Cormorants on Nipissing

[Jonny]

Where we live, on the shore of the Great North Bay, Lake Nipissing, we are regularly treated to a sight we would rather do without. Every summer there are numerous days when we see cormorants winging in from the south side of the lake. When whatever triggers them to come fishing up here on the north side, you can watch them with a pair of binoculars, winging in from a distance and stacked up in flights looking like nothing as much as squadrons of WWII bombers, in wave after wave.

 

When they land they start moving parallel to the shore like a rolling carpet, the ones at the front of the flock diving, the ones at the rear taking off and leap-frogging over the seething mass of other birds. It's like a giant vacuum cleaner moving along the bay, and it can go for miles before they've had enough.

 

At times when the flock is the largest, I've done counts on them, and I have seen flocks that easily top a thousand birds. Once I estimated 1500. I've contacted the MNR about controlling them and the answer is twofold: 1) We're monitoring them (whatever that means) and 2) Cormorants are native to Lake Nipissing.

 

Native, my foot.

 

When I was a kid, I fished Lake Nipissing with great regularity with my parents in the 50's and 60's and we didn't even know what a cormorant looked like.

 

With all the other fishing pressure on this lake, summer and winter, we (as the expression goes) "don't need no stinkin' cormorants"!

 

I know they're a problem elsewhere too. Is there anywhere where they are being controlled?

Edited June 7, 2009 by Jocko Point Jonny

[Billy Bob]

The tree hugging NUT cases out there will protect these OVER populated birds to no end. Then when the fish population crashes they will then defend the fish to no end prohibiting fishing for the benefit of the the fish......

 

Now you can see what our world has become :<(

[fish-miester]

I have been reading reports much like yours, and i'd really like to see what the mnr are going to do,

theese birds can be a big problem on the fish , but so can the fishermen and poachers and just like Billy said they will take "natures side" and possibly change regulations etc..

Edited June 7, 2009 by fish-miester

[BillM]

Could probably take out 3-4 at a time with a 12gauge and a #2 shot

[Sinker]

Could probably take out 3-4 at a time with a 12gauge and a #2 shot

 

 

 

I'd be first in line to whack a boat load of them!!!! A spring season on them would be perfect. Right before turkey season, just as the ice comes off. They're in big flocks then, as they're migrating north again. I'd bet if you put a few decoys up in the trees of a small island on any body of water, you'd smash them all day long. I'd be more than willing to donate a few cases of ammo to have a public cull on them.........what fun that would be!!!! We don't need to irradicate them, just keep thier numbers in check. Sure, they're native, but never in the numbers we have now!!! We even have special seasons on geese where you can kill up to 10 birds per hunter per day, and have a couple dozen in your possesion. This is just to save the city's waterfront properties................Why not do the same for commorants??? Friggen anti's.........

 

 

 

Sinker

[Jonny]

Could probably take out 3-4 at a time with a 12gauge and a #2 shot

 

It could be hard to get close enough. I know from the experience of trying to approach a fishing flock at 35-40 kph.

 

It's a good thought ...

 

...but it'd be breaking all kinds of regulations even IF you could get close enough.

[Sinker]

It could be hard to get close enough. I know from the experience of trying to approach a fishing flock at 35-40 kph.

 

It's a good thought ...

 

...but it'd be breaking all kinds of regulations even IF you could get close enough.

 

 

Thats why you set up on an island or point with decoys. Get them close and shoot thier faces off!!!! Fair chase, and totally legal if they would open a season on them!!!!!!

 

Sinker

[JohnF]

I've come to the conclusion that the tree hugger types don't get it. The natural evolution of our planet is dependent to a very large degree what we humans do to impact it. If we collectively choose to eradicate Cormorants then that's the way it was meant to be. We're the dominant species at the moment. It's ridiculous to say that we mustn't meddle in Mother Nature's grand plan cuz we're an inherent part of it, and so is whatever we do. I know that sounds callous, but the fact is that trying to second guess nature's reaction to our impact is stupid. It is what it is. That being said we all need to be prepared to accept the consequences of our impact, or be prepared to explain to our grandchildren why there are no more Cormorants (they crapped too many islands to death), Manatees (they were too stupid and slow to get out of the way of our props), etc.

 

Take the island crap murder to it's limit and what do you have? The earth is dead, void of living vegetation. We're too good at protecting those things we deem to need protection. What we don't do so well is compensate for the harm those protected species do to our environment. We try, but we generally get it wrong. Perhaps the smartest move is to go with the flow. When the cormorants are all gone we'll have to deal with the proliferation of whatever little aquatic critters or green growing things (like Kudzu) that is no longer contained by their crapping presence. Mother Nature is way too sophisticated and convoluted for us to win in the guessing game so why not go with our instincts. Fight the Cormorants and the Gobies and the Zebra mussels to the best of our ability. We'll get the most years of comfort and enjoyment out of our planet before we turn it into a dead thing. Given the twists and turns of space planet death is probably inevitable anyway, whether we bring it on or nature does with a huge astroid or a drop in heat from the sun.

 

We are what we are. If that means we're gonna do ourselves in, so be it. Let's enjoy whatever time we have here. That doesn't mean we have to be totally irresponsible in dumping huge amounts of toxic waste into our ground water, but worrying about the continued existence, even the proliferation, of individual species is most likely beyond our ability as only one more extant animal.

 

How's that for a huge philosophical rush of blood to the head. Now I'm gonna go and bbq a huge bloody steak and kill off a few potatoes and carrots to boot. I might even open a bottle of wine. What the hey, we killed those grapes long ago.

 

Enjoy yer dinners

 

JF

[Billy Bob]

Years ago several charter captains on the east end of Lake Ontario (NY) took it upon themselves to take out MANY cormorants with their shotguns on some island. Rumor has it they killed about 500 birds but the word leaked out about the whole deal and some paid hefty fines while others even spent time in jail...

 

I would of chipped in to bail them out ...

[JohnF]

Years ago several charter captains on the east end of Lake Ontario (NY) took it upon themselves to take out MANY cormorants with their shotguns on some island. Rumor has it they killed about 500 birds but the word leaked out about the whole deal and some paid hefty fines while others even spent time in jail...

 

I would of chipped in to bail them out ...

 

 

When I was a kid my folks would take us to the nearest city (Stratford) to watch the local cops blast at the starlings hanging around the city hall. This was an annual event and was well-attended by watchers. Doesn't seem to have a durned thang for th starlings although I have to say they don't seem to be quite as numerous as they apparently were way back when. That's probably not a bad thang.

 

I remember as a kid being encouraged to go to the local dump to shoot rats. We'd tape a flashlite to the gun barrel or just shine the car headlights into the garbage. We got lots and lots of huge rats but they don't seem to have gone away because of it. Man does what he's gotta do to control his environment. If we manage to remain the alpha critter we'll keep trying to have our way.

 

The critters that are meant to survive, like man has so far, will. The others will fade away whatever we do. I believe that.

 

JF

[Jonny]

I know that technically cormorants were "native" to Lake Nipissing. There were supposedly a few breeding pairs here in the 40's or 50's. So that's the excuse for letting them proliferate on the lake and do nothing. The MNR has totally dropped the ball on this. Personally I think they just can't be bothered to address the problem and so turn a deaf ear, even though they know with absolute certainty that the cormorants are impacting the fish population and they are despoiling islands which now look like a forest fire has scorched the trees dead.

 

Cormorants are VERMIN... they should be treated as such.

 

This lake had a perfectly good natural balance when there were NONE of them to be seen. There wouldn't be a single reason to miss them if they were gone. Not a one! If they were rats infesting a town, we'd see some action soon enough, but their impact is underwater and on often remote islands. Out of sight, out of mind, the MNR must figure. On this issue they have ZERO respect from me.

 

And it sounds like the MNR is similarly inactive, or actually obstructive, on the issue of cormorants in other areas as well.

[Sinker]

MNR......Ministry of NO RESULTS!!

 

They all know very well about the impact of those sky rats. Its just a long and painful process to do anything about it, and as long as they can sit on thier and collect thier pay, they won't do a thing about it until its too late.

 

Same as always, too little, too late!!!!

 

Sinker

[edmichit]

Problem would be solved if they tasted any good.

[Jonny]

I've been told that oiling the eggs would be a good way to get rid of them. Destroy the eggs and they would just lay more, but if they're oiled they'll sit on them but they won't hatch. Anybody else heard that?

Edited June 8, 2009 by Jocko Point Jonny

[Billy Bob]

I've been told that oiling the eggs would be a good way to get rid of them. Destroy the eggs and they would just lay more, but if they're oiled they'll sit on them but they won't hatch. Anybody else heard that?

 

Yes, our DEC has been doing this on a limited basis with the Canada goose population here.

[Sinker]

Problem would be solved if they tasted any good.

 

Have you tried them??

[Jonny]

Have you tried them??

 

Think "fish duck" (i.e. merganser). Ever try one of those?

 

I have.

 

Once.

[4thgen]

The critters that are meant to survive, like man has so far, will. The others will fade away whatever we do. I believe that.

 

JF

 

I was going to quote everyhting you've typed but I figure that this single sentence sums up your knowledge of the natural world quite well. Are you actually saying that humans haven't been responsible for any extinctions?

 

I can see that the "pseudo-science cormorant hating bandwagon" is all full up, so I guess I'll just have to take a different path. Hmmm... a species that is growing exponentially and degrading the areas they inhabit? I'm pretty sure that I can think of another species that matches, but on a planetary scale as opposed to a few small islands...

 

Good luck to all those who live in ignorant bliss, I envy you.

[Guest gbfisher]

Wait till ya see the Pelicans show up...........

I seen one or two every year since the cormorants have come back....

 

Get out the shot gun and shoot away if they bother you that much. The numbers out on Georgian Bay have declined...maybe cause they went inland.....

[Rich Clemens]

Yeah .... saw two of those suckas flying over the Rideau this past week. Used to see a lot more, but I guess they have moved on.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Rich Clemens

[Jonny]

I can see that the "pseudo-science cormorant hating bandwagon" is all full up... I'm pretty sure that I can think of another species that matches, but on a planetary scale as opposed to a few small islands...

 

I really dislike these "man is the worst animal" arguments. They're an excuse for doing nothing when something needs to be done.

 

We change the natural world when we want to. We do it all the time. In a lot of cases the change is either questionable or downright bad for the environment. That's the basis for your attitude, and I wouldn't say that generally it's a poor attitude; I have that same attitude myself --- most of the time.

 

But in cases like this, getting rid of a geographic population of a part of a proliferating species is not bad, or even questionable. Like I said, the balance of nature on Nipissing, and I daresay other places in the Great Lakes area, was fine without cormorants. If they degrade the environment, which they do, and if they compete for resources with us, which they do, and if they are an invasive species, which they are, there's absolutely nothing wrong with us doing something about it. Nothing will be affected (except in a positive way) but the cormorants.

 

Our use and enjoyment of the environment and its resources, within sustainablity guidelines, is a fact and will not change. The presence of cormorants doesn't have to be a fact.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Jocko Point Jonny

[JohnF]

I was going to quote everyhting you've typed but I figure that this single sentence sums up your knowledge of the natural world quite well. Are you actually saying that humans haven't been responsible for any extinctions?

 

I can see that the "pseudo-science cormorant hating bandwagon" is all full up, so I guess I'll just have to take a different path. Hmmm... a species that is growing exponentially and degrading the areas they inhabit? I'm pretty sure that I can think of another species that matches, but on a planetary scale as opposed to a few small islands...

 

Good luck to all those who live in ignorant bliss, I envy you.

 

Not saying that at all, at least not with the same meaning you're giving it.

 

I'm saying that man is an evolving critter on this earth. If it's natural for critters in the wild to eliminate some of their neighbours at some point in their evolution then why is every bit of man's tinkering wrong? Isn't it logical that a certain amount of what man does will impact on other critters? Trying to second guess that process is therefore contrary to the natural course of things in some cases. Perhaps there are certain instances when man simply has to meddle, that it's preordained by Mother Nature and if man doesn't do it, she will some other way. Dunno how we know which times we should and when we shouldn't but are we right to always assume we're wrong about meddling?.

 

Perhaps the eradication of cormorants is the best way for nature to accommodate evolving man, and by trying to make less of a footprint we actually do more harm in the end. I realize that's kinda convoluted thinking and probably off the mark, but who knows for sure? Perhaps it really just comes down to the survival of the fittest after all.

 

JF

[laszlo]

this elitist mentality, we as humans have embraced so gracefully, is what blinds us so severely.

anything we do to alter the natural state of the environment

for the sake of our own 'CONVENIENCES' is so selfish and down right idiotic.

when it comes to SURVIVAL…well now this is something different all together.

[Headhunter]

Funny how threads like this one have a way of opening a can of worms!

Gonna sit back, grab some popcorn, maybe a cold one and watch this thread crumble in obscurity!

Boy am I ever mellowing in my old age!

HH

 

PS... I'll limit the number of breathes I take to ensure that I'm not harming the planet... now if I only had a pair of rocket boots, I wouldn't leave a foot print anywhere... Doh... forgot about carbon!

[JohnF]

Funny how threads like this one have a way of opening a can of worms!

Gonna sit back, grab some popcorn, maybe a cold one and watch this thread crumble in obscurity!

Boy am I ever mellowing in my old age!

HH

 

PS... I'll limit the number of breathes I take to ensure that I'm not harming the planet... now if I only had a pair of rocket boots, I wouldn't leave a foot print anywhere... Doh... forgot about carbon!

 

Perhaps just put a muffler on the gas passer.

 

JF