Management Strategy for Double-crested Cormorants at Presqu’ile Provincial Park
Contents |
Background
Gull and High Bluff Islands in Presqu’ile Provincial Park, located just south of the Town of Brighton, are home to a colony of double-crested cormorants, a fish-eating waterbird that nests on the ground and in trees. These islands are zoned “nature reserve,” which means that they are being managed to “represent and protect Ontario’s geological, ecological and species diversity.”
The population of cormorants on the islands has increased from one nest in 1982 to 12,082 nests in 2002, and they now account for 40 per cent of cormorants on Lake Ontario, according to the Ministry of Natural Resources. By 2002, the cormorant colony had killed all of the trees on Gull Island and was in the process of killing the trees on High Bluff Island, particularly in the western woodland. This woodland is considered important because of the “age of the trees, the uncommon species association and the rarity of mature forest on islands in Lake Ontario.” High Bluff Island is also home to three provincially significant colonial waterbird species that nest in the woody vegetation: the black-crowned night-heron, the great blue heron and the great egret.
2000 Research & Monitoring Program, and 2002 Management Strategy
In 2000, the Ministry of Natural Resources began a five-year Research and Monitoring Program in the Georgian Bay area to study the potential effects of cormorants on fish and wildlife populations and on vegetation. Cormorants are thought by some people to deplete local fish stocks, cause water quality and odour problems, spread disease and parasites, and pose risks to other wildlife and to rare habitats.
In 2002, MNR approved the Presqu’ile Provincial Park Cormorant Management Strategy, with the goal of protecting the aesthetic beauty of High Bluff Island, as well as the island’s western woodland. According to the strategy, from 2003 to 2006, the number of cormorants on the islands would be reduced by oiling cormorant eggs in ground nests, harassing roosting birds, and destroying their nests on High Bluff Island. Although culling, i.e., shooting, was considered, MNR rejected this population control measure without a detailed analysis. The management strategy also included measures to minimize the impacts on the other colonial waterbirds nesting on the islands. In 2003, the management strategy was amended to allow egg-oiling of all cormorant ground nests found on both islands (Additional information about the 2002 Management Strategy and the Research and Monitoring Program can be found in the [ECO’s 2002/2003 annual report], pages 114-119, and [Supplement].)
2004 Major Amendment to the 2002 Management Strategy
A study in 2003 of the vegetation on High Bluff Island found that most super-canopy trees had been killed and that cormorants were threatening the remaining vegetation. As a result, in 2004 MNR proposed that the 2002 Management Strategy be amended to allow more aggressive population control measures to take place from 2004 to 2006. Up to 6,000 tree-nesting cormorants on High Bluff Island would be culled, and harassment and nest destruction would be extended to any woody area of High Bluff Island. Public consultation on the 2004 Major Amendment followed the same process as for the 2002 Management Strategy, including a notice on the Environmental Registry with a 45-day comment period and direct mailings to interested parties.
Prior to MNR’s approving the 2004 Major Amendment, the Ministry of the Environment received a “bump-up” request for the project under the Environmental Assessment Act. Although MOE denied the request and allowed the cull to proceed for 2004, it imposed the following conditions: one, that an assessment be made on the effects of the 2004 cull on cormorants, on other nesting colonial waterbirds, and on the health of the woody vegetation; and two, that a scientific committee analyze all information on the impact of the cormorant cull and make a recommendation to MNR about whether to proceed with the cull in 2005 and 2006.
EBR application for review
The ECO received an application for review from the Animal Protection Institute and the Animal Alliance of Canada, asking that the 2004 Major Amendment be reconsidered, citing numerous scientific and process concerns.
The applicants quoted a Minister’s Decision Note dated April 12, 2000, that acknowledges that MNR and the Canadian Wildlife Service lack proof that cormorants are causing significant effects on any resource value in Ontario. Other concerns raised by the applicants include:
- Insufficient time has passed to determine the effectiveness of the non-lethal population control measures such as egg-oiling.
- MNR has not stated the acceptable number of breeding pairs of cormorants on High Bluff Island. The proposal implies zero breeding pairs.
- MNR has acknowledged that no species at risk and no protected species are affected, and that population control measures will cause damage to other nesting colonial waterbirds.
The applicants also had other concerns about the process used to make the 2004 Major Amendment decision, noting that MNR waited until March 2004 to say that a cull was necessary, in spite of being aware of the limitations of the other population control measures as early as 2000. This, the applicants alleged, made public comment largely irrelevant.
In a presentation to the Minister of Natural Resources, the applicants recommended that MNR take a “hands-off approach to wildlife management in Presqu’ile Provincial Park” and “promote provincial parks as evolving and dynamic ecosystems instead of managing them as green museums frozen in time, protecting ’desirable’ habitat and wildlife species.” They are also opposed to the ministry’s “good” and “bad” species approach to wildlife management and believe that the “cull is about aesthetics, keeping High Bluff Island green and ’beautiful’.”
Ministry response
MNR decided that a review was not warranted. The ministry emphasized that, contrary to what some of the public believe, concerns about the impact of cormorants on local fish stocks were not the basis for its decision to cull cormorants.
MNR reviewed the application against each of the criteria described in s. 67 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, for decisions made over five years ago. In summary, it noted that:
- The cull was consistent with the ministry’s Statement of Environmental Values to ensure the long-term health of ecosystems and the protection of biodiversity.
- There was little potential that the environment will be harmed if the review was not done. The cormorant population will be controlled, not eliminated, in the park. MNR has taken measures to minimize the risk that other waterbirds may be affected by the cull.
- There has been strong public support for a management strategy for cormorants for years.
Results of the 2004 Management Program and Recommendations for 2005
| In spring 2004, MNR culled 6,030 cormorants, oiled eggs in 3,284 ground nests, removed 2,098 tree nests and
harassed roosting cormorants. As requested by MOE, the Presqu’ile Double-crested Cormorant Scientific Review Committee presented its recommendations to the Minister of Natural Resources in January 2005. The Committee agreed that cormorants must “remain as an abundant tree-nesting species on High Bluff Island” and that “further loss of woody vegetation cannot be avoided” unless the number of cormorants was reduced. The Committee recommended that:
5,500 cormorants to be shot.
In March 2005, MNR announced that it planned to cull 5,500 cormorants in Presqu’ile Provincial Park in the spring. |
ECO Comment
Whether or not to manage cormorants and how best to do it have been controversial issues for MNR. At the heart of the issue is whether or not cormorant populations should be managed in order to protect specific values such as habitat and fish populations. Although few would question the importance of protecting native habitats and biodiversity, there is often controversy over which habitats and species should be protected and how. Tough questions arise: does protecting native habitat mean that MNR should preserve the current ecosystem – or should natural processes be allowed to proceed even if the local ecosystem will be irrevocably altered and some species be devastated? The questions that the applicants raise are important and are beyond the scope of the 2004 Major Amendment.
Also at the heart of the issue is the adequacy of scientific information about cormorant behaviour and diet, which can vary from colony to colony, and about the interdependency of cormorants and other species, particularly other colonial waterbirds. The applicants and others continue to question the scientific basis for MNR’s decisions. In our 2002/2003 annual report, the ECO recommended that MNR provide the public with the research results on a proposed cormorant Web site. It is the ECO’s understanding that research is continuing; we urge MNR to make this information readily available to the public.
Although the ECO acknowledges that the use of population control measures, including culling, may sometimes be necessary, we believe that they should be used only in exceptional circumstances, such as the protection of rare species and ecosystems. Population control measures are a temporary solution that will need to be repeated for years to come unless the factors that contributed to the “over-population” are addressed. Population control measures are also expensive and labour-intensive. The other approach is to allow time for the ecosystem to reach a new equilibrium, as suggested by the applicants and others.
MNR has met most of the obligations defined in the Environmental Bill of Rights for considering applications for review. MNR could have denied the application simply on the basis that the 2004 Major Amendment had been decided within the last five years and therefore was exempt from review under the EBR unless certain conditions are met. The ECO is pleased that MNR provided a detailed explanation, using the criteria for the review of applications about decisions made over five years ago.
Although the ECO recognizes that cormorant management policies must ultimately be decided on a site-by-site basis based on local scientific information, there is currently no overriding provincial policy within which to make those decisions. The ECO believes that the lack of a provincial cormorant management policy is contributing to public tension. The applicants have raised important questions that deserve broad and thorough public discussion. The ECO recommends that MNR develop a provincial cormorant management policy to guide future decisions on local management issues at Presqu’ile Provincial Park and other locations in Ontario. (For ministry comments, see page 219.)
