Connecticut Mute Swans
Greenwich Time
Letter to the Editor
Mute swans have been under fire at least since 1980, when hunters moved to remove legal protections from the birds. A biologist from Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) called the birds “overgrown starlings” and recommended hunting.
Milan J. Bull, president of a duck hunting group in Connecticut, echoed that opinion. Milan’s son, Milan G. Bull, advocates swan killing through his own work as senior director for the Connecticut Audubon Society. Falling into step is the Nature Conservancy of Connecticut, a group used to accommodating hunters on its lands.
DEP bureaucrats treat hunters as their clients. Thus, when hunters blame swans — rather than, say, the pollution of wetlands, or hunting itself — for diminishing ducks and geese, DEP biologists stand ready to raise an alarm that Connecticut is infested with aggressive, ravenous, and ecologically devastating mute swans.
Over the last three decades, mute swan numbers have remained stable at around 1,000, compared to tens of thousands of Canada geese and ducks. And although swans have been known to enjoy underwater vegetation, to our knowledge they’ve never eliminated a plant species from an ecosystem. Vegetation is threatened mainly by commercial pollution — a human problem, like excess greenhouse gas emissions. This week a DEP waterfowl biologist told me while the agency couldn’t control pollution or global warming, it could control mute swans. Hardly a scientific justification for waging war on any species, let alone a group of a thousand birds.
Mute swans are naturalized citizens of the North American ecology. Indeed, the late Dr. Roger Tory Peterson, who wrote the books the DEP uses, called egg-shaking to prevent swan births a “horrible idea.” Peterson told The New York Times: “My view is to leave them alone.”
Friends of Animals will defend mute swans’ interests in living free from human interference.
Sincerely,
Priscilla Feral
President
Friends of Animals
777 Post Road
Darien, Connecticut 06820
Post your comment
Comment Guidelines: We welcome your expressions of opinion on this subject. Please avoid negative commentary about individuals or groups which is false. Facts must be verified by the person posting. Off-topic comments, and comments inappropriate for a readership of all ages, may be deleted. E-mail addresses will never be published. Only comments with valid e-mail address will be published.
5 Comments
On January 15, 2008, Edward wrote:
How would you feel if a big giant came into your neighborhood and drowned your offspring and ate all of your food?
FoA comments:
Or how would you feel if some crazed shotgunner came in and killed your family and ate them so the giant wouldn’t get them?
On January 17, 2008, larry wrote:
This is a destructive introduced species, much like Russian thistle, chickweed, et.al.
Removal to the greatest extent possible is entirely appropriate.
On January 17, 2008, Lee Hall of Friends of Animals wrote:
Larry, I wonder what your opinion has been about the species Homo sapiens since it left its equatorial niche a few tens of thousands of years back.
On January 23, 2008, sally wrote:
What is your research regarding ecology and conservation on this issue?
[Blog editors’ note: Friends of Animals recently submitted a paper titled “Non-lethal Techniques to Reduce Animal Problems,” regarding mute swans:
http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/mute-swans/non-lethal-techniques.htm
FoA’s findings counter our opponents’ propaganda that Mute Swans are invasive, overpopulated and cause pollution.]
On February 22, 2008, Donna wrote:
I live in New London, CT where the mute swans that have lived here for centuries peacefully coexist with a massive population of Canadian geese and mallard ducks. Thank you for your defense of our beloved mute swans, we love them on the Thames River here and feed them bread in addition to their eating underwater vegetation that does not appear to diminish the amount in the River at all nor any shellfish or species that live off it. We adore our swans and find any move to remove them extremely offensive. A recent article in our New London Day examined the issue and the posts to the article online show how much we all want the species to remain a part of our shoreline.