Bird Control Bill Expands Lethal Cormorant Permits to Lake Managers, Mandates 5-Year Renewal

The “Cormorant Relief Act of 2025” is basically an administrative mandate that updates and expands a specific federal permit allowing the “taking” (which is policy-speak for harming or killing) of double-crested cormorants. These birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but they can be a real nuisance for commercial fish farms, or aquaculture facilities, by eating the stock.

The Permit’s New Territory

This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the original cormorant depredation order (found in 50 CFR 21.47) that expired way back in 2014. The new order must modernize the language, simplify the rules for complying with other federal laws, and—crucially—remove the old expiration date. This means the permit will now be permanent, though the bill requires it to be reviewed and renewed every five years moving forward (SEC. 2).

What’s the biggest change for everyday people? The permit’s coverage is expanding significantly. It will now apply to lake managers and pond managers, not just aquaculture facilities. This expansion is mandatory in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and the Secretary has the discretion to add any other state or territory they deem necessary (SEC. 2).

What This Means for Real Life

If you own or manage a private lake or pond in one of those 12 states—maybe for fishing, recreation, or even just property aesthetics—you might soon have access to federal permits allowing you to control cormorant populations if they become a problem. For the aquaculture industry, this provides regulatory certainty, ensuring they don't have to wait for Congress or the Fish and Wildlife Service to constantly reauthorize their ability to protect their stock from these efficient fish eaters.

However, this expansion raises questions about oversight. While the bill simplifies compliance with other federal laws, it explicitly states that the new order must still adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The goal is to make the rules simpler, but the underlying environmental protections remain legally required. The concern here is whether “simplifying compliance” will translate into less rigorous environmental review on the ground, especially when expanding lethal control to a broader group of managers.

The Environmental Trade-Off

This legislation is a clear trade-off between economic interests (protecting fish stock in commercial and private waters) and wildlife protection. The double-crested cormorant population has recovered significantly since the 1970s, leading to increased conflict with human activities. By mandating the reissuance of this permit and making it permanent with a five-year check-in, the bill ensures that the option for lethal control remains readily available. This provides relief for those dealing with bird predation but puts increased pressure on a protected migratory species, formalizing the use of lethal measures across a wider geographic and managerial scope.