What Happened? So, What's Next?
Preamble: Every situation and circumstance surrounding downsizing pheasant programs is different. However, consistently there is a pattern of excuses and justifications that do not pan-out and others benefit at the expense of pheasant hunters, who receive insufficient compensation or none at all. The opposing element likes to make pheasant hunters feel a need to defend themselves. But the truth is, pheasant programs do not cost, they pay - the pheasant’s contribution to hunting, conservation funding, and local economies is undeniable. However, when someone figures out a way to make these programs pay more, or divert their funding, an entirely different story is spun. Although these spins have common elements and themes, each is different. Here is the NJ story from January 2019.
So, what happened?
Rockport Game Farm began operations in 1912 and started releasing pheasant in 1923. That is close to 100 years and for almost a Century, Rockport operated with only a few minor hiccups- such as some weather-related damage. But each year, hunters managed to fund it without tax appropriations. For five human generations the pheasant program never caused disease in the environment or made people sick in NJ or anywhere else in the United States.
$1.3 million dollars derived from the New Jersey Hunter and Angler Fund was invested into Rockport in 2010. A short nine years later, there is an urgent necessity to shut it down. The reason given is that changes to NPIP will increase operating costs. So, what happened?
NPIP is the National Poultry Improvement Plan. It is a set of criteria to follow when maintaining captive birds which is designed to reduce the chance certain bird disease will spread from captive bird flocks. As far as we know, participation in the NPIP is voluntary, and not mandated by law. Therefore, we believe the Division's participation is voluntary and can be terminated if it
becomes cost-prohibitive. Thus, the decision to close Rockport is a choice, not a funding dilemma.
There are some other considerations relating to the NPIP. If it is correct that NPIP compliance is not required by law; the private farm(s) that will supply the Division with pheasant are not required to adhere to the NPIP; unless it is stipulated in the Department’s contract. Such a stipulation would be hard to enforce, however. Likewise, unless prohibited by the Division, someone could lease Rockport to raise captive birds, including pheasant, and not be required to follow the NPIP. In addition, there are many captive flocks across the state and the nation that are not required to follow the NPIP guidelines; and it is reasonable to assume that the flock owners do not voluntarily follow them.
Nevertheless; the NJ Fish and Game Council "voted" to close Rockport in February 2018. Below is a description of this council, the members, it's function, and the law that authorizes it:
Rockport Game Farm began operations in 1912 and started releasing pheasant in 1923. That is close to 100 years and for almost a Century, Rockport operated with only a few minor hiccups- such as some weather-related damage. But each year, hunters managed to fund it without tax appropriations. For five human generations the pheasant program never caused disease in the environment or made people sick in NJ or anywhere else in the United States.
$1.3 million dollars derived from the New Jersey Hunter and Angler Fund was invested into Rockport in 2010. A short nine years later, there is an urgent necessity to shut it down. The reason given is that changes to NPIP will increase operating costs. So, what happened?
NPIP is the National Poultry Improvement Plan. It is a set of criteria to follow when maintaining captive birds which is designed to reduce the chance certain bird disease will spread from captive bird flocks. As far as we know, participation in the NPIP is voluntary, and not mandated by law. Therefore, we believe the Division's participation is voluntary and can be terminated if it
becomes cost-prohibitive. Thus, the decision to close Rockport is a choice, not a funding dilemma.
There are some other considerations relating to the NPIP. If it is correct that NPIP compliance is not required by law; the private farm(s) that will supply the Division with pheasant are not required to adhere to the NPIP; unless it is stipulated in the Department’s contract. Such a stipulation would be hard to enforce, however. Likewise, unless prohibited by the Division, someone could lease Rockport to raise captive birds, including pheasant, and not be required to follow the NPIP. In addition, there are many captive flocks across the state and the nation that are not required to follow the NPIP guidelines; and it is reasonable to assume that the flock owners do not voluntarily follow them.
Nevertheless; the NJ Fish and Game Council "voted" to close Rockport in February 2018. Below is a description of this council, the members, it's function, and the law that authorizes it:
The NJ Fish and Game Council, appointed by the Governor, oversees the Division's operations and appoints a Director (subject to the Governor's approval). The Fish and Game Council was created by Law in 1945 (N.J.S.A.13:1B-24) and succeeded the former Board of Fish and Game Commissioners. The Fish and Game Council was transferred to the Department of Conservation in 1948 and its powers were to be "exercised and performed through the Division of Fish and Game in the department." The Division of Fish and Game was placed under the supervision of a director who was given the power to "administer the work of such Division under the direction and supervision of the commissioner." The commissioner in turn was charged by the legislature with the responsibility for the administration of the work of the department, to appoint and remove officers and other personnel and to generally perform all of the executive functions necessary to administer the department. This law established the composition of the Council as follows: three members of council shall be farmers, recommended to the Governor for appointment by the agricultural convention; six members shall be sportsmen, recommended to
the Governor for appointment by the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs; and two members shall be commercial fishermen. One farmer representative and two sportsmen representatives in the council shall be chosen from among residents of any of the following counties - Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Sussex and Warren; one farmer representative and two sportsmen representatives in the council shall be chosen from among residents of any of the following counties - Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset and Union; and one farmer representative and two sportsmen representatives shall be chosen from among residents of any of the following counties - Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem. With the creation of the Marine Fisheries Council in 1979, the commercial fishing representatives were replaced on the Fish and Game Council with the Chairman of the Endangered and Nongame Species Advisory Committee and a public member "knowledgeable in land use management and soil conservation practices."
the Governor for appointment by the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs; and two members shall be commercial fishermen. One farmer representative and two sportsmen representatives in the council shall be chosen from among residents of any of the following counties - Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Sussex and Warren; one farmer representative and two sportsmen representatives in the council shall be chosen from among residents of any of the following counties - Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset and Union; and one farmer representative and two sportsmen representatives shall be chosen from among residents of any of the following counties - Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem. With the creation of the Marine Fisheries Council in 1979, the commercial fishing representatives were replaced on the Fish and Game Council with the Chairman of the Endangered and Nongame Species Advisory Committee and a public member "knowledgeable in land use management and soil conservation practices."
The State or the Division indicated that only non-restricted funds were used for Rockport. This implies that the State and/or Department can, at its discretion, dispose of Rockport in any way they choose and without accounting to stakeholders (pheasant hunters) or the general public. That is hard to believe; and we are not sure where the State of NJ and/or the Division is coming from with that...
Some examples of restricted funds would be Pittman-Robertson Funds, and revenue derived from hunting and fishing licenses. We are skeptical that PR funds were never applied to Rockport. If restricted funds have been applied to any aspect of the pheasant program; but not directly to Rockport; the law might still be interpreted in a way that views the pheasant program and Rockport as one in the same. This is relevant and significant because the WR Act prohibits failure to maintain PR projects or programs. Closing Rockport would constitute a failure to maintain an existing program. We also disagree that hunting and angling license revenue is not restricted funds. The Federal Wildlife Restoration Act and related State Assent Law are very clear and specific in that hunting and fishing license revenue is restricted. There is no case law that we are aware of that interprets these laws differently.
When Mansfield Town's local politicians got wind of the impending closure of Rockport, at least one of them went on the record stating that that they want Rockport will be used for some type of agriculture; and that (he) opposed decommissioning the operations area to add additional habitat to the Rockport WMA.
The Fish and Game Council voted on this February of 2018 and the town politico and the Division held a meeting on January 9, 2019. The final resolution is to lease out the facility for agricultural purposes under the justification that it would generate revenue for the Department of Environmental Protection (The Department). However, there was no indication that this revenue would be available for the pheasant program or to the Division of Fish and Wildlife (The Division).
Although sharecropping is a very common tool used by wildlife agencies to simultaneously manage habitat and generate revenue for agency projects and programs; wildlife agencies are not typically involved in leasing buildings. Leasing of the buildings appeases the concern of at least one Mansfield official with overgrown brush. Ironically, maintaining early stage habitats should be a top priority of the Division. Old farms revert into this habitat stage within a year without clear-cutting large trees and can be maintained in a state that favors game species with mowing, burning, and grazing by domestic livestock. It can also be maintained by a sharecropping lease that requires the tenant farmer uses wildlife-friendly methods and/or maintains additional acres for the Division through mowing, disking, planting, etc. Thus, it is apparent that the pressure from Mansfield Town Officials has guided the disposition of Rockport in a direction that; is at best, not optimal from a wildlife or hunting perspective; and at worst, is in violation of the Division’s legal mandates.
Some examples of restricted funds would be Pittman-Robertson Funds, and revenue derived from hunting and fishing licenses. We are skeptical that PR funds were never applied to Rockport. If restricted funds have been applied to any aspect of the pheasant program; but not directly to Rockport; the law might still be interpreted in a way that views the pheasant program and Rockport as one in the same. This is relevant and significant because the WR Act prohibits failure to maintain PR projects or programs. Closing Rockport would constitute a failure to maintain an existing program. We also disagree that hunting and angling license revenue is not restricted funds. The Federal Wildlife Restoration Act and related State Assent Law are very clear and specific in that hunting and fishing license revenue is restricted. There is no case law that we are aware of that interprets these laws differently.
When Mansfield Town's local politicians got wind of the impending closure of Rockport, at least one of them went on the record stating that that they want Rockport will be used for some type of agriculture; and that (he) opposed decommissioning the operations area to add additional habitat to the Rockport WMA.
The Fish and Game Council voted on this February of 2018 and the town politico and the Division held a meeting on January 9, 2019. The final resolution is to lease out the facility for agricultural purposes under the justification that it would generate revenue for the Department of Environmental Protection (The Department). However, there was no indication that this revenue would be available for the pheasant program or to the Division of Fish and Wildlife (The Division).
Although sharecropping is a very common tool used by wildlife agencies to simultaneously manage habitat and generate revenue for agency projects and programs; wildlife agencies are not typically involved in leasing buildings. Leasing of the buildings appeases the concern of at least one Mansfield official with overgrown brush. Ironically, maintaining early stage habitats should be a top priority of the Division. Old farms revert into this habitat stage within a year without clear-cutting large trees and can be maintained in a state that favors game species with mowing, burning, and grazing by domestic livestock. It can also be maintained by a sharecropping lease that requires the tenant farmer uses wildlife-friendly methods and/or maintains additional acres for the Division through mowing, disking, planting, etc. Thus, it is apparent that the pressure from Mansfield Town Officials has guided the disposition of Rockport in a direction that; is at best, not optimal from a wildlife or hunting perspective; and at worst, is in violation of the Division’s legal mandates.
Where do we go from here?
There is no opportunity to weigh in on the matter of keeping Rockport open. The decisions have been made and only filing a court injunction could block this.
That does not suggest that you should not express your views to the Council, the Division, the Department, and politicians. This action is wrong on a number of levels, and "sharecropping" should be used in a manner more consistent with the function of the Division.
It would be wise for bird hunters to organize and engage in a fight to ensure the future lease revenue derived from Rockport is allocated to the pheasant and quail program, and not used at the Department's or politico's discretion. Remember – although your license revenue is protected from misuse; revenue from sharecropping and other sources is NOT. The potential lease revenue from Rockport only exists because of a tradition of pheasant hunting in NJ that is more than 100 years old. It is not appropriate to make revenue-generating adjustments to a long-standing program and not put that revenue back into the program or fairly compensate the stakeholders (pheasant hunters).
If you want to lease Rockport, you can take a tour of it on January 29, at 11 am, but you need to call in advance. The number to call is 609-292-6685. Your bid and your business plan must be received by the Department on February 26. All that information is on the Division's website and the memos they promulgated during the first week in January. The facility is comprised of 492 acres, of which there are 160 acres comprising the "operational acres". The entire 492 acres is within the 1,274 acre Rockport WMA. The operational area is being offered for lease by the Department for an agricultural use.
There is no opportunity to weigh in on the matter of keeping Rockport open. The decisions have been made and only filing a court injunction could block this.
That does not suggest that you should not express your views to the Council, the Division, the Department, and politicians. This action is wrong on a number of levels, and "sharecropping" should be used in a manner more consistent with the function of the Division.
It would be wise for bird hunters to organize and engage in a fight to ensure the future lease revenue derived from Rockport is allocated to the pheasant and quail program, and not used at the Department's or politico's discretion. Remember – although your license revenue is protected from misuse; revenue from sharecropping and other sources is NOT. The potential lease revenue from Rockport only exists because of a tradition of pheasant hunting in NJ that is more than 100 years old. It is not appropriate to make revenue-generating adjustments to a long-standing program and not put that revenue back into the program or fairly compensate the stakeholders (pheasant hunters).
If you want to lease Rockport, you can take a tour of it on January 29, at 11 am, but you need to call in advance. The number to call is 609-292-6685. Your bid and your business plan must be received by the Department on February 26. All that information is on the Division's website and the memos they promulgated during the first week in January. The facility is comprised of 492 acres, of which there are 160 acres comprising the "operational acres". The entire 492 acres is within the 1,274 acre Rockport WMA. The operational area is being offered for lease by the Department for an agricultural use.