The double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) is a large waterbird found across North America. These dark, long-necked diving birds live along coasts, rivers, lakes, and other waterways, where they feed on small fish.
Double-crested cormorants nest colonially in trees and on the ground on islands and cliffs. Their population declined in the 20th century due to human persecution and the effects of DDT, but has rebounded in recent decades. These recoveries have led to conflict with fisheries and aquaculture operations that view the birds as competitors.
So are double-crested cormorants protected under law? The answer is complex due to the bird’s fluctuating status and the variation in protections across different states and provinces.
Federal Protection in the United States
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) implements protections for migratory birds in the United States. The law makes it illegal to hunt, kill, sell, purchase, or possess migratory birds or their parts (feathers, nests, eggs) without a permit. The MBTA protects over 1000 species, including the double-crested cormorant.
Up until the 1970s, a federal eradication program suppressed cormorant populations. The double-crested cormorant was left unprotected in some states until the species gained full protection under the MBTA in 1972.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) can issue permits allowing limited “take” or killing of migratory birds for specific purposes:
– Science and research
– Falconry
– Religious ceremonies of Native American tribes
– Taxidermy
– Protection of human health and safety
– Prevention of damage to agriculture and aquaculture facilities
So while the MBTA prohibits general killing of cormorants, federal permits can allow culling and egg-oiling programs designed to control populations at aquaculture facilities and other sites with persistent conflicts.
Depredation Orders
In addition to permits, the USFWS has established standing depredation orders that allow egg-oiling and lethal control of double-crested cormorants in specific areas:
– 24 states can control cormorants at aquaculture facilities through egg-oiling and lethal means.
– Management is allowed in 13 specific nesting colonies in the Great Lakes states.
– Depredation orders also exist for the Columbia River estuary and for Puerto Rico.
So federal law grants broad protections to cormorants through the MBTA, but there are avenues for limited legal control and lethal take.
State and Provincial Laws
Laws regulating cormorants at the state, provincial, and tribal level add further complexity:
– Most states uphold MBTA protections, but may have additional regulations on disturbing nests and eggs.
– Several states have passed laws allowing greater control of cormorants to protect fisheries and aquaculture.
– Some states continue to list cormorants as a game species with allowed seasons.
– Native American tribes may allow limited harvest of cormorants for food and feathers.
– Provinces and territories set regulations within Canada, while abiding by the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
This means cormorant management can vary significantly across and even within states and provinces. Local and regional rules must be checked.
Examples of State Laws
– Oregon allows lethal cormorant control by permit at fish hatcheries and demolition of nests on state lands.
– Vermont prohibits disturbing active cormorant nests and eggs but allows permitted hunting in September.
– Minnesota allows extensive non-lethal harassment of cormorants to protect public resources.
– New York has an open hunting season for cormorants to reduce impacts to fish stocks.
– Some states still provide no additional allowances beyond the MBTA.
Ecological Considerations
The mixed protections for double-crested cormorants reflect complex ecological tradeoffs:
Arguments for Protection
– Cormorants are native wildlife recently recovered from population lows.
– They play important roles as prey and in nutrient cycling.
– As generalist fish-eaters, their impacts on any one fishery may be limited.
– Non-lethal harassment and exclusion devices can reduce conflicts.
Arguments for Control
– Large nesting colonies can damage trees and forest ecosystems.
– Cormorants can negatively impact recreational fisheries.
– They compete with aquaculture and some imperiled fish species.
– Non-lethal techniques have shown limited effectiveness.
Wildlife managers must balance these factors when setting regulations. While cormorants remain federally protected overall, the levels of additional control vary based on local environmental and economic priorities.
Conclusion
Double-crested cormorants are federally protected across the United States under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allows limited permits for killing cormorants to manage conflicts, particularly at aquaculture facilities. States and provinces set their own regulations that range from upholding full protection to allowing hunting and expanded control programs.
This patchwork of laws attempts to strike a balance between preserving native cormorant populations and limiting localized damage. Finding the right solutions depends on careful consideration of the species’ ecology and the unique situation in each region. Both non-lethal deterrents and limited lethal control likely have roles to play in integrated cormorant management programs.