Connect with us

Wisconsin

Legislator-led committee to study sandhill crane management, including potential hunting season

Published

on

Legislator-led committee to study sandhill crane management, including potential hunting season


play

State legislators this summer will lead a committee to review and recommend options for sandhill crane management in Wisconsin, possibly to include a hunting season for the species.

The Legislative Council Study Committee on Sandhill Cranes is slated to begin meeting in July, said committee chair Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc).

Advertisement

The group “shall examine population trends and determine whether any changes to state law would effectively address the incidence and consequences of crop damage caused by sandhill cranes in this state,” according to the committee description.

Its charge includes recommending “legislation to manage the population of sandhill cranes and address the agricultural impact of sandhill cranes.”

As part of its review of policy options, the committee may consider whether the Department of Natural Resources should seek federal approval to establish a hunting season for sandhill cranes.

But Tittl said it would be a “deep dive” and also consider non-hunting options to provide funding to farmers suffering crop losses from cranes.

Advertisement

In addition to Tittl, the sandhill crane study committee will include vice chair Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Cameron), Rep. Dave Considine (D-Baraboo), Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) and likely eight public members, mostly representatives of conservation, wildlife and farming groups.

Tittl said he reviewed applications and recommended eight public members on May 21; the applications were passed along for review and likely approval by the Republican-led Wisconsin Joint Legislative Council.

The sandhill crane committee is one of five Legislative Council Study Committees scheduled for this summer. A handful of such committees, selected by the Joint Legislative Council, are held in even-numbered years.

Sandhill cranes have increased substantially in number in Wisconsin in recent decades. In autumn 2022 61,098 sandhills were counted in Wisconsin, part of 107,140 birds in the eastern population of the species, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The eastern population count was conducted in 10 states and two provinces of Canada. Wisconsin forms the core of the eastern population’s breeding range and typically has the largest number of cranes of any state or province in the region.

Advertisement

In recent years cranes have caused about $1 million annually in crop damage in Wisconsin, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Most occurs in spring on newly planted corn but potato and bean growers also report losses later in the year.

However the state currently has no program to compensate farmers for losses due to sandhill cranes.

The sandhill crane is currently protected in the state. In addition to approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a hunting season would require the Legislature to pass and governor to sign a bill allowing a sandhill crane hunt in Wisconsin.

Under current laws, farmers who incur crop damage can shoot sandhills on their property after obtaining a federal permit but cannot eat or otherwise utilize the carcasses. About 1,000 cranes are killed on federal depredation permits each year in Wisconsin, according the USDA.

Advertisement

If state law were changed to allow a sandhill crane hunting season, farmers would be eligible for compensation for crane-caused crop damage.

Three states in the Mississippi Flyway hold sandhill crane hunting seasons during fall or winter: Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee. In the 2021-22 hunting season, the states reported a harvest of 835 sandhills, according to the USFWS.

However the Wisconsin Legislature has failed to advance two bills that sought to allow a sandhill hunt, one in 2011 and the other introduced by Tittl in 2021. The lack of support for the bills is notable as they where authored by Republicans in Republican-controlled Legislatures.

A study conducted in December by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center found 17% of state residents would support a sandhill crane hunting season while 48% oppose the idea.

The work, funded by the International Crane Foundation in Baraboo and the UW-Madison Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, was the first controlled, science-based look at public support for crane hunting in the state. It polled 2,769 members of the UWSC’s WisconSays survey panel.

Advertisement

The panel is chosen to match Wisconsin’s population in terms of economic status, education, race, gender, political leanings, party affiliation, place of residence and other factors. It was launched in 2023 and has panelists in all 72 Wisconsin counties.

A statewide advisory question at the 2017 Wisconsin Conservation Congress spring hearings, an open process and not a controlled study, showed narrow support (2,349 voting yes and 2,049 no) for a sandhill hunt. The Wisconsin Waterfowl Association and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation are on record as supporting a crane hunt.

The Wisconsin Corn Growers Association, Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation and Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association were also registered in favor of the 2021 sandhill crane hunting bill.

Animal Wellness Action and the Wisconsin chapter of Sierra Club were registered against the proposal.

Advertisement

It’s unclear whether political support among legislators has changed over the last couple years with regard to a potential crane hunting season.

Other items the committee will likely review: Would a limited fall hunting season reduce sandhill-caused crop damage? How much funding would a hunting season raise to support farmers? How much might be raised to support farmers from other potential funding sources?

Dave Scott, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representative, said based on recent population levels Wisconsin could offer a maximum of about 5,100 sandhill crane hunting permits, but would likely offer fewer if an experimental season were held.

Hunting would be by special permit and the season could run for a maximum of 60 days between Sept. 1 and Jan. 31. Further, any sandhill hunting proposal would have to address concerns for whooping cranes and be designed to try to limit or avoid conflicts with the endangered birds.

Tittl, a hunter and representative of a district with a substantial number of agricultural producers, said he’d been following issues related to cranes for at least 10 years and sought out the opportunity to chair the sandhill study committee.

Advertisement

“I’ve been hearing from farmers in my area who are suffering crop damage,” Tittl said. “And right now we’ve got no program to help them.”

Tittl said the study committee would allow a comprehensive look at all aspects of the sandhill crane population and potential management tactics, including non-lethal means such as Avipel treatment of corn kernels and potential funding sources not related to a hunting season.

The committee will be staffed by attorneys or analysts and an administrative assistant from the non-partisan Legislative Council staff.

Tittl said he expects the committee to be “very balanced.”

Advertisement

“I didn’t select the public members so it would be a slam dunk,” Tittl said. “If we come to the end of this and a hunt doesn’t seem right or necessary or the way to go, I’m OK with that. I’m a hunter but I’m not going into this with any pre-determined outcome. I want us to come up with the best possible solutions.”

Public members not only participate in meetings and provide their perspective on the issues but also vote on the proposals intended to resolve the issues. As such the views of public members can determine committee recommendations.

Public members are not paid for their participation on the study committees but are entitled to receive reimbursement for certain travel expenses, including mileage, parking, meals, and overnight stays, if necessary.

Because the selections weren’t finalized during the interview, Tittl didn’t release names of prospective public members.

He said the committee is likely to meet four times, with the first in July, and to have its recommendations finalized by early November.

Advertisement

Tittl said he hoped the first committee meeting would be a field trip to Horicon Marsh.

Smith: Back from the brink, whooping cranes inspire awe but still need help



Source link

Wisconsin

President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody

Published

on

President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody


A federal judge has ordered the release of the president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque, after finding that immigration officials probably detained him in retaliation against his public advocacy for Palestinian rights, suppressing his first amendment rights in the process.

The US district judge James Patrick Hanlon’s order on Thursday marked a sharp rebuke against Trump officials, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who had tried to paint Salah Sarsour as a national security threat.

“Salah Sarsour, who has lived in this country for more than three decades and served as a core pillar in his community without any issues, should never have been detained in the first place,” his legal team wrote in a statement. “While we continue to fight these baseless claims in court, today is about celebrating a family being reunited. It is also a sober reminder that, if the government can target Mr Sarsour, everyone’s free speech rights are at risk.”

Sarsour describes himself as a stateless Palestinian, according to the order. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that he is a Jordanian citizen. He has lived in the United States for more than three decades, becoming a legal permanent resident in 1998. Immigration officials approved Sarsour’s citizenship application decades ago, though he did not naturalize.

Advertisement

Sarsour has garnered public attention as a champion for Palestinian rights, and serves as a board member of an advocacy group called American Muslims for Palestine.

But Rubio personally signed off on a memo to the DHS last year describing Sarsour as deportable despite his green card, because “his actions undermine US foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world”. The memo, cited in Hanlon’s order, accuses Sarsour’s group of being “found to have been involved in activities providing funds to Hamas”.

A group of plainclothes ICE officers from at least 10 unmarked vehicles swarmed Sarsour on 30 March of this year, arresting him and putting him in deportation proceedings. ICE ultimately detained him in Clay county jail in Indiana.

Sarsour lost 30lb while detained, the order says. His lawyers told the court that he was “at constant risk of developing serious complications from diabetes given that the medical staff only checks his blood-sugar levels once a month”. Tightly controlling diabetes typically requires multiple glucose checks daily.

Hanlon’s order says that homeland security officials and Rubio probably trampled on Sarsour’s first amendment right to free speech and appeared to have arrested him in retaliation for his Palestinian rights advocacy.

Advertisement

The order cited a New York Times story and the website for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative thinktank that dreamed up Project 2025,

The Heritage Foundation presented the White House with the idea to present prominent foreign-born Muslims and Palestinian rights leaders as terrorists in order to sue them, deport them or pressure employers to fire them, the order says, citing reporting from the Times and Heritage’s own website. Sarsour was probably among the targets of that campaign, the order says.

The federal government, through its lawyers, contended that Sarsour should be deported based on two convictions from more than three decades ago in Israel – one for throwing a molotov cocktail and the other for attempting to store weapons and ammunition.

Sarsour denies having committed those crimes.

But Hanlon viewed those crimes as a non-issue for justifying his incarceration, noting that the federal government knew about them since the 1990s and approved his legal permanent residency and his citizenship application anyway.

Advertisement

Sarsour’s speech on Palestinian rights “is core political speech and squarely within the scope of the First Amendment”, the order says. “Mr Sarsour has submitted evidence allowing a reasonable inference that his protected speech was ‘at least a motivating factor’ in Respondents’ decision to detain him.”

A spokesperson for homeland security described Sarsour as a “terrorist”, citing the convictions from his youth in Israel.

Government lawyers had argued that Sarsour did not have the same first amendment rights as US citizens. If he were released, they said, he should have to pay a $25,000 bond, wear an ankle monitor, check in routinely with ICE and remain confined to his house.

Instead, Hanlon ordered his release on personal recognizance, meaning that Sarsour does not have to pay a cash bond to compel him to show up in court again. The order, however, requires him to remain in the state of Wisconsin.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute

Published

on

Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute


(WLUK) – A couple challenging the decision not to award them a 50-50 raffle prize at a Milwaukee Brewers game asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case, calling it one of “statewide importance.”

Matthew and Annette Flynn purchased ten raffle tickets at the July 7, 2023, game, and held the winning number which was originally selected for $13,000. According to court records, the raffle rules in effect at the time required the winning ticket holder to claim the prize at a designated 50-50 table by the end of the top of the seventh inning. Flynn said she did not see the winning number displayed or hear it announced and was directed by stadium personnel to another location before making her way to the claim table. Officials determined she did not arrive before the deadline and selected a new winning ticket.

The Flynns sued, but the circuit and appeals courts ruled the raffle’s rules gave the foundation sole discretion to determine the official winner and that the rules clearly stated a participant who failed to claim the prize within the specified time would be disqualified.

In a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed Wednesday, the Flynn’s asked the high court to take the case, saying the decision “affects not only the parties to this action but potentially every Wisconsin resident who participates in charitable raffles and similar gaming activities.”

Advertisement

“This case presents significant questions concerning contractual discretion, discovery, judicial review of charitable gaming decisions, and the treatment of digital evidence within Wisconsin’s appellate system. For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,” the petition states.

The high court does not have to take the case. At some point, it will vote on if to take it. If it does, a months-long process to review the issues will begin. If it does not, the appeals court ruling would stand.

According to the rules posted on the Milwaukee Brewers’ website, the deadline to claim the prize is no longer during the game the tickets were purchased.

Comment with Bubbles

BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT

Advertisement

“The Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number may claim the Prize at the 50/50 Table located on the Loge (2nd) level concourse behind Sections 216/217 until such time as the Ballpark officially closes to fans after the end of the game. If the Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number does not claim the Prize by the time the Ballpark closes to fans after the end of the game, that Participant may still claim the Prize within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period for the respective baseball game by contacting the Raffle hotline (414-902-4334). A Prize that is not claimed within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period will be awarded in compliance with applicable regulations,” the site states.



Source link

Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Wisconsin DOJ probes fatal shooting by Oneida County officer

Published

on

Wisconsin DOJ probes fatal shooting by Oneida County officer


ONEIDA COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) — The Wisconsin DOJ is investigating an officer-involved death that occurred on the morning of June 17 in the town of Lake Tomahawk.

According to a press release, around 10:30 a.m., two Oneida officers arrived at Lumen Lake Drive to arrest a subject in a felony investigation.

Upon contact with the officers, the subject brandished and shot a firearm. One officer shot the subject in return.

EMS pronounced the subject dead on the scene. No members of law enforcement or the public were injured.

Advertisement

Both officers will be placed on administrative assignment, per the agency’s policy.

WFRV will update this story as needed.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending