Ethno-ornithology: Double-crested cormorants

Adult double-crested cormorant in non-breeding plumage. Photo information available here.

My good friend Flicker Boi has written several blogs about using lethal measures to reduce or remove populations of non-native birds from areas where they are in direct breeding, foraging or nesting competition with closely related species of threatened or endangered birds. Lethal methods of population control seems to be the most common form of control, likely because we are more familiar with this form of control. Eminant Domain says we should conquer, control and subdue nature (and the people that live close to it). Hunters relish the chance to kill coyotes, cougars, wolves and other "pests." This leads me to my current train of thought. Double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) are the most common species of North American cormorant (and darn cute). Their numbers are on the incline and thus they are the focus of blame for declines in sports fishing and for "devastating fish farms" (All About Birds, 2011). In 2003, true to our "lethal control" nature, a management plan was proposed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to use depredation to decrease the North American population of double-crested cormorants by <160,000 birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Before I go any further let me just say that I'm not sure why managers are not allowed to use lethal measure to control populations of FERAL horses, cats, etc (not that I am advocating for the slaughter of these animals...though I do advocate RESPONSIBLE management) but it is encouraged in regards to NATIVE species (cougars, coyotes, cormorants, wolves, etc). My assumption is that horses and cats are charismatic/domestic species so we feel a stronger connection to them. Or maybe it's just Eminant Domain in another form.

The reasons listed in the approximately 140 page Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the creation of the management plan are: negative impacts on other bird species, declines in native fish populations (including threatened and endangered species of fish), destruction of vegetation at nesting sites, increasing economic losses to aquaculture producers and commercial fishers and fish-related businesses, a loss of private resources and loss of water quality. As internationally migrating, birds double-crested cormorants are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA does allow for migratory bird "take" permits so long as they follow regulations set forth by the MBTA. In fact, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "permits to take DCCOs have been issued by the Service since 1986 and may allow the take of eggs, adults and young, or active nests.". Though apparently commercial interests don't always have to have a permit for depredation, if so deemed by the United States Government. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

"In 1998, the Service issued a depredation order (USFWS 1998b; 50 CFR 21.47 ) authorizing commercial freshwater aquaculture producers in 13 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) to take DCCOs, without a Federal permit, when found committing or about to commit depredations to aquaculture stocks. The depredation order states that DCCOs may be taken by shooting only during daylight hours, and only when necessary to protect freshwater commercial aquaculture and State-operated hatchery stocks and that such actions must be carried out in conjunction with a non-lethal harassment program certified by APHIS/WS officials."

This seems odd to me as permits keep track of the number of individuals being killed and would thus allow international governments to understand what we are doing here in the United States (and would help to ensure that there is international cooperation and agreement on managing population levels). As I read this EIS I am struck at how certain the individuals writing the EIS are that "taking" <160,000 cormorants won't hurt regional or continental populations. How do they know that wiping out entire winter roosts (as is permitted under this management plan) won't create genetic bottleneck? How can they be certain that the birds that are left won't be subjected to some disease that the birds that were killed wouldn't have been susceptible to? With what certainty can they say that Mexico, who according to the EIS has no management plan on record, and Canada, who has a status of no protection for the double-crested cormorant, aren't killing >160,000 and that at some point we will have to create a restoration plan (like they did in 1972 when DDT and lethal control lead to federal protection of double-crested cormorants)?

One of the more interesting parts of this EIS comes about in Chapter 3. Throughout the EIS Federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal hatcheries are listed as individuals that can practice lethal measure with double-crested cormorants (at hatcheries or aquaculture facilities). In chapter three tribes also fall under a section about Environmental Justice. That is all well and good but here we find a bit of a contradiction. Earlier in Chapter 3 the EIS mentions that in Oregon populations of double-creseted cormorants are on the decline (about 2.6% annually), other than at the Columbia River Estuary. Under the Environmental Justice section the writers mention the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Responsibility to tribes to provide them with fish stock. In the next paragraph they mention "in Oregon, approximately 80 percent of all trout harvested come from Oregon fish hatcheries," implying that by not increasing the numbers of double-crested cormorants killed would create a system of environmental injustice to Oregon tribes (though I feel certain most tribes raise salmon here). This is despite the fact that double-crested cormorant populations are declining in Oregon. In yet another ironic, and contradictory, twist in the "Issues Raised, but Eliminated from Detailed Study" section the writers mention the fact that double-crested cormorants are considered sacred by some tribes and therefore this plan could directly conflict with their spiritual beliefs. The mention of their sacredness follows a mention of yet another issue rejected for study, "Affected Human Communities." In this section the writers mention the three letters they received from tribes or members of tribes. These letters were:

"(1) a member of the Kiowa Tribe of the State of Oklahoma felt that since waterbirds are sacred, they should be given to Tribal people for use in their native ceremonies; (2) the White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona recommended that we use a hunting season to manage DCCOs; and (3) a Conservation Officer from the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (of southeastern Massachusetts) said that they have experienced some trouble with DCCOs roosting on the Tribal Shellfish Aquaculture Program’s spawning/rearing cages and recommended limited hunting."

There is also mention several times to double-crested cormorants adding to the "Spirit of Place" but this too falls under the issues not studies. If you'd like to read the quite lengthy EIS click here. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a double-crested cormorant faq sheet you can peruse and an informational page too. I found this USGS map from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and this USGS map from the Christmas Bird Count (CBC) to be quite interesting. The entire USGS double-crested cormorant information page is accessible from either of those links, but just in case you can click here for the double-crested cormorant ID page.

While researching double-crested cormorant management plans I came across a blog written on March 29, 2011 about Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's (ODFW) application for a depredation permit. According to Jim Yuskavitch, ODFW intends to identify the areas where double-crested cormorants will be killed, likely areas where they are considered to be most likely to harm wild juvenile steelhead and salmon populations. Yuskavitch mentions the debate over lethal control of sea lions at Bonneville Dam and whether or not allowing the "take" of native predators of salmonids makes more sense than cultural controls that improve habitat quality and abundance and decreasing commercial fishing, among other things. I find it interesting that cormorants are protected by the MBTA and sea lions are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the wild (not hatchery) salmon (some of them) are listed as threatened or endangered by the Endangered Species Act. The common thread between all of these species? At some point in time we decimated, or nearly decimated, their populations, for one reason or another, and now they are all federally protected species. While reading the ODFW publication "Avian Predation Management on the Oregon Coast, " published March 25, 2010 I learned that Caspian tern's are also considered a threat to juvenile salmonids on out-migration (their journey to the sea). It is interesting to note that they don't seem to be considering lethal control at this time. Additionally both Caspian terns and double-crested cormorants seem to be considered a problem (with increasing population sizes) in one major area, the East Sand Island on the Lower Columbia River, an island created by the deposition of dredge spoils. So...WE are the cause of these population inclines of these species, just as we are the reason that sea lions find such fishing success at the Bonneville Dam fish ladder.

Our decisions or proposals or plans to kill native wildlife for taking advantage of the habitat that we have created and for acting as they should in the situation they are in is preposterous. Everything I have read tonight has pointed to humans as the main culprit (which I already knew/thought) and has me thinking (as many things do) about the fact that we live in a highly managed world. No matter where we are, no matter what we are doing we are in a managed area. What we see and what we experience, these things are all allowed to be, or altered, or removed from existence based upon their economic value, on our perception of aesthetic, or on our concept of worth. Tonight, for me, the battle that we face ahead as stewards of the land and of nature looms not in the distance, not on the horizon, but in my backyard. At my favorite birding places. At the places where I find the most solace. The fate of every species of this place (Earth) balances on the ability of someone, somewhere to give it value. We are seriously disrupting the balance of the systems that we live in, with. That we are part of. The continual separation of humans from nature. Intrinsic value versus extrinsic value. Economic value from natural/ecosystem value. These separations destroy the very things we claim to be trying to protect.