Again, on Cormorants

Dear editor:
In response to Gordon Earle’s commentary on the defence of cormorants, it is in the interests of the ‘ecology’ of Rainy Lake to take a serious approach to the study of this issue by the MNR and determine to what degree the dramatic increase in cormorant populations have upon desirable fish populations and general well being of the people, and established flora and fauna where the birds are increasing in numbers.
Whether or not the folks mentioned had completely accurate reports about details of cormorant activity, it is not comforting to listen to self proclaimed ‘expert’ suggesting that the high cormorant population on Rainy Lake is an acceptable proposition to anglers and/or naturalists. It is quite perceptible to many people that the cormorant population exists in other lakes and wetlands, and we need to know what longer term effects this will have on fisheries and the natural habitat.
I don’t proclaim to be an expert, although have some credentials in biology by holding a degree and also interested in the general well being of our forests and waterways. Credit for the sustaining fishery in our lakes is due mainly to proper fish and wildlife management by the MNR. We must ask the question, why are cormorant populations so high and increasing? And if the case that they are a detriment to the ecology, defoliation and destruction of flora in areas, and fouling the water for human consumption–should this not be a cause to study the effect of exploding populations?
Perhaps it might be alarming to suggest population controls for cormorants, but let’s have a common sense approach to establish what is a reasonable level of bird numbers that can be sustained. This is only good wildlife management and beneficial to everyone associated with nature, whether fishermen and/or naturalist. I am not suggesting wholesale elimination of a species, and am in agreement with Gordon Earle about species diversity, however an ecological upset in the balance of numbers towards possibly undesirable species (such as agreed by many, that cormorants lean toward the scale of a less desirable bird species for this area) can lead to potentially more harm than good in the view of a nature protectionist. It is not the presence of cormorants that is upsetting, only the fact that they exist in such high numbers, and increasing over the years.
Regarding any threat of ‘government sanctioned’ control, remember it is the input of people that lead our informed organizations of how to proceed on any decisions of whether to make serious proposals to take action for or against measures such as population regulation of cormorants.
It is evident to see the local effect of concentrations of cormorants on small islands, fouling of water, and destruction of vegetation (leading to decline in species dwelling thereupon), never mind any fact leading to their appetite for fish stocks. I don’t have a problem with a water bird consuming their share of whatever fish species, but as human observers of their increasing populations in concentrated areas, a second look must be made with an expert analysis through wildlife management techniques. Only then will those who have a stewardship with outdoor activity, such as anglers and naturalists, be better able to participate with these resident birds on a more reasonable level.
To sum things up, let’s be reasonable and have a wildlife management approach to limit the number of cormorants at levels that satisfy the demands of anglers, naturalist, and human residents in the area. I, and others am of the opinion that the numbers are too high (thousands is a high number compared to negligible numbers of the past), and need to be limited. This will require input of local information and serious and honest study of cause and effect, and then a purposeful implementation of action.
Regards,
Richard Garbowski