[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Letter to Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Cormorants



Hi All:
I have just returned from a 4 week trip to Alaska had a great time and
found 27 new birds.
This letter was on my list ,and thought it would be of intrest. Hope it is
not to long. Van Atkins




>Return-Path: <owner-chapter-communicator@LIST.AUDUBON.ORG>
>X-AWOD-LOCAL: Virus scan passive test (version 1 alpha 1).  No action taken.
>Date:         Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:46:04 -0400
>Reply-To: "BIANCHI, John" <JBIANCHI@AUDUBON.ORG>
>Sender: NAS Chapter Communications officers
>              <CHAPTER-COMMUNICATOR@LIST.AUDUBON.ORG>
>From: "BIANCHI, John" <JBIANCHI@AUDUBON.ORG>
>Subject:      Letter to Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Cormorants
>To: CHAPTER-COMMUNICATOR@LIST.AUDUBON.ORG
>
>7 June, 2000
>
>Jon Andrew
>Chief, Office of Migratory Bird Management
>U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
>4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 634
>Arlington, VA  22203
>
>Dear Mr. Andrew;
>
>On behalf of the 550,000 members of the National Audubon Society we would
>like to comment on the upcoming preparation of an Environmental Impact
>Statement addressing potential impacts caused by population and range
>expansion of the Double-crested Cormorant in the contiguous United States.
>
>National Audubon feels strongly that all decisions related to the
>management of wildlife must be based on well-documented, credible
>scientific evidence and conclusions.  In cases where conclusions are
>well-documented by thoughtfully interpreted scientific data, the National
>Audubon Society does not oppose control of wildlife populations that are
>having major negative ecosystem effects that threaten the health and
>survival of other native wildlife species.  For example, a large Snow Goose
>breeding population has been clearly shown to be destroying fragile tundra
>habitat that supports many other species of birds and plants.  The National
>Audubon Society has publicly supported an increase in hunting bag limits to
>bring Snow Goose populations to a level in balance with their ecosystem.
>
>We recognize that concerns have been expressed by some members of the
>public regarding the potential impacts of the increase in numbers of
>Double-crested Cormorants on sports fisheries.  However, available
>scientific evidence has shown little or no impact of cormorant depredation
>on populations of sports fish in virtually every case.  While anecdotal
>observations and correlative evidence have suggested that cormorants may
>have an impact on fish abundance in certain limited areas, no studies have
>been carried out which use the proper scientific techniques to measure the
>proportion of fish mortality attributable to cormorants versus other
>factors.  We feel that it is important that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
>Service EIS highlight this knowledge gap and urge federal and state
>wildlife agencies to design and implement studies that make use of fish
>tagging techniques to assess the level of mortality to fish populations
>attributable to various factors.
>
>Furthermore, the National Audubon Society suggests that, within the EIS,
>determination of appropriate population levels of Double-crested Cormorants
>should be based not only on potential impacts on fisheries but should also
>consider positive and negative impacts on other wildlife species, overall
>ecosystem health, and potential positive socio-economic benefits.  For
>example, with the growing well-documented increase in ecotourism and
>recreational wildlife watching, there are opportunities in many areas to
>generate millions of dollars for local economies based on wildlife viewing
>opportunities at colonial waterbird colonies.  These benefits must be
>assessed in an EIS to fairly consider the issue of cormorant impacts.
>
>If, after scientific review, management of Double-crested Cormorants is
>warranted to support overall health of the ecosystem and other bird
>species, then techniques designed to target only those cormorant
>populations in need of management should be implemented.  Based on current
>available evidence we expect that such cases will be uncommon and will
>occur in very limited areas.  Because of this we would support effective
>techniques like harassment, egg oiling, egg addling and nest removal that
>can be targeted at a particular site or colony as the best control options
>in these few cases.  In addition, we urge that the EIS strongly encourage
>fish-stocking practices known to minimize short-term localized predation by
>cormorants on recently-released fish such as deep water releases and
>nighttime releases.  We feel that it is imperative that management actions
>that are implemented should follow an adaptive management approach with
>careful, well-designed monitoring of the cormorant population, the impacted
>fish, wildlife, or ecosystem and other species within the area.  These
>monitoring schemes will often require the collection of more detailed
>demographic data than are often collected by traditional agency monitoring
>programs.
>
>National Audubon strongly opposes any widespread control program for
>Double-crested Cormorant populations including range-wide control by
>professional wildlife agency staff.  There is clearly no scientific
>evidence to support widespread negative impacts of cormorants on fish or
>wildlife populations.  National Audubon is particularly concerned about,
>and in vehement opposition to, proposals to remove Double-crested
>Cormorants from protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or to
>establish a hunting season on cormorants.  Allowing a hunting season based
>on a subjective assessment of the lesser value of cormorants as opposed to
>fish or other wildlife would be a return to the days when loons, herons,
>egrets and other now-well-loved fish-eating bird species were regularly
>persecuted for their food habits.  Such a hunting season would open the
>door to the killing of other fish-eating birds including the inadvertent
>take of similar-appearing species like the Common Loon which is now on
>several state Special Concern lists.
>
>We would also add that the recent implementation of a depredation order (63
>FR 10560), which allows commercial aquaculturists in 13 states to take
>unlimited numbers of Double-crested Cormorants when found committing or
>about to commit depredations to aquaculture stocks, may have a significant
>impact on population levels of cormorants.  It is unclear if mortality
>levels to cormorants through this means are currently being monitored but
>we would suggest that such an assessment be an important component to the
>EIS.
>
>National Audubon supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their
>development of an EIS that reviews not only cormorant population
>information but also the issues related to changing sports fisheries and
>aquatic ecosystems to include but not be limited to: changes in forage fish
>populations, changes in the dynamics of sports fisheries including stocking
>programs and the effect of introductions of non-native fish species (both
>sports fish species and nuisance species) in aquatic ecosystems, effects of
>zebra mussels, changes in water quality, assessment of current fish
>population trend analysis, assessment of proportion of fish mortality from
>a variety of abiotic and biotic sources using appropriate fish tagging
>methodologies, and opportunities for development of education and outreach
>programs that capitalize on local ecotourism opportunities.  These issues
>must be considered as pieces of the management issue before the removal of
>any forms of protection of the Double-crested Cormorant are considered.
>
>We thank you for the opportunity to provide this input into the plans for
>development of the EIS and look forward to continuing discussions on this
>issue.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>
>Jeffrey Wells, Ph.D.
>Michael Burger, Ph.D.
>National Bird Conservation Director                              New York
>State Bird Conservation Director
>
>