The regulatory impact…

The regulatory impact statement of this proposal reads:

"The anticipated environmental consequences of the proposal are expected to be neutral."

and

"The anticipated economic consequences of the proposal are expected to be neutral but depend on levels of hunter participation."

Yet, the proposal states that the proposal is a response to concerns of the commercial fishing industry [among others], and prompted by the effect of cormorants on island habitats, other species. The proposed hunting season is referred to as a "population management tool".

There seems to be a contradiction between the purported objective of the proposal and the expected outcome. In fact the impact statement amounts to an admission of the expected ineffectiveness of what is proposed toward its objectives.

This leads to the conclusion that the proposal might be motivated by other interests, put forward by certain special interest groups that the proposal alludes to. This includes the fishing industry (cf proposal, 2nd paragraph) and "Those interested in hunting cormorants" (cf regulatory impact statement), as well as "property owners" (cf proposal, 2nd paragraph) who are concerned about aesthetics. In other words, the proposal is solely designed for the benefit of groups who like to kill and groups who don't mind killing for aesthetical reasons.

The conclusion that one has to reach is that the proposed measure is for the benefit of special interest groups. It is morally doubtful. It should not be passed.