Virginia board approves ‘last resort’ fee increases for hunting, fishing, trapping licenses
Reply
Portugal Turns to Hunting to Control Wild Boar
Portugal Turns to Hunting to Control Wild Boar
Portugal is pursuing a strategy to reduce wild boar numbers through hunting and extraordinary density adjustments, but the widely reported figure of almost 300,000 animals does not come from a current count: it is an estimate based on data collected in 2021 and subject to a wide margin of variation.
Most read
A drone to get wild boar out of the woods [+]
Thirsty and dehydrated roe deer: one enters a car [+]
Alarm Over Roe Deer Fawn Deaths in Bavaria [+]
Beretta 694 Black DLC: What the New [+]
Wolf Following Dog Walkers Tests Germany’s [+]
|
|
Areport published by Le Chasseur Français has once again drawn attention to the spread of wild boar in Portugal and the use of hunting to reduce its impact. The French publication cites around 300,000 animals in mainland Portugal, as well as agricultural damage, accidents and incursions into urban and tourist areas.
The official documents reviewed confirm the approximate scale of the figure, although they also require it to be qualified. A health declaration by Portugal’s Directorate-General for Food and Veterinary Affairs gives a central estimate of 277,385 wild boar, with a range of 163,157 to 391,612. The data used were collected between January and December 2021 by the University of Aveiro as part of the Wild Boar Strategic and Action Plan promoted by the ICNF.
An Estimate, Not a 2026 Census
The Portuguese documentation itself warns that the figures represent an estimate of abundance by hunting area, not a density calculated per unit of land. The range was obtained by applying an average coefficient of variation of 0.41 to the local estimates. Presenting the 300,000 animals as an exact and current snapshot of the population may therefore be misleading.
The Institute for Nature Conservation and Forests explains that the plan was developed by the University of Aveiro’s CESAM between September 2020 and December 2022. Its objectives included determining the size of the population, assessing the animals’ condition and analysing the habitat and factors associated with damage. The agency considers that this information should be used to design sustainable management and mitigate damage to agriculture and forestry, as well as health risks.
Official sources do describe a population whose development requires intervention. The technical recommendations include concentrating hunting effort at the start of the season, favouring collective methods over individual ones when a greater population-level effect is sought, and directing part of the cull towards females and subadult animals. These are proposals contained in the plan, not new obligations approved in August 2026.
Extraordinary Density Adjustments and Health Surveillance
The most specific measure identified for 2026 is Notice No. 1/2026, signed on 19 February. The decision allowed hunting-area owners and managers to use the RUBUS system to request extraordinary density adjustments through driven hunts between 1 and 15 March. Each application had to be assessed individually and could be authorised only if it did not compromise the site’s conservation values.
The ICNF justified these measures on the grounds of preventing African swine fever, damage to agricultural crops and forests, and road accidents. It also noted that weather conditions had prevented many scheduled driven hunts from taking place. The document therefore confirms a temporary increase in control efforts, but does not in itself demonstrate that new national regulations were adopted this August.
Health surveillance completes the strategy. The DGAV states that the last outbreak of African swine fever recorded in Portugal occurred on 15 November 1999. The disease does not affect people, but it can cause high mortality among swine and serious economic consequences. Portugal requires suspected cases to be reported and allows wild boar found dead to be reported through the ANIMAS application.
UP hunters want equal representation at state level
Default Mono Sans Mono Serif Sans Serif Comic Fancy Small CapsDefault X-Small Small Medium Large X-Large XX-LargeDefault Outline Dark Outline Light Outline Dark Bold Outline Light Bold Shadow Dark Shadow Light Shadow Dark Bold Shadow Light BoldDefault Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%Default Black Silver Gray White Maroon Red Purple Fuchsia Green Lime Olive Yellow Navy Blue Teal Aqua OrangeDefault 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%The Michigan Department of Natural Resources recently published the deer hunting regulations for 2026.
Published: Aug. 21, 2026 at 2:37 PM PDT
BIG BAY, Mich. (WLUC) – The Michigan Department of Natural Resources recently published the deer hunting regulations for 2026.
The changes affecting the Upper Peninsula most are the rescinding of management units 351 and 352, along with the elimination of the extended late antlerless deer season and January archery season. Muzzle loading season has also been shortened to three days starting Dec. 4.
Changes to tag limits and season lengths are a direct result of this year’s harsh winter, which has led to a decline in deer populations. However, hunters in the Upper Peninsula say that statewide changes might not be properly representing the U.P.
The Natural Resources Commission that puts state regulations into place is made up of seven members, with only one of those members representing the U.P.
That representative is Dave Nyburg whose term ends on Dec. 31.
“We could have nobody on the commission after December 31st, so one of the things that they can do is have two people on the commission at all times,” said Bryan Reynolds, president of U.P. Whitetails of Marquette County.
Because Upper Peninsula winters are so different from those downstate, Big Bay Sportsman’s Club President Mark Bevins says deer populations and hunters face different challenges.
“I think there are folks in Lansing who think one-shoe-fits all. We have to manage differently, because the populations are different, because of the environment,” said Bevins.
Reynolds proposes that one way to get the Upper Peninsula the proper focus it deserves is to divide state NRCs into three units.
“We would have unit one which would be U.P., unit two would be the northern lower, and unit three would be the southern lower, and they should all be managed separately from the other ones,” said Reynolds.
The importance of managing and conserving deer populations is to preserve the ability to hunt for future generations.
Read more about this year’s changes here.
Wyoming Hunters Are Already Filling Their Freezers With Early Season Cow Elk | Cowboy State Daily
Wolf advocate calls citation for Colorado hunter who mistakenly killed wolf ‘unacceptable’
Nevada Hunter Vows To Kill Famous Yellowstone Mollie’s Pack Wolf 1090F In Wyoming
The Impact Of Trump’s Expansion Of Hunting, Fishing On Wildlife Refuges In Wyoming
Measure to enshrine the right to hunt, fish within Oregon could be on the ballot in 2028
Bird flu suspected after more than 1,000 birds found dead in SA, more deaths in Tasmania
The first wave of bird flu is the worst: what Australia can learn from overseas
Published: August 20, 2026 1:09am EDT
Share article
The first wave of bird flu is the worst: what Australia can learn from overseas
Print article
Hundreds of dead birds are now being reported as the lethal H5N1 strain of bird flu begins to spread across Australia. Government reports show the virus is circulating in resident birds.
It was a long time coming. The current outbreak emerged in 2020. By late 2021, it was spreading widely, leaving a widespread trail of devastation among wildlife species across Europe and the Americas. Even as Antarctic birds and mammals began suffering over 2024 and 2025, Australia – and New Zealand – remained free of this viral strain. Until now.
It’s easy to picture bird flu as an unstoppable wave set to decimate Australian birds and mammals. But that’s not set in stone. Overseas evidence shows the first wave tends to be by far the worst. And deaths from the first wave can vary greatly, with many populations and individuals surviving.
That’s good news for some – but it won’t save vulnerable species who may lose a large proportion of their global population. For them, recovery is likely to take decades – if at all.
The first wave is devastating
In 1996, a new highly pathogenic strain of bird flu emerged in poultry in China. Periodic outbreaks forced mass poultry culls and sporadic die-offs in wild birds.
In 2020, a new variant – formally known as H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b – was detected. Soon, it was sweeping through Europe and North America.
It was immediately clear the virus had become more devastating.
Less dangerous strains of bird flu (termed low pathogenic avian influenza viruses) tend to replicate in a bird’s gastrointestinal tract, while earlier high pathogenic strains tended to replicate in the respiratory tract.
But this new strain could infect both. Not only that, it was able to infect the central nervous system, leading to neurological disease and death.
The strain has evolved many new variants since 2021. These can now infect over 500 wild bird species, of which over 50% had not had infections previously recorded.
Then came reports of fatal infections in mammals, from scavengers such as foxes to herbivores such as deer and marine mammals such as sea lions. Many had never had bird flu before. The virus was even able to infect livestock such as cattle. Human infections are thankfully rare, with no reports of the virus spreading between people so far.
Across western Europe and North America, deaths of breeding-age adult birds were as high as 25–76% in the worst-hit species. Many populations had near-complete breeding failures.
In 2023, it hit South America. Some bird species lost up to 50% of their global population, while marine mammals suffered their first mass deaths. In Argentina, 17,000 elephant seals died in a single colony.
What happened next?
While mass deaths of wildlife made global headlines, little media coverage has focused on what happened next.
Mass deaths don’t seem to strike the same populations year after year, even though the virus is still circulating.
Adult sandwich terns in western Europe died in droves in 2022. But in 2023, mortality rates in adults fell by 96%. That year’s chicks were hit hard, but those hatching in 2024 did far better.
Why? Older, more vulnerable birds all died off in the first wave, and surviving terns gained some immune resistance. Younger birds previously shut out from breeding took advantage of the situation, while chicks benefited from reduced competition for food.
Overall, sandwich tern numbers only fell modestly. Even so, the species is projected to take almost 20 years to recover to its pre-outbreak level.
Not all populations or individuals were affected equally – even in the first wave. Atlantic seabirds breeding in large, dense colonies were hit hard. Gannets, terns and skuas all saw mass deaths. But neighbouring petrels, puffins and shearwaters nesting in burrows had far fewer deaths.
This may give some protection to Australia’s burrowing little penguins. Authorities are also moving to vaccinate thousands of these penguins.
For many species, bird flu is made worse by other threats. In 2024, Adéle penguins in Antarctica had to battle both bird flu and deadly avian cholera, leading to many losses. Similarly, bird flu hit African penguins already in trouble from the collapse of sardine fisheries.
We can’t directly extrapolate from overseas experience. Many Australian birds and mammals are unique. Some, such as black swans, lack crucial immune defences against influenza.
Read news based on evidence, not tweets or TikToks
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The death toll is not set
Official estimates suggest about 20% of bird and 10% of mammal populations in Australia are at high to extreme risk of population impacts from this strain.
But catastrophic destruction is not guaranteed. Whether a species is hit hard or barely touched will depend on three things: level of exposure to the virus, how well it can resist infection and how well it can cope with being infected.
Before this strain arrived, experts evaluated the risk for all Australian bird and mammal species, developed action plans for important sites and expanded surveillance and diagnostic systems to monitor outbreaks and viral evolution. These measures are globally recognised as the most important tools.
Australia is now following New Zealand in vaccinating captive and closely-managed populations.
Worldwide, no species has suffered 100% losses. That means some individuals likely survived the infection. Generally, animals can cope better with infection if they’re well fed, in a good habitat and aren’t exposed to pollution or stress.
The biggest lever we can pull is tackling these other pressures, from habitat loss and plastic pollution to invasive species.
We have a chance to try relieving these pressures on wildlife to give them more of a fighting chance – but the window is shrinking.
Author
Bethany J HoyeLecturer in Animal Ecology, University of Wollongong
Disclosure statement
Bethany J Hoye receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Partners
University of Wollongong provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64628/AA.f3fcyysnf
We believe in the free flow of information
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.Republish this article
Before you go…
The world is complicated, but The Conversation helps you understand it. Our editors identify experts on topics in the news, and work with them to help them write clear, engaging and fascinating articles. Each weekday, we publish eight to 12 of these stories, ranging from health to political science, from technology to business and from history to ethics. Sign up for our free newsletter to get these articles in your inbox each day.
