AR-News: (CA) Coalition works with top lawyer to explore all options to end cormrorant slaughter.

[Barry Kent MacKay]

[Note:  The OMNR is claiming to have shot 320 nesting cormorants in the
Presqu'ile Provincial Park's bird sanctuary, yesterday, May 6, 2004. 

I just returned from the media conference, and we had a reasonable press
turnout; too know what kind of coverage we'll get.  -- BKM]


For Immediate Release


Coalition works with top 
Canadian lawyer to explore all
options to end the cormorant
slaughter in Presqu'ile Provincial Park

Toronto, May 7, 2004:  Animal Alliance of Canada, the Animal Protection
Institute, Canadians for Snow Geese, Environment Voters and peaceful Parks
Coalition has retained Clayton Ruby well-known Canadian criminal lawyer to
end the slaughter of 6,000 cormorants on High Bluff Island, a nesting bird
sanctuary in Presqu'ile Provincial Park or to prevent it from happening
again.

"I have examined all the material made available by the Ministry, other
jurisdictions and the scientists who are studying cormorants." said Clay
Ruby.  "I submit to you that the Minister has failed to apply due diligence
in implementing such an extreme action.  The 2002 management programme
already in place, which includes egg oiling, harassment and nest destruction
has not been implemented throughout High Bluff Island and was in place for
less than a year when the Ministry suddenly created this crisis.  There are
legal and political options to pursue and we are exploring all of those."

 "We asked the Environment Ministry to conduct an Environmental Assessment"
said Ainslie Willock, Director of Canadians for Snow Geese.  "The Minister
decided not to proceed because the time it would take to do so would prevent
the cull from taking place this year.  She made this decision arguing that
the Ministry had consulted with the public despite the fact that until 2004,
culling was not considered an option."

"We believe that the Ministry is moving forward with the cull because of
complaints from sport and commercial fishing interests who claim that the
cormorants are eating all the fish and governments in the United States,"
said AnnaMaria Valaestro.  "Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the
Ministry shamefully vilifies cormorants suggesting that they negatively
impact fish populations, ruin vegetation and pollute the waters."

"Presqu'ile was one of my favourite haunts, particularly during migratory
bird seasons but no more," said Barry MacKay, Canadian Representative for
the Animal Protection Institute, nature writer with the Toronto Star for 25
years, author of three bird books, illustrator for several bird guides.
"Instead of offering protection, the Ministry is 'at war' with the parks
wildlife - culling deer, allowing hunting and now conducting a massive
cormorant slaughter." 


- 30 -

For further information call Clay Ruby at 416-964-9664, Ainslie Willock at
416-922-4554, Barry MacKay at 905-472-9731, AnnaMarie Valastro at
416-537-3212.





Media Highlight Notes

1. Exerpts from leaked Minister's Decision Notes - Ministry decision to cull
cormorants made in 2000:

a) At present, neither MNR nor CWS have proof of significant effects on any
value.  This is because most of MNR's/CWS's monitoring programs are not
designed to detect the kinds of effects that cormorants could be having.
b) Nevertheless, MNR and CWS scientists and biologists believe that
significant effects at local scales are possible (and, in some areas,
probable).
. Effects on local fish stocks are possible in some areas.  These potential
effects, even if significant, are unlikely to present a sustainability risk.
However, they may be causing social and economic impacts.  Two types of
concerns have been identified.
. Potential effects on size of local fish stocks (i.e., the number of fish
available to anglers)  - The areas of greatest concern are eastern Lake
Ontario & Lake Huron/Georgian Bay (i.e., part of Heritage Coastline).
Detecting effects on fish stocks is challenging. 
c)	Potential effects on "at risk" plant and animal species and
vegetation communities in some areas (e.g., Carolinian Islands of Lake Erie)
are probable and likely pose a sustainability issue.  Detecting effects on
these values should be relatively easy.

d)	Egg oiling and/or harassment are not likely to create large enough
changes in cormorant numbers to enable the detection of effects on fish
stocks in a 5-year study.  Culling of large numbers of birds may be
required.
 
e)	Plan to undertake experimental control program beginning in spring
2001 using either culling and/or alternative experimental control measures
identified this year.

2.	Ministerial Arrogance:

a)	EBR notice is in prep in event that there is direction to implement
experimental control (as opposed to testing of control techniques) this
year.  However, time is extremely limited. (Minister's Decision Notes, 2000)

b)	The Environmental Assessment Act and FWCA provide MNR with the
authority to initiate experimental control (i.e., research) without
ministerial approval and/or the need for a full EA.  EBR notification is
recommended. (IBID)
	
3.	Disregard for Public Discussion:

	A total of 7 documents have been released by the Ministry since the
decision to cull was made (Minister's Decision Notes) in 2000.  The
documents are: 
 
			Announcement of the Cormorant Management Plan, May
2000
			Media release announcing the Management Plan, May
2000
        Presqu'ile Park Management Plan, October 2000.	
			Background on cormorant research and contol 2002
			Presqu'ile Cormorant Management 2002
			EBR requests for minor amendments of the Management
Plan, 2003
			Report on cormorant management at Presqu'ile, 2003

	Of those 7 documents, culling is mentioned in only the Presqu'ile
Double-crested Cormorant Management Plan and is not listed as a management
option in the report.  If fact the report said culling was considered and
rejected as an option.

	We submit that the ministry had ample opportunity to pup forward the
proposal for public discussion but chose not to because of the controversial
nature of the decision and the lack of scientific evidence to warrant such
an extreme action.  As the Decision Notes suggest, Ministry staff decided to
set up the control as a research project to avoid having to consult with the
Minister and to avoid having to conduct an EA.

4.	Misuse & Abuse of Science:

Below are listed some of the scientific papers that call into question the
accusations leveled against the cormorants by the Ministry.  Ministry
documents allude to the fact that cormorants reduce fish stocks; put at risk
other wildlife and certain rare habitats; have negative impacts on water
quality and odour; and transmit disease.  

These papers challenge the assertions made by the Ministry that cormorants
are a negative and destructive force in the environment.  (Some of these
papers lack dates because they were acquired through the internet.  These
papers will be available in full in our EBR submission).

. International Association of Great Lakes Research."  (J. Great Lakes Res.
20(4):597-598, Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 1994:
. St. Lawrence River Fisheries Discussion Paper titled, Double-crested
Cormorants - are they cause for concern?
. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources May 2000 Cormorant Research and
Monitoring paper.
. A paper by P.A. Edwards and T.J. Stewart titled, Cormorants in the
Vicinity of Presqu'ile Provincial Park and the Bay of Quinte.
. A paper by C. Korfanty, W.G Miyasaki, and J.L.Harcus, titled Review of the
Population Status and Management of Double-crested Cormorants in Ontario.
. A paper written by John L. Trapp, Stephen L Lewis and Diane M. Pence
titled Double-crested Cormorant Impacts on Sport Fish: Literature Review,
Agency Survey and Strategies.
. A collaborative Canadian Wildlife Service, University of Minnesota,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife paper titled, The Double-crested
Cormorant in Eastern and Central North America: A Summary of Status and
Selected Research (authored by L.R. Wires, F.J. Cuthbert, D.V. Weseloh and
D.R. Trexel).

5.	No Environmental Damage

. There are no species "at risk" impacted by the presence of the cormorants
on the island, in the park or in the province, including other colonial and
non-colonial waterbirds and other bird species.  The Ministry failed to
consider the possibility that the presence of the cormorants may actually
encourage other colonial waterbirds given that the cormorants were there
first.

. The Ministry provides no proof that the cormorant colony on High Bluff
Island will damage the Bushy Cinquefoil and Smith's Club-rush, described as
provincially significant species.  Nor has the Ministry considered either
plant species significant enough to place them on the provincially
"protected" species list.




6.	Kill the Cormorants Anyway:

. The findings in Presqu'ile Annual Report on the Management of
Double-crested Cormorants for 2003 do not justify the proposed cull.  The
report states, "In the eastern woodland, where management activities did not
occur, 3,707 nests were built, and contributed substantially to the number
of young that were successfully reared in 2003.  Removing all nests from
both woodlands would assist in halting further degradation of the forest
ecosystem."

. The Ministry's own evaluation shows that in the initial year, 2003, there
was a "62% decline in the number of nests that produced young in 2003" and
the decline would have been even greater had the staff implemented the same
non-lethal programme with 3,707 nests in the eastern woodland.  To suggest a
lethal intervention of such a magnitude again suggests that a cull was the
Ministry's preferred option.

The Ministry's own evaluation shows that the harassment, egg oiling and nest
destruction programme is working.  However, the decision to cull cormorants
was made in 2000, and the Ministry intends to shoot 6,000 cormorants, one of
every nesting pair on High Bluff Island while subverting public input into
the decision, regardless of the lack of science and whether other aspects of
the control are working.  

______________________________________________

Barry Kent MacKay
Canadian Representative 
ANIMAL PROTECTION INSTITUTE 
www.api4animals.org