Jura: “Protected river fish are at risk”-anglers target the great cormorant

In the frozen valleys of eastern France, an elegant black bird has become the unlikely villain of winter fishing seasons.

On the rivers and lakes of the Jura, anglers say their carefully restored waters are being emptied-not by poachers or pollution, but by a growing army of great cormorants, a protected bird now at the center of a fierce local dispute.

A Protected Bird Facing an Angry River

The great cormorant is a familiar sight along European coasts and waterways: dark feathers, a hooked beak, and wings spread to dry after a fishing dive. In the Jura, it has also become a symbol of frustration.

Legally, the species is protected in France. Yet a prefectural order signed in November 2025 has already opened the door to limited shooting of the birds in “closed waters,” such as fish farms and enclosed ponds. Up to 300 cormorants can be killed there until February 28, on the grounds of preventing serious damage to aquaculture.

Anglers argue that this compromise ignores where they believe the real crisis lies: in open rivers and natural lakes, where wild trout and grayling are supposed to be strictly protected. They say those fish are now functioning as an all-you-can-eat buffet for wintering cormorants.

For fishing groups, public money spent restoring rivers is being swallowed up-quite literally-by a bird that enjoys stronger legal protection than many of the fish it eats.

Fifty Tons of Fish on the Menu?

Local fishing federations in the Jura have tried to quantify what they are seeing on the water. Their calculation is simple, and deliberately blunt.

First, they start from a figure produced by the French League for the Protection of Birds (LPO): just over 600 great cormorants spend the winter in the Jura, from October to April. Angling groups accept that estimate.

Then they multiply that population by the average amount of fish a cormorant needs each day. Various studies suggest between 400 and 600 grams, depending on size and conditions. Multiply this by several hundred birds and by roughly seven months of wintering, and anglers reach a total they say exceeds 50 tons of fish consumed over a single season.

For Roland Brunet, president of the Jura departmental anglers’ federation, that number captures the anger. He asks what the point is of expensive river restoration projects if, in his view, they mostly serve to fatten protected predators.

“We spend thousands on habitat work and restocking,” local anglers complain, “and then watch cormorants clean out the runs where trout have just started to return.”

Closed Waters vs. Open Rivers: A Legal Fault Line

At the heart of the dispute is a subtle but crucial legal distinction: eaux closes (closed waters) versus eaux libres (open waters).

• Closed waters: ponds and fish farms with no natural outflow, often privately managed.
• Open waters: rivers, streams, and connected lakes that are part of natural watersheds.

Under current French rules, exemptions allowing the shooting of protected species like the cormorant are much easier to obtain for closed waters, where economic damage to fish farming can be demonstrated.

For open waters, authorities require stronger evidence that a population of protected birds is threatening the conservation status of other protected species. Environmental groups argue that such proof remains weak or inconsistent.

Different Protections for Bird and Fish

That legal imbalance is fueling resentment. The fish at the center of the conflict-brown trout (truite fario), northern pike, and grayling (ombre commun)-are themselves protected in many stretches of the Jura’s rivers, with strict limits or closed seasons.

Anglers highlight what they see as a contradiction: on one side, anglers face tight regulations, catch-and-release requirements, and rising membership fees. On the other, a bird shielded by European and national law is free to eat those same fish without limit.

Species	Status in Jura rivers	Pressure mentioned by anglers
Brown trout (truite fario)	Protected, strict size and bag limits	Cormorant predation on juveniles and adults
Grayling (ombre commun)	Locally fragile populations, regulated fishing	Concentrated attacks on overwintering schools
Northern pike	Closed seasons and minimum size	Consumption of small pike in shallow areas

Ecologists Warn Against a One-Sided Debate

Conservation groups push back on the anglers’ narrative. For them, cormorants are part of a broader ecological picture, not a standalone culprit.

They emphasize that many fish populations in Europe declined long before cormorant numbers rebounded-due to pollution, straightened river channels, dams, agricultural runoff, and rising water temperatures. From this perspective, targeting cormorants can look like a convenient distraction from more expensive structural fixes.

Bird protection groups also note that cormorant populations across Europe are no longer surging as they did in the late 20th century. In several regions, numbers have stabilized or even dropped where culling has been heavy or food resources scarcer.

Environmental NGOs argue that if rivers were healthier and more structurally diverse, fish would have more places to hide from predators, making conflict with cormorants less severe.

Science Caught Between Politics and Emotion

Behind the local dispute is an ongoing scientific debate. Measuring the exact impact of cormorant predation on fish stocks in rivers-as opposed to fish farms-is complex.

Researchers need long-term monitoring of fish populations, detailed stomach-content analysis, and careful separation of natural fluctuations from predator-driven changes. Such studies are costly and slow, while pressure from lobbying groups on both sides is immediate and loud.

Authorities often end up using “adaptive management”-limited, local culls combined with monitoring-trying to balance legal obligations, ecological science, and social pressure.

What Shooting Actually Changes

Even where culls are authorized, their real-world impact is still debated. Shooting 300 cormorants in closed waters might reduce pressure on specific fish farms in the short term. Yet those birds can simply be replaced by others from nearby colonies, especially in regions where food remains abundant.

In open rivers, targeted shooting near sensitive spawning areas could, in theory, protect key fish at crucial moments. But such measures risk pushing birds to neighboring stretches of river-shifting the problem rather than solving it.

Some fisheries scientists instead advocate a mix of tools, including:

• Creating deeper pools and woody cover where fish can hide.
• Restoring streamside vegetation to break up open water surfaces.
• Adjusting fishing pressure to avoid double stress on the same fish populations.
• Using non-lethal deterrents around especially vulnerable areas.

How Conflicts Like This Spread Across Europe

The Jura dispute echoes similar arguments in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Wherever rivers have been cleaned up and fish stocks begin to recover, cormorants tend to follow.

Angling communities often feel they are paying to rebuild habitats, only to see predators benefit first. Bird advocates counter that this is exactly how functioning ecosystems work: predators track prey, and both adapt to new conditions.

In some British rivers, for example, local agreements now set annual quotas on cormorant shooting, combined with strict reporting requirements and habitat work. These deals do not remove tension, but they create a framework in which both sides share at least some responsibility.

Key Terms Behind the Headlines

Two legal concepts come up repeatedly in these debates:

• “Protected species”: a designation under EU and national law meaning a species normally cannot be killed, disturbed, or have its nests damaged.
• “Exemption”: a formal exception to that protection, justified by reasons such as public safety, economic damage, or biodiversity protection.

In the Jura, anglers want the exemption extended from closed waters to free-flowing rivers, arguing that cormorants now threaten the conservation of other protected species-the very fish they pursue with rod and line. Bird defenders respond that such a step would normalize lethal control without proving it actually benefits ecosystems.

As each winter approaches, those abstract legal terms turn into choices on the ground: which river stretches to prioritize, which species to favor, and who gets to decide when one protected animal can be killed to save another.