Revised Mute Swan Update

[mike rossi]

February 23, 2014

We have been making the unpopular premise that it is wise to abandon the practice of uniting merely for solidarity when merit is absent, to avoid public image issues, bad policy enactment, and 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 are 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 believe however, that we are in fact facing an issue which actually does in impact the sporting community universally. That issue is senate bill 6589 and assembly bill 8790.

 

These bills, wish to impose a two year moratorium on the DEC’s management strategies and thereby likely require the DEC to duplicate an enormous amount of research, apparently because the conclusions of existing research do not support the political agenda of anti-hunters. One of the sponsors of the legislation, Senator Tony Avella, is endorsed by the HSUS, the largest and wealthiest anti-hunting organization in the United States.

 

These proposals appear to have been modeled after a section of the Federal Endangered Species Act which requires an EIS or environmental impact statement in some situations. Although this federal law is sound in our opinion; the EIS as it functions in the Endangered Species Act, pertains to endangered species facing limited and/or declining range, not deleterious introduced species which are expanding their distribution, hence the term ‘invasive’. The wildlife science community at large, not just the DEC, considers mute swans to be a deleterious and invasive species based on its behavior and known impacts. The designation as an invasive species is not arrived at merely because of a species original range as is being suggested by persons opposed to the plan.  As a matter of fact there are introduced species that are not necessarily invasive, however that is not the case with mute swans.

 

This legislation also seems to be modeled after fairly recent hydrofracking moratoriums. We agree with the two consecutive moratoriums passed and imposed on hydrofracking in NY to gather more state-specific information. This moratorium proposal 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 has a history of issues in other states which have not been properly addressed, the published research about mute swans is definitive.

 

There are two forms of research, basic and applied. Basic research is the source of knowledge regarding a specie’s biology, behavior, natural history and how it interacts with plants, animals, and people within a community. Basic research is not merely a source of the proverbial ‘fun facts’; it provides insight into a species population dynamics and how it functions in an ecological system.  Applied research is problem orientated and is useful in developing management strategies like the ones outlined in the DEC’s mute swan plan. That statement needs to be qualified because it implies that basic research is never relevant to management strategies and that is not accurate.

 

In other states the published basic research is the foundation for concern about mute swans and published applied research has been used in the development of their management strategies. The DEC’s opinion that mute swans are a harmful species in NY and the strategies within the DEC’s plan, are also guided by research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If one pays attention to the literature citations within the draft plan this would be apparent. We speculate the rebuttal to the above will be that state-specific or updated research is needed, but we challenge them to provide a valid reason as to why. In reality they are not interested in biological research; and will seek social research after a two year window of opportunity to make this a public opinion battle during which they can use their abundant resources to exert influence. That will effectively make this a politically-based policy instead of a science-based policy.

 

The goals behind the strategies which comprise the DEC’s plan are to prevent the loss of breeding sites by native birds, protect submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) from over grazing, and remove one more source of water contamination. One of the strategies to achieve those goals is hunting. The plan is being mischaracterized by some of its detractors who claim it is motivated by a desire to expand hunting opportunities; however hunting is only one of the strategies within the plan.

 

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.

 

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 a history of events in other states which do allow fracking. Environmentalists organized a campaign against fracking. 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 influence public opinion and 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 in two years without intervention the mute swan population will grow 26 percent and their distribution throughout the state will expand as well – remember, conservation issues are time-sensitive….

 

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

 

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

 

Will further 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 negative ones.

 

What a two year moratorium will do, however, besides allow the population size and distribution of mute swans to increase, along with the associated impacts; is it will provide anti-hunters over two years to grandstand on this issue, 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 doubtful anti-hunters will be able to ultimately block this. However, they will have increased their following and thereby their ability to influence public opinion, politicians and thereby conservation policy by essentially blocking any science-based decisions which are not consistent with their ideologies.

[ATbuckhunter]

We can't even pass a simple bill to improve the native wildlife of NY. I do wish they would have sent out letters or emails to those with hunting licenses and were unaware of this.

[mike rossi]

We can't even pass a simple bill to improve the native wildlife of NY. I do wish they would have sent out letters or emails to those with hunting licenses and were unaware of this.

The draft management plan is not a bill that requires "passing". You are opening the book in the middle of a chapter. You need to read back and then get on the same page. There are however, two bills introduced, before the plan was even finalized I might add, which will stall certain parts of the plan. It would be to your benefit in the future to understand the difference between a dec plan and a bill...

 

The DEC is not allowed by policy and/or law to do that. They can not send out letters, it is up to conservation organizations that are interested in an issue to send out letters to their members.

 

What the DEC can do is develop "outreach" programs to educate the public about an issue. Part of the management plan itself is to create outreach about mute swans. These proposals wont squash that strategy, but I suppose the next thing the antis will want is for themselves to rewrite the outreach to correct everything they say the DEC is wrong about? Or, suggest the outreach needs to be put on hold until it can be updated when all this novel research findings come in....  I am guessing they didn't even think about that part while they focus on the killing and pinioning, but I am only half joking, they think  they are who should write science with their opinions, just like hunters think, lol... .

 

Don't take offense, this is going to sound combatant, and like a liberal elite, but you are supposing that sportsman are the key to actively pursuing  this, if so why have they not then?  It is the conservation organizations, not the sportsmen's organizations who have reached out to their members. Audubon New York; American Bird Conservancy; National Wildlife Federation; Ducks Unlimited.  I am not aware of the NYS conservation council or any county federations doing anything. And from personal experience interfacing with them, they are not interested in and/or are unable to understand things along this vein. This forum is a representative subsample of the attitude which pervades the sporting community, how many are interested and taking an active role that read what has been posted about the issue? That is why I know that when I post things of this nature that I am reaching only a small percentage, plus an additional small number who though are not interested now, will develop a mature conservation ethic and have this information to refer back to in the future or know where to look for it.

Edited February 24, 2014 by mike rossi