Studiesin OregonOrnithology No. 6 The Cormorant/FishermanConflict in Tillamook County,Oregon Range D. Bayer Studiesin OregonOrnithology No. 6 The Cormorant/Fisherman Conflict in Tillamook County, Oregon Range 0. Bayer 1989 Gahmken Press P. 0. Box 1467 Newport, Oregon 97365 Gahmken Press is Looking Forwardto the 21st Century! Studies in Oregon Ornithology This monograph series documents theornithology of Oregon in clear century enough detail that the monographswill hopefully still be useful a numbered or more from now. They are published by Gahmken Press, are intervals. consecutively as independent monographs,and appear at irregular of These monographs deal withornithological research or the history inch pages and paper ornithology in Oregon. All monographs have 8.5 x 11 covers. Correspondence concerning manuscriptsfor publication in this series 97365. should be addressed to Gahmken Press,P.O. Box 1467, Newport, Oregon COVER: Double-crested Cormorant "drying" itswings. Libraryof Congress Cataloging-in-PublicationData Bayer, Range D., 1947- The cormorant/fisherman conflictin Tillamook County, Oregon / Range D. Bayer. p. cm. --(Studies in OregonOrnithology; no. 6) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-939819-05-8 1. Cormorants--Oregon-Tillamook County. 2. Cormorants--Control-- Oregon--Tillamook County. 3. Fishery management--Oregon--Tillamook County. I. Title. II. Series. SH177.C6B39 1989 89-80373 333.95'8--dc2O Copyright O 1989 by Range (Richard)D. Bayer Permission is granted to accurately reproducethis monograph or Studies in Oregon Ornithology Nos. 1-5 wholly orin part as long as each of these monographs is properly credited. Printedin the UnitedStates ofAmerica Abstract Bayer, Range D. 1989. The cormorant/fisherman conflict in Tillamook County,Oregon. Studies in Oregon Ornithology No. 6. The cormorant/fisherman issue is not limited to Tillamook Countyin 1988-1989 but is symptomatic of a widespread conflict ofsomefishermen with fish-eating animals. Predators, specifically cormorants, have been blamed forthe "ruin" of the Tillamook fisheries, but the effects of cormorant predationhave been exaggerated. Actually, currentsalmonand steelhead catches are similar to or greater than many catches prior to 1972, when several"predators" (including Double-crested Cormorants) were not protected by law. Although it is clear that cormorants can eatsomesmolts in Tillamook Bay, it is unreasonable to assume that they eat as many as has been suggested.For example, when figures that appeared in a Tillamook newspaper are added up, cormorantsin Tillamook Bay in 1988 were suggested to eat nearly three times as manysmolts as were released there! Because a few Tillamook County fishing guides and fishermenfelt that cormorants were destroying theirsalmon andsteelhead fisheries, they pressured the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) into givingthem permits to harass (but not kill) cormorants in the spring of 1988 onpublic waters of Nehalem and Tillamook Bays. The permittees were not supervised to be sure that they did not disturb or harm nontarget wildlife(i.e., wildlife other than the targeted cormorants) or did not kill cormorants. After the ODFW announced in late November 1988 that they wouldnot be issuing cormorant harassment permits in 1989, a few Tillamook fishingguides and fishermen worked to pass House Bill 3185 during the 1989 Oregon Legislative session. House Bill 3185 would have allowed cormorant harassmentalongthe entire Oregon Coast any time during the year, but the Bill failed. Then, in July 1989, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission refused to consider granting harassment permits to fishing guides and fishermen.Thus, cormorant harassment in 1989 was not legalized,although some harassment apparently occurred illegally. Cormorant harassment in Tillamook County does not currently meetthe requirements to justifyan animal damagecontrol program. Forexample, one criterion of such a program is that therebe minimalcompensatory predation (i.e., prey saved from the controlled predator is taken by noncontrolled predators). But if cormorants are harassed, there are many other predators that could eat the "saved" smolts, including adult coho and chinooksalmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and striped bass that may eat millions of salmon and steelhead smolts along the Oregon Coast each year. Current information indicates that documented smolt losses fromcormorant predation may not compensate the economic, biological, aesthetic, andsocial costs of harassment. Biological costs include disturbance to nontarget wildlife such as waterfowl or threatened and endangered birds like the Bald Eagle and Brown Pelican; disturbance would unavoidably accompany cormorant harassment. One social cost of interest is that predator control of cormorants to "save" salmon is arbitrary and capricious, since salmon are themselves a significant predator of young Dungeness crabs and fish important to other Oregon commercial and sports fishermen. Alternatives to cormorant harassment exist and would address all smolt predation, not just that by cormorants. These alternatives include changing hatchery practices, so that smolts survive better after release. These 3 alternatives should be at least considered. Biologists may have somewhat defused the cormorant harassment issue if they were more able to communicate with nonbiologically-trained fishermen, but even so, there are a few fishing guides and fishermen who refuse to believe any information that does not agree with their own opinions. Keywords:Animal DamageControl, Chinook, Coho, Cormorants, Fisheries, Oregon Legislature, Predation, Predators, Salmon, Smolts, Steelhead. ****************************************************************************** Preface The purpose of this monograph is document the 1988-1989 episode of a few fishing guides and fishermen trying to legally harass cormorants from Oregon coastal streams and estuaries.These guides and fishermen believed that cormorants were destroying their salmon andsteelhead runs;salmon and steelhead, however, are a public resource. Hopefully, this monograph will make the reader aware that decisions about wildlife management can be significantly dictated by politicsand emotions, not scientific studies, logic, or reason. What is most important in swaying issues like this are personal contacts and the ability to be personally persuasive, not necessarily facts. Hopefully, when this issue comes up again, and it will, the reader can use this monograph to be aware of what issues may be involved. I wish I had something like this available before I became involved in this episode of the very old conflict between fishermen and fish-eatinganimals. Range (Richard) D. Bayer 20 September 1989 ***************************************************************************** Acknowledgments I thank Marilyn Guin, Susan Gilmont, and Janet Webster of the Oregon State University (OSU) Marine Science Center Library for providing some obscure references and for having such a well-stocked fisheries and wildlife library. I also appreciate the assistance of the following, who kindly provided published or unpublished information: Kathleen Confer, Thomas R. Hoffman (U. S. Dept. of Agriculture,Animal DamageControl Program), Roy Lowe (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS), Laimons Osis (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, ODFW),Ron Williams(ODFW), Doug Taylor (ODFW), Robin Brown (ODFW), T. Edwin Cummings (ODFW), Christopher N. Carter (ODFW), Michael Davis (OSU), Leslie Schaeffer (ODFW), Ric Brodeur (University of Washington), Deborah Davis (Hardin-Davis), Elzy Eltzroth, W. G. Pearcy (OSU), Dick Severson (Oregon Aqua-Foods), Thomas M. Riley (USFWS), Allen Hutchinson (Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife),Diane Highberger (Oregon House staff), Marc Liverman (Portland Audubon Society), Robert G. Anthony (OSU), Bill Haight (ODFW), Russell D. Peterson (USFWS), Rick Klumph (ODFW), Jay Lorenz (OSU), Clair Kunkel (ODFW), Gene Stewart (ODFW), Jo Walin, and Penelope Fields (National Marine Fisheries Service). I am grateful to Kathleen Confer, Roy Lowe (USFWS), Jon Anderson (USFWS), Laimons Osis (ODFW), Robin Brown (ODFW), Michael Davis (OSU), Bob Olson (OSU), and Sara Vickerman (Defenders of Wildlife) for thought-provoking ideas that have improved earlier drafts of this document. I am also very thankful for constructive comments on earlier drafts by Steve Johnson (ODFW), Roy Lowe (USFWS), Jon Anderson (USFWS), Michael Davis (OSU), Stacia Sower (University of New Hampshire), and Bill Pearcy (OSU). 4 Table of Contents Title Page----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Copyright Page------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Abstract------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Preface--------------------------------------------------------------------4 Acknowledgments------------------------------------------------------------ 4 Table of Contents---------------------------------------------------------- 5 List of Tables------------------------------------------------------------- 6 List of Figures------------------------------------------------------------ 7 Conventions Used in this Monograph----------------------------------------- 8 Chapter 1.Chronology of the Cormorant Harassment Issue----------------------- 9 2.The Cormorant Predation Issue was Inevitable in Tillamook County--- 15 3. Is Cormorant Harassment Justifiable, Economically or Otherwise?---- 35 4.Alternatives to Cormorant Harassment to Reduce