1

CommentsofTheHumaneSocietyoftheUnitedStates

andThePegasusFoundation

ontheManagementPlanforMuteSwansinNewYork

(RevisedDraftMarch2015)April22,2015

OnbehalfofthemembersandconstituentsofTheHumaneSocietyoftheUnitedStatesandthePegasusFoundation(tensofthousandsofwhichresideinNY),IhavereceivedandreviewedtheManagementPlanForMuteSwansinNewYork(RevisedDraftMarch2015)(hereinafterMarch2015DraftPlan)(Att.1),publishedbytheNYStateDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation(DivisionofFish,Wildlife,andMarineResources).Asaprofessionalwaterfowlandwildlifebiologistwithextensiveexperiencewiththeissuesaddressedintherevisedplan,Iamextremelydisappointedbytheplanscontentandthefailuretorespondpositivelytothemyriadcommentsyoureceived.Inthatregard,indevelopingourcommentsontheMarch2015DraftPlan,Ihavereviewedourprevioussubstantivecomments(datedFebruary2014)ontheJanuary2014draft.Iwasoverwhelmedbytheextenttowhichthosecommentswerecompletelyignored,astheyarestillappropriateandhighlyrelevant.Iattachthemherefortherecordandforyourreviewandconsideration.Totheextenttheyarenotsupersededormodifiedbythecommentsinthecurrentdocument,weaskthattheybeconsideredanewanddenovo,becausethecriticalandcompellingissuesremainunchanged(SeeAtt2).Foryourconvenience,IhaveputourmajorrecommendationsinthetextinboldandIhavetriedtotitlethevarioussectionsofourCommentsdescriptively.

MissedOpportunitiesoftheJanuary2014DraftAyearago,NYDECleadershipwaspubliclyembarrassedbytheoverwhelminglynegativepublicresponsetotheirJanuary2014DraftMuteSwanManagementPlanwhichproposedto

2

eliminateallofNewYorksfreerangingmuteswansby2025.ThecitizensofNewYorkhad,understandably,rebelled,sendinginmorethan50,000petitionsignaturestotheGovernorandotherelectedofficials,protestingtheplan.Asaconsequence,sayingtheyhadheardthepublicsnegativeresponse,DECwithdrewtheirplanandcommittedthemselvestocompletelyrevisingtheirplaninlightofpublicreaction.ButinsteadofaseriousrevisionandmeetingtheGovernorscommitmenttoapublichearingandacceptingtheburdenofproofofdemonstratingthatmuteswansaresignificantlyharmingNewYorksenvironmentbeforelethalcontrolsareundertaken,DECsMarch2015DraftPlan,inthedetailsofitsconfusingverbiage,becamemoreconciliatoryinitsintroductorypressreleases(SeeAtt3),whilecontinuingtoadvocatevirtualeliminationofallofNewYorksfreeranging/freeflyingmuteswans.WhileintheJanuary2014draftplan,DECproposedtoeliminateallmuteswansinNYby2025,itisnowadvocatingintheMarch2015DraftPlaneliminationofallfreeranging/freeflyingmuteswans(1400swansormoreintotal),whilewingclipping,penningorpermanentlypreventingreproductioninallthatremainalive.Thisisblindlydestructiveandunacceptable.ThefactisthatNYDECtookmorethanayeartomaketheplanlesstransparentandmoreconfusing,moreinhumane(becauseofforcedwingclipping),andjustasdestructivetoswans,andhighlycontemptuousofthepublicanditssupportforswans.Thepublicandwewantamuteswanplanthatallowsfreeranging/freeflyingmuteswansandthatgivesDECtheburdenofproofofdemonstratingunacceptableirreconcilabledamagebyswansbeforecontrol,andlethalcontrolinparticular,isconsidered.Indeed,thatwascontainedinSenatorAvellaslegislationthatoverwhelminglypassedNYStateslegislaturelastyearand,whichwewereassuredwouldbeincludedinDECsrevisedplan.ButinsteadwegotaplanforgradualextirpationofNYsfreeliving/freeflyingswansinalessunderstandablepackage.Andwhenweasked,aswehave(SeeAtt4),foranextensionofthecommentperiodofamere45days,weweretoldthatitwillnotbegranted(SeeAtt5).MischaracterizationofMuteSwansasaDestructiveInvasiveSpeciesTheNYDEChascontinuedthroughtheMarch2015DraftPlantomischaracterizethemuteswanasadestructive,prohibited,invasivespecies.ThisfliesdirectlyinthefaceoftheoperativedefinitionofaninvasivespeciesintheFinalReportoftheNewYorkStateInvasiveSpeciesTaskForcedatedFall2005onwhichtheDECactionhastobebased.OnpagevioftheFinalReportaninvasivespeciesisdefinedasbothaspeciesnonnativetotheecosystemunderconsiderationandwhoseintroductioncausesorislikelytocauseeconomicor

3

environmentalharm,orharmtohumanhealth.Thedefinitiongoesontostate:Inthelattercase,theharmmustsignificantlyoutweighanybenefits.Giventhiscontrollingdefinitionitisquiteclearthatmuteswansdonotqualifyasinvasive;infact,itisnotevenaclosecall.Muteswansmaybenonnativebuttheyaregorgeous,magnificentanimalsthatgracethelakesandpondsofLongIsland,NewYorkCityandtheHudsonRiverValley,andpartsofLakeOntario.TheirbenefitstothevisualenvironmentoftheStateofNewYorkareabsolutelyclear.ThatiswhythecitizensofNewYorkinmassivenumbersprotestedtheeliminationplanforNYmuteswansthatDECpublishedinJanuaryof2014.Themuteswannomorefitsthedefinitionofadestructive,invasivespeciesnowthanitdidthen;andtheDECscontinuedeffortstocharacterizeitassuchandmanageitassucharedestructiveandwrong.Werealize,ofcourse,that,overthelastyear,theNewYorkDEChasmanagedtogetaregulationpromulgatedthatcategorizesmuteswansasaprohibitedinvasivespecies.However,giventhefactthatthemuteswandoesnotfitthedefinition,whatseemstobeaselfservingdesignationdesignedtosupportDECspredeterminedcourseofactioniscompletelyundermined.But,regardlessofthemotivation,thisdesignationissimplyanagencydrivenregulatorymistake,whichisnowinneedofcorrection.WecalluponDECtocorrectthisinappropriateandbiologicallyincorrectdesignationofmuteswansasadestructiveinvasivespeciesanddevelopamanagementplanthatrecognizesthevalueofmuteswanstothepeopleofNewYorkStateandrecognizesthemuteswansplaceinbeautifyingtheenvironmentofNewYork;whileofcourseminimizingdestructive,negativeimpacts,ifany,thatmaybeshowntobeoccurring,throughnonlethalmeanstotheextentpossible.

WhatshouldNewYorkDEChavedonetocreatetheMarch2015DraftPlan,andhowshouldtheygoaboutdevelopingareasonableandpubliclyacceptableplanforthefuturemanagementofNYsmuteswans?Firstandforemost,DECshouldhaveheldsignificantpublichearingsorpublicmeetingsorforumsaroundthestatetoassesspublicviewsanddesiresonthemanagementofmuteswans.ThishasbeenrecommendedtotheNewYorkDECnumeroustimesbutnotonepublicmeeting(forumorhearing)hasbeenheld.Theyshouldbeheldnowandwesorecommend.Next,theNewYorkDECneedstotakeafreshlookatthealternativestoitsviewofacceptablemuteswanmanagement.InthecurrentrevisedMarch2015DraftPlan,allDECdidwastryto

4

sugarcoattheJanuary2014planwhichhadbeendesignedtoeliminateallofNYsmuteswansby2025.Thus,thecurrentMarch2015DraftPlannolongerspeaksofeliminationofallNYmuteswansby2025,buttalksbetweenthelinesoftheeliminationof1400ormoremuteswansandwingclipping,penningorcontrollingreproductionintheremainingswansovertime,whileendingtheexistenceoffreeranging,freelivingmuteswansinNewYork.Frankly,withoutamoretransparentandunderstandableplan,thereisnowaytodetermineiftherewouldbeameaningfuldifferenceintheresultsofthetwoplanssofarasthevitalityandviabilityoffreeranging/freeflyingmuteswansisconcerned.ThedevelopmentoftheMarch2015DraftPlanmissedastellaropportunityfortheDECtosolicitthepublicsviewsandparticipationinacreativeandconstructiveprocesstodevelopamanagementplanformuteswansthatishumaneandcompassionate.Instead,fromthebeginning,thecontentsoftheMarch2015DraftplanimpededpublicparticipationbecausetheoverwhelmingindicationfromtheplanwasthatDECintendedtocontrolanddestroymuteswansratherthanpromotetheirbeautyandpublicvalues.(IndeedtheDECMarch2015DraftPlanpresentedonlytheonenegativeanddestructiveoption).Consequently,thepubliconceagainhasreactedwithextremenegativity.

FailuretoDemonstrateaNeedforEliminationofFreeRanging,FreeFlyingMuteSwansThroughouttheMarch2015Draft,thereisacontinuingunderlyingpresumptionthatmuteswansneedtobecontrolledandinallprobabilitylethallymanaged.However,thereisnoinformationpresentedintheplanthatprovesthatthatisthecaseorthatmuteswanshavecausedsignificantnegativeimpactstosubmergedaquaticvegetationorotherspecies,thatcouldwarrantsuchnegativitytowardthem.TherearemanyinstancesintheMarch2015DraftPlan(pages2,3and4,Att.1)wherethesameoldtiredcitationsareusedtojustifynegativereactionstoswansbecauseoftheirterritorialityduringnestingordemonstratethatswanshavebeenresponsiblefordestructionofaquaticvegetationintheChesapeakeBay.Yet,theMarch2015DraftPlanfailstorecordthatafterMarylandconductedamultiyearwaronswansandvirtuallyeliminatedthemfromtheChesapeakeBay,thevegetationdidnotreturntothebay;demonstrating,ofcourse,thatmuteswanswereneverthecauseofthedemiseofaquaticvegetationintheChesapeakeBay.Inshort,blamingmuteswanswasjusthyperboleandscapegoating.ThepointhereisthatalltheseoldreferencesallegingthatmuteswanswereharmfultoChesapeakeBayvegetationaresimplynotrelevantassupportforaNYStateplantocontrolor

5

eliminatemuteswans.MoreoverwiththerelativelysmallnumberofswansinNY(lessthan2200),andthestablepopulation,therecanbenoserioussuggestionthatmuteswansarecausingsuchnegativitytootheranimalspeciesoraquaticvegetationthattheyshouldbecontrolled.ThelegislationthatwasintroducedinthelastGeneralAssemblysessionbySenatorAvellaandAssemblymanCymbrowitzwouldhaverequiredademonstrationofsignificantnegativeimpactsbyparticularmuteswansbeforethoseswanscouldbenegativelymanagedorlethallycontrolled.Yet,theMarch2015revisedplandoesnotadoptoracceptthatburdenofresponsibilityfortheDEC.Itshouldandsowerecommend.WeareawarethatthereissomeconcernamongDECpersonnelthatmuteswanswillbecometrulyinvasiveanddominatehabitats.However,wewouldremindallthatthroughoutNewYorkStateandparticularlytheHudsonRiverValley,LongIsland,andNewYorkCity,thereisnosuggestionthatswansarebecominginvasiveinanysense.Thepopulationremainsloweverywhere.AndintheLakeOntarioregion,themuteswanpopulationhasremainedlowinspiteofDECspredictionstothecontrary.Perhapsthisisdueinlargepartinboththedownstateandupstateareastotheoccurrenceofthecoldwinters(anaturalandrecurringlimitingfactor),andhabitatsaturation(anothernaturallimitingfactor)indownstateareas,butasyouropeninggraph(page1,Att.1)demonstratesthepopulationlevelofmuteswansinNewYorkhasbeenremarkablyconstantsince1992.Thiskindofstable,iffluctuating,setofpopulationstatisticsdoesnotsuggestanemergencythatcouldorwouldrequirelethalordestructivecontrols.Indeed,itsuggeststhatabenignandnonintrusivemanagementplancouldsaveswans,satisfypublicobjectivesandsavesignificantpublicexpensethatwouldbeincurredifamoredestructivemanagementapproachisfollowedbyDEC.Aswehaveimpliedthroughoutourcomments,wewouldstronglyrecommendthatDECultimatelyformulateandadoptsuchabenignandnonintrusivemanagementplan.Wehaverecommendedandhereinrecommendagain,herewith,thatthepubliccommentperiodbeextendedandwealsorecommendthattheDECconductpublicforumsorpublichearingsaroundthestatedesignedtoelicitthepublicsviewsonthemanagementgoalsforfreeranging,freeroaming,freeflyingmuteswans.ThisshouldbedoneandwerecommendthatitbedonebeforetheMarch2015DraftPlanisfinalizedorimplementedinanyformandwerecommendthatamoratoriumonlethalcontrolofmuteswansshouldbemaintainedduringtheentireperiod.Inourviewthegeneralpublicisnotparticularlyinterestedinthetechnicalaspectsoftheplansolongasfreeranging,freeflyingmuteswansareallowedtoliveintheirvarioussuitablehabitatsthroughoutNewYorkState.Weurgethatahumaneandswanfriendlymanagementplanbeadoptedthatgivesthebenefitofthedoubtto

allowingdestructi

Respectf

JohnW.ExecutiveThePegaandWildlifeCTheHum2100LStWashing202251202676

freeliving,iveremovalullySubmitt

Grandy,PhDeDirectorasusFoundatCounselortomaneSocietyt.,NWtonDC20032163(Cell)2364(D)

freeranging,insuitableted,

DtionotheCEOyoftheUnite37

gmuteswanhabitatsin

edStates

nstoexist,wNewYorkS

withoutthreState.

eatofunjusttified

6

Page 1 of 16

MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MUTE SWANS IN NEW YORK

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources

Revised Draft - March 2015

This plan provides guidance to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

(DEC) staff and the public concerning management of mute swans (Cygnus olor). Mute swans

are a non-native, invasive species that many people enjoy seeing despite adverse impacts the birds can cause. This management plan strives to balance these competing values, by minimizing

the occurrence of mute swans in important fish and wildlife habitats while permitting their

continued presence in urban parks and other controlled settings.

BACKGROUND

Mute swans are a beautiful bird that many people have enjoyed seeing in public parks and on

lakes and coastal waters of New York for many years. However, these birds are not native to

North America; they were imported as captive birds from Europe during the late 1800s to

beautify private estates in the Hudson Valley and on Long Island. Mute swans began nesting in

the wild here in the early 1900s, establishing a population that has since grown to more than

2,000 birds in New York (Fig. 1). All mute swans living in the state today are descendants of

birds that were released or escaped from these captive settings beginning in the early 1900s.

Figure 1. Total number of mute swans counted during Christmas Bird Counts in New York State,

1920-2011 (source: National Audubon Society, 2013; Christmas Bird Count Historical Results

[Online], http://netapp.audubon.org/cbcobservation, accessed August 13, 2013).

Population Status

Two distinct populations of mute swans currently exist in the wild in New York State.

First is the downstate population of swans that occurs on many inland and coastal water bodies throughout Long Island, New York City, and the lower four counties of the Hudson Valley

(Orange, Rockland, Putnam and Westchester). This population was estimated at approximately

500 birds in the early 1970s, but expanded northward and grew to more than 2,000 birds by the

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 16

early 2000s (Fig. 2). Further range expansion has been prevented by egg-addling and removal of

adult birds by DEC and others. The overall numbers in this region have been relatively stable

since then because of the control activities and perhaps because most potential nesting areas on

Long Island are now occupied (Swift et al. 2013).

Figure 2. Breeding distribution of mute swans based on New York State Breeding Bird Atlas data,

1980-1985 (Andrle and Carroll 1988) and 2000-2005 (McGowan and Corwin 2008).

A second population of mute swans in New York became established along Lake Ontario in the

1980s, presumably from birds that came across the lake from Ontario (Fig. 2). This upstate population grew from just a few pairs in 1990 to nearly 200 birds by 2002, and these birds have

the potential to expand to water bodies and wetlands throughout the state. Petrie and Francis

(2003) estimated that mute swan populations on the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Ontario and

Lake Erie, were increasing at a rate of 10-18% per year. Due largely to control actions (egg-

addling and removal of adult swans) by DEC and others, the population in upstate New York has

not increased since the early 2000s (Swift et al. 2013). However, free-ranging mute swans

appear at new locations every year.

In a few upstate areas, trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator), which are native to North America,

have also begun nesting, but their numbers have grown to only about 50 birds in New York since

their first appearance in the mid-1990s (Swift et al. 2013). The potential impacts of trumpeter

swans are uncertain, so DEC has not initiated any management to promote or control this

species. Tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus), a native species that breeds in the high Arctic, also

occurs in this region during fall and spring migration, and several hundred have wintered on the

Niagara River and around the Montezuma Wetlands Complex in recent years. Both of these

native swan species provide some opportunities for public enjoyment of swans in New York.

Impacts on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)

Wildlife managers, ecologists, ornithologists and others have been concerned about the impacts

of mute swans in North America for decades (Willey and Halla 1972, Allin et al. 1987, Maryland

DNR 2001). Of particular concern is the consumption and uprooting of submerged aquatic

Page 3 of 16

vegetation (SAV) that provides important food and shelter for native fish and wildlife in marine

and freshwater ecosystems (New York State Seagrass Task Force 2009). The New York State

Legislature recognized the importance of SAV when it passed the Seagrass Protection Act,

signed into law by Governor Cuomo in August 2012. This law granted DEC the authority to

regulate coastal and marine activities that threaten seagrass beds or seagrass restoration efforts.

Mute swans feed primarily on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), consuming 4-8 pounds per

day and often uprooting far more than they consume (Willey and Halla 1972, Scott and the

Wildfowl Trust 1972, Ciaranca et al. 1997, Bailey et al. 2008). This can reduce SAV biomass by

as much as 70-95% within a single growing season (Allin and Husband 2003, Naylor 2004, Tatu

et al. 2007, Swift et al. 2013). Mute swans consume the same SAV species used by native

waterfowl, so they can reduce the amount of food available at migratory stopover or wintering

sites (Bailey et al. 2008). The impact of SAV removal by mute swans, which are year-round

residents of most areas, is likely greater than that of migratory waterfowl that are not present

during the growing season (Badzinski et al. 2006).

The impact of mute swans on SAV at any particular location depends on the number of swans

present, size of the affected area and other factors (Chasko 1986, Gayet et al. 2013). A large

pond or lake with a single breeding pair would show little effect, whereas a small coastal pond or

bay with a large number of mute swans year-round would have significantly less SAV and

support fewer migratory waterfowl during the winter. Coastal SAV beds are important for

sustaining several species of conservation concern, including black duck (Anas rubripes),

canvasback (Aythya valisneria), and Atlantic brant (Branta bernicla). As natural foods become

scarce, mute swans will readily accept human handouts, whereas these other waterfowl are not so

adaptable. Mute swans are not the only threat to SAV in wetland or aquatic areas, but they can

exacerbate the effects of other stressors, such as polluted runoff from upland areas, shoreline

development, and rising sea levels. The presence of mute swans in tidal waters conflicts with

efforts to protect and restore estuarine ecosystems in New York and the benefits they provide,

including nursery areas for economically important species such as bay scallops (Argopecten

irradians), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and blue crabs (Callinectes

sapidus).

Displacement of Native Bird Species

Mute swans often behave aggressively towards other birds, especially other waterfowl during the

nesting and brood-rearing periods (Kania and Smith 1986, Allin et al. 1987, Ciaranca et al. 1997,

Swift et al. 2013). In extreme cases, mute swans may attack and kill ducklings, goslings or other

small water birds (Stone and Marsters 1970, Virginia DGIF 2012, and many video clips on the

internet). More often this aggression simply displaces other birds from the swans territory, limiting the use of valuable or preferred wetland habitats by native species (Willey and Halla

1972, Chasko 1986, Allin et al. 1987, Ciaranca 1990, Ciaranca et al. 1997). Mute swans will

typically defend several acres around their nest site, especially against other swans, Canada

geese, or humans who enter their territory. However, this behavior varies widely among

individual swans (Willey 1968, OBrien and Askins 1985, Conover and Kania 1994, Gayet et al. 2013, Swift et al. 2013); in some cases other waterfowl have nested in close proximity to active mute swan nests (Willey and Halla 1972, Conover and Kania 1994, Maryland DNR 2001).

Page 4 of 16

Displacement of other species by mute swans can be difficult to observe, as birds attacked or

threatened by swans are not likely to keep returning to the area.

Non-breeding swans generally do not behave aggressively toward one another or other species,

but they can displace other sensitive bird species by their sheer abundance on loafing sites. In

Maryland, a large molting flock of mute swans caused the abandonment of a colony of least terns

(Sterna antillarum) and black skimmers (Rynchops niger) (Therres and Brinker 2004), two

species of conservation concern in New York. The same could happen to black terns

(Chlidonias niger), a State-listed endangered species that nests in large freshwater marshes in

upstate New York that are favored by mute swans. One of New Yorks largest known black tern nesting colonies at Braddock Bay (near Rochester) disappeared in the mid-1990s, within a few

years after mute swans were first documented nesting in the area (Swift et al. 2013); a similar

correlation was reported from Michigan (Shuford 1999).

Other Concerns

Mute swans have little or no fear of humans so they provide opportunities for people to observe

and come in close contact with them. However, mute swans can cause problems for people too.

Some territorial swans will directly attack humans, especially small children or people in small

watercraft who get too close to nests or young. In extreme cases this has resulted in accidental

deaths (from drowning) or injuries (Willey and Halla 1972, Rhode Island DEM 2006, Animal

People Online 2012). The potential for injury is low, but the aggressive behavior of swans can

render some land or water areas inaccessible for outdoor recreation during the nesting season.

Swan feces contain especially high levels of fecal coliform bacteria (Hussong et al. 1979), so the

presence of large flocks at certain times could impair use of waters for drinking, swimming, or

shellfishing. Mute swans have been associated with high fecal coliform counts in some marine

waters on Long Island, which could affect the use of local areas for shellfishing (Swift et al.

2013).

Where mute swans occur near airports, they pose a serious threat to aviation. Their large size

makes them one of the most hazardous species to aviation in New York. Since 1990, there have

been eight documented mute swan strikes in the U.S., and four or those occurred at JFK

International Airport. Observations and annual take of mute swans at airports in New York have

increased, with 51 mute swans removed from JFK, LaGuardia, and Stewart International airports

to protect aviation safety during 2012-2013 (USDA Wildlife Services, unpublished data).

The Need for Management

DEC is concerned about the impacts of mute swans that currently exist in and around coastal

areas of Long Island, New York City and the lower Hudson Valley (estimated to be about 2,000

birds in 2012). These birds are one of several stressors on important fish and wildlife habitats in

the downstate area. DEC is also concerned about the recently established population of mute

swans around Lake Ontario (estimated to be about 200 birds in 2012), which could rapidly

expand into many lakes, ponds, and wetlands throughout the state.

Page 5 of 16

Based on available information and past experience, it is reasonable to expect that in the absence

of management, wild mute swan populations will expand throughout New York State, and could

reach numbers in excess of 5,000 birds within 20 years. Most of this growth would occur north

of New York City, but swan densities and use of important wetland areas would increase

everywhere to some extent. Many of these swans would be subject to starvation during severe

winters, especially in upstate areas where open waters freeze over in most years.

The consequences of not preventing such population growth include reduced habitat availability

and value for native fish and wildlife species, including several of conservation concern. Site-

specific conflicts between mute swans and human activities would also increase, as swans

establish new nesting territories in many areas currently used for water-based recreation or

municipal purposes. This would place a growing demand on DEC for relief from such problems,

ranging from aggressive swans to water quality concerns and hazards at airports.

Complete elimination of mute swans from New York is not a viable option given the expressed

public opinions associated with these birds. However, the demand for viewing swans can be

largely met through closely regulated possession of mute swans for enjoyment in urban parks

and other public settings. Measures are needed to ensure that those swans do not reproduce or

leave those areas, to prevent their entry into wild populations or impacts on natural resources.

Prohibitions on importation and commercial trade or propagation of mute swans are also needed

to help prevent escapes or intentional releases of additional mute swans to the wild in New York.

MANAGEMENT GOAL

In light of the above, the goal of this plan is to minimize the potential adverse impacts of mute

swans on native wildlife and their habitats, and to alleviate site-specific conflicts between mute

swans and human health, safety, or recreational activities.

DEC believes that this goal can be satisfactorily achieved through management of mute swans

back to their distribution and abundance circa 1980, as documented by the New York State

Breeding Bird Atlas and various winter waterfowl counts. This would generally limit mute

swans to Long Island, New York City and the lower four counties of the Hudson Valley (Orange,

Rockland, Putnam and Westchester counties), with fewer than 800 birds in total and as few as

possible occurring in tidal waters or other important wildlife habitats. It would also mean the

elimination of free-flying mute swans from the rest of upstate New York. A much smaller and

managed population of this non-native species will best serve the public desire to see mute swans

while protecting the integrity of wetland ecosystems in New York.

OBJECTIVES

To achieve the above goal, we established the following management objectives:

1. Increase public support for responsible management of mute swans in New York. 2. Minimize the number of mute swans successfully nesting or occurring on tidal waters

within New York City, Long Island, and Orange, Rockland, Putnam and Westchester

counties (referred to hereafter as downstate).

Page 6 of 16

3. Prevent the establishment or expansion of wild or self-sustaining mute swan populations in all other areas of the state (referred to hereafter as upstate).

4. Prevent entry of new swans into wild populations through intentional releases, escapes, or natural reproduction.

5. Provide relief to communities and property owners experiencing conflicts related to mute swans, especially where natural habitats or human health and safety are involved.

6. Permit community-based programs for the maintenance of mute swans in urban parks or other public settings where native species and habitats will not be adversely affected.

7. Work with a diversity of government and non-government partners to achieve the above objectives.

To be clear, the goal and objectives of this plan relate to the impacts of mute swans, not to any

specific methods that may be used to minimize those impacts. Because many people object to

the use of lethal control methods, especially killing adult birds, DEC will use non-lethal methods (i.e., egg-addling and placement at licensed facilities), where practical and timely, to

achieve the management objectives. However, this will require some commitment of funding

and assistance from organizations and individuals who wish to see non-lethal options used to the

extent possible. Placement and proper care of swans in public parks or other controlled settings

can be costly to local governments or communities, but if people who enjoy seeing mute swans

are willing to support such programs, DEC will cooperate with those efforts.

REGIONAL APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT

To achieve the above objectives, DEC will use a regional approach that recognizes the distinct differences in history, status, impacts, objectives and management opportunities for mute swans

between downstate and upstate regions of New York (see Background section of this plan).

Downstate swan populations have been building for nearly a century and most suitable nesting

areas may now be occupied. Although population growth has slowed, and many of the birds are

in parks or other settings where conflicts with native wildlife or people are not of great concern,

impacts are undoubtedly occurring in some areas and every nesting pair is a source of more

swans that may disperse to sensitive wildlife habitats, including tidal waters. Fortunately, the

high densities of people, development, and public open spaces in this region create opportunities

for cooperative management of mute swans with local communities, non-government

organizations (NGOs) and landowners. DEC will strive to involve such partners to the extent

possible in implementing the strategies described in this plan.

In upstate New York, few if any mute swans existed in the wild before 1980. From the first few

nesting pairs that appeared along Lake Ontario in the late 1980s, the population quickly grew to

more than 200 birds. The potential for further range expansion to waters and wetlands

throughout the state is very real based on experiences downstate, in Ontario, and elsewhere in

North America. If that happens, it would be extremely difficult and costly to manage mute

swans across the landscape to minimize adverse impacts to native fish and wildlife populations.

Upstate New York also harbors two native swan species that regularly occur in western and

central New York, and these species can satisfy some of the public desire to have swans in the

local environment. Trumpeter swans are slowly expanding as a breeding species around Lake

Page 7 of 16

Ontario, and DECs current policy is to allow this population to undergo whatever changes may occur without substantial intervention. It is unclear whether trumpeter swans will create some of

the same problems or concerns as mute swans. Tundra swans have been increasing also, but they

breed in the Arctic and are here only during migration and winter periods. Still, they provide

excellent swan viewing opportunities along the Niagara River, the larger Finger Lakes, and

elsewhere in western New York.

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Part 1. Public Education and Outreach

1.1 Inform the public about the status and ecological impacts of mute swans.

Many people are unaware or do not agree that mute swans are a non-native, invasive species that

can adversely affect native wildlife and their habitats. However, numerous scientific studies

since the 1960s have documented the ability of mute swans to multiply quickly and to cause the

loss of aquatic vegetation or displace native wildlife (see Background section and other

references in Swift et al. 2013). These impacts are largely unseen by the public, which makes it

hard to convince people of the need for management. This lack of understanding is a major

impediment to gaining public acceptance of management actions prescribed in this plan.

DEC will work with a variety of government and non-government partners, including

conservation groups, bird clubs, animal protection organizations, local governments and others to

better inform the general public about the history, status and impacts of mute swans. Such public

education will acknowledge the enjoyment that many people derive from seeing swans, while

explaining the need for management. We will identify key messages about the environmental

impacts of mute swans and opportunities for community-based management of this species.

Information will be disseminated through individual and combined efforts by partner

organizations and cooperators. Outreach materials may include printed brochures, posting signs

where mute swans occur, web-based information, and public presentations by DEC staff or

partner organizations. Regional PRISMs (Partnerships for Invasive Species Management) and

Cornell Cooperative Extension will be asked to assist in these efforts.

The primary goal of this strategy is to increase public awareness of the detrimental effects of

mute swans and acceptance of other mute swan management strategies in this plan, including

control of wild mute swan populations and permitting birds to remain available for viewing in

urban parks and other settings (both discussed later in this plan). Specific messages to include in

these outreach and education efforts include:

1. All mute swans in New York are descendants of imported captive birds that escaped or were released by their owners to the wild.

2. Where mute swans congregate, they impair habitats for native fish and wildlife species, and can interfere with efforts to restore degraded wetland areas.

3. Mute swans nesting or raising young can be very territorial and aggressive, deterring native bird species and people from using natural areas.

Page 8 of 16

4. If left unchecked, free-living mute swans will multiply quickly and spread throughout New York State.

5. Learn to identify and appreciate native waterfowl species in the local area, including native swan species that occur in upstate New York (tundra swans and trumpeter swans).

DEC will work with partner organizations to develop and distribute information on how to

prevent or alleviate conflicts with swans, how people can assist with monitoring or management

of swans, and contact information for local or state agencies involved with swan management.

1.2. Discourage feeding of mute swans and other wild waterfowl.

Mute swans will readily accept human handouts of food, and many people enjoy this way of

interacting closely with these birds. However, this should not occur where it will attract mute

swans to natural habitats used by wild waterfowl, or where it conflicts with local efforts to

discourage feeding of ducks and Canada geese. Therefore, this plan would allow for feeding of

mute swans only where community-based management programs (see section 2.3) are in place

and the birds are possessed pursuant to a DEC license.

DEC will seek authority to adopt and enforce statewide regulations to prohibit the intentional

feeding of wild mute swans and other waterfowl, similar to what was enacted to prohibit the

feeding of bears in New York (6 NYCRR Section 187.1). DEC will also encourage the adoption

and enforcement of local ordinances or regulations to prohibit public feeding of wild waterfowl.

An exception would be made for swans possessed pursuant to a DEC license, because those birds

would not be able to move to natural areas (where they would compete with wild migratory

waterfowl) when ponds or lakes freeze over.

Part 2. Responsible Possession and Care of Mute Swans

2.1. Designate mute swan as a Prohibited Invasive Species to prohibit sale, importation, purchase, transport, introduction, or propagation of mute swans in New York.

DEC adopted final regulations (6 NYCRR Part 575) on September 10, 2014, designating various

plant and animal species, including mute swan, as Prohibited Invasive Species pursuant to the recently enacted Invasive Species law (Environmental Conservation Law Section 09-1709). As

of March 10, 2015, it will be illegal to sell, import, purchase, transport, introduce or propagate

(or possess with the intent to sell, import, purchase, transport, or introduce) any prohibited

invasive species in New York State. A person may possess, with the intent to sell, import,

purchase, transport or introduce, a prohibited invasive species if the person has been issued a

permit by the Department for research, education, or other approved activity. These permits will

be issued by regional DEC Natural Resource Supervisors, and special permit conditions will be

included to ensure that mute swans in possession do not escape or are not released to the wild

(see Strategy 2.2). There is no provision for propagation of Prohibited Invasive Species, and

DEC permits will prohibit release of mute swans to the wild. This regulation should eliminate

commercial trade of this species in New York, which has been a source of mute swans escaping

to the wild. Designation of mute swan as a Prohibited Invasive Species has no direct bearing on

swans currently living in the wild.

Page 9 of 16

Most people were unaware that a license was required previously to purchase or possess mute

swans, and breeders across the country would ship birds to anyone without requiring proof of

authorization by the state wildlife agency (except to California or Maryland, which have

prohibitions). Therefore, known suppliers of mute swans and anyone else known to possess

mute swans in New York (e.g., game bird breeders, wildlife rehabilitators) will be notified of the

new regulations and compliance will be monitored. The occurrence of mute swans at many

widely scattered locations across the state during the 2000-2005 Breeding Bird Atlas (Figure 2)

is believed to be related to swans that were in private ownership, even though very few permits

for possession had been issued at that time.

2.2. Regulate the possession of mute swans to prevent reproduction or release of mute

swans into the wild in New York.

In accordance with Invasive Species regulations cited above (6 NYCRR Part 575), DEC will

allow the possession of mute swans by certain properly licensed entities for scientific research,

education, public exhibition or control (management) purposes. DEC will not authorize

possession of mute swans for commercial sale, propagation, personal use, hobby collections, or

to displace nuisance Canada geese. Mute swans lawfully possessed before adoption of the

Invasive Species regulations would also be allowed to remain in possession of the licensee for

the remainder of the birds lives. However, to ensure that intentional or accidental releases of mute swans or their progeny do not occur, and to help identify any birds that escape, DEC will

require that any person who possesses mute swans pursuant to DEC permit or license must:

1. Prevent the birds from leaving the licensed premises by: a) rendering the birds unable to fly, by regular clipping of the wing feathers or permanent pinioning in accordance with

accepted veterinary practices (e.g., at an early age or with appropriate anesthesia); or b)

maintaining a completely enclosed (fenced and covered) area that the birds can move

freely within, but which does not allow them to leave the property by flying, walking or

swimming.

2. Prevent any swans on the property from reproducing by: a) keeping only one gender (male or female) of swans on the property, as long as no swans of the opposite gender can

enter the property; or b) having a licensed veterinarian surgically sterilize the birds.

3. Mark all swans on the property with a permanent leg band, collar or wing-tag that clearly identifies the owner or keeper of the birds. Any swan held by a licensed wildlife

rehabilitator will only require a temporary marker until it is transferred to a licensee for

keeping in perpetuity.

Acceptable disposition of mute swans possessed pursuant to a DEC permit or license will include

transferring the birds to another entity licensed to possess mute swans, donation for zoological

purposes, and euthanasia at the discretion of the permittee. Mute swans held in possession may

not be used for shooting sport purposes. Licensed wildlife rehabilitators will not be allowed to

release mute swans back into the wild. Instead, they may be turned over to any person permitted

to possess mute swans in New York, where they will be subject to the same requirements listed

above. Game bird breeders, wildlife rehabilitators and others known to possess mute swans will

be notified of these requirements upon adoption of this plan.

Page 10 of 16

2.3 Permit municipalities to develop community-based programs to keep and help manage

mute swans within their jurisdictions.

Many New Yorkers have enjoyed seeing mute swans in their daily lives for many years. For

some it has been their primary contact with wildlife in densely developed urban areas, especially

parts of Long Island, New York City, and the lower Hudson Valley (i.e., Orange, Rockland,

Putnam and Westchester counties) where swans were well established before the 1980-1985

Breeding Bird Atlas. Within this downstate area, public parks have long been popular places for

people to see, photograph and feed mute swans. DEC will accommodate the public desire to

maintain swans in such locations as long as potential impacts to natural habitats are minimized

and any site-specific threats to human health, safety or recreational activities are addressed.

To implement this strategy, DEC will work with interested municipalities and cooperating non-

government organizations to develop and implement community-based local mute swan

management plans. The goal of these plans will be to accommodate the public desire to observe

and interact with mute swans at certain locations, while enlisting cooperators to help manage

wild populations within their jurisdiction. These plans will be developed primarily for locations

in the downstate area described above, or where mute swans have been managed by a

municipality prior to adoption of this plan (e.g., Village of Manlius in central New York). DEC

will approve of these plans as a condition for issuing permits or licenses allowing possession of

mute swans in the respective communities. Involvement of local government agencies will help

ensure accountability and consideration of local interests. The plans can be quite simple and

succinct, but must include:

1. Specific locations and facilities where mute swans will be maintained, including plans for food and shelter during the winter.

2. A commitment from the municipality to obtain the appropriate DEC permit(s) allowing possession and/or management of mute swans in their jurisdiction.

3. Specific measures that will be used to comply with the requirements described in Strategy 2.2 (i.e., prevent escape, prevent breeding, and marking all birds).

4. A commitment from the municipality to help DEC monitor and manage wild mute swans within their jurisdiction to prevent successful nesting, minimize impacts to natural

habitats, and address any specific threats to human health, safety or recreation; the

municipality can specify the acceptable control methods to be used on lands that they

own or manage.

5. Plans for public education or outreach (e.g., signs, brochures) to inform the public about mute swans in their community.

6. Roles and responsibilities of any partner organizations or individuals who will directly participate in management activities.

DEC will invite input from animal care organizations to help develop appropriate guidelines for

care of mute swans in captive settings, including municipal parks or other public properties

where native species and habitats will not be adversely affected.

Page 11 of 16

Part 3. Management of Wild Mute Swan Populations

3.1. Conduct mute swan population control activities to meet regional objectives.

DEC has conducted mute swan control activities for many years in accordance with a

management policy adopted in 1993 (DFWMR 1993). That policy authorized staff to remove

mute swans from lands administered by the DFWMR, but it did not specify the extent to which

those activities should occur. Consequently, the amount of effort and type of controls conducted

(e.g., nest/egg treatment, shooting or removal of adult birds) varied among regions of the state.

During 2005-2012, more than 500 adult mute swans and close to 2,500 eggs were taken from the

wild across the state. Most of the take of adult birds occurred around Lake Ontario and at other

locations in upstate New York to help prevent range expansion. Downstate, most of the activity

involved egg and nest treatment, which likely helped to stabilize the population in those regions.

DEC staff will continue to conduct, assist or support mute swan control activities on any

accessible public or private lands (with landowner consent) or waters in New York State to

accomplish the objectives of this plan. Control options will include nest destruction, egg-addling

(coating with corn oil), capture and placement of swans at licensed sanctuaries or other captive

settings, shooting of free-ranging swans (where it can be done safely), and live capture and

euthanasia. Where immediate removal of birds is not necessary to alleviate a site-specific

conflict, full consideration will be given to use of non-lethal methods (i.e., egg-addling and placement at licensed facilities) to achieve desired population reductions. However, the principal

methods used will differ between downstate and upstate areas, because of the different

management objectives, landscape characteristics, and opportunities for effective community-

based management programs in the more densely developed downstate areas. In the downstate

region, lethal control would be a last resort except where mute swans occur on designated

wildlife management areas, threaten public safety (e.g., near airports) or interfere with the

intended use of lands or waters by their aggressive behavior. Even in those situations, removal

and placement of offending birds will be considered first, if practical and a licensed facility is

willing and able to take live birds into possession immediately. In upstate areas, lethal control

will more often be necessary to ensure that the swans do not disperse to inaccessible locations in

response to live-capture efforts. Where applicable, DEC will act in accordance with approved

community-based management programs. All lethal control activities will be done in accordance

with established guidelines for humane killing of wildlife (e.g., Julien et al. 2010, AVMA 2013).

3.2. Provide clear guidance and humane procedures to other government agencies,

municipalities or property owners who wish to conduct mute swan control activities.

DEC will continue to permit mute swan control activities by property owners or other

cooperators who want to help reduce wild mute swan populations or their potential impacts.

Likely cooperators include USDA Wildlife Services, New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation, New York City Department of Environmental Protection,

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, town and county governments and others. Where

mute swans occur on designated wildlife management areas, threaten public safety (e.g., near

airports) or interfere with the intended use of lands or waters by their aggressive behavior, DEC

will recommend or assist a full suite of options, including direct removal of the birds. In some

Page 12 of 16

cases public education or warnings of possible aggressive behavior may suffice if acceptable to

the property owner. Where practical, swans removed from such locations will be made available

for placement in a licensed facility willing and able to take live birds upon request or euthanized

as a last resort.

To ensure that authorized mute swan control work by cooperators is done in a safe, effective and

humane manner, DEC will develop guidelines or best management practices for specific control methods, including but not limited to: oiling, puncturing, or removing eggs; destruction

of nests; surgical sterilization of birds; shooting; and capture and removal of swans to be

euthanized or turned over to someone licensed to keep the birds in captivity. Input on those

guidelines will be requested from partner organizations with appropriate expertise. Guidelines

for nest and egg management will be similar to procedures used for Canada geese. Hazing of

mute swans will not be recommended, as this would simply disperse the birds to other locations

and could promote range expansion. The same animal care and treatment considerations will be

applied to these activities as for actions by DEC staff. This will be accomplished through

issuance of individual permits with specific conditions and reporting requirements, which will

enable DEC to monitor and evaluate these activities.

3.3. Allow take of mute swans by waterfowl hunters in certain situations.

ECL Section 11-0103 defines all swans as migratory game birds, although DEC has not previously established an open season for taking mute swans. Some waterfowl hunters in New

York would like the opportunity to take a swan while they are hunting native species of ducks

and geese, in part to help reduce the impacts of swans on habitats that the other species depend

upon. However, some hunters are concerned that this could contribute to negative public

attitudes toward hunting in general. In consideration of these views, DEC will evaluate the pros

and cons of allowing waterfowl hunters to take mute swans in some circumstances before

proposing such a regulation. This could be limited to tidal waters only, because those are the

principal habitats of concern downstate, and it would exclude areas where native swans regularly

occur in upstate New York. Waterfowl hunters would have to comply with species identification

requirements for swans as they already do for various species of ducks and geese. Hunting

would not occur where local ordinances prohibit the discharge of firearms for public safety, such

as New York City or urban parks where mute swans are kept pursuant to a DEC permit or

license. Other hunting constraints, such as season dates or bag limits, may be considered to

further minimize conflicts or adverse public reaction towards people who hunt.

3.4. Encourage control of mute swans in neighboring states and provinces.

Wild nesting populations of mute swans exist in most adjoining states and provinces (Ontario,

Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) and all are potential sources of mute

swans immigrating into New York. The population in Ontario is of particular concern because it

is believed to be the original source of mute swans nesting and wintering along the New York

shoreline of Lake Ontario. Most other states and provinces in the Atlantic Flyway support

control of wild mute swan populations, as indicated by their adoption of a flyway management

plan which called for a substantial reduction or elimination of mute swans in most jurisdictions

(AFC 2003). Maryland has conducted a very aggressive control program, reducing the free-

Page 13 of 16

ranging swan population from nearly 4,000 birds in 2000 to less than 200 by 2010 (Maryland

DNR 2011). Vermont has been successful at preventing a free-ranging swan population from

becoming established, and some control efforts (nest and egg treatment or removals) have

occurred in Rhode Island and New Jersey. Ontario conducted some mute swan control

(primarily egg-oiling) in conjunction with efforts to promote restoration of a breeding population

of trumpeter swans in that province, but that program has been discontinued.

Under this strategy, DEC will advocate for mute swan management programs that will

complement our own efforts. As noted above, Ontario is of particular concern, and we will urge

provincial and federal wildlife agencies in Canada to take appropriate action. The Atlantic

Flyway management plan is expected to be updated in 2015, and we will express our support for

efforts to reduce wild mute swan populations in other jurisdictions.

EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT SUCCESS

Many of the management strategies described in this plan will take several years to implement,

and some will take even longer to have the desired effects. A realistic time frame to begin

evaluating success would be in five years (i.e., beginning in 2020), assuming that most of the

prescribed actions are in place within two to three years (i.e., by 2017). DEC will commit the

staff time and resources necessary to implement the above strategies, contingent on public

acceptance of this plan. However, we do not expect this to require a major commitment of staff

time or expenditures; mute swans are still quite limited in numbers and distribution upstate, so

much of the control work there can be incorporated into the current duties of existing staff. In

downstate areas, where mute swans are more widespread, we hope that many municipalities will

develop community-based mute swan management plans to help achieve the objectives of this

statewide plan. If that occurs, DECs primary task will be to provide guidance and assist with local plan development and implementation.

Ultimately, the success of this plan will be measured by periodic surveys of mute swan

distribution and abundance, including wild birds as well as those in captive settings. DEC will

monitor the results of available population monitoring programs for waterfowl and other birds,

including agency-sponsored surveys, as well as independent, volunteer-based surveys such as

winter waterfowl counts, Christmas Bird Counts, and breeding bird surveys. Where community-

based management programs are established, surveys by local cooperators will be used to the

extent possible. If necessary, specific additional surveys may be conducted to document the

status of free-ranging mute swan populations every three to five years.

REFERENCES

Allin, C. C., G. C. Chasko, and T. P. Husband. 1987. Mute swans in the Atlantic Flyway: a

review of the history, population growth, and management needs. Transactions of the

Northeast Section of the Wildlife Society 44:32-47.

Allin, C. C., and T. P. Husband. 2003. Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) impact on submerged aquatic

vegetation and macroinvertebrates in a Rhode Island coastal pond. Northeastern

Naturalist 10:305-318.

Page 14 of 16

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 2013. AVMA Guidelines for the

Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition. AVMA, Schaumburg, Illinois. Available on-line

at: https://www.avma.org/kb/policies/documents/euthanasia.pdf.

Andrle, R. F. and J. R. Carroll, editors. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State.

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Animal People Online. 2012. Chicago-area caretaker is first known mute swan attack death.

Article viewed on-line at: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/anp/2012/07/14/chicago-

area-caretaker-is-first-known-mute-swan-attack-death/ on August 13, 2013.

Atlantic Flyway Council (AFC). 2003. Atlantic Flyway Mute Swan Management Plan 2003-

2013. Snow Goose, Brant, and Swan Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council and U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland.

Badzinski, S.S., C. D. Ankney, and S. A. Petrie. 2006. Influence of migrant tundra swans

(Cygnus columbianus) and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) on aquatic vegetation at

Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario. Hydrobiologia 567:195-211.

Bailey, M., S. A. Petrie, and S. S. Badzinski. 2008. Diet of mute swans in the lower Great

Lakes coastal marshes. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:726-732.

Berglund, B.E., K. Curry-Lindahl, H. Luther, V. Olsson, W. Rodiie, and G. Sellerberg. 1963.

Ecological studies on the mute swan (Cygnus olor) in southeastern Sweden. Acta

Vertebratica 2:167-288.

Chasko, G. 1986. The impact of mute swans on waterfowl and waterfowl habitat. Wildlife

Investigation: Waterfowl Research and Surveys W-49-R-10, Final Report, Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford.

Ciaranca, M. A. 1990. Interactions between Mute Swans (Cygnus olor) and Native Waterfowl

in Southeastern Massachusetts on Freshwater Ponds. M.S. Thesis, Northeastern

University, Boston, Massachusetts.

Ciaranca, M. A., C. C. Allin, and G. S. Jones. 1997. Mute Swan (Cygnus olor), in Poole, A.,

editor, The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca. Retrieved

from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/273.

Conover, M. R., and G. S. Kania. 1994. Impact of interspecific aggression and herbivory by

mute swans on native waterfowl and aquatic vegetation in New England. Auk 111:744-

748.

Division of Fish and Wildlife and Division of Marine Resources (DFWMR). 1993. Policy on

Management of Mute Swans in New York. New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Wildlife, Albany, New York.

Page 15 of 16

Gayet, G., M. Guillemain, P. Defos du Rau, and P. Grillas. 2013. Effects of mute swans on

wetlands: a synthesis. Hydrobiologia, DOI 10.1007/s10750-013-1704-5. Published

online: 14 October 2013, Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, The

Netherlands.

Hussong D., J. M. Damar, R. J. Limpert, W. J. L. Sladen, R. M. Weiner and R. R. Colwell.

1979. Microbial impact of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and whistling swans

(Cygnus columbianus columbianus) on aquatic ecosystems. Applied Environmental

Microbiology 37:14-20.

Julien, T. J., S. M. Vantassel, S. R. Groepper, and S. E. Hygnstrom. 2010. Euthanasia methods

in field settings for wildlife damage management. Human-Wildlife Interactions 4:158-

164.

Kania, G. S. and H. R. Smith. 1986. Observations of agonistic interactions between a pair of

feral mute swans and nesting waterfowl. Connecticut Warbler 6:35-37.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Maryland DNR). 2001. Mute Swans - Population

Status, Impacts on Native Wildlife and People, and Management Needs In Maryland - A

Summary of Information Prepared by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mute Swan Task Force, January 2001. Maryland DNR, Wildlife and Heritage Service,

Annapolis.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Maryland DNR). 2011. Mute Swan Management

Plan for Maryland. Maryland DNR, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Annapolis.

McGowan, K. J. and K. Corwin, editors. 2008. The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New

York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Naylor, M. 2004. Potential impacts of mute swans to SAV in Chesapeake Bay. Pages 36-37 in

Perry, M. C., editor, Mute Swans and Their Chesapeake Bay Habitats: Proceedings of a

Symposium. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline Information and

Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR20040005.

New York State Seagrass Task Force. 2009. Final Report of the New York State Seagrass Task

Force: Recommendations to the New York State Governor and Legislature. Available on-

line at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/finalseagrassreport.pdf.

OBrien, M. and R. A. Askins. 1985. The effects of mute swans on native waterfowl. The Connecticut Warbler 3:27-39.

Petrie, S. A. and C. M. Francis. 2003. Rapid increase in the lower Great Lakes population of

feral mute swans: a review and recommendation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:407-416.

Page 16 of 16

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (Rhode Island DEM), Division of Fish

and Wildlife. 2006. Mute Swan Management Plan. Retrieved from:

www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/fishwild/pdf/muswan07.pdf, 17 August 2013.

Scott, P. and the Wildfowl Trust. 1972. The Swans. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston,

Massachusetts.

Shuford, W. D. 1999. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Black Tern in North

America. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.

Stone, W. B., and A. D. Marsters. 1970. Aggression among captive mute swans. New York

Fish and Game Journal 17:50-52.

Swift, B.L., K. J. Clarke, R. A. Holevinski, and E. M. Cooper. 2013. Status and Ecology of

Mute Swans in New York State, Draft Final Report. New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Wildlife, Albany.

Tatu, K. S., J. T. Anderson, L. J. Hindman, and G. Seidel. 2007. Mute swans' impact on

submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management

71:1431-1439.

Therres, G. D., and D. F. Brinker. 2004. Mute swan interactions with other birds in Chesapeake

Bay. Pages 43-46 in Perry, M. C., editor, Mute Swans and Their Chesapeake Bay

Habitats: Proceedings of a Symposium. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources

Discipline Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR20040005.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (Virginia DGIF). 2012. Mute Swan

Management Plan. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond.

Willey, C. H. 1968. The ecology, distribution, and abundance of the mute swan (Cygnus olor)

in Rhode Island. M.S. Thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

Willey, C. H. and B. F. Halla. 1972. Mute swans of Rhode Island. Wildlife Pamphlet Number

8, Rhode Island Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife,

Providence.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This revised draft management plan was developed by the Migratory Game Bird Management

Team, Bureau of Wildlife, DFWMR, and approved by DEC Executive staff. We appreciate the

extensive and thoughtful input provided by many organizations and individuals on an earlier

draft of the plan, and believe that this version reflects a balanced response to the diverse interests

and opinions expressed by the people of New York State.

1

CommentsofTheHumaneSocietyoftheUnitedStates

andThePegasusFoundation

ontheDraftManagementPlanforMuteSwansinNewYorkState

February 20, 2014

The Draft Management Plan proposes the deliberate elimination (extirpation) of mute swans in NY State between now and 2025, because, the Plan asserts, they are an invasive species, eat aquatic vegetation and pose a threat to natural habitats, are aggressive toward people, and potentially (emphasis mine, word theirs). are hazardous to aircraft,. degrade water quality, and .displace native wildlife (see Executive Summary, P 1, Draft Management Plan (hereinafter DMP when citing pages). These are the only reasons given for proposing the extirpation of the 2200 mute swans in NY State.

Yet a careful reading of the Draft Management Plan and its data, together with its companion publication Status and Ecology of Mute Swans in New York State (a 2013 DEC publication (hereinafter cited as SEMS), demonstrates that each of these assertions is absolutely false or the product of pervasive unsubstantiated rhetorical overstatement and hyperbolerepeated over and over and over again. For the record, below, we examine each of the assertions, and present the reasons, together with exact citations to contradictory evidence, that the assertions are false or without persuasive merit.

DEC Assertion: Mute Swans are an invasive species.

Facts: An invasive species is one that invades and whose population(s) expands destructively and rapidly. Mute swans are simply not an invasive species in this sense. They have been in NY at least since the late 1800s but their population is only about 2200. That is not the reproductive or population profile of an invasive species. The populations of all three of NY States subpopulations of mute swans are stable or declining and have been for at least the last 10 years; moreover, they are

ATTACHMENT 2

2

long-lived and reproduce only every year or two. Again, these simply are not the reproductive characteristics of an invasive species. Starlings, Asian Carp, and English sparrows are invasive in NY and have invaded, but not so, mute swans. Statements in the Draft Management Plan and SEMS suggesting that mute swans are invasive or have increased dramatically (DMP 2, SEMS 17) in recent years are just inaccurate (SEMS 5) and designed, apparently, to provide a rational for the wholesale killing of mute swans.

DEC Assertion: Mute swans eat aquatic vegetation and pose a threat to natural habitats.

Facts: The statewide population of mute swans is very low and while they do eat aquatic vegetation, their small numbers and widely scattered distribution make it virtually impossible for them to cause any meaningful habitat alteration. Moreover, mute swans prefer urbanizing and suburbanizing habitats (DNP 2) and therefore do not pose a threat to natural habitats. Finally, if there ever were a situation in which pieces of habitats seemed threatened, non-lethal humane techniques could easily be employed to alleviate any problems.

DEC Assertion: Mute swans are aggressive toward people.

FACTS: Mute swans will protect their nests and young during nesting season; however, this is not true aggressive behavior, but rather protective behavior designed to protect the nest or young. However, potential for injury is low as the Draft Management plan admits (DMP 2) and avoidance and respect for mute swans during nesting season is all that is necessary.

DEC Assertion: Mute Swans are potentially . hazardous to aircraft,. degrade water quality, and .displace native wildlife.

FACTS: There is simply no scientific basis for the suggestion that mute swans, scattered in such small numbers, are degrading or capable of degrading aquatic habitats. The allegation regarding dangers to aircraft comes, undoubtedly, from problems associated with urban Canada geese; however, mute swans do not fly often at all and do not exhibit flight characteristics associated with hazards to aircraft. Finally, it is true, as stated earlier, that mute swans will protect nesting territory from perceived threats including other species. This normally happens primarily with Canada geese, where interspecific conflict can beneficially help to disperse concentrations of resident Canada geese. There have been reports of territorial behavior by mute swans that has apparently resulted in some species being denied the ability to use otherwise available habitat; however as the SEMS report notes (SEMS 24), there seem to be just as many reports of other waterfowl species not being

3

affected by the presence of mute swans at all. Moreover and in any event, with the mute swan population as small and as scattered as it is, if any problems were observed, there would be ample opportunity to resolve them with non-lethal techniques, if the problems were of such a serious nature that a solution was called for.

The Draft Management Plan lacks a comprehensive analysis of the Environmental Impacts of the actions required by the plan

One of the most glaring deficiencies in the Draft Management Plan is the complete lack of a hard look environmental analysis of the impacts of killing all of these mute swans on NYs environment, NYs outdoor beauty, and the people of NY and their ability to enjoy the outdoor environment. Certainly these magnificent swans feature prominently in the beauty of Long Island and the Hudson River Valley. There is no discussion of the impacts that losing this beauty will have on NY citizens or their psyche. We call upon NY DEC to perform a comprehensive environmental impact analysis of the impacts of the actions proposed in the DMP.

New York Needs a Proper and Comprehensive Mute Swan Management Plan

The Draft Management Plan dated December 2013 was not a comprehensive even-handed management plan at all. It might have been designated a plan for eliminating all the naturalized mute swans in NY, but it certainly was not a plan for managing the treasured resource that mute swans represent to the people and State of New York. But, the citizens and mute swans of New York deserve such a plan.

Mute Swans are magnificent beautiful birds. They are treasured by millions of your citizens. They have positive and negative values like almost every species you manage. A comprehensive, even-handed and balanced management plan is needed which recognizes and capitalizes on the positive values and minimizes or avoids the negative values, in as humane and compassionate way as possible. There needs to be a full and complete discussion of the non-lethal and compassionate methods of controlling or eliminating real or perceived conflicts with desirable interests, and a binding commitment to utilizing destructive and lethal controls only as a last resort and only on a case by case basis.

I thank you for the opportunity to submit these Comments on the Draft Management Plan for Mute Swans in New York State. On behalf of the Pegasus Foundation and The Humane Society of the United States, I look forward to working

withman

Resp

JohnExeTheand WildThe2100Was202-202-301-

cc: B

B

h you in an anagement of

pectfully Sub

n W. Grandcutive Direc Pegasus Fo

dlife Couns Humane S0 L St., NWshington DC-251-2163 (C-676-2364 (D-258-3031 (A

Brian Shapir

Bryan Swift,

attempt to dethese beauti

bmitted,

dy, PhD ctor oundation

elor to the Cociety of the

W C 20037 Cell) D) Asst)

ro, NY State

, Senior Biol

velop a humful mute swa

CEO e United Sta

Director, Th

logist, NY S

mane and comans.

ates

he Humane

State Dept. o

mpassionate

Society of th

of Environme

plan for the

he United St

ental Conser

4

tates

rvation

For Immediate Release:

Contact: Press Office | pressoffice@dec.ny.gov

DEC RELEASES REVISED MUTE SWAN MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

Significant Changes Made to Plan as Result of Previous Public Comments

Plan Focuses on Protecting Wetland Habitats; Swans Can Remain in Urban Parks and Other Controlled

Settings

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) today released a revised mute

swan management plan with significant changes after considering the diverse public comments received on a

first draft released in January 2014. DEC is accepting public comments on the revised plan through April 24.

The mute swan is a non-native, invasive species brought to North America to beautify estates in the late

1800s, but birds that escaped or were released established feral populations that are competing with native

wildlife for aquatic food plants and nesting areas. The revised draft Management Plan for Mute Swans in New

York State is available on the DEC website at www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7076.html.

Wildlife management can present challenges in trying to balance conflicting interests, such as when a

beautiful bird has undesirable impacts, DEC Commissioner Joe Martens said. This revised plan remains

committed to minimizing the impacts of mute swans on wildlife dependent on wetlands for their habitats, while

being sensitive to public concerns about how and where that is accomplished.

During the review process, DEC met with a variety of statewide stakeholder groups, including the

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ducks

Unlimited, NYS Fish and Wildlife Management Board, Humane Society of the U.S., NYS Conservation

Council, NYS Invasive Species Advisory Committee and USDA Wildlife Services.

These organizations displayed a tremendous amount of professionalism in voicing their concerns while

demonstrating a willingness to listen and seek solutions that would be broadly accepted, Commissioner

Martens added. As a result of this thoughtful public input, the plan is greatly improved.

(MORE)

ATTACHMENT 3

-2-

Notable changes to the plan include:

1) A revised goal focused on minimizing swan impacts, rather than eliminating all free-flying swans; 2) A regional approach that recognizes the distinct differences in history, status, impacts and

management opportunities for mute swans between downstate and upstate regions of New York;

3) A new strategy to permit municipalities to keep swans at local parks and other settings pursuant to local swan management plans, as long as certain conditions are met;

4) A commitment to full consideration of non-lethal techniques, including egg-oiling and placement of swans in possession of persons licensed by DEC, except where immediate removal of swans is

necessary to protect public health or safety; and

5) A more succinct summary of the impacts mute swans can have, citing additional scientific studies.

The revised management plan describes nine strategies that DEC believes are necessary to achieve the

plan goal. Key strategies include public education and outreach to inform people about the history and impacts

of mute swans in New York; banning the importation, commercial trade, propagation and release of mute

swans; allowing municipalities to develop local mute swan management plans in cooperation with DEC; and

continued efforts by DEC to reduce wild mute swan populations, especially in upstate New York where they did

not occur before 1980.

Comments on the revised draft mute swan plan may be submitted in writing through April 24 to:

NYSDEC Bureau of Wildlife, Swan Management Plan, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-4754 or by e-mail

to FW.wildlf@dec.ny.gov (please type Swan Plan in the subject line). DECs summary of and responses to

public comments on the earlier draft plan are also available on the DEC website at

www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7076.html.

In addition to mute swans, DEC is concerned about many other invasive species in New York, including

aquatic invasive plants, zebra mussel, emerald ash borer, Asian carp, Eurasian boar, to name a few. For more

information about invasive species in New York, and DECs efforts to prevent and control them, go to:

http://nyis.info/ or www.dec.ny.gov/animals/265.html.

###

15-48

AprComNew625AlbaSent

DeaIwrPatrexteMan

comthedefithe

Ourandfinaandasig

ril15,2015mmissionerwYorkState5Broadwayany,NewYot viaemailand

arCommissiritetodaywriciaRiexingensionofthnagementPmplicatedantechnicalcoicienciesofcommentp

1. Thiftandcom

2. ThEasDEeff

rviewisthadhaveasignalrevisedpldputitoutfgnificantex

JosephMareDept.ofEnork122330dhardcopy

ionerMartewithanurgegerimmediecommentlanissuedbndrequiresomplexitiestheplanitsperiodisreqeDECitselftherewasnodmadepublmmentperioePlanwasissterholidayEChadallowefectivelyreduatitisfarmonificantpuban.Afterallforpubliccoxtension.

rtensnvironment0001

ens,ntrequesttatelygrantperiodontbyDEConMsignificantaoftheinforelf.Webeliquiredforatookaboutaparticularuic,thereisceodtobemoressuedaroundperiodfellriedforthepuucingthepuboreimportaliccommenl,ifittookthomment,the

talConserva

thatyouandandannountherevisedMarch10,20analyticalarmationincievethatasnumberofyeartoissuergencyingeertainlyreasethan45daydMarch10thightinthemublictocommbliccommenanttogetthntperiodonheDECayeepublicsho

ation

dtheNYDEnceasignifidraftMuteS015.Thedoattentiontoludedandssignificanteadditionalrethenewlyrttingtheplanontoallowtys.h;andthesigmiddleofthetment(03/10ntperiod.herevisedpnit,thanitiseartoreviseouldbeallow

ECDirectoricantSwanocumentisdealwithsignificantextensionofreasons:revisedplan;nrevisedouthepublic

nificanttimewhich04/24),thu

lanrightstorushtoetheplanwedatleast

f

;t

s

a

t

ATTACHMENT 4

FinawritwouTenorigmanNewproallosign

Sinc

JohnWilTheandExePegjgracc:

ally,werealttenandaskuldcertainlynsofthousanginaldraftpnagementawYork,andtection.Wewedextendnificantpub

cerely,

nW.GrandydlifeCounseeHumaneSodcutiveDirecgasusFoundandy@humaPatriciaRieConservatioTheHonoraNewYorkSDavidKaroBrianShapiJohnLyons

lizethatNYkedforaneysupportanndsofNewplan,thusdendhumanethesignificerealizethadedpublicclicinterest;

y,Ph.D.elortotheCocietyofthectordationanesociety.oexinger,Direon,NewYorableNewYoStateAssempkin,Gooseiro,NewYos,Esq.,Gran

YStateSenatextensionofndconcurwYorkStateemonstratintreatmentcantpubliciattheNewYommentpeweurgeyo

CEOeUnitedSta

orgector,NewYrkorkStateSe

mblymanSteeWatchNYCrkStateDirntandLyons

torTonyAvfthecommewithhisreqscitizenscongtheirgreaoffreeranginterestininYorkStateDeriodsintheoutogranto

ates

YorkDept.oenatorTonyevenCymbrCrector,HSUSs

vellahasalrentperiod,auest.ommenteduatconcernfgingMuteSwnsuringtheDEChasgraepastonissourrequest

ofEnvironmyAvellarowitzS

readyandwe

upontheforthewansinirciouslysuesoftnow.

mental

ATTACHMENT 5

Comments of HSUS to NYS DEC on the rev MS Mgmt Plan March 2015 _ 4.20Att 1 Management Plan for Mute Swans in New York State.revised.mar 2015Att 2 Comments of HSUS to NYS Dept of Env Consevation 2.20Att 3 03-09-15 DEC Releases Revised Mute Swan Management Plan for Public Comment 15-48Att 4 NY DEC Mute Swan Plan Extension 4.15Att 5 Martens letter 4-21-2015