The proposal to allow the…

The proposal to allow the hunting of Double-crested Cormorants appears to be a perverse attempt to appease people who are misinformed and/or biased about this unfairly maligned species. As a citizen-science initiative dedicated to protecting birds, we strongly oppose this proposal for the following reasons:

The proposal says: "There continues to be concerns expressed by some groups (commercial fishing industry, property owners) and individuals that cormorants have been detrimental to fish populations, island forest habitats, other species and aesthetics." There is no evidence provided (including in the supporting materials) to support the first three concerns. The last one, aesthetics, is frivolous and does not justify the killing of any species.

While Cormorants eat fish, biologists have found no proof that they affect the fishing industry. If "anticipated economic consequences of the proposal are expected to be neutral", it suggests the hunt would neither hurt nor help the fishing industry. So why allow it?

While Cormorant colonies cause trees to die off in small, localized areas, this is part of a natural, dynamic cycle with longer-term benefits. If "anticipated environmental consequences of the proposal are expected to be neutral," it follows that the hunt would also neither hurt nor harm the environment. So why allow it?

Permitting a bag limit of 50 birds per day from March 15 to December 31, from stationary motorboats, and allowing the meat to spoil is an invitation to hunters to massacre entire colonies for "fun", even during the breeding season when the birds are incubating eggs and raising their young. This isn't sports hunting; it's wholesale slaughter. Our government should never condone never mind encourage such wanton cruelty. And if property owners have aesthetic concerns about Cormorant colonies, would they not have aesthetic concerns about trees draped with hundreds of large, decomposing birds?

The words "Hunters will continue to be reminded to properly identify their targets to avoid conflicts with migratory game birds and other waterbirds" are a stark reminder that many hunters are unable or unwilling to identify first and shoot later. If hunters kill American Coots thinking they are ducks, and Trumpeter Swans thinking they are Snow Geese (examples of both have come to our attention), they are certain to shoot Common Loons, Common and Red-breasted Mergansers and other water birds thinking they are Cormorants.

Finally, this sentence is disconcerting: "Those interested in hunting cormorants or who believe cormorants are having detrimental impacts will likely support the proposed changes." It implies that people's desire to kill or the mere belief that a species is detrimental, regardless of fact, is sufficient cause to consider the eradication of a species locally. The decision to allow any hunt should be based on scientific evidence and rational decision-making, not the desire to indulge people who like to kill for fun, or who just don't like certain species of wildlife.

This poorly devised proposal should not have been considered in the first place.