As great cormorants gather in their hundreds on eastern France’s waterways, local fishing groups claim their painstaking efforts to restore fragile fish populations are being wiped out, one beakful at a time.
Anglers say their trout are vanishing into cormorant stomachs
The clash centres on the great cormorant, a large, fish-eating seabird that now spends the winter along rivers and lakes in the Jura department. These birds are fully protected at European level, yet French law allows tightly regulated shooting in specific cases when “serious damage” to fisheries is proven.
In Jura, that loophole has already been opened – but only halfway. A prefectural decree issued in November 2025 authorises the shooting of up to 300 great cormorants on enclosed waters, such as fish farms and private ponds, until 28 February. Anglers argue such measures should also extend to open rivers and streams, where they say the impact is even more dramatic.
Local fishing leaders claim that, over one winter, cormorants swallow more than 50 tonnes of fish from Jura’s waters.
This figure comes from a simple calculation. Angling federations took the daily ration of a great cormorant – often estimated at around half a kilo of fish – and multiplied it by the number of birds wintering in the department. The French bird protection society, LPO, has counted just over 600 animals, a number that neither side disputes. Projected across the season from October to April, the result is more than 50 tonnes of fish consumed.
Protected bird versus protected fish
The argument is not just about quantity. For Jura’s anglers, the real concern is which species are being eaten. The rivers host several fish classed as protected or highly sensitive to environmental change: the brown trout (truite fario), pike and grayling (ombre commun), among others. These species are the focus of expensive restoration programmes led by angling federations, local councils and environmental agencies.
Roland Brunet, who heads the Jura departmental fishing federation, questions the logic of pouring public and private money into habitat restoration while large numbers of fish are, as he sees it, removed by a booming bird population.
“What’s the point of our efforts to restore aquatic habitats if the fish we reintroduce end up as winter rations?” ask Jura’s fishing advocates.
From their perspective, the legal framework looks lopsided. The great cormorant enjoys strong protection, yet the protected status of native river fish feels theoretical once the birds arrive in numbers. Anglers insist they are not calling for the species to be eradicated, but want “management” – a coded term that usually means controlled shooting on open waters, scaring devices, or restrictions on roosting sites.
➡️ Not in the fridge or fruit bowl: the best place to keep strawberries so they don’t go mouldy
➡️ Psychology reveals why certain people feel uncomfortable when things finally slow down
➡️ The right way to clean stainless steel without streaks
➡️ This chicken and rice casserole cooks evenly without becoming dry
➡️ Black Friday: this electric mountain bike built for rough trails drops €500 at Decathlon
➡️ All people who have bread in the freezer are invited to read this information
What the current decree allows – and what it doesn’t
The existing prefectural decree distinguishes sharply between two types of water:
- Enclosed waters: fish farms, closed ponds and small artificial basins
- Open waters: rivers, natural lakes, canals and floodplains
On enclosed waters, the shooting of 300 cormorants is authorised as a derogation to protect aquaculture businesses from “serious economic damage”. On open waters, no general authorisation has been granted, despite repeated requests from fishing groups.
This legal separation is key. Enclosed waters are treated as production zones, where fish are mainly livestock. Open rivers, on the other hand, fall under wider conservation rules, where removing a protected bird is far harder to justify.
| Zone type | Status of cormorant shooting | Main justification |
|---|---|---|
| Enclosed waters (fish farms, closed ponds) | Authorised up to quota (300 birds) | Preventing economic damage to aquaculture |
| Open waters (rivers, natural lakes) | Generally prohibited, no broad derogation | Bird protected under EU and French law |
Historic recovery of a controversial bird
The great cormorant was once in steep decline across Europe due to persecution, pollution and habitat loss. Protection measures in the late 20th century, alongside cleaner rivers and reservoirs, helped its numbers rebound. Large winter roosts are now common on many European inland waters, including in France, Germany and the UK.
For conservation groups, the Jura situation fits into this broader story. A bird that was nearly driven out of many regions has regained a foothold, only to face renewed calls for control as it clashes with human uses of water. The LPO accepts that local shooting can be justified in some fish-farming areas but warns that widespread culls risk rolling back decades of progress.
Across Europe, the same question resurfaces: how far should society go in curbing a recovered predator to protect fisheries?
Ecological balance or competition narrative?
Biologists often stress that cormorants tend to target the most abundant and accessible fish, not just prized angling species. In rivers with healthy populations, the impact can be absorbed. In systems already weakened by pollution, dams, low water levels and climate change, any extra predation may hit harder.
In Jura, rivers have already suffered from warmer summers and more frequent low-flow periods. Such conditions stress cold-water species like brown trout and grayling, making them more vulnerable and easier for birds to catch. Anglers see cormorants as the final blow; ecologists point to years of human-driven degradation that made fish populations fragile.
How the law weighs competing protections
French authorities sit between two legal obligations: protecting a listed bird species and safeguarding aquatic ecosystems, including rare fish. Derogations to shoot cormorants must show that there are no satisfactory alternative solutions and that population-level impacts on the bird remain limited.
Officials also have to balance different lobbies. Fish farmers, tourism operators and angling federations stress economic and cultural stakes. Bird protection groups emphasise ethical concerns and the scientific basis for any control measures. The current Jura decree, confined to enclosed waters, reflects a cautious compromise rather than a full answer.
What “shooting for regulation” can and cannot do
Experience from other regions suggests that limited shooting may reduce local pressure on specific fish farms or roosts, at least temporarily. Birds learn to avoid the most dangerous spots, and some disperse to quieter waters. On wide river systems, though, the effect appears less clear-cut. New cormorants can quickly fill the gap left by those removed.
Several scenarios are being debated within French environmental circles:
- Maintain the status quo: shooting only on enclosed waters, monitoring bird numbers and fish stocks.
- Extend derogations: allow limited shooting on sensitive river stretches during the harshest months.
- Non-lethal tools: deploy scare devices, adjust fish-stocking strategies, create refuge zones where fish can hide.
None of these options satisfies everyone. Anglers in Jura feel the current framework still leaves their restored fish populations exposed. Conservationists fear a gradual normalisation of cormorant culling on public rivers.
Key terms and practical examples for readers
The debate often turns on a few technical notions:
- Enclosed waters: man-made or fully controlled basins where fish are stocked and usually harvested, similar to livestock on land.
- Open waters: rivers, natural lakes and larger canals connected to the wider drainage network, where fish move freely.
- Derogation: a legal exemption allowing an action normally forbidden, such as shooting a protected species under strict conditions.
Imagine a small trout river in Jura that has just benefited from a multi-year restoration project: re-meandered channels, re-planted banks, new gravel beds. Local clubs have invested time and money, hoping to revive wild trout and grayling. If a sizeable cormorant roost settles nearby, anglers may quickly see fewer fish rising, especially in winter and early spring.
Yet if authorities respond with broad culls, another risk appears. Disturbance can push birds to less monitored zones, including wetlands vital for other species. A poorly targeted campaign might even reduce predation on more abundant, non-protected fish in lakes, while hardly easing the pressure on small rivers. This cumulative effect – ecological, legal and social – is at the heart of the Jura dispute and will likely shape similar arguments in other European watersheds in the coming years.
