Mute Swan Update

[mike rossi]

Note: The following article is of explanatory nature. We will follow up with information on how you should respond to this. The politicians and the antis are making this a soup of complexity, so it is important that you read this article thoroughly so that we can get everyone updated and one the same page. This is evolving tremendously fast and is putting a strain on our time, we need people to pitch in. At this point we are considering a website with a petition and/or form letter generator to keep up with all this BS.

 

Also, we cant make these articles shorter, all we can do is break them up into part 1 to be continued, part 2, etc.. However it does not seem that would increase readership and would result in less people taking the time to understand what we are saying instead of engaging more people. Suggestions or opinions on that encouraged, not here though, PM please.

 

February 23, 2014

We have been offering the unpopular premise that the practice of hunters uniting, no matter what the issue, is not wise; and in addition to potentially exasperating a bad public image and/or supporting unsound policies; should also be frowned upon because it is a tool in which funnels policy decisions to a relatively select few. This is not suggesting that the decisions for 800,000 NY hunters is being made by ten people, but rather several hundred who are connected, not only to each other, but to various politicians and politically linked organizations. This is not however what this article is about and to understand that we direct you to the archives.

We are however, addressing an issue that does in fact impact the sporting community universally. That issue is senate bill 6589 and assembly bill 8790. These bills are requiring the DEC to duplicate an enormous amount of research which has already been done, because the conclusions do not support the political agenda of anti-hunters. The proposals are not linked to the endangered species act requiring an EIS, a sound law in our opinion. However these proposals; which we deem not sound, copy this law to enable a socio-political agenda. One of the sponsors of the legislation, Tony Avella, is endorsed by the HSUS, the largest and wealthiest anti-hunting organization in the United States.

These bills, if passed, will impose a two year moratorium the DEC’s mute swan management plan.

We agree with the two consecutive moratoriums passed and imposed on hydrofracking in NY to gather more state-specific information. This moratorium is much different, while ironically being very much the same… It is different because the two issues have a much different level of complexity and different levels of scientific consensus. Unlike hydrofracking, which involves a myriad of chain-reaction problems which are not addressed and have shown up in other states; the research pool for mute swans is adequate and practical application of the research has been developed, agreed upon, used successfully in other states, and produced the desired ecological end result: reclamation of breeding sites by native birds, recovery of submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV, and improved water quality.

A four year moratorium was initially issued on Hydrofracking. When that expired few people knew what fracking was. Over those four years however, legitimate concerns developed because of the recent history of other states which do allow fracking. Environmentalists organized a campaign against fracking. Before we continue: we are NOT criticizing environmentalism and we are NOT categorizing people who are opposed to invasive species eradication as environmentalists. We consider ourselves environmentalists.

The first moratorium expired and the industry was anxious to get started. They thought they were going to waltz right in and start making money. They even kept themselves busy over those four years engaging landowners and even entering contracts with them to start drilling away once the moratorium expired. They knew they had a Pro-fracking President and a Pro-fracking governor – yes Obama and Cuomo, the two best friends the industry could ever have. The majority of state representatives also supported fracking, many of them endorsed and/or financed by the industry. But anti frackers were now organized and had history, as well as science on their side.  Articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in local newspapers, social media sites such as face book allowed them to recruit new members at an exponential rate. The anti-fracking movement became a force against politicians and big energy.

Anti-hunters are well versed in the use articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in local newspapers, and social media sites such as face book, which enable them to recruit new members at an exponential rate. The HSUS is extremely well funded and it is very common for them to air infomercials on television laden with snappy, attractive propaganda to efficiently reach masses of people.

So what is going to happen if the HSUS and their local affiliates in NY State succeed in passing this moratorium on swan eradication? For one thing the mute swans population will have grown 26 percent and in addition to increasing their numbers will likely have increased their distribution throughout the state as well – remember, conservation issues are time-sensitive….

Can any new research be completed in two years? No, not really…

Will any research develop any alternative conclusions or strategies? We can’t see how that is possible with legitimate science.

Will research discover the mute swan is an integral part of the ecological processes in the state? No, it will not. However, we are aware of one study which suggested mute swans enable the native waterfowl to access food, but have not reviewed the study. It sounds like pseudo-science, but we will report on this in the future. However, even if this is true, mute swans impact native waterfowl in many ways and native birds do not depend on a symbiotic relationship with mute swans during any part of their life cycle. In other words, native birds feed themselves just fine without mute swans and have been doing for eons before the swans were introduced to this continent; the only significant impacts mute swans have on native waterfowl are all negative.

What a two year moratorium will do, however, besides allow population growth and distribution of mute swans to increases, along with the associated impacts; is it will allow anti-hunters to organize, recruit new members, and influence politicians and public opinion. Since an overwhelming amount of research, as well as common sense, support mute swan eradication, it is still doubtful the antis will be able to ultimately block this. However, they will have increased their following and thereby their ability to influence public opinion and politicians, which will affect future policy decisions on matters less cut and dry, including the morality of hunting in general…

Edited February 23, 2014 by mike rossi