NJ Pheasant stocking

[Dufflab]

I don't like the new way the state decides on stocking of birds. They have removed numbers from north jersey and added numbers to south jersey. I am happy for the south jersey hunters to get more opportunities but , the shifting punishes some and helps others. Nj now plans to buy pheasant from and outside company and stop using the Rockport pheasant farm. It appears to me that all these new NJDEP rulings don't truly help the hunter. All these changes in stocking birds or how you can take a deer seem a bit overbearing to me and in some cases just seem a way to charge more money. Not a fan.

[Bonefreak]

That's why I got a beagle....pheasant huntin in NJ will soon be a thing of the past, unfortunately. 

[Lunatic]

I believe I read last yer south jersey rant about north jersey getting most of the birds. Maybe this is the reaction to it?

Maybe the answer is for the state to provide land and hunters to BYOB -  bring your own birds

[Lunatic]

3 minutes ago, Foggy Mountain said:

The rockport closure was due to lots of new laws that severely limited the way the division needed to operate the facility. It woulda been very cost prohibitive to upgrade to accommodate the new laws. Than trucks couldn’t leave facilities, the don’t want employees handling wild birds and handling pheasant. Imagine a duck hunter being told he couldn’t do his thing outside work hours?  

I don't get this part??

[chenrossi]

Look at the breakdown last season of North, Central, and Southern regions on stocking schedule. North was to receive ~17670, Central, ~12910, and South ~14,500. Total of 45,080. That's assuming that many survive to be stocked I suppose? How can one argue one region received more than the other when the numbers reflect otherwise? Perception is not always reality...

Now...Read the council minutes in December, a contract was awarded to purchase 56,000 birds. Larger number of birds with potential January stocking days. So now you're guaranteed 56K birds basically.. 10,000 more birds are being purchased than were raised..and the PQ stamp remains $40. And yet guys still are looking for something to complain about....

Edited April 3, 2019 by chenrossi

[Bucksnbows]

The reallocation issue is several years old now.  I agree that they could have done more to avoid "penalizing" us up north by reducing numbers over a couple of years instead of just pulling the rug out from under us, but that is not related to closing the Rockport hatchery.

[Lunatic]

15 minutes ago, chenrossi said:

Look at the breakdown last season of North, Central, and Southern regions on stocking schedule. North was to receive ~17670, Central, ~12910, and South ~14,500. Total of 45,080. That's assuming that many survive to be stocked I suppose? How can one argue one region received more than the other when the numbers reflect otherwise? Perception is not always reality...

 

According to your numbers central received 27% less than north and south 17% less. That's how you argue this point. no?

[RPK0620]

19 minutes ago, Foggy Mountain said:

Here’s another issue. Price birds out. 40 bucks is actually a real bargain for what we get

As I have said in the past, guys will spend $40+ on a round of drinks or more on just 0ne bet at a casino but complain about spending $40 for 3 months of bird hunting.

Unfortunately today many do not enjoy the hunting experience unless they get their limit within an hour max.

[chenrossi]

24 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

According to your numbers central received 27% less than north and south 17% less. That's how you argue this point. no?

No. I'm referring to north and south complaining over who got what. It is illegitimate IMO to just look at crude numbers and cry who got more or less (I'm arguing that illegitimacy) without considering how the field acreage and amount of hunters in that area, which is accounted for in the allocation formula. So, more hunters within proximity and more land area eligible for stocking, northern region WMAs would receive more birds. Now...if the demographic of our stamp purchasers shifted (say more PQ purchasers in central and southern region), then it makes sense that more birds are allocated to those areas because proxiiuty to stamp buyer is a variable in how birds are allocated. The land area available is going to remain the way I see it, but bird allocation is going to vary depending on PQ hunters within that 40-mile radius established. 

So I don't see anyone receiving "more or less" for any malicious reason but guys seem so convinced of this I feel and frankly, I don't understand it. But who knows, I'm not a pheasant hunter. I'm an outside perspective. I see it as birds being distributed based on where PQ buyers are located within a given time. And things change.

Think of it this way. If there were 10,000 hunters up north in 2018, and say 5,000 down south in 2018..hunters up north had 20,000 pheasant distributed and south only say 10,000. In 2019, the number of hunters up north was cut in half and they doubled down south, should those regions still receive the same number of pheasants? Absolutely not. The region would receive less, but with less hunters, the same proportion of birds relative would still remain...

Edited April 3, 2019 by chenrossi

[TouchofGrey]

I hunt Black River. Since the new formula went into effect there has been a significant amount of less birds.

I don't hunt with a dog and through working areas other guys don't go I did okay.

I firmly believe that the State is purposely reducing the birds for the sole reason to appease the property owners adjacent to the WMA.. less birds less noise by mcmansions

[Lunatic]

19 minutes ago, chenrossi said:

No. I'm referring to north and south complaining over who got what. It is illegitimate IMO to just look at crude numbers and cry who got more or less (I'm arguing that illegitimacy) without considering how the field acreage and amount of hunters in that area, which is accounted for in the allocation formula. So, more hunters within proximity and more land area eligible for stocking, northern region WMAs would receive more birds. Now...if the demographic of our stamp purchasers shifted (say more PQ purchasers in central and southern region), then it makes sense that more birds are allocated to those areas because proxiiuty to stamp buyer is a variable in how birds are allocated. The land area available is going to remain the way I see it, but bird allocation is going to vary depending on PQ hunters within that 40-mile radius established. 

So I don't see anyone receiving "more or less" for any malicious reason but guys seem so convinced of this I feel and frankly, I don't understand it. But who knows, I'm not a pheasant hunter. I'm an outside perspective. I see it as birds being distributed based on where PQ buyers are located within a given time. And things change.

Think of it this way. If there were 10,000 hunters up north in 2018, and say 5,000 down south in 2018..hunters up north had 20,000 pheasant distributed and south only say 10,000. In 2019, the number of hunters up north was cut in half and they doubled down south, should those regions still receive the same number of pheasants? Absolutely not. The region would receive less, but with less hunters, the same proportion of birds relative would still remain...

I fully agree with your methodology but your post I responded to had non of it. You had 3 numbers, N,C andS, followed by " How can one argue one region received more than the other when the numbers reflect otherwise? Perception is not always reality...", while the numbers clearly showed one area getting more.

So yes I agree it is not as simple as looking at numbers of birds but  do you have the numbers on some of the other factors, like area or population, to  dispute the notion of one area getting more?

Not looking for and argument, just info.

 

[chenrossi]

14 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

I fully agree with your methodology but your post I responded to had non of it. You had 3 numbers, N,C andS, followed by " How can one argue one region received more than the other when the numbers reflect otherwise? Perception is not always reality...", while the numbers clearly showed one area getting more.

So yes I agree it is not as simple as looking at numbers of birds but  do you have the numbers on some of the other factors, like area or population, to  dispute the notion of one area getting more?

Not looking for and argument, just info.

 

I know you are not looking to argue. Always a good debate. I was pretty vague in my initial post frankly because I feel like this gets beat like a dead horse.

Think about this..6 of the 8 WMAs in the north that get stocked are within the top 10 that have the most field-stocked acres in the state. One of the criteria for the allocation formula is the number of PQ hunters in a 40-mile radius of that stocked area. Draw lines from Philipsburg to Newark, Highpoint to Somerville, just for argument sake. A 40-mile radius darn near covers up North Jersey. 7 of the 10 most densely populated counties exist in North Jersey. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume amongst a higher density of people, more hunters are going to exist within that region. More field-stocked acreage in proximity to more hunters should result in a distribution of birds that reflects that. Now if less people participated up north reducing the number of hunters within that radius, but more guys were participating that lived in proximity in the central or southern region, then yes, a different distribution of birds to account for that should be allocated. A region is not just arbitrarily receiving more or less birds than another is basically what I'm saying lol and I tend to believe this is what guys like to believe. At least that's my perspective.

[Batsto]

10 minutes ago, chenrossi said:

I know you are not looking to argue. Always a good debate. I was pretty vague in my initial post frankly because I feel like this gets beat like a dead horse.

Think about this..6 of the 8 WMAs in the north that get stocked are within the top 10 that have the most field-stocked acres in the state. One of the criteria for the allocation formula is the number of PQ hunters in a 40-mile radius of that stocked area. Draw lines from Philipsburg to Newark, Highpoint to Somerville, just for argument sake. A 40-mile radius darn near covers up North Jersey. 7 of the 10 most densely populated counties exist in North Jersey. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume amongst a higher density of people, more hunters are going to exist within that region. More field-stocked acreage in proximity to more hunters should result in a distribution of birds that reflects that. Now if less people participated up north reducing the number of hunters within that radius, but more guys were participating that lived in proximity in the central or southern region, then yes, a different distribution of birds to account for that should be allocated. A region is not just arbitrarily receiving more or less birds than another is basically what I'm saying lol and I tend to believe this is what guys like to believe. At least that's my perspective.

Well put Chenrossi!

I never used to complain about Bird allocations, but this year those bird counters ripped off S. JERSEY WMAs. Fuzzy math in my opinion. Numbers still favor northern WMAs. 

[Lunatic]

24 minutes ago, chenrossi said:

I know you are not looking to argue. Always a good debate. I was pretty vague in my initial post frankly because I feel like this gets beat like a dead horse.

Think about this..6 of the 8 WMAs in the north that get stocked are within the top 10 that have the most field-stocked acres in the state. One of the criteria for the allocation formula is the number of PQ hunters in a 40-mile radius of that stocked area. Draw lines from Philipsburg to Newark, Highpoint to Somerville, just for argument sake. A 40-mile radius darn near covers up North Jersey. 7 of the 10 most densely populated counties exist in North Jersey. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume amongst a higher density of people, more hunters are going to exist within that region. More field-stocked acreage in proximity to more hunters should result in a distribution of birds that reflects that. Now if less people participated up north reducing the number of hunters within that radius, but more guys were participating that lived in proximity in the central or southern region, then yes, a different distribution of birds to account for that should be allocated. A region is not just arbitrarily receiving more or less birds than another is basically what I'm saying lol and I tend to believe this is what guys like to believe. At least that's my perspective.

Ok, thanks, yes it makes sense

[Mixbaghunter]

I get the whole allacation thing but they but more birds at the gap. You have to look at what they stock pre wma black river and Berkshire valley get less bird and the hunting has suck the last 3 year. I hunt for more then a hour not looking to get my limit in 5 minutes. But I know how it was and I know there where days they didn't  stock at all.