I'm someone who watches…

I'm someone who watches birds and also likes to fish. I'm not opposed to a DC Cormorant hunting proposal on principal or in general, but I truly can't believe how poorly justified or thought out this proposal seems to be. The only justification I can find in this proposal is that:

"There continues to be concerns expressed by some groups (commercial fishing industry, property owners) and individuals that cormorants have been detrimental to fish populations, island forest habitats, other species and aesthetics."

Is this it? And if so, so what?? Concerns aren't science, and concerns shouldn't be acted upon without a good understanding of the consequences. Furthermore, as a government agency, a proposal shouldn't be put out to the public for comment without outlining your understandings of the issue, the science, and with a thorough explanation of why your decision was made. Where's the science that says DC Cormorants are truly a problem to fish, to forest habitat? Where's the science that shows this hunting proposal will help fix it, and that it won't have other consequences (for example, impacts to other colonial nesting birds or a bunch of rotting dead Cormorant carcuses laying around or hanging in trees)? Better yet, where's the counter-information, i.e., why not include information on the concerns expressed by (what I assume) are the many groups opposed to this proposal so that the public can be informed before they decide on the merits and provide comments on your proposal?

Without any of this info provided I am completely opposed to this proposal.