In the rural département of Jura, anglers and conservationists are clashing over the future of the great cormorant, a fish‑eating bird protected by European law, but blamed for stripping rivers of already fragile trout and grayling populations.
Anglers say protected bird is gutting protected fish
The row centres on a simple calculation that has circulated among Jura’s fishing clubs. A single great cormorant can swallow around half a kilo of fish a day. The local branch of the French Bird Protection League (LPO) has counted a bit more than 600 birds wintering in the département.
From October to April, that adds up to more than 50 tonnes of fish taken out of the water, according to anglers’ estimates.
For Roland Brunet, who heads the Jura departmental federation of anglers, that figure feels like a slap in the face. Volunteers and local councils invest heavily in habitat restoration, stocking programmes and pollution control. Seeing fish vanish into the stomachs of a protected predator leaves many of them furious.
Brunet has publicly asked what, in his view, is becoming a rhetorical question: why pour money into restoring aquatic ecosystems if cormorants are allowed to feast on the results?
A legal green light – but only for fish farms
On paper, the great cormorant is strictly protected in France. Yet European and French rules allow targeted “derogations”: limited shooting in specific places and time windows to prevent serious damage to fisheries or biodiversity.
In November 2025, the Jura prefecture signed an order authorising the killing of up to 300 great cormorants. There is a catch. The exemption only applies to “eaux closes” – closed waters such as ponds, reservoirs and fish farms, which are clearly delimited and privately managed.
Fish farmers can now call in marksmen to protect their stocks, but anglers on open rivers are left watching the skies.
For professional pisciculture operators, the prefectural order offers a measure of relief. Repeated cormorant raids on rearing ponds can wipe out a year’s profits in a matter of days. The new authorisation allows controlled shooting until 28 February, when most wintering birds are still present.
➡️ Rare ‘Blue Cheese’ Tortie Maine Coon Has the Most Refreshing Face
➡️ This tiny hole is one of the dirtiest spots in your home – and it takes just one minute to clean
➡️ A €500 million plant in northern France bets on a €57 billion electric steel market by 2032
➡️ In the retina, a bacterial infection could accelerate Alzheimer’s disease
➡️ Rheumatoid arthritis: no cure yet, but fresh clues on how to stop it before it starts
What about the rivers?
The real bone of contention lies with “eaux libres” – open waters such as rivers, natural lakes and public stretches of canal. These are the arteries of Jura’s landscape, home to wild brown trout (truite fario), pike and the critically sensitive grayling (ombre commun), all of them protected or closely monitored species.
Anglers claim that cormorants, which gather in dense flocks and dive repeatedly, concentrate their effort exactly where fish are trying to survive in low, cold, clear winter water. Shallow pools and holding runs give the birds an easy hunting ground and leave fish with few hiding places.
Local fishing associations argue that, by ignoring open rivers, the current policy protects the predator at the expense of the ecosystem it is meant to safeguard.
They are now pushing the prefecture to extend derogations to certain river sections, especially spawning and nursery zones that have benefited from expensive restoration work. Without that, they warn, years of effort to rebuild wild stocks could be undone in a handful of winters.
Why cormorants are thriving in inland France
The great cormorant was once persecuted across Europe. Since the 1970s, legal protection, cleaner water and the growth of fish farms have helped its numbers rebound. Large colonies now breed along coasts and major lakes, with tens of thousands of birds dispersing inland each autumn.
Jura’s lakes, reservoirs and rivers offer ideal wintering conditions: ice‑free stretches, decent visibility under water and plenty of fish concentrated in smaller volumes of water than in summer. The birds are strong flyers, able to commute between feeding areas over dozens of kilometres.
For anglers, that means a constant rotation of hungry birds. Even if 300 are shot on private ponds, fresh arrivals can quickly fill the gap on neighbouring rivers.
Tension between two protection regimes
The conflict highlights an uncomfortable reality in European biodiversity policy. Both the cormorant and many of the fish it eats benefit from strong legal protection.
| Species | Status in France | Main concerns |
|---|---|---|
| Great cormorant | Protected bird, limited derogations possible | Impact on fisheries, conflicts with anglers and fish farms |
| Brown trout (truite fario) | Iconic species, locally protected periods and sizes | Climate stress, habitat loss, predation pressure |
| Grayling (ombre commun) | Highly sensitive, subject to strict regulation | Declining stocks, vulnerable spawning grounds |
Lawyers working with environmental groups point out that any authorisation to shoot cormorants must demonstrate that non‑lethal measures are not enough. Scare devices, habitat changes and fish refuge structures are often recommended first.
Anglers reply that flashing tapes and gas cannons may work on a pond, but barely slow down birds on a fast‑flowing river where they can easily shift a few hundred metres upstream or downstream.
What local anglers say they are seeing on the water
On many Jura rivers, fishing associations report fewer rising fish, smaller catches and scars from bird attacks on those that are hooked. Winter counts made by some clubs suggest that cormorant presence has grown compared with ten or fifteen years ago.
These observations remain contested. The LPO accepts its estimate of around 600 wintering cormorants but stresses that many other pressures weigh on fish: warming water, low summer flows, weirs, pollution from farming and urban areas.
Scientists warn against treating cormorants as a scapegoat for complex, long‑term declines driven by human activity.
Yet from the perspective of a small river association that has spent weekends dumping gravel to rebuild spawning beds, watching a roost of cormorants digesting the season’s young trout in riverside trees is hard to swallow.
Possible compromise paths emerging
Behind closed doors, regional officials are reportedly weighing several options. None will please everyone. Among the ideas circulating in policy circles and angling federations:
- Extending derogations to a limited number of sensitive river beats for a short winter window.
- Funding underwater refuges and woody debris structures where fish can hide from visual predators.
- Coordinated counts involving anglers and birders, to agree on shared data and reduce mistrust.
- Targeted research on the actual diet of cormorants in specific rivers, instead of relying on national averages.
Some European regions, such as parts of Germany and the Netherlands, already run adaptive management schemes. Culling, non‑lethal deterrents and habitat measures are combined, with annual reviews shaping the following season’s quota.
Jura could eventually move toward a similar model, but that will require better monitoring and steady funding, both for science and for field operations.
Key terms behind the debate
Two expressions keep coming up in local meetings. Understanding them helps unpack the argument:
- Closed waters (eaux closes): ponds, artificial basins or enclosed lakes where fish cannot move freely to other watercourses. Management is often private, and access is controlled.
- Open waters (eaux libres): natural rivers and lakes connected to wider river systems. Fish move between zones and are part of public aquatic ecosystems.
The current derogation covers only closed waters, where the link between cormorant presence and economic damage to fish farms is easier to demonstrate. On open rivers, where many factors interact, proving that a given group of birds is responsible for a measurable drop in fish stocks becomes far trickier.
What this kind of conflict means for wider conservation
The Jura case illustrates the kind of trade‑offs many regions will face as once‑rare species stage a comeback. Recovering predators quickly run into declining prey and heavily managed landscapes. That mix creates tension between different groups that all see themselves as defenders of nature.
One risk is that public debate hardens into a simple pro‑bird versus pro‑fish fight. That leaves little room for more nuanced tools, such as flexible quotas that adapt to yearly conditions, or river engineering that gives fish better cover from natural predators without eradicating those predators.
Another risk lies in shifting baselines. Younger anglers who grow up seeing fewer fish may accept lower stocks as normal. At the same time, younger birdwatchers who have never lived through past persecution may underestimate the level of conflict sparked by large predator flocks around small communities.
Carefully designed local experiments could offer a way forward. For instance, a handful of river sections could combine heavy habitat restoration, installation of fish refuges and very limited cormorant control, with detailed monitoring over five to ten years. Comparing these pilot sites with untouched controls would give both camps concrete data rather than just calculations on paper.
Until then, Jura’s rivers will remain a testing ground where protected birds and protected fish share the same cold currents, while humans argue over how much room to give each of them.