Contents of One Cormorant's Stomach

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

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.

 

I agree and understand what you are saying. In many instances anglers can serve as the "canary in the coalmine" for the resource because they have intimate knowledge of their home waters. At the same time, I'm not willing to start laying waste to a species based on anecdotal evidence alone.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus

[Jonny]

Quotes from:

 

 

The Rise of the Double-crested Cormorant on the Great Lakes:

Winning the War Against Contaminants

Environment Canada http://www.on.ec.gc....rmorants-e.html

My comments in bold type.

If the current rate of population growth continues, the Great Lakes cormorant population would increase to more than three-quarters of a million birds by the year 2000. However, this is unlikely to occur. Most animals which colonize new areas show a period of initial, unrestricted growth, just as we have seen with cormorants over the last 10-15 years. Such growth, however, can not be sustained forever.Eventually, the population outstrips its food supply, outgrows its habitat (or nesting areas), or is reduced by disease or predation. When this happens, the cormorant population can be expected to drop in numbers, until it stabilizes itself again.

 

Cormorants sure aren't going to outgrow their habitat (nesting areas), not with all the thousands of islands that they have to choose from.

 

Predation – like what, for example?

 

Disease, yeah, let's wait to see if that happens in populations which have lots of room to spread out.

 

Outstrip the food supply? Now there's a comforting thought. How much of the food pyramid will be left?

 

According to fisheries biologists,stocks of the smaller prey fish have been decreasing dramatically in recent years. This decrease in the cormorants' food supply is probably already contributing to their decline on Lake Ontario.

 

Um, so does that mean that cormorants are the reason for the decline, and that is leading to their own decline? No consolation for the lost resources and environment.

 

The third concern is not such a clear issue. In northern Georgian Bay, fish harvesters feel that recent declines in local catches of yellow perch and smallmouth bass are the result of increased cormorant numbers at nearby colonies. As evidence they cite the ease with which a "meal" of fish was caught ten years ago, before the birds increased. Now, those fish are scarce and good catches are exceedingly rare. They also state that before cormorant numbers increased one could easily observe, when SCUBA diving, large and frequent schools of perch. These schools, too, have now disappeared.

 

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. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, with input from Environment Canada, are now undertaking a major study of the feeding habits of cormorants in Lake Huron in order to shed more light on this question.

 

They really only need one piece of data. If the quota-controlled commercial catches were stable before the cormorants burst upon the scene, then 2+2 wouldn't be too hard.

 

There is also concern about the effect of cormorants on the vegetation in their nesting grounds. Cormorants can damage vegetation by stripping leaves from trees. The combined weight of the birds and their nests can even break branches. But perhaps most importantly, their excrement, which rains down to the ground from their nests, kills the ground vegetation and eventually kills the nest tree. In some cases, the loss of these trees can lead to increased erosion. This is of particular concern on sand spits and barrier beaches which protect interior wetlands. In other areas, the vegetation may be of unusual natural significance, such as the islands in western Lake Erie which are forested by rare stands of Carolinian woodlands. The large cormorant colonies there could seriously impact or even destroy this vegetation.

So there's concern about rare stands of woodlands. I'd like there to be concern about ALL stands of woodlands, especially on islands.

 

My wife and I travelled through the northern States a couple of years ago. We stopped for gas at a town in North Dakota. The town was built around a nice lake, maybe an 80 to 100 acre lake, and in the middle of the lake was an island that I guess would have been beautiful at one time. All the island had on it was skeletons of trees, with cormorants perched on top. That's what those townsfolk got for not doing anything – an eyesore that will probably still be like that when their kids are grown.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Jocko

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

was anybody offended by my comments?

 

my account is now under review for making a joke in reference to solo's mnr cougar post where i alluded to our resource minister as being "a cougar"...

 

to those linda jeffrey supporters i offended, i apologize dearly. i thought i was being funny.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus

[Bernie]

"anecdotal evidence alone. "

 

So like many so called experts feel about someone not "properly educated" , my opinion is anecdotal?

 

Bill Gates, how was he educated?

[mercman]

yeeeeeeeeeee hawwwww Grab a gun We is gonna get us some kermerent critters.

 

Urban encroachment. I see it every day. We want to build some new condos, what do we do. Invade the dwindling woodlots around our overcrowded cities, denude the landscape of trees, grass marsh, and yes, even shrubberies.Force the indigenus creatures out of their homes and feeding areas, kill the food suply of seeds, small mamals and insects. Wouldnt that make US an INVASIVE SPECIES.

The critters are patient though. They know that nature will take its course. Like all invasive species, we will have our day of declineing numbers. We may be the most inteligent of all animals, but that dont make us the smartest.

 

Sounds a bit extreme eh......No more than what i`ve seen in this thread so far.

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

So like many so called experts feel about someone not "properly educated" , my opinion is anecdotal?

 

 

The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

 

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

 

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".

 

Evidence can be anecdotal in both senses: "Goat yogurt prolongs life: I heard that a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt lived to 120."

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.

 

Accounts of direct personal experience are commonly equated to anecdotal evidence where this form of evidence is not one of the above categories of anecdote, hearsay or conclusion deduced from generalisation. Unlike anecdotal evidence the reliability of accounts of personal experience is normally capable of assessment for legal proceedings.

When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are banned in some jurisdictions.[citation needed] The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than typical examples.[1]

Edited February 16, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus

[danc]

 

 

The attached photos show some of the small island habitat that is rather rare along the north shore of Nipissing. If I see cormorants starting to show indications of nesting on these islands and turning them into a stinking wasteland, you can be sure I won't be sitting around waiting for someone else to do something...

 

I've seen dozens of islands turned into barren poop covered rock because of Seagulls. Lets kill all the Seagulls too!

[blarg]

yeeeeeeeeeee hawwwww Grab a gun We is gonna get us some kermerent critters.

 

Urban encroachment. I see it every day. We want to build some new condos, what do we do. Invade the dwindling woodlots around our overcrowded cities, denude the landscape of trees, grass marsh, and yes, even shrubberies.Force the indigenus creatures out of their homes and feeding areas, kill the food suply of seeds, small mamals and insects. Wouldnt that make US an INVASIVE SPECIES.

The critters are patient though. They know that nature will take its course. Like all invasive species, we will have our day of declineing numbers. We may be the most inteligent of all animals, but that dont make us the smartest.

 

Sounds a bit extreme eh......No more than what i`ve seen in this thread so far.

 

Bird eats fish, more birds eat more fish, we care more about fish than bird, bird not endangered by any measurement, reducing bird population eases pressure on fish, bird still thriving.

 

Your post is meaningless, we aren't going to cull ourselves (you first?..didn't think so), like all other animals our own desires trump those of others, the wolf doesn't ask himself if the Caribou population is solid before he makes a kill, your attitude smacks of P3TA, with attitudes like that reasonable debate is impossible. It's a darn good thing the spring bear hunt was canceled, after all those bears were nearly extinct..

 

There is nothing extreme about this debate, or at least there shouldn't be, you know there are people who think plants have just as much right to life as we do, should we stop cutting down trees? I mean who is to say they aren't right, lets get real people, it's a bird. Anyone eat a chicken lately?

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

the ironic part of mentioning the spring bear hunt is that the issues are more similar than you realize.

 

the spring bear hunt was cancelled when the government bowed to public pressure, even though there was no scientific basis behind the move. sounds suspiciously familiar to the control/cull lobby.

 

i'm all for the reinstatement of the spring bear hunt but that's a totally different can of beans. if people start eating cormorants, i'm all for having a season! it's culling the population because of knee jerk politics that bugs me.

 

is that P3TA enough for you?

Edited February 16, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus

[Gregoire]

 

Your post is meaningless, we aren't going to cull ourselves (you first?..didn't think so), like all other animals our own desires trump those of others, the wolf doesn't ask himself if the Caribou population is solid before he makes a kill, your attitude smacks of P3TA, with attitudes like that reasonable debate is impossible. It's a darn good thing the spring bear hunt was canceled, after all those bears were nearly extinct..

 

 

The exchange of ideas and debate is not meaningless. I think the idea here is not that we should cull ourselves, but rather to point out the irony of the argument to cull cormorants. Only an unreasonable person would argue that it is not worth debating someone whose ideas are different than their own.

[mercman]

Bird eats fish, more birds eat more fish, we care more about fish than bird, bird not endangered by any measurement, reducing bird population eases pressure on fish, bird still thriving.

 

Your post is meaningless, we aren't going to cull ourselves (you first?..didn't think so), like all other animals our own desires trump those of others, the wolf doesn't ask himself if the Caribou population is solid before he makes a kill, your attitude smacks of P3TA, with attitudes like that reasonable debate is impossible. It's a darn good thing the spring bear hunt was canceled, after all those bears were nearly extinct..

 

There is nothing extreme about this debate, or at least there shouldn't be, you know there are people who think plants have just as much right to life as we do, should we stop cutting down trees? I mean who is to say they aren't right, lets get real people, it's a bird. Anyone eat a chicken lately?

 

thats just about the funniest rebuttal i have ever read. I rest my case.

[Jonny]

I've seen dozens of islands turned into barren poop covered rock because of Seagulls. Lets kill all the Seagulls too!

 

Look, I've fished dozens of lakes where there are healthy populations of seagulls, and your assertion is not correct. That's as mildly as I can put it.

 

Seagulls nest on barren rock. They don't nest in trees and they hardly even nest on the ground in wooded areas. They like open sky above them when they're nesting, so they pick barren or open areas to begin with. The small islets where you see large numbers of nesting gulls never had much vegetation on them anyway, if any at all. And almost certainly no trees.

 

 

 

[danc]

Look, I've fished dozens of lakes where there are healthy populations of seagulls, and your assertion is not correct. That's as mildly as I can put it.

 

Seagulls nest on barren rock. They don't nest in trees and they hardly even nest on the ground in wooded areas. They like open sky above them when they're nesting, so they pick barren or open areas to begin with. The small islets where you see large numbers of nesting gulls never had much vegetation on them anyway, if any at all. And almost certainly no trees.

 

Look. I've seen plenty of tree skeletons on islands where seagulls nest. That's as mildly as I can put it.

[Jonny]

Look. I've seen plenty of tree skeletons on islands where seagulls nest. That's as mildly as I can put it.

 

Not because of sea gulls you haven't.

 

Why do people notice where cormorants nest? Because they've never seen anything like it where seagullls nest. If we were used to seeing skeleton trees because of seagulls, it wouldn't be such a big issue with cormorants.

 

 

 

[danc]

Not because of sea gulls you haven't.

 

Why do people notice where cormorants nest? Because they've never seen anything like it where seagullls nest. If we were used to seeing skeleton trees because of seagulls, it wouldn't be such a big issue with cormorants.

 

Ok.

[Jonny]

yeeeeeeeeeee hawwwww Grab a gun We is gonna get us some kermerent critters.

 

Urban encroachment. I see it every day. We want to build some new condos, what do we do. Invade the dwindling woodlots around our overcrowded cities, denude the landscape of trees, grass marsh, and yes, even shrubberies.Force the indigenus creatures out of their homes and feeding areas, kill the food suply of seeds, small mamals and insects. Wouldnt that make US an INVASIVE SPECIES.

The critters are patient though. They know that nature will take its course. Like all invasive species, we will have our day of declineing numbers. We may be the most inteligent of all animals, but that dont make us the smartest.

 

Sounds a bit extreme eh......No more than what i`ve seen in this thread so far.

 

Urban encroachment and all that human "invasive" stuff is beside the point. We're not going to stop expanding because we feel guilty about it. We might, however, change HOW we expand.

 

We do a good job of managing viable populations of fish and wildlife, and we almost always manage with more fish and wildlife in mind. That should not mean, however that when there is an imbalance caused by OVER-population of a species, that we should feel guilty about controlling it.

 

A cormorant isn't sacrosanct just because it's a wild bird. Even deer aren't sacrosanct when they eat up Carolinian forest, or damage too many crops, or start colliding with vehicles too often.

 

Managing means trying to strike a balance; it doesn't mean trying to manage for maximum populations of everything.

 

I would argue that cormorants are not a necessary part of the equation on freshwater lakes.

[mercman]

My Point was this. With all the talk about invasive species and such, we are forgeting that in the big picture, we are also an invasive species. The cormorant problem is of our own doing. 40 years ago, they were almost extinct.Then we decided to fix the huge mess we made of this planet, by cleaning up the polution and poisons we put into out lakes and streams.Thus providing the remaining cormorant population with an ideal habitat to begin to reestablish its populations.We SHOULD have forseen the problems this would cause, but we didnt.And now we are stuck with them.Nothing we could do at this point would have an effect for years.We are responsible for cormorants, gobies,zebra mussels, earwigs,spruce bud worm, dutch elm disease,asian carp,snakehead,killer bees, etc etc etc.

[Jonny]

My Point was this. With all the talk about invasive species and such, we are forgeting that in the big picture, we are also an invasive species. The cormorant problem is of our own doing. 40 years ago, they were almost extinct.Then we decided to fix the huge mess we made of this planet, by cleaning up the polution and poisons we put into out lakes and streams.Thus providing the remaining cormorant population with an ideal habitat to begin to reestablish its populations.We SHOULD have forseen the problems this would cause, but we didnt.And now we are stuck with them.Nothing we could do at this point would have an effect for years.We are responsible for cormorants, gobies,zebra mussels, earwigs,spruce bud worm, dutch elm disease,asian carp,snakehead,killer bees, etc etc etc.

 

OK, I don't really have an argument with that.

 

But here on Nipissing, I think that we could make an immediate dent in the cormorant population. With a concerted effort starting this spring in the nesting areas, co-ordinated by the MNR and staffed by numerous volunteers, I'd bet we could halve the cormorant population on this lake by 2013 at the most, and drastically more after that.

 

Of course it won't happen. It seems too many people think we shouldn't or can't do anything, and the MNR certainly isn't antsy to move.

 

 

 

[Gregoire]

I think it is important to remember that gone are the days when one, or a group of people would see something wrong with the environment and they would then act on it. Quite often we recognize a problem and identify a solution to the problem through our perception of what has happened. The issue here is that what we think is the problem may not be, it just may be a change associated with the problem. If we act based on anecdotal evidence instead of the actual facts, then we may cause more harm than good.

For the most part this is the argument that people on this forum are giving towards culling cormorants. I would guess that most people who argued against a cull would have no problem if there was legitimate evidence to support it. I would argue that this is not anything but a P3TA or hippie attutide. If we are to engage in a debate we should not fall into the habit of stereotyping our opponents as people who are diametrically opposed to us. I would suggest that the members of this board have very similar values and beliefs, and if we disagree with each other just try to keep in mind that we have a lot in common.

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

I would suggest that the members of this board have very similar values and beliefs, and if we disagree with each other just try to keep in mind that we have a lot in common.

 

we all hate P3TA?

[Cookslav]

LOL...this thread makes me dizzy

 

Kill 'em all, to Culling is ineffective find another way, to they are no harm at all, to lets see the proof.

With a little bit of sarcasim, tongue in cheek, and genreal humor mixed in.

LOVE this site

 

 

Even the MNR agrees more study is needed but I think the BIGGEST issue even with regards to any further evaluation is the available study material is about 90% in relation to the great lakes....No one is looking at smaller lake impacts.

The MNR is in full agreement that the Cormorant boom "May" be a factor in the Perch and Bass declines the great lakes is seeing however further study is needed....I'd like to see that study done on smaller lake effected to get a true look into what a flock of 500-1000 birds can do on a day trip to the suburbs...

 

Not that Nippising is a small lake by any means...

But there is little publicized research being done there.

The OFAH, Muskies Canada and the general public consensus up that way are in agreement there is an issue,

So to me that is enough of a concern to warrant a second look for sure.

 

Seeing islands decimated, and simply knowing these birds are increasing in Algonquin park specifically

Is definatly the biggest concern to me and sets off red flags when thinking about other small unmonitored lakes.

If there is enough concerned about a lake the Size Nippising or Huron.....

There is definatly even more concern for Smaller inland lakes these flocks visit, and colonize.

Further to the point,

There was a definate sanctioned cull of these birds on Opeongo....I know this to be a fact.

So that in its self also says the MNR has reasons for concern in select situations.

In fact I'm positive there have been other culls in Ontario proving the MNR is in somecases is doing something about the issue, and this proves the detrimental aspect this bird can have, and that they feel a cull IS an effective tool in controlling the birds population if only on small scale operation....the question this raises is can the MNR accuratly assess small lakes through out the province in a Lake by lake scenario that is done in a timely manner so we can manage the damage before its a major issue.

 

THAT my freinds is the issue....is there enough man power to monitor the current situation?

[mercman]

LOL...this thread makes me dizzy

 

Kill 'em all, to Culling is ineffective find another way, to they are no harm at all, to lets see the proof.

With a little bit of sarcasim, tongue in cheek, and genreal humor mixed in.

LOVE this site

 

 

Even the MNR agrees more study is needed but I think the BIGGEST issue even with regards to any further evaluation is the available study material is about 90% in relation to the great lakes....No one is looking at smaller lake impacts.

The MNR is in full agreement that the Cormorant boom "May" be a factor in the Perch and Bass declines the great lakes is seeing however further study is needed....I'd like to see that study done on smaller lake effected to get a true look into what a flock of 500-1000 birds can do on a day trip to the suburbs...

 

Not that Nippising is a small lake by any means...

But there is little publicized research being done there.

The OFAH, Muskies Canada and the general public consensus up that way are in agreement there is an issue,

So to me that is enough of a concern to warrant a second look for sure.

 

Seeing islands decimated, and simply knowing these birds are increasing in Algonquin park specifically

Is definatly the biggest concern to me and sets off red flags when thinking about other small unmonitored lakes.

If there is enough concerned about a lake the Size Nippising or Huron.....

There is definatly even more concern for Smaller inland lakes these flocks visit, and colonize.

Further to the point,

There was a definate sanctioned cull of these birds on Opeongo....I know this to be a fact.

So that in its self also says the MNR has reasons for concern in select situations.

In fact I'm positive there have been other culls in Ontario proving the MNR is in somecases is doing something about the issue, and this proves the detrimental aspect this bird can have, and that they feel a cull IS an effective tool in controlling the birds population if only on small scale operation....the question this raises is can the MNR accuratly assess small lakes through out the province in a Lake by lake scenario that is done in a timely manner so we can manage the damage before its a major issue.

 

THAT my freinds is the issue....is there enough man power to monitor the current situation?

 

NOPE

[blarg]

My Point was this. With all the talk about invasive species and such, we are forgeting that in the big picture, we are also an invasive species. The cormorant problem is of our own doing. 40 years ago, they were almost extinct.Then we decided to fix the huge mess we made of this planet, by cleaning up the polution and poisons we put into out lakes and streams.Thus providing the remaining cormorant population with an ideal habitat to begin to reestablish its populations.We SHOULD have forseen the problems this would cause, but we didnt.And now we are stuck with them.Nothing we could do at this point would have an effect for years.We are responsible for cormorants, gobies,zebra mussels, earwigs,spruce bud worm, dutch elm disease,asian carp,snakehead,killer bees, etc etc etc.

 

Im sorry but calling humans an invasive species is P3TA speak, weather you like it or not, you don't seem to understand what the term means. Btw, do you honestly think that other species haven't moved from one habitat to others via natural means in the past? It's only humans that do that? We are doing exactly what we have naturally evolved to do, that doesn't mean the end results are always good, but it doesn't make it unatural or invasive. We are a natural byproduct of this planets biological evolution just like every other living thing. We are intelligent enough to have technologies that can have large adverse impacts on the world, but we can also use that big brain to be rational and make decisions that improve our lives while not destroying the world around us. If cormorants are a real problem we can react in a sensible way, jumping to the 'humans are bad' level of discussion in no way rational.

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

If cormorants are a real problem we can react in a sensible way, jumping to the 'humans are bad' level of discussion in no way rational.

 

 

You share something in common with P3TA, the group you hate so much; you are lobbying people to see things your way without any credible scientific facts... oh the irony!

Edited February 16, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus

[mercman]

Im sorry but calling humans an invasive species is P3TA speak, weather you like it or not, you don't seem to understand what the term means. Btw, do you honestly think that other species haven't moved from one habitat to others via natural means in the past? It's only humans that do that? We are doing exactly what we have naturally evolved to do, that doesn't mean the end results are always good, but it doesn't make it unatural or invasive.(as with Cormorants) We are a natural byproduct of this planets biological evolution just like every other living thing. We are intelligent enough to have technologies that can have large adverse impacts on the world, but we can also use that big brain to be rational and make decisions that improve our lives while not destroying the world around us. If cormorants are a real problem we can react in a sensible way, jumping to the 'humans are bad' level of discussion in no way rational.

 

I can just hear the chatter of little squirel keyboards all accross the nation.Topic: how to reduce the affects of human encroachment on our little nut farms.Kill em all !!!

 

Not only have i never heard the wordP3TA before i joined this group, but i have no freakin idea what you are trying to say in the above post

 

Not that it really matters because this thread is slowly losing interest for the participants.