An Act to create 29.601 (4m) of the statutes; Relating to: ban on the use of certain insecticides by the Department of Natural Resources.
Summary
AB289 would prohibit the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from using insecticides in the neonicotinoid class on land the department acquires and maintains, which includes DNR-managed lands. The bill creates a new statutory subsection in the state laws governing DNR authority over insecticide use and sets a general ban on these products for agency land management.
The bill includes two main exceptions. First, the prohibition would not apply to neonicotinoid use under cooperative farming agreements or contracts that the DNR entered into before the effective date of the new law. Second, it would not apply to forest insect control on forested lands, state forest nurseries, seed orchards, or in designated infestation zones. In practical terms, the bill would limit DNR pesticide practices while preserving some existing agricultural and forestry-related uses.
Impact
AB289 would amend Wisconsin statutes by creating s. 29.601 (4m), directly restricting the DNR’s authority to use neonicotinoid insecticides on land it manages. The bill would affect state land management practices, pesticide application policies, and any contractors or partners working under DNR cooperative farming arrangements. It would also preserve specific forestry and preexisting contract uses, so the legal change is targeted rather than a complete statewide ban on neonicotinoids.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote history, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or formal support/opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s introduction by a large bipartisan group of legislators, the proposal appears to have had at least some cross-party sponsorship interest, but the final action indicates it did not become law. Overall sentiment cannot be measured precisely from the provided context, though the bill’s subject suggests environmental and land-management concerns were central.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between restricting neonicotinoid insecticides for environmental or pollinator-protection reasons and preserving DNR flexibility for land management, forestry, and existing farming agreements. Supporters would likely favor limiting pesticide use on state lands, while opponents or cautious stakeholders may have been concerned about impacts on forest pest control, agricultural operations on DNR land, and the department’s ability to respond to infestations. The exceptions in the bill suggest these practical concerns were important in shaping the proposal.