The aim of this paper is to problematize the hegemonic view of wild boars as a natural rather than invasive species in the Swedish landscape, and the effect of this view. Wild boars were officially declared a part of the Swedish fauna in 1987. Their recognition as such was based on the prior existence of wild boars in Sweden until the 17^th century, when they died out, as well as on the establishment of a few hundred wild boars that had escaped from private game parks since the 1970s. In 2005 these few hundred boars had increased their number to 40 000. Today there are at least 150 000 boars spread throughout the southern half of Sweden. The boar as a species has tremendous impact on land, their rooting up heaves and transforms grassland, forests and fields. The explosive increase of boars in the Swedish landscape thus has significant consequences for all other actors involved here – human as well as non-human. There is also a collision of interests, where landowners and hunters actively encourage and contribute to the growth of the species for hunting, while lease hold farmers face the brunt of their economic effects (in certain boar rich counties the economic loss may be counted in multimillion figures). At present the understanding, management and regulations surrounding these boars is dominated by the understanding and interests of the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management, an association which provides 80 per cent of the research funding for wildlife research in Sweden. We query their hegemonic definition of a boar, which since 1988 sees it as a natural part of the Swedish landscape. We argue that this is an essentialist and static view of the boar as a species which needs questioning within a relational ontology for two main reasons; firstly, because during the 300 years when boars have been absent from the Swedish landscape, the landscape as well as human practice has been dramatically transformed, inverted even, in all aspects – i.e. agriculture, forestry and economics. The boars of today must, we thus argue, be seen as fundamentally different from the boars of the 17^th century, even though in zoological terms they are the same. Secondly, we argue that failing to recognize this fundamental transformation of the landscape as well as of the boars is a serious threat to any attempts to solving the boar-people conflicts existing today.