Yes, I think the legislature weighed in a few years ago to prevent separating hunting rights from the surface rights. This is not a very good comparison though, IMHO.
Mineral rights owners have a legal right to access and develop their property. Are there conflicts between the two? Absolutely, but there's not really much a surface owner can do to cause those mineral rights to become worthless. Hunting rights, again, are different. If I was able to sell the hunting rights to my land, there's little the owner of the hunting rights could do to prevent me from making his hunting rights worth nothing. I could, for example, till my land from property line to property line, or I could turn it into a rural residential development. Either way, I could make it so no wildlife exists on it.