As a hunter, angler, and conservationist, I stand with Madison Audubon against the Sandhill Crane hunt. The reasons are numerous, and you can read them in my previous post here, but make no mistake: they are informed both by sound science and by a love of cranes.

Bruce Ross, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association (WWA), recently replied to my blog on a hunting season on Sandhill Cranes, and argued that hunters and non-hunters should support such a season.

Well, that was throwing a fly to a hungry trout so I rise to the bait.

*Sandhill Crane, photo by Arlene Koziol*

Madison Audubon appreciates WWA as a conservation organization that has assisted in the restoration of wetlands throughout Wisconsin. They've provided habitat for ducks, that's true, but many other wonderful birds too. We hope the increase in the state duck stamp championed by WWA produces even more wetlands.

However, he mis-stated or mis-represented key parts of my argument, and his concern that not having a Sandhill Crane hunts somehow undercuts Wisconsin's constitutional right to hunt is misplaced.

I noted that the Sandhill Crane has a unique spot in the hearts and minds of many Wisconsin conservationists. He offered the Wood Duck, deer, and turkey as equivalents in that regard. Sorry, not by a long shot. All three are fabulous animals, with the first being one of my all time favorites. All three were subject to great conservation efforts. But none became the focal point of a decades-long effort to restore the species and to preserve and restore the rapidly disappearing habitat necessary for their survival. Without wetlands, sandhill cranes will not survive; without Sandhill Cranes, Wisconsin wetlands would not have received the strong and widespread public support they have enjoyed for many years. We would not have the number and quality of wetlands without the Sandhill Crane as their charismatic symbol. That's one of several reasons why the cranes are not just another wildlife species that many people throughout Wisconsin and beyond are fond of.

*Sandhill Crane family, photo by Arlene Koziol*

Ross claims that I disregard science in favor of emotion as the basis for opposing a crane season. He also claims that science clearly supports a Sandhill Crane hunt. Neither claim is accurate. The testimony provided by scientists and experts before the Senate committee on October 18, or the articles that have appeared since the hunt was proposed, show that the science is mixed. Sandhill Cranes populations are strong but vulnerable to over-harvest. I reviewed that science (did not ignore it) and continue to believe that the judgment I expressed in my blog is essentially correct: it will be very difficult for the DNR to structure a fall crane hunting season that limits the location, dates, shooting hours, and bag limits with adequate protection for the birds.

By the way, the bill does not set any of those standards for the hunt; the DNR will have to sort through all those details and create the specific rules for the hunt. What does this mean for the DNR, conservationists, hunters, and cranes? This spells out years of controversy and litigation. Crane advocates are not going away. They will be vigilant and insistent about every issue connected to the hunt. Some will probably be willing to litigate. Some hunters will be impatient with any perceived delay or need for more research or caution. Some will probably be willing to litigate. That assumes the bill, if passed, does not face a veto, another chapter in the controversy.

Back to emotion. My main point I made in my previous blog was that emotions and values are at the core of the contemporary state of hunting. Hunters do not go afield to provide scientific wildlife management for a range of species (many of which do not require hunting as part of their management). We hunt because we love being outdoors, we love the challenge, we love providing healthy meals, we love being with friends and family (dogs too—looking at you, Philly and Peggy). Ross never addresses my central point: if hunters want the larger community to respect their important values as they hunt a variety of animals, why shouldn't they respect that community's values and protect a certain animal?

One might argue hunters don't have to care. They have a constitutional right to hunt in Wisconsin. Ross seems most worried that respecting others' values and not having a crane season will undermine that constitutional right. But the right to hunt is not the right to hunt any species in any way. That right is subject to the regulations and laws created by the DNR, Legislature, and Governor. The decision to hunt or protect cranes will not affect the right to hunt. Wisconsin has a constitutional right to hunt and lots of hunters plus hunting has a big economic impact: why this concern about the right to hunt? You'd have to move to Idaho to find a more secure right to hunt.

The right to hunt amendment was added to the Wisconsin Constitution in 2003, and that right could be amended out of the constitution. As a hunter, I take no pleasure in saying that it might, if hunting fell into widespread disfavor. A more urban population, less hunters, less hunting recruitment, and less favorable perceptions of hunters might make that possible in a somewhat distant future. That fear seems to have infected a part of the hunting community. Some hunters seem to believe that a good way to protect hunting is to aggressively assert the right to hunt and expand hunting opportunities whenever possible, and Sandhill Cranes may be the fallout of that fear.

Finally, Ross’s insinuation that organizations opposing the crane hunt might do so to raise funds, score political points, or attract new members is a gross falsehood. Madison Audubon always and will forever prioritize bird conservation, including conservation done in support of our members. I do not question that Ross represents the interests and wishes of his membership, precisely what Madison Audubon’s leaders are doing.

Madison Audubon does not welcome this dispute. We'd much rather be buying land and improving habitat. Like the 36 acres we just bought at Ostego Marsh to provide nesting habitat for waterfowl and grassland birds. Like the Madison Audubon contribution to the Groundswell Conservancy/Ducks Unlimited/Pheasants Forever purchase of 55 acres to add to the Anderson and Becker Lake Waterfowl Production Areas.

You know, the ones that produce lots of ducks and are open to public hunting.

Topf Wells, Madison Audubon board of directors and advocacy committee chair

Cover photo by Arlene Koziol