Letter: Down with DNR on swan decision

Gary L. W.
Worthington, MN     10/21/2009 1:24 PM

I say leave the swans alone unless they are sick. If some one wants to do something good why not take the illegals from this State, County and City of Worthington?

Report a Violation

marvin k.
Bigelow, MN     10/21/2009 1:09 PM

They uproot aquatic vegetation. It's to bad they don't eat bluegreen slime.

Report a Violation

B w.
Worthington, MN     10/21/2009 12:59 PM

I haven't heard it put that way before. "Illegal invasive species". It makes sense.

Report a Violation

Gina H.
Worthington, MN     10/21/2009 11:51 AM

OMG people they are a beautiful swan. They could never be as harmful to our environment or town as what all the illeagal imagrants are. So just let the poor birds be I belive worthington has a lot bigger problems to deal with.

Report a Violation

Brandon R.
Windom, MN     10/21/2009 10:17 AM

Marjorie, they are an invasive species. That means they should not be here, end of story. Why isn't our own native game and fish species beautiful enough that we have to go and have species that can potentially harm our native environment. Same goes for everything else, flower gardens, trees, etc. The pet and horticulture industry is detrimental to our own well being and they don't care.

Report a Violation

wes h.
Sioux Falls, SD     10/21/2009 8:06 AM

Sorry for all my comments but I was looking at the US Fish and Wildlife Service website and on there it calls the mute swan a non native, invasive species from Europe that competes with native species for food and habitat. The website is www.fws.gov. I believe the only native North American swans are the Tundra swan and the Trumpeter swan. I think the DNR is only enforcing federal laws regarding migratory birds and it will do no good to complain to your local DNR people. Mute swans can be held by permit holders but they have to be confined.

Report a Violation

wes h.
Sioux Falls, SD     10/21/2009 6:11 AM

I meant to say the swans could be kept at the fish rearing ponds not geese. That was Bob's idea and I think it has merit. You might have to double fence the pond or ponds because of the liablity issue. I know by experience that swans [and geese] can be very territorial and could harm people. But I think the problems could be worked out and if enough people favor the idea it should be considered.

Report a Violation

wes h.
Sioux Falls, SD     10/21/2009 3:51 AM

A better idea if enough people are interested would be to talk to Mayor Oberloh and the Worthington city council and let them know you think Bob's idea to keep the geese at the fish rearing ponds is a good one. That way the people could watch the swans and still be in compliance with the law. I drove around the ponds this summer and it didn't appear they are being used to rear fish any more. That area could be made into a very nice city park where people could go to enjoy watching the swans. I would make some sort of a shelter though that they could get under in case of hail. As far as your feeling the DNR is wrong I disagree. I think federal laws might regulate migratory waterfowl to an extent not just state law. As a general rule it has not been good when people take it upon themselves to release non native species. I think the people at DNR do a good job in general and should be applauded. I believe the mayor had some concerns about the liability issue of the city allowing the swans on city property but I wouldn't think the liability would be any greater than allowing the swans to stay on Sunset Bay.

Report a Violation