NYS DEC intends to kill ALL mute swans! (New York, turkey, geese)

[J5K5LY]

"The long-term goal of this management plan is to eliminate free-ranging mute swans from New York State by 2025," according to the DEC's draft management plan, because "mute swans are a non-native, invasive species that has the potential to adversely impact native wildlife and their habitats."

Note the word POTENTIAL. It hasn't happened in the over 100 years they have been here. There is NO justification for killing the swans.


Queens Sen. Tony Avella's bill has a memo that explains "wildlife experts, rehabilitators and environmentalists do not unanimously agree that exterminating the mute swan population is justified. In addition, there is debate amongst such experts about whether the planned eradication of the mute swan population is even minimally beneficial to the eco-system or to our environment."

So there you have it.

[Beenaroundabit]

Note the word POTENTIAL. It hasn't happened in the over 100 years they have been here. There is NO justification for killing the swans.

As I said in the post which you apparently didn't read, just because they haven't had an adverse impact in your area yet, it doesn't mean they won't. And those adverse impacts have been documented elsewhere. That's called "justification."

I can see the NY DEC doing nothing about mute swans. Then, when your local swans they start doing what all wild creatures do (namely, being unpredictable and changing behavior) and start killing ducklings, people like you will be all up in arms that the DEC "didn't do anything." Bottom line: mute swans are non-native and not protected; the species they impact are native and are protected under federal laws like the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and, in some cases, the Endangered Species Act.

[rainroosty]

^^^ How bizarre of you to rest your case on the swans suddenly changing their behavior. That kind of thinking is scary and dumb. Those swans do no harm at all.

[Beenaroundabit]

Originally Posted by rainroosty

^^^ How bizarre of you to rest your case on the swans suddenly changing their behavior. That kind of thinking is scary and dumb. Those swans do no harm at all.

What's "bizarre" is resting a case on the fact that an animal is "beautiful" and "majestic."

"Scary and dumb" is completely ignoring science, or ignoring what's occurring/has occurred in other areas.

To think all wildlife is "cute" and needs to be protected for that reason, alone, is naive, at best.

The operative portion of the word "wildlife" is "wild." As in we don't know what they'll do or when. What we DO know - and what has been widely documented by science and research - is that their behavior changes when things around them change - climate, weather, industrialization, human population expansion, loss of habitat, etc. If there was zero chance that any of these factors would ever impact the mute swans in question, then I'd say let them be.

But does anyone really think our population won't expand any more? That industrial activity or chemicals in the ground water won't affect a plant or animal species which another species (like mute swans) depends on for food, pushing them in new directions?

[J5K5LY]

I propose we kill all the snapping turtles because they snatch the ducklings and other waterfowl babies, including some endangered birds.
I propose we kill all the hawks as they take what ever bird they want and have no regard to whether or not the bird is endangered.
I propose we kill all the fox as they will destroy nests of waterfowl and eat the eggs, some of which may be endangered.
I propose we kill all the deer as they eat flowers and ornamental bushes planted at great expense to the home owners that have taken their land. Also, like one gentleman (and I use that term loosely) on the east end of LI that wants them all dead because HE contracted Lyme disease so they must ALL die!
I propose we kill all the bear as it can be risky to walk in the woods when they have cubs.
I propose we kill all the raccoons as they can also destroy nests of birds and waterfowl, some of which may be endangered.
Now, I propose we kill all the mute swans, even though they have never been a problem in NY, because when I walk my kids and dogs near their nests or near the cygnets, they may hiss at me. And I don't have enough common sense to stay away. So they must die.

There now, wouldn't this be a nicer world if we had NO animals?

[Beenaroundabit]

I propose we kill all the snapping turtles because they snatch the ducklings and other waterfowl babies, including some endangered birds.
I propose we kill all the hawks as they take what ever bird they want and have no regard to whether or not the bird is endangered.
I propose we kill all the fox as they will destroy nests of waterfowl and eat the eggs, some of which may be endangered.
I propose we kill all the deer as they eat flowers and ornamental bushes planted at great expense to the home owners that have taken their land. Also, like one gentleman (and I use that term loosely) on the east end of LI that wants them all dead because HE contracted Lyme disease so they must ALL die!
I propose we kill all the bear as it can be risky to walk in the woods when they have cubs.
I propose we kill all the raccoons as they can also destroy nests of birds and waterfowl, some of which may be endangered.
Now, I propose we kill all the mute swans, even though they have never been a problem in NY, because when I walk my kids and dogs near their nests or near the cygnets, they may hiss at me. And I don't have enough common sense to stay away. So they must die.

Sarcasm really only works when you're making a valid point. You're talking about species which prey on others in balance with nature (i.e. none of them have wiped anything out, nor do they have the present ability to do so). They're also native species. Moreover, if you had bothered to read anything that I've posted, the problems with mute swans were far more numerous than the fact that they may "hiss" at someone.

There now, wouldn't this be a nicer world if we had NO animals?

Better yet, let's just protect the ones which give you a warm-and-fuzzy - the "cute" ones that you enjoy looking at in your tiny corner of the national ecosystem...

I appreciate your passion. But the harsh reality of conservation is that animals were here first, and as humanity has expanded in population, harvested resources, and created industry which destroys habitat, we've pushed their living space into smaller and smaller areas. If we want to keep some species around, we have the responsibility of limiting the ranges of others - namely the ones which - if left unchecked - can easily destroy other species around them. That means making decisions based on scientific study and evidence. Not on what we prefer to look at.

[rainroosty]

There's no 100% certainty that a child won't be a serial killer so how about we kill it? Hell, we better kill them all. Swans don't do mass killings. Humans do.
I must say that it's pretty sad that there are people that don't see some animals as "majestic" or even "beautiful. It's pitiful.
And I will add that I make my statements with some substantial knowledge of natural sciences - I'm just not an Internet idiot that runs their mouth like a know it all.

[J5K5LY]

Few points here.
Swans are not creating havoc on LI and haven't been an issue for over 100 years.
The population is not increasing quickly and there are less than 2500 in all of NY, not just LI.
Swans fly. If they kill the swans that are here now, others will come. LI is an island and we have tons of water around. Up state NY has the Fingerlakes and many, many other lakes.
If they were causing a problem and needed to be curbed, then there are humane ways of approaching it.

I would tend to think that if they were going to create a large problem, they would have already. If this ever happens, then humane ways of dealing with it are reasonable.

This brings to mind when a nasty neighbor complained that the wild turkeys came onto MY property and ate the fallen bird seed from my feeders. The only solution I could offer was to put up signs saying "No Turkeys Allowed" but I didn't think that would work. Do you think it will work for the swans when they fly in? They are wild, they fly. Let's get real.

[Beenaroundabit]

Originally Posted by rainroosty

There's no 100% certainty that a child won't be a serial killer so how about we kill it? Hell, we better kill them all. Swans don't do mass killings. Humans do.
I must say that it's pretty sad that there are people that don't see some animals as "majestic" or even "beautiful. It's pitiful.
And I will add that I make my statements with some substantial knowledge of natural sciences - I'm just not an Internet idiot that runs their mouth like a know it all.

Once again, sarcasm only works when you actually have a sensible argument. And while you're busy insulting me, perhaps you could enlighten us all with some of your "knowledge of natural sciences..." Because what you've advocated here flies in the face of every science-based and well-established conservation principle known to man. I'm curious to know what "knowledge" you're referring to while defending the "keep-these-creatures-because-they're-pretty" viewpoint?

I've never proclaimed to know everything. Please show me where I've done that. I also never said animals were not "beautiful." I did say - several times - that there has to be balance. I'll break it down to plant-life for you: every single wild creature cannot exist simultaneously in the same ecosystem without encroaching upon one another, so it's our responsibility (if we want to keep as many around as possible...and since we're the biggest "encroachers" to begin with) to try and maintain balance.

You know, why don't you tell me what you do for a living. I'll then proceed - without any real background or experience regarding your career field - to disagree with everything you say, ignore every factual link you post, and continue to argue, simply because I don't like your opinion. And just to illustrate my professionalism and maturity, I'll call you an "idiot" to boot .

Few points here.
Swans are not creating havoc on LI and haven't been an issue for over 100 years.
The population is not increasing quickly and there are less than 2500 in all of NY, not just LI.

You're not reading what I've posted. No, they're not "creating havoc" and haven't. Yet. I said this already, a couple of times, and even linked to a study by folks who are probably a whole lot smarter than all of us on this thread combined. But they're doing it elsewhere, and like all wild creatures, they do it whenever there are changes to their environment. Will the environment/climate/level of development on Long Island remain static forever? I doubt it.

So should the DEC wait until they run out of some type of food, lose some habitat, or change their behavior due to human encroachment and then displace/destroy the habitat of another species? A native one, which is maybe threatened or endangered (but at least is likely protected under federal law, as all migratory birds are)?

Swans fly. If they kill the swans that are here now, others will come.

That may be true with a native species, but when eliminating a non-native species, the likelihood of that species returning to a given area is not high. Regardless whether the species can fly or not. Most were introduced here before there were import restrictions on wildlife. Or they were introduced by accident. But virtually all were introduced as a consequence of human actions, at times when we didn't understand the consequences of those actions. We do now.

If this ever happens, then humane ways of dealing with it are reasonable.

What is the inhumane method that's being proposed? Seriously. I didn't see any proposal involving undue suffering of the species. And what would be your alternative?

[J5K5LY]

What is the inhumane method that's being proposed? Seriously. I didn't see any proposal involving undue suffering of the species. And what would be your alternative?

Inhumane would be what they are proposing! Killing! Shooting! Bows and arrows! It is a horror to think of the swans, with their families, being shot. They are attached to their families and when one spouse dies, the other mourns and is lost.
The humane ways of curbing the population and having it possibly die out is to shake or oil the eggs.

I still think they should be left alone cuz they are causing no problems here and my philosophy is, if it ain't broke don't fix it. What may happen in the future should be left to see. Then address the PROBLEM, if it ever occurs.