Carp Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) What would happen if every last cormorant was destroyed (which won't happen in my lifetime)? Vegetation would flourish once again, sportfish populations would increase, people, animals, other nesting birds would be able to use the islands and shorelines again and there would be a significant increase in water quality around these areas too. I can't see a negative impact on any other living creature with the demise of the cormorant. Am I missing something ? If these cormorant lovers have a few birds hanging around their own properties, destroying their vegetation and stinking up the place, I'm sure they wouldn't be so opposed to a cull. They're always ready to oppose necessary measures to control wildlife somewhere else, but when it's happening in their own backyard, the tune changes quickly. How many people in Newmarket, Ontario supported the cancellation of the spring bear hunt to protect those cute, cuddly bears they see on TV, then turned around and wanted more control measures put in place when bears were spotted running around on their city streets and in their yards recently? Edited April 16, 2009 by Carp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 you guys read too much OFAH propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkennedy Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 i have to question weather some of these people have truly witnessed the destruction,the full impact of what these birds are capable of. btw my first post. hello to all. much more positive post to come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotrod Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Propaganda? All it takes is a visit to any of the waterbodies mentioned to see first hand the destruction these birds have caused and they are out of control and something needs to be done. That is truth, not propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POLLIWOGG Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 You can't leave people or coons or skunks on these nesting islands because the fumes would kill them....no joke ..the ammonia fumes would kill them . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) well here's some more propaganda for you. http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/factsheets...rmorants-e.html Edited April 16, 2009 by Dr. Salvelinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotrod Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Nice data and facts................from 1993. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Sweet, I won't feel bad trying to run over the buggers while out in GBay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 the cormorant argument always fails when "science" gets involved. sound ecosystem management decisions are made based on science, not on pressure from special interest groups looking for a scapegoat. First argument I heard was "cormorants are eating all the fish" Science showed that they consume predominantly alewife, shad, smelt, etc., Then people started to say they were eating all the prey species, thus causing the crash in salmonids. So science showed that the NATIVE TO CANADA cormorants were eating a miniscule portion of the prey species (.5%) and that the NON-NATIVE sport fish were eating a much more significant 13%. Now the argument has shifted to their nesting sites and the damage they cause. Do they kill trees? Certainly! Is their crap disgusting? You bet it is! Most poop is! BUT to suggest that we should be destroying a naturally flourishing species to make OFAH feel good is ludicrous. There will be an inevitable decline in the species. It's basic population dynamics. Spending money and resources on culling is simply DELAYING the crash in populations that will happen. I'm sick of the suggestion that human interference in a naturally flourishing species is sound ecosystem management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotrod Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 The science and facts from 1993? nothing has changed since then, and all the damage they cause that people report is an illusion and not "scientific". How about these facts from the article you posted. "Fish and wildlife officials do not currently have sufficient data to properly evaluate this problem. It is true that cormorant numbers have increased in northern Georgian Bay during the last decade. Cormorants do eat yellow perch and bass, and if these species were locally abundant, they could form the major part of their diet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) can you provide any up to date research to support ANYTHING you say? a single peer reviewed article suggesting that cormorants are responsible for a decline in sportsfish? NO? bummer. I guess all the journal articles from the 90's are really "inconvenient" to your argument then. Edited April 16, 2009 by Dr. Salvelinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 can you provide any up to date research to support ANYTHING you say?a single peer reviewed article suggesting that cormorants are responsible for a decline in sportsfish? NO? bummer. I guess all the journal articles from the 90's are really "inconvenient" to your argument then. Are you missing the fact that things *might* change in 15 or so years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotrod Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 If the best "science" you can come up with is from 1993 then it pretty much renders it useless as it pertains to 2009 don't you think? "First argument I heard was "cormorants are eating all the fish" Science showed that they consume predominantly alewife, shad, smelt, etc., Did you even read the link you provided? If that's true what about the science taken from the link you provided that says "Cormorants do eat yellow perch and bass, and if these species were locally abundant, they could form the major part of their diet." Never let science stand in the way of.......well science. Never let truth get in the way of a good debate, "inconvenient" or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I don't need a peer reviewed article published in Nature to prove to me that cormorants - in their current, uncontrolled state - are really bad for the ecosystem. Maybe they are natural here, but they are are not adequately controlled by predation (or disease yet) and their #'s are growing exponentially. If rats were native to canada, would we not be able to set up traps to control their #'s? Its funny (and sad) -- someone mentioned to me that there's a proposed study to determine if bait-fishing for musky is a good thing....whether the process of using live bait (which often results in deep or swallowed hooks) is more detrimental to the musky stocks than artifiical lures. Anyone with a brain knows its the case.....but apparently we need an academic study (resulting in a bunch of dead muskies) to prove it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) This debate is moot from both sides. I'm just glad we have people with educations in biology and ecology making the decisions for us. Edited April 16, 2009 by Dr. Salvelinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 This debate is moot from both sides. I'm just glad we have people with educations in biology and ecology making the decisions for us. Educate me. How.... - quickly is their population growing? - is their population going to control naturally? What (other than disease) will be the pressure on their population? - far are we from having that happen? - is the impact of their CURRENT state being measured? any data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Educate me. How....- quickly is their population growing? - is their population going to control naturally? What (other than disease) will be the pressure on their population? - far are we from having that happen? - is the impact of their CURRENT state being measured? any data? Because I do not study them I can't answer these questions for you. Talking to an MNR official might be a good start. If you want to know how their population will be limited naturally read some introductory population dynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_dynamics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_C Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 A lot can and does happen in a span of 16 years, so as much as i agree with hard facts, and scientific data. If the last real study on cormorants was 16 years ago, isn't it time they do a more current assessment. In this matter though, as someone stated above, it's a matter of common sense! Closed beaches, dwindling fish populations, bullying other native birds off nesting site, habitat and vegetation destruction etc.. Can't be ignored... Do these extreme activist even see any of this? Most likely not... All they see is the killing of a cute feathery animal.... Ignoring all the negative affects the species is having on the native environment. But HEY... it's a cute BIRD!!!!! Why not defend the Round Goby??? Not cute enough for you .. They'll be the first to your boat to protest when killing a cormorant, but will they be they when your culling Gobies from Lake Erie... HEll NO.... If your going to jump on the bandwagon and be the defenders of God's creatures, no matter how justifiable it is to cull that species. Why discriminate and only stand up for cute animals you can use as poster child. Imagine Bono and Madonna, starting an activist campaign for Zebra mussels! LIke hell that's going to happen, can't market themselves with that species like they can with a cute little harp seal pup! Some people should stick to their bloody day jobs, and let the people who've gone to school for this stuff do what they need to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_C Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 A lot can and does happen in a span of 16 years, so as much as i agree with hard facts, and scientific data. If the last real study on cormorants was 16 years ago, isn't it time they do a more current assessment. In this matter though, as someone stated above, it's a matter of common sense! Closed beaches, dwindling fish populations, bullying other native birds off nesting site, habitat and vegetation destruction etc.. Can't be ignored... Do these extreme activist even see any of this? Most likely not... All they see is the killing of a cute feathery animal.... Ignoring all the negative affects the species is having on the native environment. But HEY... it's a cute BIRD!!!!! Why not defend the Round Goby??? Not cute enough for you .. They'll be the first to your boat to protest when killing a cormorant, but will they be they when your culling Gobies from Lake Erie... HEll NO.... If your going to jump on the bandwagon and be the defenders of God's creatures, no matter how justifiable it is to cull that species. Why discriminate and only stand up for cute animals you can use as poster child. Imagine Bono and Madonna, starting an activist campaign for Zebra mussels! LIke hell that's going to happen, can't market themselves with that species like they can with a cute little harp seal pup! Some people should stick to their bloody day jobs, and let the people who've gone to school for this stuff do what they need to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) Because I do not study them I can't answer these questions for you. Talking to an MNR official might be a good start.If you want to know how their population will be limited naturally read some introductory population dynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_dynamics I (think I) have a pretty solid grasp of (introductory) population dynamics...i`m just wondering which pressure(s) you feel will ultimately bring them back down? I think that while they are a native species, their long absence essentially makes them an invasive species. The natural predation etc no longer exists to control them. This is not like a rabbit population that peaks, followed by their predators bringing them back down,a nd cycling back and forth (the most basic example of pop dynamics). I can`t think of a single downward pressure on these birds,....are we waiting for disease, or MUCH worse - lack of food? They are also benefiting from artifical conditions created by us or other invasive species (ie....clearer water). I am generally a fan of letting nature work itself out, but in this case i see nothing but negative impact from t his highly invasive species. Edited April 16, 2009 by cram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotrod Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) Politics have everything to do with the mnr's reluctance to tackle the issue and they don't want to get their hands dirty, like the cancellation of the spring bear hunt. The CO's in the field know how much damage the birds do and don't need a study to draw their own conclusions but they have no power. I think the reasons there haven't been any recent studies done is because they are unnecessary. All one has to do is look around them on the infected waterbodies to see the damage caused and realize something needs to be done to cull the entire population, not just one area of the province. Edited April 16, 2009 by hotrod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_Brown Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 We should kill all the loons while were at it. I mean the darn things are just a cormorant with pretty feathers. Hope nobody looks at us as invasive. What has been suggested is spending lots of money to "reduce" the number of cormorants. Maybe we could scrape the gun registry and use the money to blast birds. How much are we looking to spend for this? We will not get rid of them, if you kill them off they will return to fill the void left by the cull. It's like cutting your lawn and clear water is fertilizer. Unless someone has a good recipe for them we'd better get use to them until their population levels off. If only they ate purple loosestrife. I don't like them either but imagine the money it would cost us to temporarily reduce them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotrod Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) I don't think it would cost too much at all if they just had an open season on them as pests and let the guys shoot them, they wouldn't get a chance to come back if they were constantly under fire, kinda like when you cut your grass when it gets too long. Loons vs cormorants is apples and oranges, there aren't thousands of loons destroying the ecosystem they inhabit. Edited April 16, 2009 by hotrod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 the reason they are giving out more moose and deer tags now, is to cull the heard, it is a management tool that does work and the same should happen with the commiRat cormorant....they no longer have predators that will eat them, so we need to kill them and if loon numbers get out of hand, of course we should find a way to reduce their numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cram Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 We should kill all the loons while were at it. I mean the darn things are just a cormorant with pretty feathers. Hope nobody looks at us as invasive. What has been suggested is spending lots of money to "reduce" the number of cormorants. Maybe we could scrape the gun registry and use the money to blast birds. How much are we looking to spend for this? We will not get rid of them, if you kill them off they will return to fill the void left by the cull. It's like cutting your lawn and clear water is fertilizer. Unless someone has a good recipe for them we'd better get use to them until their population levels off. If only they ate purple loosestrife. I don't like them either but imagine the money it would cost us to temporarily reduce them. Loons and cormorants are completely different. I assume you havent seen a thriving cormorant community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now