Contents of One Cormorant's Stomach

[Jonny]

Noun 1. scapegoat - someone who is punished for the errors of others

I would counter that according to the definition that is exactly what you are doing.

 

If you are addressing two major problems and you push for a third related one to be addressed, is that scapegoating? I don't think so. I have a feeling you think it's scapegoating because to you it seems that controlling cormorant populations is a drastic strategy.

 

I do not necessarily think that controlling animal populations should not be done (however I do not think that it is not ideal)

 

Did you mean "I do not think that it is ideal"?

 

i just think that we need to recognize that human beings have the single largest impact on the ecosystem. Blindly stating that culling or exterminating the population of cormorants will solve all our problems sets a dangerous precedent. All I am arguing is that we need be aware that this attitude, or philosophy if you prefer, is problematic

 

Inertia is on your side. It's easier to do nothing than it is to do something.

 

You're right - we do have the largest impact, but we also have the largest say in how to manage resources.

 

Sometimes we even have to RE-balance things, such as expanding deer hunting opportunities because there are too many as a result of lack of predators (which we got rid of).

 

I don't see a "dangerous precedent". We're not talking about getting rid of a vital part of the ecosystem. We're talking about getting rid of (or controlling) an organism without which the ecosystem was working just fine. Letting cormorants proliferate is in some respects the same as introducing rabbits to Australia.

 

We are supposed to believe that cormorants were at one time common in the Great Lakes basin. I wonder, is there evidence of flocks of thousands during, say, the days of the Fur Trade, or of flocks so large that they darkened the sky? Or what about say the 1920's or 30's, before DDT?

 

 

 

[Gregoire]

Sorry about the quadruple negatives. I do not think that we are diametrically opposed on this issue. I just think that we need to be cautious with our approach to the issue. What has caused the cormorant population to explode? What effect would culling the population have on the ecosystem? If we had an effective population we could do a study and determine the causes. Unfortunately our government has proven to be mostly inept in addressing environmental issues.

The one issue we definitely disagree on is whether killing a species is drastic or not. I think it is, you think it is not.

Your argument about inertia is not apt. If I took the easy way out, and did not respond to your proposal to cull cormorants I would be doing nothing. I would suggest that killing an animal because you perceive it to be the problem is taking the easy way out.

[Jonny]

Sorry about the quadruple negatives. I do not think that we are diametrically opposed on this issue. I just think that we need to be cautious with our approach to the issue. What has caused the cormorant population to explode?

 

The only thing that I have run across that could serve as an answer, or part of an answer, is that now that cormorants have survived decimation by DDT, their populations rage unchecked because they have few natural predators. Apparently on ocean coastlines of North America, bald eagles are a significant predator on cormorants. There aren't many bald eagles in the Great Lakes Basin, I don't think.

 

What effect would culling the population have on the ecosystem?

 

None. We would simply be back to where we were 10 or 15 years ago with few or no cormorants on most lakes.

 

The one issue we definitely disagree on is whether killing a species is drastic or not. I think it is, you think it is not.

 

In most cases I would probably consider it drastic. In the case of cormorants, which were not necessary to our ecological balance and indeed now unbalance it, no, I don't.

 

Your argument about inertia is not apt. If I took the easy way out, and did not respond to your proposal to cull cormorants I would be doing nothing. I would suggest that killing an animal because you perceive it to be the problem is taking the easy way out.

 

Actually I see it as the hard way. Controlling cormorants would take a LOT of work, and more with each passing year that we do nothing. The easy way (but hard on the fisheries and the environment) would be to do nothing and let the cormorant population peak, with the attendant fishery and habitat destruction. I think I'm looking at ease/difficulty from a practical standpoint whereas you may be looking at it from a moral/ethical one.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Jocko

[Gregoire]

Maybe the problem is that the eagle population has been wiped out. A solution might be to bring eagles back, if it ever existed. This is definitely a longer term solution then culling.

 

I believe if we do not act according to morals or ethics we should not act at all. It seems animalistic to kill off a species because it is in competition with us. (That is both an opinion and a philosophical standpoint on my part.)

[Jonny]

Maybe the problem is that the eagle population has been wiped out. A solution might be to bring eagles back, if it ever existed. This is definitely a longer term solution then culling.

 

Yes, obviously a solution that has some long-term potential, but WAY too slow to fix an explosion of numbers.

 

I believe if we do not act according to morals or ethics we should not act at all. It seems animalistic to kill off a species because it is in competition with us. (That is both an opinion and a philosophical standpoint on my part.)

 

When I brought up the moral/ethical idea I did have in mind that the morals or ethics are not fixed absolutes. In other words, an ethical stance would not mean no culling (killing) under any circumstances. In management of fish and game (or other orders such as insects, amphibians, etc.) moral or ethical arguments would apply in a similar way as to the provision of beef, pork or poultry for the table.

 

Of course that's not to say that wildlife doesn't have some intrinsic values other than edibility.

 

What happens if the fox won't leave the hen house alone, even though you've done what you can to keep him out? You shoot the fox.

 

I would look at the ethical side of culling cormorants more like a farmer dealing with a plague of locusts. The farmer doesn't care where the locusts came from. All he's concerned with is that they weren't there and eating his crops before, and he wants to re-establish the previous status quo (i.e. no locusts and a good crop). He might be losing a significant but bearable portion of his crops to deer, rodents and birds, but he doesn't need the added burden of the locusts.

 

 

 

[hammercarp]

This is a very interesting discussion. Wanna bet a graph that looks something like this is sitting on the walls and desks of people looking at the issue, in the OMNR and at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters.

But there is no getting around that we , that is people, really have taken a big chunk out of the fish population. It just seems a shame that just when we should has seen the positive impact of C&R practices that that has been negated by the rising cormorant population.

Part of the reason I took up promoting carp fishing was to help take the pressure off of other species. It may be something small but I feel good about that.

[Gregoire]

I would look at the ethical side of culling cormorants more like a farmer dealing with a plague of locusts. The farmer doesn't care where the locusts came from. All he's concerned with is that they weren't there and eating his crops before, and he wants to re-establish the previous status quo (i.e. no locusts and a good crop). He might be losing a significant but bearable portion of his crops to deer, rodents and birds, but he doesn't need the added burden of the locusts.

 

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.

Edited February 13, 2011 by fishgreg

[Gregoire]

It just seems a shame that just when we should has seen the positive impact of C&R practices that that has been negated by the rising cormorant population.

 

I have heard this argument over and over, I just wonder what evidence supports this argument. If there is more than anecdotal evidence then the movement to cull cormorants gains some legitimacy.

Edited February 13, 2011 by fishgreg

[hammercarp]

I have heard this argument over and over, I just wonder what evidence supports this argument. If there is more than anecdotal evidence then the movement to cull cormorants gains some legitimacy.

I fish beside the CCIW building during the spring and I can tell you that they are already doing field work on how to cull cormorants. It took a while but I believe that they have the data that warrants this.

[Gregoire]

I fish beside the CCIW building during the spring and I can tell you that they are already doing field work on how to cull cormorants. It took a while but I believe that they have the data that warrants this.

 

That is interesting and good to know.

[Jonny]

It just seems a shame that just when we should has seen the positive impact of C&R practices that that has been negated by the rising cormorant population.

 

Yep, starting to plug up one hole and another one opens up.

 

Part of the reason I took up promoting carp fishing was to help take the pressure off of other species. It may be something small but I feel good about that.

 

Good stuff. I started doing that many years ago in my own way, changing my own attitude to make pike and perch just as much a target of my fishing efforts as pickerel.

 

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.

 

They threaten our quality of life. Fishing is more than a pastime; it's a way of life. Not to mention - as I keep injecting - the environment. Can you think of any other creature that can absolutely destroy a beautiful island in a matter of one summer?

 

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.

 

That's not what I had in mind, and I didn't see it coming across that way.

 

 

 

[Gregoire]

I love fishing, it adds enjoyment and meaning to my life. At times it seems like it is the only thing that can set me right. The argument I would make is that, unlike a farmer, I would be able to survive without fishing. I find it hard to imagine a farmer surviving without crops. Again this is a philosophical point. Since this seems to have turned in to a philosophical argument you should make sure that your arguments are philosophically sound.

 

Let's agree to disagree. Maybe some day you can show me in person what the fishery in North Bay is like, and I can show you how to catch an urban pike. That is if you don't mind associating with a left wing pinko as I'm sure Don Cherry would characterize me.

Edited February 13, 2011 by fishgreg

[Jonny]

I love fishing, it adds enjoyment and meaning to my life. At times it seems like it is the only thing that can set me right. The argument I would make is that, unlike a farmer, I would be able to survive without fishing. I find it hard to imagine a farmer surviving without crops. Again this is a philosophical point. Since this seems to have turned in to a philosophical argument you should make sure that your arguments are philosophically sound.

 

It's not a perfect analogy but it's the best I can come up with, sorry. If I made the analogy any closer, then it would be identical, and not an analogy at all, and would lose its illustrative value.

 

Let's agree to disagree. Maybe some day you can show me in person what the fishery in North Bay is like, and I can show you how to catch an urban pike. That is if you don't mind associating with a left wing pinko as I'm sure Don Cherry would characterize me.

 

Sure. If we don't catch any fish I can always blame the cormorants!

 

I don't mind left-wing pinkos, unless they're too fanatic about it.

 

 

 

[Gregoire]

The only thing I'm fanatical about is fishing...and football. That is all.

[Jonny]

The only thing I'm fanatical about is fishing...and football. That is all.

 

Please tell me it's NFL, or we've got another bone of contention.

 

 

[Gregoire]

I'm a fantasy football addict. I'll watch any football but prefer the NFL.

[Jonny]

I'm a fantasy football addict. I'll watch any football but prefer the NFL.

 

I'm into fantasy football too. We have a 12 man league that's been running for years (starting in days when the commish had to do the calculations by hand!)

 

We run a Yahoo league based on the NFL. I'm also a big NFL fan. I have no use for the CFL though; it's a poor game by comparison.

 

My team has always been the Steelers, but I also like the Bills, the Eagles, and the Packers.

 

It's going to be a long drought again till the next season.

 

 

 

[Gregoire]

Tell me about it...the only advantage is I might focus even more attention of coaching.

[Bernie]

Just a note on this subject.

DDT wasn't used as an insecticide until it was discovered it had that capability in 1939.

There were no cormorants on Nipissing at that time.

My father has repeatedly stated that.

So it is an anomaly, but not sure of the cause, only the drastic effect.

I also believe they should be culled, maybe even eradicated here. Not a natural thing.

The cormorants are taking up natural habitat of the herring gulls and their numbers are decreasing because of it.

And as Jocko said, where they are taking up residence all vegetation has been decimated.

[Jonny]

Just a note on this subject.

DDT wasn't used as an insecticide until it was discovered it had that capability in 1939.

There were no cormorants on Nipissing at that time.

My father has repeatedly stated that.

 

Good to know, Bernie. I didn't know anything about that far back. I know that in the 50's, 60's and 70's, there were none on the lake.

 

So it is an anomaly, but not sure of the cause, only the drastic effect.

I also believe they should be culled, maybe even eradicated here. Not a natural thing.

The cormorants are taking up natural habitat of the herring gulls and their numbers are decreasing because of it.

And as Jocko said, where they are taking up residence all vegetation has been decimated.

 

Here's an example of cormorants and herring gulls. The "Rockpile" near the Goose Islands used to be exclusively gull territory...

 

 

[hammercarp]

The same thing has happened here in Hamilton Harbour. The herring gulls have been pushed off their nesting sights by cormorants and ringbill gulls. Off of Eastport Dr. here the gulls start competing for nest sites at the end of March. The one impoundment wall that runs perpendicular to Eastport is completely white with gulls by April. Then the cormorants show up and you can see it happen. First there is a small black section then it grows and grows and by may it is 3/4 black. Of course the small trees are all dead.

[blarg]

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.

Edited February 14, 2011 by blarg

[Sinker]

Fishing is a lot more than a pastime, or hobby. What about commercial fisherman? Fisheries as a resource??? The cormorants are putting a big hurt on all these, and then some.

 

I'd be the first in line to buy a license to kill off a few thousand. I'll start making decoys as soon as i hear its coming!!!

 

S.

[hammercarp]

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.

 

 

Well said.I believe your point is very valid. No matter what we think or which side we think we're on, we cannot escape the fact that we live in and are part of the natural world. All creatures exploit and effect the environment.

[Jonny]

Good points blarg, sinker, hammercarp.

 

Here's something I've been wondering, looking at those pics of the numerous cormorants on the "Rockpile" when there used to be none...

 

We are told, on pretty good authority I would assume, that cormorants were almost extinguished in the Great lakes Basin because of DDT. Since the DDT was in fish, and since cormorants and gulls eat mostly fish, why would the DDT have virtually wiped out the cormorants but not the gulls?

 

Is it possible that a cormorant's metabolism requires it to eat a LOT more than a gull, thus concentrating a lot more DDT in its body?

Edited February 14, 2011 by Jocko