The return of the sandhill crane to Wisconsin is a conservation success, but now the state needs to manage the population and the crop damage the birds can cause. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

In a vote that divided Republicans together with with hunting and agricultural interests on one side against Democrats and conservationists on the other, the Wisconsin legislative council study committee on sandhill cranes approved proposing legislation that would allow for a hunt of the birds and cover costs for corn farmers to have their seeds treated with a chemical that limits crop destruction by the birds. 

The committee held its final meeting Tuesday morning, with much of the debate surrounding the committee’s decision to combine both aspects of the legislation into one bill. Standalone bills that would individually cover the agricultural issues and hunting were considered but not advanced. 

Sandhill cranes were once nearly driven entirely out of Wisconsin, but the bird has rebounded here. It’s a major conservation success story in the state and in the eastern flyway — the region of the continent covering Wisconsin through which migratory birds travel as they move north and south each year. 

With the bird’s resurgence has come increased conflicts with humans. Much of the sandhill crane’s historical range covers the wetlands and marshes of south central Wisconsin that are prime areas for growing corn. Cranes are estimated to cause about $1 million in crop damage each year. 

Sandhill cranes are also territorial, with breeding pairs returning to the same area to lay their eggs every year. 

Migratory birds are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and if a farm has a problem with cranes damaging crops, that farmer must work with the agency to attempt to drive the birds off the property, using  methods that include killing the birds. 

Federal law requires that birds killed through that process not be eaten or used in any other way and the farmer must prove they’ve exhausted all other measures first. 

The solution promoted by interest groups such as the International Crane Foundation is the use of Avipel, a chemical compound that is applied to corn seed that makes it unappetizing to the birds, who eventually learn the corn isn’t food and — even though they remain on the property — stop damaging the crops. 

Under the legislation proposed by the committee, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection would establish a program that reimburses farmers up to 50% of the cost to purchase Avipel treated seed. 

For years, hunting groups and Republicans have been trying to establish a sandhill crane hunt in the state. Some advocates for the hunt say the population has grown enough that it can manage a hunt while not damaging the population. Others say the hunt could bring down the population and reduce the amount of crop damage — a claim that bird biologists disagree with. 

Under the proposed legislation, the Department of Natural Resources would work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to get a hunt approved and then issue permits for the hunt every year. 

Conservationists and crane experts say that the federal government hasn’t updated its crane management plan in 15 years, leaving the state without much guidance for holding a hunt. 

“There’s nothing biologically that would prohibit a hunt,” Meleesa Johnson, executive director of Wisconsin’s Green Fire, said. “There’s nothing biologically that would say we need a hunt. So from my perspective, and what I’m hearing from my members is, yeah, you could do a hunt. We know how to do that. But what is that solving? Is that solving the problem we’re trying to fix?”

Republican lawmakers on the committee said that the combined bill, including both a hunt and farmer reimbursements, had the best chance of getting passed by both houses of the Legislature — which are both controlled by Republicans. 

Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Cameron) said that the interest groups affected by the bill would likely be opposed to doing a standalone bill to subsidize the use of Avipel and that combining it with the hunting bill makes it more likely to pass. 

“I think our best shot threading this needle between all our constituencies that we try to represent not only on this committee, but ourselves as legislators, is to try to marry these issues together,” Quinn said. “I don’t think it’s complicated. I think the combined bill is not that hard. So I think politically, our best opportunity for any movement, for any group, is a combined bill.” 

But Sen. Mark Spreizer (D-Beloit) said that any proposed legislation not only has to get through the Republican Legislature, but be signed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and he doesn’t think it’s likely that Evers would sign a bill to hold a sandhill crane hunt — meaning the hunt wouldn’t happen and farmers would again be left with no recourse to address the crop damage problem. 

By only advancing the combined bill, Spreitzer said the committee was preemptively cutting off all avenues for it to achieve action on the crane issue. 

“There are a number of winnowing points that any bill that comes out of here, or any other bill that any of us might introduce have to go through,” he said. “If Republican leadership in the Legislature, which is in the majority in the Assembly, and the Senate, doesn’t like it, it’s not going anywhere. If the Democratic governor doesn’t like it, it’s not going anywhere. And there are multiple stages in the process where that happens. And so I think folks here could strategically decide, ‘Hey, let’s put all our eggs in one basket and only support the combined Avipel-hunting bill,’ and hope that that creates enough political pressure that it means that it gets through all of those choke points.” 

“Or it could be the exact opposite,” Spreitzer added, “that because you’ve got too much going on” Republicans could decide the Avipel program spends too much money or the governor could decide he won’t support a hunt. 

Spreitzer also said that it felt like the Democrats and conservationists on the committee had been “railroaded” by the committee’s chair, Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), to support the combined bill rather than finding consensus. 

“So nothing gets done, so I guess my advice is, don’t try to game out the politics too much. We’re going to have three votes on three different bills,” he said of the committee’s votes on the combined and standalone proposals. “If you like this bill, you should vote for it. If you like the next bill, you should vote for that, too. If you like the third one, you should vote for that, too. If there’s one you don’t like, vote against it. And the more votes that each thing gets coming out of here, the stronger chance it’s going to have.”

The return of the sandhill crane to Wisconsin is a conservation success, but now the state needs to manage the population and the crop damage the birds can cause. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

The Wisconsin Legislature’s study committee on sandhill cranes held its second to last meeting Wednesday, taking a comb to the conclusions, findings of fact and legislative proposals that will be published when the body finishes its work next month. 

The 12-member panel, made up of two legislators from each party  and a group of advocates for agriculture, hunting, cranes and the environment, met for more than five hours, appearing to get close to consensus on an issue that has been raised a number of times in the state Legislature over the past decade with little progress. 

The resurgence of the sandhill crane in Wisconsin is a conservation success story, with the number of breeding pairs in the state reaching new highs after nearly being extirpated in the 1930s. But that success has increased conflicts with farmers — largely because the best land in the state for growing corn overlaps with the bird’s historical habitat in the wetlands of central Wisconsin. Sandhill cranes cause an estimated $900,000 of damage to corn grown in the state every year, a number that is almost certainly an undercount and doesn’t include damage to other crops such as potatoes. 

Recent attempts to pass crane-related legislation have failed after being injected into the partisan politics of the state’s divided government. A 2021 bill to allow the hunting of sandhill cranes died after Republicans invited controversial hunting advocate and rock star Ted Nugent to speak about the bill at a news conference. That bill was also supported by Hunter Nation, a non-profit that had played an instrumental role in the hotly debated wolf hunt that year. 

Three years later, the work of the study committee has brought wildlife advocates and Democrats into the discussion. 

Anne Lacy, director of eastern flyway programs at the Baraboo-based International Crane Foundation, said at the meeting that the science doesn’t show a hunt will solve the crop damage problem and that there’s still too many unknowns to determine if the current crane population in Wisconsin can support a hunt. But even without solving the crop damage issue, Wisconsinites might want to hold a crane hunt for social, cultural and recreational reasons and that may be possible if the state Department of Natural Resources can develop a plan that allows for a hunt while not harming the bird’s population in the state or surrounding region. 

“Cranes are a powerful symbol of Wisconsin’s conservation efforts, an effort which all Wisconsin citizens have contributed to and have a vested interest in maintaining, certainly,” she said. Science, she added, “allows a hunt when and where it is biologically appropriate for the species, and there are data which indicate that even a modest level of harvest of sandhill cranes could lead to a decline … that could potentially jeopardize seasons throughout the flyway.”

Finally, she added, “given that hunting will have no impact on crop damage, a hunt is purely a social recreation issue.” 

The committee discussed three pieces of legislation that relate to hunting sandhill cranes and much of the debate Wednesday focused on the very fine details of these proposed bills, such as what fees should be charged to hunters, how permitting would work and what rules would guide the hunting season. 

Any bill passed that allows the hunting of sandhill cranes in the state would need approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The first two proposals are essentially the same, with one of the bills increasing the wildlife damage surcharge paid by hunters when they obtain their permit. The third proposal mimics the federal migratory bird depredation permit program, which allows farmers to obtain a permit to kill a bird that has been destroying crops. The committee has criticized the federal program because it requires the farmer to leave the carcass in the field so as to not encourage consumptive uses of the animal. 

“Hunters have a history of paying for opportunities, and so I like the bill with increased surcharges, and hunters have proven time and time again that we’re willing to pay,” Paul Wait, editor of Delta Waterfowl Magazine, said. “We’re willing to pony up, we’re willing to put that money forward to help with the crop damage fund, provided we gain access and opportunity, and that’s what we’re talking about here, from just a pure hunting standpoint, is, you know, providing a new opportunity for hunting in the state of Wisconsin.”

The committee also spent much of the meeting discussing proposed legislation that would compensate farmers for the use of Avipel, a chemical that can be applied to corn seeds that makes the seeds unappetizing to the birds and protects the corn from being damaged. 

The two proposals include one from the committee’s chair, Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), which would authorize the Department of Natural Resources to compensate farmers for the cost of treating their seeds with Avipel if they can demonstrate they had crop damage in a previous growing season. The other proposal, from committee member and farmer David Mickelson, creates a rebate program through the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). 

The seed treatment bills gained more consensus support than the hunting bills, with much of the discussion focusing on how to structure the payment system, how the payments would be capped and how the program’s success could be measured so future Legislatures can assess its effectiveness. 

Rep. David Considine (D-Baraboo) said he was in favor of the proposal that puts the program in the hands of DATCP because “farmers, some of them, tend to distrust the DNR and that might not be news to some of you, but they trust DATCP.” 

Tittl and Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) had several discussions about what the ultimate text of the legislation should look like so it can pass through the Legislature and have funds appropriated to the program by the Joint Finance Committee, including reducing cost by capping use of the program. 

“I could say, ‘You know what, we’ll do it a lot more,’” Tittl said. “And then the chances of it passing through Joint Finance are almost zero. But I’d rather be more realistic.” 

The committee’s next meeting, at which it will finalize its proposed legislation, is scheduled for Dec. 10.