IWMC is closely watching the behavior of American Federal Courts as matters of wildlife conservation are brought before them. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed that seven additional National Wildlife Refuges shall be opened to hunting and fishing opportunities, and that these activities shall be allowed to be increased at three other such national properties. This proposal is intended to accomplish more than additional recreational opportunities on national wildlife refuges. The original concept of creating wildlife refuges so that their ecosystems should be continued in a healthy manner without encroaching construction development, was also thought to be enhanced by bans on hunting and fishing.

The latter idea has been revised since those days, and it is now recognized that multiple hunting and fishing use of these lands and waters is compatible with increased conservation benefit. Ecosystems left alone without sustainable harvest of their surpluses, often decline in diversity and in overall environmental vigor. Hunting and fishing access are good ways to keep America's wildlife refuges in an on-going healthy condition and will help ensure their continued welfare for future generations.

In view of all this, it is interesting to note that in the state of Maryland, a federal judge is once again being used by an animal rights organization as a familiar controversy is being played out in the usual way; the Fund for Animals has sued to prevent the hunting of mute swans in Maryland, on grounds that the activity is "cruel" and "unnecessary". In response, the regional federal judge has ordered a temporary ban on the hunting of mute swans until such time as he rules whether or not a permanent ban on hunting them shall be established. Wildlife scientists have testified that the swans, five pairs of which were imported some thirty years ago, have now grown to a flock of many thousands, and are consuming hundreds of tons of vegetation in the bays annually. Their wastes accumulate by a similar magnitude in the waters, causing an algae bloom that is harmful to the environment. The swans are also hostile to native waterfowl, driving them out of nesting and feeding areas, and killing the young of Canada geese and many species of ducks that try to nest there.

If a permanent ban on hunting mute swans in Maryland should be put into place, it would set a terrible precedent for wildlife management through sport hunting anywhere. There is simply no way to efficiently capture and remove these birds to other locations, which would also suffer from their unnatural presence. The FFA is using its traditional practice of claiming public support for interference with hunting, and is relying on its traditional legal standing before the court to gain yet another audience for yet another harmful demand. This is not about swans, nor is it about "cruelty" to them. It is about a demonstration of power by a lobby force that appears primarily concerned with its reputation with its own donor base, not with the overall conservation of any environment.

IWMC reminds everyone concerned with wildlife conservation that public opinion does have an impact on these issues. Local media in Maryland should be urged to spell out the consequences of whatever decision is made in this case, and to do it loudly. Not only sportsmen, but many other people in Maryland shall be affected by this decision.