Mute Swan population to be killed!!!! Has anyone else heard this?

Date sort Score sort
Whacking an animal on the head to kill it isn't anything new. Humans do that with all sorts of other animals, including food. Some get in a dither about it, think it's inhuman, but is it any more or less human then keeping the critter bagged for a road trip to a vet to poke them?? I don't personally think so, but to each his own.

Natural cycles stop this sort of thing. Overabundance leads to more predators, disease, lack of food, etc and nature itself cures the problem. In this case humans are the predators, might seem unnatural since we do tend to consider ourselves outside nature, but it's still the same cycle. The difference is that instead of ending up with a huge boom in predator population, or a disease that spreads to other animals, or an environment shift that kills other species OR the extinction of this species... instead because it's HUMAN (not "natural") predators the killing will stop when the numbers are sane again, but will NOT wipe out the species entirely.

Don't love that they have to die, and not even for meat or anything, but compared to dozens of other species (that aren't being bred/protected thus ensured continued existence) being totally wiped out... hard to have much pity.
 
Unfortunately overpopulation of certain species of animals needs to be done and is not done hastily. When someone said a lot of research would have went into this action they are right. That doesn't mean it is not infinitely sad but what are the other options? I'm very sorry for all the swans and wish there was no such overpopulation problem.
 
I don't think mute swans and certain other so called invasive species have caused as much harm to ecosystems as has been claimed. In some cases, not enough research has been done before placing restrictions. As is typical of govt., all possible solutions are rarely explored before taking action. Often the needs and rights of breeders arent taken into account when laws are passed. In the last year or two, California added mute swans to the "detrimental animals" list and some other states either have implemented new regulations or are considering them. There have been some restrictions placed on importation, transportation, sales, etc. Best to check on regulations in particular states before buying or selling mutes.

http://www.animallaw.info/administrative/adusca14ccrs671.htm

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Hunt_Trap/waterfowl/muteswans/MD_Regs_CaptiveMuteSwans.asp
 
Last edited:
I did a report on mute swans for my Science of the Chesapeake Bay class at my college. Although I do not like how they are killing the birds, they are a horribly invasive species. The main problem they are causing is to the SAV beds in the Bay. These beds are what helps filter the pollution in the water, and houses juvenile endangered species, along with crabs. The swans each eat up to 10lbs of SAV a day, and when they are in large numbers, they can kill a whole area in a very short time. There have been multiple attempts to stop this species, and there was even a Mute Swan Task Force created in 1998. They have tried many different option to control the populations. These are also very aggressive birds. They chase away native species, most importantly the native Crane. Also, they tend to stay in areas that are part of the Atlantic flyway zone. This is route the migratory birds take down the coast. The swans take the areas that the birds rest that are protected zones, causing them to have to stop at areas where they are more likely to be shot at.

They are pretty birds, but they are causing a lot of problems that the Chesapeake Bay 2000 was trying to restore.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
I know this is an old post, but I wanted to provide a bit of insight.
Mute Swans were protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act due to a court order (people did not want them harmed and there was a big push to have them protected) until 2005. This meant that in the USA they could not be hunted, harvested, harassed, or otherwise harmed. In 2005 the United States Department of the Interior officially declared them a non-native, unprotected species. Mute Swans are protected in some areas of the U.S. by local laws though and still cannot be harmed, hunted or harassed. I think Connecticut is one of these states.

I personally think that hunting is a viable means of control if done properly, like any other game species. If a swan is hunted, there is money going back into Federally preserved wetlands (sale of duck stamps, ammo, etc... ( www [dot] fws.gov/duckstamps/Conservation/conservation.htm .. sorry, can't post full links yet, just copypaste ), and state conservation money as well via state hunting licenses. If a swan is harvested, it is much more likely to be enjoyed by an individual or family. Whereas culling swans also removes them, but instead of putting hunter dollars into conservation (and, for the record, hunter dollars have conserved more wetland than anyone else's!) it instead costs the state money to pay people to cull, remove, and dispose of the swans. During culling, the bodies are buried en mass, or cremated, and benefit no one.

Personally, if the birds need to be controlled (and it seems they do), I'd rather hunt them and
1. Put money back INTO conservation and habitat protection, 2. Provide a meal for hunters and families that would eat the swans 3. Have harvest reports where hunters report the number of swans taken, as better to get an idea of populations and have numbers for studies (most states require to you report at least some game species that you harvest)
Rather than...
1. Cost taxpayers money to have the state cull the swans 2. Swans are buried or cremated, benefiting no one even in death

In the end, habitat loss and pollution from humans causes more damage to native species, it is true! However, we should not overlook responsible management of species that need it. The argument is, of course, that nature has been able to balance herself out without our help for millions of years. Very much true and wonderful! But unless we get our own population in check nature is going to have a hard time doing that. The current rates of human-caused extinctions are a testament to that.

Just food for thought! I understand being sad or upset at these birds being killed.
 
Last edited:
Got to agree with many points others have brought up. I'm not big on mass culling when either the methods being used are inhumane, not limited to the target species, or result in just a bunch of dead animals that are then not used for anything. Relocation to appropriate areas (Many aviaries even keep mute swans), hunting or even using culled birds for some purpose (ie. feeding carnivorous captive animals such as in zoos, sanctuaries, and rehabilitation centers), and utilizing ways where money is made that then goes towards protection of native habitat, is a much better situation to me than just removing issues without acknowledging that we continuously create and contribute to them...including with our own population.
 
Sometimes you can use them, sometimes you can't... Either way they have to go! Just because we can't, or don't find a way to humanely take them out, not 'cull' them, doesn't mean they don't have to be dealt with. And it has to happen soon or they'll be too much to handle! Ex: Snow geese here in North America
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom