By Bruce Ross, Executive Director bruceross@wi.rr.com
This article originally appeared in Wisconsin Waterfowl Association’s November, 2021 Newsletter edition.
To be clear, the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association supports an ethical and science-based hunt of the Sandhill Crane (SHC) in Wisconsin.
The federal population goal for the group of sandhill cranes found in Wisconsin is 30,000 birds. The upper limit (i.e., carrying capacity) was deemed to be 60,000 birds. The current population numbers for Wisconsin’s sub-species stands at 95,000 and is growing at 9% per year (2000 vs-2021 data). As a result, these birds are having a significant impact on the state’s agriculture. Indeed, it was concern for Wisconsin farmers, not hunters, that led to this proposal.
That said, the sandhill crane is a valued game bird across the continent. This legislation does not introduce the concept of a SHC hunt for the very first time in this nation. Indeed, sandhills have been hunted in the U.S. for the past five decades. Seventeen states and four Canadian provinces hunt the bird. And although the Obama administration and US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) made Wisconsin eligible for a crane hunt in 2010, there has been no legislative action to take up this opportunity. Until now. Interestingly, two International Crane Foundation staff were on the team that developed the management plan for SHC, as was the WI Department of Natural Resource’s (WDNR) Migratory Bird Specialist, Kent van Horn.
In the modern era of hunting, sandhill cranes are managed by the USFWS in the context of the international Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This act seeks to protect the health of the species across their continental range. In this broader context, the USFWS authorized hunting of sandhills in 1961. There are 1.1 million sandhill cranes in the US, according to the latest USFWS survey.
Even if the legislature passes such a bill, the DNR must develop and submit a 7-step proposal, the USFWS must consider it, and if approved, the WDNR must implement the necessary steps to comply with the federal expectations. Only then will sandhill cranes be able to be legally hunted in the state; that’s likely a 2-3 year span.
Motivations swirl around the topic of a Sandhill Crane Hunt
Unfortunately, the way the proposal was introduced carried a lot of political overtones, which has not been particularly helpful to focusing on the science-based merits of such a hunt. And even without the overt politics surrounding the introduction of the bill, there would be strong opinions.
Of course, there are many motivations for either supporting or opposing a SHC hunt. Organizations or individuals may oppose the hunting any living creature, or they may want to reap political benefit from the divisiveness of this topic, or they may want to grow organizational membership, or raise funds, or support members that are being hurt by the very large SHC surplus. Of course, WWA is not immune to such parochial motivations, but we believe it is important to be open about them.
After nearly a year of research and discussion with the stakeholders on all sides of this issue, the 7,000-member WWA supports an ethical and science-based hunt of SHC because:
- 94% of our polled membership told us they wanted us to explore such a possibility;
- It presents a long-established and legal hunting opportunity for the state’s hunters;
- Science tells us a well-managed hunt will have NO significant impact on the species;
- History shows that migratory game birds benefit from the attentions of conservation-minded hunters;
- Ceding this decision to emotion-based, anti-hunting sentiment establishes a disturbing precedent for the state’s constitutionally protected right to hunt, and will ultimately diminish the overwhelming conservation benefit hunters bring to the state and nation.
On what basis should we make decisions about hunting?
I recently read an opinion piece from a hunter that more-or-less said that hunters don’t need to hunt SHC. The SHC has a storied past and are magnificent creatures, he said. He thought that hunters should respect that there is a lot of emotional support for the crane and just let go of this hunting opportunity.
I appreciate that this author wanted to avoid alienating non- and anti-hunters. Since beginning the research on this topic a year ago, I’ve said it is a waste of limited conservation energy for hunting and non-hunting conservationists to form a circular firing squad on something that will have NO conservation impact on the Wisconsin landscape. There are many more truly significant conservation issues that we should be facing together, shoulder-to-shoulder.
But especially now, as a leader of a hunting organization in a state with a constitutionally protected right to hunt, my thinking on this sandhill crane topic revolves around this question: “On what basis should we make such decisions about hunting?”
The sandhill crane is a beautiful animal with a storied past to be sure. But so is the wood duck, the deer, and the turkey. It’s a slippery slope. To the degree our society eschews science to make emotionally based decisions on hunting, there will be an erosion of hunter commitment to such species. And to the environment that sustains them, and from which all of society benefits. And ignoring the science unnecessarily fuels the divide between hunters and non-hunters, making future collaborations on more significant issues, more difficult.
Some might snicker at the idea that hunting an animal might be good for the species, but the data supports this claim. In a peer-reviewed meta-study published recently in the journal Science, virtually every single bird species in North America is down a cumulative total of 3 billion. In that same timeframe waterfowl are the ONLY bird species that are up, an astounding 56%. We might ask ourselves why these game birds are thriving?
For my whole duck hunting life, I have witnessed the scientifically-informed management of waterfowl that include annual population surveys that inform acceptable harvest levels and research into their lifecycle, I’ve gotten my fingernails dirty in the off-season to improve local habitat and I’ve been one of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of volunteers who have raised billions of dollars to fund the research and wetland restorations that are the key to species thriving across their range.
Most recently, I’m proud to say that WWA was a leader in the push to increase the cost of the state’s waterfowl stamp that EVERY waterfowler in the state must purchase, so there will be even more funding available for wetland habitat restoration. 85-95% of waterfowlers supported this fee increase, but it took over 10 years to convince politicians this was the right thing to do. It is this sustained hunter commitment that has yielded the positive results noted in the afore-mentioned study.
You may have heard the old saw: how a chicken cares about, while a hog is committed to, a bacon-and-eggs breakfast. We all care about the birds we see in our yards or fields. But in overwhelming numbers, hunters have consistently committed time, talent, and treasure to the creatures they respect as renewable bounty of the land. And game birds have benefited far more than the birds you and I feed in our back yards. I would hope that non-hunting conservationists can take this truth to heart.
How can you help? Let your legislators know. And join or donate to WWA.