The perceived ecological and social threat posed by mute swans (Cygnus olor) in Michigan has led the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to implement population control strategies. This has been met with opposition and the resulting public debate has become contentious. Appropriate and acceptable mute swan management hinges on concerns for wildlife conservation, mute swan welfare, and public safety. These are value-driven concerns founded upon our notions of a healthy social and ecological system. While science can provide empirical and descriptive information about the system, it cannot tell us if or how we ought to intervene. A systematic analysis of the reasons employed to both defend and critique the proposed management plan can be useful toward this end. For this project I conducted a qualitative content analysis of regional online news articles discussing the mute swan issue to identify recurrent reasons used for and against the management plan. I then developed these reasons into formal arguments to determine the relevance, strength and rigor of each argument. This analysis revealed ethical disagreements and empirical inadequacies, suggesting more work could be done to clarify more reasonable and logical, approaches to address this issue. If we commit to effective and sound argumentation in our address of conservation issues, as we detail with Michigan's mute swan issue, we have the opportunity to craft policy that reflects and responds to diverse stakeholder values in a justified and transparent fashion.
Read
