Comments

View the comments this notice received through the registry. You can either download them all or search and sort below.

Some comments will not be posted online. Learn more about the comment status and our comment and privacy policies.

Download comments

Search comments

Comment ID

16782

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Dear Government of Ontario, The current environmental climate is to save and preserve animals and their habitat. It offends me greatly that you would allow the killing of 50 birds per person per day. The cormorant is not a game bird. Read more

Comment ID

16785

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The proposal to treat Double-crested Cormorants as a game species is outrageous and flies in the face of scientific evidence, as others have documented in their response to this proposal, which need not be repeated here. Read more

Comment ID

16787

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This would be the best thing possible for the fisheries in the Great Lakes. It’s way past due. I’m a third generation fishing guide on the lakes and have watched in disgust these birds ravage the fishery and devistate the environment killing entire islands turning them into wastelands. Read more

Comment ID

16796

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I have read about the cormorant proposal and find it disgusting. There is no need to hunt these animals. Plenty of animal hunting is already occurring and there does not need to be more animals at risk of endangerment. Read more

Comment ID

16799

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I strongly oppose this proposal. Hunting and killing thousands of birds is a shortsighted idea. The evidence is not convincing. Far more consulting is needed with bird experts. Aesthetics, property and questionable business impacts are not strong enough reasons to allow such drastic measures. Read more