Search results

Reasonable access for me is maintaining as open most of the roads shown on the topo maps (something like what the Pinelands Commission adopted as the baseline). That would mean closing roads that were never intended to become public thoroughfares, such as lanes cut by firefighters in order to...

No, the problem is two-fold. (1) We don't have effective enforcement against existing regulations, and (2) we need more people who will be part of the solution. The only constraints on illegal riding for which I'm advocating are effective enforcement against obviously illegal riding, such as...

I think it's possible to make a distinction between advocating for access, if that's what you want to do, and carrying water for the illegal riders. To deny that we have a catastrophic trend toward ever-growing levels of illegal riding, one would have to be either uninformed or dishonest. All...

I can't really figure it out, but I'm inclined to think that the framers of the CMP expected that some official body would designate which lanes of travel should be designated as legal lanes of travel in the Pinelands. They were aware, evidently, that motorized recreation has negative ecological...

The confusion about "off-road" is a separate topic from what is meant by "designated." The expression "off-road" is confusing because different people mean different things when they use the expression. If you take as the definition of "off-roading" literally leaving any semblance of a road and...

Well, the issue isn't what I mean by that word. It's what the CMP means. The sentence is, "Other motor vehicles may operate on public lands for recreational purposes on public highways and areas on land designated prior to August 8, 1980 for such use by state and local governmental entities...

Yes, awkward, to say the least. And I agree that the second sentence apparently states an exception to the first. But I'm not aware of any state or local action that designated any Pinelands areas for "off-roading" before 1980. That takes us into the quagmire of what is meant by "off-roading."...

They do seem to contradict each other. Maybe what they meant to say was something like, "No motor vehicle other than fire, police or emergency vehicles or those vehicles used for the administration or maintenance of any public land shall be operated upon publicly owned land within the...

The problem I'm having is with the interpretation of the CMP. It says: 7:50-6.143 General requirements (a) All recreational facilities in the Pinelands shall comply with the following requirements: 1. No power vessel in excess of 10 horsepower shall operate on waters of the State within the...

#FixOurParksNJ

We've tried a lot of things. Barriers, plantings, signs, calls to police. We've spent thousands of dollars trying any and every common-sense measure we can think of.

I support the State Park Police, and I definitely agree that some of the problems you cite apply sometimes, and in some situations. Their ability to enforce would certainly be enhanced if they had better funding, but I think we should all encourage them to enforce more strictly using the...

Yes, but what do you find specific to the CMP? For example, I have been hearing for a long time that the Enduro events are specifically endorsed in the CMP, but I just heard the other day that's not true at all. Not that I'm opposed to Enduro events--assuming they are conducted appropriately. I...

So the issue is that when you go "there" are you going "there" in accordance with the legal constraints. What, exactly, are the legal constraints?

I'm trying to understand this in the context of recreation versus access. Conceivably, lots of people have legitimate claims to access for some specific purpose. It seems to me that is a separate issue from claims to access for undefined recreation.

I don't claim to be any expert. I wonder what the CMP actually says.

Anybody familiar with the regulations regarding motorized recreation in the Pinelands? I read some stuff in the CMP, but then I wonder if there's any actual compliance or enforcement. Not sure what to make of it...

Where are the areas that can be designated for these stakeholders to legally use? Lots of people have proposed this theory over the last twenty years, but nobody seems to know where these places are.

Thank you. A lot of good points here. I was just out there today, in my off-road package F150. That's technically an "ORV." The us-vs-them isn't between law-abiding ORV users and conservationists. It's between the law-abiding and the law-breakers. The issue over road closures is a nuanced issue...

Here's what I said: "I do understand that, if we ask why authorities are closing certain roads, and we are not given the reason, but are told, instead, to just walk, that's unacceptable. In the case of T&E species, they may not be able to give us the precise reason, because sometimes disclosing...