RE: NANFA-- Exotic Removal -Swans vs Snakeheads

Scott.L.Schlueter_at_LRB01.usace.army.mil
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 07:06:44 -0700

There appears to be some sort of loop hole. At least here in NY mute swans
were not protected until they successfully nested. At that point they
became migratory waterfowl and therefore protected. Until then I suppose
there were no limits.

States can apply for permits from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to oil
eggs, take adults, and etc. We have problems with Cormorants in upstate NY
and the state employs the egg oiling strategy. It is very successful at
reducing recruitment of almost an entire year class.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: geoff
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 7:01 PM
To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
Subject: Re: NANFA-- Exotic Removal -Swans vs Snakeheads

I am by no means a lawyer or bird expert, but I don't think that exotics
are covered by the migratory bird act. At least, pigeons, english
sparrows, and starlings are not covered. I can kill them at will
because they are exotics. I just can't discharge a firearm inside the
city limits etc to do it.

Perhaps there are other factors in play with these aerial vermin, but as
I said - I'm not an expert.

Geoff Kimber
Lexington, KY

On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 18:47, Christopher Scharpf wrote:
> I live near the Bay, so I hear and read about this issue every day.
>
> The issue is a legal one. The swans are protected by the Migratory Bird
> Treaty Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, which (I presume)
does
> not distinguish between natives and exotics. It's not that the judges
don't
> want the swans to be killed. They are simply upholding the laws, which, if
> you follow them to the letter, forbids anyone from doing so.
>
> The "do-gooders" argue that the swans are being made a scapegoat for the
> runoff, development, hog farms, etc., that are responsible for the Bay's
> poor health. Rather than kill swans, laws should be made (or enforced) and
> more resources allocated toward watershed protection. In this the
> "do-gooders" are absolutely correct: the Bay's ill's are not the fault of
> the swans.
>
> However, what the "do-gooders" fail to realize is that the fragile health
of
> the Bay -- specifically, the few remaining patches of healthy bay grasses,
> which the swans like to eat -- is made even more fragile by the presence
of
> the swans. Reducing the swan population won't solve the problem, but it
will
> eliminate a serious stressor. Reproducing swans + dwindling bay grasses is
a
> catastrophe waiting to happen. (And this is to say nothing of the swan's
> aggressiveness toward native birds such as heron and osprey. Having been
> chased by a male swan when I came within 30 yards of its nest, I can
attest
> to the fact that these creatures are big and mean and fearless!)
>
> The judges' hands are tied. The laws -- which was written long before
swans
> became a problem -- clearly forbids their being killed. Yet all
responsible
> scientists and wildlife managers know that curbing their population is the
> ecologically sound thing to do.
>
> I would guess that it would take an amendment to the cited Acts -- in
other
> words, an act of Congress -- to allow the swans to be killed.
>
> Chris
>
> > From: John Bongiovanni <bongi_at_cox-internet.com>
> > Reply-To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
> > Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:50:53 -0500
> > To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
> > Subject: NANFA-- Exotic Removal -Swans vs Snakeheads
> >
> > Geez. I heard on NPR today about the problem Maryland is having with
the
> > Asian Mute Swan. Its taking over areas of Chesapeak Bay displacing
other
> > birds and eating and tearing up the aquatic grasses that the fish live
in.
> > The local parks and wildlife dept has devised a program to destroy the
birds.
> > These are huge birds by-the-way.
> >
> > Now there are organized "do-gooder" groups raising cane over the
destruction
> > of the exotics. They have actually convinced a judge to execute a stay
> > preventing the state from moving forward in their plans. Good thing
that old
> > snakehead in Maryland last summer was just butt ugly!
> /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
> / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
> / Association"
> / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
Association
> / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
> / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
> / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
> / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
> / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,
http://www.nanfa.org

--
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org