Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:04:17 -0500 Reply-To: Maryland Birds & Birding Sender: Maryland Birds & Birding From: David Mozurkewich Subject: Introduced Swans and Falcons In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I do not know the CBFs position on the introduction of Trumpeter Swans. I found nothing in the mailings they sent out over the last few years and there is nothing on their website. I contacted them asking for their official position. If I hear anything, I'll let you know. I do know they are in favor of programs to reduce the Mute Swan population. They prefer, but will not limit their support to non-lethal methods. As far a Peregrines are concerned, I agree with Elliot. It's nice to see them. They probably would have recovered on their own and I'd rather see the money spent on something more useful than hacking programs, such as habitat preservation. But funding is not a zero-sum game; money that went to the reintroduction of the Peregrine probably would not have gone into habitat preservation, or any other conservation program, if there were no hacking program. Was the publicity advantage of the program worth the possible environmental damage? I don't know. The recent attempt to reintroduce them into the mountains is not as difficult to justify as the earlier attempt to introduce them into coastal areas where there are no historical nesting records. This is bad in principle, but I do not know if it has resulted in damage to other endangered species, such as Least Terns. I've heard rumors that it has, but if anyone can provide documentation, I'd love to hear it. A second rumor I've heard is that there has NEVER been a successfully fledged Peregrine from a nest on a bridge. Many, but not all of the introduced Peregrines nest on bridges. A pigeon-laden bridge may appear to be a perfect nest site, but when the young bird jumps from the nest, it has a choice; aim for the water and drown or aim for the pavement and be flattened by a car. Peregrines come in several well-differentiated subspecies. A third rumor is that the reintroduction program never made any effort to preserve the subspecific purity of the captive bred birds or considered the subspecies when deciding where to release a particular bird. Again, these are rumors, although they were spread by usually fairly reliable sources. The more of these that are true, the harder it is to justify, or even condone the reintroduction program. Dave David Mozurkewich Seabrook, PG MD USA mozurk@bellAtlantic.net ======================================================================= To leave the MDOsprey list, send e-mail to listserv@home.ease.lsoft.com with the following message in line 1: signoff mdosprey ======================================================================= =========================================================================