HR-8195-119
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Sponsored by Tim Walberg (R-MI)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to develop regional management frameworks for the "take" (killing or removal) of double-crested cormorants within 180 days of enactment. Each framework would specify who may take cormorants (state and tribal agencies, licensed hunters, lake and pond managers), how and when they may do so, and must ensure the species' breeding population remains at a sustainable level consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The bill also requires population surveys every five years and mandatory framework updates incorporating those survey results.
Who benefits
Commercial and recreational freshwater fishers and aquaculture operators whose fish stocks are affected by cormorant predation. Private lake and pond managers who would gain clearer legal authority to control cormorant populations. State and tribal wildlife agencies that would receive a structured federal framework to coordinate management actions. Hunters who would gain new or expanded opportunities to take cormorants. Operators of National Wildlife Refuges seeking to balance cormorant populations with other species' habitat needs. Threatened or endangered species whose nesting habitat or food sources may be affected by cormorant overabundance.
Who is hurt
Wildlife conservation organizations that oppose lethal control of migratory birds and may lose influence over cormorant management decisions. Cormorant populations themselves, which would face increased authorized take. Birdwatching and ecotourism communities in regions where cormorant colonies are a draw. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which would bear the administrative burden of developing, surveying, and updating four regional frameworks within tight statutory deadlines. Taxpayers who would fund the mandated population surveys and framework development, though no specific appropriation is included in the bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that double-crested cormorant populations have grown dramatically since the 1970s — from roughly 100,000 to over 2 million birds — causing documented damage to fisheries, aquaculture operations, and nesting habitat for other species. They contend that the current patchwork of depredation orders and permits is inadequate and inconsistent across regions, and that a structured, science-based framework coordinated with Regional Flyway Councils would provide predictable, sustainable management while still requiring population surveys to prevent overreach. They point to economic losses in the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basin fisheries as evidence that federal action is overdue.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that double-crested cormorants are a protected migratory species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and that expanding lethal take authority — particularly to private lake and pond managers — risks undermining the conservation framework that allowed the species to recover from near-collapse in the mid-20th century. They contend that the bill's 180-day deadline for developing regional frameworks is unrealistically short for rigorous scientific review, and that the requirement to use "existing information" rather than new research may lock in frameworks based on incomplete population data, potentially authorizing unsustainable take levels before the first five-year survey is even completed.
Constitutional context
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act rests on Congress's treaty power and the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8). The bill delegates rulemaking authority to the Secretary of the Interior; under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts would independently review whether the statutory language grants sufficient authority for the specific management actions taken, without deferring to the agency's own interpretation.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Secretary of the Interior/USFWS) gains structured rulemaking authority over cormorant take; Congress retains oversight through the five-year review cycle and the requirement that frameworks comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; courts may review agency frameworks under the post-Loper Bright independent judgment standard.
Historical precedent
The USFWS issued a Public Resource Depredation Order in 2003 allowing broader cormorant take in 24 states, which was later challenged and vacated by a federal court in 2016 (Humane Society v. Zinke) for inadequate environmental review under NEPA, illustrating the legal complexity of federal cormorant management.