Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill to manage and control cormorant bird populations that harm fish and fishing.
The problem
Cormorants eat large amounts of fish from lakes and rivers, damaging commercial and recreational fishing industries and potentially harming native fish populations.
The proposal
Authorizes management and control programs for cormorant populations, likely including lethal removal methods and habitat modifications to reduce bird numbers.
The impact
Fishing communities, bird conservation groups, and wildlife managers. Fisheries may benefit from reduced bird predation; some bird advocates may oppose population control.
Cormorant control could reduce fish losses in commercial and recreational fisheries. This helps fishing communities maintain populations of valuable fish species and protect their livelihoods.
Managing cormorant populations may help protect native fish species that are important to ecosystems. Fewer cormorants could allow threatened fish populations to recover.
The bill allows for various control methods, giving wildlife managers options. This flexibility lets agencies choose approaches suited to different regional needs and environments.
Protecting fisheries supports jobs and communities that depend on fishing. Stronger fish populations can boost tourism and local economies tied to fishing.
Lethal control methods would kill cormorants, reducing their numbers. Some people believe birds should be protected and object to killing wildlife for economic reasons.
Removing predators like cormorants can disrupt natural ecosystems and food chains. Unintended consequences for other wildlife species are possible.
Without an official summary, it's unclear how aggressive control measures would be. The bill's specific methods and targets remain undefined, raising questions about effectiveness.
Wildlife management and control programs require significant funding and resources. Taxpayers may bear costs for large-scale cormorant removal operations.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.