The “Proposal to establish a…

The “Proposal to establish a hunting season for double-crested cormorants in Ontario” (ERO number 013-4124) is poorly conceived and is likely to do more harm than good. It should be rejected.

There are circumstances under which it is appropriate for wildlife managers to cull double-crested cormorants, and current laws and regulations have allowed this culling to take place for many years now. Much has been learned from these ongoing professionally managed efforts that has increased their effectiveness and decreased their collateral damage to other wildlife. In contrast, this proposal (ERO number 013-4124) is to tell hordes of amateurs to blast away with shotguns into multi-species nesting sites. The potential for unintended harm is very high and there is unlikely to be any benefit. The lack of benefit is obvious from the fact that the proposed amateur shotgun barrage is being promoted as being “environmentally neutral” and “sustainable”. The proposal (ERO number 013-4124) is to have a perpetual amateur shotgun barrage that at best would be futile, but more likely will cause many types of collateral damage.

Translated from bureaucratese into English, this proposal (ERO number 013-4124) says:

Some people are asking the government of Ontario to change the law so they can shoot large numbers of cormorants. The government of Ontario does not know if this is “needed”. All the government knows is that it does not want to be involved. The government of Ontario is of the opinion that large numbers of cormorants could be shot perpetually without making any real difference (i.e., is “environmentally neutral” and “sustainable”). So, what possible harm can there be from turning hordes of amateurs loose on public lands and telling them to blast away with shotguns? Since the government of Ontario shockingly fails to see any potential difficulties, it is willing to substantially weaken game laws and the Migratory Bird Treaty “just to see what happens”.

Please reject this proposal (ERO number 013-4124).

Detailed comments/concerns:

The format below is a quote from the environmental registry listing (ERO number 013-4124) followed by the comment/concern.

1) Ontario MNRF: “Comment period November 19, 2018 - January 3, 2019 (45 days)”

I think that scheduling the comment period over the Christmas/New Year’s period has substantially weakened the quality of the public consultation.

2) Ontario MNRF: “We are proposing to list the double-crested cormorant as a game bird”

As a member of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, I object to this proposal in that it substantially weakens both the current meaning and public understanding of what a game bird is. The bureaucratic meaning of a game bird, i.e. “a bird that is covered under game laws” is a tautology and is effectively meaningless. In the mind of sportsmen, a game bird is a bird that is hunted for food or sport. Most hunters feel that it is unethical to kill just for “sport”, and as a result ALL of the several dozen species of birds currently covered under “Migratory Birds Hunting Regulations” are hunted for food (i.e., it is illegal to allow the meat to spoil). The double-crested cormorant does not belong on that list, and is so different from the birds currently on the list that its addition to the list would weaken the significance of what a “game bird” is.
Even if the double-crested cormorant is being hunted just for “sport”, just how “sporting” is it to pull up in a boat and blast 50 double-crested cormorants off of their nests? As a sportsman, I am insulted that the Ontario MNRF is proposing that this be considered “sporting”. I am concerned that if this proposal is adopted, that the public’s opinion of hunters will be greatly diminished and that public approval of hunting will decrease.

3) Ontario MNRF: “the latest information indicating Great Lakes populations have since stabilized or declined slightly”

Considering the nature of the proposal, this is a pretty big “or” to leave sitting without documentation. Before making major changes to game laws and Migratory Bird Treaties that could have amateurs blowing birds off of their nests with shotguns, maybe it would be a good idea to know which “or” it is. Was this “or” assessment made before or after the news that a disease outbreak has hit the largest cormorant colony?

See: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/cormorants-toronto-disease-1.479…

Before making major changes to the laws, it would be a good idea to have a professional assessment of population levels and population trends (including the disease outbreak). If the proposal is to “manage” double-crested cormorants as “game birds”, it would be a good idea to know what the management targets are. Turning amateurs loose to blast away with shotguns without first knowing what those targets are would be pretty stupid. (But that is what “ERO number 013-4124” proposes.)

4) Ontario MNRF: “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. To respond to these concerns, the Ministry is proposing…..”

This is pretty appalling. As written, it says that if someone wants to shoot something they can ask the Ministry, and since the Ministry lacks the resources to develop its own data, opinions, and responses that the Ministry acquiesces and proposes to change the law.

I am very disappointed in the lack of information from the Ministry. I would like to think that the professionals at the Ministry have information with respect to double-crested cormorant population levels and environmental impacts. If it has that information it should have been part of this proposal (along with population target levels, and an assessment of the best way to get to those levels). If the Ministry lacks this information, it has no basis for trying to manage double-crested cormorant population levels, and even less basis to suggest that the best management response is hordes of amateurs blasting away with shotguns.
Another major deficiency in this proposal is what is commonly called “a review of best management practices”. Have double-crested cormorants been culled in the past? What worked? What didn’t? What was most cost effective? What caused the least amount of collateral damage?
Missing from this proposal was the fact that private land owners can already “cull” cormorants on their property if they are causing property damage.
And on public lands, double-crested cormorants have been managed by culls for years. For example, Middle Island:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/cormorant-culls-stabilizing-midd…

There is probably a lot that can be learned from this multi-year ongoing management, but I am concerned that since that type of information should have been included in this proposal (and wasn’t), that the Ministry jumped straight from “concerns expressed by some groups” to a 50 a day shotgun season without considering what are probably better alternatives.

The coverage of the Middle Island culling seems to indicate that the best approach has been professional sharp-shooters using “muffled” guns to avoid disruption to the other species present. The absence of this information from the Proposal suggests the Ministry is being way too cavalier with respect to impacts to other species. This is turn casts doubt on the Ministry’s unsupported “expectation” that untrained amateurs blasting away with shotguns in multi-species nesting colonies will have a “neutral” effect on the environment.

5) Ontario MNRF: “List the double-crested cormorant as a “Game Bird”. Hunters would be required to have an outdoors card and small game licence to hunt double-crested cormorants, similar to other species of game birds.”

Double-crested cormorants are NOT “similar to other species of game birds”. ALL of the dozens of species of game birds currently covered under “Migratory Birds Hunting Regulations” are hunted for food. Double-crested cormorants are uniquely dis-similar to all existing species of game birds. Attempting to license their hunting and manage them within a group of species that they do not belong in is likely to cause more problems that it (probably won’t) solve.

6) Ontario MNRF: “Create an open hunting season for double-crested cormorant from March 15 to December 31 each year across the province.”

Another serious deficiency in this proposal is that it fails to consider alternatives. Considering that this is clearly a poorly planned experiment, why roll it out province wide? Certainly there are major budget constraints on the MNRF. Why not just have a test roll-out limited to a small area of the province where the “problem” is perceived to be the worst? Even better, divide the “problem area” in half and only have the amateur shotgun barrage in one half. Then monitor the whole area and see if the amateur shotgun barrage made any difference.

One obvious problem with the province-wide roll out has to do with enforcement. I grew up in Texas, but it is Ontario that is REALLY BIG. Currently there are not enough Conservation Officers (COs) to adequately police the existing game laws. (I rarely even see a CO.) Adding a new province-wide, 290 day shooting season will only make matters significantly worse.
The few COs there are have to lean on any crutches they can to keep the enforcement “standing”. One of the few advantages of under existing game laws is that shooting seasons are short, and outside of these seasons if COs see someone swinging a shotgun it is a good time to ask some questions. The Proposal is to allow shooting province wide for the vast majority of the year. Effective enforcement of this greatly expanded 4-dimensional volume of time and space is likely to be very expensive. How much will this cost, and why is there no mention of budgetary concerns under “Regulatory Impact Statement”? This seems out of step with the current government’s calls for budgetary restraint.

7) Ontario MNRF: “Establish a bag limit of 50 cormorants/day with no possession limit.”

The obvious question is: Why 50? And since these birds aren’t going to be kept for food, why an unlimited possession limit? If the Ministry is aware of some reason to stockpile double-crested cormorant carcasses, then that information should be part of the Proposal. But again, what principles of sound game management did the Ministry use to arrive at the number 50? To have this number have any meaning there should have been some consideration of population levels, population targets, number of likely shooters, and average number of days per shooter per season. If it had any of this information it should have been in this proposal. Its absence suggests that this number was produced by pulling it out of where?….The Ministry should not charge ahead in this vacuum of information.

8) Ontario MNRF: “This would include use of shotguns that are not larger than 10 gauge, that cannot hold more than three shells and use non-toxic shot as described in the migratory bird regulations.”

Considering the limited resources of the Ontario MNRF, the ability of COs to make sure all of the shotgun shells being used to kill 50 cormorants a day are non-toxic is probably quite limited. If you are headed out to blast your way through 50 cormorants you may not be as careful about your shotgun shell selection as you would be if you were targeting an actual game bird (i.e., one that you intended to eat). It is likely lead shot discharged near waterways will increase, and that lead poisoning of non-target birds (e.g., loons) picking up the shot for their gizzards will increase. This further calls into question the rational basis for the Ministry’s expectation that the environmental effects would be “neutral”.

9) Ontario MNRF: “Allow hunting from a stationary motorboat.”

If shooting from a motorboat is considered “routine” as a current practice, then why is it necessary to make a specific regulatory change to allow shooting of cormorants from stationary motorboats? Why the lack of specificity about what counts as “stationary”? Is a boat swinging on one anchor “stationary”? Will there be additions to the hunter education course covering requirements for “stationary anchoring” for the purposes of cormorant shooting? How many shooters will be allowed in a boat? How does that vary with boat size? Even if there is only one shooter per boat, how many other people can be in the boat with the shooter? Should they lay flat in the bottom of the boat? Will there be age restrictions for who can be in a boat while cormorant shooting? What special education should be considered for compensating for boat swing while also swinging a shotgun on a flying bird? How long will it take to develop the educational materials? How will they be distributed? For people who have already completed hunter education, will they need to take remedial education in “cormorant boat anchoring and shooting”? How much will this cost?

The low draft boats that will probably be needed to get shotgun shooters within range of cormorant nesting colonies are likely to be small and not the most stable of shooting platforms. Shooting from them SAFELY is probably not for beginners. This Proposal has no restrictions (e.g., age restrictions). Since the Ontario MNRF is considering promoting this as wholesome family fun, it needs to seriously consider making sure the required education is rolled out before the season is opened. Since it is already mid-December 2018, I seriously doubt this can be accomplished by March 15, 2019 (the proposed start of the season).

It would be tragic if some young hunter “Dick Cheney’ed” his little sister because the “cormorant boat hunting season” was rushed through without due consideration about safety and hunter education. Doubly tragic would be the fact that the MNRF legalized the tragedy even when its “expectation” is that cormorant boat shotgun blasting is a meaningless activity (i.e., “sustainable” and with “neutral” environmental impact).

10) Ontario MNRF: “Via this posting, the Ministry is also consulting on a proposal to amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to add provisions so hunters could allow cormorant to spoil. This proposal would add provisions to the Act, so that persons who lawfully hunt (or possess) cormorants could be exempt from this requirement and would be subject to conditions that require the person to retrieve and dispose of the carcass. Should this proposal proceed, it may be accompanied by regulations to implement the exemption and requirements.”

“is also consulting”…”could”…”could” … “may be”

The core of this proposal lacks any information that justifies bringing it forward. It fails to consider alternatives that have been tested for years and are far superior. And late in the proposal is added that the MNRF really isn’t even sure about what the proposal should be and throws out a few more “coulds” and a “maybe”. This is all in support of regulations that it hopes to have up and running three months from now.

This public consultation is a farce, in part because the Ministry clearly has not yet decided what it is proposing. It needs to stop this consultation, go back to the drawing board, make some effort to gather some facts, think about what it really wants to accomplish, consider “best management practices” and alternatives, decide what it really wants to propose, and then return with a real proposal.

Since I doubt this will happen….

Again, this “could/maybe” part of the proposal highlights why the double-crested cormorant is simply NOT a game bird like ALL of the game birds currently covered under the “Migratory Birds Hunting Regulations”. In 100 years (or more) of migratory bird game regulations it has NEVER been necessary to make an exemption to allow a game bird “to spoil” (i.e. throw it away). Making this exemption dramatically weakens the Migratory Birds Hunting Regulations, and in my opinion will lower the public’s perception of “hunters” and “hunting” if this proposal goes through. Lets face it, blasting 50 cormorants off of their nests is not “hunting”, it is “target shooting” live birds on their nests. I think it will repulse far more people than it attracts.

But since this is, in theory, a real proposal that is to be implemented soon….

The “exemption” is to allow “hunters”(sic) to allow the “game” to spoil if they retrieve the carcasses of the cormorants they shoot. Why retrieve just the cormorants? If you use a shotgun to scatter shot at least 50 times into a nesting colony that almost always has a mixture of species in it, you are not going to kill just double-crested cormorants. You should be required to retrieve everything that you killed so that the level of “by-catch” can be evaluated.

While the “maybe” exemption would allow the proposed “game” to spoil, it does not say what will be done with all of the carcasses. Perhaps all of the species shot should be taken to nearest MNR office for proper identification, so that the Ministry can “assess the impacts of the hunting season and to adjust cormorant hunting regulations if necessary to address any concerns about population sustainability”. Proper identification is needed because the mixture of species killed will include some species in need of expert identification. It is likely that some of the cormorants shot will be provincially rare Neotropic cormorants (Phalacrocorax brasilianus) which can be difficult for the general public to distinguish from the congeneric double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus).

A side benefit of delivering all of the carcasses to the MNRF is that the MNRF could then be responsible for proper disposal of all of the carcasses. Certainly the MNRF has already sourced appropriate disposal facilities, since it intends to open “hunting” (sic) very soon.

11) Ontario MNRF: “To accompany the proposed hunting seasons, the Ministry will implement a cormorant monitoring program to assess population status and trends. Monitoring of cormorants will allow the Ministry to assess the impacts of the hunting season and to adjust cormorant hunting regulations if necessary to address any concerns about population sustainability.”

This is clearly cart before the horse.

If double-crested cormorants were actually thought to be a problem, monitoring of them should have been step one. Step two would be to study putative negative environmental impacts. Step three would be to see if any of these environmental impacts correlated with population levels. If this was found to be the case then the next step would be to consider management options (e.g., see the discussion above regarding alternatives and best management practices). Then the best alternative would have been put forward in this proposal.

This logical process was bypassed for the half-baked proposal here (ERO number 013-4124).

About the only positive thing that can be said about the Proposal (ERO number 013-4124) is that the process has been fairly transparent. That is not due to any commitment to open government, but rather because there is so little content in the proposal that what actually happened shows through. Since the “Proposal DETAILS” (sic) are only a page long, there is no hiding what actually happened:

12) Ontario MNRF: “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. To respond to these concerns, the Ministry is proposing to create a hunting season for double-crested cormorants in Ontario. This new population management tool would allow persons who hold a small game licence to hunt these birds.”
This is incredibly poor public policy and has led to a really poor proposal (lacking both “details” and any supporting evidence).
“This new population management tool” is a rather fancy term for the “proposal”, which is simply to turn hordes of amateurs loose on the landscape to blast away with shotguns.
The best thing to do now would be to scrap this proposal, and start the process over following the logical steps above.
The next best thing would be to scrap the proposal, skip gathering evidence (take for a given some culling is needed) but at least take a “best management practices” approach and study cormorant control measures that have been in progress for years. Under what circumstances is culling needed? Are there specific areas that need attention? Where are they? What works best? How do you minimize collateral damage?
But it seems the government is hell bent on ignoring all that has been learned and proceed full speed with a “plan” that has been fabricated out of nothing.
If it is insistent on proceeding, the least thing it could do is at least postpone the proposal for a year (until 2020). Please at least consider taking a year of monitoring data so that there will be a “before” to compare with the “after” when the season opens.
13) Ontario MNRF: “Hunters will continue to be reminded to properly identify their targets to avoid conflicts with migratory game birds and other waterbirds. Monitoring of cormorant populations will allow adjustments in cormorant hunting regulations as necessary.”
When trying to find the correct word to describe these “Proposal DETAILS” (sic), the best word seems to be “disingenuous”.
All types of claims and promises about the “new population management tool” are made without absolutely NO DETAILS.
Again, it is now mid December 2018 and the Ontario government proposes turning hordes of amateurs loose on public lands in just three months to blast away with shotguns. In what are supposed to be “Proposal DETAILS”, it is far short of adequate to simply say there will be “hunter” (sic) education while providing no details about what that education will be.
This “detailed proposal” fails to mention that there are two species of cormorants in Ontario that are difficult to distinguish rapidly and accurately while sighting over a shotgun. Considering the proposed amateur shotgun fusillade is only three months away, real “proposal details” would include information about how to avoid killing non-target species while blasting away in nesting colonies containing mixed species of birds. It would also explain IN DETAIL how it intends to roll out the appropriate “Hunter” (sic) education before it opens the season.
The absence of these details is in part due to the ill-conceived and rushed nature of the “proposal”, but more importantly it is unlikely that a “detailed proposal” could ever be produced and be credible because if you actually examine this proposal in detail it is incredibly stupid.
Likewise, it is disingenuous when the “proposal details” assert that there will be “monitoring of cormorant pollutions” without any “detail”. What will be this monitoring be? What is the budget for the monitoring program? Where are the results of the monitoring that has taken place? Why are you proposing to turn hordes of amateurs loose on public lands to blast away at mixed species nesting colonies with shotguns without doing the monitoring first?
14) Ontario MNRF: “The anticipated environmental consequences of the proposal are expected to be neutral. The double-crested cormorant is abundant in Ontario and anticipated levels of harvest aren’t expected to affect sustainability.”
This is a pretty concise summary of the stupidity and futility of this “detailed proposal”. The government of Ontario has absolutely no idea how many amateurs will choose to blast away at mixed-species nesting colonies with shotguns.
If the number is large, it would irresponsible for the MNRF to imply that it has any factual basis to suggest that the effects of the amateur shotgun barrage would be “environmentally neutral” and “sustainable”. It is simply not credible to simply assert that hordes of amateurs blasting away at mixed species nesting colonies will not cause significant collateral damage. Even in the extremely unlikely event that the MNRF’s nonexistent “hunter” education program is successful and the MNRF’s nonexistent monitoring program documents that the collateral damage is “tolerable” (according to the MNRFs nonexistent standards), and that double-crested cormorant levels were to be reduced to levels deemed to satisfy the MNRFs nonexistent targets, then the “hunt” levels would have to be reduced (because they would NOT be “sustainable”).
If the number is small, the adverse impacts might be “tolerable”, but in that case it is extremely unlikely that the amateur shotgun barrage will have any significant effects on double-crested cormorant population levels. So, in that case the Ontario MNRF is proposing to alter and weaken many “game” laws simply to legalize random acts of senseless animal cruelty.
In conclusion:
The “Proposal to establish a hunting season for double-crested cormorants in Ontario” (ERO number 013-4124) is poorly conceived and is likely to do more harm than good. It should be rejected.