I have seen the damage that…

I have seen the damage that nesting cormorants can do to areas where they nest. However, the shortage of suitable nesting locations is a result of previous poor political decisions to allow urban development along shorelines and environmentally sensitive areas for corporate profit. So we created the problem, by destroying habitat, but does that validate us victimizing this species? Before open season is allowed on the Double-crested cormorants, there should be scientific evidence that there really is a need to slaughter this particular species, not the just a want and the insistence of some politically powerful interest groups or industries. Where is the scientific proof that these particular birds are affecting fish stocks other any other bird species? This publication shows this is not a recent concern and did not support the fishing industry's argument/claims, at least in 1995: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/En40-222-2-1995E.pdf.
There should also be consideration that this is species extermination as this not game shooting. Changing the regulations to allow cormorants to be designated "game" birds opens a risky loophole on a slippery slope for other birds considered "pests." These birds are NOT game birds. They are not edible so this is not game hunting; it is extermination. The original Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act was worded in a specific manner to protect against such potential abuse of true "game" species. Fifty birds a bag day for 9 months seems an irresponsibly high number over an extended period of time. Shotguns are highly inaccurate as I can attest as I rescue many injured shot birds and take them to be rehabilitated or humanely put down by the Wild Bird Care Centre during hunting seasons. I cannot support a policy that kills many more than the recorded number provided by the word of a hunter. Are there any measures to prevent the complete and utter destruction of a particular cormorant colony deemed a “nuisance” and perceived to be in a "non-desirable" location by one of the fore-mentioned interest groups or individuals? Who justifies and controls those judgments and decisions? Private property owners who can now "remove" a colony at will? The developer who wants to build yet another shoreline high rise?

I am also absolutely opposed to any policy that allows killing of ANY animal or bird during the breeding season. Again, you are not just killing an adult Cormorant with this proposal, you are leaving nestlings and fledglings to die of slow starvation, dehydration and even heat exhaustion if their parents are shot when they out foraging for food. That is NOT humane or acceptable behavior or policy of ANY government department that claims to protect the environment and manage wildlife.

Where is the scientific proof that this species is responsible for more damage to the ecosystem than beyond their natural role in that ecosystem? Many other bird species nest and hunt for the same food in the same ecosystems as cormorants, especially during those critical breeding months. How are you going to protect more sensitive species, such as herons and bitterns, from also being shot or generally being disturbed while they are nesting?
Many recreational activities also occur in these areas during the proposed, extended, hunting period. How are you going to protect your public from getting shot by hunters if they canoeing, kayaking, hiking or bird watching in the ecosystems where cormorants and other species are found? Finally, every species is in check and balance with their environment and part of the greater ecosystem. Bringing a species to the brink of extinct to satisfy the demands of a few groups will have consequences. Where is the scientific evaluation and research that validates risking elimination of this bird from its ecosystem? Who decides when the population has been reduced enough to meet the wants of those in opposition to the species, but leaves enough of a population to sustain the species? Mankind has notoriously misjudged that balance in the past. Why is the hunting season so long compared those of other species? Why does it include the breeding season when all species are most vulnerable? I condemn and denounce this proposal as being without scientific prove of need, without stringent guidelines to prevent species extermination, without guidelines for the protection and prevention of disturbance of the breeding season of this species and many other sensitive species sharing the same ecosystem.