re: Proposal to establish a…

re: Proposal to establish a hunting season for double-crested cormorants in Ontario

I object to the ‘Proposal to establish a hunting season for double-crested cormorants in Ontario’ chiefly because the proposal, which extends the hunting season to an extreme length, and the daily bag to an extraordinary fifty birds per day per hunter is excessive. Extinction of the double-crested cormorant would seem to be the intention of the proposed legislation, and extinction of any species cannot possibly be the intention of a responsible government--it would be an occurrence remembered in history as abhorrent rather than simply ignorant or unwise.

As well, the proposal suggests that legislation be amended to allow shooting from stationary motor boats. Have our law-makers never been in boats on choppy water? Remember the erratic breezes that rock the boats on an angle too. Surely shooting from boats is prohibited, at least in part, because water and wind action introduce unpredictable effects that make responsible shooting problematic if not impossible. I am out on Lake Ontario frequently in the summer--sometimes a mile or more from shore--as are many, many other people. I will fear to venture onto the lake because this legislation will make it unsafe to be there.

I object to the proposal to remove the spoilage prohibition for cormorant hunting. Even with a possible provision for suitable collection and disposal, the proposal is worded too vaguely to be fairly assessed by the public. But in any case, how could retrieval from the water, a mile out, possibly be done? Perhaps the proposal is mute on this because it is not possible. I’m not in any way suggesting that hunters would simply consider the birds buried if they sank—but it will be difficult to find them floating, let alone retrieve them. A bird is relatively small, close to the colour of the water, and generally a fair distance away from the boat when it falls. Good luck. Although birds do die naturally, some over water, this legislation could easily have the effect of overloading underwater ecology from sunken birds. Meddling with nature is problematic, and in the case of this proposed legislation, unnecessary.

As well:
If "the Great Lakes populations [of cormorants] have ... stabilized or declined slightly," surely a cull is not necessary. Meddling with nature rarely produces good results. It also sounds suspiciously like political coat-tailing on nature.

Cormorant diet in the Great Lakes region has been widely discussed, and there seems to be no consensus and very little, if any, scientific evidence to back up the assertion that cormorants interfere in a meaningful way with the fishing industry. Certainly none has been provided in the proposal, which is vague and seems to rely on hearsay.

The cormorant reputation for destroying trees where they nest may be well founded -- we’ve all seen the bare trees -- but shooting them indiscriminately will only spread the tree problem further by forcing colonies to move to other locations, which they will then destroy.

The phrase used in the official outline, "cormorants have been detrimental to ... aesthetics," also verges on the ridiculous given the current government's apparent attitude to culture, climate change (which will certainly alter our aesthetic if allowed to continue as it is) and Green Belt development. Besides, cormorants are actually quite lovely looking--go down to the waterfront next summer and watch them drying their wings on the breakwaters side-by-side with the ducks, minks and night herons.

Please do not go forward with this proposal. Not only is it unnecessary, it is unethical and unsafe.