Commentaire
This proposal is poorly thought out and lacks scientific evidence to support its conclusions. The proposal details state: "...Great Lakes populations (of double crested cormorants) have ...stabilized or declined slightly". Creating a hunting season may make sense but it must be aligned with existing hunting regulations for other water fowl. The numbers of cormorants do not warrant the extreme measure proposed.
1. The hunting season must be limited to a few weeks in the fall of each year. It makes no sense to have hunters in conflict with recreational users of areas frequented by cormorants during the peak spring and summer months.
2. The "bag limit" should parallel that of other water fowl. Having hunters on recreational lakes in mid-summer shooting 50 birds each is frightening for those of us with cottages and camps on those lakes. Most hunters are not so accurate as to hit a target with each shot. Just imagine, two hunters in a boat on busy recreational lake in mid summer firing hundreds of shots at panicking birds!
3. Allowing hunters an exemption from the requirement that meat not be allowed to spoil creates the potential for a large volume of dead birds being improperly disposed of. Feces from Canada geese are enough of a problem on our lakes without adding dead cormorant carcasses.
4. Municipalities should have the legislative right to prohibit hunting of cormorants within their jurisdictions.
5. The cost of additional MNR staff to properly manage and enforce the new regulations would be significant and without enforcement there will be abuse.
In conclusion, as a recreational user of lakes and natural areas in Ontario, I fear for the safety and health of my children and grandchildren if this killing of cormorants is allowed in public areas in the numbers and within the proposed hunting season suggested by the proposal.
Soumis le 3 janvier 2019 10:34 AM
Commentaire sur
Proposition en vue d’établir une saison de chasse pour le cormoran à aigrettes en Ontario
Numéro du REO
013-4124
Identifiant (ID) du commentaire
16549
Commentaire fait au nom
Statut du commentaire