Yeah, ironically the OTNJ guys have offered solutions to prevent that (gates from being damaged) from occurring. We shall see if DEP goes in that direction.
Off Road Abuse of Wharton State Forest Continues
- Thread starter Jason Howell
- Start date
- Status
I believe credit should be given to all OTNJ, not just some of its members.
I never said anything about hypocrisy, and never meant to address that (on purpose). I merely answered a question.
That's what we (OTNJ and this website) wanted too. However all last summer the PPA tried their damnedest to paint any anti MAP person, and especially the "so called leadership" (their words about the OTNJ people who were vocal in the fight) in the worst possible light.
All reasonable people from both sides of the argument agree that targeted closures are one (important) facet of a real comprehensive plan for managing Wharton. There are extremists on both sides of the issue: plenty of "muddin" types think that all public land should be open and free for anybody to use because they pay taxes. (Try that with the White House and see how far you get.) The extremists from the other side are, sadly, the entire leadership of the PPA. There's no pragmatism from them. There's no compromise. They're totally unwilling to even consider an alternate viewpoint. It's their way or the high way.
In all honesty, more people who are members of the PPA should take a look and ask themselves if the way that the PPA is behaving is really in the best interests of the pinelands. I am sure more people than ever know about the PPA and not in a positive light. Had this been planned out better, with outreach to user groups from the DEP and the PPA, we might have avoided what happened last summer and actually had come together with a real, workable, plan that everyone could have been mostly satisfied. There was no reason for things to escalate the way they did.
People should also take a moment and consider that the PPA has basically said that they've assisted with the creation of the MAP for the DEP, if not actually created it themselves. Do we really want special interest groups of any kind trying to dictate policy? How would people feel if I unilaterally came up with a MAP that closed 50% of the roads and used my back-door connections to get it pushed through? I know that this is Jersey and we're used to back alley deals but, really, we should be outraged at this and every other thing like this that happens in our government.
Like I said they aren't going to stop till they have the pines behind glass and only them can go there
At (most) times is seems as the other side is entirely made up of the PPA leadership, NJCF leadership and maybe a forest superintendent. It certainly doesn't seem like there are many outside of that group. Scary they got so close to implementing their plan.
Isn't this the same definition of the MAP
Well said Ben! The way the PPA dealt with this is disgraceful and I have absolutely no faith in them at all. More than anything the comment that we here at NJPB would forget irked me more than anything. I will never forget that.
That is what I meant and it has proven to be effective. The area that was blocked on Sandy Causeway by volunteers last year remains blocked. This blockage has held for a year in an area that was being heavily abused, there were several attempts by mudders to get back in, but they failed. They even tore the fiberglass "no motor vehicle" stakes out of the ground after what appeared to be much digging, but gave up actually trying to get into the pond. The volunteers should be congratulated on this victory.
Jason, what about the other areas? Deep Run, Quarter Mile, East Stokes Rd, etc?
Would you propose putting permanent "pinch point" blockades in place there?
How about when the guys who spend all that money on Jeeps and 4Wheels are shut down in those areas, and decide to encroach into other areas, like the Friendship bogs. Will you blockade Hawkins Bridge Road from the Bridge to Carranza Rd?
Tsqurd does make a good point, where will it end?
The way I see it, you will ultimately shut down the entire forest. Wharton will become a pine tree museum. Open to kayakers (who can rent their kayaks at Pinelands Adventures) and people able to hike 10 miles in a day.
And when the kayakers walk on "environmentally sensitve wetlands", will they be banned too?
Last edited:
I'm going to close this thread tonight since I feel like we're entering the realm of circular arguments that really aren't productive to real discourse. So get your last comments in before 7 or 8-ish.
Feel free to start a new thread if you have something you'd like to say/discuss but after 5 pages (so far) I think this thread needs to retire.
Feel free to start a new thread if you have something you'd like to say/discuss but after 5 pages (so far) I think this thread needs to retire.
I have been watching this thread from the side lines because you all are probably aware of my own thoughts on this topic and are sick of hearing from me. However, since we have Jason engaged, I'll just add this: In my real life, I'm an engineer and a manager. All I do all day every day is solve problems. I'm handed a problem, I look at the constraints, I look at alternatives and choose a solution. In nearly every case, due to the constraints, the solution is a compromise solution. I could be an idealist and always propose idealized solutions but if I did, I would have been fired years ago because my solutions would have never worked. (because of the constraints) I'm the consummate pragmatist.
So when I got involved in this topic, I applied my work experience to this situation. We have a problem: ORVs are damaging the forest. We have constraints: the outdoor community will never accept mass closures. The DEP and the environmental groups will never accept doing nothing. I need to operate within those two simple constraints: I've accepted that it will never again be like it was in July 2015 and will have look for common ground. I have used my influence to help shape OTNJ in that way. Looking for this common ground is why I support the DEP's current plan and why OTNJ has proposed the Jemima project. I'm willing to accept compromise. The problem I see with the PPA currently is that they don't recognize one of the constraints of this game: the public will not accept mass closures as an answer. So any solution that suggests that will fail. This is a constraint on the solution. It cannot be changed. It will never go away. We will fight that to the end and despite what Jaclyn thinks, we will never forget. The PPA needs to recognize that constraint and move toward the middle. If they don't, they will continue to do more and more harm to themselves and they won't actually help solve this problem.
Their other problem is with honesty and trustworthiness. Jason, Carlton, Jaclyn, have all distorted the truth and used people and this is highly visible to everyone except (I guess) themselves. The ends do not justify the means. Despite how ugly this whole thing has become, I held myself to a high standard of honesty and integrity and so have many (but not all) of the other MAP opponents. I can sleep at night. When we originally proposed the Jemima project to the Commissioner, we considered bringing the PPA to work with us. However, we agreed that we could not trust them because of their past behavior and instead kept it a secret until it was approved. That is a shame and it was a missed opportunity, but we had no choice, they forced our hand. Perhaps someday if some integrity is demonstrated, we can engage in future opportunities.
So when I got involved in this topic, I applied my work experience to this situation. We have a problem: ORVs are damaging the forest. We have constraints: the outdoor community will never accept mass closures. The DEP and the environmental groups will never accept doing nothing. I need to operate within those two simple constraints: I've accepted that it will never again be like it was in July 2015 and will have look for common ground. I have used my influence to help shape OTNJ in that way. Looking for this common ground is why I support the DEP's current plan and why OTNJ has proposed the Jemima project. I'm willing to accept compromise. The problem I see with the PPA currently is that they don't recognize one of the constraints of this game: the public will not accept mass closures as an answer. So any solution that suggests that will fail. This is a constraint on the solution. It cannot be changed. It will never go away. We will fight that to the end and despite what Jaclyn thinks, we will never forget. The PPA needs to recognize that constraint and move toward the middle. If they don't, they will continue to do more and more harm to themselves and they won't actually help solve this problem.
Their other problem is with honesty and trustworthiness. Jason, Carlton, Jaclyn, have all distorted the truth and used people and this is highly visible to everyone except (I guess) themselves. The ends do not justify the means. Despite how ugly this whole thing has become, I held myself to a high standard of honesty and integrity and so have many (but not all) of the other MAP opponents. I can sleep at night. When we originally proposed the Jemima project to the Commissioner, we considered bringing the PPA to work with us. However, we agreed that we could not trust them because of their past behavior and instead kept it a secret until it was approved. That is a shame and it was a missed opportunity, but we had no choice, they forced our hand. Perhaps someday if some integrity is demonstrated, we can engage in future opportunities.
- Status