Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) So I guess your the authority on this matter? What do you have, 3 years experience?? Last I remember you were looking for a welding job. Give your head a shake. If you really want to defend these birds, join an animal rights group!! S. i worked with different branches of gov't for 8 years and yes, i'm no longer doing it. the money sucked and you have to deal with too many know it all and armchair biologists like you. i'd bet that's 8 more years + 5 years of schooling more than you have to formulate your opinion. Edited January 12, 2012 by Dr. Salvelinus
Cookslav Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Well...hear is my non expert rant LOL! Its a Bird not known to be native to southern Ontario, but its here non the less Its a bird widely suspected to be adversely effecting the fish populations. There are NO scientific studies that prove they are adversly effecting the fish population outside of any Natural occurance but their are documented studies of vegetation damage. There are also NO scientifc studies that prove a cull would be effective OR ineffective, but there are documented culls that so far....appear to have been effective in single locations(as Lew pointed out) All I know is this, This is a bird that is not native to the area whose population is quite obviously on the rise. This same bird is known to eat about one pound of fish per day sometimes less...sometimes more. So it is common sense to assume this Bird IS effecting the fishery on some level currently. In small scale culling appears to have worked with out any adverse effects. I know personally that there was a cull on Lake Opeongo Algonquin park in 2008 that did well...so far Basically put...there is even less evidence suggesting that culls are harmefull or ineffective then there is supporting a cull. There fore, In my completely unproffessional opinion we should open them up to hunters for a few years and measure the success. There is certainly no more harm in that then sitting on our behinds doing what we are right now. The ONLY "potential" negetive is if the Cull doesn't work and the population rebounds stronger.... In which case we've simply sped the proccess up and correct me if I'm wrong but the anti's in this case are suggesting we allow the population to overpopulate, and let nature takes its course(disease etc..) Either way we end up at the same out come, so why not indulge in a little sport and give her a good 'ol college try? Edited January 12, 2012 by Cookslav
Twocoda Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) i worked with different branches of gov't for 8 years and yes, i'm no longer doing it. the money sucked and you have to deal with too many know it all and armchair biologists like you. i'd bet that's 8 more years + 5 years of schooling more than you have to formulate your opinion. enlighten us with you expertise then....armchair welder Edited January 12, 2012 by Twocoda
Sinker Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 : i'd bet that's 8 more years + 5 years of schooling more than you have to formulate your opinion. Bahahahaha.....your hilarious. You clearly have no idea. I worked my ass off for longer than that to get the position I have now. Guys like you are a dime a dozen in the field. Guys like me stick it out, put in our time and end up with full time permanent positions with gov't agencies. S.
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 what do you want, a congratulations?
Sinker Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 I just want to whack a pile of cormorants so i can take a big ole hero shot and post it all over the internet!! S.
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 i wish all of you had such passion for other issues impacting our fisheries.
Pikeslayer8 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Well...hear is my non expert rant LOL! Its a Bird not known to be native to southern Ontario, but its here non the less Its a bird widely suspected to be adversely effecting the fish populations. There are NO scientific studies that prove they are adversly effecting the fish population outside of any Natural occurance but their are documented studies of vegetation damage. There are also NO scientifc studies that prove a cull would be effective OR ineffective, but there are documented culls that so far....appear to have been effective in single locations(as Lew pointed out) All I know is this, This is a bird that is not native to the area whose population is quite obviously on the rise. This same bird is known to eat about one pound of fish per day sometimes less...sometimes more. So it is common sense to assume this Bird IS effecting the fishery on some level currently. In small scale culling appears to have worked with out any adverse effects. I know personally that there was a cull on Lake Opeongo Algonquin park in 2008 that did well...so far Basically put...there is even less evidence suggesting that culls are harmefull or ineffective then there is supporting a cull. There fore, In my completely unproffessional opinion we should open them up to hunters for a few years and measure the success. There is certainly no more harm in that then sitting on our behinds doing what we are right now. The ONLY "potential" negetive is if the Cull doesn't work and the population rebounds stronger.... In which case we've simply sped the proccess up and correct me if I'm wrong but the anti's in this case are suggesting we allow the population to overpopulate, and let nature takes its course(disease etc..) Either way we end up at the same out come, so why not indulge in a little sport and give her a good 'ol college try? x2 :clapping:
HTHM Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 This is getting personal, and I do not like it. Have a discussion, not an argument; gentlemen.
Sharkbait22 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Not taking side on this. Science can help make informed decisions, understand trade-offs, risks, and should point to uncertainties in understanding. Socio economic and political factors weigh in heavily too. My understanding is that the birds fly far and wide such that seeing many birds in one area doesn’t mean they are always there. Huron birds are Quinte birds are Kawartha birds – they get around. So understanding abundance is tricky. I’ve also read that we have helped the birds in ways such as pollution control but also by fishing out large predatory fish. In doing so smaller fish are more abundant for them to eat. I know one thing, don’t release dazed fish near a cormorant or it will be gone. Get them recovered well and if possible get away from the bird.
Spouph Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Posted January 12, 2012 i worked with different branches of gov't for 8 years and yes, i'm no longer doing it. the money sucked and you have to deal with too many know it all and armchair biologists like you. i'd bet that's 8 more years + 5 years of schooling more than you have to formulate your opinion. Well funny story , I worked with the Kyuquot native tribe and Interfor logging as a hatchery, co-ordinator for a couple of years with a very simular conclusion. Not enouph money for the effort and to many political boundries to devide. The project was to restock the kyuquot river, for the native band paid for by the logging co to ensure the money was put to it's intended us third party was involved ie me, and no government involvement. One day I was working in the river pulling nets gathering coho to get eggs, and a C.O officer jumps in the back of the truck making us get out of the truck he rumaged through all our gear,I was in fact fishing for Coho Salmon when there was a Ban on fishing for Coho, for all the pacific coast of B.C. No permit were ever taken out. I was quite sure that I was going to prison for the night, I had a 30 foot tangle net, in my truck which is what I used and had a holding pen with 16 ripe female coho in it. I just mentioned the Cheifs name snd that was it , he took my information and I never heard from him again, he just said have a nice day. A few years later and several provinces away I recieved a phone call from the Cheif at the time to thank me for the efforts and that all my little babeis were back but grown up the stock numbers were good (realistically I know I may of had little to some impact), but we had to go against gov regulations to make an impact. This is the reason I started this topic, the option of a cull is a little red neck I agree, but it is along the same lines of stocking in a penny saved is a penny earned kind of logic. There are a couple thing I learned out west. One if you want somthing done where red tape is involved, the goverment does not interfere with the native bands, and If you see a decline or incline in stocks, somtimes you just have to do somthing. I don't know the right answer as far as the cormerants are concerned and I do respect your opinion. I honestly dont think our little conversation on this forum will yeild any results. Just an interestin topic.
Sinker Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 i wish all of you had such passion for other issues impacting our fisheries. Why would you think we don't? This isn't getting personal HTHM, its getting passionate. All I know is we need a solution to the cormorant explosion before its too late. If we leave it up to the MNR, it will be too late, I will bet on that. I don't think there is a single person who can disagree with the fact that there are a lot more of them around than there needs to be. I don't want to kill off the species, just keep them in check before we're in too deep to fix it. I hunt geese for 4 months every year. We kill a pile of birds. The goose population still rises every year..........so whats the big deal with killing some cormorants?? Why are some people so protective of them? Is it because they don't crap in the parks, and on the docks like geese do? I don't get how anyone could/would defend them. Post up something to sway me that way, and I may agree, but until then, I say open them up to hunting. I would be willing to bet hunters couldn't kill enough of them to even make a difference. At least we could have some fun trying, and do our little part to help protect the fishery. S.
Twocoda Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 problen solved!!!!!! for the people that have a hard time catching fish...catch and train a commorant to do it for you... Cormorant fishing is a traditional fishing method in which fishermen use trained cormorants to fish in rivers. Historically, cormorant fishing has taken place in Japan and China from around 960 AD.[1] and recorded from other places throughout the world. To control the birds, the fishermen tie a snare near the base of the bird's throat. This prevents the birds from swallowing larger fish, which are held in their throat, but the birds can swallow smaller fish. When a cormorant has caught a fish in its throat, the fisherman brings the bird back to the boat and has the bird spit the fish up. Though cormorant fishing once was a successful industry, its primary use today is to serve the tourism industry. The types of cormorants used differ based on the location. In Gifu, Japan, the Japanese Cormorant (P. capillatus) is used; Chinese fishermen often employ Great Cormorants (P. carbo).[2] Darters (Anhinga), which are very close relatives of cormorants, are also used for this fishing technique on occasion.
Sinker Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Forgot to mention all the money that would be generated from cormorant licenses that would go back into the resource. Hunting them is a win/win. Whats the big fuss with killing off a few thousand? S.
Cookslav Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Forgot to mention all the money that would be generated from cormorant licenses that would go back into the resource. Hunting them is a win/win. Whats the big fuss with killing off a few thousand? S. I agree with you 110%...where is the harm? This is a non native species to Southern Ontario that has no known positive contributions to the fishery or the "foreign" ecosystems it is spreading to, it "could" be harmfull to our fishery, and IS harmfull to shoreline vegetation, trees etc... If there are people willing to hunt them why not have the MNR use the opportuntiy to make a bit of cash while getting valuable data. Seriously somebody throw me bone here... If there is a down side I'm all ears.....persuade me?
Spouph Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Posted January 12, 2012 Forgot to mention all the money that would be generated from cormorant licenses that would go back into the resource. Hunting them is a win/win. Whats the big fuss with killing off a few thousand? S. if they can't get the fishing licences issued......that all we need aqnothe silly card just free for all em
irishfield Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Is it because they don't crap in the parks, and on the docks like geese do? The one that kept leaving a 5 gallon white stain on my dock got the "Ruger" treatment....
Grimace Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 I hunt geese for 4 months every year. We kill a pile of birds. The goose population still rises every year..........so whats the big deal with killing some cormorants?? Why are some people so protective of them? Is it because they don't crap in the parks, and on the docks like geese do? I don't get how anyone could/would defend them. Post up something to sway me that way, and I may agree, but until then, I say open them up to hunting. I would be willing to bet hunters couldn't kill enough of them to even make a difference. At least we could have some fun trying, and do our little part to help protect the fishery. S. So why do you think that shooting cormorants would have any significant effect on the population if it doesn't work for geese? If you just want to hunt them for the fun of hunting them, come out and say it but don't pretend that you are shoot them to save the fish or make the world a better place. If you admit that it wouldn't do much to diminish the cormorant population then what is the point. At least you eat the geese. I just do not understand why you would want to run around the country just to shoot a bunch of ugly birds and no food to show for it, just carcasses. I am not what you would call a 'tree hugger'. I am not an enemy of hunting by any stretch of the imagination. But you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. A - We have to do something before it is too late!!! and B - We won't effect them anyway so what's the harm in letting us have fun doing it? The point you are making with example B makes example A moot. Example A is what all the fuss is about.
Sinker Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 if they can't get the fishing licences issued......that all we need aqnothe silly card just free for all em Well, my fishing/hunting licence and my equipment is worth more than that. You guys know much about snow geese, and the problems with them?? I hope the cormies don't get as out of hand as they are now. They've just, finally, opened a spring hunting season in Ontario for them, starting this year. I can't wait to get a crack at them too! S.
Twocoda Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 So why do you think that shooting cormorants would have any significant effect on the population if it doesn't work for geese? If you just want to hunt them for the fun of hunting them, come out and say it but don't pretend that you are shoot them to save the fish or make the world a better place. If you admit that it wouldn't do much to diminish the cormorant population then what is the point. At least you eat the geese. I just do not understand why you would want to run around the country just to shoot a bunch of ugly birds and no food to show for it, just carcasses. I am not what you would call a 'tree hugger'. I am not an enemy of hunting by any stretch of the imagination. But you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. A - We have to do something before it is too late!!! and B - We won't effect them anyway so what's the harm in letting us have fun doing it? The point you are making with example B makes example A moot. Example A is what all the fuss is about. crows are open for hunting....i dont think anyone eats them....personally i dont eat the geese....but i love the hunt
Grimace Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 crows are open for hunting....i dont think anyone eats them....personally i dont eat the geese....but i love the hunt Then let us skip point A and get right to point B then. You guys want to hunt cormorants because you think it would be fun and sustainable and have little negative effect. Okay then, talk about that possibility, but do not suggest that you guys want to hunt them to save the fish stocks if admittedly the hunt will have little effect on the population.
Sinker Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) So why do you think that shooting cormorants would have any significant effect on the population if it doesn't work for geese? If you just want to hunt them for the fun of hunting them, come out and say it but don't pretend that you are shoot them to save the fish or make the world a better place. If you admit that it wouldn't do much to diminish the cormorant population then what is the point. At least you eat the geese. I just do not understand why you would want to run around the country just to shoot a bunch of ugly birds and no food to show for it, just carcasses. I am not what you would call a 'tree hugger'. I am not an enemy of hunting by any stretch of the imagination. But you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. A - We have to do something before it is too late!!! and B - We won't effect them anyway so what's the harm in letting us have fun doing it? The point you are making with example B makes example A moot. Example A is what all the fuss is about. Oh boy, where to start. The geese are a whole different animal. The "authorities" let them get to the numbers they are at, before they increased limits, and lengthened seasons. Now they are kicking themselves and don't know what to do with them. They've even tried shipping them out of the city in a truck......that's laughable. They can fly for god sakes. Start a hunting season now, and maybe, just maybe we can keep them in check. Beat around the bush getting something going, and we're going to be stuck with so many of them we won't know what to do with them and a hunting season isn't going to do jack........ kinda like the geese are now.....see what I'm getting at??? People cry the blues to protect them, but as soon as they are a problem to them personally, the tune changes. Tell me this...what is the harm in a hunting season for cormorants as a tool for population control? Its proven to work for many, many other species of wildlife. Why are we protecting these things??? S. Edited January 12, 2012 by Sinker
Cookslav Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 So why do you think that shooting cormorants would have any significant effect on the population if it doesn't work for geese? If you just want to hunt them for the fun of hunting them, come out and say it but don't pretend that you are shoot them to save the fish or make the world a better place. If you admit that it wouldn't do much to diminish the cormorant population then what is the point. At least you eat the geese. I just do not understand why you would want to run around the country just to shoot a bunch of ugly birds and no food to show for it, just carcasses. I am not what you would call a 'tree hugger'. I am not an enemy of hunting by any stretch of the imagination. But you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. A - We have to do something before it is too late!!! and B - We won't effect them anyway so what's the harm in letting us have fun doing it? The point you are making with example B makes example A moot. Example A is what all the fuss is about. Personally I think it would have an effect...just my oppinion, but it comes as a rsult of personal experience. I've seen dramtic results in 2 area's I fish since the culls, one being Quinte, one being Algonquin park....of course thats only a personal oppinion but sometimes seeing is believing they say. And I'd rather see us trying to thin the population and fail as opposed to waiting and doing nothing. There really is no harm in trying...worst case scenario puts us back at the drawing board and the MNR gains a new perspective. It seems like a win/win situation to me.
Twocoda Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Oh boy, where to start. The geese are a whole different animal. The "authorities" let them get to the numbers they are at, before they increased limits, and lengthened seasons. Now they are kicking themselves and don't know what to do with them. They've even tried shipping them out of the city in a truck......that's laughable. They can fly for god sakes. Start a hunting season now, and maybe, just maybe we can keep them in check. Beat around the bush getting something going, and we're going to be stuck with so many of them we won't know what to do with them and a hunting season isn't going to do jack........ kinda like the geese are now.....see what I'm getting at??? People cry the blues to protect them, but as soon as they are a problem to them personally, the tune changes. Tell me this...what is the harm in a hunting season for cormorants as a tool for population control? Its proven to work for many, many other species of wildlife. Why are we protecting these things??? S. and the bonus is ....fisherman will benefit....the hatchery fish will stand a much better chance upon their release to the wild....mortality rates in house are tolerable ....to see cormorants gobbling up a winters labour isnt tolerable (sickening actually)
Recommended Posts