Warfarin approved to help control wild hogs.....your thoughts?

[alsaqr]

After doing some research on this stuff, i don't like it at all. Australia banned the use of Warfarin as a hog killer because they considered it inhumane. IMO: Any poison that causes an animal to bleed for up to a week before dying is inhumane.

"Tyler Campbell, a former researcher with the U.S. Agriculture Department, led the agency’s feral-hog studies in Kingsville, Tex., for several years, when warfarin was first tested on pigs in the United States.

“It was fast-tracked,” he said.

The test results weren’t pretty, he said. Marketed as Kaput Feral Hog Bait, the product is comparable to rat poison — with similar effects.

“They bleed,” Campbell said. Internally and externally, usually for a week or more before they die."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-new-weapon-in-its-war-on-feral-pigs-its-not-

 

[der Teufel]

The reason I ask, is the A&M group promoting this aren't exactly corporate hacks shilling for 'big warfarin' (I find the suggestion this is some big payout scam rather humorous) but a respected academic group with countless useful findings for society & industry. IIRC, they were a major force behind the 'green revolution' that has allowed us to all become fat amid unending plentiful harvests the world over (though yes, there are some people who see this golden age as a bad thing).

It doesn't sound like Texas A&M Agrilife is exactly "promoting" warfarin. Rather, it seems they're still sorting things out themselves …

East Texas News asked Nacogdoches County AgriLife Agent Ricky Thompson for input. He said agents were told by their supervisors not to speak on the controversial issue until after a consistent statement from Texas A&M Agrilife is formatted.

http://www.ktre.com/story/34562742/...-poison-its-going-to-get-everything-dogs-deer

 

[Flintknapper]

Temporary Injunction....preventing further movement on this.

https://www.change.org/p/texas-hog-...E1K7MSb4kNiXAlolKKQ9cmY3v3VkY/2PdflJslNEds3bU

Texas Hog Hunters Association

"Mar 3, 2017 — Texas Hog Hunters Association and Wild Boar meat company successfully had an injunction placed against Sid Miller which invalidates his emergency rule for the use of a warfarin based poison to be used against Feral Hogs.

We stand firm on our no poison position and look forward to working with lawmakers in stopping this permanently.

This injunction gives us all until March 30, so we still need to be diligent in our efforts and continue to press Austin and our representatives.

We will have to take this fight to Austin so your help is greatly needed.

Thanks to everyone and please keep sharing and pushing back."

 

[alsaqr]

Good on Texas Hog Hunters.

 

[Glock Doctor]

Good for the big pharmas; bad for all wild life and, ultimately, for people too.

(Besides, after a while, the hogs will learn to avoid eating the stuff; and only an idiot would hunt any of them for food.)

 

[MCgunner]

Good for the big pharmas; bad for all wild life and, ultimately, for people too.

(Besides, after a while, the hogs will learn to avoid eating the stuff; and only an idiot would hunt any of them for food.)

Well, I guess you just called me an idiot. I've butchered and ate dozens and dozens of 'em over the last 25 years. I don't find them any different than store bought except they're leaner which you would think is healthy. All you need do to eliminate brucellosis is COOK the danged things. Heck, that goes for store bought, too.

 

[Glock Doctor]

Well, I guess you just called me an idiot. I've butchered and ate dozens and dozens of 'em over the last 25 years. I don't find them any different than store bought except they're leaner which you would think is healthy. All you need do to eliminate brucellosis is COOK the danged things. Heck, that goes for store bought, too.

No, I did not call and I am not calling you an idiot; however, you did entirely MISS THE POINT; and, in the future, it might be nice if you were to stop for a moment and actually read the post BEFORE jumping in to make your reply. Because, otherwise, someone might, indeed, begin to think that you've somehow damaged your ability-to-reason and are, in fact, an .......

 

[jmorris]

But, I only own 13 acres and don't care if the hogs root it up. I have a disc I canstraighten it back out with.

Some folks have to have hay to feed our cows during the winter. So running a disk and harrow over a hay meadow every time hogs make it impossible to bail wouldn't work, even if we didn't mind the hours and hours of work or hundreds of dollars in fuel costs.

Is an interesting thought though, how many opposed are land owners that use the land for agriculture? If you are not one your opinion might not hold much weight to those that are.?

I also understand the arguments against too. Kind of like a firefighter not being concerned about water damage.

 

[Art Eatman]

MCgunner, I took it to mean that eating hog meat from hogs in an area where warfarin is used is not smart.

Having had several acres of coastal Bermuda hayfield heavily rooted by hogs, I can relate to jmorris' comment. When it comes to $$$ losses to farmers and ranchers, the milk of human kindness gets seriously curdled.

 

[jmorris]

This is a small example of what they do when they come around. You avoid the area even on a 4 wheeler and you can forget about cutting and bailing.




When you disk and harrow you make huge balls of roots that then must be messed with to remove the dirt content, then wait until it's dry enough to rake I to rows and bailed to throw in washouts or burned. Now you get to finish smoothing and reseed.

 

[MCgunner]

I know what hogs do, it's all around me. I just don't think it's worth poisoning a food source.

 

[Art Eatman]

MCgunner, one hog or two is food. 20 to 50 hogs is beaucoup lost money.

Remember the 1998 floods on the Guadeloupe? My cousin, on the Victoria highway south of Cuero, trapped 34 hogs that the flood pushed out of the river bottom land. The trap was just outside the yard of his house.

 

[MCgunner]

20 or 50 is a guaranteed food source. I'm with the Texas Hog Hunters on this, of course. I do hope that Iowa never sees the number of pigs we have around here, though. They can do damage to a corn crop. But, then, see, that's why you need to allow hog hunters access to the hog hunting if you're a farmer.

I went out pig sticking with a guy 25 years or so ago when I could still run to catch up with the dogs. He had permission to run his dogs near Collegeport, Texas, in rice fields. He kept the hog population pretty well controlled, just him and his dogs. The guy was eccentric, had a pet male lion chained in his back yard in Palacios, He was a friend of a guy I worked with at the plant. He fed his lion the hogs. The lion stayed well fed. The state passed laws against keeping dangerous pets like that. Don't think he has it anymore. Not sure what he does with all those hogs. But, he didn't use firearms, didn't want 'em near his dogs. He would stick the hog in the neck with a fillet knife, bleed it out. It was a bit of a blood sport and quite physical. I couldn't do it any more.

The guy that owns the property behind me has hog dogs. Dogs do a pretty good job of clearing out the pigs if you run 'em all the time on a property.

I know everyone says no hunting can control hogs, but I say hogwash! I think land owners just don't want anyone on their property, would rather poison the environment than allow someone to run their dogs on their property. I mean, I'm all for property rights, just if you have a problem, you might wanna loosen up a bit and allow some hunters to take out that problem, however temporary that solution might be.

 

[Art Eatman]

Until I see some hard science about the effects of "Warfarin meat" on scavengers, I fail to see how the use of Warfarin could hurt the environment.

My reason is from thinking about the use of curare for hunting with blow-guns, and then eating the meat. That's a way of life for natives in the Amazon. First, poison the monkey; then, eat it.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, I don't think the Amazon indians ever used DDT. No one saw the affects of THAT coming, either. After 50 years of absence, I'm finally seeing native bald eagles again. Yeah, I still have to put up with skeeters.

 

[Art Eatman]

Different mechanism. In the usage on hogs, the poison doesn't travel up a food chain and concentrate. What none of us know is how much of a poisoned hog's meat would it take to poison a coyote or buzzard. We need the Aggies to poison a hog with warfarin and then analyze the body parts as to warfarin content. Put an end to all this speculation.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't think anyone is promising that; this is simply a way to effectively manage the populations, to push them out of areas where they are not wanted (i.e. producing land as opposed to game ranches).

Actually, that is what Sid Miller is promising with Warfarin, a "Hog Apocalypse."

Do we really want to take that country's advice when it comes to banning anything?

Australia isn't advising we not use Warfarin. They just found it unacceptable for use.

Now, for the testing they did, they did find that it could definitely kill a lot of hogs. If you saturate an area with feeders, you can just about kill all the hogs in that area. Cool. Texas would need something like 1.2 million feeders going at the same time, maintained by a small army of people who will be handling the logistics of training hogs to use the feeders properly before administering the poison bait. Of course, those folks are all going to have to be trained and licensed to do this. Then, that small army is going to have to bury all the dead hogs. Of course to bury them, they must be found, first. So this will be a very labor intensive operation.

Of course, who is paying for all of this? How much do you think those specialty feeders are going to cost, each? With a monopoly on the poison bait, how much is the poison going to cost? Australia had a cost of over $60 per hog. When you convert and correct for inflation, it would still be well over that for US hogs. I don't believe their numbers actually included wages, earthmoving equipment, and burial.

 

[Flintknapper]

Actually, that is what Sid Miller is promising with Warfarin, a "Hog Apocalypse."



Australia isn't advising we not use Warfarin. They just found it unacceptable for use.

Now, for the testing they did, they did find that it could definitely kill a lot of hogs. If you saturate an area with feeders, you can just about kill all the hogs in that area. Cool. Texas would need something like 1.2 million feeders going at the same time, maintained by a small army of people who will be handling the logistics of training hogs to use the feeders properly before administering the poison bait. Of course, those folks are all going to have to be trained and licensed to do this. Then, that small army is going to have to bury all the dead hogs. Of course to bury them, they must be found, first. So this will be a very labor intensive operation.

Of course, who is paying for all of this? How much do you think those specialty feeders are going to cost, each? With a monopoly on the poison bait, how much is the poison going to cost? Australia had a cost of over $60 per hog. When you convert and correct for inflation, it would still be well over that for US hogs. I don't believe their numbers actually included wages, earthmoving equipment, and burial.

Like I've suggested from the very start....it seems more about 'making money' than providing a useful means to kill hogs. Hence, the strong support by only a handful of folks/agencies and the 'fast tracking' of its approval (just my opinion).

I can see it working in areas where hogs are not pressured (there is a 'training period' after all), but the entire 'suggested' procedure is so labor intensive....it will put folks off OR they will take short cuts (misuse the product and equipment).

It absolutely would not work where I live. Hogs don't stay around long enough to become 'conditioned' to eating feed from a particular spot let alone learn to OPEN a dispenser. So....the inevitable will happen, folks will simply put it right out on the ground.

I'm confident that issues arising in the form of 'secondary poisoning' (carcass' consumed) would indeed be rare. BUT I can see unintended 'kills' easily happening when/if other animals have direct access to the product. IF that weren't a concern, then the manufacturers of the product would make it right from the very start in concentrations sufficient to kill from just a single feeding/dose.

The entire system just invites misuse under all but ideal circumstances. And who has hogs under ideal circumstances.

But for those who have an interest in promoting the product and profiting from it, who cares if it actually works or is effective. Sales are the goal.

 

[Vernon1]

I think there has to be another way. Poison is very dangerous-but it's cheap.

 

[der Teufel]

I think there has to be another way. Poison is very dangerous-but it's cheap.

I'm not sure this is even going to be all that cheap. Consider the costs of the feeder, initial bait, actual poison — and then the time and costs of burying dead hogs (assuming that's really done).

 

[barnbwt]

Like I've suggested from the very start....it seems more about 'making money' than providing a useful means to kill hogs. Hence, the strong support by only a handful of folks/agencies and the 'fast tracking' of its approval (just my opinion).

C'mon...given all the (both admitted and unadmitted) unfounded skepticism to using poisons --of any kind-- in this thread alone, is it really that far-fetched to think there's a lack of objectivity among even more ignorant & reactionary environmental policy officials? Ever since "Silent Spring" & the overblown DDT fiasco, it's been standard procedure to be incredibly, often unbelievably timid when it comes to application of pesticide (Round-Up being the obvious, and extremely odd exception given its ubiquity, which has much to do with how profitable its use is). As we see here, the assumption, no, the insistence is that it could not possibly be anything but destructive to everything with no chance of the risks being worth the reward, from the very start, even in the absence of evidence, until the contrary is proven at great needless expense. As opposed to the more logical approach of demanding some evidence of reckless disregard for public health by the people decrying the proposal made after extensive testing & examination here & abroad.

Who exactly is making so much money on this gambit? That's what I'd like to know. Is it Monsanto or the other usual suspects renowned for lobbying for bad policy, or is it a random concern that patented a new use for an old pesticide? I know a lot of the groups lobbying against it are using the controversy in their marketing materials...

https://www.change.org/p/texas-lawm...arin-to-poison-feral-hogs-and-our-environment
According to the change.org petition's spiel, it appears the Aussie's stopped using the stuff because its effects were "too inhumane." Once again, a large contingent of the opposition has no interest in actually solving the problem, and instead focuses exclusively on excuses to allow the hog proliferation to continue. So the hogs bleed internally & suffer for a solid week before dying; am I alone in saying "who cares?" This isn't about sporting practices, fair chase, or other hunting Queensberry rules; it's about removing a destructive animal from an area effectively. If the hogs weren't here in such numbers, there would be no need to deal with them by any means necessary, and stuff like warfarin/etc would not be necessary.

These same fools say that helicopter hunting is preferable, as though the tremendous expense and wildly impractical logistics of that tactic could possibly be effective for anything but fun in the vast majority of cases (hogs hang out in the underbrush, anyway), or even applicable for any but the wealthiest ranchers.

The most telling quote from that site; "this action is not approved by animal rights advocates, environmental protection advocates, or Texas hunters." Not one of these groups has any interest in reducing the hog population by a single animal. All likely prefer even higher rates of hog infestation.

Yeah, I'm about as worried about people eating that by accident as I am people eating poorly cooked boar full of parasites (which are obviously proliferating right along with the hog populations)

Actually, that is what Sid Miller is promising with Warfarin, a "Hog Apocalypse."

Define "Hog Apocalypse." Oh, that's right, it's just a buzzword to grab some headlines by Miller. Not to mention, the Apocalypse is merely a destructive end of the world order as we know it, not the annihilation of all life (so in reality, it's just a stupid, inappropriate, and melodramatic metaphor). Pretty sure hogs don't get raptured (at least, I'd hope not)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

It absolutely would not work where I live. Hogs don't stay around long enough to become 'conditioned' to eating feed from a particular spot let alone learn to OPEN a dispenser. So....the inevitable will happen, folks will simply put it right out on the ground.
What about places where it actually would work, like places with a more limited or concentrated number of feeding locations used by cattle or deer? It's been deer feeders & deer-friendly hunting policies that allowed many hog populations to blossom, since they can eat a lot of the same things. Those Tannerite "hunting" videos? Deer corn as bait; were it poisoned, there would no need for an entertaining boom, but that would also defeat the purpose...right? Not like a landowner could legally poison it even if they wanted to, even if it worked better, and was safer for all in involved in its application (compared to explosives, for cryin' out loud, lol)

I'm confident that issues arising in the form of 'secondary poisoning' (carcass' consumed) would indeed be rare. BUT I can see unintended 'kills' easily happening when/if other animals have direct access to the product. IF that weren't a concern, then the manufacturers of the product would make it right from the very start in concentrations sufficient to kill from just a single feeding/dose.
I think perhaps you may misunderstand how this product works, and how its application is necessary to limit/eliminate impacts on follow-on scavengers. When you dissolve something into water, let's say a 1:1 concentration for simplicity, if you then take a drink, you don't suddenly have a 50% concentration in your own body, but a tiny fraction diluted by your pre-existing bodymass compared to a single mouthful. It's the same here; over the course of days and multiple frequent feedings, the warfarin concentration in the hog rises faster than its body can safely metabolize the chemical, and it hemorrhages & dies. If at that point another animal takes a bite, it is dosed with warfarin, but at a tiny fraction of the dose contained within the whole hog, and therefore harmless (theoretically). A coyote or eagle would have to eat more than its own body weight in boar to get enough concentration to be killed (assuming equal vulnerability to the chemical, and supposedly hogs are more so than other wildlife), and would have to do so fast enough to outrun their ability to safely metabolize the compound. Quite simply, unless a coyote was living exclusively on dead, poisoned hogs, it seems unlikely they would be effected (except at first when there's a lot of dead hogs in an area; that I could see posing a significant, but temporary risk)

If you gave enough chemical to kill a hog immediately, it would have to be many times a lethal dose; at that point, taking a mouthful could have a high enough concentration to cause illness or death. This mechanism is how most common pesticide poisons have worked historically, since the chemical is often easy/cheap to produce in great quantities, and is obviously more effective at its job when it kills more quickly. In fact, many poisons kill in such small quantities, or are metabolized such that their concentration is much higher in certain organs (like the liver), that the super-overdose mechanism and risk of by-kill are unavoidable.

The entire system just invites misuse under all but ideal circumstances. And who has hogs under ideal circumstances.
The only misuse I could see are people using it illegally, or if the government is paying for it where it is not wanted or needed. Forbid its use within X-feet of waterways, forbid its use on anything but hogs (i.e. require hog-oriented feeders for it to be distributed), and let the landowners decide if they wish to use this tactic to clear their property of hogs, and I don't see why things would get out of hand. It's not like there's anything but a law stopping people from illegally poisoning hogs with more dangerous chemicals as it is (but they do anyway)

But for those who have an interest in promoting the product and profiting from it, who cares if it actually works or is effective. Sales are the goal.
Do the landowners who would actually buy and apply the product not count as interested parties? Surely they would care if it was effective, worth the cost, and had unwanted collateral damage. Why should they not be the ones making the call in the first place?

 

[MCgunner]

Well, they've moved in here big time in the last several days. I'd be hunting 'em tonight, but I got sick and I'm still getting over the flu. Jumped one today in heavy cover, wasn't expecting it and had 7.5 shot loaded in both barrels of my 20 gauge. Had I had a slug in one....ifs and butts.

But, the trap is baited and the corn in it is wet and smelly.

You know, I've priced medicinal Warfrin. It's WAY more expensive than Plavix...and more dangerous. I have a circulation problem caused by thrombocytosis, too many platelets. I take hydroxyurea for the condition, just was interested in the Warfrin until I found out how much it costs and the warnings and side effects of the stuff.

So, heck, if I was to eat one of these poisoned pigs, maybe the circulation in my legs would clear up?

 

[jmorris]

I noticed they were comming around again on our place a few weeks ago. Put up a couple game cameras to pattern them and called a few friends.

One said he couldn't make it but stopped by Sunday and loaned me a thermal to play with. You have no idea how many critters you have running around in your woods until you get to play with one of these.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Define "Hog Apocalypse." Oh, that's right, it's just a buzzword to grab some headlines by Miller. Not to mention, the Apocalypse is merely a destructive end of the world order as we know it, not the annihilation of all life (so in reality, it's just a stupid, inappropriate, and melodramatic metaphor). Pretty sure hogs don't get raptured (at least, I'd hope not)

Right, so Sid Miller is claiming that the hogs would be wiped out, the end of the world for hogs in Texas which is exactly how Miller meant it. It may be stupid, but YOU didn't think anyone was promising that and it is the same bozo that "fast-tracked" Warfarin. Miller isn't talking about maintaining a viable hunting population in Texas. He is talking about wiping out all hogs.

----------------

FYI there is a new Texas House Bill 3451 to stop the use of Warfarin, put forth by Stucky

----------------

LOL, jmorris, I have been hunting with thermal for about 4 years now and had the same epiphany. I can remember being amazed that the "footsteps" I would often hear in the woods were mice hopping or bounding through the leaf litter and it sounded like a larger animal. I am continually amazing by how many mice I see scurrying up and down trees. Just wait until you see your hogs.

Word of warning, thermal is pretty terrible on depth perception, so if you don't know the lay of the land, it can be hard to just just how far away the critters are. It won't matter too much if you get inside 150 yards, but can be really detrimental to longer shots if you are not careful. Let's just say that I have put down what I thought was a smaller pig at 75 yards that turned out to be a much larger pig at 180.