Responsible Cormorant Management and Control Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes a federal framework for managing double-crested cormorant populations, aiming to mitigate their ecological and economic impacts through regulated take, while ensuring species sustainability.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with Regional Flyway Councils, to establish regional management frameworks for the regulated 'take' of double-crested cormorants. These frameworks will define allowed methods and time periods for cormorant removal, identify authorized entities (including State and Tribal agencies, licensed hunters, and private lake/pond managers), and ensure the species' population remains sustainable. The bill also requires regular population surveys and subsequent updates to these management frameworks every five years, while addressing the cormorants' impacts on fisheries, vegetation, other migratory birds, human health, water quality, and endangered species.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that double-crested cormorants have become overabundant in certain regions, leading to significant negative impacts on local fish populations, sensitive ecosystems, and even other migratory bird species. They contend that a coordinated, regional management approach is necessary to control these populations effectively, empower local stakeholders (states, tribes, licensed managers) with tools to address the issue, and protect valuable natural resources and economic interests (like fisheries) while still ensuring the cormorant species remains sustainable.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that broad 'take' authorizations could lead to unintended consequences for cormorant populations, potentially undermining conservation efforts under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They may also raise concerns about the potential for over-culling, the effectiveness of localized management without broader ecological considerations, or the potential for conflicts with animal welfare groups. Some might also question the scientific basis for 'overabundance' claims in all regions or suggest that other factors are more significant contributors to fishery declines.
The bill is concise and easily readable, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a)
Development of Regional Management Frameworks
Within 180 days of the bill's enactment, the Secretary of the Interior, in collaboration with the applicable Regional Flyway Councils, must develop specific regional management frameworks. These frameworks will guide the 'take' of double-crested cormorants in each region, utilizing existing information to inform their initial structure and guidelines.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a coordinated, regional approach is essential for effective management of a migratory species like the cormorant, ensuring consistency and leveraging existing expertise across different geographical areas.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the administrative requirement itself, but potential for disagreement on the specific content and stringency of the frameworks could arise.
Tradeoffs
Balancing the need for rapid implementation (180 days) with thorough coordination across multiple federal and regional entities to ensure comprehensive and effective initial frameworks.
Section 2(b)
Requirements for Regional Management Frameworks
Each regional management framework must ensure the breeding population of double-crested cormorants is maintained at a sustainable level, consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The frameworks must specify allowed methods and time periods for 'take,' and identify authorized entities, including State and Tribal agencies, State-licensed hunters, and lake/pond managers. They must also enable States and Indian Tribes to take specific management actions and account for the effects of cormorant populations on fisheries, sensitive vegetation, other migratory birds, human health and safety, water quality, and endangered species.
Section 2(d) and 2(e)
Population Surveys and Framework Updates
The bill mandates that the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Regional Flyway Councils, conduct a survey of double-crested cormorant populations every five years, starting five years after the bill's enactment. Following these surveys, the regional management frameworks developed under the bill must be reviewed and updated every five years, incorporating the results of the most recent population data to ensure adaptive management.
The bill explicitly includes 'lake managers' and 'pond managers' as entities that may be licensed or authorized by a State regulatory agency to take double-crested cormorants for management purposes on private lakes and ponds.
Section 2(b)(3)(B) and Section 2(f)(4), 2(f)(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms and specifying who can participate in a program. It is not necessarily evasive, but rather a technical detail that clarifies the scope of authorized individuals.
Case for: Supporters would argue that private lake and pond managers often bear the direct brunt of cormorant predation on their fish stocks and should have the authority to manage these populations on their private property, under state authorization, to protect their investments and resources.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about the potential for less oversight or inconsistent application of management principles when private entities are involved, compared to state or tribal agencies, potentially leading to varied outcomes or conflicts with broader conservation goals.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for private fisheries and aquaculture operations, allowing them direct means to protect their assets from cormorant predation, and could lead to localized increases in cormorant 'take' on private lands.