIS and E.P.J. GIBBS are professors of Food and
Resource Economics and Virology, respectively, all of the University of
Florida. L.W. RODAN is a former assistant in Agricultural Economics,
University of Florida.









hunters. They are also widely trapped on private lands. Feral swine

that are trapped may be slaughtered, sold or given to individuals, sold
through commercial marketing channels, or to game preserves as hunting

stock. Whether killed by hunters or taken alive by hunters and trap-

pers, it is hypothesized that feral swine constitute an important recre-

ational resource and make a significant contribution to the state's

commercial agricultural sector as well.

The state's entire swine population, both domestic and feral, may
be in jeopardy because of African Swine Fever (ASF). Domestic breeds

are highly susceptible to this devastating, exotic, viral disease.

Recent research has confirmed that Florida feral swine are also suscep-

tible (Hess, 1981; McVicar, et al., 1981; Wilkinson, 1981). The

disease was restricted to Africa until the late 1950's when it occurred

in the Iberian peninsula; by the late 1970's, it had spread to the

western hemisphere, viz Brazil, Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican

Republic. It is believed that the disease has been eradicated in Cuba

and the Dominican Republic, but eradication has not been achieved in
Haiti and Brazil. The continuing influx of Haitian refugees, and the
vast numbers of Caribbean visitors to Florida, increase the likelihood

of ASF being introduced into the United States. This study was con-
ducted in view of this potential threat, in an effort to provide objec-

tive information about the recreational and commercial importance of

feral swine.








OBJECTIVES


This study was undertaken to determine the recreational and agri-

cultural importance of feral swine. Specific objectives were to 1)

estimate the economic and recreational value of feral swine harvested by

hunters, 2) determine the contribution that feral swine make to the

incomes of Florida taxidermists, 3) determine the number and value of

feral swine trapped for stocking hunting preserves, 4) determine the

number and value of feral swine trapped and sold through commercial

marketing channels, and 5) determine the geographic dispersion of all

feral swine killed or trapped.


PROCEDURE


The Recreational Sector


The recreational and economic value of feral swine to hunters,

taxidermists, and trappers who sell feral hogs primarily to hunting

preserves was determined through a series of mail surveys, telephone

interviews, and face-to-face interviews. Details of these surveys and
interviews follow.

A stratified, systematic, random sample of 8,000 hunters was drawn

from approximately 261,000 hunting license receipts for the 1980-81

hunting year (March 1, 1980 February 28, 1981). Although the hunting

season for feral hogs on public lands encompassed a much shorter time
period, the entire hunting year was used as the relevant time period
because feral hogs can be hunted all year on private land in most








OBJECTIVES


This study was undertaken to determine the recreational and agri-

cultural importance of feral swine. Specific objectives were to 1)

estimate the economic and recreational value of feral swine harvested by

hunters, 2) determine the contribution that feral swine make to the

incomes of Florida taxidermists, 3) determine the number and value of

feral swine trapped for stocking hunting preserves, 4) determine the

number and value of feral swine trapped and sold through commercial

marketing channels, and 5) determine the geographic dispersion of all

feral swine killed or trapped.


PROCEDURE


The Recreational Sector


The recreational and economic value of feral swine to hunters,

taxidermists, and trappers who sell feral hogs primarily to hunting

preserves was determined through a series of mail surveys, telephone

interviews, and face-to-face interviews. Details of these surveys and
interviews follow.

A stratified, systematic, random sample of 8,000 hunters was drawn

from approximately 261,000 hunting license receipts for the 1980-81

hunting year (March 1, 1980 February 28, 1981). Although the hunting

season for feral hogs on public lands encompassed a much shorter time
period, the entire hunting year was used as the relevant time period
because feral hogs can be hunted all year on private land in most









counties. Access to the hunting license receipts was granted by the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC). The sample was

stratified by state residents and non-residents to insure a sufficiently

large sample of non-residents. The sample contained 7,000 resident and

1,000 non-resident hunters. A comparison of the sample and the numbers
of licenses issued on a county basis indicated a reasonably diverse and

representative sample (Appendix Table 1). The non-resident sample con-

tained hunters from 45 of the 50 states (Appendix Table 2).

A questionnaire was mailed to hunters in the sample in mid-April of

1981; approximately 94 percent of the questionnaires were deliverable.

A second questionnaire was sent to hunters that had not responded by
mid-May. The first mailing resulted in a return of almost 25 percent,

and the second, an additional 13 percent, for a total response of 37.7

percent. About 36 percent of the resident and nearly 50 percent of the
non-resident hunters responded (Table 1). The hunter questionnaire is

included in the Appendix.


Table 1.--Questionnaires mailed, number deliverable and returned by type
of hunting license.


SType of license
Disposition State resident Non-resident All
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total mail 7,000 100.0 1,000 100.0 8,000 100.0
Undeliverable 417 6.0a 62 6.2a 479 6.0a
Deliverable 6,583 94.0a 938 93.8a 7,521 94.0a
Questionnaires
returned 2,373 36.0b 463 49.4b 2,836 37.7b

percent of total mailed.
bPercent of deliverable.









In addition to the direct economic and recreational benefits accru-

ing to hog hunters, it was hypothesized that Florida taxidermists also

benefitted by mounting specimen or trophy wild hogs. A list of 156

Florida taxidermists was compiled from the Yellow Pages of all telephone

directories in the state and from the United States Department of the

Interior's registry of taxidermists approved to mount migratory water-

fowl. A questionnaire was mailed to these taxidermists in mid-April of

1981 and a reminder in mid-May. Approximately 92 percent were deliver-

able; 44 percent of these responded. A copy of the questionnaire is in

the Appendix.

Key representatives of the GFC, agricultural agents and livestock

specialists of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service representing

all 67 Florida counties, and 45 livestock inspectors of the Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services were interviewed to

identify trappers or livestock dealers selling feral hogs to hunting

preserves. The individuals so identified were interviewed by telephone

or in person.


The Commercial Agricultural Sector


The importance of feral swine to Florida's agricultural economy was

ascertained by telephone interviews of livestock auction market mana-
gers. There are 14 livestock auctions statewide that handle most com-

mercial hog sales in Florida. They are located from Ocala northward and

throughout the panhandle. The 14 auction market managers were inter-

viewed to determine the total numbers of hogs sold and the number and
value of feral hogs handled in 1980.










FINDINGS


The Recreational Sector


The recreation sector for wild hogs in Florida was found to be

comprised of three major components: the hunter population, taxider-

mists, and trappers or dealers who sell wild hogs primarily to hunting
preserves. Trapping or "catching" wild hogs is also covered here

because it is viewed as a sport and because few enter the commercial

marketing channels.


Hunters

The 36 percent response to the resident hunter survey was consider-

ably greater than anticipated, as was the 49.4 percent response to the

non-resident survey. A comparison with a previous hunter survey indi-

cated that disproportionately large numbers of hog hunters had responded

to the survey. Over 35 percent of the respondents were hog hunters,
compared with less than 15 percent in a Florida GFC study based on the

1979-80 hunting season (Butler, 1980). Response bias was suspected of

having occurred because of numerous newspaper articles dealing with
feral swine and African Swine Fever and because the current study dealt

only with feral swine (Feedstuffs, 1981; Independent Farmer and Rancher,

1981; Mann, Selbrechts, and Slaugenhaupt, 1981). The 1980 GFC study was
based on essentially the same research methodology except that informa-
tion was requested on 12 species of wildlife in addition to wild hogs.

In view of the apparent response bias problem, a statistical technique








was devised which estimated the "true" proportion of hog hunters.
Findings from the survey could then be extrapolated to the state's total

population of hog hunters. Details of the response bias estimation

technique are reported in the Appendix (Appendix Tables 3 and 4).

The results of the technique indicate that during the 1980-81
hunting season, 17.5 percent of the resident and 16.4 percent of the

non-resident hunters hunted wild hogs. When both groups of hunters are

combined, the proportion that hunted wild hogs is nearly 17.5 percent

(Appendix Table 5). Thus, about 45,000 Florida residents and nearly 600
non-resident hunters hunted wild hogs (Table 2).


Table 2.--Numbers of hunting licenses issued and estimated numbers and
proportions of persons hunting feral hogs, Florida, 1979-80
season.


Total licenses Feral hog
Hunter group issueda hunters

Number Number Percentb
State residents 257,009 44,977 17.5
Non-residents 3,547 582 16.4
All hunters 260,556 45,559 17.5

aLicense totals were obtained from the Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission.
percentages for state residents, non-residents and all hunters are
based upon respective total license numbers. These percentages were
derived using a response bias reduction technique described in the
Appendix, rather than simply calculating the percent of hog hunters that
were observed in the questionnaires returned.








Hog hunters were found to reside in virtually every Florida county

and over half of the United States. Questionnaires were returned from

resident hog hunters in 64 of the 67 Florida counties; Gulf and Franklin

Counties were not represented in the sample, and Hamilton County had a
response rate of only 15 percent. These three counties issued an aver-

age of over 1,200 hunting licenses each, thus it is likely that every

county had residents that hunted hogs in the 1980-81 season.
Non-resident hunting licenses were issued to residents of 43

states; approximately 582 residents of 26 states from California to New

York hunted wild hogs in Florida during the 1980-81 season. (Figure 1,

Appendix Table 6.)

The response bias estimation technique also compensated for bias

with respect to age and race, which was discovered by comparing age,

race, and sex data of respondents with similar data for non-respon-

dents. Respondents were somewhat older than non-respondents, and pro-

portionately fewer blacks than whites responded. Selected socioeconomic
and demographic characteristics of survey respondents, non-respondents,

hog hunters, and other hunters are found in the Appendix (Appendix
Tables 7 through 15).

Hunters made more than 386,000 individual hunting trips and spent

more than 522,000 man-days hunting wild hogs in Florida during the 1980-

81 season (Table 3). This reflects more than a 45 percent increase over

the number of man-days spent by hunters during the 1979-80 season

(GFC). Florida residents spent over 272,500 man-days (52 percent)

hunting wildlife management areas, and approximately 231,300 days (44

percent) hunting private land, and an additional 16,000 man-days (3































ARIE. So t




LA.









Figure l.--Home states (shaded) of persons that hunted wild hogs in Florida, 1980-81 season, and regions
where hunting clubs are located that received wild hogs trapped in Florida.









Table 3.--Number of trips and man-days spent hunting wild hogs in Flor-
ida by resident and non-resident hunters

Trips Days

Number Percent Number Percent

Residents 384,883 99.6 519,913 99.5
Non-residents 1,600 0.4 2,536 0.5

All hunters 386,483 100.0 522,449 100.0


percent) were spent on lands of undetermined ownership (Appendix Table

16). Non-residents spent virtually the same proportions of their hunt-

ing time on public and private lands, about 1,300 and 1,100 man-days,

respectively (Appendix Table 17). Estimated numbers of hog hunting

trips and man-days spent hunting in each county or wildlife management

area are found in the Appendix (Appendix Tables 18 and 19).

Thirty-eight percent of the residents hunted hogs in public wild-

life management areas only, compared with 49 percent of the non-resident

hunters. Almost 36 percent of the residents and about 40 percent of the

non-residents hunted exclusively on private land. Approximately 26

percent of the residents hunted on both public and private lands, but

only 11 percent of the non-residents did so (Table 4).

Forty-six percent of the resident hunters killed one or more wild

hogs during the 1980-81 season and about 28 percent of the non-resident

hunters were successful in killing at least one. Overall, an estimated

20,912 hunters (approximately 46 percent) bagged one or more hogs (Table

5).


I A







Table 4.--Type of area hunted for feral hogs in Florida, 1980-81 Season.


Type Resident Non-resident Total
hog hunters hog hunters

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Wildlife management
area only 17,091 38.0 285 49.0 17,376 38.1

Private land only 16,057 35.7 232 39.9 16,289 35.8

Both management areas 11,829 26.3 65 11.1 11,894 26.1

Totals 44,977 100.0 582 100.0 45,559 100.0







Table 5.--Feral swine hunting success in Florida by resident and non-
resident hunters, 1979-1980 season.

Residence and
Reshunting successes and a Overall estimate
hunting success

Number Percent
Florida
Killed one or more wild hogs 20,779 46.2
Killed none 24,198 53.8
Totals 44,977 100.0

Out-of-state
Killed one or more wild hogs 165 28.3
Killed none 417 71.7
Totals 582 100.0
All respondents
Killed one or more wild hogs 20,912 45.9
Killed none 24,647 54.0
Totals 45,559 100.0


aChi-square analysis indicated
success by state residents, overall


significantly greater hunting
= 11.534, p < .01.


bThese are weighted estimates, i.e., weighted by the total numbers
of resident and non-resident hunters.









The total number of hogs killed during the 1980-81 season was

estimated to be 102,770, of which 102,188 were killed by resident hun-

ters and 582 by non-resident hunters. Approximately 10,500 hogs were
reportedly wounded (Table 6). The estimated numbers of hogs wounded and

killed by county (for private land) and by wildlife management area are

reported in Appendix Tables 18 and 19.


Table 6.--Estimated number, liveweight, and value of feral swine killed
in Florida, and number wounded, by hunter residence, 1979-1980
season.

Residency Killed Liveweight Value Wounded
Number Pounds Dollars Number

Resident 102,188 13,356,479 5,953,718 10,378
Non-resident 582 62,390 41,345 118

Totals 102,770 13,418,869 5,995,063 10,497





Hunters estimated the average liveweight to be slightly over 130

pounds. The overall value of the hogs killed was placed at nearly $6
million by the hunters, slightly over $58 per head. On the average,

resident hunters valued their kills at about $58.25 per head, and non-
resident hunters, $71 each (Table 6).

The geographic dispersion of kills was analyzed on an in-state

regional basis for Florida residents (Figure 2) and a state-of-residence

basis for non-resident hunters. The geographic dispersion of gifts of
pork from feral hogs by hunters was also examined.















Northwest


Central


South


Everglades


/ ~


Figure 2.--Counties included in hunting regions.









Assuming that hunters take their kills to their place of residence,

carcasses of feral hogs are widely dispersed. Florida hunters residing
in the northwest region killed nearly 4,300 hogs with an estimated

liveweight exceeding 620,000 pounds. Northeast and central region

hunters killed over 12,700 and 12,500 head respectively, with total

liveweights in each region of over 1.6 million pounds. The largest

numbers of hogs were killed by residents of the south and Everglades

regions. Hunters of these regions killed an estimated 40,347 and 31,993
head respectively which weighed about 5.2 and 4.1 million pounds respec-

tively (Appendix Table 20).

Florida resident hunters gave substantial quantities of pork from

feral hogs to others. Nearly three-fourths of the successful resident

hunters gave some pork away. An estimated 15,042 resident hunters gave

16,746 individual gifts of pork from wild hogs to residents of seven

states, including Florida (Appendix Table 21). The estimated weight of

the pork given away exceeded 1.7 million pounds. The majority of the

gifts, over 16,000, was widely dispersed in Florida. Other gifts of
pork went to residents of Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
North Carolina, and Vermont (Appendix Table 21).

Non-resident hunters who killed one or more feral hogs came from a

total of 16 states. These hunters killed an estimated 582 animals with

an aggregate liveweight of over 62,000 pounds (Appendix Table 22).
About 68 percent of the successful non-resident hunters gave all or part

of the pork weighing approximately 13,000 pounds to others. About 20

percent of the gifts accounting for two-thirds of the poundage went to

recipients in Florida, but about 118 gifts weighing approximately 4,300








pounds went to recipients in at least 8 other states (Appendix Table
23).

Considering out-of-state gifts by resident and non-resident hunters

and assuming that each successful non-resident hunter took part of his

kill back to his home state, pork from feral hogs killed in Florida went

to 18 states during the 1980-81 hunting year.


Trappers

Many feral hogs are trapped or caught alive using hunting dogs.
The entire population of wild hog trappers could not be adequately
identified for survey purposes, but it was assumed that most individuals

engaged in trapping wild hogs would possess a Florida hunting license

and that the hunter sample would provide a reasonably.accurate (though

somewhat conservative) indication of trapping activity.

The hunter survey indicated that 4,149 individuals trapped or
caught feral hogs in Florida in 1980-81. Eighty-three percent of the

trappers also hunted hogs (Table 7). An estimated 7.6 percent of the

state's hog hunters also engage in trapping, but only 0.3 percent of the
hunters that do not hunt hogs catch or trap hogs.

On the average, trappers caught about six head apiece during the

1980-81 hunting year, for a statewide total of slightly over 25,000

head. Trappers valued the hogs trapped at an average value of $28, or

slightly over $700,000 statewide (Table 8). They indicated that 735
head, less than three percent of the hogs trapped, were sold through
livestock auction markets. Nearly one-third were immediately sold to




I


individuals, and about 14 percent were fattened and sold to indi-

viduals. About one-third of the hogs trapped were used for the trap-

pers' own home consumption; these animals accounted for over 42 percent

of the total value placed on the trapped hogs (Table 8). Nearly one-

fifth of the trapped animals were given to friends or used by the trap-

pers in low value uses such as dog food.




Landowners

Florida landowners also benefit economically from feral swine

hunting. The hunter survey indicated that about one-fifth of the non-

resident hog hunters lease private land for hunting. Hunters were asked

to prorate lease fee expenditures among the various species hunted on

any leased land. The average lease fees reported per hunter were $293

by residents and $168 by non-residents. The overall average was $227


16



Table 7.--Estimated numbers of feral swine trappers, Florida, 1979-80
hunting year.


Hunter group Trappers

Number Percent
Hog hunters 3,442 83.0
Other hunters 707 17.0
All hunters 4,149 100.0

"It was assumed that all individuals trapping feral swine in Flor-
ida also possessed a hunting license during 1979-80. This assumption
probably results in a conservative estimate of the number of individuals
that trapped feral swine.







Table 8.--Estimated number and value of feral swine trapped in Florida,
by method of sale or use, 1980.


Average
Animals value per Estimated
Method of sale trapped head total value


Head Percent Dollars Dollars Percent
Immediately sold at a
livestock market 505 2.0 29.09 14,690 2.1
Fed, then sold at a
livestock market 230 0.9 64.00 14,720 2.1

Immediately sold to
individuals 7,900 31.3 28.87 228,073 32.3

Fed, then sold to
individuals 3,583 14.2 22.12 79,256 11.2
Used for home
consumption 8,313 33.0 36.08 299,933 42.5

Other usea 4,685 18.6 14.82 69,432 9.8

Totals 25,216 100.0 28.00b 706,104 100.0

a"Other use" includes gifts to individuals and use as dog food.
bWeighted average.









for the two groups. The lease fee data revealed a skewed distribution

of fees, however. There were many relatively low fees, but there were

quite a few extremely large fees reported, which tended to make the

average or mean value somewhat misleading. As a result, the median

value was calculated. The median lease fee for resident hunters was

found to be $100, and for non-resident hunters only $30. When both

groups of hunters are combined, the median lease fee is $75. In the

aggregate, hog hunters spent an estimated $1.2 million on leases (Table

9).


Table 9.--Estimated lease fee expenditures by resident and non-resident
hunters.


Hunter group
Item Units Residents Non-residents All hunters

Hunters that lease
private land for
hog hunting Percent 19.0 24.5 19.5

Average lease fee Dollars 293 168 277
Median lease fee 100 30 75

Statewide totals 1,189,000 12,000 1,201,000


Taxidermists

The mail survey of Florida taxidermists indicated that about 780

head of feral hogs were mounted in 1980. About 60 percent of the taxi-

dermists mounted wild hogs. Those that did mounted approximately nine

hogs each.







Mounting fees ranged from $95 to $295, and averaged $153, thus

gross income from mounting wild hogs amounted to nearly $1,400 per

taxidermist on the average. The taxidermist survey indicated that the

mounting of wild hogs contributes about $119,000 to taxidermists' gross

incomes statewide.

The hunter survey provided a substantially larger estimate of the

number of wild hogs mounted, however. The statewide estimate derived

from hunters' responses is that 2,541 head were mounted; using the
average taxidermy fee of $153 results in an aggregate statewide taxi-

dermy income of approximately $389,000. There are several explanations

for the discrepancy in the two estimates. First of all, the time per-

iods covered by the two surveys do not coincide exactly, i.e., the 1980-
81 hunting season was defined as March 1, 1980 through February 28,

1981, and taxidermists were asked for calendar 1980 data. This is not

considered to be of major significance since both periods have a major

portion of the year in common and both cover one year.

Another reason for the differing estimates may be an incomplete
identification of the Florida taxidermy population. The 144 firms that
were identified and surveyed may be only a portion of the total number

engaged in taxidermy in Florida (twelve of the firms originally

identified could not be located). Also, some taxidermists may have been
reluctant to report confidential income data. Finally, some hunters may
have had wild hogs mounted by taxidermists in other states. The larger

estimate based upon the hunter sample is judged to be the more accurate,
primarily because of the size and nature of the sample.









Specific locations of responding taxidermists were not obtained to

assure anonymity, but the 144 deliverable questionnaires went to 86
Florida cities throughout the state. Nearly three-fourths of the taxi-
dermists responding to the survey said they disposed of wild hog carc-

asses or carcass remnants through their municipal refuse system. Eleven

percent used private disposal sites, and approximately 8 percent buried

the carcasses. About 4 percent of the hog carcasses were sold to pet

food plants, and extremely small proportions were reportedly fed to dogs
by the taxidermists or used for human consumption (Table 10).


The Hunting Club Market for Feral Hogs

Extensive interviews were conducted to identify all persons in the

state that regularly sell feral hogs to hunting clubs or game pre-

serves. Key personnel of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commis-

sion, county agricultural agents or livestock agents in all 67 counties,
and all livestock inspectors of the Florida Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services were interviewed.

Substantial numbers of hog trappers were identified through the
interviews, but it was discovered that a very few individuals in the

state were actually engaged in selling feral hogs to hunting clubs.
Those that did usually bought specimen animals from trappers all over
the state and sold to a relatively small number of hunting clubs scat-

tered over the eastern half of the United States. They did little, if

any, trapping of feral hogs themselves, but acted primarily as
dealers. Most hunting club customers were outside of Florida. The

exact numbers and locations of dealers and hunting clubs cannot be
disclosed to maintain confidentiality.








Table 10.--Methods used by Florida taxidermists for disposing of feral
swine carcasses, 1980.


Estimated number of
taxidermists using Estimated state total
Method this method number of hogs


Head Percent
Municipal dump 59 564 72.3

Private dump 14 86 11.0

Buried 11 59 7.6
Fed to dogs 7 2 0.3

Sold as pet food 5 31 4.0

Used for human consumption 2 1 0.1

Unknown 62 34 4.4

State total -..a 780b 100.0c

aNot summed because of multiple responses.

bDoes not sum to 780 due to rounding.

cDoes not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.









Hunting clubs, and consequently the dealers, are generally very

selective with respect to the type of hog bought. They prefer large
boars or barrows that are dark in color, and those that have large

tusks. For obvious reasons, hogs with domestic characteristics are
rarely used. Some hunting clubs will occasionally buy a few sows for

"camp meat," that is, for feeding hunters. Interviews with the few

major dealers indicate that only 800 head of feral hogs are sold to

hunting clubs in a typical year such as 1980. About 85 percent of the
hogs are sold to customers in the mid-south region, 10 percent go to New

England, and the remaining 5 percent to the southwest. Virtually all

animals are sold on a delivered basis. In 1980, the average delivered

price of all animals sold to out-of-state hunting clubs averaged slight-

ly over $100 per head, for an estimated total revenue of $81,000 (Table

11.)


The Commercial Agricultural Sector


Sales of feral hogs through livestock auction markets were found to

be the only significant measure of the importance of wild hogs to the

commercial agricultural sector. There are 14 auction markets which

handle hogs in Florida, located from Ocala northward and throughout the

panhandle. Managers of all 14 auction markets were interviewed by

telephone, but only eight could recall selling feral hogs in 1980. The

locations of these eight appear in Figure 3; locations and relevant data
on feral hog sales are found in Table 12. The eight auctions reported

feral hog sales of only 1,620 head in 1980 out of total hog sales of








Tablell.--Out-of-state shipments of feral swine trapped in Florida, 1980.


Region
Type of hog Number Value

Dollars

Mid-south

Boarsibarrows 650 -b
Sows 30

New England

Boars/barrows 80

Southwest

Boars/barrows 40 --

Totals 800 81,000


aEstimated numbers based on personal interviews

bIndividual states and corresponding values are
disclosure of confidential data.


of feral swine dealers.

not reported to avoid















































Figure 3.--Locations of livestock auction markets handling feral swine, 1980.









Table 12.--Livestock auction market sales of feral swine, Florida, 1980.


Livestock Sales Individuals Estimated Estimated
auction All Feral selling Probable Price per value b total
market hogs hogs feral hogs use Weight range pound per head value

------Head---- Number Percent Pounds -----------Dollars--------

Madison 150,515 70 1 S,100 70-110 0.30 27.00 1,890
Monticello 12,614 6 2-3 S,100 140 0.06-0.10 11.20 67
Ocala 52,962 500 5-6 GP,100 10-120 0.12 7.20 3,600
Quincy 18,051 25 3-4 S,100 125-200 0.10-0.20 24.30 608
Trenton 5,840 50 5-7 S, 80 150 0.22-0.32 40.50 1,620
GP, 20 40-50 0.22-0.32 12.15 122
Gainesville 67,275 500 10-12 S, 90 35-45 0.10-0.11 4.00 1,800
GP, 10 40 0.18 7.20 360
Lake City 68,745 344 Unknown S, 90 40 0.20-0.25 8.80 2,728
B, 10 80-90 0.20-0.25 18.70 636
Jacksonville 12,158 125 2-3 S,100 75-150 0.23-0.25 26.88 3,360
Live Oak 32,937 0 -- --- -- --
Graceville 24,245 0 -- -- -- --
Jay 9,603 0 -- -- -- --
Chipley 25,803 0 --- -- ---- -- --
Marianna 34,346 0 --- -- ---- -- --
Lake City
(Farmer's Coop) 8,850 0 --- -- ---- -- --

Totals 523,944 1,620 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 10.36 16,791


probable use: S=Slaugter., GP=game preserve, and B=breeding stock.

bEstimates based on mid-points of weight and price ranges, except for
average weight of 60 pounds was reported. The total is a weighted average.


the Ocala market, where an









388,160; feral hog sales amounted to less than 0.5 percent of total hog

sales in these markets and to about 0.3 percent of hog sales in all 14
auction markets.

The largest numbers were reported by managers in Ocala and Gaines-

ville, with each reporting 500 head. Lake City and Jacksonville auction
managers reported 344 and 125 head, respectively, and the remaining

markets all had less than 100 head marketed during the year (Table

12). The number of individual trappers or dealers that sold feral hogs
through the eight auctions is estimated to be between 35 and 50.

All managers reported that feral hogs usually brought lower prices

than domestic hogs. On an overall average basis, they only brought
slightly over $10 per head, even though the average weight was nearly 65

pounds. The overall weighted average price brought in 1980 was esti-

mated to be slightly over 16 cents per pound, compared to 37 cents for
domestic hogs (Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service).

The small numbers of feral hogs, coupled with low prices, resulted
in a relatively low overall value. The 1,620 head sold in the eight
markets had a value of about $16,800 (Table 12).


CONCLUSIONS


Feral hogs constitute a valuable resource to the people of
Florida. Hunters, trappers, and landowners that lease land to hog

hunters are the major beneficiaries, although taxidermists also derive

considerable income from feral hogs. The combined value accrued from
feral hog hunting and trapping was estimated to be approximately $8.3









million in 1980 (Table 13). The number of man-days spent hunting feral

hogs, over 522,000 per year, implies that many other sectors of the

economy benefit as well.

Feral hogs do not contribute significantly to the agricultural

economy. However, a few individuals and a few large ranches may realize

significant income from the sale of feral hogs. But for most, the sales

represent a sideline endeavor, or in the case of most ranches, an

attempt to reduce the numbers of feral hogs and thereby reduce the
damage they cause to grazing land. From a strictly agricultural stand-

point, the damage feral hogs cause to crops and pastureland probably

outweighs any commercial returns. However, the magnitude of the recre-

ational benefits make the feral hog an important resource in most areas

of the state.







Table 13.--A summary of the economic value of feral hogs killed and
trapped in Florida, 1980-81 hunting year


Sector, Value
item
1,000 Dollars
Recreation
Animals killed by hunters 5,995
Animals trapped 706
Lease fee expenditures 1,201
Gross income to taxidermists 389
Animals sold to hunting clubs 81
Commercial agriculture
Livestock auction market sales 17
Total 8,291b

aThe calendar year 1980 was used as the time period for determining
values of animals sold to the hunting clubs and through livestock auc-
tion markets.
bThe total does not include value of animals sold to hunting clubs
or through livestock auction markets because a substantial part of the
value of these animals has already been accounted for in the category
"animals trapped."

























APPENDIX








Appendix Table 1.--Florida resident hunting licenses issued, licenses
sampled, and survey questionnaires deliverable, 1980-81
hunting season, by region and county.


Region Licenses
county issued Sample Deliverable

-----------------Number-----------------

Northwest

Escambia 10,647 342 319
Santa Rosa 4,910 146 141
Okaloosa 7,744 333 314
Walton 2,860 108 102
Holmes 2,062 46 44
Washington 1,899 33 33
Bay 7,107 10 8
Jackson 3,906 134 124
Calhoun 1,651 19 19
Gulf 1,550 0 0
Gadsden 3,130 88 83
Liberty 1,168 29 28
Franklin 1,088 0 0
Leon 9,529 302 287
Wakulla 1,412 40 40
Jefferson 1,021 39 37

'Sub total 61,684 1,669 1,579

Northeast

Madison 1,419 58 53
Taylor 3,162 118 113
Hamilton 1,194 34 34
Suwannee 2,506 95 91
Lafayette 838 29 28
Dixie 1,562 83 82
Columbia 3,280 79 76
Gilchrist 904 34 32
Levy 3,132 73 67
Baker 1,885 9 6
Union 707 29 29
Bradford 1,554 62 60
Alachua 7,279 195 178
Nassau 2,566 91 88










Appendix Table 1.--Continued


Region Licenses
county issued Sample Deliverable

-----------------Number------------------

Northeast

Duval 14,621 612 576
Clay 3,651 129 122

Sub total 50,260 1,730 1,635

Central

Citrus 2,533 16 14
Marion 8,061 326 297
Sumter 1,719 71 68
Lake 4,798 164 153
Seminole 4,118 92 88
Orange 9,834 45 40
Osceola 2,058 63 59
Brevard 6,337 248 237
Putnam 3,943 11 10
St. Johns 2,211 69 68
Flagler 581 25 23
Volusia 5,204 25 24

Sub total 51,397 1,155 1,081

South

Hernando 1,613 61 61
Pasco 4,525 157 150
Pinellas 6,459 28 25
Hillsborough 13,600 493 469
Manatee 2,390 99 94
Sarasota 2,935 95 89
Hardee 1,397 60 57
De Soto 1,174 49 46
Highlands 2,540 78 73
Charlotte 1,402 43 41
Glades 562 17 16
Polk 13,906 16 14









Appendix Table l.--Continued


Region Licenses
county issued Sample Deliverable


----------------Number---------------


South


Lee

Sub total

Everglades


Hendry
Collier
Monroe
Okeechobee
Indian River
St. Lucie
Martin
Palm Beach
Broward
Dade


Sub total


Resident total

Non-resident total


State totals


3,773

56,276


1,485
2,989
299
1,454
1,627
1,718
1,104
8,467
6,283
11,966


37,392


257,009

3,547

260,556


158

1,354


52
122
14
46
75
73
33
335
164
178


1,092


7,000

1,000


8,000


148

1,283


49
110
14
41
68
69
33
313
156
152


1,005


6,583

938


7,521


aSource: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.










Appendix Table 2.--Non-resident hunting licenses, sample frequency and
estimated totals, by state of residence, 1980-81
season.


State Sample frequency Estimated totals


Number Number
Georgia 322 1,142
Alabama 140 497
North Carolina 51 181
Ohio 38 135
Tennessee 38 135
South Carolina 29 103
Louisiana 26 92
Texas 23 82
Pennsylvania 22 78
Michigan 21 74
Illinois 18 64
Kentucky 18 64
Mississippi 15 53
New York 15 53
California 13 46
Indiana 13 46
Connecticut 12 42
Maryland 12 42
Oklahoma 11 39
Arkansas 10 35
New Jersey 10 35
Virginia 10 35
Minnesota 7 25
West Virginia 7 25
Massachusetts 6 21
Missouri 6 21
Colorado 4 14
Wisconsin 4 14
Alaska 3 11
Arizona 3 11
Iowa 3 11
Kansas 3 11
Oregon 3 11
Wyoming 3 11
Delaware 1 4
Idaho 1 4
Montana 1 4
New Hampshire 1 4
New Mexico 1 4








Appendix Table 2.--Continued.


Statea Sample frequency Estimated totals

Number Number
Rhode Island 1 4
South Dakota 1 4
Utah 1 4
Washington 1 4
Unknown 72b 255

Total 1,000 3,547c


aThe non-resident hunting license sample did not include hunters
from Hawaii, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, or Vermont.
bThese hunters were temporary residents of Florida, but their
permanent residence was not ascertained.

CDoes not add to official total of 3,547 due to rounding. The official
total was obtained from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.









Response Bias Estimation Procedure


Preliminary analyses of responses to the hunter survey raised

suspicions of substantial response bias. Questionnaires returned indi-

cated that an unusually large proportion of those responding to the

questionnaire were hog hunters, compared with a study based upon essen-

tially the same hunter universe and a similar sampling methodology

(Butler).

Several multiple regression techniques, ordinary least squares
(OLS) and the LOGIST procedure, were used to estimate the effects of

selected variables on hunter response (Harrell). Parameter estimates

obtained with the two techniques were very similar, so the simpler OLS

method is reported here. The dependent variable RESPOND was a binary

variable (zero or one) which indicated whether or not a hunter

responded.

Independent variables used are defined in Appendix Table 3. They

include GRABBER and CLASS, two variables introduced as the result of a

mailing experiment superimposed on the feral swine study. These vari-

ables indicate whether or not an attention grabber was used (the words

"Important Hunter Survey" printed in red ink on the envelope) or whether

or not the questionnaire was mailed to the recipient via first class
mail. Age and race of all hunters receiving questionnaires (AGE and

RACE) were obtained from hunting license receipts.

The key variable in the model is HUNTER, which represents the
probability that the respondent is a hog hunter. This variable was

assigned the value of one if a respondent was a hog hunter, or zero if a







respondent was not. In the case of non-respondents, HUNTER was assigned

a value of 0.1483, the proportion of hog hunters in the responses

obtained in the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC) study

cited above. This proportion was judged to be less biased because the

GFC study requested information on 12 wildlife species in addition to

feral hogs, rather than focusing on feral swine as in the present

study. In view of the total lack of information concerning the types of

game hunted by non-respondents, it was felt that the best approach would

be to assign the non-respondent a probability which reflected the parti-

cipation by all hunters in general. The variable RESIDENT was used only

in a model analyzing all respondents as one group; it indicated whether

or not a hunter was a Florida resident. Models were run for resident

hunters, non-resident hunters, and for all hunters as one group. Esti-

mated parameters of the models and relevant t statistics appear in

Appendix Table 4. Most parameters had the anticipated signs and most

were statistically significant. The class of postage (CLASS) was the

only variable which apparently had no significant effect upon question-

naire response.

The basic objective and net effect of the models was to estimate

the probability of a questionnaire response for the hog hunter popula-

tion. This estimate was then used to calculate the expected total

number of hog hunters in the returned questionnaires. The ratio of the

expected number of hog hunters to the total number of returned question-

naires was the ratio used to project hog hunter responses to the hunter
universe.











Appendix Table 3.--Variables used to estimate response bias of hog hunters.


Variable
name Description Values or value ranges


Indicates whether or not questionnaire
recipient responded

An attention grabber, "Important Hunter
Survey" was printed on half the sample

First class postage was used on half the
sample, third class on the other half

Age of hunter


Race of hunter


1 if recipient responded,
0 otherwise

1 if attention grabber appeared,
0 otherwise

1 if first class postage used,
0 otherwise

Continuous,
7 through 96 years


1 if white,
0 otherwise


Probability of respondent being a hog
hunter


Florida residents and non-resident hunters
were sampled


1 if respondent was a hog hunter;
0 if respondent was not a hog hunter
0.1483 if questionnaire recipient did
not respond.

1 if Florida resident,
0 otherwise


RESPOND

GRABBER


CLASS


RACE


HUNTER


RESIDENT


- --










OLS models used to estimate response bias of hog hunters.


Resident hunters model Non-resident hunter model All hunter model
Variable Coefficient Mean Coefficienta Mean Coefficient Mean

Intercept -0.0067 --- -0.2407 ---
GRABBER 0.0293 0.4698 0.0181 0.4968 0.0264 0.4983
(2.6456)**b (0.5600) (2.5092)*C
CLASS 0.0081 0.5021 -0.0076 0.5128 0.0074 0.5034
(0.7305) (-0.2365) (0.7044)
AGE 0.0029 34.5867 0.0052 41.6799 0.0033 35.4712
(6.9342)** (4.7927)** (8.2392)**
RACE 0.1254 0.9590 0.4871 0.9861 0.1462 0.9624
(4.4720)** (3.5351)** (5.2616)**
HUNTER 0.5445 0.2316 0.1825 0.1807 0.5051 0.2254
(30.5115)** (3.2490)** (29.5077)**
RESIDENT --- --- --- --- -0.1322 0.8754
(-8.1586)**

aFigures in parentheses are t statistics.
b**significant at the 1% level.

significant at the 5% level.


Appendix Table 4.--Estimated parameters of










Appendix Table 5.--Proportions of hog hunters in returned sample and
estimated proportions of hog hunters in the Florida
hunter universal.


Hunter group


Hog hunters
In sample In universe


------- Percent --------

Residents 37.93 17.50

Non-residents 21.38 16.42

All hunters 35.24 17.26


percentages were estimated using
procedure described further on pages


the response bias estimation
35 and 36 of the Appendix.








Appendix Table 6.--Estimated numbers of
Florida, by state of


State


Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Floridaa
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
North Carolina
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Totals


non-resident hog hunters in
residence, 1980-81 season.


Non-resident hunters


Number Percent


13.1
2.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
17.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
4.1
3.1
2.0
13.1
1.0
4.1
1.0
1.0
2.0
7.0
4.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0


582b


100.0b


aSome non-resident hunters reported Florida addresses.

bDoes not sum to 582 nor to 100.0 due to rounding.










Appendix Table 7.--Age distributions


Agea Respondents Nonrespondents Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Under 18 years 131 4.7 238 5.1 369 4.9

18 24 495 17.6 1,074 23.1 1,569 21.0

25 34 763 27.1 1,316 28.3 2,079 27.8

35 49 820 29.2 1,277 27.4 2,097 28.1

50 64 522 18.6 678 14.6 1,200 16.1

65 and over 82 2.9 70 1.5 152 2.0

Total 2,813 100.0 4,653 100.0 7,466 100.0b


aOverall X2= 140.85, p < .01.
Does not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.


of respondents and nonrespondents.








Appendix Table 8.--Age distributions of hog hunters and other hunters.


Agea Hog hunters Other hunters Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Under 18 years 66 6.6 91 5.0 157 5.5

18 to 24 196 19.6 297 16.2 493 17.4

25 to 34 288 28.9 474 25.8 762 26.9

35 to 49 302 30.3 516 28.1 818 28.9

50 to 64 129 12.9 391 21.3 520 18.4

65 and above 17 1.7 65 3.5 82 2.9

Total 998 100.0 1,834 100.0a 2,832 100.0


aOverall x2 43.14, p <


.01.


Appendix Table 9.--Racial distribution of respondents and nonrespondents.


Racea Respondents Nonrespondents Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

White 2,770 98.0 4,448 95.2 7,218 96.2

Black 56 2.0 226 4.8 282 3.8


Total 2,826 100.0 4,674 100.0 7,500 100.0


aOverall x2 = 39.63, p < .01.










Appendix TablelO.--Racial distribution of hog hunters and other hunters.


Racea Hog hunters Other hunters Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

White 987 99.4 1,775 97.3 2,762 98.0
Black 6 0.6 50 2.7 56 2.0

Total 993 100.0 1,825 100.0 2,818 100.0


aOverall X2 = 15.06, p < .01.








Appendix Table ll.--Sex of respondents and nonrespondents.


Sexa Respondents Nonrespondents Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Male 2,715 95.73 4,465 95.30 7,180 100.00
Female 121 4.27 220 4.70 341 100.00

Total 2,836 100.00 4,465 100.00 7,521 100.00

aOverall x2 = 0.752. p > .30.








Appendix Table 12.--Sex of hog hunters and other hunters.


Sexa Hog hunters Other hunters Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Male 952 95.6 1,755 95.8 2,707 95.7
Female 44 4.4 77 4.2 121 4.3

Total 996 100.0 1,832 100.0 2,828 100.0


aOverall X2 .073, p > .05.




Appendix Table.13.--Household size of hog hunters and other hunters.


Number of people
in households Hog hunters Other hunters Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

One 68 6.9 126 7.2 194 7.0

Two 219 22.1 487 27.6 706 25.7

Three 237 24.0 398 22.6 635 23.1
Four 277 28.0 412 23.4 689 25.0

Five 128 12.9 210 11.9 338 12.3

Six or more 60 6.1 129 7.3 189 6.9

Total 989 100.0 1,762 100.0 2,751 100.0


overall X2 = 15.44, p < .01









Appendix Tablel4.--Ihcome distribution of hog hunters and other hunters.


Incomea Hog hunters Other hunters Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Under $8,000 68 7.1 127 7.6 195 7.4
$8,000 to $9,999 59 6.1 94 5.6 153 5.8
$10,000 to $14,999 174 18.1 277 16.6 451 17.2
$15,000 to $24,999 331 34.4 500 30.0 831 31.7
$25,000 and over 331 34.4 668 40.1 999 38.0

Total 963 100.0b 1,666 100.0a 2,629 100.0


aOverall x2 = 10.18, p < .05.
Does not sum due to rounding.


Appendix Table 15.--Education levels of hog hunters and other hunters.


Years of
educationa Hog hunters Other hunters Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Under 12 164 16.4 360 19.6 524 18.5
12 351 35.2 579 31.6 930 32.8
13 to 15 266 26.7 415 22.6 681 24.0
16 or more 217 21.7 480 26.2 697 24.6

Total 998 100.0 1,834 100.0 2,832 100.0b


aOverall X2 15.63, p < .01
bDoes not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.








Appendix Table 16.--Estimated number of hog hunting trips, days hunted,
hogs wounded or killed in Florida, by residents, by
type of hunting area 1980-81 season.


Area Trips Days Wounded Killed

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Wildlife
management
area 175,243 45.5 272,517 52.4 2,958 28.5 17,499 17.2

Private land 195,701 50.8 231,301 44.5 7,070 68.1 81,128 79.6

Unknown 13,939 3.6 16,095 3.1 351 3.4 3,259 3.2

Total 384,883 100.Oa 519,913 100.0 10,379 100.0 102,188 100.0


aDoes not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.














Appendix Table 17.--Estimated numbers of hog hunting trips, days hunted, hogs wounded or
killed in Florida by non-residents, by type of hunting area, 1979-80
season.


Area Trips Days Wounded Killed

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Wildlife
management
area 777 48.6 1,318 51.9 12 10.2 106 18.2

Private land 788 49.3 1,106 43.6 106 89.8 458 78.7

Unknown 35 2.2 112 4.4 0_0 0 18 3.1

Total 1,600 100.0a 2,536 100.0a 118 100.0 582 100.0

Does not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.








Appendix Tablel8.--Estimated number of hog hunting trips, days hunted,
hogs wounded or killed, by.resident hog hunters, by
county or wildlife management area, 1980-81 season.


County or wildlife Hogs Hogs
management area Hunting trips wounded killed


Number Man days -------Head--------

County

Alachua 1,504 1,655 0 251
Baker 3,259 4,763 0 100
Bradford 251 351 0 0
Brevard 10,379 15,143 3,109 2,407
Broward 401 201 0 100
Calhoun 752 953 0 0
Charlotte 1,304 1,153 50 351
Citrus 2,306 2,958 0 852
Clay 6,117 6,268 100 1,254
Collier 5,917 11,382 100 2,908
Columbia 752 1,003 0 351
Dade 702 903 0 0
De Soto 1,855 5,566 0 3,660
Dixie 3,961 5,415 0 1,053
Duval 7,722 8.173 50 1,153
Escambia 2,657 3,109 401 451
Flagler 2,206 2,306 0 451
Franklin 602 953 0 201
Gadsden 3,510 5,265 50 501
Gilchrist 1,053 1,103 0 552
Glades 3,209 4,513 0 1,203
Hamilton 2,407 2,407 0 50
Hardee 4,061 4,011 0 2,306
Hendry 15,393 20,407 301 8,574
Hernando 1,655 2,657 251 351
Highlands 3,059 3,811 50 1,103
Hillsborough 2,256 2,256 150 251
Holmes 301 251 0 100
Indian River 1,404 1,805 0 401
Jackson 301 451 0 100
Jefferson 301 852 0 0
Lafayette 1,655 2,758 0 251
Lake 2,306 2,456 100 802
Lee 3,710 5,415 251 2,357
Leor 4,964 5,917 150 852
Levy 14,792 29,032 451 2,958
Liberty 1,655 3,811 0 552










Appendix Tablel8.--Continued.


County or wildlife Hogs Hogs
management area Hunting trips wounded killed


Number Man days


-------Head------


County


Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Polk
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton


501
3,410
5,716
4,212
351
4,663
1,254
3,761
50
2,557
8,173
4,964
5,415
1,254
5,867
26,073
802
6,769
1,554
3,109
903
7,772
802
3,761
2,858
852


1,003
4,011
5,766
4,212
501
9,778
1,254
5,064
100
3,861
16,647
5,516
10,479
1,956
6,368
1,404
802
4,061
2,056
3,008
953
12,836
802
3,008
2,908
1,153


0
0
50
50
0
150
0
150
0
251
50
451
150
50
100
0
0
150
0
150
0
451
0
0
0
0


Wildlife management area


St. Regis
Blackwater
Eglin
Apalachee
Robert Brent
Talquin
Apalachicola
Aucilla
Tide Swamp


251
301
5,967
501
3,410
100
4,713
5,165
852


251
301
6,167
501
4,362
100
8,775
12,134
3,961


0
0
100
0
0
0
301
100
0


150
3,059
2,156
3,811
0
752
50
5,265
0
1,203
903
2,256
1,103
100
1,304
5,014
0
11,833
852
752
802
1,956
401
251
401
201


0
0
150
0
401
0
1,203
1,304
201








Tablel8.--Continued.


County of wildlife Hogs Hogs
management area Hunting trips wounded killed


Number Man days --- Head--------
Wildlife management area

Steinhatchee 5,014 10,981 301 2,006
Gulf Hammock 5,716 12,234 50 1,254
Ft. McCoy 301 401 0 0
Citrus 150 201 0 0
Croom 201 351 0 0
Richloam 6,468 7,170 100 50
Green Swamp 4,312 5,415 100 100
Hillsborough 501 552 100 0
Cypress Creek 552 1,053 0 0
Osceola National Forest 20,758 27,477 50 2,006
Lake Butler 2,908 2,908 0 50
Nassau 5,415 5,516 150 351
Camp Blanding 12,435 13,488 0 251
Guana River 4,061 4,563 100 401
Georgia Pacific 1,504 1,504 0 0
Lochloosa 2,708 3,861 150 401
Ocala 9,627 15,544 0 251
Tomoka 100 150 0 0
Farmton 4,011 4,713 0 401
Bull Creek 2,256 2,708 100 251
Three Lakes 2,006 3,460 0 251
Avon Park 7,371 12,234 50 351
J.W. Corbett 11,232 19,054 251 953
Holey Land 201 201 0 50
Brown's Farm 2,156 2,607 0 0
Everglades 501 1,103 0 50
Cecil Webb 652 702 0 0
Lykes Brothers 4,713 9,727 0 903
Rotenberger 401 401 0 150
Big Cypress 5,415 11,282 50 752
St. Marks 501 1,003 0 150
St. Vincents 150 401 0 0

Unknown 11,282 19,455 559 4,164

State totals 384,881 519,913 10,379 102,188

aCounties and wildlife management areas not listed had no hunting
activity for wild hogs reported by respondents.










Appendix Tablel9.--Estimated number of hog hunting trips, days hunted,
hogs wounded or killed, by non-resident hunters, by
Florida county or wildlife management area, 1980-81
season.


County or wildlife Hogs Hogs
management area Hunting trips wounded killed

Number Man days -------Head-----

County

Alachua 41 24 0 0
Bradford 6 12 0 0
Brevard 88 106 0 12
Broward 118 118 18 12
Collier 35 65 0 29
De Soto 35 118 71 200
Flagler 41 41 0 0
Franklin 12 12 0 0
Gadsden 35 35 0 0
Hardee 12 12 0 6
Hernando 29 29 0 0
Highlands 6 24 0 0
Holmes 12 12 0 0
Indian River 29 106 0 18
Leon 41 82 0 0
Levy 47 76 0 6
Liberty 41 29 0 29
Manatee 35 35 0 18
Okeechobee 29 47 0 76
Palm Beach 6 6 0 0
Pasco 29 35 0 12
St. Johns 18 18 0 18
Sarasota 18 29 0 12
Taylor 147 247 18 47
Wakulla 29 29 6 0

Wildlife management area

La Floresta Perdida 12 12 0 0
Apalachee 12 12 0 6
Apalachicola 41 112 0 0
Aucilla 88 82 0 6
Tide Swamp 12 65 0 12
Gulf Hammock 35 65 0 0
Green Swamp 124 124 0 0
Osceola 71 124 0 0
Camp Blanding 6 53 0 0
Guana River 6 18 0 0
Lochloosa 6 6 0 0








Appendix Tablel9.--Continued.


County or wildlife Hogs Hogs
management area Hunting trips wounded killed

Number Man days ------ Head-------
Wildlife management area

Bull Creek 6 18 0 0
Three Lakes 18 18 0 0
Avon Park 6 6 0 0
Browns Farm 6 24 0 0
Everglades 6 6 0 0
Lykes Brothers 24 88 0 0
Big Cypress 6 29 0 0
St. Marks 35 71 0 18
St. Vincents 65 165 6 0

Unknown 76 94 0 41

State totals 1,600 2,539 118 582



aCounties and wildlife management areas not listed had no hunting
activity for wild hogs reported by respondents.
bThe estimated total numbers of hogs wounded and killed do not sum
to 118 and 582 respectively because of rounding.









Appendix Table 20.--Estimated number, liveweight, and value of feral
swine killed in Florida, and number wounded, by
region of hunter residence, 1980-81 season.


Region of hunter Average value Total
residence Killed Liveweight per head value Wounded

Number Pounds ----------Dollars---- Number
Northwest 4,279 620,027 68.64 293,711 1,048
Northeast 12,736 1,684,973 52.39 667,239 1,204
Central 12,532 1,644,198 57.27 717,708 3,705

South 40,347 5,224,937 54.79 2,210,612 2,958

Everglades 31,993 4,143,094 63.98 2,046,912 1,463
Unknown 301 39,250 58.26b 17,536 0

State total 102,188 13,356,479 58.26b 5,953,718 10,378


a0nly state residents are included here,
regions.
Weighted average.value.


see Figure 2 for definition of








Appendix Table 21.--Geographic distribution of pork gifts by resident
feral hog hunters, 1980.


Residence of Overall Estimates
recipients Donors Gifts

Number Number Pounds

Florida 14,390 16,045 1,689,655

Georgia 100 150 2,758

Illinois 50 50 2,507

Massachusetts 50 50 --a

Michigan 50 50 3,610

North Carolina 50 50 1,003

Vermont 50 50 501

Unknown 301 301 42,419

Total 15,042 16,746 1,742,453

weights not reported by respondents.









Appendix f-able 22.--Estimated number, liveweight and value of feral swine
killed in Florida, and number of swine wounded, by
non-residents, by state of residence, 1980-81 season.



Hunter residence Killed Valuea Liveweightb Wounded

Number Dollars Pounds Number
Alabama 18 1,279 1,925 6
Georgia 53 3,765 5,667 0
Illinois 18 1,279 1,925 0
Kansas 59 4,191 6,308 0
Kentucky 12 852 1,283 0
Louisiana 6 426 642 0
Michigan 6 426 642 6
Minnesota 24 1,705 2,566 0
Mississippi 0 0 0 6
North Carolina 288 20,460 30,793 71
Oregon 12 852 1,283 18
South Carolina 24 1,705 2,566 0
Tennessee 6 426 642 12
Virginia 18 1,279 1,925 0
Wisconsin 24 1,705 2,566 0
West Virginia 18 1,279 1,925 0

Non-resident total 582 41,345 62,390 118


aAn average value
upon 16 reponses.


of $ 1.04 per hog or 66 cents per pound is based


bThe average estimated liveweight, reported by 28 respondents, was
106.9 pounds.
CThe elements of each column do not sum to the reported totals
because of rounding.








Appendix Table 23.--Geographic distribution of pork gifts by non-
resident Florida feral hog hunters, 1980.


Residence of Overall Estimates
recipients Donors Gifts

Number Number Pounds

Florida 29 29 9,064

Georgia 12 12 353

Michigan 6 12 235

Minnesota 12 29 353

North Carolina 29 29 3,042

South Carolina 6 6 59

Virginia 6 6 29

West Virginia 6 6 147

Wisconsin 6 18 230


147 13,421


Total




57

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES


QAINEVILLS.. PLORIDA l3211


t *----------'"'-

POOD AND IESOUIRCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
LORIDA AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH CENTER
1t03 MC CARTY HALL
TELEPHONSIt 904/9*2-444


COI.-.KL OC A


ONICUNITURE ACRICULTUAL. XPERIMENT STATIONS COOPERATIVE EXTI
SCHOOL Or PonRETr IEOUnRCe AND coNMSEIATsON CeNTIR Pon TROPICAL. AOI^CUL TUM


NIION SERVICE


The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences is an Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer authorized to provide research,
educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin.


Dear Sportsman:

Would you take a few minutes to tell us about your hunting experiences
in Florida? We are conducting a brief survey of individuals who obtained
Florida hunting licenses for the 1980-81 season. Our purpose is to learn
More about the recreational and economic value of wild hogs to hunters such
as you. However, even if you did not hunt wild hogs in the past year, your
answers to other questions and opinions are still very important to the survey.
Findings from this study will be used to improve hunting throughout the state.

Please do not sign the questionnaire so that your answers will remain
strictly confidential.

Only three out of every 100 hunters in Florida will receive this letter, so
your answers are particularly important to us. Please take a moment to com-
plete the questionnaire and return it in the business reply envelope enclosed.
It requires no postage. Your cooperation and promptness are genuinely
appreciated.

f Sincerely,



Robert L. Degner
Research Economist


--





HUNTER SURVEY

NOTE: In most Florida counties wild hogs may be hunted all year on private property and during a limited season in
wildlife management areas.

1. Did you hunt wild hogs at any time between March 1, 1980 and February 28, 1981?
(Check) Yes (Continue) No (Skip to question 8)

S 2. In which of the followinjtypes of areas did you hunt wild hogs in Florida?
"' Wildlife managementarea(s) ONLY .
I Private land ONLY
I-I Wildlife management areas) AND private land

3. List each area where you hunted (NOT TRAPPED) wild hogs. First circle the type of area, W = wildlife manage-
ment areas, P = private land. Then list the name(s) of the wildlife management areas, or if you hunted on private
land, ifstthe county. Also enter the number of trips, days hunted, etc.; (f more space is needed, write between
lines or put on plain paper.)
Type Name of area Distance
of or No. trips No. days from home No. hogs No. hogs
area county made hunted (miles) wounded killed

WP ___

i WP

WP

WP

WP

4. If you did NOT kill a hog, check here andskip to question .

5. What did you with the wild hog(s) killed? (If more-pace is~neded, write between lines or put-onplain paper.)

Estimated
live Human Had Did not use Other Estimated value
Hog(s) taken weight consumption mounted at all specify to you in $

Check answer



#2



#4 _____ _____np

#5 ______ g _____________

Please go to next page -




59


6. If some of the meat from wild hogs was used for home consumption, how much, if any, was given to friends or
relatives?
Friend's or relative's location
Amount given away (pounds) City State












7. If the wild hog(s) killed were used for human consumption, who cut and wrapped or processed the meat? List the
number of hogs and costs of cutting, wrapping, processing etc.

Who cut, wrapped, processed? Number of hogs Total cost for cutting, etc.

SYourself or friend

[I Commercial processor

8 Did you trap any wild hogs on private land during the period March 1, 1980 through February 28,1981

Sj4oYes' No (Skip to question 10)

If yes, what did you do with them? (Check all that apply and list number of hogs and estimated total value when
trapped).

Use Number of hogs Total value

| | Immediately sold at livestock auction -

j J Fed out and sold at livestock auction

| Immediately sold to individuals

J Fed out and sold to individuals

[ ] Butchered for home use
[J I- Other (List)





Please go to next page -
P Please go to next page .





9. For each of the following, about how much did you spend on wild hog hunting for the 12 months from March 1,'
1980 February 28, 1981? (If other species were hunted at the same time, estimate the proportion spent for
hog).


$ Food

$ Transportation

$ Hunting gear

$ Lodging

10. a. Number of persons in your household (check)


-J2

E-3 C

b. Education (circle highest grade finished)

Elementary (grade school)1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Junior high 7 8 9
High school 10 11 12
College 13 14 15 16
Graduate school | 17 18 19 20 21

c. Household income (from all sources, after taxes)

C:: Under $8,000

SI I $8,000- 9,999

SI $10,000 14,999

I $15,000 24,999

J $2 25,000 and over

11. In your opinion, what would improve wild hog hunting in Florida?


$ Taxidermy

$ Lease fees

$ Licenses, stamps

$ Other (list)


j4

or more
6 or more


Please return immediately in enclosed return envelope No postage is required

Thank you







UNIVERSITY OF FL.ORIDA

S INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES


GAINSVI.LL.. PL.ORIDA 32.11

FOOD AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH CENTER
1063 MC CARTY HALL
TELEPHONE: 904/392-1846
April 13, 1981






Dear Taxidermist:

Florida wildlife is probably very important to you. We are trying to
document the economic and recreational importance of wild hogs in Florida.
Results from this study will be used to improve wild hog hunting over the next
few years.

We must determine 1) what proportion of Florida taxidermists mount wild
hogs and 2) the total taxidermy revenue generated by wild hogs in the state.

PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS THAT APPLY TO YOU EVEN IF
YOU DID NOT MOUNT ANY WILD HOGS IN THE 1980-81 HUNTING
SEASON.

Please do not sign the questionnaire. YOUR ANSWERS ARE STRICTLY
CONFIDENTIAL. They will be used to compute industry averages only.


The questionnaire should
now, and return in the end
necessary. Thank you for your


take about five minutes to complete. Please do it
osed business reply envelope. No postage is
help.


Sincerely,



Robert L. Degner
Research Economist


RLD:pb

Enclosure


COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE


AGRICULTURAL. EXPERIMENT STATIONS


COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE


SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION


CENTER FOR TOPICAL A&RICUL.TURE


The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences is an Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer authorized to provide research,
educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin.






TAXIDERMIST QUESTIONNAIRE

Please complete the questions that apply to you EVEN IF YOU DID NOT MOUNT ANY
WILD HOGS IN THE 1980-81 HUNTING SEASON.
1. Which of the following wildlife species did you mount during the 1980-81
season (March 1, 1980 February 28, 1981)?

Check if Please estimate
Species mounted Percent of business (sales)

Wild hogs
Deer .
Other large mammals 0
Small mammals D
Fowl 0 -
Fish o

100 %
IF YOU DID NOT MOUNT WILD HOGS, PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 6. IF YOU DID MOUNT
ONE OR MORE WILD HOGS, PLEASE CONTINUE.
2. How many wild hogs did you mount in the 1980-81 hunting season (March 1, 1980
through February 28, 1981)? head
3. On the average, what was your fee for mounting a wild hog? $
4. How did you dispose of the carcasses or carcass remnants?
Method of disposal Specify percentage
Sent or carried to municipal dump %
Sent or carried to private dump %
Sent to commercial rendering or pet food plant %
Other (Specify) ____ %

Total 100 %
5. What has been the general trend in the total number of wild hogs mounted
by you since 1975?
0 Do not know not in business in 1975
O Unchanged
D. Increased by % (enter percent)
O- Decreased by % (enter percent)
E Do not know
6. Which of the following categories describes your total taxidermy income?
CONFIDENTIAL
C Less than $1,000 0 $ 5,001 $10,000
O $1,001 $2,500 0 $10,001 $25,000
D $2,501 $5,000 0 Over $25,000










Florida Agricultural Market Firm________
Research Center
Food & Resource Economics Dept. Telephone
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32601 Mailing address_


Person
Title_

Date

Livestock Auction Market
Questionnaire

Purpose: To determine the commercial value of feral (wild) hogs to Florida's
agricultural economy.

Feral swine: Those that exhibit physical characteristics which tend to identify
them as being related to the "PWR" type; hogs that were probably
not bred and reared in confinement, but rather trapped in the wild.
1. How many feral (wild) hogs, if any, would you estimate were sold through your
auction last year? (No.) or (%)
2. What is your best estimate of the number of different individuals that sold
feral swine through your auction in 1980? (No.)

3. What proportion of the feral swine would you estimate were sold for A....D?
What was the average weight .... price .... value (for all types)?
Percent Avg. Wt. Avg. Price Avg. value/hd.

A. Feeder pigs
B. Slaughter
C. Breeding stock

D. Game preserve stock

TOTAL 100

4. Have the numbers or the proportion of wild hogs sold through your auction
changed over the past five years? Yes No
If yes, how have the numbers (per year) changed? Head
(or) What percentage change have you noticed in the numbers of wild hogs
sold through your auction? %__








REFERENCES

Butler, Robert B. "Wildlife Harvest and Economic Survey: Study I,
Wildlife Resource Utilization." Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission. (Mimeograph) Tallahassee, Florida. September, 1980.

Feedstuffs. "USDA Declares Animal Health Emergency Because of African
Swine Fever in Haiti." Vol. 53, No. 4, January 26, 1981.

Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Florida Agricultural
Statistics: Livestock Summary, 1980. Florida Department of Agri-
culture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, Florida. June, 1981.
Harrell, Frank. "The LOGIST Procedure," SAS Supplemental Library
User's Guide, 1980 Edition. Patti S. Reinhardt, Ed. SAS Insti-
tute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina. 1980.

Hess, W.R.. "African Swine Fever a Reassessment." Advances in Veter-
inary Science and Comparative Medicine, Vol. 25, 1981, pp. 39-69.

Independent Farmer and Rancher. "USDA Declares Emergency Because of
Haiti Swine Fever." January 29, 1981, page 6.

"Exotic Ag Threats to be Featured at Seminar."
January 15, 1981, page 6.


Mann, Don. "Hog Wild Over Wild Hogs."
1, January, 1981, pp. 28-34.


Florida Sportsman, Vol. 12, No.


McVicar, John W., et al. "Induced African Swine Fever in Feral Pigs."
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol. 179,
No. 5, September, 1981, pp. 441-446.


Selbrechts, Mary T. "The Brigade Took the Pigs."
February 15, 1981, pp. 32-34.


National Hog Farmer,


Slaugenhaupt, Bruce.
Researcher Says."


"Much-Maligned
Gainesville Sun,


Wild Hog Valuable Resource
January 25, 1981, page 16E.


Wilkinson, P.J. "African Swine Fever." Virus Diseases of Food Animals,
Vol. II, Disease Monographs, E.P.J. Gibbs, Ed. London: Academic
Press, 1981, Chapter 32, pp. 767-786.









WO.
WA5H.




wvaQ



SWIS.








CAUE
~~Al. I


ARIZ.


IIIAS~




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs