Cormorant Die Off

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), 'cause they didn't like it.

Won on a technicality, basically the judge said USFWS didn't use proper data.
Type of bullshit NEPA claim tree huggers and bunny huggers use all the time to stop stuff that should otherwise move forward.
Click to expand...


From my little piece of the world I'm amazed anyone would block efforts to control the population in the ugly face of the damage cormorant cause. They are quite destructive. Maybe the data needs to somehow include economic losses and not just biological ones. Admittedly, I'd imagine estimating such losses would be difficult because "beauty" can be hard to quantify, as well as the economical value of small islands and shoreline on public lakes. But still, we all know there is a growing economic impact.

One other thought, if the USFWS was told they must stop the cormorant control programs, seems like they could convey to their own law enforcement branch to turn a blind eye when Joe Citizen shoots one. If Obama can let states legalize weed, then why can't the USDA allow folks to smoke cormorant...
 
Last edited:
We used to shoot ALL Winged Predator's - Owls, Hawks, Crows, Ravens, Herons, etc. anytime, anywhere, to protect the game birds we like to hunt, mostly pheasants thrived. Shall we go back to that?

If so, then lets go back, but PROVIDE the habitat that used to BE, First. I never, ever remember shooting Cormorants when we could. They were around, but not prevalent. Why now? Is it their fault, or ours?

The Wood Duck limit was raised from 2 to 3, on a duck population the feds admit they cannot get a accurate count on. Like the Point System that the Pintail endured. Politics runs the system, not Facts. Nature suffers.

I was born at night, but not last night.
 
I'd like to think that Eric's suggestion to turn a blind eye might prevail, then I saw this on the PEER website:

"PEER is a national non-profit alliance of local, state and federal scientists, law enforcement officers, land managers and other professionals dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values."

I wonder if this is true, or if they're just another anti group masquerading as environmental professionals?

In the old days, not so long ago really, we did just what Vince mentioned...whacked the predators. Can't say I ever saw a heron dispatched, but hawks, owls and crows were public enemy number one. Now I watch the little hawks pummel doves under my bird feeder almost daily, I think I must be running a hawk feeding station disguised as a songbird feeding spot. It's not hard to understand why I haven't heard a grouse drum in years, but I have to admit I enjoy watching the little fighter jet hawks scream across the yard. And I thank the big guys for feasting on tree rats.

No doubt humans have altered the ecosystem to the benefit or detriment of many species, not much different on a macro scale than my wifes garden. We alter the landscape to nurture certain "desirable" species, at the same time "undesirables" pop up so we pull them out. The human population is so large and ever growing that the planet is never going back to a natural balanced state, so every species is afforded advantage or disadvantage by human activity. I'm 100% behind habitat conservation and reclamation efforts, but when the weeds grow out of control pull 'em out. Or stand back and watch the change we caused instead of stopping it, and lament that it's our fault.
 
We used to shoot ALL Winged Predator's - Owls, Hawks, Crows, Ravens, Herons, etc. anytime, anywhere, to protect the game birds we like to hunt, mostly pheasants thrived. Shall we go back to that?

If so, then lets go back, but PROVIDE the habitat that used to BE, First. I never, ever remember shooting Cormorants when we could. They were around, but not prevalent. Why now? Is it their fault, or ours?

The Wood Duck limit was raised from 2 to 3, on a duck population the feds admit they cannot get a accurate count on. Like the Point System that the Pintail endured. Politics runs the system, not Facts. Nature suffers.

I was born at night, but not last night.
Click to expand...


No, let's not go back to that. I'm not suggesting to kill cormorant in favor of game birds. I'm suggesting the damage they are doing is underreported and of greater impact than PEER recognizes.
 
"PEER is a national non-profit alliance of local, state and federal scientists, law enforcement officers, land managers and other professionals dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values."

I wonder if this is true, or if they're just another anti group masquerading as environmental professionals?
Click to expand...


The latter. Sort of.
They are professionals but are also antis/tree huggers/far-left enviro's. They use technicalities in the laws to file lawsuits to try to stop things they don't agree with.
 
Since the discussion has went down this rabbit hole I will bring this up. I know in the past animal rights groups have used lawsuits to stop the wolf being delisted from the endangered species act. They are then able to use specific laws to be reimbursed from the federal government for there legal fees because they won the suit. They are able to accomplish this because the group suing is not for profit. My understanding is the law they are exploiting has an exception in it for non profits to be able to use it but really it was designed for use by the poorest of our citizens to use in order to fight the government in court. Apparently its become a "business" model for these groups to sue the feds over just about any process now. Logging access, road access both opening and closing, desisting, water, you name it. They file the suites with so many different complaints that they are bound to win on at least one of them and be able to then get the costs of the suit covered by the feds as well. So not only do they have an ideological reason for these suits but a financial one as well.

I made this post so more hunters and conservationists are aware of it and two I am wondering out loud if this PEER group is just another office full of lawyers and lobbyists taking advantage of the system.
 
With cormorants, its just the opposite, damming up all those rivers to create man-made lakes created thousands and thousands of acres of new freshwater foraging habitat with ready made nesting islands.
Click to expand...

It's a little more complicated than that, but there was actually quite a lot of research into how dams created "enhanced predatory environments" for cormorants to target salmon smolts. A related problem was that the dams eliminated populations of other fish like alewife and blueback herring that should have provided alternate (and far more numerous) prey instead of smolts.

There were multiple studies--this link is the only abstract or article I could find online, but the same two authors published several papers on this.

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70019351

As for PEER, like all human organizations, they have their strengths and weaknesses, but they've done some good work to protect public employees in some situations. I'm sure they've tilted at some windmills that should have been left alone, too.

Not sure about this one--don't know enough about cormorant control and the science behind it, except here on the Penobscot in Maine, where the cormorant control program was never effective and was abandoned after piling up lots of dead birds and not doing a damn thing to advance salmon restoration.

As for birds of prey causing problems with grouse, I suspect that has more to do with lack of early successional forest habitat in southern New England. No shortage of birds of prey on commercial forest land up here, but the grouse are doing just fine. Just don't come looking for mature trees, because you won't find many.
 
Brandon, you are correct, but a slight modification. The law firm behind the suits is the same but the NGO groups fronting the complaints are different. Reimbursement on this suit cost FWS almost $250k.
 
Actually, an additional correction: Everyone reading this thread contributed to pay the nearly $250 thousand in legal fees.

What was the punch line for that old joke? A Good start?!
 
Jeff - Off subject, but I've wanted to hunt Ruffed Grouse in Maine for a long time, maybe next year. Thanks for the tip. In the 70's & 80's habitat conditions in north eastern Ohio, and north western PA, were just right. Lots of grouse, if one was willing to walk far to earn them. There were predators aplenty. In fact the land between Ohio Rt. 7, and 11, was known as the Coyote Corridor. It's where I saw my first eastern Coyotes. Just read in the news this morning about Coyotes attacking people in Calf. Seems to go back to less places for wild things to Live in harsh times, and good as well.
 
No tears here, they post at the landings awaiting the trucks planting fish, I hope this becomes a epidemic to them, long live the trout!
 
No tears here, they post at the landings awaiting the trucks planting fish, I hope this becomes a epidemic to them, long live the trout!
Click to expand...

I know I'm a broken record here, but is the problem the cormorants or the "feeding program" they are taking advantage of? I like to fish for stocked fish, but I don't blame the predators for taking a free meal when they can get it.
 
Here it is not Cormorant that feast on freshly stocked trout. It's Mink.

After the truck leaves, I stand and watch. About 15 min. after the crowd has gone, the Mink go to work. They have learned where every stocking place is, and feed their families very well.

In western PA where I lived, the Muskie and Stripers did the same. Trout shot out of the chute, and right into the predators maw.

The trout that do survive, get a education in a hurry and are much better for the experience.


Many stocking efforts, especially Pheasants, are merely nothing but feeding programs for predators. Very costly for the wildlife agencies and the hunters that fund the agencies.


"There are no dumb animals, just dumb people."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top