Login

You are not currently logged in.

'Sinister' swan plan

From Debby Glascock Gentry, Friends of the Ducks and Geese, White Lake Township:

The plans of the DNRE (Department of Natural Resources and Environment) and USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service) regarding mute swans is positively sinister. They want to kill or render flightless and sterilize all mute swans in Michigan. Their reasons for doing this is to introduce trumpeter swans, which are larger and make greater trophies for hunters.

It has been suggested that mute swans are not indigenous to the United States, which is clearly untrue. They were just hunted to extinction before European peoples brought them here 200 years ago. The fossil records and accounts from pre-settlement Jamestown say that the mute swan has been here since before we were. They are beautiful birds and they eat water vegetation and do not compete with any other native species. It would be nice to see trumpeters but not at the expense of mute swans.

Please write letters and make calls to your government officials, the DNRE and USFWS demanding that this extermination does not take place.

3 Responses to 'Sinister' swan plan

  1. Peter L. Schappach

    March 21, 2011 at 11:53 am

    I am writing in response to the recent letter from Debby Glascock Gentry (‘Sinister’ swan plan, Spinal Column, March 16, 2011). While I fully support the opportunity for every voice to be heard, I have difficulty with mis-information being presented as fact in a public forum, particularly mis-information which may be used by the citizens to influence public policy. To wit, Ms. Glascock Gentry claims in her letter that mute swans are native species based on fossil records and “accounts from pre-settlement Jamestown”. Ample evidence is presented in the USEPA ‘s Final List of Bird Species to Which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Apply [Federal Register: March 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 49)] to refute this claim, with the conclusion being “statements regarding the supposed presence of mute swans in North America prior to human settlement…are not scientifically credible.”

    The writer also states the reason for the implementation of a mute swan management program in Michigan is to introduce trumpeter swans (a native species), “which are larger and make greater trophies for hunters.” True, the trumpeter swan is the largest native waterfowl species in North America, however, with an estimated population of only 756 individuals in 2010 (personal correspondence with Christopher Hoving, MDNR), trumpeter swan numbers could not support a hunting season. Indeed, for many years, no swan species has been legal to hunt in Michigan, and as such, there is neither a tradition of harvesting nor consuming trumpeter swans, all of which makes it unlikely such a hunting season would be implemented in the future. In my opinion, the issue of hunting, which is often used to polarize public opinion, has no place in the current discussion.

    The stated purpose of the mute swan management plan, according to an MDNRE Informational Memorandum dated December 13, 2010, is “to reduce the mute swan population over time and thereby reduce the negative impacts of this invasive species.” Negative impacts identified in the memorandum include out-competing native species for breeding habitat, destruction of aquatic vegetation and physical encounters with humans.

    The Michigan DNR wildlife management professionals perform quite a balancing act when implementing their programs. They have to consider scientific data regarding habitat, species population, public health, economic impacts, recreational and aesthetic value, as well as public opinion and a myriad other details prior to making their recommendations. Lucid arguments can be made for and against altering the existing mute swan management plan in Michigan. And while part of the equation includes public and/or personal opinion, ultimately these decisions must be formulated on the basis of facts. I encourage parties on every side of this issue to rigorously check their facts and include citations, where appropriate.

  2. Mak Andersen

    April 10, 2011 at 2:53 am

    Ok I understand what you say. But doesn’t mean your right. Swans are an aggressive and evasive species. I live in Michigan on a lake and they are very hostile. I can not fish with out having to watch my back every time I go fishing.
    I’ve been threatened and attacked by these birds. I support the DNRE on there actions. These birds need to leave.

    • Karen

      February 27, 2012 at 2:57 pm

      I live on a lake too, and the Swans have never attacked me. The Swans are not pit bulls. They are waterfowl that will protect their cygnets. If you have half a brain, you will stay away from them. Or any other animal that is wild. The jet skis and speed boats do more to destroy our lakes then any bird can. The DNR need to focus on fishing license, deer hunting and leave our lakes alone. They have done enough damage to Michigan. I’d sign a petition to get rid of the DNR. They always are trying to scare people and kill all the wildlife.

      If you are scared of the swans, its because the DNR wants you to be.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login