Search results

According to the courier post the meeting is 3/22 and the "media are barred from the invitation-only meeting"

Hey now, let's not let facts get in the way...

Any word on if there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on the new plan prior to implementation? Or was the open microphone complaint session in November it? I was assuming/hoping they would be taking feedback on a specific plan at some point.

Yes, ill-informed. Assumptions are being made to come to the conclusion you do. We don't know the route, we don't know how much private property is involved, we don't know the details behind any of the pictures you linked to were taken, nor what they mean when they say mud/water. I've seen...

And that is the exact ill-informed response for which Al and the PPA hope. While we all have a different ideal of how we would like to see MAP mess end, it is important that we work together to ensure responsible usage of the forest is allowed. We need to accept that we may not be in full...

Remember where Al is coming from, he and his group are preservationists - they want to keep people out to protect the forest. Perhaps you should give Rob a call, I'm sure he could provide some detail on what criteria he used to approve the route. The MAP closures were put on hold, so the roads...

The conjecture is they will be taking a bunch of jeeps into an area which they shouldn't. The Superintendent will be reviewing/approving the route before issuing any permits, which will ensure the route only includes roads that are open to the public, that will be able to handle the traffic. I...

Seems like a lot of jumping to conclusions here. In addition to what 46er said above, the event organizers would be required to supply maps of proposed routes as part of their permit application. The routes would then need the approval of the superintendent, and we all know where Rob stands on...

I would much rather this parcel be incorporated into the state forest, especially given a significant amount of the purchase price was made with public money, especially given how outspoken the NJCF was in support of the misguided MAP. Does anyone know the exact parcel that was purchased? Best...

I think the bigger question is: will the powers that be with in the PPA be willing to work with us and be willing to except all respectful forest users, even if not everyone fits into their preservation model? From the beginning, just about everyone on "our side" has seemed focused on...

Well for starters, PA is a for profit entity. Where do the profits go: to the owners. Who owns PA? Hint: if you are unsure check out PA's home page, there is a link to the owners (And one can find loads of information on the MAP on that site) So, if providing money to the people that want to...

"...reopen all recently closed roads except those that pose a risk to public safety or are environmentally sensitive." Call me cynical, but this sounds like one of those statements that on the surface everyone should agree to, but with out understanding what they consider a safety risk or...

Worth asking, but similar to a PAC, he may not have direct ties to those he supports.

Hey Maggie - Welcome! I read your post this morning and it's been on my mind all day. I had started a response, but woodjin pretty much captured the point I wanted to make before I hit "post". Just a point or two that I would like to add. I spent the better part of yesterday in Wharton and it...

What is the problem the MAP is supposed to address: illegal damage or access? Texel's quote in the Press should clear it up for everyone - it's all about limiting access: "The forest is being loved to death...How we balance recreation with access and protection of the environment is a huge topic."

Press attention from a biased reporter. She should be disclosing that Hutchinson is on the PPA staff and that he is reflecting the opinion of a group of activists, and not offering an opinion based on science

It's not asinine - it's business and it's real. And as I said: Beyond that we can agree to disagree. Now let's get back to our regularly scheduled program and not let a side issue cause a problem.

Not suggesting they would benefit more then any other business that offers the same services. People will be more inclined to use a canoe service if everyone is launching from the same few spots - "why deal with the headache parking at the launch, lugging the boat, etc. if we are going where...

And that is my point! Additionally, I don't want to suggest the PPA pushed the MAP solely with PA in mind, but at the same time one can not deny the business could benefit from restricting access.

Silly you. You don't need a canoe launch. You can simply pay the PPA's commercial venture to haul you in and out.