The following position statement was originally derived by APHIS-WS in

response to an upcoming EIS process. It was brought to the attention of the

Working Group Officers and Executive Board by Jim Miller, Mississippi State

University, past TWS President and Working Group member, through Bob Timm,

Working Group Chair. Jim suggested that the Working Group could provide

some constructive thoughts on the topic. After about 2 months of input from

Working Group Officers and Board members, with Kathy Fagerstone taking the

lead, the following document was produced.

February 2002

Position Statement:

Double Crested Cormorant Draft Environmental Impact Statement

by

Wildlife Damage Management Working Group of The Wildlife Society

The Wildlife Damage Management Working Group (WDMWG) is the largest of 15 active Working Groups of The Wildlife Society (TWS). One of the Working Group’s objectives is the improvement of wildlife damage management practices, using scientifically based methods and the most current information. During its existence, this Working Group has taken positions of record on other issues regarding migratory bird management.

The Double Crested Cormorant (DCCO) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) raises important issues that the WDMWG believes must be urgently addressed. By means of these written comments, the WDMWG shares its concerns and encourages the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, and the respective state wildlife agencies to address this management issue without delay. The cormorant issue affects wildlife and fisheries resources, vegetation and habitat sustainability on both private and public lands, the economic livelihood of private landowners, and the public’s perception of wildlife management agencies.

The WDMWG recognizes that historically DCCO populations were small, and this species was considered vulnerable to the threat of persistent pesticides as well as to habitat destruction. Today, such concerns are past. Continental DCCO populations have increased and expanded significantly over the past 20 years, particularly in the Northeast, Midwest, and South. Breeding population shifts have occurred over the past 10 years and continue to occur within the southeastern U.S. Increases in over-wintering populations are having major impacts on human activities and on wildlife habitats. This species now causes increasingly serious damage in aquaculture and to recreational fisheries stocks on private and public waters. Cormorant damage to vegetation, which provides habitat for many wildlife species, is significant and affects habitat sustainability both short- and long-term. For example, many mature bald cypresses and other trees are being killed in and around expanding roosts and nesting areas in parts of the Southeast. Further, increasing cormorant numbers degrade the aesthetic quality of life for many rural and urban Americans who live in areas near DCCO staging, roosting, and nesting areas.

The WDMWG believes that in addition to implementation of the various actions listed in Alternative D, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should take more aggressive actions to manage regional and local DCCO overpopulation and resulting damage caused by this species. We believe that the lack of adequate management progress has serious implications for the wildlife profession, and has led to a loss of credibility of wildlife management agencies and prompted legislation proposed in the Congress (Bills S. 909 and H.R. 2879) to address the DCCO overpopulation concerns. Both bills, if passed, would force wildlife agencies, in which the bills’ authors and sponsors apparently have lost confidence, to aggressively address the problem.

It is our observation, based on strategies taken to date by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that the majority of the Alternatives identified in the current DEIS are important but by themselves are inadequate to address the problems and impacts resulting from burgeoning DCCO populations. We submit that in the absence of Alternative E, the other Alternatives provide a piecemeal approach that deals only with individual problem situations, but does not solve the overall overpopulation issue. The EIS should lay the groundwork for development of regional flyway population goals and a specific management plan.

Therefore, the TWS WDMWG respectfully requests and recommends that:

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service work, in cooperation with the USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services agency and with appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies, to develop a combination of Alternatives D and E to urgently address the need for reduction of regional/continental cormorant populations. Alternative D includes several useful provisions that address impacts on public resources and state hatcheries, such as “Public Resource Depredation Orders”. However, Alternative E is the only alternative that provides for the needed management action to reduce regional/continental cormorant overpopulation in a timely and effective manner.

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should take immediate action to work cooperatively with USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services and with appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies to develop an aggressive management plan that will result in a significant reduction in DCCO overpopulations in areas currently impacted. This action can be accomplished through appropriate Memoranda of Understanding (MOU’s) and Cooperative Agreements (CA’s) between and among the responsible agencies.

• The responsible agencies should utilize the most efficacious lethal control methods, in conjunction with existing prevention and harassment techniques, to both reduce the overpopulation of cormorants as quickly as possible and to assist the public who are experiencing serious DCCO depredation and/or property damage. The public continues to be impacted negatively, as do other wildlife resources and habitats. It is clear that prompt action must be taken in the future, or Congress will force some action on the responsible agencies. There have been numerous studies (dating back to Schramm et al. 1987) that document both increasing DCCO populations and resulting damage to aquaculture and to recreational fisheries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should take more aggressive action to manage this overabundant species.

• Regional populations should be reduced to levels, agreed upon mutually by appropriate agencies and stakeholders, that would not threaten the integrity or viability of DCCO populations, but would positively reduce the level and intensity of the damage being caused by DCCOs. The WDMWG does not propose to know what level of population reduction is necessary to achieve this management objective. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service admits in the DEIS that if the population of DCCOs was reduced to 60% of the current population, a viable continental population could be sustained. This level should enable the responsible agencies to then determine, as nearly as possible, the resulting impact on DCCO reproduction and stability, as well as document reduction in damage to aquaculture, vegetation, and other resources.

We believe most private landowners, and certainly most managers of natural resources (public and private), want to be responsible stewards of the natural resources. We request that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service effectively address reducing the overpopulation of the DCCO, regardless of the fact that it is a migratory species, so aquaculture and fisheries resources, public and private property, and habitats for other wildlife species are not jeopardized. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must effectively address this problem, or the wildlife profession may lose credibility and trust with private landowners and the public. As a result, many private landowners, whose threshold of tolerance for this species’ impacts has been exceeded, will conclude that the only viable solution is to eliminate remaining habitat—which will affect all wildlife species.