Spotlight Article on Off-Roading
- Thread starter bobpbx
- Start date
We got another map 
by guess who?
http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/bl...eases-damage-report-for-wharton-state-forest/
by guess who?http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/bl...eases-damage-report-for-wharton-state-forest/
Umm...I might be wrong but the article is about Wharton. The map that is included looks more like the entire southern half of the state. Might be misleading a bit....againWe got another map
http://www.pinelandsalliance.org/bl...eases-damage-report-for-wharton-state-forest/
Umm...I might be wrong but the article is about Wharton. The map that is included looks more like the entire southern half of the state. Might be misleading a bit....again
The image is broad because if the close up view was used it would be like an instruction book for the mudders.
One of those markers is right down the road from where I live in Estell Manor, and there appear to be a bunch in Peaslee WMA too….
My point exactly. I'm not saying there's not damage there but you are far from Wharton where the actual study happened.
Well they haven't really explained what the markers represent. I don't doubt there's damage at those locations, I see (and hear) ORV's all the time down here and have no problem with the Pinelands Commission studying the issue and working on a plan.
As long as the plan does not interfere with the law abiding citizen who uses state land. I don't want them penalizing me for some idiots idea of pleasure.
I don't either but there has been not been a PLC study done outside of Wharton yet. The problem is in the article itself. The image provided is misleading to title of the article which is
Pinelands Commission Releases Damage Report for Wharton State Forest.
It's a visual representation of data PPA submitted to the Commission. The Commission itself added more than 100 points to the Wharton section. The Commission has not looked into other areas yet.
So it is just more inaccurate propaganda to mislead. The 'mudders' already know the spots or there wouldn't be any issues
So it is just more inaccurate propaganda to mislead. The 'mudders' already know the spots or there wouldn't be any issues
The mudders are not one contiguous group. You have thousands of people from the tristate area looking at the Pinelands as the place to go to do this stuff. Not every point on that map has been beaten to a total pulp. It would be a bad idea to share it in detail.
Thousands? Really? Must be a long line. And you can verify that claim? Just more hyperbole. The PPA loses more credibility with every claim such as this. And, FTR, I have no one looking to do this stuff.
Last edited:
The real study is posted on the home page of the Pinelands Commission. Apparently they are not afraid and aren't withholding information
http://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/presentations/10 14 2016 Wharton Disturbed Sites slides.pdf
http://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/presentations/10 14 2016 Wharton Disturbed Sites slides.pdf
Good info that will hopefully be shared with law enforcement to concentrate on areas.
Would seem the police are doing just that, regardless of what the propaganda says -
From the NJ Spotlight article link in post#12:
"Six state park officers, up from only two, are now assigned to patrol the forest, and they are writing more tickets, Texel said. From March to July this year, officers recorded 629 violations by off-road drivers, compared with 679 for all of 2015."
I'm glad to see they're having some success in Wharton. But Wharton is only 12% of the pinelands… what about the other 88% (from which, IIRC, they actually transferred enforcement resources)? Is there some plan to address the big picture?
Last edited: