Submit letters to:
letters@washpost.comTo submit an OpEd see:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/opeds/submit/You can also post comments
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051501258.html Poll [we are losing, so please vote]
How aggressive should officials bein removing invasive species from theBay?<
http://www.twiigs.com/poll/Local/Maryland/31838>
- Very aggressive. Invasive species often pose a threat to native plants and animals. - Leave them be. It's too late to turn back the clock in most cases. - Go on a case-by-case basis. Some invasive species are a threat, others aren't.
MARYLAND Deeply Divided Panel Backs Eradication of Mute Swans By AshleyHalsey III<
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/ashley+halsey+iii/>Washington Post Staff WriterSaturday, May 16, 2009
Maryland's majestic white mute swans have dwindled in number from 4,000 tojust a few hundred, and a sharply divided state panel recommended yesterdaythat the invasive species be eliminated to preserve wetlands and endangerednative birds. Full CommitteeReport<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/MUSWReport_051509.pdf>:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/MUSWReport_051509.pdf?sid=ST2009051501304"The mute swan is an environmental hazard to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem,"according to recommendations sent to John R. Griffin, secretary of theDepartment of Natural Resources. "The mute swan is one of the world's mostaggressive species of waterfowl."
The report, from an advisory committee appointed by Griffin, said that themute swans pose a "formidable threat" to native wildlife species and "feedaggressively" on fragile submerged grasses and that efforts to kill theremaining swans, estimated to number 500, should continue.
"Ending lethal control would lead to rapid population growth that wouldultimately mean that more mute swans would have to be killed to maintain apopulation level of 500 swans," the report said. "We believe that it is veryimportant for this population-reduction effort to continue to reduce themute swan population to as low a level as can be achieved."
"Conservationists are not in favor of protecting a beautiful but dangerousinvasive waterfowl," Jonathan A. McKnight, the report's author, said in aninterview. McKnight is the DNR's associate director for habitatconservation.
The panel that was convened to review the eradication program descended intoacrimony between environmentalists and animal rights advocates.
The animal rights advocates defended the animals as an "engaging andcaptivating part of the Chesapeake Bay."
"The callous and brutal treatment that these magnificent swans receive atthe hands of the Maryland DNR is simply appalling," the Humane Society saidin a letter to Griffin. The organization said the birds are shot or theirnecks are broken by DNR employees.
The letter accompanied a dissenting report by panel members John W. Grandyof the Humane Society and E. Joseph Lamp of the Maryland Wildlife AdvisoryCommission.
Mute swans are native to Asia and Europe, and the first five imported toMaryland arrived in 1962 as "lawn ornaments" at a Talbot County estate,McKnight said. The population expanded rapidly from those three males andtwo females, reaching about 4,000 by the year 2000.
The swans, which can stand as tall as four feet and weigh close to 30pounds, soon lived in tidal waters throughout the state, with the greatestnumbers along the central and lower Eastern Shore around the Choptank River.
They have drawn the ire of conservationists on two counts: They are bigbirds that trample and usurp the habitat of endangered native birds, andthey uproot the shallow-water grasses where young crabs and fish find refugeuntil they are large enough to fend for themselves in open water.
"They cause extreme degradation to underwater grasses," said Kim Coble,Maryland executive director for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "If we leavethem unchecked, they will come back, and we'll have a serious problem."
Coble said the foundation favors nonlethal controls, primarily coating eggsin the nest with oil that prevents them from hatching, but backs the stateprogram to kill the birds as a last resort.
In their dissent, Grandy and Lamp said damage by the swans is minimal whencompared with that of humans and does not warrant lethal measures.
"The bay does not need fewer swans," they wrote, asking Griffin to produceproof that reducing the swan population has preserved bay grasses.
McKnight, who chaired the advisory panel and wrote the majority report, saideach bird consumes an average of eight pounds of bay grass a day.
"What's more, we're losing habitat for native endangered species," saidMcKnight, an endangered-species expert. "As far as I'm concerned, two muteswans on the habitat of a black skimmer colony is two birds too many."
Posts
