Response to a Proposal to… | Environmental Registry of Ontario

Comment on

Proposal to establish a hunting season for double-crested cormorants in Ontario

ERO number

013-4124

Comment ID

16851

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses

Comment

Response to a
Proposal to establish a hunting season for double-crested cormorants in Ontario
Proposal: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4124

Biases

I believe it is important to state my biases before stating my position, so you know where I’m coming from. I am not affiliated with any organization, though I have read a number of responses to this proposal. I am not a hunter, though I do not have a problem with hunting as long as the hunter seeks to use as much of the animal hunted as he or she is able. I am not an animal rights activist, but I believe in conservation, ecology and evolution. I am not a birder, though I do enjoy birding when I get the chance to do it every couple of years. I am not a scientist, but I am a fan of science.

Reasons for the Proposal

The MNRF proposal points out that cormorant populations “declined significantly in the Great Lakes from the 1950s to the 1970s primarily due to environmental contaminants affecting reproduction,” (ERO) and that cormorant populations have rebounded since, and have achieved what appears to be a stable population. That has to be one of the great conservation success stories, isn’t it? So, what’s the problem?

The MNRF proposal also states concerns from “some groups (commercial fishing industry, property owners) and individuals” (ERO) about the impact of cormorant populations on fish and other species populations, island forest habitats, and aesthetics.

Other respondents (Kroc, others in Further Reading) have pointed out that there is no scientific evidence of cormorants impacting fish populations. In fact, since cormorants are a native species, their relationship with their native prey species is balanced by natural ecological processes. In fact, cormorants, being opportunistic with regards to their prey, makes them an important part of any strategy to manage invasive fish species.

So, without knowing what the “other species” are, that leaves the island forest habitats and aesthetics reasons, which are really the same thing, aren’t they? What happens to the trees in arboreal cormorant colonies doesn’t look good. The trees are killed by the nesting birds, leaving guano covered skeletons. But, this happens locally. Normally, the cormorants that nest in a given location return to that location, year after year. If a colony is successful, then new trees next to the old ones might get killed as new nests are established. But in a stable colony, the number of dead trees will not change from year to year. It’s important to point out that this is a natural, native process, and part of the evolutionary processes that act on the trees as well as the cormorants. Labelling a natural process as ugly is grossly anthropocentric.

Method of the Cull

The MNRF proposes to utilize the small game hunters of Ontario to engage in what is ostensibly an open, unrestricted hunt of cormorants. The proposed March to December season is broader than the birds are present in the province. The 50 birds a day limit (with no hold limit) is practically an invitation to shoot as many birds as the hunter wants. This is reckless enough to allow Ontario hunters to easily wipe out all cormorants in Ontario in a single season. For example, if the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters 100,000 members (OFAH) shot an average of 2 ½ birds each, they could wipe out the approximately 250,000 cormorants in Ontario (Kroc). Even if the proposal is amended to restrict the hunt to times outside when cormorants are reproducing (i.e., early spring and fall, as the OFAH proposes), the potential to wipe out the adult population of cormorants in Ontario in a single season with any kind of hunter-based cull remains.

Despite the dire potential of this plan, I believe that an ethically self-interested hunter, when presented with the reality of the relative inedibility of cormorant flesh, won’t bother to spend the cost of a shell and the effort required to set out to shoot and kill even one bird. This would be fine if all the hunters in Ontario are ethically self-interested, which I doubt, considering the OFAH’s largely supportive response to the proposal.

The OFAH, in their response to this proposal, compares cormorant populations to that of snow geese, and by doing that suggests that the proposed daily limits on cormorants is reasonable compared to the 20/day limit on snow geese (50/day in the Hudson/James Bay area) (OFAH), stating that the daily limits on snow geese have yet to have any real impact on the populations of snow geese. This is misleading. The North American population of lesser snow geese is estimated to be 15 million individuals (DU). This dwarfs the population of cormorants. Which seems to beg the question, is a quarter million individuals really an indication of an out-of-control population?

Anecdotal Cautionary Tale

In 2015, the US Army Corps of Engineers began a campaign to control the population of cormorants that nested on East Sand Island at the mouth of the Columbia River near Astoria, OR. This colony was home to more than 16,000 cormorants, the largest in North America at the time, and represented approximately 40% of the cormorant population west of the Rockies. The Corps oiled the eggs in 6 thousand nests and shot more than 5 thousand birds over the following year. In mid-May of 2016, the colony experienced a complete collapse; 16,000 cormorants abandoned their nests and the eggs in them in a single day. Only a few hundred birds returned to the island in 2017. The rest, it is assumed, spread up-river and established new colonies (CBD).

This case illustrates one, probably unintended, consequence if this, or even an amended cull, is enacted: colony abandonment. Without the cull, cormorants will return to the colonies they went to the previous year. With a stable population of cormorants in Ontario, these colonies will not change, nor will new colonies likely be established. However, if even one colony is abandoned, new colonies will be established to replace it the following year. So, if aesthetics is really a valid reason (perhaps the only potentially valid, if morally questionable, reason left after the other ones have been demonstrated scientifically to be invalid), instigating the proposed cull will very likely result in more colonies being established.

The Real Reason?

The East Sand Island colony of cormorants used to be the largest in North America. Now that honour belongs to the colony in Tommy Thompson Park. That number of cormorants positioned next door to millions of people must look like cormorant populations are completely out-of-control. It’s natural for humans to look at a thing and assume that all other things like it are the same. In this case, however, humans would be wrong. The colony in Tommy Thompson Park is big, bigger than the East Sand Island colony ever was. The damage to the forest of the park is easily visible from various yacht clubs, Cherry Beach and the Toronto Islands. Rather than being celebrated for the amazing feat of nature that the colony represents, people complain about the dead, unsightly trees.

I’m certain the OFAH would also back down from its position, once they can be shown that cormorants not only do not affect fish stock levels, but are a part of the natural life-cycle of those fish, increasing the evolutionary viability of those species. A cormorant colony should be a welcome sight to an angler, since its presence indicates a thriving fish population, for without the fish, there wouldn’t be a colony.

An Alternative Proposal

The scapegoating of native species is an old world, imperial, father-knows-best practice. There is no scientific evidence to support the cull, or the reasons given for it. Yet, the stereotype of cormorants as fish guzzling monsters persists. Which is strange, since there are many different piscivorous bird species in Ontario. Is the prejudice because cormorants are black? Is it because of their unsightly tree nesting colonies? Regardless, it is unfairly bestowed.

I suggest, as an alternative to the proposed cull, an education program aimed at the individuals and groups that believe that cormorants are pests. Present them with the research on the lack of impact of cormorant populations on fish stock levels. Talk about evolutionary and ecological processes and the web of predation that sustains the dynamic populations of native species, stabilizing their populations over time. And, especially, make sure they realize the conservation miracle that allowed cormorant populations to recover after DDT ceased to be used. And maybe statements about how cormorant populations have exploded since the 1970s will said only in celebration of how humans saved cormorants from the brink of extinction.

Cited Sources

ERO: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, “Proposal to establish a hunting season for double-crested cormorants in Ontario”, https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4124, downloaded 2019-01-03.

Kroc: Edward Kroc, “The Government of Ontario proposes a Double-crested Cormorant hunt that could easily eradicate the species from the Great Lakes in a single year”, https://ekroc.weebly.com/blog/the-government-of-ontario-proposes-a-doub…, downloaded 2019-01-03.

OFAH: Lauren Tonelli, “ERO Number 013-4124: Proposal to establish a hunting season for double-crested cormorants in Ontario”, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, https://www.ofah.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ERO-013-4124-cormorants…, downloaded 2019-01-03.

DU: Dale D. Humburg, “Light Goose Dilemma: Despite increased harvests, populations of these Arctic-nesting geese continue to grow”, Ducks Unlimited, http://www.ducks.org/conservation/national/light-goose-dilemma, downloaded 2019-01-03.

CBD: “Video Highlights Federal Agencies' Relentless Slaughter of Oregon Cormorants”, https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/oregon-cor…, downloaded 2019-01-03.