On February 15, 2001, the DNR Waterfowl Advisory Committee endorsed the Mute Swan Task Force Recommendations and further recommended that the mute swan population be reduced to less than 500 birds over the next 5 years. The Committee also recommended that the legal protection for the species be removed, by amending the existing definition of NR Article, Section 10-201 to include only native species of wetland game birds. In addition, the Committee recommended that NR Article, Section 10-201 be amended to include the mute swan as an unprotected bird, along with the European starling and English house sparrow.

Maryland Mute Swan Task Force Recommendations

In 2001, the Mute Swan Management Task Force made management recommendations to address the concerns associated with the mute swan population. Members included representatives from several animal protection and conservation organizations and the governor-appointed DNR Waterfowl Advisory Committee. Below is a partial list of Mute Swan Task Force recommendations. To review a complete summary of the Mute Swan Task Force Report to the DNR visit the DNR web page at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Hunt_Trap/waterfowl/muteswans/mstfpc.html.

1. Mute swans should not be eradicated in Maryland. The DNR should maintain some population of mute swans in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries for public enjoyment in select areas.
   

2. Develop criteria to designate "Swan-Free Zones" to protect sensitive habitats and Bay resources from disruptive mute swan activity. Keep mute swans out of them either seasonally or year-round, whichever is appropriate for the resource that is being protected. These areas could include areas where SAV is most sensitive, SAV restoration plantings, areas environmentally sensitive to impacts from fecal Coliform contamination, and rare nesting habitat for state listed water birds.
   

3. Guidelines for management options to exclude or remove mute swans from Swan-Free Zones should be crafted with intent to provide local government agencies and private land managers with the ability to implement appropriate options on properties under their jurisdiction or care.
   

4. Develop an education effort for shoreline landowners about mute swans, their behavior and how to manage conflicts, including information on egg addling, fencing to exclude mute swans, and how feeding may contribute to future swan conflicts.
   

5. Develop criteria and guidelines that specify an appropriate sequence of action choices in conflict situations, with nonlethal actions preferred. These criteria should require that each complaint be investigated by USDA Wildlife Services. The killing of swans should be done as a last resort and should be conducted by wildlife management professionals.
   

6. Swans removed from Swan-Free Zones should not be donated to charitable food banks to feed the needy.
   

7. DNR should continue to addle eggs on public property and seek permission to addle eggs on private property.
   

8. DNR should move with caution toward relocating swans to other locations to alleviate population impacts in the Bay. Translocation could be an option for reducing mute swan populations in local areas. The capture and relocation of mute swans may be an option for short-term management of local populations that are jeopardizing other resources. However, consideration should be given to the possibility creating unwanted populations in areas not currently occupied by mute swans, thereby increasing distribution and potential for population growth.
   

9. Mute swans should remain "Wetland Game Birds." No hunting season should be set in the foreseeable future. Further, hunting should be considered in view of public preferences and how hunting would contribute to population management goals locally or Bay-wide.
   

10. Develop and enforce regulations for mute swan captivity, sale, transport, import, and breeding in a manner similar to regulations affecting other Wetland Game Birds.
    

11. Permits to transport mute swans to other states should require written permission of the wildlife agency of the recipient state.
    

12. Continue monitoring research on immuno-contraception and the potential for use in mute swan management.
    

13. Monitor population of mute swans in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay annually for numbers and expansion of distribution around the Bay.
    

14. Measure the extent of Bay-wide and local impacts of mute swans feeding on SAV in the Bay, especially where SAV is most vulnerable.
    

15. Measure the extent to which mute swans have or can contribute to the loss of SAV and other habitat, and how this can affect native populations of aquatic species and waterfowl.
    

16. Monitor interactions between mute swans and wintering tundra swans, as well as other native waterfowl.
    

17. Possible Research: (1) The Department of Natural Resources should consider conducting a survey on public perception, values and knowledge about mute swans to assist in education and outreach efforts. This survey could assist the Department in identifying target audiences so that effective communication strategies can be developed; (2) Measure how well or how poorly SAV beds in the Chesapeake Bay recover from the grazing of mute swans.
    

18. Allocate appropriate funds for mute swan education, research and management needs.