Gregoire Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 This argument always ends up in the same place. What i want to know, is how far those on the "left" side of this issue are willing to go in their own lives in order to maintain the natural order of things. The reality is that we, through our actions have irrevocably changed the environment, we are as much a part of that environemnt as any lesser creature on this planet. Other creatures also change the environment sometimes to the detriment of others, of course humans have a much greater impact than any other living thing, that is until the next pandemic, but then viruses are just innocent creatures, we shouldn't interfere with their work.. So where does reality come into play, are we going to cull our own species so there is more room for the birds? Do we stop drilling for oil and no doubt plunge the world into chaos? The reality is that we aren't going anywhee and we are as much a part of this world as the birds and the viruses. The difference is that we can recognize our mistakes and hopefully improve things, but that doesn't mean that when a treasured resource is being dmaged that we can't act, the fact of the matter is that cormorants are not endangered, if they are damaging a resource there is no reason, except for maybe some pie in the sky leave nature alone philosophy, that we shouldn't act. I am an environmentalist, i have degrees to prove it, but i am also a realist, in the real world our actions have consequences. sometimes we make choices to improve our life at the detriment of the rest of our world, sometimes we take action to rebalance that world the best we can. This progressive idea that every animal is sacred and nature will fix things is so ridiculous, when distilled down to its essence that philoshphy would have us all living in grass huts, its nonsense. This quote was in the National post today, in an atricle by lorne gunter, it is refering to green power in Ontario but it sums up many similar arguments that progressives like to make, such as this thread, or the gun registry etc "This mentality is rooted in anti-market, pro-government indoctrination. It is based on economic ignorance and fed by a feeling that one’s self-identified moral superiority makes one’s every idea possible merely because one has thought it, along with millions of other progressive-minded individuals. It is both smug and fanciful." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/14/lorne-gunter-the-growing-nightmare-of-mcguintys-green-energy-dream/#ixzz1Dwt74vuC We are as much a part of the environment as any cormorant, if we decide to reduce their numbers by a sensible amount it doesn`t make us immoral, in fact given that we are a natural part of the environment our actions are also natural. There are many parts of this post that make sense, however I take issue with that last part: "This mentality is rooted in anti-market, pro-government indoctrination. It is based on economic ignorance and fed by a feeling that one’s self-identified moral superiority makes one’s every idea possible merely because one has thought it, along with millions of other progressive-minded individuals. While it is true that the current cost of alternative energy is high, and will have an impact on our economy, the price of inaction may be even higher. In 2006 this issue was studied and the findings were published in the Stern Review. The review looked at climate change, so you need to believe in climate change in order for this report to have any relevance. (I would argue that climate change may have something to do with the explosion in the cormorant population.) Here is a link to the review itself: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/226271-1170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf Here is a link to the a wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review The review came to the conclusion that the longer we put off finding alternative sources of energy the more expensive it will be for us as a society to find a solution when fosil fuels are no longer a viable option. Even if you do not aggree with this opinion it is an interesting perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 The review came to the conclusion that the longer we put off finding alternative sources of energy the more expensive it will be for us as a society to find a solution when fosil fuels are no longer a viable option. Even if you do not aggree with this opinion it is an interesting perspective. Well we're getting away from cormorants completely, despite your creative injection of them at one point. ... but anyway... As fossil fuels dwindle, energy will get more expensive and alternative sources will then become "economical". It's going to happen whether we put off alternative sources or not. The only thing that changes by jumping into alternatives now is that it gets expensive FASTER, as we are finding out thanks to Mr. McGuinty. In my opinion we should have gone wholesale NUCLEAR for our power grid. The ultimate green energy for a country like Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 You are right, that is mostly off topic. However, abandoning alternative energy sources and culling cormorants do have one thing in common. They are an easy, painless solution that so not address the root cause of the problem. I do not want to get sidetracked on to other issues as this topic has for the most part been an informative debate on the issue. As an aside I would encourage you to look over the Stern Review if you have never heard of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I did look over the main features of the Stern review, and the positive and negative assessments of it. I'd say that like everything else, it's inconclusive. But anyway, back to cormorants if anyone has more to add... Heh Heh, I wish Fishn'wire would go back and fix that title! I've seen cormonart so many times I'm almost tempted to spell it that way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I did look over the main features of the Stern review, and the positive and negative assessments of it. I'd say that like everything else, it's inconclusive. What part of it was inconclusive, unless you are arguing that climate change is not real? It seems rational that the longer it takes to fix a problem the harder that problem will be to fix and the more expensive it will be to fix it. Sorry but your statement that it is inconclusive indicates to me that you did not really look at the review in any detail. Sorry to hijack this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sorry, you'll have to take my word that I looked at it. And my opinion. I won't discuss this any more here. I know where this global warming stuff always goes, and I don't think this is the thread or the forum for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solopaddler Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 What's a cormonart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 What's a cormonart? I think it's a Dodge model they used to make in the 60's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sorry, you'll have to take my word that I looked at it. And my opinion. I won't discuss this any more here. I know where this global warming stuff always goes, and I don't think this is the thread or the forum for it. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercman Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) http://www.on.ec.gc....rmorants-e.html http://www.proact-ca...links/id14.html http://www.thefishsi...ng-fish-refuges Thes sites should answer all the questions you have on the declining cormorant populations of north america Edited February 15, 2011 by mercman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookslav Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Who cares about the ethics of this LOL???? Cripes its an invasive species, that is causing harm to our fishery be it recreational or commercial? Talk about tree hugg'n hippie mantalities here geesh.... Why don't we just give P3TA a bit more fuel for their Mystery machine I'm no expert in population control so I'll leave the method of choice to the experts in the field but hell ya...If it is possible to cull them I'd be 100% behind that. But I am not confident in our abilty to launch an "effective" organized cull wide spread enough to be effective. This is very similar to the Coyote debate.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Talk about tree hugg'n hippie mantalities here geesh.... Why don't we just give P3TA a bit more fuel for their Mystery machine How is suggesting that we look at all our options a tree hugging hippie mentality? I am just asking people realize that their actions have effects. Sometimes people see what they recognize as a problem and identify a solution that makes sense to them, but when they act on their solution they just create more problems. I do not like to be insulted because I disagree with someone's opinion. And yes, I would consider being called a tree hugging hippie an insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solopaddler Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I am just asking people realize that their actions have effects. Sometimes people see what they recognize as a problem and identify a solution that makes sense to them, but when they act on their solution they just create more problems. Exactly. Like when the MNR released all those cougars to thin down the coyote population. Pure bedlam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercman Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/cormorant/greatlakes_facts.htm Not an invasive species.They were almost extinct in the 60's and 70's because of pesticde and polution.Their resurgance indicates a healthier ecosytem in the great lakes according to this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 don't bother bringing facts into the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I guess you could call cormorants "invasive" on Nipissing, where it seems they never were. The Nipissing ecosystem got along just fine without them but now we have thousands. With the existing pressures this highly productive but stressed lake faces, we don't need a new, unchecked source of pressure. If there were a program to eradicate them on Nipissing, and/or other smaller surrounding lakes (i.e. Nosbonsing) I'd be at the front of the volunteer line, and I'd help out for free. To put it bluntly, in our ecosystem, cormorants are a garbage species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercman Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 don't bother bringing facts into the argument. what was i thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookslav Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 The only issue I have with this argument is that fishing is a recreational sport. Most people do not rely on angling as a means of sustenance. The locusts threaten the livelihood of a farmer whereas the cormorants threaten our pastime.Just as an aside: in your analogy you seem to be referring to locusts as cormorants and as deer, rodents and birds as humans. I find that reasoning to be philosophically unsound. First off, I wasn't adressing you specifically as a tree hugger( I can't see your long hair from here) But seriously Dude....its totally tongue in cheek sarcasim and I appologise. Don't take it personal I guess sometimes I forget the CPU doesn't project that....my bad But since I'm here As far as I'm concerned fishing is not just a past time. I could argue its and industry in both tourism, and commercial markets, but to me it more about the tradition. And Cormorants are detrimental to all of the above period. So yes...Cormorants are very similar to Locust, rodents, or Gobbies for that matter. Suggesting otherwise on a fishing forum is crazy talk. On the less "hippie'ish" side of the issue... Like it or not there is even less proof floating around out there to suggest an organized Cull would be less effective then any alternatives. And I simply hate the idea of waiting it out for nature to do her thing when these dam birds eat 20 to 30% of their body weight per day, and are branching out to sensitive areas like Algonquin Park.... What I'm getting at here in a nut shell, Waiting it out is probobly not a very condusive solution either IMO. I just find it all a bit funny when culls are veiwed so ineffective While on the other side of the argument we blame our selves for overfishing/hunting as a cause for the depletion Of our resources that we are trying to protect. Its kinda the same thing is it not?.... Depleting the population of a subject by removing said subjects from the enviroment on a large scale??? Kind of an oximoron if you ask me I have heard over and over of the ineffectivness of Coyote Culls yet in Huron and Grey counties they put a $50 bounty on them, and are seeing significant reductions in predidation losses....interesting food for thought? Personally I'd support a cull, and like to see an egg oiling program similar to the Canadian Geese in southern Ontario....it beats the heck out of the alternative of waiting, and if it doesn't work, then its simply back to the drawing board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 To my mind, the Ontario MNR has a few key reasons for not doing anything about cormorants: Doing nothing costs nothing. Doing nothing avoids controversy. I'm sure the MNR would rather weather complaints from fishing/cottaging/camping stakeholders than from the flak they think they would get from the general public and the tree-huggers. Doing nothing is simply easier than doing something. The MNR isn't the most innovative or forward-thinking organization around. I don't think their reasoning includes anything that says that a control program can't have significant results. I think that's smokescreen (Cookslav, I think, kinda nailed it when he talked about overfishing/overhunting vs culling). It's hard to speak for other parts of Ontario but people around Nipissing love the lake enough, and have a close enough connection to it, that if a cormorant control program were initiated on the lake with the avowed goal of reducing the number of cormorants by culling and oiling eggs, the public opposition would be minimal. I'm pretty confident that would translate to other areas and lakes as well. As for cost, if the MNR were to get off their butts (if they would quit rationalizing and studying the problem) and give people the opportunity to do something, I think you would have tons of unpaid volunteers come forth, made up of sport fishers, outfitters, cottagers, first nations, you name it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) All I ask for is a single published resource showing how cormorants are responsible for the decline of a commercially or recreationally important species... I can provide plenty that state the otherwise... When you guys can provide hard science to back up your claims, I'll grab my pitchfork... Edited February 15, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercman Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 All I ask for is a single published resource showing how cormorants are responsible for the decline of a commercially or recreationally important species... I can provide plenty that state the otherwise... When you guys can provide hard science to back up your claims, I'll grab my pitchfork... No takers yet eh Doc ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solopaddler Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) In retrospect it's highly probable that the MNR released all those cougars to cull the cormonart population. It's pretty obvious how that's working out. Edited February 15, 2011 by solopaddler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehg Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 All I ask for is a single published resource showing how cormorants are responsible for the decline of a commercially or recreationally important species... I can provide plenty that state the otherwise... When you guys can provide hard science to back up your claims, I'll grab my pitchfork... I kind of agree, i haven't heard anything solid suggesting cormorants have decimated a fish population somewhere in Ontario. Some think (just kill 'em all) is the final solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) apparently my posts are disappearing! i wonder which good ol' boy i offended this time? The same reason this post was edited. Would you like to discuss this in P.M. and press the issue? Art Edited February 16, 2011 by aplumma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Doc. I agree that in some cases a study may be required. But when you see what these birds are capable of, and being on the water I am studying the situation every day through the summer. Just because my expertise is in automotive doesn't mean I am oblivious to everything else. I pay attention to the waters that I was raised on. It concerns me. But because I don't have the proper paperwork means my opinion is to be ignored? A couple years ago they were putting in new water lines and sewers past our shop. My dad told them they wouldn't be able to dig through the area they were planning on. "Don't worry" they replied, the experts checked it out. Well they did, sort of, I watched them halfheartedly do some checking previously. A couple days later the excavator was buried up over the cab with only the hoe sticking out. My father has been around long enough to see when the area they were trying to go across was a filled in swamp. So when I hear of "studies" and from many experiences from what I have seen, studies don't necessarily mean it's correct. You also need to take into account those that have good advise to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts