Green acres

[Philbilly26]

is a joke, another 220 acres posted No Hunting on a fully funded tract of land with our tax dollars “Recreation and conservation purposes” means the use of lands for beaches, biological or ecological study, boating, camping, fishing, forests, greenways, hunting, natural areas, parks, playgrounds, protecting historic properties, water reserves, watershed protection, wildlife preserves, active sports, or a similar use for either public outdoor recreation or conservation of natural resources, or both, pursuant to the Green Acres laws. This term includes the use of historic areas pursuant to P.L. 1974, c.102; P.L. 1978, c.118; P.L. 1983, c.354; P.L. 1987, c.265; P.L. 1989, c.183; P.L. 1992, c.88; and P.L. 1995, c.204; and the use of historic buildings and structures pursuant to P.L. 1992, c.88, and P.L. 1995, c.2041. To implement the purposes and objectives of the Green Acres laws in order to help ensure that there is access to and an adequate supply of lands for either public outdoor

January 3, 2006­January 3, 2011

THIS IS A COURTESY COPY OF THIS RULE. ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT'S RULES ARE COMPILED IN TITLE 7 OF THE NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

recreation or conservation of natural resources, or both. Green Acres shall assist local government units and nonprofits in their efforts to increase and preserve permanent outdoor recreation areas for public use and enjoyment, and conservation areas for the protection of natural resources such as waterways, wildlife habitat, wetlands, forests, and viewsheds;

[BowhunterNJ]

Where is this from?

 

I agree with you, they use tax dollars to buy the land and preserve it, which is a great thing...but then they don't allow residents to enjoy it (entirely).

Many townships are starting to lease lands they've purchased, realizing there is an "income" to be had.

IMO that sucks to a degree for residents who paid for it, they should have the "right" to hunt there simply by being residents.

All of NJ is about business/money, and hunting is just being added to that list.

[Bucksnbows]

You have to understand how the NJ Green Acres fund works. It is taxpayer dollars set aside from public referendums that we vote on to be used to purchase lands held in public trust. That doesn't always mean we get to hunt them. Almost every site the Division of F&W oversees under Green Acres is huntable. I said almost. They own some small ponds where it is simply unsafe to allow hunting, and those remain fishing only. Much of the State Parks and Forestry lands preserved via Green Acres is huntable, but certainly not all. I think their percentage of lands open to hunting is around 70% or so. Now you get into county owned, township owned or lands purchased in fee by land trust organizations. These run the gamut from full access to hunt, fish and trap to none of the above, depending on use. A ball field preserved in Newark with Green Acres funding won't allow hunting or fishing, obviously.

 

You don't give us enough context with your picture to form an opinion on whether or not hunting should be allowed on the 220 acres you mention. Is it rare plant or animal habitat? Is it town owned by a town with a no-discharge ordinance? Too close to homes or other buildings for safe hunting? There are many variables to take into consideration.

[Philbilly26]

You sound just like all the people i have sent the pictures of properties with NO trespassing signs posted on them and exactly where they are at, Do you work with the Green acres program? I have yet to run into a a tract of land with a GREAT big white signs proclaiming its for our recreational needs but yet they are POSTED NO TRESPASSING, I still believe all GREEN ACRES DOES is create a taxpayer funded anti hunting zone ITS a SHAME and needs an OVERSIGHT committee to show the fallacy of the program.

[BowhunterNJ]

The sign you posted doesn't have NO TRESPASSING on it. Are you saying some Green Acres properties do? Is it due to some protected habitat? There has to be some reason for it. From what I understand, Green Acres is public property, and personally I've never seen a "No Trespassing" sign on Green Acres that is township owned. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I just haven't seen it. Are you sure what you're referring to isn't private property under programs like Farmland Preservation?

[CJ3a]

Looks like a town sign.

[DBuck]

I really don't understand why every piece of open land has to be opened to hunting (even though it would be nice). But everyone keeps saying that tax payers paid for the land so it should be opened to hunting. It isn't just hunter's tax money paying for the land,so why can't there be a few places for non-hunters to go to enjoy some outdoors activity? Especially since you all bitch when bird watchers and hikers impose on you when you're hunting state lands? I think it's a great alternative and perhaps it would keep people out of the hunting lands during hunting season.

[HamiltonR&G]

Ive hunted a green acres property before, am I doing something wrong?

[Bucksnbows]

You sound just like all the people i have sent the pictures of properties with NO trespassing signs posted on them and exactly where they are at' date=' Do you work with the Green acres program? I have yet to run into a a tract of land with a GREAT big white signs proclaiming its for our recreational needs but yet they are POSTED NO TRESPASSING, I still believe all GREEN ACRES DOES is create a taxpayer funded anti hunting zone ITS a SHAME and needs an OVERSIGHT committee to show the fallacy of the program.

[/quote']

 

No, but I sometimes work closely with NJ Green Acres employees on certain projects where I get involved directly with lands acquisition for my job at Trout Unlimited. Typically I just hand off landowners I have a working relationship with that want to preserve some or all of their lands to a local land trust. Some purchases are easy and can be done between Green Acres and the landowner(s) with the lands going to the Division of Fish & Wildlife as is often the case on my smaller lands protection work. Others require more involvement and a land trust, obtaining much of their acquisition funding, can cover other costs sometimes associated with larger deals and using Green Acres funds to buy the lands to be held in public trusts.

 

Green Acres has helped preserve over 640,000 acres for public access, and a whole bunch of that is open for hunting. It includes many of our WMAs, at least those purchased after the Hunter and Angler Dedicated Fund monies went towards preservation of areas like the Flat Brook Roy WMA amongst others. Same for Parks lands, most of which is open to hunting. Green Acres is not much more than a small funding agency that relies greatly on those fellow DEP agencies like the Division or Parks & Forestry or towns/counties and land trusts to steer funds to good preservation properties.

[rgw]

it usually depends who is the manageing agency. if it is f & w it is usually huntable. if it is parks and forestry it usually isnt huntable. i do a lot of the property surveys for green acres and you would be shocked how many aree not huntable

[YotaTruck]

You sound just like all the people i have sent the pictures of properties with NO trespassing signs posted on them and exactly where they are at' date=' Do you work with the Green acres program? I have yet to run into a a tract of land with a GREAT big white signs proclaiming its for our recreational needs but yet they are POSTED NO TRESPASSING, I still believe all GREEN ACRES DOES is create a taxpayer funded anti hunting zone ITS a SHAME and needs an OVERSIGHT committee to show the fallacy of the program.

[/quote']

 

So are you opposed to using Green Acres money to acquire WMA land too?

[jerseyhunter]

Don't know if this is off topic or not , but DBuck has the right idea. I belieer the public should acess Green acres property but by the same token they should be off limits to all Wma's unless they possess a valid hunting license if there is no fishing on said wma and a current fishing license and trout stamp if the wma is stocked.

Our accessories pay for these lands (pittman act) as do our licenses.

[YotaTruck]

I belieer the public should acess Green acres property but by the same token they should be off limits to all Wma's unless they possess a valid hunting license

 

And who is going to pay for the hundreds of COs/F&W personnel it would take to enforce that? Not to mention the bad blood it would create between environmental groups and hunters by closing off nearly 400,000 acres to their use. Green Acres funds are also used to purchase/maintain WMA land, so technically the public has a right to them anyway. I don't know where you guys hunt, but I've never really been bothered by non-hunters on WMA land. I've run into bikers and hikers on county park land, but that's to be expected.

[Bucksnbows]

Don't know if this is off topic or not ' date=' but DBuck has the right idea. I belieer the public should acess Green acres property but by the same token they should be off limits to all Wma's unless they possess a valid hunting license if there is no fishing on said wma and a current fishing license and trout stamp if the wma is stocked.

Our accessories pay for these lands (pittman act) as do our licenses.

[/quote']

 

Most of our WMA lands have been purchased via Green Acres and not from dedicated hunter and angler funds. Pittman-Robertson does not come into play.

[johnnyo8148]

Not sure I understand the initial point of the post. Whether the land is saved -- regardless of hunting, we should be happy that the land is being preserved. Of course it would be great to hunt on every piece of public land (at least in my area), but I have no problems with the state keeping the land in its natural state. Now, build a WaWa or some other building on it and yeah, I'm going to be upset, but I'm not going to have a cow because I cannot hunt on that property.