Misrepresentation of the Facts
Background:
Historically, because mute swans are an exotic and non-migratory species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not consider them protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), an international treaty which gives the federal government primary responsibility for managing migratory birds, including native ducks, geese and swans. Consequently, management of mute swans was the responsibility of individual states. Laws in states followed the MBTA in classifying them as unprotected. In effect, they could be taken without a permit at any time, for any reason, by just about anyone. It's likely that this approach was responsible for keeping our feral mute swan population from growing as rapidly as in states where mute swans were protected under state law and/or not consistently removed from public lands.
In December 2001, however, in response to a lawsuit, a federal court ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could not exclude mute swans from MBTA protection. This placed mute swans in the same protected category as native waterfowl, and in effect meant that control measures, had to be put on hold or stopped. However, shortly thereafter, this court ruling was overturned, keep reading.
Combined with the rapidly multiplying feral mute swan population in the Chesapeake Bay just to the south, and the increasing numbers of domesticated mute swans already in Pennsylvania that could serve as a source of new feral swans, these constraints on control activities were a major cause for concern.
Following the court ruling, the Pennsylvania Game Commission worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Atlantic Flyway states to develop the Atlantic Flyway Mute Swan Management Plan. This plan established mute swan population goals for the flyway, along with strategies to begin reducing populations to those levels within the parameters of the MBTA.
Recently, Mute Swan advocates have been circulating information contending that there is evidence that Mute Swans are actually native to North America. Publication of these claims in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter (Alison and Burton 2008) resulted in rebuttals in the form of an outline of the factual errors in the piece (Warnock 2009), and thorough and detailed debunking of its claims by the USFWS in the Federal Register (Anon. 2005) and by ornithologists (Askins 2009, Elphick 2009, Seymour and Peck 2009). During a series of lawsuits by animal rights activists against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the pro-swan plaintiffs actually conceded that the Mute Swan was not native to North America (Fund for Animals v. Norton, 374 F.Supp.2d 91 (D.D.C.2005)). Nonetheless, swan advocacy groups continue to present this discredited material.
Statement of Larry Hindman of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Introduced Non-Native Mute Swans
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/infocus/statement121603.html
Click to View: Lawsuits by Animal Rights Activist - mute swans
Go Back to: Ring-Necked Pheasant-Invasive Species or Valuable Gamebird
Historically, because mute swans are an exotic and non-migratory species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not consider them protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), an international treaty which gives the federal government primary responsibility for managing migratory birds, including native ducks, geese and swans. Consequently, management of mute swans was the responsibility of individual states. Laws in states followed the MBTA in classifying them as unprotected. In effect, they could be taken without a permit at any time, for any reason, by just about anyone. It's likely that this approach was responsible for keeping our feral mute swan population from growing as rapidly as in states where mute swans were protected under state law and/or not consistently removed from public lands.
In December 2001, however, in response to a lawsuit, a federal court ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could not exclude mute swans from MBTA protection. This placed mute swans in the same protected category as native waterfowl, and in effect meant that control measures, had to be put on hold or stopped. However, shortly thereafter, this court ruling was overturned, keep reading.
Combined with the rapidly multiplying feral mute swan population in the Chesapeake Bay just to the south, and the increasing numbers of domesticated mute swans already in Pennsylvania that could serve as a source of new feral swans, these constraints on control activities were a major cause for concern.
Following the court ruling, the Pennsylvania Game Commission worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Atlantic Flyway states to develop the Atlantic Flyway Mute Swan Management Plan. This plan established mute swan population goals for the flyway, along with strategies to begin reducing populations to those levels within the parameters of the MBTA.
Recently, Mute Swan advocates have been circulating information contending that there is evidence that Mute Swans are actually native to North America. Publication of these claims in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter (Alison and Burton 2008) resulted in rebuttals in the form of an outline of the factual errors in the piece (Warnock 2009), and thorough and detailed debunking of its claims by the USFWS in the Federal Register (Anon. 2005) and by ornithologists (Askins 2009, Elphick 2009, Seymour and Peck 2009). During a series of lawsuits by animal rights activists against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the pro-swan plaintiffs actually conceded that the Mute Swan was not native to North America (Fund for Animals v. Norton, 374 F.Supp.2d 91 (D.D.C.2005)). Nonetheless, swan advocacy groups continue to present this discredited material.
Statement of Larry Hindman of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Introduced Non-Native Mute Swans
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/infocus/statement121603.html
Click to View: Lawsuits by Animal Rights Activist - mute swans
Go Back to: Ring-Necked Pheasant-Invasive Species or Valuable Gamebird