My husband and I vigorously…

My husband and I vigorously protest the draft regulations to permit the hunting of cormorants. The proposal seems to be astoundingly short-sighted and badly flawed. We expect MNRF to manage wildlife on our behalf, but this proposal seems to be suggesting a widespread, uncontrolled cull of a native species without thought for the consequences.

We have read many thoughtful, fact-based documents that oppose the proposal. We find wisdom and concrete analysis in the opinions of prominent birding organizations and scientists. We agree with these assessments. We are particularly concerned that the activity suggested is inhumane and that it opens the way for the violation of The Migratory Birds Convention Act 1994. Just as Trumpeter Swans have sometimes been shot instead of Canada Geese, many species in the vicinity of the hunted cormorants will be in jeopardy if this proposal is adopted. In addition, nests will be abandoned.

From our personal experience, we have two concerns:

• In 2001, along the shore of southern Georgian Bay, we gathered the very heavy, waterlogged carcasses of waterfowl that had been killed by botulism, and we bagged them for pickup by public works. This was a daunting task. It is inevitable that not all dead cormorants or other species killed will be removed, and some will be washed ashore in areas where residents will be responsible for disposing of them. There is no possible way to enforce the removal of carcasses by hunters.

• For over a decade, we have participated in an invasive plant removal program and understand only too well the impact that introduced species can have on an ecosystem. Studies have shown that the round goby, which competes with and preys on native fish and is believed to be connected with outbreaks of botulism, now forms an important part of the diet of cormorants. It seems irresponsible to be advocating the decimation of a native bird species that is offering a measure of control of an invasive species. What will be done when round goby numbers increase dramatically as a result of a cormorant cull?

In spite of the fact that we have read a great deal about this proposal, it simply does not make sense to us. We do not understand the motivation behind it. We urge you to reconsider, to pay attention to the excellent submissions that you have received and to abandon the idea of a widespread cull of Double-crested Cormorants. If, after proper monitoring and careful study, there are areas where it really seems warranted to reduce the number of cormorants, then we hope you will proceed in a professional, controlled and limited manner.