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

Reading Time: 4 minutes

As the demand for power increases with the rise of data centers, Wisconsin lawmakers are continuing legislative efforts to advance nuclear energy growth in the state. 

The issue has previously seen bipartisan support in the Capitol. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in July signed two Republican-led bills into law: one that creates a board to organize a nuclear power summit in Madison and another that directs the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, to study new and existing locations for nuclear power and fusion generation in the state. Nuclear fusion, an emerging technology, produces more energy than nuclear fission and almost no radioactive waste, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

In a statement at the time, Evers called the bills “an important step in the right direction” toward lowering costs, growing the economy, mitigating climate change and reducing Wisconsin’s reliance on out-of-state energy sources. 

The Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee in August approved $2 million to fund the nuclear power siting study. A spokesperson for the Public Service Commission said the agency is working through “internal processes” to begin the study, including whether outside assistance is needed to complete it. A report is due to the Legislature in early 2027, just after a new governor takes office.

Point Beach Nuclear Plant in Two Rivers is Wisconsin’s lone nuclear power plant, and in late September the federal government extended its licenses to 2050 and 2053.

But the bipartisan interest in boosting Wisconsin’s role as a nuclear energy generator has opened the door for more legislation in the Capitol. State Rep. Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers, introduced a bill this month that he said builds off the legislation from earlier this summer. Sortwell said his proposal, Assembly Bill 472, aims to ease costs associated with building nuclear power plants through items like tax credits.

Evers’ office said the governor has not reviewed Sortwell’s bill. But in a statement, Evers said Wisconsin should invest in options to expand nuclear energy in the state.

“It’s important that we continue our work to help lower energy costs and reduce our reliance on out-of-state energy sources,” Evers said.“With new, advanced nuclear technology and the ever-increasing need for energy across our state, investing in clean energy solutions like innovative nuclear options could be a game-changer for Wisconsin, our economy, and folks across our state.”

Sortwell, who cosponsored the earlier bills, said now, while Evers is still in office, is the time to prioritize nuclear energy policy. Evers is not running for reelection, and Sortwell said an open governor’s race in 2026 could swing power in that office toward a candidate who is less supportive of growing Wisconsin’s role as a nuclear energy producer.

“I don’t want to lose this opportunity when I’ve got a Democrat governor I know who is supportive right now and I may not have one in 15 months,” Sortwell said. 

Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann and U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the two Republicans running for governor, have both signaled support for nuclear energy.

Among Democratic candidates, two so far shared their position with Wisconsin Watch. Rep. Francesca Hong, D-Madison, said she supports nuclear energy, but not incentivizing its expansion over wind and solar, and not to accelerate the development of data centers. Brewers beer vendor Ryan Strnad said he supports advancing nuclear generation.

The costs of nuclear energy

Sortwell’s bill, scheduled for a hearing Wednesday, includes several provisions, including prioritizing nuclear energy as an option to meet Wisconsin’s energy demands. But it largely focuses on the costs tied to producing nuclear energy, including allowing public utilities to raise consumer rates to recover their construction costs. 

“The issue is, nuclear power can have a little bit longer of a time to actually get up and operational,” Sortwell said. “It could take several years and those costs then just kind of build up on the front end.” 

The bill would create a tax credit for new nuclear energy generation, which a company could claim over the course of 20 years. EnergySolutions and WEC Energy Group in May announced plans to build a new plant at the Kewaunee Power Station, which would be able to take advantage of the tax credits in the bill upon operating, Sortwell said. 

It also allows public utility companies through their rates to recover expenses related to developing nuclear energy sites. Those costs could include dollars for site evaluations or regulatory filings, according to the bill. 

But that should be a concern for customers, who would see those expenses in their bills before these plants are even built, said Tom Content, the executive director of the Citizens Utility Board. He pointed to a 2024 We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service request to collect about $200 million from ratepayers for costs associated with building natural gas projects. The Public Service Commission denied the request in July 2024. 

“When we’re thinking about the bottom line for customers in the context of bills that are already rising more than inflation, we really need to keep our eye on what people are paying every month for energy and how we can keep that affordable,” Content said. 

The bill also eases the regulatory process for private power producers that may seek to generate nuclear energy for “very large customers,” such as data centers, Sortwell said. The legislation would require the Public Service Commission to approve rates and charges if the power generated is nuclear energy within 75 miles of the “very large customer.” Those specifications could put less of a strain on Wisconsin’s power grid, Sortwell said. 

Notable

Both the Senate and the Assembly have floor sessions scheduled Tuesday. The Assembly is expected to vote on several law-enforcement-related bills including: 

• Assembly Bill 136, which would raise the penalty for impersonating a law enforcement officer, firefighter or emergency medical personnel from a misdemeanor to a felony. 
• Senate Bill 25, which would limit additional investigations into law enforcement officers if a district attorney determines there is no basis to prosecute them for an officer-involved civilian death. Sen. Rob Hutton, R-Brookfield, cited former Wauwatosa police officer Joseph Mensah as an example for the bill in a February letter to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. 

The Senate’s Committee on Universities and Technical Colleges will hold a public hearing Wednesday on Senate Bill 498, which prevents Universities of Wisconsin schools and technical colleges from “restricting free speech protected under the 1st Amendment” and limiting “expressive rights and academic freedom” of instructors. The bill, which was filed in the weeks after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, would allow the attorney general, a district attorney or a person whose rights were violated to sue the UW System Board of Regents or a technical college district board. 

Editor’s note: This story was updated to correct the amount We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service requested from ratepayers. The correct amount requested was $200 million.

Nuclear energy gains bipartisan steam in Wisconsin heading into a pivotal 2026 election season is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.