Login

You are not currently logged in.

DNR's mute swan management plan needs little in the way of changes

The Humane Society of the United States has weighed in on the state’s plans for reducing Michigan’s mute swan population, sending the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) proposals on how it believes the state should address mute swan population issues. Although we’d like to see at least one change made, we’re not convinced the state’s mute swan management scheme is in need of wholesale revision.

The U.S. Humane Society got involved in the state’s mute swan management debate in April after being alerted by two people — including a lakes area resident — about mute swan issues in Michigan, particularly the recent approval of a conservation order prohibiting the rehabilitation of injured or sick mute swans and their release back into the wild.

The mute swan is considered an exotic, invasive, non-native species in the United States, according to state and federal wildlife officials. Native to Europe and parts of Asia, the species is believed to have been introduced to North America from the mid-1800s through the early 1900s for its ornamental value.

However, since then, mute swans have been able to out-compete other native waterfowl for breeding habitats and continue to reproduce at a high rate. According to the DNR, mute swans pose threats to native wildlife, humans, and wetland habitats. As such, the department’s Mute Swan Management and Control Program Policy outlines short- and long-term state population goals, which include reducing Michigan’s mute swan population growth to zero by 2016 and to reduce the overall population to less than 2,000 by 2030.

While hunting mute swans is not allowed, the DNR issues permits to remove mute swans and to destroy their nests and eggs. The department is expected to kill any swans removed from the environment.

The U.S. Humane Society says the DNR should:

• Immediately suspend the Mute Swan Management and Control Program Policy and Procedures and begin to immediately revise and update the document;

• Immediately appoint local mute swan advisory committees and a statewide committee, consisting of representatives of the Michigan Humane Society, the Michigan Save Our Swans Committee, and the Humane Society of the United States, along with others to advise the department on non-lethal management options and to liaise with the DNR in the development of a comprehensive mute swan stewardship and management plan; and

• Declare a voluntary moratorium on the lethal control of free ranging mute swans, except in emergency situations, until a new comprehensive plan is completed.

The DNR is currently reviewing the proposals.

The department’s mute swan management plan needs little in the way of revisions. However, we admit we’re not comfortable with the state’s recently revised conservation order that prohibits the rehabilitation of sick or injured swans and their release back into the environment. That prohibition does smack of being inhumane, even considering that mute swans are an exotic species and their presence here has real ramifications for the environment. We’re not convinced that the relatively few injured and sick birds that could be rehabilitated and released each year would pose a significant hindrance to the DNR’s population reduction goals — which do seem a bit ambitious and unrealistic.

Nonetheless, the proposed suspension of the remaining management policy and procedures; appointing local advisory committees; any work toward mute swan stewardship; and a moratorium on lethal controls are all unnecessary.

Frankly, the DNR’s mute swan management plan and population reduction procedures — with the exception of the above mentioned prohibition on releasing rehabilitated swans — are appropriate and reasonable, enough so that suspending the policy and procedures isn’t warranted.

We don’t quibble with the department’s insistence that lethal population controls be implemented on public land, such as the DNR’s parks, recreation areas, and other facilities the department is obligated to manage.

When it comes to controls elsewhere, we believe egg and nest destruction are appropriate approaches to mute swan population control. And because a local governing body must first authorize swan removal and egg and nest destruction, there’s already a local control aspect to the state plan that works. We’ve seen it work here in the lakes area, where Waterford and West Bloomfield officials, for example, have rejected requests for authorization of lethal controls. Elsewhere, such as in Wolverine Lake, where there’s been little or no public outcry against lethal controls, local officials have authorized such actions.

The notion of creating local, or even a statewide advisory panel to help draft stewardship plans is ludicrous. It makes no sense to devise ways to protect or preserve a species that doesn’t belong here and hampers the viability of native species. It would be ridiculous to draft a stewardship plan for invasive zebra mussels, for example, and the same holds true for exotic mute swans.

Yes, we’re aware few if any people develop an emotional attachment to zebra mussels, while many people do have an affinity for mute swans — which is why we’re willing concede the inhumane nature of banning the rehabilitation of sick and injured birds and releasing them. But beyond this somewhat counter-productive and admitted double-standard, mute swans should be treated the same as any other exotic, invasive species.

3 Responses to DNR's mute swan management plan needs little in the way of changes

  1. C.A. Whapham

    August 17, 2012 at 11:03 am

    Your recent “…DNR Needs Little in the Way of Changes” editorial leaves this reader questioning YOUR background and intellect! Have YOU been involved in research? Have you been asking for the so-called stats on the so-called DNR studies? Have you been kayaking on a quiet lake only to witness a pontoon full of rifle enthusiasts shoot scores of mutes just like some ole’ fashioned carnival “game”? Do you believe that which the DNR propaganda disperses as “gospel truth”? Did you use your own background research when writing this piece? OR….did someone put you up to writing this? Someone from the DNR, perhaps?

    You may exhibit your own freedom of speech, but, as an editorial and from Journalism 101, you do not tell truths! “To dispense truth is the defend freedom” This piece is trash!!!!!

  2. DNR Rogue

    August 22, 2012 at 12:07 am

    Is someone from Wolverine Lake and Birmingham holding the editor’s family hostage? Because I can’t imagine why else anyone would publish such a poorly researched piece of propaganda. Not only is the Mute Swan management plan in desperate need of a re-write, the entire DNR ought to be overhauled. And that is the comment of a former insider.

    Killing is a poor way to manage natural resources, when non-lethal methods would work. Michigan has no legitimate proof that the Mute Swans are damaging anything, as they have done very little actual research of their own. It is completely ludicrous to be making any kind of noise about killing anything when you have no data specific to your state. Michigan uses Maryland’s data – a state with no natural lakes. Michigan has over 11,000 lakes. Also Maryland’s data was considered “junk science” by a federal court and deemed worthless. This was back when Maryland was trying to prove that their 3,000 Mute Swans (which they killed) were polluting the Chesapeake Bay. 2.5 million other birds also use the Chesapeake. A phosphorus bomb exploded in the Bay in the 1920′s, industrial waste and pig farm run off and the fact that the Chesapeake has never once met the minimum clean water standards apparently slipped their minds. Now that the swans are dead, the Bay is still just as polluted.

    Among all the data on Mute Swans, there is no research ANYWHERE that shows that Mute Swans do anything more than negligible damage to any environment, essentially nothing different from any other waterfowl.

    The Trumpeter Swan and Mute Swan have identical life habits; therefore it is completely illogical to villify and eradicate one species while revering and protecting the other. They are both equally majestic birds. As for the aggression factor, it was noted in several pages from Trumpeter Swan Society meetings, one of which was written by the ex-President of the group (all USF&W and state DEP, DNR guys, by the way) that Trumpeters kill baby ducks, grown ducks and geese and will maim or kill Mute Swans. Another paper was written by Joe Johnson, head swan biologist at Kellogg bird sanctuary at U of Michigan. He was like a proud father, talking about the Trumpeters breaking Mute Swan’s legs, and he comments “My money is always on the Trumpeter, in a swan fight.”). There is also a photo of a Trumpeter Swan attacking and shaking the wheels of a small plane (either taking off or landing) – something no Mute Swan has ever done.

    The Trumpeters were made almost extinct by overhunting; now they are in the process of being restored. However, they are being placed in areas they have never been before, making them “invasive” in those areas, and thereby setting them up for future eradication. The idea is to replace the Mute with the Trumpeter as the next trophy animal in the bird hunting world, the largest waterfowl in North America. This has been the goal for decades of the hunting lobby, and this is why the Mute is being vilified. It’s the bird associated with love, a classis ballet and people don’t want to hunt it they way they do Trumpeters. Trumpeters are also LOUD, as their name implies, something that apparently stirs the hunter’s blood and what will no doubt be used against them in the future as a reason to kill them.

    The Mute Swans are in the US at least 200 years, in some areas, longer than that. Since we have Europeanized the environment of this country, and since several centuries is a long enough time to establish permanence, claims of invasive species don’t make much sense. The DNR and Fish & Wildllife themselves bring in invasive species all the time whenever it suits their purpose. That is not a reason to destroy a species. Michigan is certainly not the pristine wilderness it was 400 years ago.

    Michigan’s claims of 15,500 swans is more than a little suspect, since there have never been more than 16,000 to 20,000 Mute Swans in the entire United States. Michigan’s swan count consists of one guy of unknown credentials in a plane with binoculars. And even if there were 15,500 swans, spread over 11,000 lakes, that is less than one pair per lake, hardly an alarming statistic.

    There are about 22,000 Mute Swans in Denmark and about 20,000 in Great Britain – countries much smaller than the US. In NO other country is the swan claimed to be the detriment as it is here in the US, and that is with similar environment and similar predators and compatible animals. So what’s wrong with us? One thing might be in other countries, people are educated to respect the wildlife and no one jetskis up to a nesting swan.

    Personally, I can’t understand why anyone would want to kill anything as beautiful as a swan. And maybe the DNR, F&W and other pro-hunting agencies should start to realize that the future of their livlihoods is more likely to be in the hands of environmentalists who want to preserve wildllife and not destroy it.

  3. Elizabeth Williamson

    October 18, 2012 at 12:41 am

    I disagree with the U.S. Humane Society when it comes to the mute swan. They are an aggressive species to humans and other bird species. They not only displace other birds due to their prolific eating of grasses, but are aggressive towards them also. Mute swan destroys wetland areas and have a propensity to pull up more grasses than they tend to eat. Actions should be taken to reduce their numbers and to protect the environment.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login