| Swan Hate
|
| Date and Time |
- | Dec. 28th, 2007, 03:05 pm | |
| Current Mood |
- |  pissed off | |
| Current Music |
- | budgies in conference | |
|
found via ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) rm: | Known for gliding along local waterways with statuesque grace, the mute swan is rarely thought of as an environmental hazard.
Wildlife experts in Connecticut say that mute swans, like these at Holly Pond in Stamford, devour shoreline vegetation, displace waterfowl and other creatures, and can even attack people.
But wildlife experts say that the swan’s elegant facade conceals an ecological menace that devours shoreline vegetation, scares away other waterfowl and can even attack humans. The bird is now a target of a campaign to reduce its numbers in the state’s delicate coastline habitats.
The leaders of the effort are conservationists, including the Connecticut Audubon Society, which in the coming months will intensify a campaign to urge state officials to control the swans’ population, which stands at about 1,100.
...
Kathryn Burton, president of SaveOurSwans U.S.A., a nonprofit organization in East Lyme, Conn., said the group would actively oppose the Audubon campaign as well.
“I’m not going to let it go,” Ms. Burton said. “They really don’t care about the birds. It’s just unjust.”
Connecticut’s swan population has more than doubled in the last three decades. Mr. Bull said that one idea for reducing the number of swans was to disrupt the nesting birds’ eggs to limit reproduction, a tactic known as addling. He said the Audubon Society was not suggesting that any of the 1,100 swans in Connecticut be killed — though other states have taken that step.
full story | |
Humans are far more of a threat to the environment than swans. There are only 1,100 mute swans in Connecticut, if the human population of the state were only 1,100 the humans would still have more of an environmental impact, especially if those humans were typical modern Americans. Environmentalists wanted to kill of the cherry-headed conures in San Francisco, the monk parakeets are always under attack even though they are essentially a replacement species for the extinct Carolina parakeet. Even here in Arlington, the Friends of Spy Pond still hate the geese. The Audubon society wants to get rid of swans, well in this world nothing should surprise me anymore. Sometimes things still do, but they shouldn't. |
|
|
|
| Comments: |
Hey, you wanna curb the excess human population, be my guest. :)
Aren't mute swans native to Europe anyway, brought here by people? It's worth doing the research to find out what they do to the local habitat, I'd say.
White tailed deer are native to the US, and they have a seriously bad impact on native plants due to the way people manage the herds to keep them overpopulated. Beautiful animals, really, but we ought to think of the other species which have just as much right to exist.
You are so right...non-native species are not even in the same ballpark with humans when it comes to wiping out native species of plants and animals. One of the best articles I read on the subject is this one: http://www.parrotchronicles.com/marchapril2003/feral.htmYou've probably seen it before, but it says it pretty plainly (at least with regard to feral parrots): "As far as we can tell, parrots are not displacing other species," says Garrett. "The habitat is being converted. That is what is doing in the native species. In these new habitats, a new set of birds is coming to thrive. The parrots didn't bulldoze down the natural habitats. They’re just taking advantage of what has replaced them." My favorite part was at the end: "For now, though, we have an irony to consider: Once, we destroyed native habitat and drove our only indigenous parakeet to extinction. Now, through the same method, we have inadvertently blundered into helping new parrots gain a foothold. And once again, our skies are alive with the color and sound of wild parrots."
Thank you for the link. I adore the last two paragraphs as well. | |
*shrug*