January 19, 2022 Curt Morris…

January 19, 2022

Curt Morris
Darlington Provincial Park
1600 Darlington Park Road
Bowmanville, ON
L1C 3K3

Dear Mr. Morris,

RE: ERO 019-4093 – Proposed Amendments to Section 5.3 of the Darlington Provincial Park Management Plan (2014)

On behalf of Ontario Nature, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment to section 5.3 of the Darlington Provincial Park Management Plan. The proposal to “manage” native species “with the potential to become hyperabundant” sets the stage for targeted lethal control of double-crested cormorants. It is unsubstantiated by need or science and is without merit.

To begin, according to the ERO posting, Ontario Parks staff prevented the establishment of cormorants in the park in 2019. There were no cormorants nesting in the park in 2020 or 2021. Thus, measures that park staff have taken to date appear to be working if the goal is to prevent nesting in the park. The suggestion that cormorants have the “potential to become hyperabundant” in this case is akin to fear-mongering – fanning the flames of intolerance for a maligned and often-persecuted native species.

In its ERO posting, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) offers no explanation of the meaning of ‘hyperabundance’ nor of how this would be measured or assessed. There is no acknowledgement that cormorant populations have rebounded from historic lows in the 1970s, after the species suffered steep declines because of exposure to environmental contaminants. Their recovery is considered a Great Lakes conservation success story. As recognized by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4124), cormorant populations in the Great Lakes have stabilized or declined slightly since the early 2000s.

In its ERO posting, MECP also fails to provide assessments or scientific studies to support its proposal to enable cormorant control. Rather, the ministry justifies the proposed amendment on the grounds that if a cormorant colony were to become established, it would threaten the ecological integrity of the McLaughlin Bay wetland. Another part of the ministry’s rationale is the fact that “[t]his species damages vegetation by removing live branches for nesting materials and through the acidic nature of its feces” – portraying nest-building and defecating as though they were somehow an affront to the ecological integrity of the park. Both arguments are misleading and invalid.

Adjoining Lake Ontario, Darlington Provincial Park is part of an ecosystem that includes native water birds like the cormorant that are meant to be in places where there are water and fish and potential nesting habitat. If cormorants were to become established in the park, they could indeed have an impact on the Mclaughlin Bay wetland, but this would not be a violation of the park’s ecological integrity. Rather, cormorants are an integral part of the larger system, with a natural role to play in bringing about change. While damage to trees and other vegetation is certainly one of the impacts of cormorant colonies, as Dr. Keith Hobson explains this is “a natural process shared by several colonial species and one that has existed for millennia and is renewable.” The question then, is on what basis park managers should presume to try to deter cormorants from nesting in the park.

MECP and park staff should be basing management policy and decisions on scientific evidence and best management practices. This is clearly not the case with the proposed amendment to section 5.3 of the park management plan. Accordingly, I urge you not to proceed with the proposed amendment.