Oh well, doesn't sound like it would have made a difference.[smirk] But there' always next year.“As a conservation and recreation agency, the Park System acquires and manages land both for resource protection and recreation opportunities.” This is straight from the Deer Management Program Objectives. Last year, the program went out of its way to “remind hunters that hunting is permitted within the parks as a deer management strategy, not as a recreational activity.” This is contradictory to the statement of objectives and it bothers me that the Park System does not recognize that hunting, like fishing, is a recreational activity. The State, the Federal Government and dare I say even Barrack Obama himself has recognized that hunting is a time-honored recreational way of life for many Americans.
Of the 4,500 programs offered by the park, the park averages around 21 persons per activity. With nearly a thousand hunters registered; hunting is not only a recreational activity, but just about one of the most active in the whole system. Of the park programs, only those that are performances or demonstrations are free. The rest charge a nominal fee and logically to cover the costs of instructors and moderators. In other words, they charge a fee to offset the costs of the program. If you are going to charge a fee to offset costs; then call it a recreational program.
Now I realize this is not politically convenient, but across the State and Country; communities are beginning to understand the dangers of overpopulated deer and the positive role hunting plays in controlling them. MOST conservation programs recognize that hunting is both a vital tool as well as a recreational activity; regardless of whether it is popular or not.
If you don't want to recognize it as a recreation, yet you want hunters to “assist in a management activity”, then you shouldn’t be charging them. As to having park workers conduct hunts; as a taxpayer, donor and supporter of open lands initiatives, even if I wasn’t a hunter, I’d object to paying manpower for something other qualified, experienced people will do for free. That doesn’t make much business sense. Just a side note, there were 961 hunters last year. At $20 a head, that’s $19,220. From what I have read, the County cut the Park System’s budget by $19,570. Probably just a coincidence, but I found it interesting.
The bottom line is if you are going to charge a fee, then call it a recreational program. If not, it's a "management activity" and hunters should not be charged for their services.
I posted this, to inform those who, like myself, weren't aware of this new fee. It sure was kept quite, and now is cast in stone.Why are we even argueing over this?
I've said the same thing about the Hunterdon County parks. In principle, I don't agree with the fee. However, the program does limit the number of hunters based on the size of the property and paying $25 for a permit is a lot cheaper than paying to lease a property or join a club.$20 for a semi-private place to hunt in NJ? Sounds reasonable....
BINGO! For $20. you get to hunt in your backyard, eliminate some of the less than serious hunters, and provide a small token amount of financial support to the parks system...this type of fee is now standard in most county/municipal deer management programs and actually on the low $$ end.I don't disagree with the $20 fee:
1. Hunters pay for wildlife
2. The county pays out a lot in overtime and signage.
3. It's better than the alternative "White Buffalo"
4. $20 bucks is reasonable.
5. It prevents the guy who went and got a free permit walking in at 3:30 - 4:00PM looking for a tree to run up and ruining someone's hunt. Serious hunters who will take the time and effort to find a spot in advance of the season.
At $20 a head, that’s $19,220. From what I have read, the County cut the Park System’s budget by $19,570. Probably just a coincidence, but I found it interesting.
I wonder if the cull was a smoke screen to get the fee passed[confused] A Corzine trick[wallmad]I think the $20 fee is there to appease the antis and the suggestion to have employees hunt is just a "taste" of what's to come.
I agree with NJHUNTSMAN on this one...Just to add my penny,
I opposed the fee because 1000's of people use the parks for free. They are provided with hiking trails, sports fields, activity centers, and etc. They don't pay for $#@^. Let them pay a "USER FEE " also. If the parks were to provide tree stands for us like they provide facilites for others I would agree with the fee.
1. Yes, Hunters pay for wildlife why should we pay more?
2. The overtime & signage is mostly for the non or anti hunters not for us.
3. If they are asking for $20.00 to offset their expenses do you think they could afford to pay White Buffalo?
4. Any amount is not reasonable when you're retired Senior Citizen on a fixed income.
5. This could happen to anyone no matter how much they pay or who pays. You will now hear "I paid to hunt here so I'll hunt where I want"
Either way I'll will pay the $20.00 and another for my daughter also.
Will we see you at the MC Federation meeting tomorrow?
NJBowman, you have a point too...Why are we even argueing over this? If $20 is what it costs to keep the hunts open, it's a no brainer. If we fight the fee and they close the parks what was accomplished. NOTHING!
The hunts are outside the normal scope of park operations. There is nothing binding that says they have to hold the hunts. The parks dept is trying to incorporate hunting to control the herd. There is overtime and other logistics that will be covered under the fee. Bottom line if you don't want to pay the fee don't hunt the parks! There will be more room for the rest of us who don't mind paying at all!
They would be issued by the Monmouth County Parks Commission. Check their website but I don't think anything is up yet for the 2009-10 season.What is the process to apply for these permits? I haven't seen anything on the NJDEP website