Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) in the Chesapeake Bay:
A Draft Bay-Wide Management Plan
Photo by: Julie Thompson, USFWS
Prepared by:
The Chesapeake Bay Mute Swan Working Group
Chaired by: Julie A. Thompson
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office
November
2003
-------
Chesapeake Bay Mute Swan Working Group Members
Tom Bidrowski, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Gary Constanzo, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Doug Forsell, United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Ian Gregg, Pennsylvania Game Commission
Larry Hindman, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Jonathon McKnight, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Matthew Perry, United States Geological Survey
Julie Thompson, United States Fish and Wildlife Service
1
-------
Table of Contents
Chesapeake Bay Mute Swan Working Group Members i
Executive Summary 1
I. Introduction 2
A. Introduction History 3
B. Summary of Biology and Ecology 3
C. Summary of Ecological Impacts 5
D. Positive Values and Use 7
E. Distribution and Population Estimates in Chesapeake Bay Watershed 8
F. Management of Mute Swan 9
G. Management Efforts in Chesapeake Bay watershed 9
H. Policy Background 10
II. Management Actions - Explanatory Text for the Implementation Table 12
m. Implementation Table 18
Literature Cited 30
Appendix A: Swan Free Areas 34
Appendix B: Maryland Statutes Pertaining to the Management of Mute Swans 36
Appendix C: Maryland Senate Joint Resolution 37
ii
-------
Executive Summary
Mute swans are an invasive, non-native species that now inhabit the Chesapeake Bay in large
numbers. Numbers of mute swans have drastically increased since 1986. Maintaining a large
population of mute swans in the Chesapeake Bay presents major challenges to the many stakeholders
committed to restoring and protecting native aquatic plants and animals in the Bay. Adverse ecological
effects are occurring as a result of the large population of mute swans and will increase if the population
is allowed to grow.
To better coordinate prevention and control efforts for aquatic invasive species on a regional basis,
the Chesapeake Bay Program's Invasive Species Workgroup (CBP's ISWG) developed the following
two goals for the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement: "By 2001, identify and rank non-native aquatic and
terrestrial species which are causing or have the potential to cause significant negative impacts to the
Bay's aquatic ecosystem. By 2003, develop and implement management plans for those species
deemed problematic to the restoration and integrity of the Bay's ecosystem." In September 2001, the
ISWG developed a questionnaire that was sent to the CBP signatory jurisdictions and federal partners
to identify six species that are causing or have the potential to cause adverse ecological effects in the
Bay's ecosystem. Mute swan (Cygnus olor) was identified as one of the six priority species in which a
Bay-wide management plan would be written. In May 2002, the CBP in partnership with Maryland
Sea Grant College, sponsored a workshop in Baltimore, Maryland aimed at developing draft
management strategies for each of the six species. In 2003, a Chesapeake Bay Mute Swan Working
Group, was appointed by the CBP, comprised of many of the workshop participants, as well as other
natural resource managers and researchers, to develop a final Bay-wide management plan.
This final management plan is a product of the draft management strategy developed for Mute Swan
at the May 2003 workshop. Workshop participants developed a draft management strategy utilizing
four different components: 1) Leadership, Coordination, and Regulatory Authority; 2) Detection and
Monitoring; 3) Prevention, Control, and Management; and 4) Communication and Information Access.
Participants identified specific actions for each of the components that should be taken to meet the goal
of their management strategy. An implementation table was developed and included a time frame for
completing the actions, identification of agencies responsible for leading actions, the partners that should
be involved, the funding/cost share, and the source of funding. To insure that the draft Bay-wide
management strategy developed at the workshop was realistic in terms of feasability of implementing
actions, including agency leads and sources of funds available to implement actions, a Bay-wide
Working Group was established to evaluate the draft management strategy, make changes if needed,
and develop a final plan to be submitted to the Implementation Committee of the Chesapeake Bay
Program for approval. The Bay-wide mute swan plan is unique from the other management plans being
developed because the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Atlantic Fly way
Council (AFC) have already developed management plans for this species. Because the state of
Maryland is included in this Bay-wide plan and all three of the states (MD, VA, and PA) are part of the
Atlantic Flyway, management actions developed within this plan are consistent with the two existent
plans.
The goal of this plan is to manage the Chesapeake Bay population of mute swans to a level that a)
minimizes the impacts on native wildlife, important habitats, and local economies; b) minimizes conflict
1
-------
with humans; c) is in agreement with Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals for SAV and invasive species;
and d) is in agreement with the Atlantic Flyway Plan.
Timing of implementation of many of the management actions in this plan, however, will depend on
when the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is able to issue depredation permits to the
states for population control. The USFWS published a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and
Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the Management of Mute Swans in the Atlantic Flyway on
August 7, 2003. The Service is withdrawing those decision documents. Effective October 8, 2003,
those documents will not be used to support the issuance of depredation permits authorizing the take of
mute swans under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). No new mute swan depredation permits
will be issued pending completion of further review under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
I. Introduction
Because mute swan are not native to the Chesapeake Bay, they have escaped predators, diseases,
and other factors that keep the species in check in its native range. The mute swan is facing organisms
that did not evolve in its presence and that may not be adapted to competing with it or escaping from it.
The presence of a large population of mute swans in the Chesapeake Bay presents major challenges to
the state and federal agencies committed to restoring and protecting native aquatic resources that
inhabit the Bay through the Chesapeake Bay Program's Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.
Although the impact of the mute swan cannot be quantified at this time, it's potential impact on native
waterfowl and habitat, it's dramatic growth in the Bay region since 1986, and a lack of evidence that
natural causes will limit the population in the future, warrants the need to manage the mute swan in the
Chesapeake Bay. A large mute swan population in the Chesapeake Bay threatens the protection and
restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds in areas of critical importance to the Bay's
living resources. Furthermore, the mute swan's preference for SAV as a major food source, reduces
the likelihood of achieving the Chesapeake 2000 objective of protecting and restoring 114,000 acres of
SAV. Mute swans can also compete with other native species for food and habitat and can cause
conflicts with people.
Adverse ecological impacts being caused by the large population of mute swan in the Chesapeake
Bay will continue to worsen if the population continues to grow in the absence of management. The
mute swan needs to be managed at a level in which its impacts on SAV, native wildlife, and habitats are
minimized. The management of mute swans in the Bay complements other efforts to protect and
restore these habitats and should be viewed as part of a more comprehensive Bay restoration effort.
In January 2003, the CBP ISWG convened a Mute Swan Workgroup comprised of researchers
and federal and state natural resource managers, to develop a finalized Bay-wide regional management
plan. The goal of the plan is to manage the Chesapeake Bay population of mute swans to a level that a)
minimizes the impacts on native wildlife, important habitats, and local economies; b) minimizes conflict
with humans; c) is in agreement with Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals for SAV and invasive species;
and d) is in agreement with the Atlantic Flyway Plan. The management plan consists of an introduction,
which summarizes our current understanding of the biology and ecology of this species, its invasion
history, ecological impacts, current distribution and population estimates, current management efforts,
and state and federal policies regarding management. A Management Actions section consists of the
2
-------
objectives and strategies that will work to meet the goal of the plan. Objectives and strategies were
developed under four components, which include: 1) Leadership, Coordination, and Regulatory
Authority; 2) Detection and Monitoring; 3) Prevention, Control and Management; and 4)
Communication and Information Access. Finally, an Implementation Section was developed to task
appropriate cooperating agencies to lead implementation on specific strategies and includes a budget,
source of funding, and a time line to accomplish the strategies.
A. Introduction History
The mute swan is not native to the Chesapeake Bay. It was introduced to North America during
the late 1800's as decorative waterfowl for parks, zoos and private estates. The mute swan was
favored among captive owners and breeders of waterfowl for their beauty and grace.
Over 500 mute swans were imported to the United States between 1910-1912. The flight feathers
of many of these birds were cut (Phillips, 1928). Small numbers of these birds, however, escaped into
the wild. Initial introductions into the wild on the East Coast are believed to have occurred in the
Hudson River (1910) and Long Island (1912) (Bull, 1964).
There were early sightings of feral mute swan in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in Pennsylvania
(1930s), Maryland (1954), Delaware (1958), and Virginia (mid 1950s). In the Maryland portion of
the Chesapeake Bay, a feral population of mute swan became established when five birds escaped
from an aviculture collection along the Miles River in Talbot County in March 1962 (Reese, 1969). In
Virginia, a feral population of mute swans did not become established until the mid-1960s or early
1970s. Small numbers of free-ranging mute swans were first observed in southeastern Pennsylvania
during the 1930s. These earliest birds are believed to have originated from feral populations in New
Jersey.
B. Summary of Biology and Ecology
i. Description
Included in the family Anatidae with ducks, geese, and swans, mute swans are the largest bird found
in the Chesapeake Bay. Adult males are larger than females, averaging 10.8 kg while females average
8.4 kg (Ciaranca et al., 1997). The average length of males and females is 1.27 to 1.52 m. Adults can
have a wing span that ranges from 1.8-2.4 m. Adult birds are white and have orange bills with a
characteristic black, basal knob and a black terminal nail. The legs and feet of adults range in color
from black to grayish pink. Mute swan cygnets are grayish brown or white with slate gray legs and feet
or pinkish/tan feet. Cygnets lack the basal knob present in adults. White morph cygnets have tan bills
and grey morph cygnets have slate bills.
ii. Habitat
Mute swans utilize a variety of aquatic habitats, including ponds and lagoons and fresh to salt water
marshes. In the northeast, mute swans prefer coastal ponds (salt, brackish, and freshwater), estuaries,
backwaters, and tributaries of embayments. It occupies these habitats year round (Ciaranca et al.,
1997). As the northeast Atlantic Coast population has began to grow, some birds have begun to
occupy inland freshwater wetlands, ponds, impoundments, and reservoirs (MDNR, 2003). In the
warmer months, mute swans spend most of their time in shallow water. As shallow water freezes they
move to deeper water, but will utilize deep water throughout the year.
3
-------
iii. Breeding
Mute swans breed by their third spring and continue throughout their life (Ciaranca et al., 1997).
Pairs generally remain together until one member dies. Following the death of a mate the remaining
member of a pair may or may not choose another mate. Nesting begins in March or early April and
pairs often use the same nest sites over multiple years. Nesting occurs close to the water on small
islands, isolated shorelines or in shallow marshes. Mute swan appear to favor Phragmites and Typha
for nesting material. However, nesting material can vary from salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina spp.),
black needlerush (,Juncus sp.)(L. Hindman, personal communication in AF Draft Plan, 2003), to
woody vegetation (Berglund et al, 1963; Willey and Halla, 1972; Reese, 1980; Gelston and Wood,
1982). Nests range from four to six feet in diameter. The female, or pen, does most of the nest
building and is the principle incubator of the eggs. Unlike other waterfowl in the Northern Hemisphere,
however, mute swan males have been observed incubating in the absence of a female (Witherby et al.,
1952). Clutch size in the Chesapeake Bay ranges from four to ten eggs with a mean of 6.2 (Reese,
1996), while brood sizes range between 3.1 and 5.6 cygnets. Incubation continues for about 35 days
after the first egg is laid, between mid-May and mid-June. Mute swan generally nest once a year,
although if a nest is disturbed early in the nesting season and eggs are lost, a pair may attempt to nest a
second time. Territory size of mute swans has been reported to range from between less than three
acres in high quality areas to about 15 acres on large bodies of water and open rivers for nesting and
brood rearing, and feeding (Birkhead and Perrins, 1986; Ciaranca, 1990; Ciaranca et al., 1997).
Cygnets are precocious; they begin swimming within a day or two of hatching and are fully grown in
less than six months. In the Chesapeake Bay, 49% of eggs laid survive to hatching and about 83% of
hatching cygnets are able to fledge (Ciaranca et al., 1997).
iv. Molting
Mute swan go through an annual molting process to renew worn flight feathers. Usually at this time,
large concentrations of birds, consisting of immature, unpaired and unsuccessful breeders, gather on
large open shallow water areas. These sites provide protection for flightless birds and a sufficient
amount of SAV to feed them during this period. Molting occurs during mid-July to late Aug during
peak SAV biomass production (AF, 2003). Molt concentrations as large as 600-1,000 birds have
been reported in MD (MDNR, 2003).
v. Migration and Wintering Distribution
The mute swan's wintering distribution is similar to its breeding range. Mute swan are non-
migratory in North America but may undergo short local seasonal movements seeking open water and
available food sources during winter weather (AF, 2003).
vi. Predation
Only a few animals prey upon mute swans. Large predators (racoon, otter, fox, coyote, and
domestic dog) will take advantage of an unoccupied nest to eat the eggs or cygnets. Active nests are
well defended and nest mortality is usually low. Snapping turtles will take cygnets during the first few
weeks of life (AF, 2003).
vii. Longevity and Mortality
Survivability fluctuates annually depending upon winter severity and available food sources (AF,
2003). Annual survival rates increase with age (Reese, 1980). Life expectancy in the wild can be to
over 25 years, however, the average is probably closer to 11 years (Ciaranca et al. 1997). Natural
4
-------
mortality is low and is usually less than 10% annually.
Humans have a limited impact on the mortality of mute swans due to the absence of a hunting
season, although a few states have not provided them with "protected species" status in the past.
Accidental death resulting from collision with overhead wires and man-made structures is a common
cause of mortality. In rare instances, territorial adult males may kill young cygnets (L. Hindman,
personal communication, in AF Draft Plan, 2003) and even rival males during territorial fighting (M.
Ciaranca, personal communication, in AF Draft Plan, 2003). Lead poisoning from fish sinkers and
spent shotgun pellets has been reported in North America (M. Ciaranca, personal communication, in
AF Draft Plan, 2003). Eggs and young can be eaten by predators and nests can also become flooded.
Natural mortality does occur from various waterfowl diseases, parasitic infections, and starvation.
C. Summary of Ecological Impacts
i. SAV Habitat
Mute swan feed almost exclusively on SAV (Ciaranca et al., 1997; Fenwick, 1983). SAV is a vital
component of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem due to a number of valuable ecological benefits it
provides in the Bay. The plants provide food for resident and migratory waterfowl and the beds provide
habitat and shelter for a variety of fish, shellfish, and invertebrates. SAV also contributes to chemical
processes such as nutrient absorption and oxygenation of the water column. SAV beds, when dense,
can also aid in baffling wave energy and slowing water currents, which can reduce shoreline erosion and
promote settlement of suspended sediments (Hurley, 1991). Abundance and distribution of SAV in the
Bay has drastically declined since the 1970s, and can be mainly attributed to decreased light abundance
and biofouling of the plant surface due to excessive loading of nutrients and sediments from the Bay
watershed. Efforts to restore depleted populations of SAV and to protect remaining beds of SAV are
greatly challenged by the population of mute swan that inhabit the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
The mute swan's diet in the Chesapeake Bay consists of SAV (81.8%), algae (8.4%), emergent
and terrestrial plants (8.3%), and animal matter (0.3%) (Fenwick, 1983). Willey and Halla (1972) and
Ciaranca et al. (1997) documented that mute swans will feed on at least 23 different species of SAV.
Mute swans have the capability to feed in water up to 1.07 m deep (Owen and Cadbury, 1975) but
typically feed in shallow water requiring less energy.
Studies conducted in both North America and Europe found that mute swans feed on the same
species of SAV used by other waterfowl (Gilham, 1956; Jennings et al., 1961; Willey and Halla, 1972;
Mathiasson, 1973; Charman, 1977; Nierheus and Van Ireland, 1978; Scott andBirkhead, 1983).
Alternatively, Conover and Kania (1994) reported that mated pairs of mute swans had little or no effect
on native waterfowl and their herbivory.
The MDNR (2001) cite reports of overgrazing by mute swans in local areas and the concerns of
residents about the loss of SAV habitat and its impact on blue crab and fish populations. Impacts upon
SAV are not well quantified at this time, however, it is clear that maintaining a large population of mute
swans poses a significant threat to the remaining beds and the establishment of new beds and is
therefore an impediment to achieving the goals of the CBP Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The
Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement includes a commitment to restore 114,000 acres of SAV.
Restoration efforts, particularly in the mid-Bay where the decline is most severe, are frequently
obstructed by feeding mute swans.
5
-------
Chasko (1986) observed significant reductions in SAV in small Connecticut ponds used by
breeding swan pairs. A study conducted in the Netherlands by Nienhusi and Van Irerland (1978)
noted that mute swans were responsible for 87% of consumption of eel grass beds by birds. Cobb and
Harlan (1980) found that when mute swans are present in high concentrations, they can overgraze an
area, after which they abandon it (Allin et al., 1987). An exclosure study conducted in Rhode Island
(Allin and Husband, 2000) indicated that mute swans can overgraze SAV when water depths are
shallow (0.5 m or 1.5 feet), reducing SAV biomass by as much as 92 to 95%. Fenwick (1983)
found that mute swans could consume on average 43% (females) and 35% (males) of their body weight
daily. Willey (1968) reported that mute swans can consume more than 8 lbs of wet weight daily.
Additional losses of SAV can occur from foraging behavior. Mute swans have been observed pulling
plants up by the roots or rhizomes or paddling vigorously to dislodge whole plants to consume or make
available for cygnets (Owen and Kear, 1972; Birkhead and Perrins, 1986). Willey (1968)
documented that mute swans can uproot up to 20 lbs daily during feeding activity. Mute swan can also
use large amounts of vegetation for nest building (Gillham, 1956). Foraging by mute swans during the
SAV growing season reduces plant survival and the plant's ability to reproduce.
ii. Agriculture
If the Chesapeake Bay mute swan population continues to grow and SAV habitat is further
depleted, some resource managers believe that there is potential for this bird to include upland grazing
in its feeding behavior. In British Columbia and Washington State, mute swans have been reported to
feed on agriculture fields and cause damage to small grain crops (MDNR, 2003). Mute swans have
reportedly been responsible for several thousand dollars of damage to commercial cranberry crops in
New Jersey and Massachusetts, the damage being inflicted while they were grazing on aquatic plants
(Atlantic Flyway Technical Committee, unpublished data, in AF, 2003).
iii. Native Species of Fish and Wildlife
Competition for habitat and their large size make mute swan a threat to native waterfowl. Some
swans will tolerate other waterfowl nesting within their territory, however, older mated pairs are less
tolerant (AF, 2003). Many swans will vigorously defend their nest and brood sites from intrusion by
other swans or ducks or geese (Anderson and Titman, 1992). Mute swan can attack and displace
native waterfowl from breeding and staging areas (Willey, 1968; Reese, 1975; Ciaranca, 1990;
Ciaranca et al., 1997) and they may even kill the intruding pair or their young (Stone and Masters,
1970; Reese, 1980; Kania and Smith, 1986). Territorial defense allows a mated pair to protect food
resources needed to support offspring. If food and nesting habitat are readily available, swans may nest
colonially (Bacon and Harild, 1987; L. Hindman, personal communication in AF Plan, 2003). In
Maryland, mute swan breeding pairs have been documented killing mallard (Anasplatyrhynchos)
ducklings, Canada goose (Branta canadensis) goslings, and cygnets of other mute swan pairs
(MDNR, unpublished data).
As mentioned previously, mute swan consume large amounts of SAV that might otherwise be
available for other waterfowl. Because mute swans are non-migratory and remain in coastal areas year
round they continuously feed on SAV during the summer flowering and growing periods. Mute swan
concentrations reduce the amount of SAV available for other species of waterfowl. Populations of
several waterfowl species (e.g., redhead, canvasback, American widgeon, black ducks, and Atlantic
brant) that depend upon SAV have declined in the Bay and remain well below population goals, these
6
-------
declines are attributed to the reduced abundance of SAV (MDNR, 2003).
Little is known at this time regarding potential conflicts between trumpeter (Cygnus buccinator)
and mute swans and between tundra swans (iCygnus columbianus) and mute swans. Johnson (Kellog
Bird Sanctuary, unpublished report) reported on four anecdotal conflicts between trumpeter swans and
mute swans in Michigan during early spring, 1990-1996. In those incidents trumpeter swans prevailed.
If mute swans were to adapt to upland feeding behavior, there may be a potential for further interaction
with wintering tundra swans (AF, 2003).
There is a concern in Maryland that an increase in the mute swan population may be contributing to
factors that have suppressed population growth among wintering tundra swans. They have declined
40% during the past 25 years while in Pennsylvania and Virginia populations have increased during the
past decades. The time period in which tundra swans have decreased in Maryland coincide with a rapid
increase in mute swan. Mute swan pairs have been observed exhibiting aggression toward wintering
tundra swan, driving them from foraging areas and protected covers used for wintering shelter (L.
Hindman, personal communication, in AF Plan, 2003). Food habit studies show that tundra swans and
mute swans do compete for limited SAV food resources, but tundra swans feed on invertebrates and
agriculture foods to a greater extent.
Mute swan have been observed exhibiting aggressive behavior towards animals other than
waterfowl. A few attacks have been reported on furbearers and small rodents (Ciaranca et al., 1997).
Mute swans have impacted threatened species including a nesting colony of black skimmers (Rynchops
niger), least terns (Sterna antillarum), common terns (Sterna hirundo), and Foster's terns (Sterno
foresteri) on sand bars in the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland (MD Report, 2001). Mute swans used the
sites as loafing sites and crushed nests, eggs, and young as they walked. Over a period of six years
(1987-1993), an annual molt-gathering of up to 600 mute swans caused repeated reproductive failures
in, and ultimately the abandonment of, the largest colony of least terns in the state (accounting for 49%
of the state population) and one of only two known colonies of black skimmers in the Maryland portion
of the Chesapeake Bay.
iv. Conflicts With Humans
Mute swans can display aggressive territorial behavior towards humans if they approach their nest or
young. This aggressive behavior can effectively prevent use of shoreline properties and riparian waters.
The mute swan has a six foot wingspan and is readily capable of breaking bones and severely injuring
humans (AF, 2003). Allin (1981) reported on mute swans attacking humans. There have also been
reports of mute swan capsizing canoes and small fishing boats.
v. Effects on Water Quality
In large concentrations, mute swans and other waterfowl can contribute to water quality problems
by defecating in the water (AF, 2003). On Long Island, New York, elevated counts of coliform
bacteria have been detected where mute swans congregate. Public Health authorities are concerned
about the impact of nutrient loading where waterfowl congregate because coliform counts are widely
used to determine whether waters may be used for drinking, swimming, or shell fishing. Nutrient
loading can also cause dangerous algal blooms, especially in inland ponds where rooted SAV has been
removed by mute swans (NYDEC, 1993).
D. Positive Values and Use
7
-------
i. Aesthetic Values
Mute swan are considered a symbol of beauty, elegance, and tranquility by many people due to
their large size, color, and gracefulness. Mute swans provide enjoyment for many people because they
are large conspicuous birds that are now widely distributed along tidal shorelines, including many areas
occupied by waterfront residential homes. People are able to photograph, paint, and view mute swan
courtship displays, nest building, brood rearing activities, and fledgling. Mute swans have little or no
fear of humans perhaps because of their domestic origin. Some people also derive enjoyment from
feeding waterfowl, including mute swans, and can become emotionally attached to birds that inhabit
areas adjacent to their homes or neighborhoods (MDNR, 2003).
ii. Economic Values
Mute swan are sold for display on ponds and lakes. They are also sold as biological control for
removing unwanted filamentous green algae from small lakes and ponds. In some instances they are
purchased to reduce nuisance problems associated with resident Canada geese. The purchase price of
a single mute swan is about $250 and a pair sells for $400-$500 (MDNR, 2003 and AF, 2003).
E. Distribution and Population Estimates in Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Pennsylvania
Numbers of mute swans are monitored by the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) as part of
the Atlantic Flyway Mute Swan Mid-Summer Survey (MSMSS) which has been conducted every
three years since 1986. Total numbers of mute swans observed were similar for the 1986, 1989, and
1993 surveys, averaging 133 swans, but increased to 253 swans in 1996 and remained similar in 1999.
The 2002 survey showed a feral population of 94 birds. The highest concentrations of mute swan
(approx. 2/3 of the state's population) are found in the southeastern part of the state, with additional
mute swans occurring in widely scattered locations statewide (AF, 2003).
Maryland
From their introduction in 1962 up until the mid-1980s, the mute swan population grew slowly and
remained at less than 500 swans. Swan numbers increased from 264 in 1986 to 3,955 in 1999.
A number of factors could have led to this increase, including milder winters and reduced mortality
from lead poisoning (lead shot for waterfowl hunting was prohibited in MD in 1991). The population
increased at an annual rate of about 23% between 1986-99 and 12% between 1993-99. At the
current observed rates of increase, and absent management, the swan population in the state is
expected to reach 13,500 birds (at 12% growth/year) to 38,500 birds (at 23% growth/year) by 2010.
The 2002 MSMSS shows a population of 3,624 birds. The reduced rate of increase since 1993 can
be attributed, in part, to limited population control by the MDNR and Federal National Wildlife
Refuges. The mute swan population in Maryland is the largest and fastest growing population in the
Atlantic Flyway (AF, 2003).
Mute swans are commonly found throughout Maryland's Eastern Shore and a few western shore
tributaries. They prefer nesting on the edges of tidal wetlands but the population has increased to the
point that they are now nesting on inland reservoirs, ponds, managed impoundments, canals, and
dredge spoil ponds. Breeding pairs can be found nesting on all tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.
Additionally, a small number nest in the coastal bays of Worcester County (MDNR, 2003).
The largest number of mute swans are located in the mid-Bay, from Taylor's Island (Dorchester
8
-------
County) to Rock Hall (Kent County) on the Eastern Shore. Large concentrations also occur in the
vicinity of Hoopers and Bloodsworth Islands. Resource managers in Maryland believe that the number
of breeding swan pairs in Maryland will increase rapidly as immature swans reach breeding age. In
1999, more than 82% of all the subadult and adult swans observed in MD were either nonbreeders or
failed breeders (MDNR, 2003).
Virginia
The mute swan population remained low in Virginia until the 1980s. The 1986 MSMSS showed a
population of 60 mute swans, however by 1999 mute swans have increased to over 500 birds. This
increase can be attributed to a number of sources including escapees from private collections, progeny
of these and other feral breeding swans, recent releases by landowners (collectors, homeowners, golf
courses, etc.), and birds moving into the state from other areas, most notably from further north in the
Chesapeake Bay (AF, 2003).
A fast growing segment of this population is located on the islands/marshes in the Chesapeake Bay
near the Maryland border where groups of 30-50 mute swans have been counted in the past several
years. Many of the swans are located on inland waters near areas where they have been released.
However, swan numbers are increasing in coastal areas also (AF, 2003).
F. Management of Mute Swan
Wildlife population management falls into two categories: 1) affecting reproductive output; and 2)
affecting the survival rate of adult birds. In the first category, the most effective management strategy
for affecting reproductive output in mute swans is by destroying their eggs and nest. Addling eggs
reduces the proportion of nests that successfully produce cygnets and is widely accepted as a
management strategy. However, it is very costly in person hours, equipment use, and time afield.
Additionally, it's effect is limited to that portion of the population with the greatest natural mortality rate
and therefore has the least effect on population control and reduction (Cooper and Keefe, 1997).
Using current demographic information, a mathematical model (MDNR, 2003) for a mute swan
population was constructed and allows a comparison of how changes to reproductive output or survival
rates influence the growth rate and size of the population. The model was run at different levels of
hatching success to simulate various levels of egg addling effort. The simulations indicated that it is
necessary to reduce hatching success by 80% just to stabilize the population. In contrast, when annual
adult survival rates in the model were reduced, it took just a 20% reduction to result in a population that
will slowly decline over time. Rockwell et al. (1997) noted that actions taken to increase the mortality
rate of adult lesser snow geese would be the most effective way to reduce the size of an overabundant
mid-continent population of the species. Capture and removal of adult mute swans, however, has
proven to be controversial among the public and could be costly during the short term to state wildlife
agencies. In some areas, the establishment of a hunting season could provide a cost-effective means for
population control. A more effective means of controlling adult survival rates could be to remove and
euthanize adult birds during the molt. As long as mute swans are protected under the MBTA, any large
scale population control would require authorization from USFWS.
G. Management Efforts in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Prior to U.S. Court of Appeals ruling (Hill vs. Norton, U.S.D.O.I. et al., 2001), state wildlife agencies
9
-------
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have attempted various population control measures for mute swan
in the past, including egg addling and relocation or killing of adult birds.
Pennsylvania
Mute swans were unprotected in Pennsylvania; they could be taken without a permit at any time of
the year (AF, 2003). As such, mute swans have normally been destroyed by agency personnel
whenever found on public lands in Pennsylvania. While there has been no formal eradication program
for private lands, landowners have been free to destroy them at any time.
Maryland
MDNR along with personnel from USFWS National Wildlife Refuges have conducted egg addling
and removal of adult swans from state and federal properties. In the mid 1990s, approximately 250
birds from a local flock that damaged a skimmer and tern colony, were removed and exported to Asia
by a game breeder based in New Mexico. Until 1998, local residents were allowed by permit to addle
eggs, destroy nests and shoot nuisance birds. Shooting was prohibited in 1998 (AF, 2003).
Maryland developed a statewide mute swan management plan which was approved by Governor
Ehrlich in March 2003. The plan's management strategies include excluding or removing mute swans
from "swan free areas" to afford protection to habitats critical to the Bay's living resources, this may
include lethal control in areas where ecological damage is occurring and non-lethal methods are
ineffective and impractical; reducing the mute swan population as quickly and efficiently as possible,
consistent with activities to protect, restore, and enhance the Bay's resources; preventing further mute
swan population growth by continued egg addling; annual monitoring of the population; preventing mute
swans' access to certain habitats in the Bay; and strictly regulating captive possession, sale, importation,
breeding, and trade; and providing resolution to conflicts between humans and mute swans (MDNR,
2003).
The Service issued the MDNR a depredation permit in March 2003 for the take of 1,500 adult
birds. In response to a court challenge, the Service requested on May 16, 2003, that the MDNR
surrender the permit to allow the Service the opportunity to evaluate a range of alternatives for
managing mute swans under the MBTA (USFWS, 2003).
Virginia
Virginia permitted the capture and relocation of same sex pairs to inland waters. As an unprotected
species, mute swans were open to hunting at any time of the year by hunters or landowners who could
demonstrate that the swans presented a conflict or threat. A small number of mute swans were also
taken incidentally during limited tundra swan seasons held in Virginia. The Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) conducted limited egg addling and removal of adult birds on
National Wildlife Refuges, State Wildlife Management Areas, military installations, and private lands
(AF, 2003).
H. Policy Background
i. Federal Policy
In December 2001 the mute swan became a federally protected waterfowl species in the United
States. The U.S. Court of Appeals (Hill vs. Norton, U.S.D.I. et al., 2001) ruled that since the mute
swan belongs to the family Anatidae it therefore came under the jurisdiction of the Migratory Bird
Treaty and Federal Protection (Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Partl0.13), which provides the
USFWS with authority over any activity that directly impacts the birds, their eggs, or nests. Prior to
10
-------
this ailing the USFWS did not consider the mute swan covered under the MBTA and regulatory
authority was designated to the states.
The USFWS instituted a mute swan policy in 2002 that allows depredation permits to be issued to
individual states for mute swan population control efforts. In February 2002 the Service prepared an
information leaflet titled "Federal Protection of the Mute Swan" (Williams, 2002). In this document,
management options available to the Service are listed. The options are as follows: 1) development of
management plans for the mute swan in cooperation with State agencies and the Flyway Councils; 2)
establishment of hunting season frameworks for mute swans in cooperation with State agencies and the
Flyway Councils [as a "swan" and a member of Anatidae, the mute swan is automatically a "game bird"
as defined in the MBTA and the conventions]; 3) issuance of depredation permits to State agencies and
others allowing the take of depredating mute swans; and 4) establishment of a depredation order
allowing State agencies and others to take depredating mute swans without need of a federal permit.
Federal permits are now needed to legally take, possess, transport, sell, purchase, barter, import,
export, band, and mark mute swans.
ii. Atlantic Flyway Policy
The Atlantic Flyway Council (AFC) is an administrative body comprised of 23 state and provincial
wildlife agencies that was organized in 1952 for the purpose of managing migratory gamebird
populations, including waterfowl. The AFC established a policy in 1997 to control mute swan growth
in the AF. The policy consists of the following actions: 1) state and provincial wildlife agencies obtain
the authority over sale and possession of mute swans and their eggs; 2) the sale of mute swans, their
young, or eggs should be prohibited; 3) elimination of all importing and exporting of mute swans without
a special purpose permit issued by a state's wildlife agency;
4) mute swans captured due to nuisance complaints, sickness, or injury should be removed from the
wild or euthanized; 5) where feasible, egg-addling programs should be established; 6) both states and
federal wildlife agencies should institute programs to eliminate mute swans and prevent their
establishment; 7) both states and provinces should seek to make the mute swan an unprotected species
if this is not already the case; 8) states should strive to manage mute swan populations at a level that will
have minimal impact to native wildlife species or habitat. In 1998, USFWS issued a policy statement
supporting the AFC's request for controlling mute swans on NWRs in Region's 1-7, therefore joining
several states (RI, DE, MD, VT, NY, WI, and WA) with existing control policies (AF, 2003).
iii. State Policies
Pennsylvania
Currently, Pennsylvania does not have a formal policy in regard to mute swans and has no
regulations restricting their import, export, sale or release. Historically, the Pennsylvania Game and
Wildlife Code has followed the MBTA in classifying mute swans as a non-protected species (AF,
2003).
Maryland
Prior to the recent federal status, in Maryland, mute swans were regulated as Wetland Game Birds
(Natural Resources Article [NR], Section 10-101, see Appendix B). This law does not list native
waterfowl species, but only identifies them as ducks, mergansers, brant, geese, and swans. The state
law was promulgated prior to the accidental introduction of mute swans in Maryland. The law gave
MDNR the authority to allow the taking of wetland game birds during an open hunting season, although
11
-------
no swan season has been opened in the state since 1918. Further, it gave MDNR the authority to
regulate the possession, sale, trade, exportation, and importation of mute swans in Maryland (NR
Article Section 10-903, see Appendix B) (AF, 2003).
In 2001, Maryland Natural Resource Article, Section 10-211 (Appendix B) required the MDNR to
establish a program to control the population of mute swans and authorized the Department to include
the managed harvest of adult mute swans in this program. A Mute Swan Task Force appointed by the
Department prepared management recommendations. The cornerstone of the Mute Swan Task Force
recommendations was the protection of native species and their habitats from the effects of mute swans.
The Task Force recommended that DNR establish "Swan Free Areas" to exclude or remove mute
swans from sensitive habitats and Bay resources. In 2002, the Maryland General Assembly adopted
Senate Joint Resolution^ (Appendix C) urging the USFWS to act with expedience to craft and
conduct appropriate regulatory processes under the MBTA which will allow Maryland to establish a
method of controlling the mute swan population and to mitigate the mute swan population's impact
permanently and statewide (AF, 2003).
Virginia
The mute swan was listed as an exotic species in Virginia and control efforts, which included egg
addling and removal of adult birds was permitted in certain areas (AF, 2003).
II. Management Actions - Explanatory Text for the Implementation Table
Goal:
To manage the Chesapeake Bay population of mute swans to a level that a) minimizes the impacts on
native wildlife, important habitats, and local economies; b) minimizes conflict with humans; c) is in
agreement with Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals for SAV and invasive species; and
d) is in agreement with the Atlantic Flyway Plan
I. Leadership, Coordination, and Regulatory Authority
Objective 1:
Improve coordination among the states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed with regard to data
collection for monitoring, research, or management of mute swan.
Actions:
1.1: Maintain a database of monitoring, research, or management activities for mute swans in the
Chesapeake Bay. This would include an inventory of available data and a description of current
databases. A point person will be identified from each agency or academic institution involved with the
monitoring, research, or management of mute swans to assist in obtaining the information for creation of
the database.
Objective 2:
Develop federal and state regulatory language to facilitate efficient population management in the
Chesapeake Bay.
Actions:
2.1: Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania wildlife resource agencies will work with other states, the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the USFWS to develop federal regulatory
language to facilitate efficient population management in the Chesapeake Bay.
12
-------
2.2: The MDNR will work with the Maryland General Assembly to amend existing state law (NR
Article, Section 10-101), which classifies the mute swan as a Wetland Game Bird. The statute should
be amended to include only native migratory game bird species. The DNR will also encourage the
Maryland General Assembly, consistent with federal regulations, to amend NR Article, Section 10-
101, by adding the mute swan, Australian black swans, and other invasive, non-native bird species to
the list of unprotected birds in Maryland. Presently, the only non-native, unprotected birds listed in this
law are the English house sparrow and European starling.
Pennsylvania????/Amend existing state law or create new law
Virginia????????/Amend existing state law or create new law
2.3: In 2003, promulgate state regulations or add conditions to all federal and state permits governing
the possession of migratory birds, prohibiting the release of mute swans to the wild. Following capture
of healthy swans and/or recovery of sick and injured swans, every effort will be made by the states to
place the swans in captivity at a facility permitted to possess mute swans. In the event that this is not
possible, swan(s) will be humanely euthanized by a veterinarian authorized by the state wildlife agencies
in accordance with a federal permit.
Objective 3:
Document monitoring, research, and management activities conducted to successfully implement the
plan.
Actions:
3.1: Utilize a web based clearinghouse to provide an exchange of information among the states to
efficiently implement the management plan. This could include posting available databases, contacts for
databases, current information on mute swan management and research, current state and federal laws
and policies regarding management of mute swan, and outreach materials.
B. Detection and Monitoring
Objective 1:
Improve consistency among the states in the Chesapeake Bay in data collection and database
management.
Actions:
1.1: Develop a standardized protocol for collecting data for surveys and creating and managing
databases.
Objective 2:
Monitor the size and distribution of the mute swan population and the effectiveness of management
actions.
Actions:
2.1: Conduct a Bay-wide survey to determine distribution and population size utilizing aerial surveys for
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and citizen groups to monitor inland areas.
Pennsylvania
Staff from the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) will continue to conduct ground surveys every
three years as part of the Atlantic Flyway Mute Swan Mid-Summer Survey (MSMSS). At this time
they do not conduct nest surveys but could look into utilizing citizen monitoring to accomplish this.
Maryland
13
-------
An annual spring aerial survey will be conducted in the tidal portions of the Bay to determine the
locations of active mute swan nests and breeding pairs to facilitate effective egg addling and removal of
swans from Swan-Free Areas. An annual summer aerial survey of mute swans on the tidal portions of
the Bay will also be conducted to determine the size and distribution of the swan population. This
survey will also be used to measure the effectiveness of population control efforts and provide the
locations of breeding pairs for removal of swans from Swan-Free Areas, and other population control
efforts.
Virginia
Staff from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries will continue to conduct aerial???
surveys every three years as part of the Atlantic Flyway Mute Swan Mid-Summer Survey (MSMSS).
At this time they do not conduct nest surveys but could look into utilizing citizen monitoring to
accomplish this??????
Objective 3:
Conduct additional research that will increase understanding of the role of mute swan in the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and their impacts on living resources. This research should contribute to
achieving mute swan management goals and objectives.
Actions:
3.1: Investigate further the role of mute swan herbivory on SAV growth, biomass, plant survival, and
regeneration and reproduction, especially as it relates to the availability of SAV to wintering waterfowl
and the achievement of SAV restoration goals.
3.2: Determine the role of interspecific competition between mute swans and native wildlife, especially
the impact of mute swans on wintering tundra swans and nesting species of concern such as black
duck.
Objective 4:
Investigate the use of nonlethal swan population control methods.
4.1: Continue to evaluate nonlethal methods of controlling mute swans. Such methods shall include
exclusion, hazing (e.g., harassment), and any other methods that may become available.
4.2: Evaluate the effectiveness of sterilization of male swans as a method of reducing annual cygnet
production at the local level. The use of this technique as a future management tool is conditional upon
the success of this research. This technique will not be used as a general population control method.
Rather, sterilization may be used at specific sites where removal of breeding pairs may not be practical.
Federal authorization (50 CFR 21.27) will be acquired to conduct this investigation.
C. Prevention, Control, and Management
1. Population Management and Resource Protection
Maryland
Objective 1: Exclude or remove all mute swans from Swan-Free Areas (Appendix A) to afford
protection to habitats critical to the Bay's Living Resources; reduce the mute swan population as
quickly and efficiently as possible, consistent with activities to protect, restore, and enhance the Bay's
Living Resources.
14
-------
Actions:
1.1: DNR will continue to implement an aggressive egg addling effort to reduce hatching success by at
least 60%. Implementation of this strategy will slow the population growth rate and reduce the number
of adult swans that would have to be removed to achieve the management goal. The DNR will make
every effort to treat all swan nests located in public waters and on private property with landowner
permission.
1.2: DNR will seek federal authorization (Depredation Order 50 CFR Part 21.41) to begin removing
mute swans from Swan-Free Areas. The DNR will initiate activities to either prevent or remove mute
swans from occupying Swan-Free Areas. No federal permit is required to scare mute swans.
Recognizing that swans impacting SAV beds and other habitats classified as Swan-Free Areas may
occur immediately adjacent, the scope of swan control efforts may be expanded to include these
adjacent areas. If non-lethal methods to prevent mute swans from occupying Swan-Free Areas are
ineffective or impractical, swans will be removed using lethal methods. Swans killed under this strategy
may be donated to public museums or public scientific and educational institutions for scientific and
educational purposes, or charities for human consumption.
Federal guidance for permit issuance involving mute swans prohibits the release of mute swans into
areas outside their existing range. With federal authorization, small numbers of swans may be captured,
sterilized, and placed in existing captive waterfowl flocks. However, the DNR will not authorize the
relocation of swans, including same-sex pairs to natural habitats in Maryland. The relocation of mute
swans into unoccupied habitats would increase the distribution of mute swan in Maryland.
The relocation of same-sex pairs does not prevent breeding if a bird of the opposite sex locates and
enters the relocation site. The possibility of breeding with wild, opposite-sex birds is high and would
contribute to expansion of the breeding population, which is contrary to Maryland, USFWS, and
Atlantic Flyway policies.
With federal authorization, mute swans may be captured and relocated to zoos where the birds would
be used for scientific and educational purposes. However, the DNR will prescribe restrictive permit
conditions for the possession of swans through the existing federal permit process (50 CFR 21.25).
Any relocation of swans to other jurisdictions shall be done only with the approval of the USFWS and
the government agency responsible for wildlife conservation in that jurisdiction and in accordance with
that flyway, national, or international mute swan management plan, policy, law, or regulation.
Pennsylvania
Objective 1:
The population objective for mute swans in Pennsylvania is zero growth and to maintain the total
statewide population at a maximum of 250 birds, located only on lands that are not being managed for
wildlife diversity and with no geographic expansion from areas currently occupied.
This level will provide for some recreational viewing opportunities for the public on areas not managed
for biodiversity and where there is no threat to native plants and wildlife.
15
-------
Actions:
1.1: Continue to exercise direct population controls on state and federal lands. If a depredation permit
is granted by the USFWS to the PGC, agency employees will remove mute swans (up to 100
birds/year by roundup, euthanasia, or shooting) from public lands and from private lands with
landowner permission.
Virginia
Objective 1:
Stabilize populations at current levels or reduced in areas where they are causing problems.
Actions:
1.1: If a depredation permit is granted by the USFWS to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, agency employees will remove mute swans from public lands and from private lands with
landowner permission?????. Virginia workgroup members please comment on.
2. Captive Mute Swan Management
Captive swans that either escape or are released may be insignificant in terms of numbers, but they can
dramatically affect distribution by introducing swans to new areas of the state. The possession of
captive mute swans is now regulated by federal permit (50 CFR 21.25). Federal permits authorizing
activities involving live mute swans will include restrictive conditions to ensure that permitted activities
do not facilitate expansion of the range or population of mute swans, for example, prohibiting the
release of live mute swans or their eggs into areas outside their existing range, or onto any federal lands.
Maryland
Objective 1: Prevent the escape and reproduction of captive mute swans.
Maryland
1.1: In 2003, promulgate regulations and/or add conditions to federal and state permits that prohibit the
sale, trade, barter, and importation of mute swans, or their eggs, in Maryland.
1.2: Persons possessing mute swans now must possess either a Federal Waterfowl Sale and Disposal
Permit of a Federal Form 3-186. Persons possessing mute swans will be required by the DNR to
secure a state permit. However, the DNR shall only permit the possession of mute swans at location
where swans have legally been held in captivity prior to enactment of state regulations. After this date,
the DNR will not authorize any additional state permits to purchase or import mute swans.
Pennsylvania
1.1: In 2003, promulgate regulations and/or add conditions to federal and state permits that prohibit the
sale, trade, barter, and importation of mute swans, or their eggs, in Pennsylvania.
Virginia 111111
3. Relief of Human Safety and Nuisance Conflicts
Objective 1:
Reduce conflicts between mute swans and people.
Actions:
Maryland
Natural Resources Article, Sections 10-205 and 10-206 (Appendix B) and federal regulations (50
16
-------
CFR 21.41) authorize the DNR to resolve conflicts between mute swans and people by allowing either
the capture or lethal removal of mute swans.
1.1: The DNR with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services will continue to provide
technical information and guidance to property owners who are experiencing nuisance, safety, and
habitat depredation problems caused by mute swans. Wildlife Services and DNR personnel may
suggest the use of nonlethal, lethal, or a combination of techniques to resolve swan conflicts. The
recipient of technical assistance is responsible for securing the required federal and state permits before
implementation of recommended, lethal control actions.
1.2: The DNR shall seek a Federal Depredation Order that will authorize property owners, land or
water management authorities, municipalities, and other responsible parties in Maryland to control or
remove mute swans occurring on lands or waters in their jurisdiction. Such a depredation order will
apply to situations where control or management of mute swans is necessary to protect personal
property, human health, and safety, or native plant and animal resources. The depredation order will
include guidelines to ensure, to the extent possible, that control measures used are safe and effective.
No federal or state permit is needed to haze mute swans. Property owners will have primary
responsibility for deciding, on a case-by-case basis, whether mute swans on their property are
desirable and what control measures are acceptable. The DNR will recommend that effective and
practical nonlethal methods be used to resolve the problem where appropriate, before lethal control is
initiated by the permittee. Prior to the adoption of a Federal Depredation Order in 50 CFR Part 20,
property owners will be required to obtain a Federal Depredation Permit to control or remove mute
swans occurring on lands or waters under their jurisdiction. Federal permits will be reviewed by the
DNR and shall include conditions to ensure, to the extent possible, that control measures used are safe,
effective, and practical. However, the permittee is responsible for implementation of any and all control
options.
Pennsylvania-????
Virginia-111111
D. Communication and Information Access
Implementation of mute swan management on a Bay wide basis must occur concurrently with an effort
to educate and inform citizens about mute swans. These programs should convey an understanding of
the status of the mute swan population in the Chesapeake Bay, the impact of mute swans in the Bay's
ecosystem, and the problems they create for people.
Objective:
Increase public awareness about mute swans and their impact to the Bay's living resources.
1.1: Conduct a random survey of public knowledge, perceptions, and values regarding mute swans in
the Chesapeake Bay.
1.2: Develop and implement a comprehensive mute swan communication program. Target programs to
specific demographic groups, as well as shoreline owners and watershed community residents. There is
a critical need to increase public awareness of the difference between mute swans and native tundra
swans and the impacts that mute swans have on the Chesapeake ecosystem. Emphasis should also be
placed on discouraging the winter feeding of mute swans because it increases their winter survival.
17
-------
1.3: Develop a web based clearinghouse to provide an exchange of information among the states to efficiently implement the
management plan. This could include posting available databases, contacts for databases, current information on mute swan
management and research, current state and federal laws and policies regarding management of mute swan, and outreach materials.
A. Leadership, Coordination, and Regulatory Authority
Objective
Tasks
Task Descrintion
Task Duration
Cost
Funding
Source
Lead Asencv
Partners
1. Improve coordination
among the states with
regard to data collection
1.1
Maintain a regional
database of monitoring,
research, and
management activities
in each state; identify
point person in each
state to obtain
information and assist in
creation of database
initiate in 2004
and then update
annually
none, in-
kind
services
MDNR,
VDGIF, PGC
USFWS, USGS
2. Facilitate efficient
population control in the
Chesapeake Bay
2.1
Develop federal
regulatory language to
facilitate efficient
population management
in the Chesapeake Bay
on-going?
none, in-
kind
services
MDNR,
VDGIF, PGC
USFWS,
International
Association of
Fish and
Wildlife
Agencies
18
-------
A. Leadership, Coordination, and Regulatory Authority (con.)
Objective
Tasks
Task DescriDtion
Task Duration
Cost
Funding
Source
Lead Agencv
Partners
2.2
Amend existing state
law (NR Article,
Section 10-101), which
classifies mute swan as
a Wetland Game
Bird; amend NR
Article, Section 10-
lOlto add mute swan
to the list of
unprotected birds in
Maryland
on-going?
in-kind
MDNR
2.3
Promulgate state
regulations governing
the possession and
release of mute swans
to the wild
on-going
in-kind
MDNR,
VDGIF, PGC
19
-------
3. Document
monitoring, research,
and management
activities conducted to
successfully implement
the plan
A. Leadership, Coordination, and Regulatory Authority (con.)
Objective
Tasks
Task Descrintion
Task Duration
Cost
Funding
Source
Lead Asencv
Partners
3.1
Utilize a web based
clearinghouse to
provide an exchange
of information among
the states to efficiently
implement the plan
Initiate in 2005;
update several
times a year
in-kind
MDNR,
VDGIF, PGC
USFWS,
USGS, CBP
B. Detection and Monitoring
Objective
Tasks
Task Descrintion
Task Duration
Cost
Funding
Source
Lead Asencv
Partners
20
-------
1. Improve consistency
among the states in data
collection and database
management
1.1
Develop a
standardized protocol
for collecting data for
surveys and creating
and managing
databases
Initiate in 2004;
then 6 months for
development
in-kind
MDNR,
VDGIF, PGC
USFWS, USGS
B. Detection and Monitoring (con.)
Objective
Tasks
Task DescriDtion
Task Duration
Cost
Funding
Source
Lead Agencv
Partners
2. Monitor the size and
distribution if the mute
swan population and the
effectiveness of
management actions
21
-------
2.1
Conduct a Bay wide
a. PGC - ground
a,b,c -in
Alliance for
PGC, MDNR,
USFWS, USGS
survey to determine
surveys every
kind; d-to
the
VDGIF
distribution and
three years;
initiate
Chesapeake
population size
b. MDNR-annual
and
Bay
utilizing aerial
spring and summer
develop
surveys for the Bay
aerial survey in
website-
and citizen
tidal areas;
$20,000
monitoring groups for
c. VDGIF-aerial
inland areas
surveys every
three years??
d. Citizen
Monitoring-initiate
by 2005, then states
maintain database
3. Conduct additional
research that will
increase understanding of
the role of mute swanin
the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem
B. Detection and Monitoring (con.)
Objective
Tasks
Task DescriDtion
Task Duration
Cost
Funding
Source
Lead Agencv
Partners
3.1
Examine effects of
herbivory on SAV
???
Larry-can you
provide info, on
this
22
-------
3.2
Determine the role of
interspecific
competition between
mute swans and native
wildlife
???
Larry-can you
provide info, on
this
4. Investigate the use of
non-lethal swan
population control efforts
4.1
Continue to evaluate
nonlethal methods of
controlling mute swan
populations, including
hazing, exclusion, and
any other methods
that become available
Larry-info?
4.2
Evaluate the
effectiveness of
sterilization of male
swans as a method of
reducing annual
cygnet production at a
local level
Larry-info?
C. Prevention, Control, and Management
Objective
Tasks
TaskDescriDtion
Task
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Apencv
Partners
Duration
23
-------
PoDulation
Management and
Resource Protection
Maryland
1. Exclude or remove
all mute swans from
Swan Free Areas and
reduce the mute swan
population as quickly
and efficient as
possible
1.1
Continue to
implement an
aggressive egg
addling effort to
reduce hatching
success by at least
60%
annually
in-kind
MDNR
MDNR
USFWS, South
River
Federation
1.2
Seek federal
authorization to
begin removing
mute swans from
Swan-Free Areas
initiate after
an EIS is
developed
by USFWS
and a
depredation
permit is
granted
in-kind
MDNR
MDNR
USFWS
C. Prevention, Control, and Management (con.)
24
-------
Objective
Tasks
TaskDescriDtion
Task
Duration
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Agency
Partners
Pennsylvania
1. Manage for zero
growth of mute swans
and maintain the total
statewide population
at a maximum of 250
birds in areas not
managed for wildlife
diversity
1.1
Continue to
exercise direct
population
controls on state
and federal lands
initiate after
an EIS is
developed
by USFWS
and a
depredation
permit is
granted
in-kind
PGC
PGC
USFWS
Virginia
1. Stabilize
populations at current
levels or reduced in
areas where they are
causing problems
25
-------
C. Prevention, Control, and Management (con.)
Objective
Tasks
TaskDescriDtion
Task
Duration
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Agencv
Partners
1.1
Remove mute
swans from public
lands and from
private lands with
landowner
permission
initiate after
an EIS is
developed
by USFWS
and a
depredation
permit is
granted
in kind
VDGIF
VDGIF
USFWS
CaDtive Mute Swan
Management
1. Prevent the escape
or reproduction of
captive mute swans
Maryland
1.1
Promulgate
regulations and/or
conditions to
federal and state
permits that
prohibit the sale,
barter, and
importation of
mute swans, or
their eggs, in
Maryland.
????
In-kind
MDNR
MDNR
USFWS
26
-------
C. Prevention, Control, and Management (con.)
Objective
Tasks
Task DescriDtion
Task
Duration
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Agency
Partners
1.2
Require a federal and
state permit to possess
swans in captivity.
DNR will only permit
possession of swans at
locations were swans
have legally been held
in captivity prior to
enactment of state
regulations. After this
date, the DNR will not
authorize any
additional state
permits to purchase or
import mute swans.
?????
In-kind
MDNR
MDNR
USFWS
Pennsylvania
1.1
Promulgate
regulations and/or
add conditions to
federal or state
permits that prohibit
the sale, trade, barter,
and importation of
mute swans, or their
eggs, in Pennsylvania.
?????
In-kind
PGC
PGC
USFWS
Virginia
1.1
???????
In-kind
VDGIF
VDGIF
USFWS
27
-------
C. Prevention, Control, and Management (con.)
Objective
Tasks
Task DescriDtion
Task
Duration
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Agency
Partners
Relief of Human
Safety and Nuisance
Conflicts
1. Reduce conflicts
between mute swans
and people.
USFWS
Maryland
1.1
Continue to provide
technical information
and guidance to
property owners who
are experiencing
nuisance, safety, and
habitat depredation
problems caused by
mute swans.
on-going
in-kind
MDNR, USDA APHIS
MDNR, USDA
APHIS
USFWS
28
-------
C. Prevention, Control, and Management (con.)
Objective
Tasks
Task DescriDtion
Task
Duration
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Agency
Partners
1.2
Seek a Federal
Depredation Order
that will authorize
property owners, land
or water management
authorities,
municipalities, and
other responsible
parties to remove
mute swans occurring
on lands or waters in
their jurisdiction when
control or
management of swans
is necessary to protect
personal property,
human health, and
safety, or native plant
and animal resources.
initiate
after an
EIS is
developed
by USFWS
and a
depredatio
n permit is
granted
in kind
MDNR
MDNR, USD A
APHIS
USFWS
D. Communication and Information Access
Action
Tasks
Task
Task
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Apencv
Partners
DescriDtion
Duration
29
-------
1. Increase public
awareness about mute
swans and their
impact to the Bay's
living resources
D. Communication and Information Access (con.)
Action
Tasks
Task
Descrintion
Task
Duration
Cost
Funding Source
Lead Alien cv
Partners
1.1
Conduct a
random survey
of public
knowledge,
perceptions,
and values
regarding mute
swans in the
Chesapeake
Bay
????
?????
MDNR
MDNR
VDGIF, PGC
1.2
Develop and
implement a
comprehensive
mute swan
communication
program.
?????
??????
MDNR
MDNR
VDGIF, PGC
1.3
Establish and
maintain a web
based
information
clearinghouse
2 years
$30,000
Sea Grant
Nonindigenous Species
Outreach Grant
CBP
CBP, USFWS,
NPS, USGS,
MDNR, VDGIF,
PGC
Agency Abbreviations: Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Pennsylania Game Commission (PGC), United
30
-------
States Department of Agriculture - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States
Geological Survey (USGS)
31
-------
Literature Cited
Allin, C.C. 1981. Mute swans in the Atlantic Flyway. Proceedings of the Fourth International
Waterfowl Symposium. New Orleans, LA. pps 149-154.
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. 2000. Mute swan impact on coastal pond vegetation. In review.
Allin, C.C. 2003. Draft Atlantic Flyway mute swan management plan. Compiled for the Snow Goose,
Brant, and Swan Committee. Atlantic Flyway Technical Section. Atlantic Flyway Council.
Anderson, M.G., and R.D. Titman. 1992. Spacing patterns, pps 251-289 In Ecology and management
of breeding waterfowl. B.D.J. Batt, A.D. Afton, M.G. Anderson, C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson,
J.A.Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu (eds). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Bacon, P.J. and P.A. Harild. 1987. Colonial breeding in mute swans (Cygnus olor) associated with an
allozyme of lactate dehydrogenase. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 30: 193-228.
Bull, J. 1964. Birds of the New York area. Dover Publication Inc., New York.
Berglund, B.J., K.C. Lindahl, H. Luther, V. Olsson, W. Rodhe, and G. Sellerberg. 1963. Ecology
studies on the mute swan (iCygnus olor) in southeastern Sweden. Acta Vertebratica 2: 169-288.
Birkhead, M.E. and C. Perrins. 1986. The mute swan. Croom-Helm., London.
Charman, K. 1977. The grazing of Zostera by waterfowl in Britain. Aquaculture 12: 229-233.
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.
Ciaranca, M. 1990. Interactions between mute swan (iCygnus olor) and native waterfowl in
southeastern Massachusetts on freshwater ponds. M.S. Thesis, Northwestern University, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Ciaranca, M.A., C.C. Allin, and G.S. Jones. 1997. Mute swan (iCygnus olor). In The Birds of North
America, No.273 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.,
and the American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
32
-------
Cobb, J.S. and M.M. Harlan. 1980. Mute swan (Cygnus olor) feeding and territoriality affects
diversity and density of rooted aquatic vegetation. Am. Zool. 20: 882.
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. The AUK 111(3): 744-748.
Cooper, J. A. and T. Keefe. 1997. Urban Canada goose management: policies and procedures.
Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 62: 412-430.
Fenwick, G.H. 1983. Feeding behavior of waterfowl in relation to changing food resources in the
Chesapeake Bay. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, MD.
Gelston, W.L. and R.D. Wood. 1982. The mute swan in northern Michigan. Myers Print Service.
Grand Traverse Swans Inc., Traverse City.
Gillham, M.E. 1956. Feeding habits and seasonal movements of mute swan on two Devon estuaries.
Bird Study 3: 205-212.
Hill vs. Norton, USDI et al. 12/28/01. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Court. No. 00-5432. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia No.
99cv01926.
Hurley, L.M. 1991. Submerged aquatic vegetation In Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay living
resources. Second Edition. (S.L. Funderburk, S.J. Jordan, J.A. Mihursky, and D. Riley, eds.).
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland, USA.
Jennings, A.R., E.J.L. Soulsby and C.B. Wainwright. 1961. An outbreak of disease in mute swans at
an Essex reservoir. Bird Study 8: 19-24.
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 Report 2001. Mute swans-population status, impacts on
native wildlife and people, and management needs in Maryland. Mute Swan Task Force 2001. A
summary of information prepared by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2003 (April 14). Mute swans in Maryland: a statewide
management plan. Wildlife and Heritage. 39 pp. .
Mathiasson, S. 1973. A molting population of non-breeding mute swans with special reference to flight-
feather molt, feeding ecology, and habitat selection. Wildfowl 24: 43-53.
33
-------
Neirheus, P.H. and E.T. Van Ireland. 1978. Consumption of eelgrass, Zoster a marina, by birds and
invertebrates during the growing season in Lake Grevelingen. Netherlands J. Sea Res. 12: 180-194.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 1993. Policy on management of mute swans in
New York. Albany. 3pp.
Owen, M. and C.J. Cadbury. 1975. The ecology and mortality of mute swans at the Ouses Washes,
England. Wildfowl 25: 31-42.
Owen, M. and J. Kear. 1972. Food and feeding habits, pps 58-77 In the Swans. P. Scott, (ed.).
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.
Phillips, J.C. 1928. Wild birds introduced or transplanted in North America. U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Reese, J.G. 1969. Mute swan breeding in Talbot County, Maryland. Maryland Birdlife 25: 14-16.
Reese, J.G. 1975. Productivity and management of feral mute swans in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of
Wildlife Management 39: 280-286.
Reese, J.G. 1980. Demography of European mute swans in the Chesapeake Bay. The Auk 97: 449-
464.
Reese, J.G. 1996. Mute swan. pp. 70-71 In Atlas of the breeding birds of Maryland and the District of
Columbia. C. Robbins and Erik Blohm, eds., Pittsburgh Press.
Rockwell, R, E. Cooch, and S. Brault. 1997. Dynamics of the mid-continent population of lesser snow
geese-projected impacts of reductions in survival and fertility on population growth rates, pps 73-100
In B.D.J. Batt, (ed.) Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group.
Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. USFWS, Washington, DC and Canadian Wildlife
Service. Ottawa, Canada.
Scott, D.K. and M.E. Birkhead. 1983. Resources and reproductive performance in mute swans
(Cygnus olor). J. Zoology London 4: 539-547.
Stone, W.B. and A.D. Masters. 1970. Aggression among captive mute swans. New York Fish and
Game Journal 17: 51-53.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Draft Environmental Assessment for the Management of
Mute Swans in the Atlantic Flyway. Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA.
34
-------
Willey, C.H. 1968. The ecology, distribution, and abundance of the mute swan (Cygnus olor) in
Rhode Island. Thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA.
Willey, C.H. and B.F. Halla. 1972. Mute swans of Rhode Island. Rhode Island Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife Pamphlet No. 8.
Williams, S. 2002 (April 9). Federal Protection of the mute swan. USFWS memorandum from the
Director to the Service Directorate. 4pp.
Witherby, H.F., F.C.R. Jourdain, N.F. Ticehurst, and B.W. Tucker. 1952. The handbook of British
birds. Vol. 3. H.F. & G. Witherby Ltd., London. 399 pp.
35
-------
APPENDIX A: Swan-Free Areas (from Maryland Mute Swan Plan, 2003)
All mute swans will be either excluded or removed from the following areas:
Important SAV Beds - Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) is one of the most critical living
resources in the Chesapeake Bay; not only do SAV beds support fish, crab, and native waterfowl
populations, but they directly improve water quality through a variety of physical and chemical
processes. SAV populations are already far below historic levels, primarily due to water quality
degradation following increases in human population and land use changes in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Although the consequences of the recent accidental introduction of mute swan to the
Chesapeake Bay region have not been quantified, studies of mute swans in several areas of the world
have shown that these birds can negatively impact SAV communities. Whether through direct
consumption, interrupting reproduction, or even trampling, mute swans could potentially exert significant
local pressure on SAV survival and thus on many living resources of the Bay. The continued growth
and expansion of the mute swan population in the Bay is counter to the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement's
Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration goals, in particular the goal to, "Preserve, Protect, and Restore
those habitat and natural area vital to the survival and diversity of the living resources of the Bay and its
rivers."
All species of SAV will receive equal protection, for all species provide physical and water quality
benefits such as reducing sediment re-suspension, increasing dissolved oxygen levels, and absorbing
and sequestering nutrients. For these reasons, there are clear ecological benefits to the presence of any
species of SAV. Below are SAV beds that are critically important to the Bay's living resources and
have been identified by the Chesapeake Bay Program as partial fulfillment of the goals and objectives of
the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Submerged aquatic vegetation beds to be protected from mute
swans are mapped and include:
1) SAV restoration sites
2) Areas vegetated less than 30% of the time since 1990 to current survey
3) SAV in areas that contain less than 25% of its historical acreage
4) SAV beds that are declining in size
5) SAV in the vicinity of large numbers of mute swan
6) Core SAV bed areas (areas that have the highest persistence of SAV coverage between 1984 and
2002). These sites are believed to be consistent seed and propagule source areas.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Transplanting Sites - These are plots that are transplanted in areas
where SAV are completely absent or far below historic levels. Transplantings range from 1/16 to 1
acre in size. Only native SAV species are used for transplanting (e.g., redhead grass, sago pondweed,
wild celery, and eelgrass). Fencing is often erected the first year to prevent grazing and uprooting by
Canada geese and mute swans. The protection to SAV from fencing declines over time as the fencing
is not maintained and deteriorates due to tidal action, etc.
36
-------
Publicly Owned Wetlands - Wetlands on DNR Wildlife Management Areas, State Parks, and
Natural Resource Management Areas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Chesapeake Marshland
National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Blackwater, Martin, Barren Island, Susquehanna, Bishops Head,
and Spring Island) and Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge and the National Park Service's
Assateague Island National Seashore and other publicly owned wetlands.
Colonial Waterbird Nesting Sites - These are known sites where black skimmers and terns
(common, least, Foster's) nest on natural sand or oyster shell beaches where mute swans may loaf and
cause either chick mortality or nest abandonment. Areas to be protected include the Chincoteague,
Sinepuxent, and Assawoman Bays, where about 75% of the colonial waterbird colonies presently
occur. Other nesting areas requiring protection from swans include Tar Bay and Barren, Bloodsworth,
Smith, Coaches, and Poplar Island.
Black Duck Nesting Habitats - Black ducks use salt marshes, coastal islands and meadows,
brackish and freshwater impoundments, and riverine marshes for nesting. Because of the black duck's
aversion to human disturbance, most black ducks nest on uninhabited islands or remote marshlands and
adjacent uplands. Known nesting occurs throughout the Chesapeake Bay area with the greatest
densities thought to occur on the Eastern Shore of Maryland from the Chester River south to the
Crisfield area. Known black duck nesting areas are mapped (Map 35 in S.L. Funderburk,, S.J.
Jordan, J. A. Mihursky, and D. Riley, editors. Habitat requirements of Chesapeake Bay living
resources. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, USA).
37
-------
APPENDIX B: Maryland Statutes Pertaining to the Management of Mute Swan
Statutes within the Annotated Code of the Public General Laws of Maryland that pertain to
management actions identified in this plan:
Natural Resources Article (NR), Section 10-101 includes the definition of wetland game birds.
"Wetland game birds" mean brant, coots, ducks, gallinules, geese, mergansers, rails, snipe, and swan or
any part, egg, offspring, or dead body of any of them. This section also defines unprotected birds.
"Unprotected bird," means any English sparrow and European starling or any part, egg, offspring, or
dead body of any of them.
NR Article, Section 10-205 authorizes the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to adopt
regulations to enlarge, extend, restrict or prohibit hunting, possessing, purchasing, shipping, carrying,
transporting, or exporting wildlife.
NR Article, Section 10-206 authorizes the DNR to reduce the wildlife population in any county,
election district, or other identifiable area after a thorough investigation reveals that protected wildlife is
seriously injurious to agriculture or other interests in the affected area. The method of reducing the
population is at the DNR's discretion.
NR article, Section 10-211 requires the DNR to reduce the wildlife population in any county, election
district, or other identifiable area after a thorough investigation reveals that protected wildlife is seriously
injurious to agricultural or other interests in the affected area. The method of reducing the population is
at the DNR's discretion.
NR Article, Section 10-903 provides statutory authority for the DNR to adopt regulations that prohibit
or restrict the importation, exportation, sale, release, or possession of wildlife not native to Maryland on
a finding that the wildlife is harmful to native wildlife or to natural ecosystems.
NR Article, Section 10-905 prescribes the Game Husbandry License. The license specifies which
species of game birds, which can be bred, raised, protected, or sold and for what purpose, the type of
fencing or other requirements necessary to prevent undesirable mixing of native wildlife and the captive
gamebirds, and any other conditions necessary to ensure adequate protection of native wildlife.
NR Article, Section 10-908 prescribes the Wildlife Cooperator Permit. The permit allows any properly
accredited person desiring to assist the DNR in the control of wildlife injurious to agriculture or other
interests, or to provide care and treatment of sick or injured wildlife for rehabilitation and release back
into the wild. The DNR may adopt regulations governing the issuance, revocation, terms, and
conditions of the permit.
38
-------
APPENDIX C: Maryland Senate Joint Resolution
A Senate Joint Resolution concerning Natural Resources - Mute Swans- Federal Agency Control
Measures for the purpose of urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to act with expedience to craft
and conduct appropriate regulatory processes which will allow Maryland to establish a method of
controlling the mute swan population and to mitigate the mute swan population's impact permanently
and statewide; urging the U.S. Department of the Interior to appeal a certain holding; and generally
relating to certain federal agency measures to control the mute swan population.
Whereas, the bird species known as the mute swan is not native to the Chesapeake Bay; and
Whereas, surveys of the Chesapeake Bay indicate that the mute swan population is growing at an
alarming rate, increasing from less than 100 birds in 1973 to nearly 4,000 in 1999; and
Whereas, mute swans negatively impact native species and habitats in parts of the Chesapeake
Bay by displacing State-listed nesting waterbirds and removing large amounts of submerged aquatic
vegetation which is vital to all life in the Bay; and
Whereas, mute swans have repeatedly disrupted efforts to restore submerged aquatic vegetation,
obstructing progress toward the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goal of restoring 114,000 acres of the
vegetation by 2010; and
Whereas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that mute swans are
protected by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations governing activities involving direct contact
with protected birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and
Whereas, the Maryland General Assembly passed House Bill 728 during the 2001 Legislative
Session, requiring the Department of Natural Resources to establish a program to control the State's
mute swan population; and
Whereas, the urgent need to plan an implement mute swan population control measures and to
mitigate mute swan impacts increases exponentially each year; now therefore, be it
Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is urged
to act with expedience to craft and conduct appropriate regulatory processes which will allow
Maryland to establish a method of controlling the mute swan population and to mitigate the mute
swan population's impact permanently and statewide; and be it further
Resolved, that the United States Department of the Interior is urged to appeal the holding of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that declared the mute swan to be a migratory
bird protected under the international treaties; and be it further
39
-------
Resolved, that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded by the Department of Legislative Services
to the Honorable Panis N. Glendening, Governor of Maryland; the Honorable Thomas V. Mike
Miller, Jr., President of the Senate of Maryland; the Honorable Casper R. Taylor, Jr., Speaker of the
House of Delegates; the Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, U.S. Senate, 709 Hart Senate Office
Building, Washington, D.C. 20510; the Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes, U.S. Senate, 309 Hart Senate
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510; the Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, U.S. Congress, 2245
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; the Honorable Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., U.S.
Congress, 1632 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; the Honorable
Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Congress, 2267 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
20515; the Honorable Albert R. Wynn, U.S. Congress, 434 Cannon Office Building, Washington,
D.C. 20515; the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, U.S. Congress, 1705 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; the Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett, U.S. Congress, 2412
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, U.S.
Congress, 1632 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; the Honorable
Constance A. Morella, U.S. Congress, 2228 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
20515; the Honorable Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior,
1849 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20240; and Mr. Marshall Jones, Director (Acting), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20240; and Mr. Jon Andrew, Chief,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Arlington, VA 22203.
40
------- |