SUMMARY INFORMATION

I. Key Facts

·         Even though mute swans have been in NYS since the 1800s, DEC considers these animals “non-native invasive species” (similar to zebra mussel and ash borer beetle, Asian carp).  They fail to provide scientific data to show how their effects over the last 150 years has impacted the environment. 

·         DEC’s revised plan shows that there are 2,200 swans in NYS (2,000 Downstate and 200 Upstate) as of 2012. (DEC March 2015, page 1-2)

·         DEC indicates that there were about 200 birds Upstate, showing no increase over a 15 year period (DEC March 2015, page 1-2)

·         DEC 2013 Report indicates 193 mute swans in 2002 on Lake Ontario and 169 in 2011 or a 12% decrease.  (December 2013, page 5)

·         According to the DEC 2013 Report, there are only 17 pairs of nesting swans within Monroe County per DEC.  (DEC-December 2013, page 27).  However, they are concerned about the impact on aquatic and vegetative wildlife of a lake that covers 7,320 square miles.

·         DEC’s own data shows that their control procedures of mute swans have decreased over the past 5 years.  For example, DEC’s management of swan nests and eggs decreased significantly over the past 5 years.  For example, in 2008 DEC had to manage 89 nests and only 52 nests in 2012, a decrease of 41%. Similarly, the DEC had to manage 635 eggs in 2009, however there were only 301 eggs that DEC managed in 2012, a decrease of 53%.  (December 2013, Page 31)

·         DEC claims that it is afraid mute swans will “spread throughout New York State.” (March 2015 Report, Page 8), yet their own report states that it “had no reports of these birds [swans on Lake Ontario] moving south (e.g., to any of the Finger Lakes), even during harsh winters.  Swans banded on Long Island were nearly as sedentary as those banded on Lake Ontario. Only four (4%) of 102 birds banded on Long Island moved >50 km, and nearly all movements followed shorelines or water bodies.” (December 2013, Page 18). 

·         If mute swans ever do become a problem, they are easy to find and control (they are large white birds that tend to congregate along shorelines), unlike other non-native species that actually are problematic such as zebra mussels and ash borer beetles, or Asian carpe.

·         DEC’s March 2015 revised plan intends to slaughter all upstate swans (including all on Lake Ontario), while permitting only 800 to survive downstate (after public protest), but not permitting those swans to reproduce, thereby ensuring the complete eradication of mute swans.  (DEC March 2015, page 5)

·         DEC’s revised plan suggests that residents will be able to still enjoy the beauty of mute swans if they are willing to travel to downstate locations.  (Long Island, NYC, 4 counties of Hudson Valley) where DEC allows (for now) mute swans.  (March 2015 Plan – page 5)

·         DEC would use lethal means for upstate swans (March 2015 Plan – page 11).  It would consider non-lethal means at its discretion only where it deems “practical and timely” to DEC’s objectives and only if outside animal organizations fund them.  (March 2015, page 6)

·         The DEC’s Revised Plan will “permit waterfowl hunters to take mute swans in some circumstances.” (March 2015, p 12)

·         DEC states it would rather promote populations of trumpeter swans (March 2015, page 8), but do not explain how there would be any difference in the behavioral issues: “The potential impacts of trumpeter swans are uncertain, so DEC has not initiated any management to promote or control this species.” (March 2015, Page 2).

·         Trumpeter swans, though native to North America, are not “native” to New York State and only recently began to appear here within the last 20 years (as opposed to the 150 plus year residency of the mute swans).: “[Trumpeter swans] 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.” (March 2015, Page 2).

·         Other non-native species, such as the honeybee, have had a positive impact on the environment.

·         The pheasant (introduced in the 1890s) is also a “non-native” species. However, according to its own website, the DEC has an annual operating budget of $750,000 designated toward the breeding of approximately 30,000 pheasants specifically for hunting and game purposes. http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/49071.html  

·         DEC’s revised plan insult those who wish to protect, conserve and enjoy the mute swan and describe those as “unaware.”  DEC’s revised plan requires permitted swans to be of the same gender so that they cannot reproduce (March 2015, page 9), but fail to account for how cruel this approach is since most swans mate for life and often when one dies the other will stop eating and die shortly thereafter, nor does it account for the recreational enjoyment provided to the people of New York State who do not hunt.

II. Lack of Scientific Data to Support Conclusions

A.    Claimed “Aggressive” Behavior - DEC plan cites concern over aggressive behavior with the duck population, but provide very little to no evidence. 

·         For example, in DEC’s December 2013 report (page 25) they indicate that their observations showed that only 14% of mallards and 0% of wood ducks were treated aggressively by mute swan at nesting time.  Furthermore, their concern is inconsistent with current DEC regulations which allow hunters to capture 6 ducks per day.  The DEC provides no data on the decrease in duck population, or any other animal, caused by mute swans.  There was not one single of instance cited of a wood duck or a mallard duck being driven out of the studied body of water.

·         DEC is concerned about the mute swan’s impact on the black terns.  However, they admit that their results were inconclusive because there was still no usage by black terns when the swans were removed from the area of study. “Thus it remains uncertain whether swans have contributed to the decline of black terns in New York, but further investigation is warranted.” (December 2013, Page 27-28)  

·         The DEC admits that mute swans are not always aggressive towards other birds within their nesting territory, and some breeding pairs may allow other water fowl to nest within a few meters of an active nest.”  (December 2013, page 25)

·         DEC chart (page 26) in the December 2013 shows that all of the encounters with wood ducks were all passive. However, zero acts of aggression were noted by DEC.  However, they only viewed 3 encounters which does not properly support their claim that swans are aggressive toward ducks.  In fact, the level of aggressive behavior was zero according to their report. If they are truly measuring the effect of aggressive behavior on ducks, an appropriate scientific sample would be to observe more encounters.  By not including all of the encounters, the data is skewed and not scientifically accurate.

·         DEC reports that swans are so abundant however their sample size encounters with mute swan is only 4 in total with other mute swans.  Based on this low sample size, they conclude that 75% of swans are aggressive with other mute swans.

·         DEC admits that 42% (less than half) of the observations DEC made were where the swans were aggressive. 75 percent of those were against Canadian geese, however they fail to show the impact of the aggressive nature on the Canadian geese. (December 2013, Page 26)

·         On the one hand DEC claims that it is concerned about the aggressive behavior of swans toward Canadian geese, but in the same breath DEC states that when people have purposely tried to use swans to decrease the geese population, those attempts were not effective.  (December 2013, Page 24)

·         Low sampling sizes are not based on scientific results.  For example, the Report only sited two swan encounters with egrets.  The classified both encounters as aggressive and labeled this data as 100%.   Furthermore, the data is from 2005 and 2006 suggesting they did not observe any current observations of this aggression.

·         DEC cites that the swan’s aggressive behavior “can render some land or water inaccessible for outdoor recreation during the nesting season.”  This statement is unsupported and misleading given that motorized vehicles would over power a swan and DEC fails to identify a single reported instance. (March 2015, page 4).

·         DEC cites to one alleged isolated drowning incident in another state where a person supposedly fell out of an overturned kayak while trying to use swans to drive Canadian geese from a pond on a residential condo property (without wearing a life jacket).  (March 2015, page 4)

·         DEC cautions residents about the dangers of the mute swan as aggressive toward people, but admit that they only received less than a dozen complaints regarding the swans.  (DEC 2013, Page 28).

·         DEC defines mute swans as “aggressive” instead of defensive.  However, this is misleading because most animals will act defensively when protecting their nests and young.

B.     Claimed “Fecal Contamination” – DEC cites swan fecal matter of contaminating the water, but does not provide any scientific data regarding the effects of pollution from run-off or other contributing factors.

·         They cite a study in Maryland about Tundra Swans and compare that with the fecal matter.  The DEC study is flawed because they are comparing the Tundra Swan to the Mute Swan, but then admit that they do not know if they have the same fecal coliform matter.

·         With respect to fecal coliform content, DEC indicates that “there was no clear correlation between individual sample results and number of swans at the sample location.”  (December 2013 page 29)  There were no studies done on Lake Ontario by DEC or other agencies to support their concern.

·         Their concern for shell fishing is not relevant to Lake Ontario, so again no consideration or analysis of different geographical populations.

C.    Claimed Impact on Subaquatic Vegetation - DEC’s also cite to effects on vegetation but scientific studies are flawed:

·         The limited number of swans on Lake Ontario (less than 169 in total), they did a study of one isolated sub-pocket of congregated molting juvenile swans, but provided no data on the total number of swans on that particular area or the surrounding areas or the geographic size supposedly affected by vegetation consumption.  Nor was there any indication, that other forging water fowl in that area may have been present.  There is limited scientific value.  Obviously, depending on the size of the area and the large number of swans were contained, you would see vegetation impacts.  But this does not take into consideration, the size of the entire lake.

·         They admit in their report of nesting pairs of swans are isolated in nature.  They admit that the effect of nesting pairs would be minimal on vegetation.  When conducting their studies the DEC states that it “purposely avoided those locations of territorial swans.”  DEC admits “long-term studies would be needed to measure the full impact of mute swan forging.”  (2013 DEC Report – page 23)