State Killing of Mute Swans

At present an issue that is very much in the news is the killing of mute swans that inhabit the Chesapeake Bay. By way of providing context, until about a year ago an estimated 4,000 mute swans had settled into various places along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline. Like other aquatic-oriented birds, such as ducks and geese, the swans feed primarily on underwater grasses.

However, state officials concluded a year or so ago that the swans were consuming too much underwater vegetation. More specifically the officials felt that the birds’ consumption of grasses was offsetting an effort by the state to increase the total area covered by underwater grasses from an estimated 65,000 acres in 2007 to a targeted 185,000 acres by the end of 2011. Accordingly, the officials announced during 2008 that they would retain marksmen to kill enough swans to bring the total number of survivors down to around 500 swans. That step was taken, with most of the shooting done at night (one assumes to minimize the visibility of the program to nearby residents). However, after the kill off had reduced the remaining swan population to approximately 500 birds, a new announcement was made that the killing would continue until the entire swan population had been eradicated. That last phase is now underway.

As further context, the presence of underwater grasses has at least two beneficial effects. First, the grasses help filter out impurities in the water and enhance water cleanliness. And second, the grasses provide concealment and protection for young crabs while they are most at risk from predators, and thereby tend to support crab reproduction.

Thus, the official party line is that Maryland (acting in concert with adjoining states and various government agencies) is endeavoring to reverse the Chesapeake Bay’s long term trend of becoming less habitable to aquatic life by greatly increasing the amount of area covered by underwater grasses; the mute swans are working against the program by consuming too much of the grasses; and therefore the mute swans must go.
However, as one learns more about the situation the official party line seems less and less compelling.

First, it’s highly unlikely that, even if the goal of re-planting 185,000 acres of the Bay with underwater grasses is reached, the planted area will significantly change the habitability of the Bay for aquatic life. The Chesapeake Bay in its entirety covers about 41,000,000 acres. During the 1880’s, when the Bay was in near-pristine condition, about 10% of its area, or (rounded) 4,000,000 acres was covered with underwater grasses. The re-planting of 185,000 acres, or less than 5% of the original grassed area, hardly seems sufficient to make a measurable difference in the Bay’s habitability.

A second factor working against the success of the current planting program is that the forces that have diminished the Bay’s habitability for decades are continuing unabated. The most important of these forces by far is an over abundance of nutrients entering the Bay. The sources of these nutrients are fertilizer runoff from conventional farms, animal waste from factory-farmed animals, and pollutants from sewage treatment plants. These nutrients stimulate the growth of massive algae blooms that capture oxygen from the water, and deplete the oxygen that is available for other users – e.g., fish, oysters, crabs, and underwater grasses. Additional sources of pollution include toxic chemicals from industrial plants, and toxic chemicals from boats (e.g., gasoline spillage).

Over the decades the number of attempts to “save the bay” – that is, restore its ability to sustain aquatic life – are almost beyond counting. Some attempts have stressed reducing fertilizer and animal waste runoff. Some have stressed the re-stocking of fish, crabs and oysters. And some, like the current program, have stressed the planting of underwater grasses. None of them have had a measurable long term effect in terms of restoring the Bay’s aquatic life. To cite only one metric: The annual oyster harvest in recent years has been only about 2% of the annual harvest during the 1950’s. The track record of efforts to resuscitate the Bay has been so consistently unproductive that one wonders if those who authorized the current re-planting program really think it’s going to make a long term difference.

We have recently been made aware of information which, if authentic, causes us to be a bit skeptical on that last point. We understand that an organization named Ducks Unlimited has actively campaigned for the elimination of all of the mute swans. As the name suggests, Ducks Unlimited is made up of hunters whose primary objective is to arrange for a never-ending supply of ducks to shoot and kill. Their nationwide membership is about 775,000; so, in effect, their nationwide voting bloc is also about 775,000. The number of their members who live and vote in Maryland is unknown. However, if their membership throughout the country were distributed in relationship to each state’s percentage of the nation’s population, Ducks Unlimited would have about 14,000 members in Maryland. In practice, because Maryland offers such attractive venues for hunting, especially along the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, it’s entirely possible that a disproportionally large percentage of Ducks Unlimited members live in Maryland. A guesstimate that Ducks Unlimited represented a voting bloc in Maryland of about 16,000 – 18,000 people would probably be reasonably close.

In conveying the message to various legislators that Ducks Unlimited wanted all of the mute swans killed, it seems unlikely that the DU leadership suggested that their members engage in a letter-writing campaign. A more likely scenario is that the DU leadership quietly let it be known that any legislator who opposed the plan to kill the mute swans would find himself or herself on the wrong end of the Ducks Unlimited voting bloc in that legislator’s district when the next election came around.

If the Ducks Unlimited voting bloc, perhaps acting together with other hunting groups, has the political clout to have the Chesapeake Bay’s entire mute swan population wiped out – and they certainly appear to have that sort of clout – then they might also have had the clout to get the grass planting program initiated. We will continue to monitor the planting program. If a large part of the acreage that is re-planted just happens to be positioned directly in front of the numerous duck blinds and goose blinds that line the Bay shore (especially on the eastern side of the Bay), one might reasonably assume that the hunters voting bloc had a hand in the creation of the current program.

To carry the idea further, if the hunting bloc is responsible for the creation of the grass planting program, and a large percentage of the plantings are to be placed in areas that are favorable to hunters, then one can see the logic of eliminating the mute swans. Inasmuch as underwater grasses are the primary food for mute swans, the swans would tend to find, and gravitate to, the newly-planted areas. Mute swans are large, aggressive birds. Their presence near hunting blinds would tend to keep ducks and geese away from the blinds. A simple solution to someone with a Ducks Unlimited mentality would be to just eliminate the swans. The fact that the swans are elegant creatures who have as much right to life as any other species would hardly figure into the equation to members of the hunting lobby.

The possible rationale for killing the mute swans that we have hypothesized above contains a number of “ifs”. We don’t profess to have all of the answers yet regarding the swan killing program. As new information emerges we will convey it to the MVFA membership.