Annual animal cruelty on our harbour – just because it is efficient?
The annual black swan cull that took place this weekend at Blue Gum Bay has some parallels to the dolphin slaughter in Taiji, Japan, which drew worldwide condemnation when the film ‘The Cove' was released. In both cases stressed out animals are herded into a bay and are slaughtered on mass with little chance of escape. Why are we condoning this treatment of a native bird which mates for life and can live to 29 years?
Many of the reasons given to justify the cull seem largely anecdotal. I am a harbour-side property owner with swans off shore and they have never bothered me. How many harbour-side owners have complained about crop grazing and are the complaints serious? If aviation is under threat by bird strike, does killing a small percentage of the population help much anyway, and why are the swans being herded from the Bowentown end of the harbour?
Over grazing of sea grass may well be an issue if the swan population gets out of hand, but is there sufficient evidence that the current population is doing damage? I'd like to hear the real science behind it, see more research done. What are the population numbers of black swan that the harbour can sustain? I'd also like to hear DOC and the Regional Council being vocal about this and backing up their policy with research.
It doesn't seem right that Fish and Game are the spokespeople, the group justifying the hunt and determining the numbers of birds shot, when their members see this as a good day's entertainment. That is not impartial.
If research shows that swans numbers need to kept in check, are there not more humane methods of control? Fish and Game comment that 'egg pricking is not suitable for the Tauranga population as swans do not breed there”. Where is the natal lake that the swans breed? Can egg pricking not be done there? Even small scale shooting of swans in the same manner as duck shooting seems preferable to the annual mass slaughter.

Maniisha Wiessing, Katikati.