Republicans in the Legislature have been working for years to pass legislation that would allow sandhill cranes to be hunted in Wisconsin. GOP lawmakers have introduced several bills on the issue. 

A 2024 legislative study committee assessed ways in which lawmakers could help manage crop damage caused by the birds as well as how to manage a crane hunt. But after introducing a package, they amended it down to just a crane hunt measure. 

GOP lawmakers have spent a few weeks working to pass legislation that would add some regulations on the use of high powered wake boats on the state’s water bodies. The boats have drawn ire from lakeshore residents across the state because of the large waves they create, which can damage shorelines. People also often bring the boats to several different boats, which raises the risk of spreading invasive species in the boat’s ballast. 

Both bills have drawn criticism from members of the public. Environmental and wildlife advocates have questioned the crane bill’s lack of crop damage provisions and complained that Republicans are pushing through a hunt without fully understanding current science. 

The wake boat bill has drawn complaints that it is too friendly to the wealthy wake boat owners and weakens local authority to establish more stringent wake boating rules. 

On Thursday, when the Republican-authored wake boat bill introduced just 10 days earlier came up for a vote on the Assembly floor, GOP members  offered an amendment that jammed in the Republican-authored crane hunt proposal. 

Democrats objected to the last minute combination, with Reps. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) and Vincent Miresse (D-Stevents Point) calling it “bad governance.” 

“I’m quickly trying to read the amendment to see which of the bills this is, is it the one from the study committee that a bipartisan committee put together, or is it the one that was totally butchered in the Senate, and I don’t have time to read through it, because this is just bad governance,” Stroud said. “I’m going to be a no because these are two different bills completely. But I just want to point out, as I probably just said, that this is not what the people from Wisconsin expect us to be doing when we’re voting on things that deeply affect them.” 

Miresse said the passage of the wake boat bill prioritizes the input of wealthy boat owners and was rushed at the expense of “the vast majority of stakeholders” who were “united against this bill.”

Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) said it only makes sense to combine the bills because cranes live in marshy areas. 

“I know that it’s common on that side of the aisle to get confused when we’re trying to do good government here, but let me walk them through the germaneness of how these are two very relevant and important things to have together,” he said. “For those who aren’t aware, Sandhill Cranes like to nest near water lines. They like to be in marshy areas. You know, where we often find marshy areas around? Lake shores. You know what’s a great way to protect our lake shores, keeping those high speed, high wake boats away from those shorelines.”

The vote on the combined bill caused further controversy when Republicans moved ahead with a voice vote while Democrats tried to call for a roll call vote. The spat froze the work of the Assembly while every Democrat lined up to record the vote against the combined legislation, which has now been sent to the Senate. 

Hours later, when the standalone Republican bill to establish a sandhill crane hunt came up as originally scheduled, Miresse addressed the body about wake boats. 

“I’m here to talk about wake boats today,” he said to laughter from the Democratic side of the floor.

Republicans said that Wisconsin has a “sandhill crane problem,” noting that the resurgence of the crane population is a conservation success story but now there are too many. 

Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc) said the bill supports the state’s farmers and hunters. 

“This bill is about supporting hunters, farmers and getting serious about sandhill crane management here in our state,” Tittl said. “We can’t stand by and let other people dictate our state’s conservation policy on sandhill cranes just because it’s a pretty bird. I agree it is a beautiful bird, and so is a wood duck. I think deer is majestic. Well, so I challenge you now if you support science and facts, hunters, farmers and most importantly, our Wisconsin State Constitution, the vote is yes.”

But Rep. Karen DeSanto (D-Baraboo), whose district includes the International Crane Foundation, questioned how hunting cranes in the fall would prevent farm fields from being damaged in the spring. 

“We need a more comprehensive approach that includes more than just a hunt, because a limited fall hunt would have little impact on spring crop damage,” DeSanto said.

Anti-rights of nature 

Republicans also passed a bill 54-41 that would prohibit local governments from passing ordinances protecting the rights of nature. The bill was introduced after Green Bay and Milwaukee have passed or discussed establishing largely symbolic ordinances protecting the rights of bodies of water to be kept clean. 

The concept stems from provisions in the constitutions of some South American countries and Native American tribes such as Wisconsin’s Ho-Chunk Nation. In American law, environmental activists have been pushing for the legal rights of nature for decades, Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) noted. 

“People who have a meaningful relation to the body of water, whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist or a logger, must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction,” Hysell said.

A separate bill, authored by Miresse and introduced last year without any movement, would recognize the natural rights of Devil’s Lake State Park. 

Republicans say such ordinances are communist and anti-business while Democrats point to legal interpretations that recognize corporations as people as setting a precedent. 

“I’d like to thank the authors for bringing this bill. I think it’s worthy of discussion,” Miresse said. “To ensure a livable future, we must restore balance with our natural world, and that means changing how our laws treat nature. Instead of viewing rivers, forests, ecosystems as materials for consumption and dumping grounds, we must recognize their inherent rights to exist, thrive, regenerate and be restored.”

Rep. Joy Goebben (R-Hobart), the bill’s co-author, said it would protect property rights. But Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) complained that Democrats want to protect nature but not fetuses.

“I find it rich that the other side of the aisle talks about inherent rights of water, trees and air. Yet … they produced an amendment to kill children after birth in the womb. So while they talk about drinking water being a luxury, human life should be a luxury that should be valued in this place, and instead, they make a mockery of it.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

During debate on the floor, Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said that the GOP Knowles-Nelson bill isn’t perfect but is a compromise that will allow the program to continue into the future. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner).

A pared-back proposal that will continue the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program, but without allowing for new land acquisition, passed the Assembly on Thursday, eliciting critical reactions from Democrats who said it won’t uphold the legacy of the program.

The Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program was initially created during the 1989-1990 legislative session and signed into law by former Gov. Tommy Thompson. With the goal of preserving wildlife habitat and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities throughout the state, the program has authorized state borrowing and spending for state land acquisition and for grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations. It has traditionally received bipartisan support in Wisconsin as it has been reauthorized several times over the years.

Two GOP bills, coauthored by Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), passed the Assembly in a 53-44 vote along party lines. The bills would extend the program for an additional two years, but in a limited form.

Under the amended proposal, the Knowles-Nelson program would be reauthorized until 2028, but the money set aside would mostly be for maintaining land that has already been purchased under the program.

The program’s land acquisition provisions have been essentially stripped in the legislation. 

A previous version of the GOP bill would have authorized the program until fiscal year 2029–30. Gov. Tony Evers in his 2025-27 state budget proposal had called for investing over $1 billion and reauthorizing the program for another 10 years. Republicans rejected the proposal. 

Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) blamed the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the state of the proposal.

Wisconsin lawmakers for years exercised control over what Knowles-Nelson projects received funding through the state’s powerful Joint Finance Committee. Members of the committee could anonymously object to a project and have it upheld for an indeterminate amount of time.

The program and the power of the committee became the focus of a fight over the balance of power between the governor and lawmakers, with the state Supreme Court ruling in 2025 that the Joint Finance Committee did not have the authority to hold up spending through anonymous objections. 

Sortwell said that the DNR should not be able to buy land without oversight from lawmakers.

“I don’t support their ideas to turn our authority of the Legislature over to unelected people,” Sortwell said. “We can build this up and do more things with it but let’s make sure we don’t lose what we have today. We can maintain the program. We can go ahead and make sure that we can keep the lands that we already have in good condition and continue moving forward.” 

Under the amended version of AB 315, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would only be able to obligate $1 million for land acquisition — a cut from $16 million. The $1 million could only be used for the Ice Age Trail. The bill would also allow for DNR to obligate $9.25 million for property development and local assistance — a cut from $14.25 million. The program would also limit the amount that could be obligated for recreational boating aids to $3 million. 

The amended version of AB 612 reduces the amount that can be obligated each year to $13.25 million. It also includes $7.75 million for DNR property development and grants, $4 million for local assistance grants and $3 million for grants for wildlife habitat restoration. There would also be $250,000 set aside each year to be used for DNR land acquisitions, but acquisitions would be limited to parcels land that are 5 acres or less and meant to improve access to hunting, fishing, or trapping opportunities or is contiguous to state-owned land.

The bill would also require that large projects get approval from the full Legislature and limit grant or in-kind contributions for a project to 30%.

The DNR, under the bill, would also need to conduct a survey study of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program including an inventory of all land acquired with money, proposed project boundaries and land acquisition priorities for the next two to five years, and proposed changes. The survey would need to be submitted to the Legislature in two years.

Recipients of a grant would also need to submit a report to the DNR on how the money was spent, and it would need to be publicly published. 

The program is set to expire on June 30, 2026, without a reauthorization from the Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers.

Ahead of the vote on Thursday, Team Knowles-Nelson, a coalition of Wisconsin environmental conservation organizations, fishing and hunting advocates, trail builders, bicycle enthusiasts and others, said in a letter urging lawmakers to vote against the bills on the Assembly floor that they don’t propose a “workable path forward.” 

“These bills include virtually no funding for land acquisition. Land trusts and local governments would have no dedicated ability to acquire land for either purpose — a fundamental departure from the program’s core mission,” Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at the nonprofit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said on behalf of the coalition. “While the bills provide habitat management grants to nonprofit conservation organizations, they impose an impractical framework. The grants are limited to habitat work on lands already owned by the state or local governments, excluding nonprofit-owned lands. This restriction undermines the collaborative conservation model that has made Knowles-Nelson successful for over three decades.” 

During debate on the two bills, Democratic lawmakers said the bills were inadequate and would not preserve the intent of the program. 

Rep. Vinnie Miresse (D-Stevens Point) declared that “every time Republicans amend the Knowles-Nelson proposal, it seems to get worse.” 

“Without land acquisition, Republicans have neutered this program and rendered it Knowles-Nelson in name only,” Miresse said. He added that lawmakers’ attitude of treating people with different opinions as a “threat” is how legislation that “ignores history, disregards broad public support and turns a shared legacy into just another talking point” gets a vote.

“They chose the extremes, and that choice will cost the state a program that Wisconsinites overwhelmingly support,” Miresse said. 

Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) said the bill is not a compromise, but is instead “table scraps.”

Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee) talked about being a “birder” — someone who watches and observes birds as a hobby.

“We had the option to do a cost to continue… and it was rejected, and that disheartens me because when I go to places like Horicon Marsh when the birds are coming in, are migrating in, and I get to see goldfinches — there’s nothing like watching a chimney swift swoop down and try to get some food, or when you’re out and just walking around and navigating a red-winged blackbird swoops down tries to peck you in the head because it thinks that you are a crane trying to steal its eggs,” Moore Omokunde said. “We need to provide these opportunities for so many people in the state of Wisconsin to enjoy this.”

Republican lawmakers argued that the proposal was better than the Knowles-Nelson program ceasing to exist.

Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said that the bill isn’t perfect but is a compromise that will allow the program to continue into the future. He added that it would “help preserve some of our beautiful natural areas” for future generations to enjoy.

“Sometimes we get caught up in partisan politics, but let’s not make this about partisan politics. This bill deserves strong, bipartisan support,” Kaufert said. 

“I would rather take half a cookie today, rather than no cookie today to make sure that we can continue the program,” Sortwell said. “You gotta vote yes today because if you vote no, you’re saying, you know, what? I’m not willing to compromise. It’s not good enough for me, and I’m going to vote no, because I’m going to be like a little kid and take my ball and go home.”

Evers told lawmakers in a letter earlier this month that he was “hopeful” they would be able to move forward on a reauthorization proposal for the Knowles-Nelson program.

“I would be glad to sign any reauthorization proposal that appropriately supports both land acquisition and property management of Wisconsin’s valuable natural resources and public lands to secure the future of this program that is so fundamental to Wisconsin’s proud and cherished tradition of conservation,” Evers said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Correction: This story has been updated to correctly state the amount of money the amended bills would dedicate to the program.

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)

A Wisconsin Assembly committee held a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that would require the state to hold an annual hunt of sandhill cranes. 

The sandhill crane was once nearly extinct and its recovery is seen as a conservation success story. Similar to the return of the wolf, the growth of the sandhill crane population has caused a long running political debate in Wisconsin. For years, Republicans in the Legislature have been pushing for a sandhill crane hunt — arguing the opening of recreational opportunities would benefit the state’s hunting industry and advocating for eating the birds’ meat. 

The proposal this session stems from a legislative study committee commissioned last summer which examined how to mitigate damage caused by the birds to the state’s farm fields and the possibility of holding a hunt. Estimates say that each year the birds cause almost $2 million in crop damage, mostly to corn seeds that are eaten before they can sprout. 

In the initial version of the bill proposed by the study committee, a number of provisions were included that would have directly addressed the crop damage. If a sandhill crane hunt is authorized, that would allow farmers to access money through an existing Department of Natural Resources damage abatement program, but otherwise all the farm-specific provisions have been removed from the version of the bill now being considered by the Assembly. 

If a bird is frequently damaging a farmer’s crops, a depredation permit is obtainable from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, however federal law requires that the bird’s carcass not be consumed. 

Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), the bill’s author, said the bill is a “well thought out proposal to relieve farmers and promote new opportunities for hunters.” 

But Democrats on the committee and critics of the bill questioned why the specific farmer assistance programs were cut out, how a hunt would affect the crane population and how much establishing a hunt would cost the DNR. 

Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point) noted that the Republicans were simultaneously arguing that holding a hunt wouldn’t significantly impact the state’s crane population and that holding a hunt would help mitigate the crop damage caused by the birds. 

“If it’s not going to impact the population very much, then how do we protect farmers’ investment in seed and corn sprouts and potatoes and cranberries, if we’re not going to actually impact the population to the benefit of the farmer,” Miresse said. 

Taylor Finger, the DNR’s game bird specialist, said in his testimony that opening the existing crop damage abatement program up to sandhill crane damage without adding additional funds to the program would result in “worse outcomes for farmers seeking assistance.” 

Republicans on the committee largely questioned the testimony of sandhill crane researchers. Anne Lacy, director of eastern flyway programs at the Baraboo-based International Crane Foundation, said she is concerned about holding a hunt in Wisconsin because it is one of the few places on the continent where sandhill cranes breed. 

“I don’t think there is a [population] number that justifies a hunt,” Lacy said. “There are many states that hunt sandhill cranes, and they do it successfully. They’ve been managed for years, including this population. But Wisconsin is a breeding state, so that puts a different spin on a hunting season … So it’s not so much a number. It is how a hunt affects this bird because of its ecology.”

In an extended back and forth in which he raised his voice, Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) pushed Lacy to say she is supportive of sandhill crane hunts elsewhere. 

“All right, so I catch you dodging me, so therefore you do not personally support a hunt in any other state,” Sortwell said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE