I have serious concerns…

I have serious concerns about the details of the proposed hunting season for Double Crested Cormorant in Ontario.
1) This proposal is clearly aimed at serious reduction in the population of this species. Possible reasons for this seem to be:
a) Aesthetics: Some people do not like to see large populations of "ugly" animals. This seems to be a poor reason for wholesale killing of a native species.
b) Shoreline forest damage: It is hard to imagine that D.C. Cormorants do more damage to shoreline wooded areas than logging or human development. Indeed, the proposal for this hunt describes the environmental impacts of the hunt as "neutral", strongly implying that no positive benefit will result. In addition, colonial ground nesting sea birds such as gulls and terns can benefit from generation of treeless areas of shoreline or treeless islands.
c) Protection of fish populations: Clearly D.C. Cormorants eat fish, and lots of them. A large and stable or growing population of these birds could not exist if there were not a huge population of fish to support them. So the question becomes "which fish are to be protected?" This cannot be legal sized game fish, as these are far too large. The primary game fish in Lake Ontario are introduced, non-native salmon, and D.C. Cormorants might eat immature stocked salmon or forage fish that they depend upon. As the primary predators of small fish are larger fish, consumption of forage fish or immature game fish may or may not be an issue. Additionally, one of the most important forage fish in Lake Ontario is the non-native Alewife. It seems wrong to try to eliminate the D.C. Cormorant, a once extirpated native species, to benefit artificially introduced non-native game species, primarily to benefit wealthy anglers who can afford the boats and gear required to fish for salmon. Indeed, D.C. Cormorants have been shown to be major predators of Round Gobies, an invasive species in the Great Lakes that itself reduces game fish populations.
2) Unintended Harm:
a) Nesting disturbance of other birds: The proposal allows hunting near nesting colonies throughout the breeding season. Many if not most colonial waterbird colonies are mixed in species, including some that are of concern. It is likely that frequent, nearly unlimited gun hunting from the water near such colonies will result in stress and lack of breeding success to non-target species, an issue not raised in the proposal.
b) Human distress: It seems reasonable that visits to natural areas such as Cootes Paradise, Hamilton Harbour, Tommy Thompson Park, Pres'Ilse, etc. will be discouraged if non-consumptive visitors are presented with the possibility of witnessing the nearby slaughter of wild animals.
3) Ethical Issues:
a) Undue suffering: Killing of large numbers of adult birds during the breeding season will result in the death by starvation, overheating or exposure for multitudes of growing chicks.
b) Waste of meat plus shoreline pollution; This proposal allows wholesale slaughter (50 birds per day, no possession limit, per hunter for several months) without a requirement for the use of the meat or proper disposal of the carcasses. Birds will be hurled back into the lake to wash up onto shorelines to rot. This is simply wrong, as well as distasteful both ethically and aesthetically.
c) Discreditation of ethical sport huntin: Most importantly, those who participate in this hunt will be or appear to be involved soley for the pleasure of killing large numbers of animals for pure sport. As the environmental impacts of the hunt are "neutral", they will not even be able to reasonably claim that they are improving the environment for any practical reaon, other than possibly increasing the number of contaminated trophy salmon available to wealthy fishermen.

In summary, while I have no problem with including Double Crested Cormorants in a legal hunt following guidelines similar to those involved in other watewrfowl hunting (not during breeding season, requirements for the use of meat), I am totally opposed to the present proposal for the reasons cited.

Thank you for considering this comment.