Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB1021

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/26
• Refer: 2/6/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to create 29.016 (4), 29.885 (3) (e) and 29.889 (7m) (au) of the statutes; Relating to: agricultural damage caused by elk.

Summary

AB1021 would change Wisconsin wildlife-damage law to address crop and property damage caused by elk. It creates a new statutory provision requiring the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to remove elk causing property damage within 48 hours after receiving notice from the affected property owner, lessee, or occupant. The bill also directs DNR, if it forms an elk advisory committee with outside partners or members of the public, to include someone who represents the interests of people experiencing elk damage on agricultural lands. The bill further creates an exemption for elk-related damage claims from the current requirement that a person receiving wildlife damage abatement assistance or claim payments must allow hunting of the damaging wild animal on the affected land. Under AB1021, a landowner or other eligible claimant seeking assistance or payments for elk damage would not have to permit elk hunting on that property as a condition of receiving aid. In practical terms, the bill narrows existing hunting-access conditions and imposes a faster DNR response timeline for elk damage complaints.

Impact

AB1021 would amend Wisconsin statutes governing wildlife damage abatement and claim payments, specifically sections related to DNR removal authority and conditions attached to damage assistance. It would create a species-specific rule for elk, overriding the general hunting-access requirement for recipients of wildlife damage aid when the damage is caused by elk, and it would impose a 48-hour removal deadline for DNR response to elk-caused property damage. The bill would primarily affect agricultural landowners, lessees, occupants, and the DNR, while also shaping how elk damage is handled in advisory and management processes.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been motivated by concern over agricultural losses and frustration with elk damage management, suggesting a generally pro-agriculture and pro-landowner sentiment. The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Because there is no documented floor debate or committee testimony in the provided materials, the overall public or legislative sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s protective approach toward affected landowners rather than from explicit recorded support or opposition.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s departure from the usual rule that recipients of wildlife damage assistance must allow hunting of the damaging species on the affected land. Conservation or wildlife-management interests could view the elk-specific exemption as limiting a key tool for controlling wildlife conflicts, while agricultural interests would likely support the exemption as a way to avoid additional burdens on damaged landowners. Another likely issue is the mandated 48-hour removal deadline, which could be seen as an aggressive operational requirement for DNR and potentially difficult to meet in practice. The advisory-committee provision also suggests concern that affected agricultural voices be represented in elk policy discussions.