Driving down a west Madison street, Dorothy Harms saw something that didn’t seem to fit with the urban environment: a sandhill crane.
Harms is a Reedsburg farmer and while she’s used to seeing sandhills in her neighbors’ fields, the city crane caught her by surprise.
Yet the large, long-legged birds with a croak-like call are not that rare these days. Their numbers have grown in Wisconsin, which is pleasant for those who enjoy watching them but not a universally positive experience.
Cranes can damage houses, car windows and golf courses. But statewide, their biggest impact is on agriculture. The sandhills cause $1.6 million in crop damage a year, according to a 2021 estimate provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Sandhill cranes are widely hailed as a conservation success story. While Wisconsin conservationist Aldo Leopold predicted in the 1930s that they would be extinct in the Upper Midwest, the population rebounded in the late 20th century and has been going strong ever since.
That means, in some sense, Wisconsin has been a victim of its own success.
“I think the crane population is going to continue to increase,” Harms, who is president of the Sauk County Farmers Union, said. “So I think there really does need to be a look at, you know, how do we kind of keep a balance with this?”
Hunters and some farmers have advocated for a hunting season to try to control the populations and limit the harm to agriculture. Ecologists argue that killing the birds wouldn’t eliminate crop damage.
But there is another tool to deter cranes from mucking up a farmer’s corn crop: Avipel, a coating applied to seed that gives a bird an upset stomach, deterring them from trying to eat the plants again.
If used correctly, the treatment can keep more of a farmer’s crop intact — if they can afford to take on the risk that comes with applying Avipel.
Anne Lacy, director of Eastern Flyway Programs for the International Crane Foundation, spoke about Avipel during a recent town hall in Fort Atkinson focused on cranes’ impact on agriculture. She said experts are confident the “chemical itself works” but that other barriers must be overcome, such as cost or the need for farmers to juggle another step in the planting process.
“All of these things are why it is not a solution yet because it is harder for farmers to use it,” Lacy said. “So that is what we need to know and … we all will, hopefully, work together in the Legislature to get these things solved.”
Wisconsin crane count is up
Each Christmas, bird lovers across the state will count the number of birds, with the 2023 count finding the most cranes in nearly a decade, according to International Crane Foundation data.
Over 12,000 cranes were spotted in Wisconsin last year, a far cry from the couple of thousand observed in 1982. The marked rise in the crane population has taken some getting used to.
Rick Gehrke, a corn farmer from Omro near Oshkosh, recalled his father having to take measures to fend off cranes on their property but noted the problem “is more and more widespread, at least in central Wisconsin where I’m at.”
Frustration runs rampant for farmers in Wisconsin, with the land most desirable for row crop production in the south-central and eastern parts of the state also overlapping with the areas where cranes like to spend time. Some will stop in the state before continuing their trip south for the winter, while others will stay in Wisconsin through the colder months.
Brian Madigan, vice president of agronomy at Country Visions Co-op in Plymouth, recalled a farmer who had planted his crop late, which coincided with the cranes’ spring arrival in his field.
“It was like 8 acres, just gone,” Madigan said, as he shared the farmer’s reaction. “Like, why did I even put the effort into planting it? And I’m sure not going to replant it, because it’ll just be the same thing again. It’s like, ‘Here’s the buffet, come and get it.’”
Cranes are territorial and typically claim a field as their own. The hatching season for chicks coincides with the spring planting season for farmers, creating a window for them to dig up seeds in search of bugs or other potential food.
Farmers often will try using cannons or other noise-making devices to scare off cranes, though Lacy said the birds will often wise up to the din and realize it isn’t a threat.
Sandhill cranes are protected under federal law, though farmers can obtain a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that allows them to shoot and kill cranes to mitigate crop damage. About 200 of those permits are issued per year in Wisconsin, allowing farmers to remove 1,100 to 1,200 cranes, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
That’s considered a last resort, however, and farmers must show they’ve exhausted all non-lethal methods before killing cranes.
Sporting organizations, such as the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association, and some farm groups have supported the idea of a hunt, arguing it could trim the population and give farmers who shoot and kill cranes the legal right to consume the birds, an option not available now. At least 15 states have crane hunts, mostly in the Rocky Mountain and Western states, though North Dakota and parts of Minnesota allow a hunt.
A fall hunt could curb the population of sandhills that would return to fields in the spring, said Bruce Ross, executive director of the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association.
“We’re not steering by the rear view mirror,” Ross said. “We’re looking through the windshield.”
Conservationists have argued that public polling indicates opposition to a hunt and that the limited number of licenses issued wouldn’t resolve the crop damage or provide resources to help farmers.
“With the level of a hunting season there will be for sandhill cranes, it will not raise enough money to cover all of it,” Lacy said.
Avipel comes with limitations, questions
Others have tried to shift the discussion toward encouraging farmers to use Avipel, the seed treatment that dissuades cranes from disrupting crops.
Studies show Avipel is effective for cranes and other birds, such as geese and turkeys. A Cornell University study found that fields using seed treated with Avipel had higher yields than those which did not.
Dan Hirchert, Wisconsin state director with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, said that Avipel isn’t a “cure all,” in part because of the cost and burden placed on a farmers’ planning process. Still, he said, the chemical is a highly valuable option.
“There would be pitchforks up in the air if we didn’t have Avipel for use in Wisconsin,” Hirchert said.
But Avipel has its limitations. In 2019, the DNR estimated that only 160,000 acres of corn were treated with the chemical, a fraction of the 3.7 million acres of corn crop statewide.
It can be applied only to corn seed, meaning that those who harvest potatoes, wheat and cranberries — all of which grow differently than corn — are out of luck. And Avipel hasn’t yet been certified as organic, which cuts off farmers who specialize in organic corn.
Pesticides in Wisconsin must be approved by both the Environmental Protection Agency, which requires tests to certify that a product is safe to put on crops, as well as the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
It is recommended that farmers use protective equipment when applying Avipel to seeds, much like other pesticides. Research compiled by the federal government shows the ingredients in Avipel have low acute toxicity, meaning they require high levels of exposure to make someone sick.
Gehrke, the Omro farmer, said he hopes that holds up over time.
“There is a huge concern, especially long-term, of how this will affect (humans),” he said. “I know there’s studies out there that say that it’s completely safe. I hope so.”
When a farmer buys their seed from a co-op, like the one Madigan works at, the distributor will effectively open a bag of seed, coat it with the liquid Avipel and seal it back up before giving it to the farmer. This can cause a couple of problems.
First, the Avipel coating takes more time and adds another step in the already messy planting process. In addition, this alteration of the seed means that a farmer can’t swap it out for a different version if planting conditions change. And, if there is additional seed left over, they can’t sell it back to the co-op, as Avipel is considered an aftermarket modification.
Then there is the expense. Avipel adds around 15% to the cost of seed per acre. For a large farm, that $10 to $15 per acre can really add up. Madigan said only 10-15% of farmers at his co-op generally treat their seed with Avipel.
“You’re taking some risks to do it,” Madigan said.
How to ‘make farmers whole’
The DNR has a program that will pay for crop damage caused by a number of species, such as deer, bear, elk or geese.
The program also will give farmers money to prevent animals from wrecking their crops in the first place.
But the program is funded by part of the money hunters pay to harvest those various animals. Under state law, it can include sandhill cranes only if lawmakers authorize hunting them.
“There’s a cost and who's going to pay that cost?” Harms, the Reedsburg farmer, said. “More often than not, farmers seem like they end up being the end of the line.”
Lacy and the International Crane Foundation want the state to change its policies to help offset the costs farmers incur by purchasing Avipel. A state lawmaker, Rep. Dave Considine, D-Baraboo, proposed such an idea but hasn’t seen it gain traction, Lacy said.
A panel of state lawmakers, farmers and conservation groups is looking at possible ways of addressing the rise in sandhill cranes.
That includes a hunt, as well as other means of boosting Avipel and other possible solutions for farmers.
Ross, the executive director of the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association, said that a hunt and the revenue it generates to aid farmers is a good idea but not “the entire solution.”
Helping increase the availability of Avipel is a good idea, too, he said.
“If you’re going to make farmers whole, it has to be a combination of a hunt to control that future population, maybe some access to that hunter depredation funding and also some sort of funding from some source to help offset the exorbitant costs of Avipel,” he said.
