Cormorant Relief Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- S. 1255
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Animals
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-04-02: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- Last Updated
- 2026-01-26T14:42:09Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Cormorant Relief Act of 2025 aims to reinstate and expand federal permissions for controlling double-crested cormorants—birds that can damage fish farms—by requiring the U.S. Department of the Interior to reissue a specific regulation. This addresses economic losses in aquaculture (fish farming) caused by these birds eating stocked fish.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- "Lake manager" and "pond manager" refer to individuals licensed by state agencies to oversee private lakes or ponds.
- "Original depredation order" is the 2016 version of a federal rule (in 50 CFR 21.47) allowing the removal of cormorants at aquaculture sites to prevent damage.
- "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
- Reissuance Requirement: The Secretary must reissue the original depredation order within one year of the bill's enactment.
- Scope of Reissuance:
- The new order must match the original but extend to 12 additional states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
- It must also apply to licensed lake and pond managers, in the same way it previously applied to aquaculture operators and other entities.
A "depredation order" is a federal permit-like rule allowing targeted removal (e.g., killing or scaring away) of wildlife that causes property damage, without needing individual approvals.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- The original 2016 rule was likely altered or revoked post-2016 (e.g., due to updates in wildlife protection policies under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act). This bill mandates reverting to that exact rule while broadening its reach.
- Expands geographic coverage from a limited set of states (not specified in the bill but implied to be fewer) to include 12 more, potentially nationwide in effect for aquaculture.
- Adds protections for private lake and pond managers, who were not explicitly covered before, recognizing their role in fish stocking similar to commercial farms.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The USFWS must act within one year to reissue the rule, increasing administrative workload but streamlining wildlife management without new case-by-case permits.
- On Citizens: Benefits fish farmers, lake/pond owners, and related businesses in the expanded states by reducing bird-related losses (cormorants can consume significant fish stocks). Could indirectly lower food prices or support rural economies dependent on aquaculture.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it involves species protected under international treaties (e.g., with Canada and Mexico via the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), potentially requiring coordination if bird populations are shared across borders.
- Environmental Considerations: May increase cormorant mortality, affecting bird populations and ecosystems, but targets only problem areas to minimize broader harm.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Aquaculture Operators and Fish Farmers: Primary beneficiaries, gaining easier tools to protect fish stocks in expanded states.
- Lake and Pond Managers: Newly included, allowing licensed private operators (e.g., for recreational fishing) to control cormorants.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Responsible for implementation and enforcement.
- Environmental and Wildlife Groups: Potentially opposed, as they advocate for bird conservation and may challenge expansions under wildlife protection laws.
- State Regulatory Agencies: Involved in licensing managers and could see shifts in local wildlife management practices.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces the balance under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (a 1918 law protecting migratory birds) by allowing "depredation" exceptions for economic harm, but could invite lawsuits from conservationists arguing it weakens protections without updated environmental reviews (e.g., under the National Environmental Policy Act).
- Constitutional: No direct challenges, as it involves federal authority over wildlife on private lands, but expansions might raise federalism issues if states prefer their own rules.
- Political: Sponsored by senators from Southern and Midwestern states with strong aquaculture interests (e.g., Arkansas, Alabama), signaling bipartisan agricultural support. It prioritizes industry relief over stricter bird protections, potentially fueling debates on wildlife vs. economic policy in a Congress focused on rural issues.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (4)
Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL], Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL], Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS], Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
Recent Actions
- 2025-04-02: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 2025-04-02: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Cormorant Relief Act of 2025 — issued 2025-04-02 — PDF (3 pages)