Double-crested cormorants and urban wilderness:conflicts and management

Bernard Taylor & Dave Andrews & Gail S. Fraser

Published online: 17 February 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract In this paper we examine the management of human-double-crested cormorantconflicts in urban nature areas using the Leslie Street Spit in Toronto, Ontario as our focalstudy area. We examine the management perspectives of various stakeholders and how theyshift over time in response to site ecology and stakeholder input. We categorizemanagement perspectives on a spectrum from complete human domination to near absenceof human intention. Two broad management categories emerge from this framework:interventionist and laissez-faire. Interventionists recognized need for management ofcormorants, laissez-faire argued for no management of a cormorant colony that hasdeforested 24% of the site through their nesting activities. We conclude that for urbannature areas, particularly those with a unique, rare, or contentious ecology, a hands-off,laissez-faire management approach is not conducive to improving human-nature relations.Rather, for urban nature sites nature management must promote a respectable balancebetween human and non-human life, for the long-term benefit of both.

Keywords Wildlife management . Urban wilderness . Deforestation .

Tommy Thompson Park

Introduction

The double-crested cormorant (hereinafter cormorant) is a waterbird species with a longhistory of conflict with human interests. Since their rapid recovery from virtual extirpationin the Great Lakes region (see Hatch & Weseloh 1999; Wires et al. 2001) human-cormorantconflicts have resulted in large-scale programs of culling and egg oiling, particularly in theUnited States (see USFWS 2009) and to a lesser degree in Canada (see Ontario 2006).

Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394DOI 10.1007/s11252-011-0165-8

B. Taylor (*) : G. S. FraserFaculty of Environmental Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canadae-mail: b_p_taylor@hotmail.com

D. AndrewsBiology Department, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada

While the range of conflicts spans from fisheries (e.g., Diana et al. 2006; Duffy 1995;Glahn et al. 2000), to habitat modification at nesting sites (e.g., Bdard et al. 1995; Hebertet al. 2005) what is notable is the paucity of literature on cormorant management in naturalareas situated in urban settings.

Urban nature is a complex concept that rests somewhere between urban andwilderness, as the more-than-human ecology that persists, and often thrives, in ahuman-dominated setting (Davidson and Ridder 2006). Urban nature is the result of aninseparable dialectal process of co-production between social and ecological processes(Bunce and Desfor 2007; Heynen 2003; Keil 2003; Swyngedouw 1999; Young 2009). Asan everyday space, it includes manicured city parks, overgrown former industrial land,backyard gardens, etc.; the list is as endless as the varying public perceptions of whatis meant by the term (see Rink 2005). The management or the influence andapplication of human manipulation (Bolen and Robinson 2003: 2) of urban naturepresents an interesting set of challenges because the stakeholders engaged with themanagement process have varying perceptions and hence opinions about what constitutesurban nature.

Wildlife management, the manipulation of wildlife resources, whether directly orindirectly, explicitly or implicitly, is always undertaken to serve a human end (Conover2002) and this is exceptionally clear in urban nature settings. Raccoon (Procyon lotor),striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and Canadagoose (Branta canadensis) are all examples of wildlife situated in urban settings whichhave created conflict and were subsequently managed to reduce conflict (e.g., Broadfootet al. 2001; Conover and Chasko 1985; McShea et al. 1997; Rosatte et al. 2006). The levelof public engagement incorporated into those management actions varies, but the white-tailed deer in particular provides an excellent example of the conflicts and the array ofopinions on management actions (e.g., Curtis and Haurber 1997; Messmer et al. 1997).White-tailed deer and cormorants have at least one thing in common: they reduce plantbiodiversity when present in large numbers (Adams et al. 2006; McShea et al. 1997;Ontario 2006).

While the topic of whether cormorants in the Great Lakes are hyper-abundant is debated(Wires and Cuthbert 2006), for colonies occupying trees, changes to their nesting sites arean inevitable and natural process: they kill the trees in which they nest. As a result of thishabitat modification cormorants can be considered foundation species (Soul et al. 2003).Unlike deer whose deleterious habitat modifications occur primarily in the absence ofpredators (Adams et al. 2006), habitat modifications by tree nesting cormorants canoccur in all areas of their range due to the colonial nesting strategies of this species.Further, unlike deer, cormorants are sensitive to human disturbance and are notconsidered common urban wildlife, thus approaches to cormorant management in urbannature are not clearly defined.

How do cormorants, a native inhabitant, as well as a conservation success story(Weseloh and Collier 1995), inform ideas about management approaches in urban areas inthe context of species which naturally, and dramatically, modify their environment? Here,we examine the challenges cormorants present to the management of a highly valued urbannature park and explore different approaches to the management of cormorants in an urbannature area. Our study site, the Leslie Street Spit (or Tommy Thompson Park), located inToronto, Ontario, Canada, is an urban nature site with a long history of development andmanagement contention (Carely 1998; Hartmann 1998). Since the early 1990s the park hasbeen managed as a public urban wilderness, and coincidently, a cormorant colony thatbegan to occupy the Spit in the early 1990s is now one the largest in the lower Great Lakes

378 Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394

(TRCA 2009). Using an analysis of the perceptions of stakeholders involved in theparks management of cormorants, we present a framework for managing urban naturethat characterizes management perspectives, both current and historical, on a spectrumfrom complete human domination (interventionist) to near absence of human intention(laissez-faire).

Methods: Study site

The Leslie Street Spit is one of Canadas most unique and complex urban nature sites.Jutting out into Lake Ontario from the base of Leslie Street just east of Torontos downtowncore, this five kilometer long landmass was developed over a few decades from a substrateof urban rubble and harbour dredgeate of questionable quality (Ontario 1994) into aglobally significant ecological site (Fig. 1; Wilson and Cheskey 2001). The Spit is nearly500 ha in size including its land surface and waterlots and is owned by two agencies: theToronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA; prior to 1997, known as theMetropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA)) and the OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources (MNR). The TRCAs portion of the site is known asTommy Thompson Park and comprises about 247 ha, while the Toronto PortAuthority (TPA) leases the remaining 224 ha from the MNR to use for landfill anddredgeate disposal; the latter area will eventually be transferred to the TRCA to beincluded in the park (MTRCA 1992). The park, and the entire Spit in general, has morethan 250,000 visitors annually and numerous citizen-advocacy groups dedicated to itsprotection and management. More than 300 bird species have been observed there, andmore than 400 plants species have been identified, some of which are regionally,provincially and nationally rare (TRCA 2008g).

In 1959 the Toronto Harbour Commissioner (THC; renamed the Toronto Port Authorityin 1999) initiated construction of the Spit to enclose a basin and create Torontos OuterHarbor (Merrens 1988). The main construction continued on and off until 1984 usingrubble material from building demolitions and excavation sites in the Toronto area(MTRCA 1989). From 1973 to 1974, four peninsulas (called Peninsulas A, B, C and D)were constructed using material dredged from Torontos Outer Harbour (see Fig. 1). The siltand sand material of the peninsulas substrate fostered rapid ecological succession, incontrast to the concrete, bricks, asphalt and bedrock used to construct the Spits main spine.As of 2010, material disposal is still on-going on an endikement area created to protect themain spine from erosion and to provide a location for disposing of dredged material fromTorontos Keating Channel.

In 1982 the TRCA designated the Spit as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA)(MTRCA 1982) originally based on the presence of provincially and nationally rare plantspecies, regionally rare habitat, and status as a significant stopover site for migrating birds(MTRCA 1982). The TRCA updated the ESA designation in 1993 to recognize it as theonly breeding habitat for cormorants in their jurisdiction (MTRCA 1993). Subsequently, theSpit was also designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) in 2000 by Birdlife International,an organization with a mandate to conserve important sites for all bird species world-wide(Wilson and Cheskey 2001). According to the MNR, this IBA designation indicates thatthe protection of [the Spit] is necessary to ensure the long-term conservation of [other]naturally occurring bird populations at the site (Ontario 2006: 39).

In 1988 the Canadian federal government established a commission to study and providerecommendations on the development of the Toronto waterfront (Canada 1989). In

Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394 379

Fig. 1 The Leslie Street Spit, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

380 Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394

accordance with the majority of public sentiment (FOS 1985b; MTRCA 1985), thecommission recommended:

...that the Leslie Street Spit be recognized and protected as an urban wilderness park.In this context, urban wilderness is defined as an extensive area where naturalprocesses dominate and where public access, without vehicles, provides low-key,low-cost, unorganized recreation and contacts with wildlife (Canada 1989: 160).

A development plan was subsequently approved for the site in 1994 (Ontario1994). This plan (the 1992 Tommy Thompson Park plan) largely followed the idea of theSpit as an urban wilderness by defining human presence by low-intensity recreation suchas walking or biking and designating most of the Spit as a natural area composed of ninedifferent ecological community types, such as coastal marshes, dry meadows and acottonwood forest (MTRCA 1992). The direction of the plan for the sites natural areawas based on a natural succession or ecological approach, augmented by minimalintervention and management to achieve: the preservation of significant species such asthe Common Tern, Black-crowned Night Heron, and Double-crested Cormorant; [and]the protection of environmentally significant areas realizing their dynamic biologicalnature over time... (MTRCA 1992: 2). But the plan was finalized just as cormorantswere beginning to colonize the Spit, and their subsequent population increase wouldchallenge both the plans management approach and the idea of the site as an urbanwilderness.

Cormorants first nested at the Spit in 1990, when six nests were found in fourcottonwood trees on the tip of Peninsula B (Fig. 1; Jarvie et al. 1997). The colonyexpanded rapidly: by the year 2000 cormorants were nesting in the cottonwood forests onPeninsulas A, B, C; and by 2007, a total of 7,240 nesting pairs were recorded, making theSpit home to the largest cormorant colony on the lower Great Lakes (TRCA 2009).Though Peninsula B contained the majority of tree nesting cormorants until 2003,declining tree health, as well as the movement of black-crowned night-herons resulted inmany cormorants shifting to Peninsula C beginning in 2004 such that by 2007, 4,699nesting pairs were located here (TRCA 2008g). Since 1990, the cormorant colony at theSpit has increased on average 19% annually, with a 35% increase on Peninsula C from2006 to 2007 (TRCA 2008g).

Cormorants will nest either on the ground or in trees. For colonies occupying trees, themortality of trees occurs primarily through the deposition of large quantities of acidicguano, but also through the use of tree branches, twigs and leaves for nest-buildingmaterials (see Hebert et al. 2005). Consequently, growth and expansion of cormorantcolonies inevitably reduces tree cover. The former nesting areas on Peninsulas A and B arealmost completely void of trees and currently, a large proportion of the trees on Peninsula Care dying due to the nesting activity of the cormorant colony (Fig. 1). Of the 247 ha of thesite owned and managed by the TRCA, 151 ha is land surface of which approximately37 ha is forested (2006 data; TRCA 2008e). As of 2007, 24% (9 ha) forest canopy isdamaged or destroyed from cormorant nesting activities (TRCA 2008e).

Methods: Data collection

Our approach of examining management perspectives is based on Gobsters thesis (2001)that environmental management is premised upon (or at least informed by) an idea(vision) of how a particular environment should develop, and this in turn is based on a

Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394 381

groups collective value-system, ecological philosophy and interpretation of scientific data.In early 2008, the TRCA initiated a stakeholder consultation process to inform theircormorant management strategy. This included three stakeholder consultation meetingsbetween January and April 2008, as well as one public meeting held in April 2008which over 80 people attended. One author (Fraser) of this paper attended all thestakeholder and public meetings. We subsequently reviewed the minutes from thesemeetings for key themes related to the issue of cormorant management at the site (seeRetzlaff 2008). Through this process two broad management frameworks emerged:interventionist and laissez-faire. We categorized the management approaches favored bythree groups: the management agency (TRCA), a citizen advocacy group concerned aboutthe development of the site (Friends of the Spit (FOS)) and a third group (twostakeholders including Cormorant Defenders International [a coalition composed of manydifferent groups] and Peaceful Parks Coalition) characterized as supporting a laissez-fairemanagement approach. From this analysis we developed a framework through which toview the management of urban nature areas, particularly those with a unique, rare, orcontentious ecology. To provide context for the development of the contemporarymanagement approach, we also assessed the progression of management frameworks forthe TRCA and the FOS since the 1970s by examining development plans for the siteproduced by the TRCA and membership newsletters (from 1985 to 2008) produced by theFOS.

Toronto and region conservation authority and friends of the spit: Progressionof management ideas

Toronto and region conservation authority

In 1973, the Province of Ontario appointed the MTRCA as the agency responsible forpreparing a formal development plan for the Spit based on a concept developed by theTHC. Between 1973 and 1989, the MTRCA produced two development plans for the siteone in 1976 (Aquatic Park) and another in 1989 (Tommy Thompson Park)neither ofwhich were implemented (Table 1). These plans, and the process of creating them, show thegradual progression of the MTRCAs management approaches for the site. With the AquaticPark plan (MTRCA 1976), the MTRCA presented the idea of the site as space dominatedby human recreation, with a small nature area (between 8 and 20 ha) located on thesouthern tip of the Spit. The plan proposed that the nature area have a wildlife interpretationarea, observation towers, an elevated boardwalk, nearby parking, and be used for birdwatching. Management of the area would include restricting human access in May and Juneduring bird nesting and creating habitat to increase the number of bird species. In the 1989Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) plan, the MTRCA attempted to maintain the majority ofPeninsula D for sailing clubs, a large interpretive center, and unrestricted private vehicleaccess, and Peninsulas A, B, C and a portion of D as a natural resource area. The naturalresource area was defined by nine ecological community types and its management basedon a natural successional or ecological approach, augmented by minimal intervention andmanagement (MTRCA 1989:1). The MTRCA stated that the [Aquatic Park plan] has noreal linkages with the 1989 plan given that the MTRCAs direction had changeddramatically since 1976 (Ontario 1994:3). However, while the size and management ofthe non-human space changed significantly between 1976 and 1989, the MTRCAs ideasfor the site did not agree with majority public sentiment which was against a large area of

382 Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394

Table1

DevelopmentplansfortheLeslie

StreetSpit

Plan

Year

Descriptio

nLandscape

ABoldConcept

1968

The

plan,produced

bytheTHC,calledforextensivedevelopm

enton

the

City

'swaterfront,andin

particular,envisioned

thecreatio

nof

asecond

spitto

thewestof

theLeslie

StreetSpit,with

aresidentialdevelopm

ent

andan

airporton

thenewly

createdland.The

plan

also

calledforthe

expansionof

Toronto'sportfacilities(Jones

1968).

Dom

inated

byhuman

residentialinfrastructure.

Aquatic

Park

1976

The

purposeof

thisplan

was

todevelopthesite

asaspaceforhuman

recreatio

nandincluded:major

boatingfacilities,apublic

marina,camping

sites,a5,000person

'natural'amphith

eatre,awaterskiarea,ahotel,a

marinelandandanature

area

ontheouterm

ostportionof

theSpit

(MTRCA

1976).

Dom

inated

byhuman

recreatio

nwith

asm

allnature

area.

TommyThompson

Park

1989

The

MTRCA

(1986)

proposed

twoprim

aryoptio

ns:1)

maintainthe

entireSpitin

itsnaturalstate;

and2)

maintainthenorthern

halfof

the

Spitforsailing

clubs,alargeinterpretiv

ecentre,privatevehicleaccess,

andthesouthern

halfas

anature

area.Thoughthemajority

ofpublic

inputfavoredoptio

n1(FOS1985b;

MTRCA

1985),theMTRCA

selected

optio

ntwoin

early1988

andsubm

itted

thisplan

totheOntario

Ministryof

theEnvironmentandEnergy(M

OEE)forapproval.In

1991

theMOEE

returned

theplan

totheMTRCA

unapproved

(Ontario

1994).

Minor

infrastructure

developm

ent,butwith

mostof

thesite

asnature

area.

TommyThompson

Park

(revised)

1992

The

revisedplan

largelyfollo

wed

thevision

ofapublic

urbanwild

erness:

itprohibitedprivatevehicleaccess,scrapped

theplan

foradditio

nalsailing

clubsanddesignated

mostof

thesite

asanature

area.

Mostof

thedevelopm

entfrom

the1989

plan

rejected;

thesite

designated

asanature

area.

Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394 383

development, especially on Peninsula D (FOS 1985b; MTRCA 1985). The revised andapproved Tommy Thompson Park plan of 1992 eliminated much of the developmentproposed in the 1989 plan which was opposed by groups such as the FOS. With theapproval of the 1992 Tommy Thompson Park plan, the MTRCA adopted a managementapproach (ecological succession with minimal intervention) which was most conducive topromoting, maintaining and augmenting the Spit as an urban wilderness near the heart ofdowntown Toronto. But with the rapid and extensive colonization of the site by cormorants,the TRCA acknowledged that their thriving presence at the site challenged the plansmanagement approach (TRCA 2008f).

Friends of the spit (FOS)

This group formed in 1977 with the expressed purpose of advocating the site as a wildliferefuge and to let the Spit grow naturally without development and without privatization ofuses (Carely 1998: 110). Their motto, and management approach, were simple: let it be.The core group consisted of birders, naturalists and cyclists, with membershipeventually growing to 1,200. For the group, the fight to let the Spit be was afight for bikes over cars, preserving nature over development and public access overprivatization (FOS 1987a). They increased public interest in the emerging ecology of theSpit by organizing walking tours and distributing pamphlets about the sites increasinglydiverse flora and fauna (see Higgins et al. 1992). They vigorously opposed the AquaticPark and the 1989 Tommy Thompson Park plan by vocalizing their anti-developmentstance at public meetings and lobbying various levels of government and other publicagencies (Hartmann 1998). As early as 1985, the FOS were promoting the idea of the siteas an urban wilderness (FOS 1985a), and by early 1987, as a public urban wilderness(FOS 1987a).

Over time the FOS gradually shifted their management approach for the Spit from thehands-off, laissez-faire let it be to one more amenable to a minimum level ofmanagement. In the mid-1980s they asked their membership to provide input to helpdefine their let-it-be approach: Public transit vehicles, washrooms, bicycle racks,interpretive signs, trails, etc., etc. What is desirable? What would be too much? (FOS1986). In the spring of 1987 they discussed formulating principles and minimum levelsof management needed as part of an advisory committee established by the MTRCA toadvise on issues related to the future use of the sites natural areas (FOS 1987b). Later in1987, the FOS stated that the committee seemed to reach a consensus that the policyfor the Natural Area should be Natural Succession with Minimum Management (FOS1987c). In 1997, the FOS clarified their management position, saying that some degreeof rehabilitation and management were beneficial at the Spit for areas so severelydegraded that they would not mend on their own (FOS 1997).

Cormorant management at the Leslie Street Spit

The habitat modifications caused by cormorants resulted in a dialogue about whetherthese changes were tolerable by the TRCA and various stakeholders. The TRCA noted(TRCA 2008b) that their primary concern over the loss and degradation of trees at theSpit is the concomitant loss of forest habitat. Other concerns include: 1) a city-wideinitiative to increase trees; 2) loss of forest negatively impacting migratory birds; 3) lossof forest and competition for nest sites negatively impacting other colonial nesting

384 Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394

waterbirds, particularly black-crowned night herons; and 4) the tolerance by the public forcormorants.

1. The City of Toronto recently proposed an initiative to double the citys forest canopyfrom 17% to 34% by 2050 (TRCA 2008b); they include the forest canopy of the Spit inthis goal. Though a member of the stakeholder advisory committee questioned howvaluing forests can be joined with the presence of a very large cormorant colony(TRCA 2008c), it is clear that prevention of further canopy loss is a primary objective.

2. The TRCA has invested time and money in the development of a migratory birdresearch station on Peninsula D. Potential movement of cormorants to Peninsula D andsubsequent loss of forest canopy threaten these activities and reduce available stop-overhabitat for migratory birds, most of which require forested habitat.

3. Other tree-nesting colonial waterbirds also reside at the Spit: black-crowned night-herons and more recently, great egrets (Ardea alba). The night-herons colonized theSpit in 1979 and they now comprise a colony of regional importance (see Wilson andCheskey 2001). Observations on night-heron nests suggest that direct competition fornest sites is low at this site (Fraser et al. unpublished data), but the spatial nestingpatterns of cormorants and night-herons are dynamic (see Jarvie et al. 1997) and thereis concern that tree loss will force night-herons from the site altogether (TRCA 2008g).

4. Cormorants at the Spit, for some, have long since reached their stakeholder acceptancecapacity (Carpenter et al. 2000; Scrivener 2009; TRCA 2008f). Unlike biologicalcarrying capacity, the acceptance capacity in this case is the spatial extent and degree ofhabitat modification that is acceptable from a human viewpoint (Carpenter et al. 2000;see also Conover 2002). As a result of the cormorant colony, the plant biomass andpresumably plant diversity (no data or analysis available) on Peninsulas A, B and C aredecreasing rather than continuing to increase; and odors from the presence of thecolony are considered undesirable. Furthermore, deforestation by the cormorant colonycreates nesting habitat for ground nesting gulls, which many also consider a pestspecies in an urban setting. If left unmanaged, there is the distinct possibility thatcormorants will colonize, and eventually deforest, Peninsula D, unless other biologicalcarrying capacity controls limit colony growth. From the perspective of many, theurban wilderness is becoming too dynamic and is changing in unacceptable ways:exemplified by a recent newspaper article which describes the Spits cormorant-relateddeforestation as a wintry apocalypse (Scrivener 2009).

Cormorant management: 20012008

The TRCA has attempted to manage cormorants at the Spit since 2001 when they tried toprevent the colony from expanding to Peninsula Cwhere the majority of the night-heron colonynested (TRCA 2008f). Despite using many management techniques (e.g., deterrence,knocking down nests), prevention of cormorant expansion was not successful.

With the decline of tree health on Peninsula C and the very real possibility of cormorantsmoving to Peninsula D, the TRCA established a cormorant advisory group in 2008 toprovide input on appropriate cormorant management strategies. Members of the groupincluded: the FOS, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Cityof Toronto, Transport Canada, Port Authority, academic institutions and a mixture of otherstakeholder groups ranging from animal rights activists to the local sailing club. Thepurpose of this consultative process was to receive input on management objectives andtechniques, and to provide stakeholders with a voice in determining ...an effective, humane

Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394 385

and acceptable management approach to cormorants at TTP (TRCA 2008f: 2,3). Thehumane aspect of this statement is important: the TRCA cannot (due to city bylaws) andwill not cull adult cormorants as has been done throughout the U.S. and parts ofCanada (e.g., Ontario Minister of Natural Resources 2006; USFWS 2009).

At the April 2008 public meeting, the TRCA presented their over-arching managementframework to [a]chieve a balance between the continued existence of a healthy, thrivingcormorant colony and the other ecological, educational, scientific and recreational values ofTommy Thompson Park (TRCA 2008f:3). Within the context of an urban wilderness, it isclear that cormorants are challenging the concept of what is considered desirable and manystakeholders agreed that they must, in varying degrees of opinion, be controlled, or at leastcontained (TRCA 2008c). The degree to which cormorants are controlled at the Spit (if theyindeed can be controlled; egg oiling, a common strategy to reduce local productivity, cannotbe administered on nests in trees, where the majority of cormorants were nesting in 2007),will ultimately be decided by the TRCAs cormorant management strategy. As part of thisstrategy, the TRCA designated Peninsulas A and B as cormorant conservation zones wherecormorant nesting will be encouraged to nest on the ground in deforested areas throughmanagement practices (TRCA 2008a).

Stakeholders response to the cormorant management plans

Friends of the spit

With the rapid cormorant colonization of the Spit, the FOS management position was againre-defined within the context of the site as a public urban wilderness. As one of the mostactive public groups involved with the Spit, the FOS was asked to join the cormorantadvisory committee and their position was clear: management is necessary. At a cormorantadvisory group meeting, a representative from the FOS stated that they would like thegeographic extent of the cormorant colony to be limited to the existing areas on PeninsulasA, B and C and that Peninsula D should be protected using humane methods (TRCA2008d: 7). The FOS did not specify what they meant by humane methods (FOS 2008).

Laissez-Faire stakeholders

A laissez-faire management approach can be characterized by an absence of humaninterference in natural areasleaving nature to change as it will. In the context of thecurrent ecological conditions at the Spit, laissez-faire management would allow thecormorant colony to progressively and unabatedly colonize the site, which would probablylead to further deforestation. With their original let it be motto the FOS was the first majorstakeholder to express a hands-off, laissez-faire management framework for the Spit.Though the FOS altered their original framework for the site over time, other groups haveassumed this stakeholder position in the context of cormorant management. While theirhistory with the Spit is limited compared to FOS, one organization, Cormorant DefendersInternational (CDI) was a member of the TRCAs cormorant advisory group. Anotherorganization, Peaceful Parks Coalition (PPC) was a stakeholder through their participationat the TRCA public consultation event and through press releases and campaignsconcerning cormorants on their website (PPC 2008, 2009). Both groups promote alaissez-faire approach. In response to the TRCAs 2008 management plan, PPC describedthe Spit as a hands-off bird refuge, stating that Toronto has an obligation to protect the

386 Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394

Double-crested Cormorant colony at the Spit, and allow it to evolve naturally withouthuman manipulation (PPC 2008). Also, on their website, PPC criticize the TRCA forapplying harassment techniques to discourage any further expansion of the cormorantcolony at Tommy Thompson Park (PPC 2009). CDI, whose primary objective is in educating the public about cormorants, documenting misinformation about cormorants,dispelling misinformation about cormorants and advocating, as necessary, on behalf ofcormorants (CDI 2010), has been an active participant since the inception of the TRCAcormorant advisory group. In a flyer distributed at the public consultation meeting in April2008, CDI summarized their position: they support what is essentially passive managementof encouraging human traffic on Peninsula D which would reduce likelihood of cormorantsnesting there, but that they support a do nothing management approach to Peninsulas A,B, and C including no oiling of the eggs; no destruction of tree nests; and, no use ofdeterrents (CDI 2008b; see also Cormorant management 20012008 below). While CDIclearly has a laissez-faire approach for cormorant management at the Spit, this view doesnot extend to other restoration or educational activities at the park, including installation ofboardwalks or planting of native shrubs (CDI 2008b).

TRCAs response to stakeholders

In response to stakeholder and public input throughout the consultation process, theTRCAs management objectives (Table 2) and methods (Table 3) changed significantly.Two methods in particularpost-breeding deterrents and egg oilingwere revised for the2008 season. The TRCA originally proposed to implement post-breeding deterrents (suchas human presence) on all four peninsulas. But in response to concerns raised by membersof the advisory group (TRCA 2008c), particularly CDI, the TRCA revised its methods toconduct post-breeding deterrents on Peninsulas C and D only. The most controversialmanagement method proposed was egg-oiling on Peninsulas A, B and C. During the publicmeeting, participants raised concerns that the application of oil to the eggs may negativelyaffect the behavior of adult birds (TRCA 2008f). In response to these concerns and from alack of literature to answer them, the TRCA proposed an egg oiling experiment onPeninsula B (in collaboration with G. Fraser). Though some members of the advisory groupdid not agree with the study (TRCA 2008d), research proceeded in the summer of 2008.The TRCA therefore modified their original egg oiling plans in response to stakeholder andpublic input.

Discussion

The TRCAs management strategy is an attempt to assign a specific balance betweencormorant space and other site uses at the Spit. This management goal is supported bythe IBA conservation plan (Wilson and Cheskey 2001), and importantly, by the FOS(FOS 2008), and can be characterized as the dominant, interventionist approach forcormorant management at the site. This characterization is based on the majority ofstakeholder input provided during the TRCA meetings of 2008 (TRCA 2008b, c, d, f).While future research, including park user surveys, could further delineate the variousmanagement possibilities, one alternative idea is the laissez-faire management approachput forward by groups such as the PPC and CDI. Yet, there is seemingly no support for alaissez-faire approach in the dialogue in urban-wilderness literature (see Kendle andForbes 1997).

Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394 387

Table 3 Comparison between management methods proposed at Feb/08 cormorant advisory group meeting(TRCA 2008c) and final methods for 2008 management (TRCA 2008a)

Method Peninsula A Peninsula B Peninsula C Peninsula D

Feb/08 May/08 Feb/08 May/08 Feb/08 May/08 Feb/08 May/08

Pre-nesting deterrents * * *

Post-breeding deterrents * * * * * *

Enhanced groundnesting

* * * *

Egg oiling / Egg oiling research * * * *

Restoration / Habitat restoration * * * * * * * *

Table 2 Comparison between management objectives proposed at Feb/08 cormorant advisory groupmeeting (TRCA 2008c) and final objectives for 2008 management (TRCA 2008a)

Advisory groupmeeting

Management objectives Advisory group input/refinement of objectives

1 a) Limit loss of forest canopy - Unanimous support for objective 'increasingpublic awareness'b) Keep cormorants off Peninsula D

- Cormorant Defenders International stated thatthey could not support the objective 'keepcormorants off of Peninsula D' withoutknowing methods employed

c) Maintain biodiversity

- The objective, 'maintain biodiversity,' wascriticized for implying a museum-like quality;of defining the Spit as a static site

d) Increase public awareness(about cormorants)

2 a) Increase public awareness andknowledge of colonial waterbirds

- TRCA replaced objective to 'maintainbiodiversity' with 'continue leading researcharound urban wilderness'b) Limit further forest canopy loss

- TRCA presented their management methodsc) Prevent expansion to Peninsula D

d) Continue leading research aroundurban wilderness

3 a) Increase public knowledge,awareness, and appreciation ofcolonial waterbirds

- In response to stakeholder and publiccomment, the TRCA clarified their positionof limiting further loss of tree canopy

b) Deter cormorant expansion onto Peninsula D

c) Limit further loss of tree canopybeyond existing colonies onPeninsulas A, B and C

d) Continue research on colonialwaterbirds in an urban wildernesscontext

388 Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394

Arguably, the laissez-faire approach to the Spit as a bird refuge does not acknowledgethe site as urban nature, as a space irreversibly intertwined with human presence, andassumes that human presence can be separated from a site created by human and ecologicalprocesses. With the number of annual site users in the hundreds of thousands, the Spitcannot be free from human presence, and consequently, human manipulation. Regardless ofsite designations or management strategies (however overbearing or exclusive), a largepublic presence at the Spit will in itself influence its future form. In relation to cormorants,site users will continue to influence the spatial extent of the colonies as cormorants will notlikely expand close to areas of the Spit used extensively by humans. Therefore, we shouldnot separate humans further, with a laissez-faire approach, from the already sparse natureareas in urban settings (see Pincetl and Gearin 2005), but focus instead on education(Adams 2005; Teillac-Deschamps et al. 2009) and experiential engagement (Gill et al.2009; Gruenewald 2003). Ecological change, while sometimes aesthetically undesirable, isan inevitable outcome, and examples of species modifying their landscape can be used inexperiential learning to explore this fundamental concept in ecology. Through theseapproaches, the public can observe the interactions between wildlife and their habitatproviding an in situ example of an ecologically interactive, or foundation species. Further,species which engineer their environment can also be used in public engagement of morecomplex ideas in ecology (e.g., eco-evolutionary feedback systems and niche construction;Post and Palkovacs 2009).

We believe it is possible to achieve a balanced, middle of the road approach, which canboth respect the presence of cormorants while creatively, and non-lethally, attempting tocontain the changes they impart on the landscape. Such an approach recognizes that urbannature conservation is inextricably linked to some level of management interventionaview supported in urban nature literature. Urban environments often possess degradedconditions and a paucity of natural space, and as such conservation strategies that merelyset aside land of conservation interest are not destined to succeed, and require, therefore,intervention in the form of restoration management (Heneghan et al. 2009: 66). Toimprove the applicability and effectiveness of urban nature conservation and theenvironmental education level of the populace, management intervention should incorpo-rate humans into conservation goals (Brunson 2000; Kendle and Forbes 1997), engagestakeholder perceptions (Bauer 2005; Teillac-Deschamps et al. 2009), respond to currentscience (Heneghan et al. 2009), and even advocate specific values towards non-human life(Davidson and Ridder 2006).

By establishing a balance between human use of the Spit and the cormorant colony, theTRCAs management strategy recognizes the intrinsic worth of a unique, and contentious,urban wildlife population. The cormorant conservation zones on Peninsulas A and B ensurethat the colony will remain a part of Torontos urban community. Michelfelder (2003: 86)suggests that [w]ildlife that inhabit and have found a home in urban settings are ournonhuman neighbors and should be treated as such. By managing the colony so that thepublic does not have direct access, but rather can view it from a safe distance on a formaltrail system, the TRCA is promoting not co-habitation of urban areas with wildlife (seeMichelfelder 2003), but rather para-habitation, one where each exists close together, butspatially separate. Furthermore, within the spatial limits of the conservation zones, thecormorant strategy allows the colony to flourish on its own terms (Henderson 2009). It isnot a static object of conservation, an artifact under control by humans for humans(Gobster 2007: 108). The strategy guides action rather than determining a fixed form forthe colony (Hinchliffe 2008) based on human perceptions of what the ecology of PeninsulasA and B should be. Finally, the cormorant strategy follows what Bauer (2005) describes as

Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394 389

appropriate management for wilderness area that both protects an ecological system andrecognizes that wildlife and nature are, in fact, important basic human needs (Adams2005: 151). Bauer (2005: 64) suggests that zoning wilderness areas is paramount andshould include: (1) key zones, where nature should be allowed to develop freely andlargely undisturbed, but which can still be [in some manner experienced], and (2) zonesdesigned to cater more to peoples need to have space for outdoor activities.

As an urban nature site, the Spit is the result of decades of ecological and societalprocesses and is irreversibly connected to humans as much as it is to non-human life. Fromthis connection one may conclude that an interventionist approach is needed and promotethe necessity of some form of cormorant management. Enmeshed within the form of theSpit are the struggles of groups and individuals who have helped create this public urbanwilderness; and for some like the FOS, this paradoxically also leads to an interventionistapproach. The tension between the laissez-faire and interventionist framework with respectto wildlife changing cherished landscapes is not unique to the Spit, thus the dialogue isapplicable to other regions with similar conflicts (see Brunson 2000).

Cormorant management: 2008 and beyond

The cormorant advisory group consultations and public meeting of 2008 has informed theTRCAs cormorant management strategy for the Spit and resulted in a strategy moreamenable to most stakeholders. For example, a member of CDI expressed: While wewould like to see the Spit and the [cormorant] colony naturally evolve with no humaninterference, CDI is very appreciative that the TRCA formed a Cormorant AdvisoryGroup ... to do simply that; give them advice on cormorant management (Willock2009). Though tensions still exist between holders of different ideas for the Spit, theprocess has helped to refine the TRCAs cormorant management objectives for the site aswell as the appropriate use of management methods.

Despite the proactive approach of stakeholder engagement by the TRCA, cormorants atthe Spit will most likely be a source of contention for years to come. While wildlifemanagement can be considered a science, the efficacy of cormorant management is far fromcertain, and is criticized by scientists and advocacy groups alike (CDI 2008a; Cuthbert et al.2002; Korfanty et al. 1997). Because double-crested cormorants are so widespread,management can result in birds abandoning one colony for another (Duerr et al. 2007) oralternatively, an actively reduced colony may repopulate over time with cormorants fromother colonies. According to Korfanty et al. (1997: 140), [a]uthorized techniques (e.g.,shooting adults, hunting seasons, harassing with flare guns, and oiling eggs) have not beensuccessful in controlling [cormorants] over larger geographic areas or in the longer term.Hence, cormorant management at the Spit must be a continual process of responding to siteconditions with the best available expertise and the best intentions for both humans andcormorants. In this manner the cormorant strategy will not only support and advocatevalues towards non-human life, but will also provide an adaptive framework ofmanagement (Elmqvist et al. 2008; Folke et al. 2005; Grumbine 1994). Cormorantpopulation dynamics and other mobile organisms provide the need for the recognition thaturban-nature areas are not stand alone, isolated entities and approaches to wildlifemanagement need to consider the linkages to larger landscape level frameworks (see Wiresand Cuthbert 2010).

Management is about directing form towards premeditated goals using acceptedmethods. There is no doubt that human presence at the Spit will influence the developmentof the cormorant colony; management is the attempt to direct this influence. By assigning

390 Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394

specific areas of the Spit as cormorant conservation zones, the TRCA is taking a steptowards a balance between human and non-human life that satisfies an extraordinarycondition: the continued existence of the largest cormorant colony on the lower Great Lakeswithin an urban park visited by over 250,000 people annually. Provided that the processcontinues to engage the public in an open and transparent manner, while seeking input fromvarious perspectives and areas of expertise, it is possible that the cormorant colony,alongside other wildlife, may co-exist, in the long-term, with the City of Toronto. As thisurban nature site continues to evolve and change, it will be enriched by both a respect fornon-human life, and an appreciation for the positive role that humans can play in natureconservation.

Acknowledgments We thank L. Collins, G. Desfor, J. Foster, J. Laidley, L. Packer and A. Sandberg andthree anonymous reviewers for providing comments on this paper. Funding was provided by the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (410-2005-2071). The Toronto Regional ConservationAuthority kindly supplied the aerial photograph of the Leslie Street Spit.

References

Adams LW (2005) Urban wildlife ecology and conservation: a brief history of the discipline. Urban Ecosyst8:139156

Adams CE, Lindsey KJ, Ash SJ (2006) Urban wildlife management. Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonBauer N (2005) Attitudes towards wilderness and public demands on wilderness areas. In: Kowarik I, Krner

S (eds) Wild urban woodlands: new perspectives for urban forestry. Springer, Berlin, pp 4766Bdard J, Nadeau A, LePage M (1995) Double-crested cormorant culling in the St. Lawrence River estuary.

Colon Waterbirds 18(SP1):78Bolen EG, Robinson WL (2003) Wildlife ecology and management, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle

RiverBroadfoot JD, Rosatte RC, OLeary DT (2001) Raccoon and skunk population models for urban disease

control planning in Ontario. Ecol Appl 11(1):295303. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0295:RASPMF]2.0.CO;2

Brunson MW (2000) Managing naturalness as a continuum: Setting limits of acceptable change. In: GobsterPH, Hull RB (eds) Restoring nature: perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Island,Washington, pp 229246

Bunce S, Desfor G (2007) Introduction to political ecologies of urban waterfront transformations. Cities 24(4):251258. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2007.02.001

Canada (Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront) (1989) Interim report. TheCommission, Toronto

Carely J (1998) The Leslie Street Spit. In: Fairfield G (ed) Ashbridges Bay: an anthology of writings bythose who knew and loved Ashbridges Bay. Toronto Ornithological Club, Toronto, pp 105116

Carpenter HL, Decker DJ, Lipscomb JF (2000) Stakeholder acceptance capacity in wildlife management.Hum Dimens Wildl 5(3):519. doi:10.1080/10871200009359184

Conover MR (2002) Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management. Lewis,Boca Raton

Conover MR, Chasko GG (1985) Nuisance Canada goose problems in the eastern United States. Wildl SocBull 13:228233

Cormorant Defenders International. (2008a). A critical analysis of Point Pelee National Parks rationale forkilling the middle island cormorants. http://www.zoocheck.com/cdiwebsite/CDI%20Middle%20Island%20Cormorant%20Report%20PDF.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2010.

Cormorant Defenders International (2008b) Cormorant defender international (CDI) notes for: toronto andregion conservation authority (TRCA)s Leslie Street Spit (Tommy Thompson Park (TTP)) PublicMeeting, Thursday April 3rd, 2008

Cormorant Defenders International (2010) Who we are. http://www.zoocheck.com/cormorant/?id=14.Accessed February 20 2010.

Curtis PD, Haurber JR (1997) Public involvement in deer management decisions: concensus versus consent.Wildl Soc Bull 25(2):399403

Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394 391

Cuthbert FJ, Wires LR, Mckearnan JE (2002) Potential impacts of nesting double-crested cormorants ongreat blue herons and black-crowned night-herons in the U.S. great lakes region. J Great Lakes Res 28(2):145154

Davidson A, Ridder B (2006) Turbulent times for urban nature: conserving and re-inventing nature inAustralian cities. Aust Zool 33(3):306314

Diana JS, Maruca S, Low B (2006) Do increasing cormorant populations threaten sportfishes in the greatlakes? A case study in Lake Huron. J Great Lakes Res 32(2):306320

Duerr AE, Donovan TM, Capen D (2007) Management-induced reproductive failure and breeding dispersalin double-crested cormorants on Lake Champlain. J Wildl Manage 71(8):25652574. doi:10.2193/2006-527

Duffy DC (1995) Why is the double-crested cormorant a problem? Insights from cormorant ecology andhuman sociology. Colon Waterbirds 18(S1):2532

Elmqvist T, Alfsen C, Colding J (2008) Urban systems. In: Jorgensen SE, Fath B (eds) Encyclopedia ofecology. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 36653672

Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu RevEnviron Resour 30:441473. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Friends of the Spit (FOS) (1985a) July 1985 Newsletter. Friends of the Spit, Toronto. http://www.friendsofthespit.ca/newsletter/July1985.PDF. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Friends of the Spit (FOS) (1985b) September 1985 Newsletter. Friends of the Spit, Toronto. http://www.friendsofthespit.ca/newsletter/September1985.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Friends of the Spit (FOS) (1986) March 1986 Newsletter. Friends of the Spit, Toronto. http://www.friendsofthespit.ca/newsletter/March1986.PDF. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Friends of the Spit (FOS) (1987a) January 1987 Newsletter. Friends of the Spit, Toronto. http://www.friendsofthespit.ca/newsletter/January1987.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Friends of the Spit (FOS) (1987b) May 1987 Newsletter. Friends of the Spit, Toronto. http://www.friendsofthespit.ca/newsletter/May1987.PDF. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Friends of the Spit (FOS) (1987c) November 1987 Newsletter. Friends of the Spit, Toronto. http://www.friendsofthespit.ca/newsletter/November1987.PDF. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Friends of the Spit (FOS) (1997) May 1997 Newsletter. Friends of the Spit, Toronto. http://www.friendsofthespit.ca/newsletter/May1997.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Friends of the Spit (FOS) (2008) April 2008 Newsletter. Friends of the Spit, Toronto. http://www.friendsofthespit.ca/newsletter/april2008.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Gill N, Waitt G, Head L (2009) Local engagements with urban bushland: moving beyond bounded practice forurban biodiversity management. Landscape Urban Plann 93(34):184193. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.004

Glahn JF, Tobin ME, Blackwell, BF (2000) A science-based initiative to manage double-crested cormorantdamage to southern aquaculture. USDA/APHIS, Wildlife Services National Wildlife Research Center.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=icwdm_usdanwrc. Accessed20 Feb 2010

Gobster PH (2001) Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape UrbanPlann 56(12):3551

Gobster PH (2007) Urban park restoration and the museumification of nature. Nat Cult 2(2):95114.doi:10:3167/nc2007.020201

Gruenewald D (2003) Foundations of place: a multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education.Am Educ Res J 40(3):619654

Grumbine RE (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conserv Biol 8(1):2738Hartmann F (1998) Nature in the city: urban ecological politics in Toronto. Dissertation, York University.Hatch J J, Weseloh, DV (1999) Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). In A. Poole (Ed.), The

birds of North America online, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/441, doi:10.2173/bna.441. Accessed 17 Jul 2008

Hebert CE, Duffe J, Weseloh DV, Senese EM, Haffner GD (2005) Unique island habitats may be threatenedby double-crested cormorants. J Wildl Manage 69:6876

Henderson DG (2009) The possibility of managing for wilderness. Environ Ethics 31(4):413429Heneghan L, Umek L, Bernau B, Grady K, Iatropulos J, Jabon D et al (2009) Ecological research can

augment restoration practice in urban areas degraded by invasive speciesexamples from ChicagoWilderness. Urban Ecosyst 12(1):6377. doi:10.1007/s11252-008-0057-8

Heynen NC (2003) The scalar production of injustice within the urban forest. Antipode 35(5):980998Higgins VJ, Denzel S, Fazari N (1992) Plant communities of the leslie street spit: a beginners guide. Friends

of the Spit and the Botany Conservation Group, TorontoHinchliffe S (2008) Reconstituting nature conservation: towards a careful political ecology. Geoforum

39:8897. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.09.007

392 Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394

Jarvie S, Blokpoel H, Chipperfield T (1997) A geographic information system to monitor nest distributionsof double-crested cormorants and black-crowned night-herons at shared colony sites near Toronto,Canada. Symposium on Double-crested Cormorants: Population Status and Management Issues in theMidwest. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=nwrccormorants.Accessed 20 Feb 2010,.

Jones JH (1968) A conceptual plan for the development of the city of Toronto waterfront. Toronto HarbourCommissioners, Toronto

Keil R (2003) Urban political ecology. Urban Geogr 24(8):723738Kendle T, Forbes S (1997) Urban nature conservation: landscape management in the urban countryside.

Taylor and Francis, LondonKorfanty C, Miyasaki WG, Harcus JL (1997) Review of the population status and management of double-crested

cormorants in Ontario. In M. E. Tobin (Ed.), Symposium on double-crested cormorants: Population statusand management issues in the Midwest, USDA/APHIS Tech. Bull. No. 1879, pp 131145.

McShea WJ, Underwood HB, Rappole JH (1997) The science of overabundance: deer ecology andpopulation management. Smithsonian Institution, Washington

Merrens R (1988) Port Authorities as urban land developers: the case of the Toronto harbour commissionersand their outer harbour project, 191268. Urban Hist Rev 17(2):92103

Messmer TA, George SM, Cornicelli L (1997) Legal considerations regarding lethal and nonlethalapproaches to managing urban deer. Wildl Soc Bull 25(2):424429

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) (1976) Aquatic park, executivesummary. Clifford & Lawrie Designs Limited, Johnson Sustronk Weinstein & Associates Limited, M.M.Dillion Limited, Ecoplans Limited, Toronto

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) (1982) Environmentally significantareas study. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Toronto

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) (1985) Aquatic park master plan,master planning zones, phase 1. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Toronto

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) (1989) Tommy Thompson Park: masterplan and environmental assessment. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,Downsview

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) (1992) Tommy Thompson park masterplan, 1992nd edn. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Downsview

Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) (1993) Environmentally significantareas criteria. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Downsview

Michelfelder DP (2003) Valuing wildlife populations in urban environments. J Soc Philos 34(1):7990.doi:10.1111/1467-9833.00166

Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (1994) The Tommy Thompson park master planenvironmental assessment: Review of the environmental assessment submitted by the metropolitantoronto and region conservatory [sic] authority, EA file no. CA-MT-02. Environmental AssessmentBranch. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, Toronto

Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2006) Review of the status and management of double-crested cormorants in Ontario. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Wildlife Section. Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, Peterborough

Peaceful Parks Coalition (PPC) (2008) Leslie street spit cormorants at the mercy of decision this Friday.http://www.peacefulparks.org/press-08/press%20may08.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2009

Peaceful Parks Coalition (PPC) (2009) Double-crested cormorantsLet these birds live. http://www.peacefulparks.org/ppc/action_letthemlive.htm. Accessed February 18 2010

Pincetl S, Gearin E (2005) The reinvention of public green space. Urban Geogr 26:365384Post DM, Palkovacs EP (2009) Eco-evolutionary feedbacks in community and ecosystem ecology:

interactions between the ecological theatre and the evolutionary play. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B364:16291640. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0012

Retzlaff RC (2008) Planning broad-based environmental protection: a look at the Chicago wildernessbiodiversity recovery plan. Urban Ecosyst 11:4563. doi:10.1007/s11252-007-0036-5

Rink D (2005) Surrogate nature or wilderness? Social perceptions and notions of nature in an urban context.In: Kowarik I, Krner S (eds) Wild urban woodlands: new perspectives for urban forestry. Springer,Berlin, pp 6780

Rosatte R, Sobey K, Donovan D, Allan M, Bruce L, Buchanan T et al (2006) Raccoon density andmovements after population reduction to control rabies. J Wildl Manage 71(7):23732378

Scrivener L (2009) 30,000 cormorants destroying lakeside park. Toronto Star. 20 May 2009Soul M, Estes JA, Burger J, Del Rios CM (2003) Ecological effectiveness: conservation goals for interactive

species. Conserv Biol 17(5):12381250. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01599.x

Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394 393

Swyngedouw E (1999) Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of theSpanish waterscape, 18901930. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 89(3):443465

Teillac-Deschamps P, Lorrillire R, Servais V, Delmas V, Cadi A, Prvot-Julliard AC (2009) Managementstrategies in urban green spaces: models based on an introduced exotic pet turtle. Biol Conserv 142(10):22582269. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.004

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (2008a) Authority meeting recommendations ondouble-crested cormorants. http://www.tommythompsonpark.ca/global/pdfs/AuthorityMinutes04-08-May23_2008.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2010.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (2008b) Cormorant advisory group meeting #1: Finalmeeting notes. http://www.tommythompsonpark.ca/global/pdfs/cormorant_meeting_notes.pdf. Accessed20 Feb 2010

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (2008c) Cormorant advisory group meeting #2: Finalmeeting notes. http://www.tommythompsonpark.ca/global/pdfs/AdvisoryGroupMeetingNotes2.pdf.Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (2008d) Cormorant advisory group meeting #3: Finalmeeting notes. http://www.tommythompsonpark.ca/global/pdfs/cormotants_AdvisoryGroupMeetingNotes3.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (2008e) Cormorants at Tommy Thompson park. http://www.tommythompsonpark.ca/global/pdfs/08April3_public_meeting_presentation.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb2010

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (2008f) Cormorants at tommy thompson park: Publicmeeting report. http://www.tommythompsonpark.ca/global/pdfs/Cormorants_Meeting_Report_08April3.pdf.Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (2008g) Double-crested cormorants at TommyThompson Park backgrounder. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Toronto

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (2009). Authority Meeting #2/09. http://www.tommythompsonpark.ca/global/pdfs/AuthorityAgenda02-09-March27_2009.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2009) Migratory bird permits; revision of expiration datesfor double-crested cormorant depredation orders. Federal Register. http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2009/04/06/E9-7650/migratory-bird-permits-revision-of-expiration-dates-for-doublecrested-cormorant-depredation-orders. Accessed 27 Sept 2010

Weseloh DV, Collier B (1995) The rise of the Double-crested Cormorant on the Great Lakes: Winning thewar against contaminants. Great Lakes Fact Sheet. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada andLong Point Observatory. http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/factsheets/fs_cormorants-e.html.

Willock A (2009) Torontos Leslie street spit: Cormorant refuge in the midst of an international slaughter.http://earthroots.org/index.php/torontos-leslie-street-spit-cormorant-refuge-in-the-midst-of-an-international-slaughter.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2010

Wilson WG, Cheskey ED (2001) Leslie street spittommy thompson park important bird area conservationplan. Can. Nature Fed., Bird Studies Can., Fed. of Ont. Naturalists, Toronto

Wires LR, Cuthbert FJ (2010) Characteristics of double-crested cormorant colonies in the U.S. Great Lakesisland landscape. J Great Lakes Res 36(2):232241

Wires LR, Cuthbert FJ (2006) Historic populations of the double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus):implications for conservation and management in the 21st century. Waterbirds 29(1):937. doi:10.1675/1524-4695(2006)29[9:HPOTDC]2.0.CO;2

Wires LR, Cuthbert FJ, Trexel, DR, Joshi, AR (2001) Status of the double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocoraxauritus) in North America. Final report to USFWS. Fort Snelling, Minnesota

Young RF (2009) Interdisciplinary foundations of urban ecology. Urban Ecosyst 12(3):311331.doi:10.1007/s11252-009-0095-x

394 Urban Ecosyst (2011) 14:377394

Double-crested cormorants and urban wilderness: conflicts and managementAbstractIntroductionMethods: Study siteMethods: Data collectionToronto and region conservation authority and friends of the spit: Progression of management ideasToronto and region conservation authorityFriends of the spit (FOS)

Cormorant management at the Leslie Street SpitCormorant management: 20012008

Stakeholders response to the cormorant management plansFriends of the spitLaissez-Faire stakeholdersTRCAs response to stakeholders

DiscussionCormorant management: 2008 and beyond

References