What is the science behind…

What is the science behind this proposal?

The proposal states that cormorant numbers grew rapidly following national bans on the toxins that previously harmed their reproductive potential, but is now stable or slightly declining. It also states that "some groups" are concerned that cormorants are negatively impacting the environment. Where is the scientific evidence to support these latter claims? What fish populations, specifically, are being detrimentally affected - Species at Risk, recreational fisheries, the commercial fishery - and in what way? How do we know that any changes we are seeing (in species abundance, distribution, and habitat) as a result of a rebounded cormorant population are not a natural environmental balance?

What is the recreational benefit to this proposal?

I support the wise use and management of natural resources, including hunting for food and clothing. What I do not support is killing for the sake of it. Cormorants are a native species that appear to have currently reached a stable population balance in our present, heavily human-modified environment. Cormorants, as fish-eaters, are not palatable; no part of their bodies are used for any purpose. Hunting cormorants is not going to feed anyone, it is not going to clothe anyone. There is no rationale to designate the double-crested cormorant as a "game bird".

This proposal, as it stands, is nothing more than an unnecessary public cull and glorified target practice. Ontario should be ashamed of any policy that proposes allowing game meat to spoil. Already, those of us living along the Great Lakes regularly experience washed-up waterbird carcasses from regular botulism outbreaks, and it isn't pretty. Additional dead waterbirds on our beaches can and should be avoided. Not to mention polluting our waterbodies with spent plastic caps from shotgun shells -- hard to collect when hunting from a motorboat. And how does MNRF (soon to be MECP) plan to enforce the proposed "bag limit of 50 cormorants/day"? [Hint: it won't -- there are too few Conservation Officers left in our province to have any effect.]

If private landowners wish to protect their "island forest habitats" they can continue to apply for a special permit to cull cormorants, as has worked well in the past. Commercial fish harvesters should be expected to share the ecosystem with other species and manage their resources in an appropriate, holistic manner. Government could consider efforts to make island habitats less appealing to cormorants -- after all, regardless of how much food is available, cormorants (or most bird species, for that matter) won't nest somewhere that they don't feel safe.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL as it is not based on any scientific argument or recreational benefit. The environmental costs far outweigh any "anticipated positive social consequences".

The MNRF is dissolving soon into the new Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, whose website states the following as the first bullet under "What we do": "use science and research to develop policies, legislation, regulations and standards."

Do you really?? Prove it - use science to develop your hunting regulations.