DEC's Mute Swan Management Plan

[NE Waterfowler]

I also posted this in the general hunting forum in order to reach as many people as possible.

 

The DEC has recently issued its revised draft of the Mute Sway Management plan. As many of you know, these birds are a non-native, invasive species that can, and do cause problems for the local ecology. Last year, the plan was scuttled by state senator Ken LaValle. He is a known bunny hugger and introduced legislation that stopped the DEC's study until a "proper study" could be done. I found that a curious choice of words, since the DEC is supposed to be the state's profe...ssional and expert arm in the area of our environment. I recently received an email from the senator regarding the new (2015) draft that the DEC put out. I sent him an email expressing my outrage at his misuse of his political power to further his personal agenda and interfere with a state sanctioned scientifically backed proposal. Still, Mr. LaValle is a long time and powerful member of the state senate. One email from an unhappy constituent will hardly alter his course. In fact, I doubt that a flood of emails would change his opinion.

 

Over the years I've come to realize that it is very difficult to politically mobilize even the most dedicated interest groups.  Ideally, we'd want to flood the politicians and the DEC with emails and letters.  Sadly, for whatever reason that seldom happens.  So, I recently tried another approach.  I posted a link to a poll regarding the proposed waterfowl season dates for next year. I received a good response, so banking on that, I created another poll to determine the climate for a hunting season on mute swans. If the results of the poll are favorable to a hunting season, I will forward the results to the DEC and every member of the state senate and assembly urging them to support the DEC's efforts.

Please take a minute to participate in the poll:
http://www.poll-maker.com/poll268663x40C5ec73-10

 

NEW

 

[mike rossi]

Kudos for your effort, but what you are trying to accomplish requires a petition, not a survey. I have already sent my comments to the DEC on this issue, so I am not sure if signing a petition would be appropriate, but I am sure many others will sign on.

 

If you get 1,000 who oppose a mute swan hunting season, that does not mean you are surveying hunters, how do you know they are not anti hunters?

 

Suppose, for example,  you  did get 1,000 opposed and 500 supporters, and you do not submit the results to policy makers, because they are not favorable, all that does is NOT give the supporters a voice.

 

By offering a simple yes or no;  you are allowing the opposition to very easily and conveniently speak for those in support. Vote counting and surveys are NOT the same. I don't want to get into it in detail, and I am not an expert on the subject, but you need a petition, not a survey. 

 

[NE Waterfowler]

Hello Mike,

 

I think you missed the point of the survey.  Either that, or my explanation was lacking.  I'll try again.  State Senator Ken LaValle is a long time senator with a good bit of power in Albany.  Last year, the DEC's study was stopped in its tracks by legislation by LaValle citing the need for a "proper study".  As I said, I thought that the DEC was the state's expert arm in the field of environmental biology, so who would you get to do a "proper study"?  That legislation was simply LaValle's way of strong arming the DEC with the help of cronyism and political might.

 

If left alone by the politicians, the DEC is likely going to institute some sort of open season on mute swans.  If you've read the study, the alternatives are far more expensive and time consuming.  LaValle, is a known animal rights activist.  A quick look at his record makes that pretty obvious.  As long as he is in some position of power in the senate, the DEC's efforts will be hamstrung.  This survey is intended to inform the politicians of the NYS senate, all of them, of the wishes of the people.  It is not intended to be a head count for the DEC.  As of the moment, no legislation has been introduced, though LaValle is up to something behind the scene.  At the appropriate time, I intend to forward the results of the survey to all members of the state senate.

[mike rossi]

I think I have a pretty good grip on the pending policy and also what you are trying to do. 

 

Presently, there is an open public review on the revised mute swan plan. As far as I know, none of the strategies in the revised plan require legislative approval, nor is there any currently pending legislation or litigation to block the DEC.

 

One of the elements the DEC is currently soliciting comments about is the opinion among the waterfowl hunting community as to whether or not hunting mute swans would harm the public image of waterfowl hunting. 

 

That element is pretty straight forward, and asks no more than: Do you think hunting mute swans will harm the public image of waterfowl hunting or do you think it will not harm the public image of waterfowl hunting? 

 

I indicated in my public comment, regarding that particular element, that I do NOT believe the hunting of mute swans would harm the public image of waterfowl hunting. I justified my opinion in that hunter behavior is always a factor in public acceptance of hunting and its image, and the issue should be addressed no differently in mute swan hunting than how it addressed in any other types of hunting.  Anyone can feel free to resonate that talking point into their  public comment and I encourage it. 

Edited March 19, 2015 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

"If left alone by the politicians, the DEC is likely going to institute some sort of open season on mute swans"

 

And, I disagree very much with what you said above in italics. This is our problem, everybody thinks that way and this thinking is wrong. 

 

The DEC will NOT go ahead and set a hunting season without a strong show of support from the hunting community in the public comment process. (which is happening right now)

 

In fact, left alone, the DEC will listen to the public comment they are receiving. If the only people participating in the public review period are animal rights proponents, the direction of the policy will reflect that. Politicians have very little say-so at this time and are unlikely to intervene again at this point. 

 

 

[NE Waterfowler]

With all due respect, Mike, you need to look at what happened last time before you say that the politicians have no say.  Read through some of [url=https://www.google.com/#q=Senator+Ken+LaValle+mute+swan]THESE[/ur]} Google returns to see what the good senator has done and what he's up to.  He is on record stating that he will not allow the destruction of these birds.  The point here is that this poll is targeting the politicians, not the DEC.

 

As it stands now, any season on mute swans will be simply a means of controlling the population to an extent.  It is not about removing these feral birds from the environment.  That is simply a socio-political fact.

 

NEW

[NE Waterfowler]

The DEC will NOT go ahead and set a hunting season without a strong show of support from the hunting community in the public comment process. (which is happening right now)

 

In fact, left alone, the DEC will listen to the public comment they are receiving. If the only people participating in the public review period are animal rights proponents, the direction of the policy will reflect that. Politicians have very little say-so at this time and are unlikely to intervene again at this point. 

 

I'm sure you are aware that the DEC is under a federal mandate to do something about the population of this invasive non-native species.  If I recall correctly, they were supposed to have a plan in place by some time in 2013.  So, if there has to be a means of controlling the population, the DEC would prefer controlled hunt.  It is the least expensive and quickest way of accomplishing the goal when you compare it to the other options laid out in the plan.

 

As far as the politicians are concerned, one only has to look to the recent past to see that they can intervene and, under the right conditions, will intervene.  LaValle is a known zealot in this matter and has even had press releases and emailings in the last few days stating:

 

"On the initial review of the revised draft, I am pleased that the DEC has heard our concerns and has begun to move in the right direction.   However, the plan still allows for the destruction of these birds on Long Island in certain circumstances.   Mute Swans should only be destroyed as the absolute last resort, and only when they are posing public danger.   I look forward to a final plan, with proper management, that achieves these goals."

 

If that isn't a clear statement of the senator's intentions, I don't know what is.

 

NEW

[mike rossi]

 

 

"On the initial review of the revised draft, I am pleased that the DEC has heard our concerns and has begun to move in the right direction.   However, the plan still allows for the destruction of these birds on Long Island in certain circumstances.   Mute Swans should only be destroyed as the absolute last resort, and only when they are posing public danger.   I look forward to a final plan, with proper management, that achieves these goals."

 

If that isn't a clear statement of the senator's intentions, I don't know what is.

 

 

 

 

That statement sounds like he is not satisfied with the revised plan which will use (mostly) non lethal strategies.It sounds like he wants it so that only when the birds are posing a danger to people should lethal means be used. However,  I don't know what his exact intentions are if the final plan is not revised even further. However, I don't think he will get very far if the DEC refuses to compromise any further.

 

Let me explain more clearly why I think further political intervention is unlikely at this point:

 

1. The DEC pretty much accommodated the public outcry in their new plan. Legislation is not necessary. 

 

2. They don't want to flop another bill, Many who voted for it, wont vote for it next time around. And, the Governor will veto it again even if it did pass again.

 

At this stage of the game, the adoption of the plan is hinging on public comment, so those with vested interest in this should do so within the next few days. If legislation and/or a court injunction is introduced after the plan is adopted, the hunting community would again have to come together to defeat the legislation or influence the court if an injunction is filed. 

 

With that said, I don't discourage your preemptive effort regarding legislation, but not enough of the hunting community has engaged in this second round of public comment. Hunters more readily absorb politician bashing than other things and I am afraid that they will become distracted from participating in public comment if they become fixated on LaValle, for example. (I am not accusing you, but for example sake, knowing what I know about hunters, if I was an anti, I would use political bashing as bait to distract them)... 

Edited March 20, 2015 by mike rossi

[NE Waterfowler]

The part you posted above is a done deal, as it is the heart of the compromise of the DEC revised the plan. It was the result of public outcry during the first round of public comment by the public, not the result of lawmakers. The lawmakers did pass legislation in response to the same public outcry, however, the Governor vetoed the law, The DEC made the changes voluntarily. 

 

Let me explain more clearly why I think further political intervention is unlikely at this point:

 

1. The DEC pretty much accommodated the public outcry in their new plan. Legislation is not necessary. 

 

2. They don't want to flop another bill, Many who voted for it, wont vote for it next time around. And, the Governor will veto it again even if it did pass again.

 

There are too many people reading this, who do not understand the process and/or have not followed it from the start. Some of these people have a vested interest in the outcome. It is not necessary they have a comprehensive account of the entire controversy for them to participate in public comment. If they seek the entire account, it is online. It is more important that they understand exactly what is going on in real time and that they have the opportunity to comment on the plan in a relevant manner.  In order for that to happen, they need to be directed to the revised plan and the instructions on commenting. 

 

Ah, Mike, that quote above was taken directly from an email by Senator LaValle on March 10, 2015.  Apparently, the Senator doesn't think it a done deal.  He is, by his own admission n that email, gearing up to scuttle any plans by the DEC for the destruction of mute swans.  The evidence is right in the quote.  "Mute Swans should only be destroyed as the absolute last resort, and only when they are posing public danger. "

 

We made the mistake last year of not taking Senator LaValle seriously.  A quick look at the man's credentials and past history would make it an obvious mistake to underestimate him.  So, while the Governor vetoed the bill last time around, it did serve it's purpose, to delay the implementation of any of the proposed provisions in the plan.  Still, I wouldn't underestimate the ability of LaValle to pull something political this time around.  It's best we prepare ourselves for it.  If you don't want to be part of it, fine.  If you want to start a petition, that's fine too.  I'll sign it and I'll even help getting signatures.  But, you'd better have a better organized petition than went around last year.  That one was no help at all.

 

NEW

[mike rossi]

I revised post number 8, because I see I did not read what I was responding to carefully. You are correct, he does not see it as a done deal. However, my point is still valid. Please reread post number 8. 

[mike rossi]

I'm sure you are aware that the DEC is under a federal mandate to do something about the population of this invasive non-native species.  If I recall correctly, they were supposed to have a plan in place by some time in 2013.  So, if there has to be a means of controlling the population, the DEC would prefer controlled hunt.  It is the least expensive and quickest way of accomplishing the goal when you compare it to the other options laid out in the plan.

 

 

 

 

The DEC has already conceded to giving preference to  non-lethal strategies over more efficient means .  However, the revised plan, does retain some use of lethal strategies . (As you pointed out, that is not good enough for Lavalle, but lets forget about that for the moment). 

One of the lethal strategies the DEC seeks to retain is hunting. The fact that hunting would be efficient does not in any way invalidate what I said - which is: that in order for  (hunting) to be an implemented strategy , hunters must voice they want it in public comment. And they need to do so by April 24. If hunters do not voice support during public comment, the final plan will not include hunting, it is as simple as that...

 If you want to start a petition, that's fine too.  I'll sign it and I'll even help getting signatures.  But, you'd better have a better organized petition than went around last year.  That one was no help at all.

 

 

 

Not true at all. Our petition educated thousands of people from hunters to politicians to conservationists to the general public. It also had a direct influence on the Governor.

 

As a matter of fact, if you read the DEC's summary, you will notice they cite the videos we sent them and the governor. Here is a link to that summary: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/pubcomsmuteswan2015.pdf

 

I am not doing another mute swan petition. I submitted my public comment and that is it for me with this issue.

Edited March 20, 2015 by mike rossi

[virgil]

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/letters/letters-state-should-back-off-mute-swan-plan-1.10432491

 

Just saw this on the Newday website today.