Cormorant Relief Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 2, 2025
Bottom line
The bill expands federal authorization for killing double-crested cormorants to protect aquaculture and private fish stocks across more states and management entities.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a specific federal regulation, known as the 'original depredation order,' which allows for the 'taking' (killing) of double-crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities. The reissued order must expand its geographic scope to include 12 additional states and extend its applicability to private lake and pond managers, in addition to the entities covered by the original order. The goal is to provide relief from cormorant predation on fish stocks.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that double-crested cormorants cause significant economic damage to aquaculture operations and private fisheries by preying on valuable fish stocks. Reissuing and expanding this depredation order is presented as a necessary measure to protect the livelihoods of fish farmers and managers, ensuring the economic viability of these industries and preventing substantial financial losses due to bird predation.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that expanding the depredation order could lead to an unsustainable increase in cormorant mortality, potentially impacting local or regional populations of a species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They might argue for a greater emphasis on non-lethal deterrents and question the ecological impact of widespread culling, suggesting that a broader approach to wildlife management is needed rather than solely relying on lethal control.
The bill is very short and clear, making it easy to read and understand its core provisions well within the time given for analysis.
Section 2(b)
Mandatory Reissuance of Depredation Order
This provision requires the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to reissue the original depredation order for double-crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities. This reissuance must occur within one year of the bill's enactment. The original order, as it existed on January 1, 2016, serves as the baseline for the new regulation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that mandating the reissuance ensures continuity and certainty for aquaculture operators who rely on this order to manage cormorant populations and protect their fish stocks. It prevents potential lapses in regulatory authority that could lead to significant economic losses.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that a mandatory reissuance without a fresh review of current cormorant populations or alternative management strategies could be ecologically irresponsible. They may contend it bypasses opportunities for updated scientific assessment and public input on wildlife management.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for regulatory stability and economic protection for aquaculture against the need for adaptive wildlife management that considers current ecological data and potentially less lethal alternatives.
Section 2(c)(1)
Expansion of Geographic Scope to Additional States
This part of the bill specifies that the reissued depredation order must apply to 12 new states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This is in addition to, and in the same manner as, the states originally covered by the 2016 depredation order. This significantly broadens the areas where cormorant 'taking' at aquaculture facilities is federally authorized.
Section 2(c)(2)
Expansion of Applicability to Lake and Pond Managers
This clause mandates that the reissued depredation order must apply to 'lake managers' and 'pond managers,' as defined in the bill, in the same manner as it applies to other entities covered by the original order. This extends the authority to 'take' double-crested cormorants to individuals licensed by a State regulatory agency to manage private lakes and ponds, significantly broadening the types of entities authorized to engage in cormorant control.
The bill significantly expands the scope of the original depredation order by adding 12 new states and including private lake and pond managers. This means the authority to 'take' double-crested cormorants will apply to a much larger geographic area and a broader range of entities than before.
Section 2(c)(1) and (2)
Why it matters:This expansion is a core operative part of the bill, not intentionally buried. However, the legislative language of adding states 'in addition to, and in the same manner as' and entities 'in addition to, and in the same manner as' requires careful reading to understand the full breadth of the change.
Case for: Supporters argue that this expansion is crucial because cormorant populations and their impact on fish stocks are not confined to the original states or commercial aquaculture. Extending the order reflects the widespread need for management tools to protect fisheries across diverse settings.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad expansion without detailed, localized ecological impact assessments could lead to unintended consequences for cormorant populations and ecosystems. They may suggest that a more targeted approach, based on specific regional needs, would be more appropriate.
Estimated impact: This expansion will significantly increase the number of locations and individuals authorized to 'take' double-crested cormorants, potentially leading to a substantial increase in cormorant mortality across the newly included states and private properties.