As an Environmental Planning…

As an Environmental Planning graduate student studying human-wildlife conflict, the proposed changes to the Darlington Provincial Park Management Plan are concerning (though, I understand, in keeping with other recent changes made to the protected status of the Double-crested cormorant and permitted management techniques, i.e. culling).

Double-Crested cormorants are a notorious for their abundant numbers and conspicuous nesting and feeding habits. That their guano defoliates trees and smells foul is of aesthetic concern to human neighbors (read: park recreational users), but is far from established as a scientific concern with ecosystem integrity. There are plenty of arguments to be made for the creative destruction of Double-crested cormorant behaviours. The debate over whether the Double-crested cormorant negatively impacts fisheries is also undecided. Strong opinions abound, but consistent scientific evidence does not. Rather, human perception of Double-crested cormorant feeding behaviours seems to be of greater weight in management policy. Across the continent, the Double-crested cormorant has faced persecution and is considered a pariah by many scholars in the biophysical and social sciences. This is unfortunate, to say the least.

If lethal management of the Double-crested Cormorant, or any species, is provided for in this legislation there should be a minimum prerequisite for exercising lethal management tactics, and this prerequisite should be significant evidence of ecosystem peril. When it comes to species that humans generally dislike, we must write policy that balances our tendency toward hubris.

If staff at the MECP would like to learn more about the social/political history underpinning this issue with Double-crested cormorants please start Linda R. Wires' book "The Double-crested Cormorant: Plight of a Feathered Pariah". This book is particularly good at illustrating the impact of wildlife management policies on the species across a large time-scale.