[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXOTIC BIRD SPECIES AND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, December 16, 2003, in Annapolis, Maryland
__________
Serial No. 108-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-953 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Carolina Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Randy Neugebauer, Texas Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, December 16, 2003....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Clay, William H., Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Grandy, John W., Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Wildlife
Programs, The Humane Society of the United States, Prepared
statement submitted for the record......................... 40
Hindman, Larry J., Waterfowl Project Manager, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources............................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Hogan, Matt, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Pardoe, David H., Member, Board of Directors, National
Audubon Society............................................ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Sparrowe, Dr. Rollin D., President, Wildlife Management
Institute.................................................. 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Stallman, Dr. Elizabeth L., Wildlife Scientist, The Humane
Society of the United States, Oral statement of............ 39
Winegrad, Hon. Gerald W., Vice President for Policy, American
Bird Conservancy........................................... 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXOTIC BIRD SPECIES AND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY
ACT
----------
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Annapolis, Maryland
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in the
Joint Committee Hearing Room, Legislative Services Building, 90
State Circle, Annapolis, Maryland, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representative Gilchrest.
Staff Present: Edith Thompson, Legislative Assistant; Harry
Burroughs, Staff Director; and Michael Correia, Clerk.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Oceans will come to order. As we move through the
hearing today if there are any members from the Maryland
General Assembly, House or Senate side, you will be invited to
come to the dais and ask questions and be a part of the hearing
process.
I would also ask if there is anyone in the room that has a
burning specific question or comment that they need to address
this hearing, we will be available at the conclusion of the
hearing to talk to anybody about issues that they felt were not
addressed during the hearing. And your concerns will be met
with the same interest and sense of urgency as any of the
witnesses that are testifying here today. You're welcome.
The Subcommittee will conduct this oversight hearing on
exotic bird species and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The
United States is currently a party to four international
treaties to protect and conserve populations of migratory
birds. Two years after the signing of the first treaty with
Great Britain, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
of 1918. This Act is our domestic implementing law and
statutorily commits this Nation to the proper management of
certain families and species of birds.
After reviewing these treaties, it is clear that the list
of covered species is not exhaustive. There is an inconsistency
with migratory and non-migratory birds, and no distinction is
made between exotic and native species. A U.S. Court of Appeals
ruled that mute swans are covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act because the family Anatidae to which swans belong is
protected under certain of these treaties and because mute
swans were not specifically excluded from the Migratory Bird
Treaty protection. This raises questions about the treatment of
any free-ranging exotic bird species occupying habitats here in
the United States all year long or during seasons migrations.
During today's hearing, we will hear testimony on a number
of exotic bird species, including eurasian collard doves, house
sparrows, mute swans, muscovy ducks and rock doves. We will
learn about the impacts of these and other exotic bird species
on the public trust priorities of Federal and State agencies,
such as the stewardship of native species populations and
habitats, the migration of natural damages to agriculture and
other economic interests and the protection of human health and
welfare.
We will also explore the intent of Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and the challenges it may pose to the conservation of
healthy population of avian species that are in conflict over
similar habitats in a highly altered landscape. I also hope to
gain a better understanding of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
listing process, the criteria used to list or delist species
and how the U.S. interacts with other signatories to these
treaties over the treatment of exotic birds.
Exotic, invasive species are having a huge impact on the
Nation's native wildlife and fisheries, economic interests,
infrastructure and human health. In fact, it has been estimated
they are costing our economy as much as $100 billion a year.
This hearing is timely because Congress is considering
legislative proposals to address this growing and pervasive
problem. These species range from pathogens to vertebrates and
the issues are complex. I am confident that reasoned debate and
rational thought will help us identify and meet the challenge.
We will review both new legislative proposals and existing laws
that may contain conflicting national policy regarding wildlife
conservation and management priorities.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
who have vast knowledge and experience in this field, and I
would welcome all of you here to this beautiful, historic city
of Annapolis.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee will conduct an oversight
hearing on Exotic Bird Species and The Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The United States is currently a party to four international
treaties to protect and conserve populations of migratory birds. Two
years after the signing of the first treaty with Great Britain,
Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. This Act is our
domestic implementing law, and it statutorily commits this nation to
the proper management of certain families and species of birds.
After reviewing these treaties, it is clear that the list of
covered species is not exhaustive, there is an inconsistency between
migratory and nonmigratory birds and no distinction is made between
exotic and native species.
A U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that mute swans are covered by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act because the family anatidae, to which swans
belong, is protected under certain of these treaties and because mute
swans were not specifically excluded from migratory bird treaty
protection. This raises questions about the treatment of any free-
ranging exotic bird species occupying habitats here in the United
States all year or during seasonal migrations.
During today's hearing, we will hear testimony on a number of
exotic bird species, including Eurasian collared doves, house sparrows,
mute swans, Muscovy ducks and rock doves. We will learn about the
impacts of these and other exotic bird species on the public trust
priorities of federal and state agencies, such as the stewardship of
native species populations and habitats, the mitigation of natural
damages to agriculture and other economic interests, and the protection
of human health and welfare.
We will also explore the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the challenges it may pose to the conservation of healthy
populations of avian species that are in conflict over similar habitats
in a highly altered landscape. I also hope to gain a better
understanding of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act listing process, the
criteria used to list or delist species and how the U.S. interacts with
other signatories to these treaties over the treatment of exotic birds.
Exotic, invasive species are having a huge impact on this nation's
native wildlife and fisheries, economic interests, infrastructure and
human health. In fact, it has been estimated they are costing our
economy about $100 billion each year.
This hearing is timely because Congress is considering legislative
proposals to address this growing and pervasive problem. These species
range from pathogens to vertebrates and the issues are complex.
I am confident that reasoned debate and rational thought will help
us identify and meet the challenge. We will review both new legislative
proposals and existing laws that may contain conflicting national
policy regarding wildlife conservation and management priorities.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses who have
vast knowledge and experience in this field. I would like to welcome
everyone to Annapolis.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Our first panel will be Mr. Matt Hogan,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accompanied by
Mr. Chandler Robbins, Senior Scientist, Biological Resources
Division, U.S. Geological Survey; Mr. William Clay, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Services, U.S. Department of
Agriculture; and Mr. Larry Hindman, Waterfowl Project Manager,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Gentlemen, thank you
very much for coming this morning. We look forward to your
testimony. And, Mr. Hogan, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF MATT HOGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. CHANDLER S. ROBBINS,
SENIOR SCIENTIST, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION, U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Mr. Hogan. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of Interior's views regarding exotic birds species--
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hogan, is your mike on?
Mr. Hogan. There we go. I apologize.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK.
Mr. Hogan. Would you like me to start from the beginning?
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of Interior's views regarding exotic bird species
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If it is OK with you, I ask
that my written statement become part of the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Hogan. And also in the testimony I will refer to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act as the MBTA, just to shorten it a
little bit.
As I said, I am Matt Hogan, Deputy Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and in addition to Mr. Chandler
Robbins I am also accompanied by Mr. Paul Schmidt, our
Assistant Director for Migratory Birds and State Programs.
The United States has bilateral migratory bird conventions
with Canada, Mexico, Japan and Russia. The MBTA is the domestic
law implementing the United States commitment to the four
international conventions protecting our shared migratory bird
resources. The primary purpose of the MBTA is to manage and
conserve more than 800 species of migratory birds in the United
States. The Service is the lead Federal agency for managing and
conserving migratory birds in the U.S.
While the MBTA is silent on the issue of exotic species,
the Service has long regarded exotic bird species as falling
outside the protections of the MBTA. Exotic bird species can
have a detrimental impact on native species protected by the
MBTA. The Service believes that protecting exotic bird species
under the MBTA would be counterproductive to the primary
purpose of the Act and would divert resources needed for the
conservation and management of our native species.
The Service's practice of excluding exotic species from the
MBTA reflects a number of important biological and ecological
factors. First, considering that the MBTA and the four
bilateral conventions that implement it are, in essence, bird
conservation statutes, it does not make sense for the Federal
Government to expend limited resources conserving introduced
species at the possible expense of native species. Second,
there is a growing body of evidence indicating that introduced
birds are often harmful to native plants and animals. The
potential harm of such introductions is especially obvious in
island settings such as Puerto Rico and the Hawaiian Islands.
There is widespread concern among wildlife scientists about
the impact of non-native mute swans on natural resources of the
U.S., including aquatic habitats and vegetation and native
species of fish and wildlife. In the Chesapeake Bay of
Maryland, the current population of 3,600 birds consumes an
estimated 10.5 million pounds of submerged aquatic vegetation
annually, representing about 10.5 percent of the total biomass
of submerged aquatic vegetation in the bay. If the mute swan
population continues to double every 8 years, as predicted in
the absence of control efforts, they would be consuming
approximately 21 percent or more of the available aquatic
vegetation annually by the year 2010.
Mute swans can also have a direct effect on native species.
Mute swans not only attack and displace native waterfowl from
breeding, staging and wintering areas, they also have been
known to kill intruding birds of other species and their young.
One of the more dramatic instances in which mute swans have
displaced native species was documented in Dorchester County,
Maryland, where an annual molt-gathering of up to 600 mute
swans caused repeated reproductive failures and ultimately the
abandonment of the largest colony of least terns in the State,
accounting for 49 percent of the statewide population of the
terns and one of only two known colonies of black skimmers in
Maryland in the Maryland portion of the bay. Both of these
species are listed as threatened by the State of Maryland.
Prior to 2001, the Service considered the mute swan an
exotic species and therefore not subject to the protection of
the MBTA. Management of mute swans, including resolution of any
problems that they might cause, was considered to be a de facto
responsibility of the States with no involvement required of
the Federal Government. In July 1999, the Service was sued for
not affording the mute swan protection under the MBTA. In
December 2001, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia ruled that as a swan and members of the family
Anatidae, both of which are expressly listed in the Canadian
and Mexican conventions, the mute swan qualified for protection
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This is also known as the
Hill decision. In the ruling, the court noted the absence of
any clear and unambiguous evidence that Congress intended for
the MBTA to apply only to native species.
Following the Hill decision, the Service initially
concluded that the issuance of depredation permits for the take
of mute swans was categorically excluded from NEPA and that
further environmental reviews were not necessary. Thus, the
Service issued depredation permits in 2002 and 2003 as
categorical exclusions to NEPA. In the spring of 2003, the
Service issued a permit to the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, authoring the take of up to 1,500 mute swans. The
Fund for Animals filed a lawsuit and sought an injunction. In
response, the State of Maryland voluntarily relinquished the
permit, and the Service initiated an environment assessment for
the management of mute swans in the Atlantic Flyway. Following
a 30-day public comment period and a final environmental
assessment, the Service issued a new permit to the State of
Maryland, authorizing the take of approximately 900 mute swans.
However, the judge ruled in favor of the Fund for Animals in
granting an injunction, and his ruling suggested that the
Service would be unlikely to win the case on its merits. Thus,
the Service settled with the Fund for Animals and agreed not to
issue any additional mute swan depredation permits until a new
environmental review was conducted.
The Department of Interior does not expect that the court's
concerns could be addressed through an environmental impact
statement. As a result, the Service does not intend to initiate
a new environmental review in Fiscal Year 2004. The result is
that the State wildlife agencies, national wildlife refuges and
other agencies and organizations wishing to implement programs
to control the growth of mute swan populations to alleviate
their impacts on native plant communities, fish and wildlife
resources and local economic interests will be prevented from
doing so.
A variety of organizations, more than 40 in total,
including 13 State wildlife agencies and groups dedicated to
bird conservation, bird science, wildlife conservation and
wildlife management, has expressed support for the State and
Federal management actions to control or eliminate the exotic
mute swan from the United States. However, several
organizations, including the Friends of Wildlife, Fund for
Animals, Save Maryland Swans and Save our Swans USA, have been
vocal and highly visible in expressing their opposition to the
management and killing of mute swans for any reason.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, affording the protection of the
MBTA to introduce birds that are not native to the United
States is ecologically unsound, contrary to the stated purposes
of the MBTA and contrary to efforts by the Federal Government
to control invasive species. However, until it is made clear
that the MBTA excludes exotic species, the Service will
continue to abide by the court's decision.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would
be certainly happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Matt Hogan follows:]
Statement of Matt Hogan, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior's (Department)
views regarding exotic bird species and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA). I am Matt Hogan, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service). I am joined today by Paul Schmidt, Assistant
Director of the Service's Migratory Bird and State Programs, as well as
Chandler Robbins of the U.S. Geological Survey's Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center.
The MBTA is the domestic law implementing the United States'
commitment to four international conventions for the protection of
shared migratory bird resources. The primary purpose of the law is to
manage and conserve more than 800 species of migratory birds in the
United States. The Service is the lead federal agency for managing and
conserving migratory birds in the United States.
Exotic Bird Species and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The United States has bilateral migratory bird conventions with
Canada, Mexico, Japan and Russia. The international arrangements are
important given the migratory nature of these species and reflect some
of the more visionary legal instruments developed to benefit both the
environment and the public. Each of the four bilateral migratory bird
conventions to which the U.S. is a party specifically lists the birds
that are meant to be protected by the MBTA. The birds covered by the
conventions are variously listed by species groups (Canada 1916),
families (Canada 1916 and 1998 protocol amendment, Mexico 1936 and 1973
amendment), and individual species (Japan 1972 and Russia 1976).
Species are added to the MBTA list of protected species on the
basis of (1) new evidence that the species occurs in the U.S. or (2)
taxonomic ``splitting'' in which one species is split into two or more
species (but, in reality, these ``new'' species were previously
protected as subspecies). Species may be removed from the list for the
following reasons: (1) the species is known to be extinct; (2) previous
listing was erroneous (e.g., species does not occur in the U.S., or
does not belong to a family or species group covered by any of the
conventions); or (3) the species is no longer recognized as a valid
biological unit because of taxonomic revisions.
The Service has long regarded exotic bird species as falling
outside the protection of the MBTA because exotic bird species can have
a detrimental impact on native species protected by the MBTA. The
Service believes that protecting exotic bird species under the MBTA
would be counterproductive to the primary purpose of the Act and divert
resources needed for the conservation and management of native species.
In a general sense, ``exotic'' is a term that refers to a species that
has escaped from captive facilities or been introduced (intentionally
or unintentionally) by humans into an area in which it is not native;
it is generally synonymous with the terms alien, foreign, introduced,
non-indigenous, and non-native. When exotic species negatively impact
the native fauna or flora or have negative effects on human health,
culture or economic well-being, the species is also considered
invasive. ``Native'' is a term used to describe a species that occurs
in a given ecological or geographic area strictly as a result of
natural biological and ecological processes (i.e., no direct human
involvement).
The Service's practice of excluding exotic species from the MBTA
reflects a number of important biological and ecological factors.
Evidence of the consistent application of this policy becomes readily
apparent in examining the 12 lists of MBTA-protected birds published
since 1950. First, considering that the MBTA and the four bilateral
conventions that it implements are, in essence, bird conservation
statutes, it does not make sense for the federal government to expend
limited resources conserving introduced species at the possible expense
of native species. Second, there is a growing body of evidence which
indicates that introduced birds are often harmful to native plants and
animals. Increased awareness about the potential threats posed by
exotic birds emerged in the 1970's in concert with increased
trafficking in exotic species. The potential harm of such introductions
became especially obvious in island settings, such as Puerto Rico and
the Hawaiian Islands.
Increased awareness of the economic and ecological damages caused
by invasive species has led the U.S. Government to develop a clear body
of mitigative policy on this issue. For example, the Lacey Act
restricts the importation, acquisition, and possession of wildlife
deemed ``injurious'' and the Service has established regulations on
injurious wildlife. The National Invasive Species Act, passed by
Congress in 1996, authorized the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,
which the Service co-chairs. In 1999, President Clinton signed
Executive Order 13112, establishing the National Invasive Species
Council to coordinate federal invasive species activities and calling
for the issuance of a National Invasive Species Management Plan. These
laws and the Executive Order are consistent with the Service's
exclusion of exotic bird species from the protections of the MBTA.
The Service has had detailed discussions with our treaty partners
regarding the exclusion of exotic species from the protection of the
MBTA. We are currently working with Canada to clarify the
interpretation of the Treaty. The Canadian government has indicated
that they support our long-standing interpretation that the Treaty was
intended to cover native bird species. A formal documentation of this
position is being considered.
The Service has engaged in a number of efforts to control and
manage exotic bird species for over a century. This effort was started
by the U.S. Biological Survey (forerunner of the Service) in the late
1890's, and was continued by the Service's Animal Damage Control
program through the late 1980's (when that program was transferred to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture). One means of addressing this issue
is through import restrictions. For example, the Service prohibits the
import of three exotic bird species (Rosy Starling, Pastor roseus; Red-
billed Quelea, Quelea quelea; and Red-whiskered Bulbul, Pycnonotus
jocosus) into the U.S. because they are considered ``injurious
wildlife.'' For almost a century, the Service has known of the
potential for negative impacts from both the house sparrow and the
European starling on native species. As a result, the Service has long
condoned the removal of adults, eggs and nests of European starlings
and house sparrows from artificial houses and nest boxes erected to
benefit species such as bluebirds and purple martins. Most recently,
the Service was working with the State of Maryland and 10 other states
to manage mute swan (Cygnus olor) populations.
Mute Swans
There is widespread concern among wildlife scientists about the
impacts of non-native mute swans on natural resources of the U.S.,
including (a) aquatic habitats and vegetation and (b) native species of
fish and wildlife.
With regard to aquatic habitats and vegetation, an estimated 61
million pounds (or 30 thousand tons) of submerged aquatic vegetation
are removed annually from wetland habitats in the U.S., being directly
consumed by an estimated 21,400 mute swans (Fish and Wildlife Service).
Another 153 million pounds (or 77 thousand tons) of submerged aquatic
plants may be uprooted by foraging swans, but not consumed, thereby
causing habitat degradation and loss (Fish and Wildlife Service). This
represents a net loss of some 214 million pounds (or 107 thousand tons)
of vegetation that is no longer available to native species of fish and
wildlife as protective cover from predators, nursery habitats for
rearing young, and sources of food. It also represents an irretrievable
loss of an important source of dissolved oxygen, an essential element
for the survival of many species of aquatic organisms of economic and
recreational value.
In the Chesapeake Bay of Maryland, the current population of 3,600
birds consumes an estimated 10.5 million pounds (or 5.3 thousand tons)
of submerged aquatic vegetation annually; representing about 10.5
percent of the total biomass of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Bay
(Fish and Wildlife Service). If the mute swan population continues to
double every eight years, as predicted in the absence of control
efforts (Atlantic Flyway Council 2003, Maryland DNR 2003), they would
be consuming 21 percent or more of the available aquatic vegetation
annually by the year 2010.
Mute swans are perhaps most detrimental to native species of fish
and wildlife in an indirect manner, by altering and destroying aquatic
vegetation (Gilham 1956, Willey 1969, Chasko 1986, Ciaranca et al
1997). For example, the varied structure exhibited by beds of submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) provides estuarine-spawning fish (e.g., shad,
herring, stripped bass and rockfish) and other marine organisms (e.g.,
oysters and blue crabs) and their offspring with protection from
predators. Any alteration or destruction of these habitats, including
that which can be inflicted by foraging mute swans, can diminish their
value for these commercially important species (Krull 1970, Hurley
1991, Hindman and Harvey 2003). The density of juvenile blue crabs, for
example, has been shown to be 30 times greater in SAV beds than in non-
vegetated areas of the Chesapeake Bay (Maryland DNR 2003).
Mute swans can also have a direct effect on native species. Mute
swans not only attack and displace native waterfowl from breeding,
staging, and wintering areas (Willey, Reese 1975, Ciaranca 1990,
Ciaranca et al. 1997), they have also been known to kill intruding
birds of other species and their young (Stone and Masters 1970, Reese
1980, Kania and Smith 1986). One of the more dramatic instances in
which mute swans have displaced native species was documented in
Dorchester County, Maryland, where 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 percent of the Statewide population) and one of only
two known colonies of black skimmers in the Maryland portion of the Bay
(Therres and Brinker 2003). Both of these species are listed as
threatened by the State of Maryland.
The Hill Decision
Prior to 2001, the Service considered the mute swan an exotic
species and therefore not subject to the protections of the MBTA.
Management of mute swans--including resolution of any problems that
they might cause--was considered to be a de facto responsibility of the
states, with no involvement required of the federal government. In
July1999 the Service was sued for not affording the Mute swan
protection under the MBTA. In December 2001, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia ruled that, as a ``swan'' and a member of
the family ``Anatidae'' (both of which are expressly listed in the
Canadian and Mexican conventions), the Mute swan qualified for
protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (the Hill decision). In
the ruling, the court noted the absence of any clear and unambiguous
evidence that Congress intended for the MBTA to apply only to native
species.
Following the Hill decision, the Service initially concluded that
the issuance of depredation permits for the take of Mute swans was
categorically excluded from NEPA and that further environmental review
was not necessary. Thus, the Service issued depredation permits in 2002
and 2003 as ``categorical exclusions'' to NEPA. In Spring 2003, the
Service issued a permit to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
authorizing the take of up to 1,500 Mute swans. The Fund for Animals
filed a lawsuit and sought an injunction. In response, the State of
Maryland voluntarily relinquished their permit and the Service
initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Management of Mute
Swans in the Atlantic Flyway. Following a 30-day public comment period
and final EA, the Service issued a new permit to the State of Maryland
authorizing the take of approximately 900 Mute swans. However, the
Judge ruled in favor of the Fund for Animals in granting an injunction
and his ruling suggested that the Service would be unlikely to win the
case on the merits. Thus the Service settled with the Fund for Animals
and agreed not to issue any additional Mute swan depredation permits
until a new environmental review was conducted.
The Department of the Interior does not expect that the Court's
concerns could be addressed through an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). As a result, the Service does not intend to initiate a new
environmental review in FY 2004. The result is that state wildlife
agencies, National Wildlife Refuges, and other agencies and
organizations wishing to implement programs to control the growth of
Mute swan populations to alleviate their impacts on native plant
communities, fish and wildlife resources, and local economic interests
will be prevented from doing so.
The Service's decision garnered broad support from 13 state
wildlife agencies and a variety of organizations (more than 40 in
total) dedicated to bird conservation, bird science, wildlife
conservation, and wildlife management. However, several organizations,
including Friends of Wildlife, Fund for Animals, Save Maryland's Swans,
and Save Our Swans USA, were vocal and highly visible in expressing
their opposition to the killing of mute swans for any reason.
Conclusion
In summary, affording the protection of the MBTA to introduced
birds that are not native to the United States is ecologically unsound,
contrary to the stated purpose of the MBTA, and contrary to efforts by
the federal government to control invasive species.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Thank you again
for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions you or the Subcommittee Members may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Hogan.
Mr. Clay. I understand Dr. Robbins is not going to--you
don't have any testimony.
Dr. Robbins. No.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Clay.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. CLAY, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH
INSPECTION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you this morning on behalf of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture on exotic bird species and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. I am the Deputy Administrator for
the Wildlife Services Program, and I would like to first start
out by giving you a brief overview of Wildlife Services.
As part of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Services, the Wildlife Services Program provides Federal
leadership and expertise in resolving damage caused by
wildlife. Over the last decade, Wildlife Services' mission has
expanded beyond traditional agricultural damage to also include
minimizing public health and safety threats from wildlife,
dealing with wildlife conflicts in urban areas, protecting
property, helping to protect threatened and endangered species,
and helping to protect other natural resources as well.
The Wildlife Services Program provides assistance on a
request basis. In addition to working with individuals, our
program personnel also work with other Federal, State and local
government officials that manage--that request wildlife damage
management assistance. These cooperators share in the cost of
many of our wildlife damage management activities.
Resulting damage caused by exotic bird species is one of
many areas where the Wildlife Services Program has seen an
increased request for assistance. Some examples of exotic or
non-native birds include starlings, rock doves, also known as
feral pigeons, house sparrows and mute swans. Starlings which
are native to Europe are probably the most problematic of the
exotic bird species. Population estimates for starlings now
exceed 200 million birds in North America. In the year 2002,
Wildlife Services personnel removed or dispersed approximately
2.7 million starlings from across the United States. Most of
these were in dairies and feedlots where the birds congregate
in the winter where they get food and shelter. But most of the
damage from starlings occurs as the birds consume or
contaminate livestock feed with their droppings.
Rock dove, which are native to the Mediterranean area, are
another exotic species that cause damage across the United
States. Again, in 2002, Wildlife Services personnel dispersed
or removed more than 69,000 rock doves mainly from urban areas
in the United States where the birds caused property damage and
threatened public health and safety from their droppings which
accumulate on sidewalks and on buildings.
Researchers estimate that Americans spend more than $1
billion a year to control and to clean up after this exotic
bird. In addition, rock dove also pose a serious threat to air
travelers where the birds often collide with aircraft taking
off or landing at airports. In fact, this threat at airports
from exotic birds leaves us in Hawaii where we're actually
dealing with two other exotic bird species, removing them from
local airports, the chestnut mannikin and the zebra doves,
where there is a serious problem if a bird strikes an aircraft
there.
Wildlife Services has the legislative authority to manage
damage or threats posed by exotic bird species, but we do not
have the authority to manage the species themselves. In order
to manage damage caused by birds protected under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, Wildlife Services personnel must first obtain
a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Starlings,
rock dove and house sparrows are not protected by the Act and
no permit is required for them.
In the case of the mute swans here in Maryland, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources requested Wildlife
Service to assist them in their efforts to control damage
caused by mute swans. Mute swans, along with nutria, are
contributing to the destruction of the Chesapeake's marsh
grasses, which provide a significant impact by filtering the
bay, providing a valuable food source for native species and
are also an important habitat for crabs, fish and other
wetland-dependent species. Cooperative efforts by these
agencies are helping to control populations of nutria. However,
our cooperative efforts to manage the mute swans were halted
earlier this year through a preliminary injunction issued in a
lawsuit brought by the Fund for Animals against the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in August. And as Mr. Hogan mentioned in
his testimony, that case was settled when the Fish and Wildlife
Service agreed to withdraw its environmental assessment and
management of mute swans in the Atlantic Flyway and withdraw
their related finding of no significant impact and also
withdraw and terminate all depredation permits. This agreement,
however, did not alter the Fish and Wildlife Service's
authority to issue Wildlife Service's permits on an emergency
basis to protect public health and safety and to prevent bird
strikes at airports.
I would like to conclude by saying that Wildlife Services
has a good working relationship with the Fish and Wildlife
Service and with the many State wildlife agencies that we work
with, and we are prepared to work with them in managing future
problems caused by exotic bird species.
Mr Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to talk
with you about Wildlife Services' role in managing damage
caused by exotic bird species, and I would also be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of William H. Clay follows:]
Statement of Bill Clay, Deputy Administrator, Wildlife Services
Division, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to speak with you on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) about exotic bird species and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. I would like to start by providing a brief overview of
Wildlife Services.
As part of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), the Wildlife Services Division provides Federal leadership and
expertise to resolve damage caused by wildlife. Over the last decade,
Wildlife Services' mission has expanded beyond agricultural damage
management to include minimizing threats to public health and safety,
resolving wildlife conflicts in urban areas, protecting property,
safeguarding threatened and endangered species, and preserving valuable
natural resources, such as the Chesapeake Bay area.
Wildlife Services provides assistance on a request basis. In
addition to working with individuals, Wildlife Services works
cooperatively with other Federal, State, and local governments that
request assistance to manage wildlife damage. These cooperators share
in the cost of many wildlife damage management activities conducted by
Wildlife Services.
Resolving damage caused by exotic bird species is one of many areas
where Wildlife Services has seen an increase in requests for
assistance. Some examples of exotic or non-native bird species include
starlings, rock doves, house sparrows and mute swans.
Starlings, native to Europe, are among the most problematic of
exotic bird species. Population estimates for starlings now exceed 200
million in North America. In 2002, Wildlife Services dispersed or
removed approximately 2.7 million starlings, mainly at dairies and
feedlots where in the winter the birds congregate for food and shelter.
Damage occurs as the birds consume and contaminate feed with their
droppings.
Rock doves, native to the Mediterranean, are another exotic species
that causes damage across the United States. In 2002, Wildlife Services
dispersed or removed more than 69,000 rock doves, mainly from urban
areas where the birds cause property damage and threaten public health
and safety as their droppings accumulate on sidewalks and buildings.
Researchers estimate that Americans spend more than $1 billion a year
to control and clean up after the exotic bird. In addition, rock doves
pose a serious risk to air travelers when the birds collide with planes
taking off and landing at airports. In Hawaii, that threat led Wildlife
Services to remove or disperse exotic chestnut mannikins and zebra
doves from local airports.
Wildlife Services has the legislative authority to manage damage or
threats posed by exotic bird species, but we do not have the authority
to manage the species themselves. In order to manage damage caused by
species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Wildlife
Services must first receive a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Starlings, rock doves, and house sparrows are not protected
under the Act, and no permit is required.
In the case of the mute swan here in Maryland, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources requested that Wildlife Services assist
in efforts to manage the mute swan. As you know, the mute swan, along
with the nutria, a large rodent that has destroyed thousands of acres
of pristine wetlands, is contributing to the destruction of the
Chesapeake's marsh grasses, which filter the bay, provide a valuable
food source for native species, and hold together the fragile marsh
soil. Concentrations of mute swans have overgrazed bay grasses, which
are important habitats for crabs, fish, and other wetland dependent
species.
Cooperative efforts of the aforementioned Agencies have helped
control populations of nutria. Our cooperative efforts to manage the
mute swan were halted by a preliminary injunction issued in a lawsuit
brought by the Fund for Animals against the Fish and Wildlife Service
in August of 2003. As Mr. Hogan mentioned in his testimony, that case
was settled when the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to:
Withdraw its Environmental Assessment for the Management
of Mute Swans in the Atlantic Flyway;
Withdraw the related Finding of No Significant Impact;
and
Withdraw or terminate all depredation permits.
This agreement did not alter the ability of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to authorize Wildlife Services to remove mute swans on an
emergency basis in order to protect public health and safety and
prevent bird strikes at airports.
I would like to conclude by saying that Wildlife Services has an
excellent working relationship with the Fish and Wildlife Service and
other State Agencies and we are prepared to continue to work with them
in managing invasive bird species. Thank you again for the opportunity
to talk to you about Wildlife Services' role in managing damage caused
by exotic bird species.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Clay.
Mr. Hindman. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Hindman. You
may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF LARRY J. HINDMAN, WATERFOWL PROJECT MANAGER,
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Hindman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to testify before the Committee on the issue of Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and exotic species. I am here to address issues
surrounding the management of mute swans in our State. Mute
swans are an invasive, non-native species that now inhabit the
Chesapeake Bay in large numbers. Following the accidental
introduction of five birds in 1962, the swan population grew
slowly for two decades. However, after the mid-1980s, the swan
population underwent dramatic growth and range expansion,
rising to about 4,000 birds by 1999. At that rate of increase
observed during that period and absent management, the swan
population may have exceeded 30,000 birds by year 2010.
In Maryland, mute swans are included in the statutory
definition of wetland game birds. State law gives the DNR the
authority to allow the taking of wetland game birds during open
hunting season and to regulate the possession, sale, trade,
exportation and importation of mute swans in Maryland. Mute
swans feed primarily on submersed aquatic vegetation, commonly
referred to as bay grasses or SAV. Recent food habits research
has shown that swans in Chesapeake Bay feed primarily on
widgeon grass and eelgrass, both important foods for native
wintering waterfowl. While foraging, each bird consumes an
average of about eight pounds of SAV daily. At this consumption
rate, the 3,600 swans that exist in Maryland currently consume
an estimated 10.5 million pounds of SAV annually. This level of
grazing upon SAV by swans places additional stress upon this
critically important habitat, especially at the local level
which is already limited by other environmental factors.
Although no quantitative assessment has been done in
Maryland to determine the cumulative effects of grazing mute
swans on SAV, studies of mute swans in several areas of the
world have shown that these birds can negatively impact SAV
communities. For example, a recent study conducted in Rhode
Island found that mute swans overgraze SAV in shallow water and
reduce SAV biomass by over 90 percent.
Here in Maryland citizens frequently complain that
concentrations of mute swans overgraze SAV. Mute swans have
completely destroyed a number of bay grass planting projects.
In the South River, mute swans destroyed plantings to improve
water quality. The cost of replanting the site twice was about
$4,700. And currently all SAV transplanting sites in the bay
have to be fenced to prevent mute swan depredation.
Large numbers of mute swans have caused State threatened
species of colonial birds to abandon their island nest sites.
The antagonistic behavior exhibited by mute swans toward other
native wetland birds can prevent native waterfowl from using
traditional nesting and feeding areas, and in some cases we've
documented mute swans killing other wetland bird species. Mute
swans also impact humans. They are one of the world's most
aggressive waterfowl species. This large bird instills fear
into citizens, preventing them from using their shoreline
property and adjacent water. Their aggressive behavior in some
cases exhibited as direct attacks can pose a safety risk,
especially to small children.
Because of the deleterious effect that mute swans have on
SAV and other native wildlife, the mute swan population at or
near its present level is in conflict with public policies
aimed at restoring the Chesapeake Bay. In particular, the
Chesapeake Bay 2000 agreement has a goal to preserve, protect
and restore those habitats in natural areas vital to the
survival and diversity of the living resources of the bay. Part
of this goal is to protect and restore SAV. The Department
views the mute swan population as an impediment to achieving
these goals.
To address these concerns, the DNR completed a statewide
management plan that was adopted by the DNR secretary in April
of 2003. The plan was developed with public input from a
variety of sources, including the Citizens Mute Swan Task
Force, citizen advisory Committees and hundreds of public
comments. The plan has gained wide support by major
conservation organizations. The goal of the plan is to manage
the mute swan population at a level that minimizes the impacts
of mute swans on native species and habitats.
Prior to February 2001, all mute swans control activity
conducted in Maryland was done under the authority of State
law. The DNR conducted egg addling efforts aimed at reducing
swan productivity and removed several hundred swans to protect
threatened colonial waterbird colonies. Such control was done
without a Federal permit. The DNR also provided citizens and
other entities authorization to control mute swans to prevent
depredation of private wetlands and to minimize nuisance and
personal safety problems caused by swans.
There are some positive aspects of the mute swans being a
federally protected bird. One thing that it did it served to
stimulate State wildlife agencies in the Atlantic Flyway to
undertake an organized effort to control this species, leading
to the development of the Atlantic Flyway Mute Swan Management
Plan.
But there are some negative aspects of being a Federal
bird. An outgrowth of the pending legal challenges concerning
the issuance of Maryland's depredation permit, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has rescinded all Federal depredation permits,
allowing the control of mute swans by State wildlife agencies.
The Maryland DNR currently cannot conduct swan control
activities. Failure to have a permit in hand by the spring of
2004 nesting season will result in further population increase
and thus will contribute to sustaining detrimental impacts from
mute swans to native wildlife and their habitats.
The Migratory Bird Treaty requires that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service maintain a viable population of migratory
birds. This has led the Service to establish arbitrary State-
specific take limits for issuing depredation permits for
controlling swans. In most States, these specific take limits
place a constraint on swan management. The most efficient and
cost effective method of reducing mute swans to achieve desired
State population objectives is to remove a large proportion of
the swan population as quickly and as humanely as possible. If
a State wildlife agency is unable to remove enough swans in a
single calendar year to achieve its statewide population
objective, the Service should not prevent that action by
imposing State-specific take limits for issuing depredation
permits.
Finally, there is a considerable uncertainty surrounding
the issuance of Federal depredation permits. We have no
assurance from the Fish and Wildlife Service that we will
receive a Federal permit to continue swan control activities.
Further delays in properly managing mute swans will cause
negative impacts to native avian species and damage to critical
bay resources. Thus we encourage you to consider to amend the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act by excluding the mute swans from the
list of migratory birds. This would return the primary
management authority for managing mute swans to State wildlife
agencies and allow them to effectively address the serious
ecological and nuisance problems caused by this non-native
species. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Larry J. Hindman follows:]
Statement of Larry J. Hindman, Waterfowl Project Manager, Wildlife and
Heritage Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
I am Larry J. Hindman, Waterfowl Project Manager for the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Wildlife and Heritage Service.
The Maryland DNR is a state government agency authorized to preserve,
protect, enhance and restore Maryland's natural resources for the wise
use and enjoyment of all citizens.
Mute swans are an invasive, nonnative species that now inhabit the
Chesapeake Bay in large numbers. In Maryland, mute swans are included
in the statutory definition of Wetland Game Birds (Natural Resources
Article [NR], Section 10-101). This law does not list the specific
names of native species of waterfowl that winter and breed in Maryland,
but only identifies ducks, mergansers, brant, geese, and swans as
wetland game birds. This law was promulgated prior to the accidental
introduction of mute swans in Maryland. State law gives DNR the
authority to allow the taking of wetland game birds during an open
hunting season, although no swan season has been opened in the state
since 1918. Further, it gives the DNR the authority to regulate the
possession, sale, trade, exportation, and importation of mute swans in
Maryland (NR Article Section 10-903).
Prior to a recent court ruling (http://www.II.georgetown.edu/Fed-
Ct/Circuit/dc/opinions/00-5432a.html), mute swans were not regulated by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Primary management
authority was held by individual states. Prior to February 2002, all
mute swan control activity conducted in Maryland was done under the
authority of State law (Natural Resource Section 10-206). This statute
authorizes the DNR to reduce a 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. State law enabled
the DNR to conduct mute swan control activities without a Federal
Depredation Permit and allowed the DNR to issue authorization to
citizens and other entities to control mute swans to prevent
depredation of wetlands. It also allowed the DNR to authorize citizens
to control swan pairs that caused nuisance and personal safety
problems.
Now with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) now having
regulatory authority for the management of mute swans, state wildlife
agencies must obtain a Federal Depredation Permit to conduct mute swan
control activities. Because of recent legal challenges, Federal
Depredation Permits issued to the Maryland DNR, and other state
wildlife agencies, to control mute swan populations have been
rescinded. These legal challenges may prevent the USFWS from
authorizing the DNR to conduct mute swans control activities prescribed
in Maryland's Statewide Mute Swan Management Plan. Without this
authorization, the mute swan population can be expected to increase and
expand its range. Further delays in properly managing mute swans will
cause negative impacts to native avian species and damage to critical
Bay resources.
For this reason, we encourage Congress to amend the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act by excluding the mute swan from the List of Migratory Birds.
This would return the primary management authority for managing mute
swans to state wildlife agencies and allow them to effectively address
the serious ecological and nuisance problems caused by this nonnative
species.
The mute swan population in Maryland has been attributed to the
escape of five captive birds along the Miles River in Talbot County
during a spring storm in March 1962. Following this accidental
introduction, the mute swan population grew slowly for two decades.
However, after the mid-1980s, the swan population underwent dramatic
growth and range expansion, rising to about 4,000 birds by 1999 (Figure
1). At the rate of increase observed during this period, and absent
management, the swan population may have exceeded 30,000 birds by 2010.
The population decreased from 3,955 in 1999 to 3,624 in 2002. Egg
addling and the removal of adult swans from Federal National Wildlife
Refuges by shooting and authorized scientific collecting played an
important role in the population change.
Mute swans feed exclusively on submerged aquatic vegetation,
commonly referred to as SAV or baygrasses. Recent food habits research
has shown that mute swans in Chesapeake Bay feed primarily on wigeon
grass and eelgrass, both important foods for native, wintering
waterfowl. Further research has shown that each mute swan consumes
about estimated 8.3 lbs. (3.789 kg wet weight) of SAV daily (Willey and
Halla 1972). Fenwick (1983) determined that male swans in Chesapeake
Bay consumed 34.6% 10.8 SD of their body weight per day, females 43.4%
12.9 SD. Assuming that an adult/subadult mute swan consumes an average
of 8 lbs. of SAV per day, we estimate that the current mute swan
population in Maryland consumes an estimated 10.5 million pounds of SAV
annually. This value is equal to about 10% of the total SAV biomass in
the Bay (2001 Survey). This level of swan herbivory upon SAV, places
additional stress upon this critically important habitat, especially at
the local level, which is already limited by other environmental
factors.
SAV is critical to the health and well-being of a myriad of Bay
organism. SAV protects water quality from pollutants, introduces oxygen
into the Bay, prevents erosion, and offers food and shelter for fish,
shellfish, invertebrates and waterfowl. By way of example, the density
of juvenile blue crabs is 30 times greater in SAV beds than in non-
vegetated areas of the Bay. SAV has declined throughout the Bay because
of water quality problems, and the large mute swan population is a
threat to the native grass beds that remain, especially the new beds
planted in restoration efforts.
Although no quantitative assessment has been done in Maryland to
determine the cumulative effects grazing mute swans on SAV, studies of
mute swans in several areas of the world have shown that these birds
can negatively impact SAV communities.
For example, in Europe, mute swans have been known to completely
remove individual plant species from some wetlands, eliminating this
food source for other waterfowl that feed on the same SAV species.
In high concentrations, mute swans can overgraze an area. In a
recent Rhode Island study, consumption of SAV by mute swans was
indirectly measured by comparing control and exclosure plots. Findings
indicated that mute swans overgraze SAV in shallow water (0.5 m) and
can reduce SAV biomass by 92-95%.
Maryland citizens frequently complain that concentrations of mute
swans overgrazed some SAV beds reducing the availability of SAV to
native wildlife and reducing recreational crabbing and fishing
opportunities. Mute swans have completely destroyed a number of bay
grass planting projects (Chesapeake Bay Foundation's letter to
Maryland's Secretary of Natural Resources). Presently, all SAV
transplanting sites in the Bay have to be fenced to prevent mute swan
depredation. The South River Association reports that Mute Swans have
destroyed plantings of saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alternaflora) made
to restore wetlands and improve water quality in the South River. The
cost of replanting the site twice was about $4,700.
Aside from simple biomass of SAV eaten by mute swans, there are a
number of specific concerns about the effects of swan eating habits
upon the recovering SAV populations in Chesapeake Bay. Swans have
different, more destructive, feeding habits than do other species of
waterfowl. This behavior involves disturbing the sediment to loosen it,
then feeding on subterranean tubers used as asexual reproductive
structures by SAV. Mute swans have also been observed pulling and
consuming intact plants rather than feeding only on plant parts, as do
native waterfowl. Mute swans uproot large quantities of aquatic plants
and can disturb much more vegetation than they actually eat. Through
the partial or complete destruction of individual SAV beds, this
feeding behavior could impact future SAV growth, resulting in reduced
food stocks for native waterfowl.
The upper Chesapeake Bay region is one of the most important areas
in North America for migrating and wintering waterfowl. One of the
reasons the Bay has held such attraction for these birds has been the
quantity and variety of SAV species. Native species of SAV in the Bay
have evolved concurrently with native waterfowl, and the timing of
feeding by native waterfowl does not overlap temporally with SAV
reproduction.
Unlike other swan and waterfowl species, most mute swans do not
migrate during the winter months, and rarely move more than 30 miles
during their lifetimes. Consequently, mute swans remain in and about
the Bay feeding upon and disturbing SAV year-round. Mute swans feed
extensively on above-ground biomass before tubers have begun to form,
thus preventing the plants from forming these important reproductive
structures and potentially eliminating the resource from some areas.
Certain wintering waterfowl species dependent upon SAV have
declined in Chesapeake Bay and remain suppressed due to the reduced
abundance of SAV. Declines in SAV abundance appear to correlate with
declines in local black duck (Anas rubripes) abundance. The loss of SAV
over the past several decades has prompted the near abandonment of Bay
waters by redheads (Aythya americana), leaving only a remnant
population today. Population trends suggest that habitat degradation in
Chesapeake Bay, especially loss of SAV, may be the principal cause of
the decline of the Bay's canvasback (Aythya valisineria)) population.
Canvasbacks prefer to eat tubers, seeds and vegetative matter of
wild celery plants and other SAV when they arrive from the north to
overwinter in Chesapeake Bay. Mute swans also feed preferentially on
wild celery in the Bay. However, they do so long before the canvasbacks
begin their migration, giving mute swans a substantial temporal feeding
advantage. Probably more significant than the actual food removal
implications, mute swans consume wild celery seed pods before the seeds
inside have completed their development, resulting in the systematic
loss of entire crops of seeds from wild celery beds. This phenomenon
has been recorded in the Gunpowder and Potomac Rivers. Bay researchers
who collect seeds for artificial propagation have experienced
considerable difficulty locating mature seedpods for this reason.
Because of the deleterious effect that mute swans have on SAV, a
Bay-wide mute swan population above, at, or near its present level is
in conflict with public policies aimed at restoring the Bay. In
particular, the Vital Habitat Protection And Restoration section of the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement--an agreement and partnership entered into in
2000 between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, the states of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania and
the District of Columbia for the protection and restoration of the
Bay--has as a stated goal to ``Preserve, protect and restore those
habitats and natural areas vital to the survival and diversity of the
living resources of the Bay and its tributaries.'' Part of this goal is
the protection and restoration of SAV. Because of the vital role that
SAV plays in preserving water quality and in providing food and shelter
for Bay organism, preservation and restoration of SAV is vital to the
overall health of Bay ecosystems. Further destruction or degradation of
SAV caused by mute swans--even if limited to localized areas--will
certainly compromise the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.
The effect that mute swans have had--and potentially will have--on
native wildlife within the Bay is best illustrated by the impact that
swans have had on the least tern (Sterna antillarum) and black skimmer
(Rynchops niger) populations in the Tar Bay area of Dorchester County,
Maryland, (least terns and black skimmers are both listed as State
threatened species). Tar Bay is a shallow tidal bay with dense beds of
SAV, which, historically, has been a site for colonies of least terns
and black skimmers. Between 1985 and 1987 approximately 60 to 250
nesting pairs of least terns were located in Tar Bay; in 1987, the
nesting least terns in Tar Bay accounted for 49% of the total nesting
population statewide. In 1985, 13 nesting pairs of black skimmers were
located in Tar Bay--one of only two small colonies of nesting skimmers
in the Maryland portion of the Bay.
In the late-1980s, a molting flock of between 600 and 800 mute
swans began congregating in the Tar Bay area. During their molt, it was
observed that swan tracks were completely covering tern and skimmer
nesting areas and crushing tern and skimmer eggs into the sand. These
disturbances continued into the early-1990s to the point were the
number of nesting pairs of terns and skimmers declined. By 1993, the
colonies were abandoned (colonial nesting waterfowl, such as terns and
skimmers, will abandon colonies if disturbance is frequent or severe).
During the mid-1990s, DNR and the USFWS reduced the size of the mute
swan molting flock in the Tar Bay area, resulting in the return of a
moderate population of least terns. By 1999, less than 25 nesting pairs
of terns were present. No nesting pairs of black skimmers were present.
The mute swan is also one of the world's most aggressive species of
waterfowl. Breeding mute swans are known to aggressively protect their
nets and young from all perceived threats. Some breeding mute swan
pairs may also threaten or attack humans, such as swimmers, small
children or those in small watercraft. Mute swan aggression may also be
directed at pets. In Maryland, aggressive mute swan pairs have become a
nuisance, preventing people from using shorelines where swans
vigorously defend their nest during the breeding season.
Beginning in 2001, the DNR initiated a more concerted effort each
spring to addle mute swan eggs to slow the growth rate of Maryland's
mute swan population. This work was continued in 2002 with a Federal
Depredation Permit obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In
2002, 232 mute swan nests containing 1,243 eggs treated. In 2003, 276
mute swan nests containing 1,449 eggs were treated. An additional 130
adult swans were removed by shooting in 2003 before further mute swan
control was suspended by a lawsuit filed against the USFWS for issuing
Maryland DNR a permit that included lethal control.
In 1999, the Maryland DNR initiated the development of a mute swan
management plan. The DNR Secretary assembled a Mute Swan Task Force,
which included citizen members of the DNR ``s Migratory Game Bird
Committee and experts in animal welfare and bay ecology. In January
2001, a summary of mute swan information and the Mute Swan Task Force
recommendations to the DNR were made available for public review. More
than 800 comments were received on the Mute Swan Task Force
recommendations during the 60-day public comment period.
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 the DNR establish Swan-Free
Areas, areas where mute swans would be excluded or removed to protect
critically important habitats and wildlife resources. The DNR Waterfowl
Advisory Committee endorsed the Task Force recommendations, but further
recommended a rapid reduction of the mute swan population and the
elimination of State protection for the species. The recommendations
provided by the advisory committees, along with biological and wildlife
management principles and public input, were considered in the
preparation of a Draft Statewide Mute Swan Management Plan. More than
400 comments were received from the public on the draft plan during a
60-day public comment period. In April 2003, the Statewide Mute Swan
Management Plan was adopted by the DNR Secretary (copy attached).
The Statewide Mute Swan Management Plan directs the DNR to reduce
the mute swan population in the Chesapeake Bay to a level that
minimizes damage to SAV beds and eliminates the threat they pose to
native bird species. Local and national environmental groups, including
the National Audubon Society, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Severn
River Association, the South River Federation, the American Bird
Conservancy, and others, have endorsed the plan.
In implementing the plan, the Maryland DNR has increased public
outreach to facilitate the understanding of the status of the mute swan
population in Maryland, its impacts on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem,
and the problems it creates for humans, critically important habitats
and native wildlife populations.
State regulations are currently being developed to prevent the
release and escape of mute swans into the wild. The DNR add conditions
to federal and state permits that prohibit the sale, trade, barter, and
importation of mute swans, or their eggs, in Maryland. In the future,
the DNR will not authorize any additional possession of mute swans,
except for scientific or educational purposes.
The DNR has also cooperated with other 22 states and provinces
within the Atlantic Flyway Council to complete an Atlantic Flyway Mute
Swan Management Plan (adopted July 2003). The purpose of the plan was
to facilitate efficient mute swan population management. The DNR also
provided input on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Draft
Environmental Assessment for Managing Mute Swans in the Atlantic Flyway
and is participating in the development of a region-wide Chesapeake Bay
Mute Swan Management Plan for managing mute swans.
[Figure 1 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0953.001
Figure 2. Swans are present in all major tributaries of the Bay.
The largest circle in the attached map of the distribution of mute
swans during August-September,2002, represent 472 swans.
[Figure 2 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0953.002
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hindman.
Mr. Hogan, what does--how does U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service define the difference between an exotic bird and a
native bird? Is there statutory language that defines that?
Mr. Hogan. No, there is no statutory language, but we
generally refer to a native species as one that as occurring
naturally in an ecosystem or in an environment, as opposed to
an exotic species which got here from unnatural purposes,
whether it be a purposeful release or an unintentional release
by individuals, by people. So in other words, a native species
are those that are here naturally, and an exotic species, as
the case of the mute swans since we are talking about that, is
one that was either intentionally or unintentionally released
into the environment.
Mr. Gilchrest. So there has never been and you don't
foresee a specific problem with the definition in a regulatory
sense or a statutory sense or a court challenge to a
distinction between a native and an exotic.
Mr. Hogan. Well, I can't say that there will never be, sir.
I think, certainly, given what has developed in the case of the
mute swans that certainly is likely and that may be something
we would consider as to codifying in either regulation or
potentially statute the definition of native versus non-native,
but it has generally been accepted that native--and there are
definitions also for invasive species, which is a species that
causes a detrimental impact on an ecosystem as opposed to being
just exotic, not native or not natural to the ecosystem. They
are one step further, they actually cause damage to the
ecosystem. So there is a considerable Federal effort, as you
well know, to control invasive species, whether it be certain
species of birds or a case you know well, nutria, an exotic
invasive species.
Mr. Gilchrest. What steps does U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service go through to take a species, in this situation a bird
species, from an exotic to designate that exotic as invasive?
Mr. Hogan. Well, it would be a--under the Lacey Act, we
have the ability to list something as injurious, and by doing
so we can prohibit the import of that species to the U.S., and
that would be through a formal rulemaking process we would do
that. In the case of mute swans, I guess the horse has already
left the barn. It is a little late to prohibit the import, so
once the species is here we really don't have a lot of ability
to control it through the Lacey Act, through the listing of it
as injurious. It is really something that we can hopefully do
in the future, and, as you know, there are lots of efforts at
the Federal level to prevent the importation of a lot of these
invasive non-native species to the U.S. to try and catch them
before they become established.
Mr. Gilchrest. So there is nothing in Federal statute to
prohibit mute swans from further importation into the United
States?
Mr. Hogan. Right now we don't have them listed as
injurious. It is certainly something we could consider if we
thought that there was a--continued to be a problem with new
birds being introduced in the U.S., but the best information we
have is that the problem is really the established birds and
the birds that continue to breed. There doesn't seem to be any
indication of a real problem with new birds being brought into
the country.
Mr. Gilchrest. Have you had ongoing discussions over the
last decade or so with your Canadian counterparts with exotic
birds, invasive species and mute swans in particular?
Mr. Hogan. We certainly do have discussions with them
regularly on a number of issues under the MBTA and our treaty
with them, and the issue of invasives has come up. We typically
have--we kind of come to an understanding of how each country
implements the treaty within their own country and our best
understanding is that the Canadians are comfortable with our
interpretation of exotic and native species in the U.S., just
as we are comfortable with the way they deal with exotic and
non-native species in their country.
Mr. Gilchrest. Has mute swans come up as an issue
specifically as an invasive?
Mr. Hogan. Yes, sir. Of late, since the actions in the
courts, we certainly have discussed that with the Canadians.
They are certainly aware of it and know of kind of where we
have been and have been supportive of our approach to dealing
with mute swans to date.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you designated mute swan as invasive--has
the Service already designated mute swans as invasive?
Mr. Hogan. We don't actually have a formal designation
process to designate something as invasive. We do, under the
Lacey Act, to designate it as injurious. I know it is kind of
splitting hairs but that is something in which, again, we could
prevent the importation or interstate commerce. We have not
done that with mute swans.
Mr. Gilchrest. But mute swans have been designated, if I
could use that word, as injurious?
Mr. Hogan. They have been considered invasive. We have
never gone through a formal process. Invasive is, to the best
of my knowledge, not a formal designation. It is kind of an
understanding among biologists and others. Injurious is
actually a designation under the Lacey Act in which we would go
through a rulemaking process and propose that as a species
listed as injurious we would prevent the importation of that
species.
Mr. Gilchrest. Have you gone through that process with mute
swans?
Mr. Hogan. No, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any reason to go through that
process to designate mute swans as injurious by the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and would that in any way violate any of the
four treaties that we have under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act?
Mr. Hogan. I can't speak to your second question as far as
I don't believe it would violate any of our treaties to list it
as injurious because at least in our discussions, our informal
conservations with our counterparts in Canada, they are
supportive of the way we basically view all exotic, non-native
species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As far as whether
or not we would consider listing it as injurious, we don't have
a great deal of information, to my knowledge, that there is a
problem with new birds coming into the country. Really our
efforts to date have been targeted at controlling the birds
that are already here. So we have not gone through that formal
process of listing swans, mute swans in this case, as an
injurious species, like we have with other species like the
snakehead, for example, here in Maryland. We listed that as
injurious and have prevented the importation for fear that the
real source of the problem, fish in this case, were fish that
were being imported into the United States, not a population
that was already here.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, you went through the snakehead process
rather quickly. So you don't--I guess what I am trying to get
at is U.S. Fish and Wildlife can state for the record that mute
swans are injurious or damaging certain habitats around the
country and in this hearing in particular the Chesapeake Bay,
both in SAVs and disrupting habitat for other bird species. So
can I say that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said on
the record that mute swans are--have a degrading effect on the
Chesapeake Bay?
Mr. Hogan. Yes, sir. Yes. I would be hesitant to say that
we would officially call them injurious, because, again, that
would actually take a formal rulemaking process through the
Lacey Act, but we can say with no equivocation that we feel
that they are negatively impacting the habitats of the
Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there a reason that the Service has not
gone through that process with the Lacey Act?
Mr. Hogan. Mainly because again we don't really see the
problem as being new birds coming into the country. It is birds
that are already here, and our efforts that--when we worked
with the State of Maryland, or attempted to, it was more of an
effort of controlling the birds that were already here in the
Chesapeake Bay as opposed to trying to prevent new birds from
being brought in from overseas.
Mr. Gilchrest. Could it be considered an aquatic nuisance
species, an Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, as nutria was
declared an aquatic nuisance species last year?
Mr. Hogan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. So mute swans could be declared an aquatic
nuisance species. What would it take to do that?
Mr. Hogan. If I could, would you mind if I confer with my
colleague for 1 second just to make sure I give you the--
Mr. Gilchrest. Sure.
Mr. Hogan. --exact correct answer on this one? I can't tell
you for certain, sir, that I know the exact process that we go
through to list an aquatic nuisance species. I know it is not
as, for lack of a better word, onerous as a formal rulemaking
process under the Lacey Act for an injurious species, but that
is certainly something that I would be glad to supply to you
following the hearing, for the record, as how we would go about
the process of listing it as an aquatic nuisance species.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you. Would you make any
recommendation--if the Service feels that this exotic species,
this mute swan is in fact invasive, is degrading water quality,
is an aquatic nuisance species, do you have any recommendations
for us as a Congress to help you deal with that issue?
Mr. Hogan. Well, let me start by staying we certainly
support everything we have done to date and feel that what we
attempted to do, both by issuing the depredation permits and
working with the State of Maryland to control the birds, was
the right course of action. Unfortunately, the courts did not
agree and we are abiding by the court's decision. We certainly
believe that it is not in the best interest of wildlife or the
American taxpayer to use our limited dollars that we have for
migratory bird conservation in this country to protect a bird
that is non-native, an exotic species, when there are so many
other issues that we need to deal with with our native species.
Unfortunately, though, sir, we are at a point where we feel
like we just do not have the resources to dedicate toward going
through the next stage in the process which would be a full
blown environmental impact statement.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Hogan. And we are fearful that we could go through that
long and expensive process, take resources away from real
pressing concerns of native species, migratory birds in this
country and end up in the same spot, so we have made a decision
that at this point anyway we are not going through with anymore
environmental reviews. We would certainly be interested in
working with you and help you in any way that you needed help
in trying to address this issue and provide some opportunity to
not have a non-native exotic species protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. So do you feel that the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, the language in that act, does not or does not
effectively deal with exotic species?
Mr. Hogan. Well, I think certainly not knowing what was on
the minds or what was the hot issues back in the early 1900s
when the treaty was ratified and we implemented the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, the way that species were listed back then was
by family groups. The family group, Anatidae, which is
waterfowl, ducks, geese and swans, were listed as protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We do have two species of
swans that are native to the United States: The tundra swans
which are also present here in the Chesapeake Bay, and the
trumpeter swans. So, certainly--I certainly can't speak for the
people who were working on that issue back some, oh, close to
80 years ago or more, but I don't think they envisioned a
problem with a non-native species. I think they listed
Anatidae, the family of waterfowl, as a natural family group to
be protected under the MBTA.
I can say that I think that as we developed treaties in
more recent times with Russia and with Japan, we went to the
extent of listing individual species. So we certainly have
changed the way we list birds when we have new treaties, and I
would say that if we were to renegotiate or if we were just now
negotiating a treaty with the Canadians if the current treaty
did not exist, I can't say for certain but certainly I would
think there would be a great deal of discussion of listing
individual species as protected versus listing whole family
groups. But I just think it wasn't envisioned by the authors
and sponsors of that back when it was ratified that this would
become a problem.
Mr. Gilchrest. So do you feel with increased knowledge,
with increased problems with invasives, exotics, from pathogens
to fish to a whole range of species that have crisscrossed the
United States, in this one particular instance with the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, can the Service effectively deal
with exotics and invasives with a regulatory change or do you
think the Act needs to be changed by congressional statute?
Mr. Hogan. Well, I don't--it appears that we have
exhausted--I suppose we could take some more efforts
regulatory--in a regulatory nature to address this issue, but
to date they have been unsuccessful, and we have decided as a
service that given our limited resources, it is not a priority.
We certainly would not object to efforts by the Congress to
relook at this issue and say that maybe there needs to be a
legislative fix.
Just as a side note, for example, there is a species of
goose, called the barheaded goose, which is an Asian species,
that is not specifically listed in our treaty with the
Japanese. Certainly understanding that, as I said, when we
negotiated the treaty with the Japanese we listed individual
species. If we had negotiated a similar type of treaty when we
listed family groups, that family of geese would be protected
under the MBTA. So you could certainly argue that as we learned
more about native and non-native species, we modified the way
we negotiated treaties. So we have certainly changed the way we
have done business, but I think as far as back to your original
question, from a regulatory approach, we just feel like we are
kind of frustrated at where we have gone and the amount of
resources that have already been expended to really no avail at
this point.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, we don't want the Service to be
frustrated.
Mr. Hogan. Well, we appreciate that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Robbins, can you tell us from your
perspective some of the challenges facing the conservation of
native songbird species in the Americas and how exotic birds
have threatened the native species?
Dr. Robbins. Yes. Back in 1966, I designed a continent-wide
survey, we call it the breeding bird survey, where annually we
count all species of birds. We have volunteers in every State
except Hawaii who go out and count these birds every year, and
we now have like 3,000 people that go out and count birds along
a random 50-stop route each year, and this gives us a wonderful
data base for keeping track of populations of all species of
birds in North America.
And this survey has been showing that quite a few of our
species are declining, especially those that migrate to the
tropics for the winter. There are many factors affecting these
birds, it is not an easy matter of tying in a particular event
with a decline of a particular species, because there are so
many factors affecting the populations of these birds, but
there is a general concern because so many of our birds over
the last several decades have been declining in numbers. And of
course there are so many things going on, habitat loss and
fragmentation, habitat alteration that permits invasive native
species, such as cowbirds, to greatly expand their breeding
range. And what happens is cowbirds lay an egg in the nest of
one of the other species. Generally, the host species is not
able to raise young from that nesting, so this is a big problem
that has been increasing as the native cowbirds has been
increasing its range.
We have problems with casualties during migration as birds
collide with tall buildings, communications towers, wind
turbines and so forth, increasing predation from feral cats,
which is a growing problem, environmental contaminants,
collisions with vehicles, windows, airplanes, so forth, and
competition with exotic species, competition for food and
particularly for nesting sites. I am not talking specifically
about the mute swan here, I am talking about other introduced
birds, such as starlings, house sparrows, rock doves and so
forth. Unfortunately, all these effects are additive.
The particular concern for a lot of the songbird species,
which is what the question related to, is the competition for
nest sites. Starlings and house sparrows are usurping nest
sites required by quite a few of our breeding species. Does
that answer the question?
Mr. Gilchrest. I think it does, yes. So exotics have a
detrimental effect on native species of migratory birds--
Dr. Robbins. That is correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. --but so does just about every other human
activity.
Dr. Robbins. That is correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any plan--is there anything--I have
some neighbors--I live out in the country on the Eastern Shore
and some of my neighbors who are in their late eighties put out
nesting boxes for Native American birds. And whenever they see
something that they consider a cowbird, well, they pop those
cowbirds off with .22s. I know that may not be a plan for the
Service or for USGS, but is this story out of the bag, the
horse is out of the barn? Is there nothing we can do with some
of these exotic songbirds and their wreaking havoc or at least
certain problems on Native American migratory species?
Dr. Robbins. Well, I don't think we are going to change the
habits of the invasive exotics. Actually, the starling and the
house sparrow are declining in numbers in their native habitat
in Europe, and the breeding bird survey shows some decline
here. They have been spreading their range until they now nest
in every State, except Hawaii. But even here the populations of
the species have been declining slightly. In the case of the
house sparrow, I think it is because they were relying on the
droppings from the horses, and since the horses have declined,
in general, the house sparrow has declined, in general. But we
still have an enormous problem for birds like the bluebird,
which is a cavity-nesting bird. The purple martin is another
familiar bird to a lot of people, and their nest box cavities
as well as--well, practically all of them nest in nest boxes
now, but there is a lot of competition with starlings and house
sparrows in the case of this bird. There are problems with the
great-crested flycatcher, another native songbird, in that they
are driven from their nest holes by starlings and house
sparrows. Problems with the red-headed woodpecker, for example,
and the flicker where these species have declined.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the problem with the red-headed
woodpecker?
Dr. Robbins. Pardon?
Mr. Gilchrest. The problem with the red-headed woodpecker
is what?
Dr. Robbins. Starlings taking over their nesting cavities.
Mr. Gilchrest. Wow.
Dr. Robbins. Woodpeckers drill holes in the trees to nest,
and as soon as they get a hole completed, the starlings drive
them out of it. Even though starlings are smaller, they are
more aggressive. A group of starlings would gang up on them and
chase the woodpeckers away. Used to be a common bird in most of
Maryland and now it is gone from all but the more remote
places.
Mr. Gilchrest. The red-headed woodpecker.
Dr. Robbins. The red-headed woodpecker, right.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Robbins.
Mr. Clay, could you tell us what your role is in managing
exotic bird species and under what authority do you do that?
Mr. Clay. Yes, sir. Our authority is technically in the Act
of March 2, 1931. It is more commonly referred to as Animal
Damage Control Act of 1931. It gives us legislative authority
to deal with any type of wildlife, or it gives the Secretary of
Agriculture wide responsibility to take any action she deems
necessary to control any type of problematic wildlife species.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, when you create a plan to control those
wildlife species or those exotics or whatever, do you first
need to be given authority or what is your relationship with
Fish and Wildlife Service regarding your role in eliminating
some exotic species or some animal that is causing a problem?
Mr. Clay. If it is a migratory bird that is protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, we would need to get a permit
from the Fish and Wildlife Service if it is causing a problem.
If it is not listed under the Migratory--or not protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, our program works on a request
basis, so if we get a request from, say, a State or Federal
wildlife agency, then that is all we need to go out and do the
work on that. It depends on the particular species, the size of
the area, whether or not we need to do an environmental
assessment or possibly an environmental impact statement or if
it is just a local problem of starlings causing problems, let's
say, an individual feedlot, there are approved toxicants
registered by the Environmental Protection Agency that we use
in those situations. It just depends on the size of the
problem, the extent of the problem and the bird species that is
involved in it.
Mr. Gilchrest. What would the difference be as far as
nutria and mute swans are concerned with your role?
Mr. Clay. Well, first we need a request for assistance,
which we have gotten from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. We
have the equipment, the personnel and the expertise to go out
and do that for them, and in this situation with the nutria
project here in Maryland, we are working cooperatively with
both Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources to control the nutria in the Chesapeake. As
far as exotic bird species, a lot of times we will get requests
if they are not protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
we may get a request directly from a State wildlife agency. We
may get a request from a homeowner association or private
individuals. It just depends if it is a localized problem or
more geographic in nature.
Mr. Gilchrest. So if you get a request from a homeowners
association, do you need to do anything with the State
Department of Natural Resources, with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? How do you make a decision as to whether you
just went and fixed what they consider a problem or you
communicate with these other agencies?
Mr. Clay. Well, if the bird is not protected, we would work
at the request of the homeowners association with the private
individual, but we would also work closely with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the State wildlife agency to make sure
they had no objections to the type of work being done. We have
cooperative agreements with the State wildlife agencies and the
Fish and Wildlife Service so we work very closely on these
issues.
Mr. Gilchrest. Which exotic bird species do you most often
have to control or you most often deal with?
Mr. Clay. We get probably requests for assistance for
starlings, European starlings most, but we also get requests
for a number of exotic bird species, primarily at airports, and
a lot of these are in States like Hawaii where a majority of
the birds that are present are non-native there. But I would
say starlings overall because of both public health and safety
threats from their droppings and because of contaminating and
consuming livestock feed across the United States at the
feedlots and dairies would probably be the one exotic bird that
we get the most complaints and the most requests for assistance
for.
Mr. Gilchrest. And how do you control starlings again?
Mr. Clay. Starlings are--there is a chemical that is
available called the RC1339. It is a chemical toxicant, but in
addition there is also traps for starlings, of course shooting
is an option. Again, it depends on where it is and the
situation.
Mr. Gilchrest. How is the chemical used?
Mr. Clay. It is mixed with grain bait. You pre-bait the
grain bait for several days to allow the starlings to come in
and feed on it, and then at a predetermined day you go in there
and mix it with this chemical toxicant and the birds consume it
and die within a day or two.
Mr. Gilchrest. So the starlings are aggressive enough so
that other species of birds are less likely to come in and pick
at that grain?
Mr. Clay. Yes, sir. It is primarily where we go in and do
these type of activities it is almost 100 percent starlings
there or other type of blackbirds that may be causing a problem
that are also--where the chemical is also labeled for those
control. There is really not much of a problem at all with non-
target species. In fact, part of our procedure requires us to
while we are prebaiting without the chemical for several days
in advance to visually observe the area during prebaiting and
make sure that there are no non-targets present.
Mr. Gilchrest. What size--is there an average size flock
for starlings? Are there 100 birds, hundreds of birds?
Mr. Clay. I don't know if there is an average size flock
but the flocks I have seen can be over 100,000 birds in some
areas. They just literally will cover the ground in feedlot
areas where the ground is just black with them. I mean it
depends on the size of the population in the geographic area,
but starlings are flocking birds and a lot of times they will
get into huge flocks.
Mr. Gilchrest. How long have you been aware that mute
swans, at least by some, have been considered a problem in the
Chesapeake Bay region?
Mr. Clay. Probably for the last 10 years. And each years
there is more and more concern, as Mr. Hogan expressed, on the
interest of exotic and invasive species, in general, but the
last several years we have received more and more requests for
assistance with mute swans, but it has been generally in the
last 10 years or so that I have been aware of it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hindman--Mr. Clay, sorry. Mr.
Hindman, how would you--does the State of Maryland have a
definition for native bird and exotic bird and invasive bird?
Mr. Hindman. I can't really answer that. I can get an
answer from our agency, but I can't answer that.
Mr. Gilchrest. What would you consider mute swans?
Mr. Hindman. Well, in our State, mute swans are legally
classified as a wetland game bird. That statute is broad in
that unlike the Migratory Bird Treaty that lists individual
birds, it protects and allows us to regulate swans, in general,
ducks, geese, rails, it is not specific, but they are in that
category considered wetland game birds.
Mr. Gilchrest. If the mute swan is considered a wetland
game bird, is that the same classification you give Canada
geese?
Mr. Hindman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Was there ever a hunting season on mute
swans like there are for Canada geese or some resident geese?
Mr. Hindman. No, sir. There has never been a swan hunting
season in our State since enactment of the treaty.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would there be a problem with enacting a
hunting season on mute swan given the fact that they might be
difficult to distinguish between tundra swans?
Mr. Hindman. Well, we considered that option in the
development of our statewide management plan. It can be done if
we are provided Federal frameworks from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, but we have been told that they need to do an
environmental impact statement to provide frameworks to States
in the Atlantic Flyway. That aside, for a mute swan hunting
season to be effective as a means of a population control, it
probably should coincide with existing duck and goose hunting
seasons, simply because they are not really a sporting bird,
they don't fly around a lot, and they would probably be taken
incidental by hunters while hunting ducks and geese. One could
structure a season outside the time when native swans do occur
here, but we didn't believe that a hunting on mute swans would
be a very effective management tool.
Mr. Gilchrest. How do you define exotic versus native?
Mr. Hindman. Well, I mean, basically, birds that originated
in the State I consider to be native. And birds that are
introduced or brought here, as mute swans were, I consider them
to be exotic.
Mr. Gilchrest. What do you consider the best method for
reducing--do you think eliminating mute swans from the
Chesapeake Bay region, especially the Maryland waters, is a
prudent thing to do, a good idea?
Mr. Hindman. Well, we think it is prudent to reduce their
numbers to a level where the population was prior to the mid-
1980s, when the population was small and we didn't see the
ecologically harm that the birds were causing. But we think it
is prudent. Our Department is committed to reducing the
population to that level, and we think it is consistent with
the bay policy to do that.
Mr. Gilchrest. What would that level of population be?
Mr. Hindman. Well, we are not real sure, but based upon our
experience when we had fewer than 500 birds in our State, we
didn't see the ecological impacts that the birds are causing.
But a pair of breeding swans that are aggressive during the
nesting season they can be a problem for citizens.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you reduced the population to 500, how
would you maintain them at 500?
Mr. Hindman. Well, we would have to maintain it through the
practices that we had employed until our Federal permit was
suspended, and that was a combination of egg addling and
removing adult birds through shooting or capture and
euthanasia. But, you know, if you ever got the population to
that level and it ever received unprotected status, I think
there would be enough incidental take of mute swans to prevent
the state wildlife agencies from having to go out and actually
control there. There would be enough incidental take to
increase mortality if it was unprotected to keep that
population at a low level.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, reducing the population of the mute
swan to about 500, which I am assuming now is a manageable
number, was that part of the mute swan statewide management
plan?
Mr. Hindman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the status of that plan now? Is it
put on hold as a result of this court decision?
Mr. Hindman. Well, the management plan has been approved by
our Secretary of Natural Resources and endorsed by our
Governor. Certain strategies in that plan and one of which
would be reducing the mute swan population is on hold because
we have no Federal depredation permit. We cannot practice swan
control activities.
Mr. Gilchrest. So that means you can't addle the eggs?
Mr. Hindman. No, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. What do you think caused the mute swan
population explosion?
Mr. Hindman. I think it was primarily the ban on the use of
lead shot for waterfowl hunting.
Mr. Gilchrest. What was that?
Mr. Hindman. I believe it was linked to the ban on the use
of lead shot for waterfowl hunting.
Mr. Gilchrest. Lead shot.
Mr. Hindman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. How is that? Now, there was about a 5-year
or so span of time where you couldn't hunt Canada geese. Would
that have anything to do with--now, you could hunt snow geese
but you couldn't hunt Canada geese. Fish and Wildlife Service
and then the State of Maryland, in concurrence, had that
moratorium on hunting. Would that have had any effect on the
mute swan explosion?
Mr. Hindman. Not really. Probably very little.
Mr. Gilchrest. How would the ban on lead shot be correlated
with the explosion of mute swans?
Mr. Hindman. Well, if you--I have worked here for about 30
years, and I can recall picking--frequently picking up mute
swans that had ingested lead shot, OK? And Dr. Scott Petri in
Ontario who has looked at the mute swan population in the Great
Lakes and if you look at mute swan populations in Europe and
other parts of the world where lead shot has been banned, you
have seen an increase in the mute swan population. I think the
conversion to non-toxic shot for waterfowl hunting has reduced
the amount of lead ingestion by mute swans. And it just so
happens that it coincides with the explosion of, if you will,
mute swans in Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would there be an increase in other
waterfowl because they didn't ingest the lead shot?
Mr. Hindman. Well, there are a lot of factors that affect
waterfowl populations, but waterfowl populations are much
healthier for not ingesting lead shot.
Mr. Gilchrest. What effect do mute swans have on tundra
swans?
Mr. Hindman. We don't know. We have a research project that
is currently underway to quantify that, but we do have
anecdotal reports from citizens and observations our staff have
made where mute swans have prevented the feeding and use of
protected codes, a shelter by tundra swans. I myself have
observed that, even recently. But we don't really know if the
lower number of tundra swans that we have in the State is
related to the increase in mute swan population, but we believe
that there may be some link there.
Mr. Gilchrest. So we do have a lower number of tundra swans
now.
Mr. Hindman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Than when? Than 10 years ago?
Mr. Hindman. It has declined in the last 25 years, and part
of that I believe is due to the degradation of the habitat, the
loss of submersed aquatic grasses. Some telemetry work that we
are doing on tundra swans suggests that they don't spend as
much time in Chesapeake Bay now and they will go and winter in
North Carolina.
Mr. Gilchrest. Does that have anything to do with the
temperature or it is the amount of bay grasses that are not
here?
Mr. Hindman. I think it is more related to habitat rather
than temperature.
Mr. Gilchrest. Habitat loss.
Mr. Hindman. Yes, habitat loss in terms of a decline in bay
grasses. And, again, we have anecdotal reports where citizens
who lived along the waterfront for years see their tundra swans
disappearing and they are being displaced by mute swans in
those tidal creeks.
Mr. Gilchrest. How much of the reduction in the population
of tundra swan is related to mute swans versus a general
degradation of their habitat for a whole host of reasons:
Pollution, development, you name it.
Mr. Hindman. I can't really answer that. We don't know the
impact of mute swans or the increase in mute swans and what it
has had on the numbers of tundra swans. We suspect that there
may be, in part, some link there.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you took a look at the overall loss of
bay grasses--now this is sort of I'm getting out of your
bailiwick and the Department of Natural Resources, more or
less, I think--if you looked at the total losses of bay grasses
in the Chesapeake Bay over the last 40 years, could you
categorize the causes for that loss, whether it is air
deposition, sewage treatment plants, motor boat activity in
shallow waters, agriculture and mute swans. How would you
classify the loss of bay grasses in all those arenas?
Mr. Hindman. Well, I think the science based upon the
current science, the losses of bay grasses, the primary loss
has been attributed to basically elevated levels of nutrients
that have contributed to apathetic growth on the plants that
has reduced photosynthesis and it stresses the plants and in
some cases causes mortality. By far that is the primary loss of
bay grasses, and then as suspended sediments as well. Mute
swans they eat a lot of grass at their current population
level, which is a very limited resource. We believe that that
level of grazing and removal of plants, particularly during the
spring when the plants are trying to reproduce, places an
additional stress on the plants. But is by far it pales in
comparison to the effects of elevated nutrients and suspended
solids.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is your, and I think you stated this to
some extent in your testimony, if there is no management plan
for mute swan population, what is the estimate of their
population by 2010 or even 2020? And then the consequences of
that to other native species, such as tundra swans, and then
the consequences of that to bay grass.
Mr. Hindman. Well, we expect the population to increase,
because we won't be controlling annual reproduction through egg
addling and we won't be removing adult swans. So our basic
population model for mute swans suggested that by 2010 the
population might approach 30,000 birds. At some point, and we
can't predict the future, but the population could crash
because of winter mortality or disease outbreak, but we would
expect it to increase, we would expect the problems that we are
seeing now with 4,000 birds to exacerbate. Currently,
transplanting efforts for bay grasses have to be fenced. Birds
are damaging bay grass beds and are feeding on these plants
before they have been able to form reproduction structures in
the spring. So the news would not be good, and we would expect
other conflicts with native wildlife.
Mr. Gilchrest. So the next 6 years we could go from 4,000,
approximately, to about 30,000?
Mr. Hindman. Keep in mind we have reduced the population
through our activities in the last 2 years, so that number
probably would not be as high. We can give you that number.
Mr. Gilchrest. If the present situation doesn't change in
regards to managing the mute swan population, they could, given
everything, all the other consequences, they could rise to
30,000?
Mr. Hindman. Or above.
Mr. Gilchrest. How many tundra swans winter in the
Chesapeake Bay?
Mr. Hindman. About 20,000.
Mr. Gilchrest. About 20,000.
Mr. Hindman. In Maryland.
Mr. Gilchrest. So the mute swans could exceed the tundra
swans.
Mr. Hindman. They could in time.
Mr. Gilchrest. But the mute swans wouldn't migrate out?
Mr. Hindman. No, sir. Most of them live within 30 miles of
where they were hatched.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have--based on your experience with
the Department of Natural Resources, do you have any
recommendation to us, the U.S. Congress, to help resolve this
issue?
Mr. Hindman. Well, that is beyond my scope of expertise.
Mr. Gilchrest. Does there need to be--
Mr. Hindman. We are in a situation now where we need a
Federal permit to do our mute swan control, and as I heard Mr.
Hogan state today, that they don't plan to do any further
environmental review. If the bird--if the State through some
modification of the treaty or amendment of the treaty or some
other legislative step would return primary management
authority back to the State, we could implement it and
implement the management plan and achieve our objectives.
Unlike starlings, mute swans are--we can control them. They are
large birds and they are not that many of them, and we can get
them under control at a manageable level.
Mr. Gilchrest. So given all the other problems with the
health of the bay, all the other human activities that cause a
degradation of the health of this estuary, at this point, mute
swans are a tiny part of that but they are in fact a factor
that has an effect on habitat and SAVs, but untouched,
unmanaged could be more significant in factor in the continuing
process of loss of habitat and degradation of the Chesapeake
Bay itself. Is that a fair summary of Maryland's perspective on
mute swans?
Mr. Hindman. Yes, sir, but I might point out that
concentrations of swans do significant damage at the local
level.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Hindman. And even though in the bay as a whole they may
not do damage on magnitude of pollutants or nutrients. At the
local level, they do a significant part--
Mr. Gilchrest. So in tidal basins or rivers, the Sassafras,
the Choptank, the Chester, the Nanocote, the Wicomico or I'm
not sure what they are in the Western Shore, the Patuxent, the
Middle River, Potomac or whatever, these tidal areas all have
selected protected tidal ponds throughout the length and
breadth of the Chesapeake Bay itself. So you get a few mute
swans in those tidal ponds that are not only habitat for tundra
swans, for other species of birds, but are spawning areas for
rock fish or a whole range of other species. The mute swan in
that very specific area could eliminate that for other species
of birds, reduce the habitat for fish spawning areas and
destroy the vegetation at one tidal pond and replicate it over
and over again.
Mr. Hindman. Yes. They can overgraze bay grasses at the
local level, and if you look at the distribution of where swans
are, they are located where you have the highest incidence of
bay grasses.
Mr. Gilchrest. One last question: Is it your understanding
right now, because the staff just handed me a little note here,
that says, ``The court injunction against U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service depredation permit did not include egg
addling.'' So is that your understanding, that you can continue
to egg addle or you can't continue to egg addle?
Mr. Hindman. In my conservation with Diane Pintz, who works
for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region V, she was--she
could not give me assurance that we would be able to obtain a
Federal depredation permit to addle eggs this spring. So there
is a lot of uncertainty.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Mr. Hogan?
Mr. Hogan. Yes. I can add to that, that our interpretation
is it does include egg addling.
Mr. Gilchrest. It does.
Mr. Hogan. It does, and so we are not issuing any permits
for either egg addling or any direct control.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right. I am going to read something that
they just handed me. I think after the hearing we can probably
get together and resolve this issue. But the language is,
``Furthermore, issuance of an injunction prohibiting Maryland
from killing any mute swans this year would not preclude the
State from pursuing non-legal population techniques, such as
egg addling, which they already tend to use as part of an
integrated management plan and which has proven to be effective
in the past.'' But I think we can pursue this further, get the
appropriate number of people on the phone or in the same room
so we could clear that up.
Is there anything else that any of the witnesses want to
say or contribute, comment?
Mr. Hogan. If I could, Mr. Chairman--
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hogan. --just in closing. I think you have pointed out
that or it has been pointed out in testimony that mute swans
are a problem but it is a question of how big of a problem. I
think it is a problem that is fairly significant now and is
going to continue to get worse, and we have missed our
opportunity, potentially, to control them. And I do think this
is an issue that is fairly urgent, and I just wanted to--and I
think you are aware of that but that is certainly our opinion
and certainly don't want to speak for my colleagues on the
panel, but I do feel--or we do feel that it is an urgent issue
and one that needs addressing. We, unfortunately, have
exhausted just about everything we can do but certainly don't
take that as any opinion on our part that we do not think that
this is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed and
rectified.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. And we will continue to
pursue this. We appreciate the information that we have
gathered here this morning from all of you. And as we continue
to understand the relationship of human activity and our need
for infrastructure and nature's own system and its need for an
infrastructure, we are going to try to create a system of laws
that provides compatibility between the two. And we will do
that with the best available science, we will do that with a
certain sense of ethics toward all the living creatures that
there are under our jurisdiction and there are many, but we
will pursue this with an open mind, with a sense of tolerance
for other opinions and with great respect for the living
resource and the creatures that live on it. And your testimony
here this morning has been extremely helpful, and I want to
thank you all for it, and have a pleasant day in Annapolis.
Our next panel is Mr. David Pardoe, Member of the Board of
Directors, National Audubon Society; Dr. Elizabeth Stallman,
Wildlife Scientist, the Human Society of the United States; Dr.
Rollin Sparrowe, President, Wildlife Management Institute; the
Honorable Gerald W. Winegrad, Vice President for Policy,
American Bird Conservancy.
I want to thank you all for coming here, this is the
afternoon now, and for your patience with all of our questions.
We look forward to your testimony to try to understand this
intriguing, most wonderful, complex ecological question about
which species stays and which species goes. And I think the
debate thus far and will continue to be of a high plain for us
in a position to make a decision as policymakers. We take very
seriously and we know the issues are complex, people have
varying degrees of perspectives and varying degrees of emotion
when it comes to these issues. When we view these things from
the Subcommittee level, our focus is the ecological system and
what is best for that ecosystem. For example, in this case much
of the conversation has surrounded the Chesapeake Bay. Many
different exotic birds but mute swans in particular. To sustain
an ecosystem it is my judgment that you can't look at a single
species but the big picture is vital.
And as we assume and accumulate more information about
these dramatic ecological systems and how they evolve and
change over ions of time and a quick snapshot of one human
lifetime, we try to make appropriate judgments, which we will
do in this situation--well, I hope we make the appropriate
judgment in this situation. We will try to make the appropriate
judgment. But your testimony here this morning will be a
significant part of that decisionmaking process. We look
forward to your testimony, and, Mr. Pardoe, you may begin
first, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAVID H. PARDOE, MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Mr. Pardoe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of all
of our time, I would ask that the written testimony be made a
part of the record, and I will not read it in its entirety.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Mr. Pardoe. My name is David Pardoe. I am a member of the
Board of the National Audubon Society, and I Chair the Board of
Audubon in Maryland and D.C., which is the Maryland State
Program for National Audubon. On behalf of the National Audubon
Society's more than one million members and supporters, I am
pleased to be here today to discuss the need for improved
control of invasive mute swans populations in the northeastern
United States as well as other invasive non-native bird species
that are causing harm to native migratory birds.
The mission of the National Audubon Society is to conserve
and restore ecosystems with a focus upon birds and other
wildlife and the habitat which sustains them. The Migratory
Bird Treaty Act has been interpreted to provide protection for
a human-introduced species. We believe that that should be
corrected to exclude human-introduced species. This, we
believe, has been the interpretation in the past of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act as the American Ornithological Union
checklist of human-introduced species has been used in the past
to exclude protection from those species.
Some of these species are detrimental to Native American
bird species. House sparrows and starlings are particularly
disruptive to Native American cavity-nesting birds, such as the
three species of bluebirds, tree swallows and various species
of woodpeckers. Purple martins and great-crusted flycatchers
are other cavity-nesting species that are affected. Pigeons are
primarily a human health and a property nuisance problem, but
they have been controlled for many years. The mute swan is a
particular problem for the Chesapeake Bay, as is the human-
introduced nutria, which, of course, is not a bird but a
rodent.
The mute swan is a resident year-round bird that consumes
bay vegetation, so-called SAVs. It is a large, aggressive bird
resident during the breeding season and is destructive to
native nesting black skimmers, least terns, black ducks, among
other bird species. The health of the Chesapeake Bay is
dependent upon healthy aquatic grasses. We are spending large
amounts of the taxpayers' money to attempt to restore the bay's
SAVs while a human-introduced non-native species is depleting
the SAVs. SAVs support the life of the bay. SAVs support the
life of fish, of Chesapeake Bay blue crabs, of wintering diving
ducks and wintering native tundra swan. The mute swan is of
course only one factor in the threats to SAVs and threats to
the health of the bay, but it is one more factor when the bay
is struggling for its own ecological existence. The continuance
of a large population of mute swans is at odds with the
Chesapeake Bay restoration effort.
It is painful for the National Audubon Society to support
the population control, that is killing of any bird, but it is
also painful for us to watch the decline of the Chesapeake Bay,
to watch the decline of black skimmers and least terns, to
watch the decline of diving ducks, to watch the decline of blue
crabs, of yellow perch and of other fish species in the
Chesapeake. We support our native swan, the tundra, and we
support the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay in our
support for the exclusion of human-introduced species from the
protection of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be
glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of David H. Pardoe follows:]
Statement of Dave Pardoe, Member, Board of Directors,
National Audubon Society
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Dave Pardoe. I have been a member of National Audubon
Society's Board of Directors for more than six years. Audubon's mission
is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other
wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the
earth's biological diversity. Our national network of community-based
nature centers and chapters, scientific and educational programs, and
advocacy on behalf of areas sustaining important bird populations,
engage millions of people of all ages and backgrounds in positive
conservation experiences.
On behalf of National Audubon Society's more than one million
members and supporters, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
need for improved control of invasive Mute Swan populations in the
Northeastern United States, as well as other invasive non-native bird
species that are causing harm to native migratory birds. I will provide
testimony regarding our position on control of invasive bird species in
the U.S., and how they should be managed, the obstacles standing in the
way of appropriate management of these birds, and recommendations to
address these obstacles.
Before I begin my testimony, I would like to thank the Chairman for
his support on a wide range of conservation issues, including efforts
to control invasive species, and support for protection of Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. I would
also like to thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity
to testify today.
Invasive species are one of the key factors in the decline of many
migratory bird species. Throughout the nation, many threatened bird
species are imperiled by invasive species, and invasive species have
been partly or wholly responsible for many bird extinctions since 1800.
Thus, as part of the program to achieve its mission, Audubon has
consistently supported efforts to eradicate invasive species for the
benefit of native birds and wildlife.
Audubon has established a position in support of efforts by both
state and national natural resource agencies to control invasive Mute
Swans. Audubon filed comments on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(FWS) draft environmental assessment on the management of Mute Swans
(Cygnus olor) in the Atlantic Flyway. Audubon supported the proposed
action in the draft environmental assessment for Integrated Population
Management of Mute Swans, including lethal methods to reduce the
exploding Mute Swan population in the east by 67%. Audubon scientists
support the culling of adult Mute Swans as a necessary measure to
reduce or eradicate Mute Swan populations and thereby reduce the damage
to the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has exhaustively
studied and documented the problem and published the Mute Swan Task
Force Report on their web site. The public has had many opportunities
to comment. The scientific and birding community supports mute swan
removal.
In a recent case, we also urged the United States Court of Appeals
to uphold the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit because:
a) Mute Swans displace and adversely affect native birds such as
Tundra Swans, Least Terns, Black Skimmers, Common Terns, and Forster's
Terns and may affect many species of waterfowl, such as Black Ducks;
b) Mute Swans consume large amounts of submerged aquatic
vegetation;
c) Mute Swans are non-native, invasive species that were
introduced into Maryland in the 1960's; and
d) Mute Swan populations will continue to expand unless adults are
culled, and such expansion would result in even more damage to other
species.
Bay grass recovery is important to water quality and Bay resources.
Mute Swans consume large amounts of Bay grasses, perhaps as much as 12
million pounds a year. These grasses are the subject of intense
recovery efforts under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and the Bay
Restoration Plan. Millions of dollars in public funds are devoted to
their recovery. The grasses are essential to sustain the Bay's Blue
Crab population (its most valuable seafood), for many other aquatic
resources, for water quality and for native species of waterfowl.
As a responsible national conservation group dedicated to bird
conservation, Audubon supports the FWS permit and the DNR removal
efforts for Mute Swans. The Mute Swan is an introduced invasive species
that threatens native birds and their habitat such as bay grasses.
Addling and oiling eggs will not reduce populations and lethal removal
is necessary to reduce or eradicate Mute Swan populations.
We have supported a nationwide Depredation Order for this exotic
species with a goal of the elimination of wild Mute Swan populations.
There is no biological basis for supporting continued populations of
Mute Swans in the wild while there are sound ecological reasons to
eliminate all wild populations. FWS should work to attain that goal in
the long-term, and not support the maintenance of a wild population of
an invasive species.
We believe such reductions/elimination are necessary because:
1) Next to habitat loss and alteration, invasive species have been
identified as the greatest threat to birds in the U.S. Up to 46% of the
plants and animals Federally listed as endangered species have been
negatively impacted by invasive species. The Mute Swan is a large
invasive species that has demonstrably negative impacts on other
species, including native birds;
2) The large, aggressive Mute Swan has attacked and killed other
birds and has extirpated breeding colonies of water birds. In Maryland,
as noted in the Maryland Mute Swan Task Force Report, ``One of the more
serious conflicts between Mute Swans and native Maryland wildlife
occurred in the early 1990's, when a molting flock of about 600 to1,000
nonbreeding Mute Swans excluded Black Skimmers (Rynchops niger), a
state-threatened species; Least Terns (Sterna antillarum), classified
as a species in need of conservation; and Common Terns (Sterna hirundo)
from using the oyster shell bars and beaches in the Tar Bay area of
Dorchester County for nesting sites.'' Tar Bay was the only remaining
natural nesting site for Least Terns and Black Skimmers in the
Chesapeake Bay;
3) Mute Swans impact other swans and waterfowl. According to the
Maryland Task Force Report, ``Mute Swans are believed to pose a
significant threat to the well-being of the Chesapeake Bay tundra swan
population (W.J.L. Sladen, Swan Research Program at Airlie, VA, pers.
commun.).'' In a Rhode Island study, one pair of Mute Swans vigorously
defended a five acre pond, preventing use by other waterfowl (NY DEC
1993). In central New York, three pairs of captive Mute Swans killed at
least 50 ducks and geese (mostly young birds) on a small zoo pond over
a 20-month period (NY DEC 1993). Such behavior may be a factor in
inhibiting the recovery of such native species as Black Ducks. In
addition, Mute Swans consume SAV preferred by many native waterfowl
species; and
4) Mute Swans consume huge amounts of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
(SAV). George Fenwick's doctoral dissertation (1983) on Mute Swans in
the Chesapeake Bay showed that the male Mute Swan consumed 34.6% of
their body weight per day and females consumed 43.4%. Based on Dr.
Fenwick's study, the Maryland Task Force Report notes that ``Assuming
that an adult/subadult mute swan consumes an average of 3.789 kg wet
weight of SAV per day (Willey and Halla 1972), a population of 4,000
swans has the potential to consume more than 12 million pounds of SAV
annually (L. Hindman, MD DNR). Consumption of immature seeds, removal
of biomass before plant maturation, and uprooting of whole plants may
have a very negative effect on SAV with minimal consumption (M. Naylor,
MD DNR, pers. commun).'' Scientists at the Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center have recently concluded that the introduced swan's diet is
composed nearly entirely of vegetation during all seasons of the year.
Mute Swans relied heavily on SAV with Widgeon Grass (Ruppia maritima)
constituting 56 % and Eel Grass (Zostera marina) 43 % of their food.
See (Perry et al 2000). These scientists noted localized depletions
(eat-outs) of SAV during the growing period. The FWS Draft EA notes
that the current population of Chesapeake Bay Mute Swans consumes
almost 10 percent of the total biomass of submerged aquatic vegetation
in the Bay. These grasses are critical to many other avian species, to
recovery of fisheries (Blue Crabs), and to the general water quality of
the Bay and other water bodies.
To reduce or stabilize populations of Mute Swans, adults must be
removed. Dr. Scott A. Petrie is Research Director of the Long Point
Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Fund. He has authored a research paper
on Mute Swans and he has published other work showing that Mute Swans
have grown by 10% to 21% a year on the shores of Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario, despite egg addling and oiling. In his paper published
February 2002 in Birding, he finds that addling eggs does not work to
reduce or stabilize populations of Mute Swans and that adults must be
removed. Rhode Island began a control program of egg addling and
pricking in 1979; despite the fact that 9,378 eggs have been destroyed
in 1,629 nests over a period of 22 years, the population increased by
over 500% (Allin, personal communication). Population models indicate
that the most effective way to reduce population growth for a long-
lived species, such as the Mute Swan, is to reduce adult survival rates
(e.g., Schmutz et al. 1996) Schmutz, J.A., R.F. Rockwell, M.R.
Peterson. 1997. Relative effects of survival and reproduction on the
population dynamics of emperor geese. J. Wildl. Mange. 61(1):191-201.
Based on the best science obtainable, the take of adult Mute Swans
is essential to prevent a substantial escalation in the Mute Swan
population and the damage they cause to native avian species, SAV, and
water quality. Without aggressive efforts to control and eliminate Mute
Swans, the Mute Swan population will continue to rapidly increase. The
Mute Swan population in the Chesapeake Bay has grown from 5 escaped
birds in 1962 to about 4,500, including birds in Virginia and Maryland.
This problem is not just limited to Mute Swans nor limited to the
state of Maryland or to the nation's eastern coastline. For example,
the European Starling has had widespread demonstrable negative impacts
on native migratory birds. Although estimates vary, it is commonly
believed that a total of about 100 individuals were released into
Central Park in New York City in 1890 and 1891. The entire North
American population, now numbering more than 200 million and
distributed across the continent, is derived from these few birds. This
is arguably the most successful avian introduction to this continent.
Unfortunately, the European Starling offers intense competition for
nesting cavities and has had a detrimental effect on many native
cavity-nesting species.
A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in Hill v. Norton found that the strict
language of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act cannot be read to exclude
from protection by the Act the invasive Mute Swan. This decision limits
the authority of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to manage
and control Mute Swans and other invasive bird populations for the
benefit of native migratory birds. The decision is also inconsistent
with a longstanding common interpretation of the law among professional
biologists, environmental professionals, and agency officials in both
the United States and in countries that are signatories of the treaties
underlying the MBTA that invasive, non-native birds are not meant to be
protected by the Act, and instead they are a threat to the hundreds of
other migratory bird species that are protected by the law.
National Audubon Society supports a small, rifle-shot change to the
MBTA that would make clear that invasive birds are not protected by the
MBTA and can be controlled by state and national wildlife agencies for
the benefit of native birds and wildlife. In offering this support,
however, I want to make clear two caveats that are very important to
consider if a legislative proposal comes before this committee:
1. The term ``invasive'' should be carefully defined and limited
to birds that are part of a human-introduced non-native population that
actively causes ecological harm or outcompetes native migratory birds
or other wildlife. National Audubon Society is concerned that a
broader, more inclusive term, such as ``non-native'' would authorize
lethal control of migratory bird species that naturally expand their
range or naturally change their migratory routes in search of better
habitat. For example, if climate change were to cause habitat changes
or modifications of other natural cues that lead birds to new areas or
even to new countries, we believe these natural changes would not be an
appropriate or sufficient rationale to justify elimination of
protections under the MBTA. We also stress the need to focus on
``human-introduced'' species as this would be a clear indicator of
unnatural invasion of a species. We also believe there must be a
distinction made between those species that are causing no harm to
native birds and wildlife and those that are. As noted by the National
Invasive Species Council, only a small percentage of non-native species
cause serious problems in their new environment and are collectively
known as ``invasive.'' The Council defines an ``invasive species'' as a
species that is: 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under
consideration; and 2) whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause,
economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. The National
Invasive Species Management Plan focuses on those non-native species
that cause or may cause significant negative impacts and do not provide
an equivalent benefit to society.
2. Any change to the MBTA should in no way diminish FWS authority,
jurisdiction, or enforcement responsibilities with respect to indirect
take of non-target migratory bird species that may be impacted by
actions to control invasive birds. Although it may be necessary in some
circumstances to use lethal control methods to manage populations of
invasive species, some lethal control methods can have significant
ancillary impacts on native migratory birds. For example, efforts to
poison invasive European Starlings have had such negative impacts. Some
poisons take days to take effect, leaving a risk that a predatory bird,
like a Sharp-shinned Hawk, will eat the poisonous bird and become
poisoned. Poison banquets left out on the ground for a target species
can attract and kill a range of non-target migratory bird species. Just
as the Fish and Wildlife Service exercised its authority to issue a
permit under the MBTA on Anacapa Island in California to regulate the
poisoning of invasive black rats that could impact non-target migratory
bird species, the Fish and Wildlife Service should exercise its
responsibilities under the MBTA to ensure efforts to control invasive
species do not violate the terms and conditions of the Act and its
judicial interpretations and implementing regulations. Therefore we
strongly urge this Committee to ensure that any changes to the MBTA
that may be considered to increase the authority of state and national
resource agencies to control invasive bird species do not in any way
abrogate Fish and Wildlife Service authority, jurisdiction, or
enforcement responsibilities with respect to indirect take of non-
target migratory bird species that may occur as a result of actions
aimed at invasive species control.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, invasive bird species like the Mute Swan
and the European Starling have had demonstrable negative impacts on
native migratory birds throughout America. The recent court decision
extending the protections of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to invasive
species that are harmful to a wide range of birds protected under the
MBTA was inconsistent with longstanding common interpretations of the
MBTA by resource professionals and limits the authority of natural
resource agencies to implement proper and necessary control programs
for the benefit of native birds and wildlife. National Audubon Society
supports a small, rifle-shot change to the MBTA that would make clear
that invasive birds are not protected by the MBTA and can be controlled
by state and national wildlife agencies for the benefit of native birds
and wildlife. In considering any legislative recommendations of this
type, we urge the Committee to ensure that the definition of
``invasive'' bird species is limited to those that are introduced by
human actions and cause significant environmental harm in a manner
consistent with the definition used by the National Invasive Species
Council, and we also strongly encourage the Committee to ensure that
any such legislative changes do not abrogate Fish and Wildlife Service
responsibilities to protect migratory birds that may be harmed by
control actions aimed at invasive species.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pardoe.
Dr. Stallman
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH L. STALLMAN, WILDLIFE SCIENTIST, THE
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
Dr. Stallman. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, for the
opportunity to present the views of the Humane Society of the
United States regarding the management of mute swans, other
non-native birds and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. I am Dr.
Bette Stallman, wildlife scientist with the Humane Society of
the U.S. This testimony was prepared by Dr. John Grandy, the
Senior Vice President for Wildlife Programs at the HSUS. Dr.
Grandy could not be here to present this testimony today. I am
presenting this testimony on behalf of our more than eight
million members and constituents.
Dr. Grandy, who prepared this testimony, is trained as a
waterfowl--
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you pull that mike a little closer?
Dr. Stallman. Oh, I am sorry. Dr. Grandy, who prepared this
testimony, is trained as a waterfowl biologist, and he has
broad experience with the ecology and management of waterfowl
and with Chesapeake Bay vegetation.
The Humane Society of the United States is dedicated to the
protection of all animals, including all wildlife, native or
otherwise. If wildlife managers and scientists cannot
demonstrate compelling justification, lethal control of any
animal, native or non-native, should not be undertaken. I think
it is important to keep in mind that, as you suggested earlier,
ecosystems are always in flux. They are not rigid, stable
systems, they should not be thought of as such. Expansion and
movement of wildlife populations is a natural phenomenon that
occurs with and without human intervention. Attempts to
determine the natural state of an ever-changing ecosystem
quickly dissolve into arbitrary discussions of how one chooses
to define natural, and ultimately they become debates over what
is the desired state of an ecosystem.
For example, many of the wildlife--the same wildlife
managers calling for lethal control of mute swans are silent on
the subject of the purposeful introductions of non-native ring-
necked pheasants, Chukar partridges, which are both native to
parts of Eurasia, where such introductions are desired by
recreational hunters and other constituents. I don't mean to
suggest that we should eliminate pheasants and Chukars, I only
wish to emphasize the politics and the values behind wildlife
management decisions as well as a reliance at times on a type
of politically expedient pseudo-science that weakens science
and the wildlife management profession.
Regarding mute swans on Chesapeake Bay, the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation's recent October 2003 report, which I attached to
our testimony, on nitrogen pollution reminds us, as was
mentioned earlier, that nitrogen pollution is the most
significant problem facing the bay. Nitrogen enters the bay
from sewage treatment plants that are outdated, agriculture and
other sources. The increase in nitrogen leads to an increase in
algae. That leads to a decrease in water clarity and a decrease
in the sunlight that can reach the submerged aquatic
vegetations upon which so many other organisms in the bay
depend. Ultimately, the algae decays and this leads to
decreased levels of dissolved oxygen in bay waters. This report
focused on nitrogen coming from sewage treatment plants, but it
also notes that agriculture is the number one source of
nitrogen in the bay.
In addition to nitrogen, phosphorous is the other primary
pollutant, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's ``State
of the Bay 2003'' report. Water clarity is affected by both
nitrogen and phosphorous and also by sediment which washes into
the bay as a result of land use activities that increase
erosion.
Mute swans are not mentioned in the ``State of the Bay
2003'' report by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which logically
focuses on those factors with well-documented impacts that are
clearly of greatest concern in restoring the bay. Evidence
presented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by the
Maryland DNR regarding impacts of mute swans on submerged
aquatic vegetation and regarding aggression toward native
waterfowl is primarily anecdotal, not peer-reviewed or is peer-
reviewed but is based on research in other regions or on other
continents. The DNR has said on a number of occasions that at
current levels the impact of mute swans bay-wide is negligible
or pales in comparison to these other factors, such as
pollutants and sediment.
With respect to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, we urge you
to retain mute swans on the list of protected species.
Excluding these swans won't fix the bay. Exclusion of any
migratory bird species from the coverage of the MBTA may
denigrate the purpose and intent of the Act and may set an
unfortunate precedent of decreasing or removing MBTA's
protections based on whether a bird population is in vogue.
Exclusion of the mute swan from the MBTA is also simply
unnecessary because management actions can be undertaken under
the authority of the MBTA.
We commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your interest in the
Chesapeake Bay and its still incredible resources and
potential. We urge you to do everything in your power to solve
the major problems identified by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
and other organizations which are clearly affecting the bay
negatively. At the same time, we urge you to oppose any effort
to kill mute swans or to remove the needed protection of the
mute swan under the MBTA. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grandy submitted for the
record follows:]
Statement of John W. Grandy, Ph.D., Senior Vice President,
Wildlife Programs, The Humane Society of the United States
Thank you Chairman Gilchrest, and members of the Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, for the opportunity to
present the views of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
regarding the management of mute swans and other non-native birds, and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). I am Dr. Bette Stallman, Wildlife
Scientist, with The HSUS.
First, I want to explain that this testimony was prepared by Dr.
John W. Grandy, Senior Vice President for Wildlife of The Humane
Society of the United States, on behalf of our President Paul G. Irwin,
whom you invited to this hearing. I assisted Dr. Grandy in the
preparation of the testimony and, although Dr. Grandy could not be here
to present the testimony, I am doing so on his behalf. This testimony
is presented on behalf of The Humane Society of the United States and
our more 8 million members and constituents.
I should also note that Dr. Grandy has broad and relevant
experience with ecological issues, the mute swan, and waterfowl in the
Chesapeake Bay. He grew up on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, studied
aquatic vegetation under Fran Uhler and other experts at the then-Fish
and Wildlife Service's Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in the mid-
1960's, and went on to become a waterfowl biologist and an
internationally recognized expert on black ducks, a premier species of
the Chesapeake Bay.
First, it is important to keep in mind that ecosystems are always
in flux and should not be thought of as rigid, stable systems. The
expansion and movement of wildlife populations into new regions is a
natural phenomenon that occurs with or without intentional or
unintentional human involvement. In short, there is no right state and
there is no benchmark year against which we measure ecological
correctness. Indeed, as the facts surrounding the mute swan illustrate
all too well, attempts to determine the ``natural state'' of an ever-
changing ecosystem can quickly dissolve into an arbitrary discussion of
how one chooses to define ``natural'' and ultimately becomes a debate
over what is the ``desired'' state of the ecosystem--desired by those
holding the most political power.
The HSUS is dedicated to the protection of all animals. We strongly
support the lives and welfare of all animals whether native or non-
native. All deserve protection, humane treatment, and freedom from
cruel and abusive treatment at the hands of people. If managers or
scientists cannot demonstrate compelling justification, lethal control
of any animal, native or otherwise, should not be undertaken. The rule
must be that all resident animals in a natural habitat deserve, and
must be accorded, sensitive humane treatment and stewardship. Indeed,
we must have a new paradigm for dealing with the stewardship of
wildlife on the continent--not a philosophy based on year of residence,
but a philosophy centered on our need to treat all wild living
creatures with the compassion and respect that they deserve.
This new paradigm is required by ourselves and our new world. There
is no turning back the ecological or chronological clock for North
America or the world. Most agriculture utilizes non-native species.
Plant nurseries are dependent on non-native species. The ubiqitousness
of so-called non-native species grows daily, as does the homogeneity of
the world. Indeed, the hunter-supported wildlife profession which is
here testifying piously on the alleged destructiveness of a few
thousand swans in the nation's largest estuary is utterly silent on the
subject of the introduction of non-native pheasants or Chukar
partridges (both native to parts of Eurasia) where such introductions
are desired by their hunter constituents. I should quickly point out
that we are not suggesting that we want pheasants or other so-called
non-native residents eliminated from the United States. This only
emphasizes the political nature of a decisionmaking process concerning
non-native species that is all too often supported on the basis of
politically expedient alleged science. This sort of pseudoscience
weakens both science and the integrity of the wildlife management
profession.
Indeed, nowhere is the generalized case that I make for sanity in
our relation to non-native species and our opposition to pseudoscience,
more clear than with the mute swan in the Chesapeake Bay. So let me
take a few minutes, based on the ecological history of the Bay and my
extensive experience and love affair with the Bay, to discuss the
ecological factors which bring it to today's state.
First, I should start with the most recent published materials of
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. In their recent reports on the declining
state of the Bay and the causes for its decline, they never mention the
few thousand mute swans in the Chesapeake Bay. Specifically, the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation's October 2003 report on nitrogen pollution
(which is attached to this testimony) reminds us that ``nitrogen
pollution is the most significant problem facing the Bay.'' Nitrogen
entering the Bay from sewage treatment plant--effluent, agriculture,
air deposition and urban runoff, and other sources stimulates
``blooms'' (population explosions) of microscopic plants called
algae''. (The) algae decrease water clarity, blocking sunlight from
underwater Bay grasses. When algae die, they sink to the bottom, and
the bacterial process of decay removes oxygen from the water.'' Though
this report focuses on nitrogen from sewage treatment plants, it notes
that ``(a)griculture contributes 42% of the nitrogen loading and is the
largest source of nitrogen pollution to the Bay.'' In addition to
nitrogen, phosphorous is the other primary pollutant, according to the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation's ``State of the Bay 2003'' report. Water
clarity is affected by both of these nutrients and also by sediment
washing into the Bay as a result of various land use practices that
increase erosion, such as logging and residential and commercial
development. Another notable problem facing the Bay is the loss of
wetland habitat due to rising sea levels and to illegal or unregulated
activities. In its discussion of underwater grasses, the State of the
Bay 2003 report indicates that ``new grass beds--have struggled from
the stress of increased pollution and sediment delivered by heavy
rainwater runoff.''
Mute swans are not implicated by the State of the Bay 2003 report,
which logically focuses on those factors with well-documented impacts
that are clearly of greatest concern for the Bay.
There is simply no way that these few swans could be accused of
nearly anything in an ecological sense on the Bay. Mute swans are
simply the most politically impotent animal there is to blame for the
Bay's deterioration. Let me elaborate.
Nearly 30 years ago, I spent a number of summers as an employee of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
studying aquatic vegetation on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. Even
then people were talking of the decreasing abundance of vegetation and
its impact on the bay and its waterfowl populations. But to be sure,
the beds of aquatic vegetation, Vallisineria, Potomogeton, Najais, and
Ruppia, et al., were massive compared to today. These beds of submerged
aquatics are not, and were not, the victims of a few to a few thousand
mute swans. Rather, they are the victims of the very things the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation points to: runoff, nitrogen and phosphorous
pollution from poor and inadequate sewage treatment plants and from
agricultural and residential sources, turbulence caused by siltation
and boats, and massive erosion from farms and home building. It is
absurd for us to sit here and consider harming mute swans because of
the deteriorating state of the Bay.
Frankly, we should be grateful for the beauty of swans, geese,
ducks and other wildlife. Of course, they eat submerged aquatic
vegetation--that is their preferred food. But they should not be killed
because they eat it. Rather, we should focus on the things we can do to
restore the Bay and preserve the species that live there. Killing swans
is not on any realistic list.
I ask you to look at another relevant example of the Bay's
troubles, with somewhat similar overtones and interrelationships. In
the mid- to late-1950's, the most common breeding duck around the
Chesapeake Bay was the black duck. Today, the black duck has been
largely eliminated as an eastern shore breeder and has been replaced by
the mallard. Pen reared mallards for many years have been released in
Maryland to be shot by hunters, while escapees have lived to breed and
compete with black ducks. But black ducks are now largely gone. Does
that mean that we should start a vendetta against mallards breeding in
Maryland? Of course not.
Mallards occupied eastern Maryland largely because of habitat
changes. Black ducks disappeared because they are largely a forest duck
that does not adapt well to people. As people destroyed Bay shores and
lake edges for homes and agriculture, the black duck's range was
restricted to suitable parts of the Northeastern United States and the
eastern Canadian boreal forest. Mallards were not to blame for the
reduction in black ducks any more than mute swans are responsible for
the reduction in submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay,
although both changes are truly regrettable.
With respect to the MBTA, we urge you to retain the mute swan on
the list of protected species. Excluding the mute swan from the
protection of the MBTA will neither solve the perceived depredation
issues nor give greater protection to the environment. Moreover,
exclusion of any migratory avian species from the coverage of the MBTA
will denigrate the very purpose and intent of the Act and set the
unfortunate precedent of permitting the diminution of the protections
of the MBTA based on whether a bird population is ``in vogue.''
Exclusion of the mute swan from the MBTA is also unnecessary as
justifiable management actions are envisioned and permissible through
the strictures of the MBTA, which examines and fuses the welfare of the
particular avian species with the welfare of the supporting
environment. Furthermore, the mute swan is now a resident migratory
bird on this continent and has broad public support; it deserves and is
entitled to the protections afforded by the MBTA.
We commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your interest in the Chesapeake
Bay and its still incredible resources and potential. We urge you to do
everything in your power to solve the major problems identified by the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, ourselves, and others, which are clearly
affecting the Bay negatively. At the same time, we urge you to oppose
any effort to kill mute swans or to remove the needed protection of the
mute swan under the MBTA.
Thank you.
______
[NOTE: The Chesapeake Bay Foundation Report has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Stallman.
Dr. Sparrowe.
STATEMENT OF ROLLIN D. SPARROWE, PRESIDENT,
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
Dr. Sparrowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here and offer mainly some perspectives from my long experience
with migratory birds. I am not going to try to duplicate the
very detailed testimony that you have had from both government
and non-government so far.
I have experience in the past as Chief of Migratory Bird
Management with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other
administrative positions. I was with the Service for more than
22 years, and since that time my 12 years outside in which I
have learned a lot more as a citizen, having a long history
with government and I now have some different perspectives on
things, I have continued to have a great deal to do with
various types of migratory bird activities.
Mr. Gilchrest. You are saying you learned more outside of
government than inside of government?
Dr. Sparrowe. I have a different perspective on life and
government now that I have been outside for 12 years for a
variety of reasons. That would take a long time to discuss.
Mr. Gilchrest. So there is life outside of government.
Dr. Sparrowe. Yes, there is. I still believe in government,
and I have great respect for the people who work there in
public service. My understanding, personally, of MBTA
throughout my career is that it was not an Act to deal with
exotic birds but rather to provide a sound framework for
protection of native migratory species moving between the
countries involved in the treaties and particularly to provide
some boundaries for human use of those resources.
In my experience in the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
focus was understood to be on maintaining populations of native
species and avoiding unnecessary losses to human activities.
Generally, not a direct and literal translation of protection
for individual birds unless protection of individual birds was
necessary often to make a point that widespread abuse could
really have a population impact.
One of my most unusual experiences I think has some bearing
on this. It is an experience since I left government. The Fish
and Wildlife Service and others involved in concerns over the
impact of Arctic nesting white geese on their habitats during
migration led to consideration of what to do about these
habitat problems when its cause was an apparent overabundance
of birds. Now, these are not exotic birds, they are protected
under MBTA, but the situation was similar. There was
considerable evidence that the impact of these birds in great
numbers congregating in migration was doing such damage to
their habitat that it may not sustain them over time. So I
assembled an international stakeholders group that included
pretty much all of those who have testified here to assess the
need to reduce numbers of Arctic nesting geese as a method of
avoiding further damage to the habitat with the long-term goal
of habitat recovery.
The stakeholders, in general, while not in full agreement
about the methods, concluded that long-term habitat concerns
and evidence of a rapid growth rate in the goose flocks
warranted direct reduction of populations to protect the
habitat. We, as stakeholders, did not need definitive cause and
effect data to recommend action. In fact, many people thought
that we had waited--we and the Canadians had waited too long to
address a problem that we saw coming, which has some bearing on
your questions about when have we known about some of these
problems coming along.
I happen to be an owner of a marsh near Centreville,
Maryland for the last 24 years, a hunting marsh, and in my
entire time there we have not had mute swan problems on it, but
the general knowledge and concern in Chesapeake Bay about mute
swans has been pretty common talk among people. It is just
another influence that we didn't think we needed.
This does not seem to be a situation envisioned by the
drafters of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, nor by the managers
for many decades thereafter who have exercised the
responsibility of bird protection. Exotics, in general, are
something we know in our society now are becoming an increasing
problem and we need very much to anticipate problems and take
action when we can and not wait too long until the problem is
insurmountable.
Control of wildlife that are more abundant than people want
in areas where people are is a growing problem, probably the
biggest problem facing wildlife management in America, and it
has affected a lot of species, both exotic and non-exotic. Some
very common species are in that situation. So the major
question is how do we respond to this? Modification of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act is certainly one clear approach.
There have been a lot of people in my career who have wanted to
reinterpret the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. I think from a long-
standing observer it is quite unfortunate that we are
continuing the epidemic of court interpretation of laws and
management of resources, and that seems to be what has happened
in this case. If we move to amend the act, it really should be
a pretty surgical approach that is very carefully designed to
solve the specific problems with exotics and avoid expanding it
into the desires of others who may have other agendas for the
act.
So I would simply conclude by thanking you for the chance
to be here and acknowledging this as an important problem that
has some parallels elsewhere in wildlife management in America.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Rollin D. Sparrowe follows:]
Statement of Rollin D. Sparrowe, President,
Wildlife Management Institute
Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to offer testimony on administration of
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), based on my previous experience
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for more than twenty years, and
my direct involvement as a professional conservationist working outside
government, working closely with migratory bird management.
From 1984 to 1989 I was Chief of Migratory Bird Management with the
Service, and, from 1989 to 1991, was Deputy Assistant Director with
oversight for migratory bird programs, including refuge management, law
enforcement, and the Duck Stamp program. I was responsible for
development of annual hunting season recommendations and held public
meetings and listening sessions with the state wildlife agencies and
the public. From 1984 through the late 1990s I was extensively involved
with the U.S. and Canada in a dialogue seeking to amend the Migratory
Bird Treaty to legally recognize the need for far-northern residents to
be allowed to take migratory birds for food and other necessities
outside the guidelines of the original treaty. I served on a task force
that helped two Service directors pave the way for responsible
amendment first with Canada, then Mexico.
During that same period I had a lead role in drafting the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, and in its implementation both with
the agency and later in my role at the Wildlife Management Institute.
The Migratory Bird Treaty and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act were
primary considerations in many international and U.S.-based discussions
of migratory bird management, habitat needs and management, and
enforcement.
The list of birds considered covered under the MBTA was revised
several times while I was with the Service, mainly to respond to
taxonomic clarifications or new range information. I do not recall any
changes made to accommodate management of exotic species. My personal
understanding of MBTA is that it was not enacted to deal with exotic
birds, but rather to provide a sound framework for protection of native
migratory species moving between the countries involved in the
treaties. It was well into the existence of the treaty and MBTA that
such common nuisance species, such as English sparrows, rock doves, and
starlings, became a recurrent problem. They are among species
controlled daily across America because of damage that they do, and are
not considered covered by MBTA.
In my experience with migratory bird management through the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the focus has been understood to be on
maintaining populations of native species and avoiding unnecessary
losses to human activities. It has not generally been viewed as a law
directly designed to protect individual birds, unless they might be
threatened or endangered, or unless the enforcement would make a point
to the public that might preclude a larger number of deaths. In my
professional interactions with Canada, and with people in the
management and political arena across America, there has been a general
feeling that literal enforcement bird by bird was in most cases not
feasible, and not reasonable. We have struggled for decades with what
to do about transmission lines and towers, buildings with bright
windows that birds collide with, and a whole array of human activities
that show no signs of diminishing in our lifetime. Reasonable efforts
to solve problems associated with structures and human activities are
entirely called for, and supported by everyone. More work undoubtedly
needs to be done with that, but it would appear infeasible to any
reasonable person to literally interpret the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
as protecting the welfare of every bird across the continent.
In large issues concerning the welfare of birds the consideration
of how literal to be in the enforcement of MBTA inevitably comes up. I
testified before administrative legal hearings held by the
Environmental Protection Agency in seeking ways to reduce the damage
caused by the use of chemicals on golf courses. There was considerable
debate over whether the best course of action was enforcement
concerning any bird death, or making a case of a widespread problem and
seeking solutions through different management, use of different
compounds, or outright ban of certain chemicals. This dilemma is common
in migratory bird management in balancing the needs of birds against
the needs of humans.
In the 1990s, concern over the impact of arctic nesting white geese
on their habitat during migration, led to broad consideration of what
to do about a habitat problem when its cause was an apparent
overabundance of birds. I assembled an international stakeholders group
to assess the need to reduce numbers of arctic nesting white geese to
avoid further damage to their habitats, with a long-term objective of
affecting habitat recovery. While there was not agreement by all
parties, stakeholders, in general, concluded that long-term habitat
concerns and evidence of a rapid growth rate of goose flocks warranted
direct reduction of populations to protect that habitat. In the end the
Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed hunting seasons outside the
normal recreational seasons, designed to directly reduce populations.
We, as stakeholders, did not need definitive cause and effect data to
recommend action.
The issue of what constitutes a truly ``exotic'' species is itself
difficult. The Service has resisted listing species under MBTA because
of incidental occurrences and infrequent movements between continents.
While mute swans, for example, may well be capable of joining other
swans in migration and moving between continents, it is quite clear
that the mute swan in America has come from release or escape of
exotics. This does not seem to be a situation envisioned by the
drafters of MBTA, nor of the managers for many decades thereafter who
have exercised the responsibility of bird protection. Exotics are, in
general, a negative influence and should not be encouraged in the wild.
Control of wildlife that become more abundant than people
inhabiting the same area's desire, or that come into direct conflict
with people or pets, or threaten either crops or people's well-being
have grown to be one of the biggest issues in wildlife management in
North America. Symposia through professional societies, focus on
alternative solutions, and a considerable amount of public disagreement
will likely continue. Expecting an almost one-hundred-year-old statute,
although a a very valuable law, to cover the problems of today may not
be a reasonable solution to many of these problems.
An important question is what would it take to modify the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act if that were sought as a solution? Hazards seem to
include action by those who wish to either expand the reach of MBTA, or
reduce it. In either case rational conservation may suffer. Yet,
amendment of MBTA may well be the most direct way to solve modern
problems, such as the exotic mute swan. If so, it must be attempted
surgically to solve the problem at hand, and not opened to wider
agendas for change.
In conclusion, the mute swan is a problem for native habitats and
species. Including it under MBTA protection seems a departure from many
decades of useful discretion in application of MBTA. There seems to be
abundant experience with MBTA that argues for direct action now based
on what we know, to directly reduce mute swan populations and influence
as much as possible. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Sparrowe.
Next is the friend of the Maryland General Assembly, post-
graduate, the Honorable Gerald Winegrad. Welcome, Gerry.
STATEMENT OF GERALD W. WINEGRAD, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY,
AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY
Mr. Winegrad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gerald Winegrad, I
am vice president for Policy at American Bird Conservancy, and
as you were alluding to, I am a recovering politician. American
Bird Conservancy is a national non-profit organization whose
sole purpose is the conservation of wild native birds in the
Americas. Our staff consists of leading ornithologists, bird
enthusiasts, other professionals and recovering politicians and
attorneys like myself.
American Bird Conservancy is very concerned over the
application of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 to
introduce non-native avian species. Actually, we believe it is
a misapplication and that until December 2001 when the Hill
case was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit, everyone acted and everyone managed and
everyone operated in the United States as if the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act truly applied only to migratory native species. That
act, based on the mute swan here in Maryland and its
management, overturned over a half century of management and
management decisions.
Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the various
conventions with the other countries, the Fish and Wildlife
Service administers this Act and lists by Code of Federal
Regulation publication all the birds covered specific to
species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and that is at 50
CFR 10.13. In publishing the most recent list, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service specifically alluded to the
fact that in that publication, and I will quote, and this was
October 12, 2001, ``We do not list species whose appearance in
the United States is strictly the result of intentional human
introductions.'' So the case is why we are here today, Mr.
Chairman, and what the American Bird Conservancy is proposing
to you, to this Subcommittee, to the Committee and the Congress
that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which we understand is the
basic law that has protected birds in this country, that the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act be amended to exempt all introduced
non-native species. This amendment would do no more than simply
return the status of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the
United States to the pre-Hill case status for introduced non-
native species. We would suggest, as Rollie and others have
alluded to, that any such amendment be very carefully drafted
to avoid any misapplication of the amendment and to make clear
the amendment was limited to simply preventing the MBTA's
application to introduce non-native species.
Without such an amendment, basically, if you extend it to
Hill logic, you would be applying this to a minimum of 86 total
species of non-native birds that have established populations
here in the United States and that are in families covered by
the migratory bird conventions and hence a judge could rule
that indeed you would have to go through the full-blown
permitting process, perhaps EIS, at least environment
assessments for each of these 86 species, which would put the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service in turmoil in efforts
to manage these species because of the time and money that
would be devoted any time a management plan called for an MBTA
take permit or lethal control. Any group or a person that
considered these animals part of their concern, that is they
were either, as someone said about the mute swan, they were
their aquatic pets, that they could go in and sue and then
monkey wrench any lethal control of these species.
In addition to the 86 species that would be or could be
covered by the MBTA under the Hill extension, there are a total
just in one State, Florida, and I have submitted this to the
Committee, the documentation, 196 non-native introduced species
of birds in one State. And of those, 73 are in families that
would be covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and most of
the ones that are excluded, 74 of 125, are in a family not
covered, and that is the parrots and parakeets. In one county
alone, Miami-Dade County, there are 120 species of exotics
flying around, some of them establishing breeding colonies. So
without this amendment, literally all of the rest of the
species of migratory birds that need protection that Chan
Robbins talked about you would throw a monkey wrench into much
of the money resources being devoted to managing and bringing
back and recovering those populations because of the need to
deal with all of these exotics invasive species.
I want to point out specifically that one of the birds that
would be covered under the MBTA expansion would be the rock--
what was known as the rock dove, now the rock pigeon, everyone
calls them pigeons. Those birds were introduced by European
settlers in the 17th century for food and have caused roughly
half of the total damage caused by avian species in the United
States property damage and that's about $1.2 billion a year.
You would then, technically, if you went into court, have to do
a full NEPA compliance document, if not just an environmental
assessment, a full-blown EIS examining their populations and
going through this, and eventually you could go into court
again and have a judge just in the recent case in September say
that, ``This isn't enough, I'm staying, temporary staying any
control of this species.''
Finally, we will get to the issue that brought us here
probably, the mute swan. The mute swan was introduced into the
United States. It is a Eurasian species. Everyone thinks they
came from Europe, but technically they were brought from Europe
here but they were not naturally occurring in Europe. It is a
Eurasian species. It was brought here from England where they
graced the lords' and princesses' and the kings' ponds and
manors. And that was back in the 1800s.
Now, it is an ornamental bird. Five mute swans were brought
into Maryland on a pond in Talbot County. Those birds escaped.
They were three and two, male and female mixed, and those birds
escaped into the wild. Those birds from those five in the
Chesapeake Bay country spawned a population now that exceeds
4,000 animals, and that population, as you have heard if you
read Larry Hindman's paper or do other population projections,
it could grow to as many as 38,500 by the year 2010 because
from 1986 to 1999 the mute swan population increased an
incredible 23 percent a year and it slowed to 10 percent from
1993 to 1999. This is all in Hindman's paper.
So if you take the low projection, you would be at over
11,300 birds. If you take the high one, you are at 38,000 with
the consequent impacts on our native wildlife and on submerged
aquatic vegetation. Nationally, we have 21,400 mute swans, over
14,000 in the Eastern Flyway. Why we advocate and have
advocated that we need to control mute swans, we are a bird
group, bird enthusiasts, birds are us 100 percent of the time,
and we have taken the position that not only do we support
Maryland's efforts to control mute swans but 25 groups signed
onto a letter, which I have submitted for the record and I have
here, including my friends here from the Wildlife Management
Institute and National Audubon and many other leading
ornithological and national conservation groups, including the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, not only supporting lowering those
numbers by two-thirds, which was in the EA that was thrown out
by the--or the temporary restraining order stopped action
under, but going beyond that and eliminating all mute swans
from the wild. And we do that with only very studied scientific
basis as well as very much concern for people that like swans,
as well as us as bird enthusiasts because of the damage by this
exotic species.
Let me outline quickly some of that damage that we see. One
of the emphasis has been at this hearing and has been seemingly
consistently on submerged aquatic vegetation. I want to start
with a different perspective, and that is the impact on
displacement of other native birds. You have heard mention here
very quickly of mute swans displacing the only natural breeding
colony of black skimmers and of least terns in Chesapeake Bay.
Both of those species are State listed, they are listed by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service as national species of
birds of management concern that is required under the Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act to be published to prevent birds from
going on the endangered species list. So these birds are not
only State listed but they are also of national concern, and so
you have mute swans documented in Tar Bay, Dorchester County,
in your congressional district being displaced by the non-
indigenous, introduced, non-native mute swan. And in addition,
there were also common terns which are a species of concern in
the State of Maryland and also another species that is listed
as a species of national concern.
In addition to that, there is growing concern that mute
swans are impacting by their incredible amount of submerged
aquatic vegetation that they eat and destroy other species that
are in some population trouble, such as black ducks,
potentially, and also our native tundra swans. In fact, in the
Maryland Mute Swan Task Force Report, one of the leading swan
experts in our country who is also--he ia a Ph.D. as well as a
medical doctor, he is quoted as saying that he believes that
there is increasing evidence that they are impacting native
tundra swans.
Finally, shifting to the submerged aquatic vegetation, one
of the disturbing things to me, as someone that has been
involved in the bay cleanup since its inception 20 years ago,
we are celebrating this month with the signing of the bay
agreement in 1983, is this rationalization, this thing of a
minimization that if you really deal with agriculture folks,
for instance, that is a prime source of phosphorous and
nitrogen to the bay, the farmers will tell you almost every
time you really ought to deal with sewage treatment plants,
they are the real problem. If you deal with municipal sewage
treatment plants, they will tell you it is industrial
discharges and farmers that really cause the problem. If you
deal with power plants and automobile exhaust bringing down
atmospheric nitrogen, they will tell you you should deal with
sewage treatment plants. It is never the person or the entity
that is causing the problem, no matter what documentation you
can show.
And without going into the literature, I have submitted it
to the Committee, the studies show that adult mute swans, which
are the biggest bird species in the Chesapeake Bay, consume an
incredible amount of bay grasses a day, somewhere around eight
pounds. The male is bigger, males can weigh up to 30 pounds or
more and average in the order of somewhere in the 20 pounds,
over 21 pounds, 25 pounds, and females may be around average of
21 pounds, and they are consuming 30-some, 40-some percent of
their body weight every day in submerged aquatic vegetation,
which is the prime--the vast majority of their diet in the
Chesapeake Bay. So when you take that computation out and they
are here 24-7, 365 days a year, they are rooting up the grasses
in the spring when the seeds are being set. They just don't eat
the grass itself. It is not just what they consume, they
destroy a lot of the other grasses by the roots, but the
computations show, and this is in the Fish and Wildlife Service
EA, it is in Larry Hindman's paper, it is in the paper by Dr.
Matt Perry, it is about 10 to 12 percent of the total biomass
of bay grasses are consumed by mute swans. That is significant.
Whether phosphorous and nitrogen--phosphorous and nitrogen
clearly have to be cleaned up to prevent the decline of bay
grasses, but that is nothing to be overlooked and say, well,
mute swans aren't a problem, we should let them proliferate,
they are beautiful birds. We need to address the problem of the
mute swan.
And I will end by saying in the judge's decision the judge
stated in his decision, obviously from the swan's standpoint,
that he would--the court will essentially speak for the mute
swans. We ask the Congress and this Committee to speak for
black skimmers, least terns, common terns, black ducks, tundra
swans and all of the remaining species in the Chesapeake that
are impacted by these exotic species and to amend the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act to exempt out all non-native introduced
species.
[The prepared statement of Gerald W. Winegrad follows:]
Statement of Gerald W. Winegrad, Vice President for Policy,
American Bird Conservancy
I am Gerald W. Winegrad, Vice President for Policy of the American
Bird Conservancy. ABC is a national non-profit organization dedicated
to the conservation of wild, native birds in the Americas. ABC has more
than 300 partner organizations in the Americas primarily through its
leadership roles in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative,
Partners in Flight, ABC's Policy Council, and ABC's international
network. The Policy Council, with which I work, has more than 80 member
organizations that work collaboratively for bird conservation, and
these member organizations include the country's most prestigious
ornithological and conservation groups. ABC has ornithologists and
other staff headquartered in Washington, D.C., and The Plains,
Virginia. We also have offices and staff in New Hampshire, Maine,
Maryland, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Montana, and Oregon.
American Bird Conservancy is concerned over the application of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA)* (see below), codified as 16
United States Code, Section 703 et seq., to introduce non-native, avian
species. Bird species in the United States protected by the MBTA are
listed in regulations in 50 CFR 10.13. Our concern over providing the
full protection of the MBTA to introduced non-native species surfaced
with the court decision of Hill v. Norton, 275 F.3d 98 (D.C. Circuit
2001). The court in Hill ruled that the introduced non-native Mute Swan
(Cygnus olor) was covered by the MBTA and, therefore, should be treated
as a protected species under the MBTA. Previously, this exotic species
was not afforded Federal protection and management was left to the
states and to federal agencies. All such introduced non-native avian
species had not been included as birds covered by the MBTA and were
thus not afforded Federal protection. Federal, state, and local
wildlife managers had previously been free to appropriately control
introduced non-native birds as professional management standards
required.
Next to habitat loss and alteration, introduced non-native species
(also termed invasives or exotics) have been identified as one of the
greatest threats to birds in the U.S. Up to 46% of the plants and
animals Federally listed as endangered species have been negatively
impacted by invasive species.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at least 86
species of introduced, non-native birds belong to families covered by
the MBTA, and thus could be considered protected by the MBTA if the
logic of the Hill decision were fully extended. Unless the Congress
acts to restore the pre-Hill case exclusion of introduced non-native
birds, our native birds, other wildlife, ecosystems, and human health
and property may be impacted by providing MBTA protection to 86 species
of non-native birds.
American Bird Conservancy supports amending the MBTA to exempt all
introduced non-native species. This amendment would simply restore the
pre-Hill status for these introduced species. We would suggest that any
such amendment be very carefully drafted to avoid any misapplication of
the amendment and to make clear the amendment was limited to simply
preventing the MBTA's application to introduced non-native species.
Without such an amendment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
already significantly underfunded for its migratory bird work, could be
tasked with developing management strategies for at least 86 species of
introduced non-native birds. Completing such management plans with
attendant NEPA requirements and potential law suits whenever a
management plan included lethal controls would be extremely costly and
would shift limited resources from native migratory and nonmigratory
species to introduced species. Further, delays in properly managing
introduced non-native avian species will cause negative impacts to
native avian species and damage to other resources.
Of the 852 native avian species found in the U.S., 778 are
migratory nongame birds and roughly 350 are migratory songbirds
species. About 250 of these songbirds are neotropical migrants that
migrate between summer breeding areas in the United States and Canada
and wintering areas in Latin American and the Caribbean. Many of these
migratory song birds are in serious decline. There has been
documentation of an overall 50% decline in the volume of annual flights
over the Gulf of Mexico in the last twenty years of neotropical
migratory songbirds.
Of the 852 native birds found in the U.S., 90 are listed as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Another 131
species are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as being Birds
of Management Concern, meaning that they may become candidates for
listing under the ESA without additional conservation action or that
special attention is warranted to prevent declines. This latter list is
mandated by Congress under 1988 amendments to the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act and was updated this year. Thus, over one-quarter of
all U.S. native bird species are either endangered, or threatened with
extinction, or may become candidates for ESA listing without additional
management measures. Priority must be given to the protection and
recovery of these species, as well as to Partners in Flight priority
species in bird conservation regions. Introduced non-native species not
only negatively impact some of these listed species but could also
divert needed resources from the management of our native species.
The 86 species of introduced, non-native birds include: 16 species
of waterfowl e.g., Bar-headed Goose, Black Swan, Mute Swan, Graylag
Goose, and Swan Goose (all common in collections of exotic waterfowl);
19 species of pigeons and doves e.g., Bar-shouldered Dove, Eurasian
Collared-Dove, Rock Pigeon, and Zebra Dove; and 35 species of songbirds
e.g., White-rumped Shama, Common Canary, Blue-gray Tanager, Varied Tit,
and Red-crested Cardinal. All of these species are competitors or
potential competitors of native birds.
Of these 86 species, about 17 have become established, some with
serious ecological consequences, others with unknown consequences. For
example, the Rock Pigeon (formerly known as Rock Dove) accounts for an
estimated $1.2 billion in damages annually in the U.S., fully one-half
of the $2.1 billion in damages attributed to all exotic bird species
combined. This species was brought to the United States by European
settlers in the 17th century for food.
Eurasian Collared-Doves were brought to the Bahamas in cages and
escaped, eventually flying into south Florida. Now, these birds are
firmly established and are breeding in Florida, Georgia, South
Carolina, and Louisiana. These exotic birds have shown an ability in
Europe to rapidly expand range and increase populations and are
expanding rapidly to the north and west in the U.S.
Muscovy Ducks are not now listed under the MBTA and are another
introduced non-native species widely established in Florida and around
the U.S. Introduced in the mid-1960's from Venezuela, these ducks are
found around the U.S. as farm pond and park animals. They interbreed
with Mallards.
Black Swans were first noted in Florida in 1961 and are now well-
established in at least six counties. These birds are successfully
breeding and consume large amounts of vegetation and may create
conflicts with native avian species.
One of the more recent introductions that could be covered by the
MBTA under Hill is the Purple Swamphen, in the same family as rails.
This exotic species was first noticed in Broward County, Florida, in
December 1996. The birds are spreading in south Florida and there is a
sizeable breeding population. The population in the wild probably
exceeds 200 birds. Researchers believe that the source of the birds was
Miami MetroZoo, which lost eight Swamphens following Hurricane Andrew
in August 1992.
Purple Swamphens use Florida's abundant wetlands, have high
reproductive potential, and are expanding their range. Researchers note
that ``....there is no similar avian precedent available in Florida--or
North America--to compare to Purple Swamphens.'' Discovery, Origin, and
Current Distribution of the Purple Swamphen (porphyrio porphyrio) in
Florida, William Pranty et al. (2000). Pranty et al. state that, ``In
their native range, Swamphens are often observed away from wetlands and
can damage grain and vegetable crops (Ripley 1977, del Hoyo et al.
1996), so the impact of Swamphens in Florida may extend beyond wetland
species. Although they are primarily vegetarians, Swamphens are known
to prey upon mollusks, fish, lizards, frogs, snakes, bird eggs and
nestlings, and other small birds (Ripley 1977, Cramp and Simmons 1980).
Purple Swamphens occasionally move long distances (up to 1000 km;
Grussu 1999), thus they potentially could colonize a large part of the
state.''
Biologists believe that as Purple Swamphens increase their range
and numbers, there is the potential that they could become another
invasive species threat to Florida's native wildlife and the imperiled
Everglades system.
Other introduced non-native species with established U.S.
populations that are not currently listed under the MBTA, but could be
required to be listed in 50 CFR 10.13 under the logic of the Hill
decision include:
Ringed Turtle-Dove (Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico);
Spotted Dove (California and Hawaiian Islands);
Japanese Bush-Warbler (Hawaiian Islands);
Saffron Finch (Hawaiian Islands and Puerto Rico);
Yellow-billed Cardinal (Hawaiian Islands); andYellow-
fronted Canary (Hawaiian Islands and Puerto Rico).
Two of our most numerous bird species are introduced, non-native
species: European Starlings and House Sparrows. Both fall outside the
parameters of the MBTA as they don't belong to covered families of
birds. They are therefore not subject to protection under the MBTA.
European Starlings were brought over from Europe in the 1890's by
private individuals in New York who released them into Central Park as
part of a plan to introduce all species of birds mentioned in
Shakespeare. This bird has been documented to take over nesting holes
for cavity nesting birds such as Eastern Bluebirds and native
woodpeckers. House Sparrows also use nesting cavities that would
otherwise be available to such species as Eastern Bluebirds. House
Sparrows were introduced in 1850 when eight pairs were released in
Brooklyn to control canker worms, and there were numerous releases into
the 1880's for aesthetic reasons and for insect control e.g. drop worm.
There are more than 125 other species of exotic, introduced, non-
native avian species whose families are not covered by the MBTA and
would be beyond the reach of the Hill decision. Author Bill Pranty
documents the occurrence of 196 exotic avian species in Florida, 73
species that could be covered by Hill and 123 that would not. An
amazing 125 exotic avian species have been reported in one county,
Miami-Dade. Of the 123 exotic species in Florida excluded from the
MBTA, 74 species are parrots (Psittacidae are not covered under the
MBTA). At least 27 exotic avian species are known to or thought to
breed in Florida that could be covered under the MBTA under the Hill
case rationale. See the attached: The Exotic Avifauna of Florida,
William Pranty (July 2001).
Introduced non-native species known to breed in Florida and not
previously mentioned include the Spot-breasted Oriole, first noted in
1949, and Great and Common Black-Hawks, first noted in the 1970's.
These and other Florida exotic breeders also could be covered under the
Hill rationale.
The 86 species of introduced non-native birds that could be
protected by the MBTA under Hill does not include MBTA-protected
species that have been introduced and have become established in
localities outside their native ranges in North America, e.g., resident
Canada Goose, Gadwall in Florida, and Northern Cardinal in California
and Hawaii. Nor does the list of 86 species include a myriad of exotic
species, particularly waterfowl and raptors, that are bred in captivity
in the U.S. Should these latter species escape or be released, they
could establish breeding colonies in the U.S. and gain MBTA protection.
CASE EXAMPLE: MUTE SWANS.
The Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) was first brought to the U.S. from
Europe in the 1800's as an ornamental bird. Five Mute Swans, previously
brought as ornamentals to a pond in Talbot County, Maryland, were
released in 1962. These birds spawned a current population of about
4,000 Mute Swans in Chesapeake Bay country. There are more than 14,000
in the Eastern Flyway and, nationwide, the Mute Swan population has
grown to 21,400. The Bay Mute Swan population increased at an annual
rate of about 23% between 1986-1999 and 10% between 1993-1999. If these
growth rates continued, the population could reach 11,300 (at 10%) to
38,500 (at 23%) by 2010.
The introduced non-native Mute Swan, the subject of the Hill case,
is an example of an invasive avian species that has demonstrably
negative impacts on other species and resources, including native birds
listed under the Congressionally mandated Birds of Management Concern
list. These species include Black Skimmers, Least Terns, and Common
Terns.
Federal, state, and local wildlife managers were free, until the
Hill case, to control the exotic Mute Swan without Federal protections
and permitting. Hill changed that. In both 2002 and 2003, the U.S. FWS
issued 66 MBTA permits for the lethal take of Mute Swans. When the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (as a result of the Hill case)
was forced to apply for, and was granted, an MBTA permit in March 2003
to control Mute Swans by lethal take, a law suit was filed under NEPA
and other laws by The Fund for Animals and others. DNR then withdrew
the permit while the FWS completed a NEPA Environmental Assessment.
Upon completion of the Environmental Assessment in July 2003, DNR
applied for, and was granted, another MBTA lethal take permit in August
to control Mute Swans. Again, The Fund for Animals and others sued. On
September 9, 2003, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, issued a temporary injunction blocking
DNR from any lethal control of Mute Swans. The Judge so thoroughly
criticized the Environmental Assessment and FWS NEPA compliance, that
the Justice Department attorneys settled the case, agreeing not to
issue further MBTA permits for Mute Swan take. Thus, Maryland and all
other states and the Federal government have ceased any control of Mute
Swans. This will have serious consequences for native birds and other
resources such as submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) as mute swan
populations rapidly expand.
Displacement of Native Birds.
The aggressive Mute Swan has attacked and killed other birds and
has extirpated breeding colonies of waterbirds. In Maryland, as noted
in the Maryland Mute Swan Task Force Report, ``One of the more serious
conflicts between mute swans and native Maryland wildlife occurred in
the early 1990's, when a molting flock of about 600-1,000 nonbreeding
mute swans excluded black skimmers (Rynchops niger), a state threatened
species; least terns (Sterna antillarum), classified as a species in
need of conservation; and common terns (Sterna hirundo) from using the
oyster shell bars and beaches in the Tar Bay area of Dorchester County
for nesting sites.'' Tar Bay was the only remaining natural nesting
site for Least Terns and Black Skimmers in Chesapeake Bay. Black
Skimmers, Least Terns, and Common Terns are all native birds listed as
of National Concern under the Congressionally mandated Birds of
Management Concern.
According to Maryland DNR biologists writing in Status and
Management of Mute Swans in Maryland, Larry Hindman and William F.
Harvey, IV of Maryland DNR (2003):
Observations in Maryland and findings reported in
scientific literature support the fact that territorial mute swans can
be very aggressive towards other waterfowl, displacing native species
from their breeding and foraging habitats (Willey 1968, Stone and
Masters 1970, Kania and Smith 1986, Ciaranca 1990). Mute swans occupy
and defend relatively large territories of wetland habitat during
nesting, brood rearing and foraging. Not only do they displace native
waterfowl from breeding and staging habitats, they have been reported
to attack, injure or kill other wetland birds (Willey 1968, Stone and
Masters 1970, Kania and Smith 1986, Ciaranca 1990). In Maryland, mute
swans have been observed killing mallard ducklings, Canada goose
goslings, and mute swan cygnets.
The most serious instance of conflict between native
wildlife and mute swans occurred in the early 1990's, when a large
flock of mute swans (600-1,000 swans) caused the abandonment of nesting
sites for state-threatened colonial nesting birds at Tar Bay in
Dorchester County. These colonial nesting birds nested on oyster shell
bars and beaches that were used by swans as loafing sites. Tar Bay was
the only area in the Maryland portion of the Bay where black skimmers
and least terns nested on natural sites (Therres and Brinker 2003).
There is growing concern among wildlife managers that the
increase in mute swans may be playing a role in the failure of tundra
swans to increase, as they have done in other areas of the Atlantic
Flyway.
The large mute swan population in Maryland consumes SAV
that might otherwise be available to native waterfowl. This competition
for space and food imposed by mute swans reduces the carrying capacity
of breeding, staging, and wintering habitats for native species of
migratory waterfowl in Chesapeake Bay where mute swans are established.
As noted in the Maryland Mute Swan Task Force Report, ``Mute swans
are believed to pose a significant threat to the well-being of the
Chesapeake Bay tundra swan population (W.J.L. Sladen, Swan Research
Program at Airlie, VA, pers. commun.)''. In a Rhode Island study, one
pair of mute swans vigorously defended a five-acre pond, preventing use
by other waterfowl (NY DEC 1993). In central New York, three pairs of
captive mute swans killed at least 50 ducks and geese (mostly young
birds) on a small zoo pond over a 20-month period (NY DEC 1993). Such
behavior may be a factor in inhibiting the recovery of such native
species as Black Ducks. In addition, Mute Swans consume SAV preferred
by many native waterfowl species.
Destruction of Bay Grasses.
Mute Swans consume huge amounts of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
(SAV). Mute Swan average weight is about 25 pounds for the adult male;
the female, 21 pounds. Some Mute Swans may weigh more than 30 pounds.
The male Mute Swan consumes 34.6% of their body weight per day and
females consume 43.4%. See Fenwick, G.H., 1983, Feeding behavior of
waterfowl in relation to changing food resources in Chesapeake Bay.
Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Based on
this study, the Maryland Task Force Report notes that ``Assuming that
an adult/subadult mute swan consumes an average of 3.789 kg wet weight
of SAV per day (Willey and Halla 1972), a population of 4,000 swans has
the potential to consume more than 12 million pounds of SAV annually
(L. Hindman, MD DNR). Consumption of immature seeds, removal of biomass
before plant maturation, and uprooting of whole plants may have a very
negative effect on SAV with minimal consumption (M. Naylor, MD DNR,
pers. commun).''
Scientists at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center have concluded
a study documenting that the introduced Mute Swans' diet is composed
nearly entirely of vegetation during all seasons of the year. Mute
Swans relied heavily on SAV with Widgeon Grass (Ruppia maritima)
constituting 56% and Eel Grass (Zostera marina) 43% of their food. (see
Perry et al. 2000). These scientists noted localized depletions (eat-
outs) of SAV during the growing period. The FWS Environmental
Assessment notes that the current population of Chesapeake Bay Mute
Swans consumes almost 10 percent of the total biomass of submerged
aquatic vegetation in the Bay. These grasses are critical to many other
avian species, to recovery of fisheries (blue crabs), and to the
general water quality of the Bay and other water bodies.
Hindman and Harvey (2003) found that: ``Adverse ecological effects
are being caused by the large mute swan population in the Bay and these
impacts will increase if the population continues to grow. ... A simple
mathematical extrapolation of SAV consumption by mute swans suggests
that 4,000 mute swans may consume up to 12 million pounds of SAV
annually, representing about 12% of the SAV biomass in the Bay (Perry
et al. 2003). This level of impact is greatest on the mid-Eastern Shore
where high numbers of mute swans concentrate and acreage of SAV is
small. This level of grazing, especially during spring and fall SAV
growth and reproductive periods and in SAV restoration plantings is an
impediment to achieving the objectives of the Chesapeake 2000
Agreement, specifically the restoration of 114,000 acres of SAV by
2010.''
Also from the Hindman and Harvey 2003 publication:
Unlike the native tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus) that
only spend winter months in the Bay, the nonnative mute swan inhabits
the Bay year-round. Mute swans utilize large amounts of emergent
vegetation (e.g., Juncus romerianus, Phragmites communis, Spartina
alternaflora, Typha latifolia) in Maryland for nest building. They also
feed exclusively in shallow wetlands where they consume large amounts
of SAV (Berglund et al. 1963, Owen and Kear 1972, Birkhead and Perrins
1986).
Because adult mute swans tend to paddle and rake the
substrate to dislodge SAV and invertebrates for them and their cygnets,
additional SAV is destroyed and uprooted that is not eaten (Owen and
Kear 1972, Birkhead and Perrins 1986). At high densities, mute swan can
overgraze an area, causing a substantial decline in SAV at the local
level (Cobb and Harlan 1980, Mountford 2003).
The removal of large quantities of SAV and the physical
impact of the grazing upon SAV by mute swans reduces the capacity of
the remaining SAV beds in the Bay to support wintering waterfowl and
other fish and wildlife populations.
Mute swans forage on SAV shoots before they can mature.
This grazing during the spring and summer growing season has been shown
to reduce plant survival and reproduction, reducing SAV abundance in
subsequent years (Allin and Husband 2000, Bortolus 1998, Sondergaard et
al.1996). Over time, areas with high densities of mute swans exhibit a
decrease in plant diversity and abundance, sometimes becoming devoid of
SAV (Naylor 2003).
SAV is critical to the health and well-being of a myriad
of Bay organisms. Not only does SAV protect water quality and prevent
erosion, it also provides food and shelter for fish, shellfish,
invertebrates, and waterfowl (Hurley 1991). For example, research has
shown that the density of juvenile blue crabs is 30 times greater in
SAV beds than in unvegetated areas of the Bay (Naylor 2003).
Strong Scientific and Conservation Support for Removal of Mute Swans.
Because of these serious concerns over Mute Swans that have been
scientifically documented, twenty-five groups dedicated to bird
conservation and science joined together to support the U.S. FWS EA's
proposed action that was stopped by the September 9, 2003, Court
action. These groups went even further--supporting removal of all
introduced non-native Mute Swans from the wild in the U.S. The groups'
letter is attached with the supporting basis for advocating the removal
of all Mute Swans from the wild. These groups include a number of
Maryland groups, such as the Maryland Ornithological Society, Audubon
Naturalist Society of the Central-Atlantic States, and the Delmarva
Ornithological Society, as well as other such prestigious
ornithological entities as the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology,
Cooper Ornithological Society, The Waterbird Society, and Archbold
Biological Station. Other groups signing-on include the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, National Audubon, Wildlife
Management Institute, Environmental Defense (EDF), Ducks Unlimited,
Izaak Walton League of America, and American Bird Conservancy.
Also attached is ABC's more detailed letter of comment to the
Maryland DNR Mute Swan Task Force.
The Mute Swan is an introduced non-native species, no different
from other invasives in their potential for damage to native species
and ecosystem functions, except they are big and aesthetically pleasing
to humans. The Mute Swan has demonstrably negative impacts on other
species, including native birds. The Congress under Rep. Gilchrest's
leadership wisely appropriates considerable sums to eradicate all
nutria on Maryland's Eastern Shore by shooting and trapping them.
Because the nutria is a big rat-like marsh rodent not very
aesthetically pleasing to humans, not much opposition surfaced to this
eradication. Maryland fights vigorously to control snakehead fish,
phragmites, and other invasives. All these species are destructive to
native plants or animals and need to be removed from the wild. The
Federal government and Maryland have even prevented the introduction of
a foreign oyster to the Bay for years. And yet now, wildlife mangers
are prevented from controlling another introduced non-native species
that causes documented damage to other avian species and to bay
grasses, the Mute Swan.
The proper management of Mute Swans has been thwarted by the Courts
and management of many of the 86 other species may be thwarted in the
future without Congressional action. We ask this Subcommittee, the
House Resources Committee, and the Congress to amend the MBTA to exempt
all introduced non-native species of birds from coverage. Judge
Sullivan stated in his September 9, 2003, opinion, ``The Court will
essentially speak for the mute swans...''. We ask the Congress to speak
for Black Skimmers, Least Terns, Common Terns, Black Ducks, Tundra
Swans, and the many other species of native wildlife and Bay grasses,
that have been, or may be, adversely affected by a growing Mute Swan
population and by other introduced non-native birds.
We at ABC are individually and organizationally committed to the
conservation of native wild birds in the Americas and we are dedicated
bird enthusiasts. We urge Congressional action to protect these native
birds by amending the MBTA to exclude all introduced non-native
species.
*The Migratory Bird Conventions (from page 1).
The United States recognized the critical importance of
internationally coordinated management of migratory birds by ratifying
bilateral conventions for their conservation with Canada (Convention
for the Protection of Migratory Birds with Great Britain on behalf of
Canada 1916) and Mexico (Convention for the Protection of Migratory
Birds and Game Mammals-Mexico 1936), and for the conservation of
migratory birds and their habitats with Japan (Protection of Birds and
Their Environment- Japan 1972) and Russia (Conservation of Migratory
Birds and Their Environment-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1978),
collectively known as the migratory bird conventions.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), codified as 16 United
States Code, Section 703 et seq., implements these conventions in the
U.S. and has served as the basic U.S. law governing the protection of
avian species. The first convention with Canada and the original MBTA
were enacted by Congress because of the wanton slaughter of birds for
food, feathers, and recreational pursuits that had led to extinctions
and great declines in may species.
Bird species in the United States protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918 are listed in 50 CFR 10.13. The migratory bird
conventions impose substantive obligations on the United States,
Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia for the conservation of migratory
birds and their habitats, and articulate important conservation
principles, such as:
To conserve and manage migratory birds internationally;
To sustain healthy migratory bird populations for
consumptive and non-consumptive uses;
To provide for, maintain, and protect habitat necessary
for the conservation of migratory birds; and
To restore depleted populations of migratory birds;
Under the provisions of the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, it is
unlawful ``by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture [or]
kill'' any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The term ``take'' is not defined in
the MBTA, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has defined it by
regulation to mean to ``pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture
or collect'' any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any
migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those
activities. The United States Department of the Interior's Fish and
Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for the
conservation and management of migratory bird resources. MBTA permits
must be issued for the take of listed migratory species, unless a
general depredation order exists.
[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Winegrad's statement have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Winegrad. Very well
done. And we, as a Congress, will speak with a voice that is
sensitive to all the living species and try to understand the
ecology of the region.
I would like to start with a question that each of you can
answer. A number of people this morning and this afternoon have
focused on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and what I have been
trying to do is pin down some--well, I am not trying to pin
anybody down, but I would like to have a perspective, since it
has been mentioned here a couple of times, on the original
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As Dr. Sparrowe said, provided
general protection--does not provide general protection for
individual birds. It was a treaty and a relationship with
various countries so that the overall migration of a number of
species would be considered seriously and protected. Should the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act be specifically statutorily modified
to list or to make mention of exotic species that it would not
provide protection for? Mr. Winegrad mentioned 86 species of
birds. So would it be the recommendation of this panel to, and
we can start with Mr. Pardoe--would it be your recommendation
to modify the Act to specifically exclude in a surgical way
exotic species from protection of the act?
Mr. Pardoe. Mr. Chairman, our position would be that human-
introduced species should not be covered and protected by the
act. It is not necessary to list them individually because
another one might be introduced tomorrow. But if non-native,
human-introduced species are excluded, then that covers all
that category. If the birds get here on their own, as cattle
egrets did, they are protected. They got here naturally, they
weren't brought in like sparrows or starlings or other
introduced species.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Stallman?
Dr. Stallman. The Humane Society of the U.S. would not
support the idea of amending or modifying the MBTA in this way.
I think that, first of all, it is difficult to try to guess
what the original authors of the MBTA intended, but that aside
I think it is also difficult in some cases, even if you were to
try to be as surgical as you could about it, to try to
distinguish whether an expansion or a movement of a wildlife
population was affected by humans in any way or not, to what
extent was it affected, how much human intervention is
necessary for it to be a human-caused introduction? I think it
could get into a little bit of stickiness.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Dr. Sparrowe?
Dr. Sparrowe. The situation with something like the mute
swan appears quite clear, where it is introduced and expands
and a population grows and it is a problem. I think the comment
from Mr. Pardoe makes sense, that I think science would be
concerned that we not exclude coverage for an animal that
expands its range into North America, but that is a pretty rare
case compared to what we are talking about here. Most of these
animals that we are concerned about, the ones mentioned in
Florida and others, have come from various types of human-
induced introductions, and so I think it is certainly worth
proceeding with serious consideration of amending the Act to
deal with introduced exotics.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Mr. Winegrad?
Mr. Winegrad. Mr. Chairman, we would support and suggest
that the Act be amended to specifically exclude introduced non-
native species, that those words be used. That is for species
that may expand their range naturally, maybe because of global
warming, temperature changes, natural expansion, food sources,
whatever, but introduced, non-native species be explicitly
spelled out as being excluded from the act. That would simply
return the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 to its pre-Hill
case management techniques. It would just go right back to pre-
Hill. But we would not support trying to list species. The way
the Act is administered now in the United States is that you
have families of birds in some of the earlier treaties and then
you have specific species in the latter treaties. And then the
Fish and Wildlife Service is tasked under the Act of listing
the species that are covered, not the reverse, just the species
that are covered. And what the judge ruled in Hill was the
Service did not act correctly because the family of swans was
included in the act, and he believed they were migratory
because they might move across the Canadian border and back,
which of course doesn't make them migratory in the true sense.
And so he believed that they should have been listed under that
CFR listing. What I am saying is that that Congress needs to do
is exempt out non-native introduced species, and then the Fish
and Wildlife Service is free to list. If the species wasn't
listed, it is not covered.
Mr. Gilchrest. If we move in that direction, do we need to
have some framework or definitive definition of exotic versus
invasive?
Mr. Winegrad. No, not if you say non-native, introduced.
That covers it. It has to be introduced and it is non-native,
it was never here. Ornithologically, people know every species
that was here from records and accounts. We know our native
species pretty well. There is not many surprises. I mean there
is still speculation about some that are thought extinct like
the ivory-billed woodpecker, but basically we know that non-
native--introduced, non-native species should cover it.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK.
Mr. Winegrad. What is confusing, and I can sense the
confusing from all the discussions back and forth, is that when
you get into invasives, exotics, introduced, non-native, what
is the definition, what is covered, what isn't, the tricky
point is is that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, even under the
Hill case, the broadest expansion of Hill, wouldn't cover all
exotic avian species. Like it might strike you right now as
strange if I told you that European starlings and house
sparrows would not be covered even under the Hill case
expansion of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, because their
families aren't listed. But the rock dove, the pigeon, the rock
pigeon would be covered because they are listed.
There was mention of Chakars and ring-necked pheasants and
they are a hunted species. The Feds don't regulate them because
they are not covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Their
families aren't included. Nor are the parrots. So you could
see, though, that a court or there might be actions in the
conventions to expand that to cover all exotic birds until we
would have literally a wildlife zoo outside and our native
species all would be at risk and some of them would be
extricated.
Mr. Gilchrest. Sticking with mute swans as opposed to a
number of other species of exotics or other species of
migratory birds that are covered under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, Dr. Stallman, I was curious to how you feel about
the mute swan in Maryland, a statewide management plan and
their reduction of the population of mute swan to a population
which I guess the State of Maryland considers manageable, of
about 500. Do you have any thoughts or perspective, opinion on
the management plan that Maryland has?
Dr. Stallman. I reviewed their management plan and
submitted comments to the DNR on that. And I know one of our
comments was, as I said in our testimony, we are concerned that
there is a real paucity of data linking mute swans to
degradation of the bay or to native waterfowl in the native
ecosystems.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am not sure if I heard you. You said there
is not enough data pointing to the fact that they have degraded
SAVs?
Dr. Stallman. Exactly. The lack of data, the lack of strong
data. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence, there is a lot of
stories of aggressiveness between mute swans and other
waterfowl. There just hasn't been a lot documented on the bay
or similar watersheds in the eastern United States documenting
that not only of course the mute swans do eat submerged aquatic
vegetation but that doesn't mean that their herbivory is
limiting submerged aquatic vegetation growth. The SAV, the
submerged aquatic vegetation, like all or almost all plants you
can think of, evolved with herbivory as a natural pressure. And
so one shouldn't consider herbivory as something that the plant
can't necessarily withstand.
Mr. Gilchrest. Shouldn't consider what?
Dr. Stallman. Herbivory, the eating of the plants by birds
like swans, anything that is a herbivore.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Pardoe, could you comment on Dr.
Stallman's statement regarding not enough data to show that the
mute swans are degrading the SAVs and that SAVs evolve with, I
guess, coevolution. I don't know what came first, the grass or
the swans or the migratory geese, but that it is natural for
the grass to be eaten.
Mr. Pardoe. First of all, there are two separate issues.
One is the impact of the mute swan upon native bird
populations, so that is black skimmers, least terns, et cetera.
That is separate from the SAV issue, and I think that has been
well documented that they are aggressive and that they do
displace black skimmers, least terns and black ducks and other
birds.
On the SAV issue, it is unquestionable that they eat them,
it is unquestionable that the mute swan, unlike the native
swan, is here year-round 12 months a year. So it is consuming
the grasses 12 months a year. It is also consuming those
grasses during the spring and summer when the grasses are
attempting to rejuvenate and grow, so they are at the most
vulnerable state of their lives. I think it has been documented
that quantity and if you look at the size of the bird and the
amount of food that it has to consume simply to live and
multiply that by 4,000 at this point and magnitude of that as
to what would happen over the course of time if we had 15,000,
20,000 of these, the impact upon the SAVs is real.
Does that mean it is the only impact? No, it is not. I
mean, obviously, nutrient degradation and sediment and a whole
lot of other factors are influencing the SAVs. The question is
do we want to allow still one more substantial degradation to
the SAVs to exist when we can control it? We are trying to
control all the others with pollution and sediment, et cetera.
We should control this one as well.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. One other question, Dr. Stallman.
Dr. Sparrowe mentioned a problem that took place five or 6
years ago. It was over a period of time where there were just
large number of nesting geese in the Arctic where they were
destroying their own habitat, and it was the conclusion, it was
my understanding, of numerous scientists on both sides of the
border that the population needed to be culled in order to save
the habitat and then in order to save the species. Could you
comment on that issue of wildlife management, in particular,
and then wildlife management, in general?
Dr. Stallman. With the issue of the light geese, the snow
geese and ross geese supposedly destroying their Arctic
habitat, and I know that in that case I wasn't at the HSUS when
that first came up but I was able to look into that issue more
recently, and our argument and my argument as a scientist is
that at some point the geese are going to--the population is
going to increase and the population is most likely going to
crash. This is a natural population fluctuation, this happens a
lot, it may not be nice to see. At some point, the geese have
density-dependent factors kick in, the geese don't get enough
to eat or they aren't able to reproduce as much, they may not
look as healthy for a time, but then the population crashes by
natural factors. This type of large goose the main non-human, I
would say, control on their life or reproduction happens with
the offspring not surviving to adulthood, with reproduction not
being possible due to a lack of food or with offspring being
eaten by predators or eggs being eaten by predators. The adults
themselves are not generally affected very much by predation.
Our argument with the snow goose issue was that if you let the
population fluctuate naturally, it will eventually crash and
the Fish and Wildlife Service actually said as much in their
most recent--at least in their most recent documents that I
read, and they seem to be expressing some concern that if that
happened, it would reduce hunting opportunities for snow geese.
I don't know what else I can say about that.
I think, again, the Arctic vegetation you can put up
exclosures to try to keep the geese out and show--which is what
they did with the Arctic vegetation and the snow geese. They
put up exclosures to show, look, without goose herbivory this
is what the Arctic vegetation looks like, and here is what it
looks like with goose herbivory and look at the difference.
Well, they are excluding a natural process. They are excluding
herbivory which has always been a part of that ecosystem, and
what they are seeing is certainly a difference. It is taller
vegetation, it is more vegetation, but is that natural? Again,
it comes down to how you define natural.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is a $64 billion question, maybe $64
trillion question, how do you define natural? And I guess we
could have defined, to some extent, natural pre-European colony
of North America but with human activity not running in cycles
but just one big, steady, long thud, the environment is now
reacting to that.
But I just wanted to ask Dr. Sparrowe if you could comment
on Dr. Stallman's statement about if we just let those snow
geese, those nesting geese in Canada, go through the natural
cycle, the population would have crashed, there would have been
a lot more space for other nesting geese in years to come and
the cycle would have started over again.
Dr. Sparrowe. Well, I, of course, come from a good deal of
experience as a waterfowl manager, being concerned about
heading off major fluctuations in population levels and so on.
This is not a natural situation confined strictly to the
Arctic. Some of the reasons for increased survival of these
geese include agricultural changes in the United States on
their wintering grounds where they are able to feed more
securely and head back North each year in better condition and
therefore breed more successfully. So this was looked upon as a
major problem with the focus in the end on what the majority of
the stakeholders felt was a serious problem already in clear
evidence on these aggregation areas where geese migrate. So we
made a choice, which is what I suggested earlier in my
testimony was a growing problem for America, and the choice was
to do something before we watched this all go down and before
we watched the habitat be so degraded that it wouldn't support
the goose populations. And that seems to me to be what you have
with the mute swan at this point. Do you accept pretty strong
but not definitive perhaps evidence of environmental effects
and other things and look at the exponential growth of the
population or do we wait and watch that until it gets so great
that we then don't have very many options for what we can do?
And I think you will find that wildlife managers would advocate
that to the extent that we can work with the public and get
agreement, that we ought to take those kind of actions somewhat
preemptively when there seems to be some reasonable evidence
that we should.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Mr. Pardoe?
Mr. Pardoe. Brief comment because the issue of the Central
Flyway snow geese was the first issue that I voted on when I
joined the National Audubon Board back in 1997. But the Board
of National Audubon Society strongly supported reducing the
population of the Central Flyway snow geese, but it was
precisely because it was not a natural situation, it was, as
Dr. Sparrowe had indicated, the result of agricultural
processes and changes in the wintering grounds, particularly in
rice fields, so that more of the snow geese were surviving the
winters and they were stronger and healthier and more were
returning to the breeding grounds so the population was
exploding. So it had to be controlled as a result of that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Stallman, could you give us your
definition of exotic, your definition of invasive, if there is
such a thing, and in cases where there is no question that
introduced species, exotic species have become invasive and
they are having a detrimental impact on the surrounding
environment, for example, nutria in the mideastern shore, do
you have a recommendation for dealing or managing species that
do have a degradating effect?
Dr. Stallman. I could attempt to define exotic or non-
native but, as I implied before, I think that is a tricky
definition to get at. Essentially, you would have come down to
some sort of arbitrary designation, was it here pre-European
settlement, is there evidence the species was here before any
human settlement? You might try to find a definition like that,
and I am not sure which definition I personally like.
Invasive, I think that the Humane Society of the United
States has no problem defining the word, invasive, as a
presumably non-native species that is unquestionably causing
damage to native species. The question, as you are getting at,
is what do you do if you had such evidence? First, we would
argue that in a lot of cases like the mute swan people rush to
a management decision before there is evidence. And we
understand that people have very strong concern for native
ecosystems, we share that concern, and a lot of times that
concern overrides what would otherwise be legitimate attempts
to get more solid data determining not just are the swans
there, not just are they eating what they eat, but is that
limiting the growth of what they are eating, is that limiting
the growth of crabs or other waterfowl?
If we were convinced that they were having such an impact,
then it would depend--as far as what the organizational view is
on this, it would depend on the situation. This has always been
a tricky subject for us, we would have to take it on a case-by-
case basis. If it is a situation where you have a discrete
area, an island where there are native species that are found
there and nowhere else and you have an opportunity--because it
is separated from the mainland, you have an opportunity to
eliminate a non-native species that is clearly causing
problems, then that may be unavoidable. But if you have a
situation--
Mr. Gilchrest. If you find a situation where there is an
invasive species that is having a dramatic detrimental effect
on the local flora and fauna, how would your organization
propose to manage that species or to eliminate that species?
Dr. Stallman. Well, we would ask that humaneness of any
population control or any population management be considered
first and foremost. With the mute swan in particular, there are
ways to--if it is deemed necessary, if concern must override
the obtaining of more solid data, then there are ways you can
do that without necessarily killing adult birds, ways that are
considered more acceptable. It is always a question is it
really more humane, is it really helping the birds' welfare,
but things like the egg addling or egg oiling there is research
on other population control methods underway for both Canada
geese, for example, and for mute swans and other birds. We
would say those avenues should be explored and exhausted first.
In other cases, sometimes, like with the Chesapeake Bay, you
may have very sensitive areas where it is just not going to
work to have mute swans there. You can exclude them with
fencing. And I know that there--
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any way to identify those areas of
the Chesapeake Bay where it is not a good idea to have mute
swans?
Dr. Stallman. I wouldn't be the one to ask. I am not sure
how that would be done, but if such areas could be identified
and if fencing could be both put up and maintained, I know the
maintenance is a problem, it can be expensive, but that would
be an additional thing that could be done in addition to the
reproductive control that we would find acceptable.
Mr. Gilchrest. Does the Humane Society ever take on that
type of project, to look at certain sensitive shallow tidal
ponds or tidal basins, certain ecosystems throughout the bay
where there is--there has been in the past a thriving tundra
swan population that migrates back to Canada and Alaska and
then is replaced by a mute swan population where it not only is
the habitat taken away from the tundra swans but its effect on
the SAVs has a dramatic effect on the spawning area let us say
for rock fish where then triggers areas that the osprey or
eagles are left with less fish?
Dr. Stallman. Well, I think in an area like this where it
is not separated from the larger mainland, it is not a discrete
area, it would--it might be difficult to exclude birds--I am
not sure what size area you are talking about.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, let us say you take almost any tidal
basin or river, whether it is the Nanacote or the Chester or
the Sassafras or the Choptank, you will have just, for lack of
a better term, these magnificent rivulets. All up and down
those tidal basins you have little tidal ponds, you have small
little estuaries that go off into a farm or an upland or things
like that. And in all of these they are pervasive with a number
of species, and this is where a lot of the fish will spawn,
this is where SAVs generally are very good because you have
very little boat traffic in the shallower areas, but then mute
swans comes in and push out other species. I don't think as a
layman it would be too difficult as a pilot project to identify
certain areas around bay where mute swans would definitively,
clearly, have a degradating effect on that ecosystem. And if
that was uncovered, would you choose as an organization to go
along with the consensus that these areas the mute swans should
be managed or egg addling would be appropriate or would you say
that is the natural cycle, that is the natural process, another
species has moved in and the ecosystem is going to change in
that natural order?
Dr. Stallman. Well, I think it is difficult, as we have
been talking about, to decide what is natural, and it becomes
what you want in your ecosystem. What do you value? Do you
value a species from a particular time period? Pre-European
settlement seems to be usual choice. Whether that is right or
not, I don't know. I mean I would question that, but once you
have decided on that I guess we would say any management of the
population should first and foremost be attempted using
reproductive control rather than killing adult animals which is
arguably less humane. And if fencing can be used to exclude
them from small areas, if that is feasible, if organizations
can help get volunteers to help maintain those fences, I think
that is an option to consider too.
Mr. Gilchrest. I think you raise an excellent point as to
whether or not we are in a position to make decisions about
what we want the ecosystem to look like. But it is a question
that I think has already been answered, not by any one single
person in this room but by the mere fact that human population
now exceeds six billion people. So if we don't manage the
landscape, if we don't find a way to use only those resources
that we need and not diminish future generations, the resources
that they are going to need, then we have to move into the
process of understanding how best to manage this ecological
system so that it is sustained. And in this small situation
with migratory birds, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and in
much of the conversation today dealing with mute swans, I think
it is a very difficult but most important struggle for we, as
policymakers, to make a decision, not a definitive decision,
not a decision that is going to be around for the next 1,000
years but a decision that can move us to a better understanding
of how the process, that ecological system, will work to
benefit us and certainly future generations.
So I can appreciate your sensitivities to these difficult
issues, and your questions make us a little bit more aware of
not only the bigger picture but the respect we need for all
life, not to dismiss it categorically, which I don't think any
of your other colleagues on the panel have done in relationship
to the mute swan issue.
I want to ask you this next question. Your feeling on the
management plan for nutria at Blackwater and the surrounding
area. Do you have a perspective on that? Have we as legislators
done a fairly good job in understanding that nutria is, from
our perspective, invasive, it is destroying the habitat down
there for a whole range of other species and we have decided to
move in and not only reduce the number of nutria but actually
if it is possible eliminate that species that was introduced
here in the 1950s?
Dr. Stallman. Well, it has been a while since I looked into
the nutria issue. From what I remember, I did serve on an
invasive species--I did go to a workshop and we focused on
nutria in the workshop. I think we commented on one
environmental assessment by Maryland DNR or some management
plan. From what I remember, I believe there was more evidence
of damage by the nutria, but that is on the side of science. I
mean science doesn't tell us how we should manage wildlife, it
only tells us what possible--what might happen if you manage
wildlife in this way versus in this way, what will happen to
the wildlife population, what will happen to anything that they
happen to be damaging, any human interest or ecological
interest they might be damaging. Science can tell us that, but
we still have to then make a decision, and that is where values
come in and ethics come in.
And with the nutria, I would say we certainly would have
preferred it if other options had been explored, such as,
again, not to keep beating a dead horse, so to speak, but the
reproductive control option is something that I know some
researchers were interested in exploring. They didn't have
funding, and it just never happened, to my knowledge. That
definitely would have been something we would have preferred in
that case.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, thank you very much. That was an
unfair question because you came here to testify on bird
species, not those beautiful little critters called nutria.
Does anyone else--would anyone else on the panel, any of the
other witnesses, wish to address another issue that we haven't
raised, make a comment or another recommendation? Specifically,
what would you like to see as far as the next steps are
concerned?
Mr. Winegrad. Mr. Chairman, if I--
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Winegrad.
Mr. Winegrad. --could just quickly, I mean the next step in
thinking this through, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is the
main law, more than any other law, including the Endangered
Species Act, that has prevented the wholesale slaughter of
birds in the United States and in the signatory countries. It
was enacted originally the convention with Canada and Great
Britain for Canada. It was enacted in 1960 in a convention
because of this feather trade and the hunting too, you know,
packing them in barrels and shipping birds off. And if it
weren't for that act, we would be in deeper trouble in terms of
our avian species. So it isn't likely that the American Bird
Conservancy request you to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
but looking at all the parameters for the management of non-
native, introduced avian species, it is the way we see that the
Congress needs to go, and it is the way we see the management
to go just to restore to pre-Hill conditions.
But I wanted to point out two things, to emphasize two
points, if I may. One is that there was discussion about egg
addling on another panel and we haven't commented on that, so
if I may, the Act itself, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
prohibits the take by any means or manner or the pursuit or
hunting or take, capture or killing of any migratory bird.
Under regulations of the Fish and Wildlife Service that
includes not only the killing, wounding, shooting, hunting,
capture or collection of any migratory bird but it includes any
part, nest or egg thereof. So in order for the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources to addle those eggs, if the
bird is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which the
judge ruled it was, they still have to get permits, and to get
a permit to take the eggs, just like you need it to do to kill
the bird once that judge's opinion was issued, you would still
need to do an environmental assessment, or an EIS, that would
pass the court's mustard under that decision. The judge said he
is giving the temporary restraining order because he believed
it would be more injurious to the birds than allowing the
department to go forward and pointed out the inadequacies of
the EA. And so the reason they have held it up is because the
judge's ruling really puts them in limbo in the sense that they
would have to go back to ground zero and either do a new EA or
do a full-blown EIS, which would probably cost half a million
or more and then also would take a couple years. So that is on
the egg addling.
Secondarily to that is that egg addling does not and has
not and cannot work to reduce or even stabilize mute swan
populations. This is large aggressive bird with once it is
grown there are very few, if any, predators, and the bird lives
16, 20 years, so it can have many, many, many young. And egg
addling that has been tried, and this is documented in the
literature, it is in the Mute Swan Task Force, it is in the
report that I hope the Committee has of the mute swans and the
Chesapeake Bay habitat from the Wild File Trust Symposium, I
moderated that June 7, 2001. And in these papers I was struck,
as the moderator, they had a gentleman from Rhode Island who is
with the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
who reported on 22 years of intensive egg addling because of
public outrage over killing mute swans there. They were left
with egg addling. And it is a small State, as you know,
Naragansett Bay. They did intensive aerial surveys, the big
white birds. They went in and had an intensive egg addling
program, fairly costly for a small State, and the results of
that were that the average population growth of the mute swan
was reduced in Rhode Island to 5.6 percent a year during these
period of these 22 years. And the population increased five-
fold, and the management objective was 300 mute swan set in the
1960s. They are now in excess of 1,600, maybe 1,700 birds now.
It was slow, the otherwise exponential population growth, but
it doesn't ever reduce. You have to go to lethal control.
A second study was done in the Great Lakes by Scott Petri,
he was mentioned in earlier testimony, and his study shows that
egg addling done at Lake Eerie and Lake Ontario where they have
a growing population, they oil and addle the eggs, he published
a paper in February 2002 that addling eggs does not work to
reduce or stabilize populations, and he found a population
growth rate up there that was approaching over 10 percent or
more, even with the egg addling program. So it is a feel good
solution, it is something that the more moderates on the side
of the ones that would sue can agree to, but it will not
reduce, it will not stabilize mute swan populations, and it
would be quite costly as compared to lethal control.
My final point is that less than a year--
Mr. Gilchrest. So, Mr. Winegrad, you don't count yourself a
moderate?
Mr. Winegrad. No. I am saying the moderate in the really
animal rights group. I consider myself pretty moderate in terms
of conservation, conservation meaning it is conserve. And
conservative is in the word, ``conservation.''
Mr. Gilchrest. I was just kind of--
Mr. Winegrad. I know.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am considered a radical moderate in
Washington.
Mr. Winegrad. You know, they say radical times call for
radical actions.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. Very good.
Mr. Winegrad. But my final thing is on I don't want this to
sound like we are only here to amend the MBTA because of the
mute swan, that isn't really the case. There are 85 other
species besides mute swans, which with my limited testimony I
did submit some of the species names. But one of the ones I
wanted to use as an example is an exotic, an invasive, a non-
native introduced species is the purple swamphen. And you are
going to say what is a purple swamphen, and that was my
reaction a while ago up until I heard about these birds, and
this species was a newly introduced species, and it was brought
into the Miami MetroZoo and it was in an open part of the park
on these ponds, and during Hurricane Andrew in August 1992
eight swamphens escaped out into the Florida wilds. This bird
has its origin, there are different subspecies that are in the
South Pacific, Australia, New Zealand and the Islands, and
there are ones that are in Eurasia and Turkey, and they migrate
to Africa, but it is not ever been in America. And it is a very
large--if you think of a big--it is in the rail gallulul
family. If you think of a very large morehen, you know, purple
morehen--
Mr. Gilchrest. So it is now in the wilds in the Everglades?
Mr. Winegrad. It is 50 percent bigger than a normal
gallulul and it is now around the Everglades and where the
Everglades were. When it escaped out there it was in one
county. It started breeding up. Birders were flocking to get it
on their list. It really shouldn't count because it got out of
the zoo. It is now up to about 200 birds. They are breeding,
and the bird is known from other parts of the world to be very
aggressive. It actually has been seen in people's backyards on
a pond, a lake, kicking other birds away from food sources that
they put out. The bird also eats grasses and it is going into
the Everglades system, in and around the Everglades. It is now
in two counties. So if you applied the MBTA Hill decision to
this species because rails and gallululs are in a family
covered by the conventions, you wouldn't be able to touch this
bird. Eventually, this could become another mute swan for
Florida and it could expand its range to other States unless
something is done immediately to manage it now.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, we will move forward to take all these
things in consideration and try to act in a very judicious
manner. And we appreciate all of your testimonies here this
morning. Mr. Pardoe, Dr. Stallman, Dr. Sparrowe, and Mr.
Winegrad, thank you very much, it has been very helpful. We
have no further witnesses, we will be around for a few more
minutes for anyone that wants to have a question or a comment.
The hearing part of this session is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]