Source coverage is not a map of hog activity or risk. Neutral counties are directory entries, not evidence of absence.
Local programs
Bounties, trap loans and county programs. A listing is not proof a program is open today.
Shared boundaries
Multi-county USDA pilot project areas. Outcomes belong to the area, never to one county.
Public records & research
Reviewed records, district reports, community notices and published studies.
Water & land
Watershed projects, source tracking and water education. Historical and program footprints, not current water status.
Wildlife & habitat
Studies, surveys and conservation plans. A dated reference or non-detection is not a present-day absence finding.
People & communities
Community stories, stewardship accounts and program policies. Historical accounts are not current conditions.
Public-land pathways
Official hunts, WMAs and refuge rules. A published route is not permission, availability or a removal service.
County profile · FIPS 48339
Montgomery County
District reportMontgomery County MUD 95 service areaFebruary 18, 2025
When hog damage becomes a drainage problem
In Montgomery County, a municipal utility district published its own account of rooting damage along drainage areas.
Montgomery County MUD 95 reported that hog rooting was eroding drainage areas it maintains, and that the district paid for hog control work by a private contractor to protect its drainage infrastructure.
$20,000estimated erosion repair exposure
$7,000spent on hog control
26hogs removed
District-reported historical values, February 2025.
What the source says
The district reports an estimated $20,000 in drainage erosion repair exposure, $7,000 spent on control and 26 hogs removed.
The district says the local population was reduced; that statement is not an independent population survey.
Why this case matters THD analysis
Infrastructure owners — not just farmers — can carry hog damage and sponsor a response. Money spent, animals removed and long-term outcome are three different measures; one does not prove the others.
Worth asking: Did the drainage areas stay protected after the work ended?
Limits and source notes
This is the district’s own account. It does not establish actual savings, a guaranteed return, current contractor availability or an ongoing contract.
Reviewed public recordsTxDOT dead-animal logs, Montgomery County2025–2026 logs
A road log records a response. What else does it tell us?
THD reviewed TxDOT dead-animal logs for Montgomery County obtained through a public-records request.
Road crews log dead-animal calls so they can respond. Across the two supplied logs (2025, 8 pages; 2026, 4 pages, last dated entry October 8, 2026), THD found seven reports explicitly describing a hog or pig, dated between April 2025 and September 2026.
7reports naming a hog or pig
6removal entries
1animal not located
THD’s count from the supplied logs, reviewed October 19, 2026.
What the source says
Report dates: April 25, August 5, August 13 and December 22, 2025; February 10, September 17 and September 18, 2026.
Entries appear on 2025 log pages 4, 5 and 8 and 2026 log pages 1 and 3.
Why this case matters THD analysis
These logs document reported calls and dispositions. They do not establish collisions, feral status, current abundance or a trend.
Worth asking: What would a record need to include to tell us more than that a crew responded?
Limits and source notes
These entries are not crash totals, a risk map, an abundance or trend measure, or complete county coverage. Exact road locations are omitted.
TxDOT dead-animal logs supplied to THD; original files not yet published here — 2025–2026 logs; reviewed by THD October 19, 2026
Historical education footprintNamed watersheds in a historical Lone Star Healthy Streams projectHistorical project 14-12; final report link dated 2019
Hog education has followed the water.
County lines are one way to organize information. Watersheds offer another.
TSSWCB’s project record names watershed-based hog-management education across these county areas. Its focus connects landowners’ choices with shared water resources.
What the source says
A county’s inclusion records an education-project footprint, not local hog abundance, completed work or current assistance.
Why this case matters THD analysis
This is a route into local water questions: which watershed am I in, who monitors it, and what can its evidence tell us?
Worth asking: What newer local project, monitoring result or public explanation is available for this watershed?
Limits and source notes
Historical project 14-12, with a final-report link dated 2019. Only named county associations are used. The source’s invalid “Ranger County” label and the entire associated Lake Granbury county list are excluded pending reconciliation. No present program availability is implied.
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension county offices answer local land and wildlife questions. Open the county office directory (new tab) and select Montgomery. Ask the office about local education and resources; program eligibility and availability need to be confirmed.
Build a useful observation
County and general area (no exact address needed)
Approximate date or date range
What you saw: animals, rooting, tracks, wallows or damage
Whether you looked repeatedly, and roughly how often
U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 Cartographic Boundary Files, counties, 1:500,000. Census source archive. U.S. government public domain; Census attribution retained. Repackaged by THD, not an official Census product. Generalized for small-scale display, not surveying, parcel boundaries or precise spatial analysis.
Sage marks counties with sourced material in this compilation — a story, study, program or record — not current hog activity. Neutral counties are directory entries, not evidence of absence. Orange marks your selection only.
Private observations are for research review, not dispatch requests. Texas Hog Dispatch reviews property requests and looks for independent operators; THD does not trap. Operators control their services, prices, schedules and fieldwork. Availability is confirmed case by case.
Stay curious. Follow what we find next.
Field notes, research and stories from the Hog Watch newsletter.
