ATV enthusiast rolls out plan for Pinelands
- Thread starter 92 Blazer Jeff
- Start date
Of course Al has the first response.
I just want to point out:
Then why is it okay for tax dollars to be used to help purchase nature preserves such as the Franklin Parker Preserve when the majority of people in the state won't visit? Why is it okay for tax dollars to be spent maintaining bike trails that most will never use? Why do we invest state money into things like the boat launch at Crowley Landing that only benefit a handful of people?
The answer is that, as a civilized society, we value people's access to recreational facilities, even if we do not partake in them. This is what it means to live as a member of a greater whole. Sometimes you're forced to accept that people have a right to do things that you don't like and/or aren't interested in.
This I sort of agree with. As far as a place to go "off-roading" the Pine Barrens are rather boring. There's no (real) hills to climb up, most of the topography is flat and boring. The only "excitement" is trying to go through mud, which I think we all agree that too much of that is not a good thing - not for the environment and not for other off-roaders who might not necessarily want to have their vehicles swallowed up in holes made by people with larger/more capable vehicles. I know that, despite driving a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (a very capable off-road vehicle) I largely avoided big looking puddles (on roads) for fear of getting stuck or breaking something.
I've heard this line trotted out so many times. First of all, there's not many parcels of land large enough for a decent ORV park for sale. Secondly, even if someone was able to purchase one in the Pines, you can be damned sure that Al will be the first person at the Pinelands Commission meetings telling them to either block the sale or not allow people to do anything with the land. Then there's all the NIMBY's around. When the state wanted to actually build the ORV parks they promised pretty much every municipality rallied against the state locating it in their borders. And finally, why should organizations like the PPA and the Nature Conservancy be able to use public money to buy land for their interests but this other special interest group be told to pound sand?
Climb down off your fucking high horse, Al. First of all, the trash cleanups people are talking about are massive in scope and far larger than anything you or the PPA have done. Hauling (literally) tons of trash out of the pines year after year is not a big deal, it's a HUGE deal. Maybe they're not rehabbing wetlands, but they are hauling out garbage, putting up fences and gates around Jemima - things that he hasn't been involved with.
It's clear that Al thinks that he's the self appointed savior to the pines. HE has all the answers, and only HIS way is the way to go. Yet he drove around the pines for many years taking photographs to publish in a book. Now that that's done he would love to see everyone who doesn't experience nature in HIS APPROVED WAY shut out.
Sorry Al, you're just showing the world that you're just loud, cranky, and selfish.
I just want to point out:
Then why is it okay for tax dollars to be used to help purchase nature preserves such as the Franklin Parker Preserve when the majority of people in the state won't visit? Why is it okay for tax dollars to be spent maintaining bike trails that most will never use? Why do we invest state money into things like the boat launch at Crowley Landing that only benefit a handful of people?
The answer is that, as a civilized society, we value people's access to recreational facilities, even if we do not partake in them. This is what it means to live as a member of a greater whole. Sometimes you're forced to accept that people have a right to do things that you don't like and/or aren't interested in.
This I sort of agree with. As far as a place to go "off-roading" the Pine Barrens are rather boring. There's no (real) hills to climb up, most of the topography is flat and boring. The only "excitement" is trying to go through mud, which I think we all agree that too much of that is not a good thing - not for the environment and not for other off-roaders who might not necessarily want to have their vehicles swallowed up in holes made by people with larger/more capable vehicles. I know that, despite driving a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (a very capable off-road vehicle) I largely avoided big looking puddles (on roads) for fear of getting stuck or breaking something.
I've heard this line trotted out so many times. First of all, there's not many parcels of land large enough for a decent ORV park for sale. Secondly, even if someone was able to purchase one in the Pines, you can be damned sure that Al will be the first person at the Pinelands Commission meetings telling them to either block the sale or not allow people to do anything with the land. Then there's all the NIMBY's around. When the state wanted to actually build the ORV parks they promised pretty much every municipality rallied against the state locating it in their borders. And finally, why should organizations like the PPA and the Nature Conservancy be able to use public money to buy land for their interests but this other special interest group be told to pound sand?
Climb down off your fucking high horse, Al. First of all, the trash cleanups people are talking about are massive in scope and far larger than anything you or the PPA have done. Hauling (literally) tons of trash out of the pines year after year is not a big deal, it's a HUGE deal. Maybe they're not rehabbing wetlands, but they are hauling out garbage, putting up fences and gates around Jemima - things that he hasn't been involved with.
It's clear that Al thinks that he's the self appointed savior to the pines. HE has all the answers, and only HIS way is the way to go. Yet he drove around the pines for many years taking photographs to publish in a book. Now that that's done he would love to see everyone who doesn't experience nature in HIS APPROVED WAY shut out.
Sorry Al, you're just showing the world that you're just loud, cranky, and selfish.
It is done in the Adirondacks and it works. Just one example;
http://lewiscountyny.org/content/Departments/View/48?
www.adirondackstughill.com/maps/ATVMap.pdf
as well as New Hampshire;
http://www.nhstateparks.org/Activities/atving/
and Pennsylvania;
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/recreation/atv/atvplacestoride/index.htm
http://lewiscountyny.org/content/Departments/View/48?
www.adirondackstughill.com/maps/ATVMap.pdf
as well as New Hampshire;
http://www.nhstateparks.org/Activities/atving/
and Pennsylvania;
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/recreation/atv/atvplacestoride/index.htm
And Maine too. But then again, the "poor" citizens of those states don't have the PPA looking out for them.
Just for the record without giving any opinion, I just want to clarify the fact Al was at the Jemima gate installing project. Granted, he was talking photo's for the state or himself but he was there and really not physically in shape to help out.
New Jersey is the most densely poplulated state, three times the per capita population of NY, four times the population of PA, and 27 times the population of Maine.
http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/state_population_2010_psm.htm
Is there any real reason to think that Wharton, with an extremely meager budget, and cannot maintain the roads currently approved, could add, and maintain a hundred or more miles of ATV purposed roads?
Unlike other states, NJ has a huge population in the state iteself, and is bordered by Phily and NY. This means a much larger population of people that own ATV's and vehicles with off road capability.
Some may view Al's view as hypocritical, but I am guessing that he drove legally through the pines, like everyone else here does.
And I am skeptical of Demsey's quote. It sounds great but I have a problem believing it would work in practice.
I am admittedly coming late to this, have not put up signs, or gates unlike many of you, but logic tells me that opening 150 miles of ATV roads in the most densely populated area of the country will lead to more problems, and ensure the PPA would succeed in shutting all of the roads down.
Last edited:
The DEP opened a off road park in Woodbine in 2013. It is now closed because no one used it.
http://s.nj.com/m9RPWaW
http://s.nj.com/m9RPWaW
For years there was an off road park in Chatsworth, yes, it was on private land, but as I understand it the park was maintained by a group of volunteers and seemed to be quite successful. At least judging by the activity at the entrance every time I drove by. That suggests to me, in theory, if set up properly the concept can work. Maybe someone with better knowledge of the park could comment.
As far as the Woodbine park, the article also states the state received no bidders to run the park, that sounds as if there was some bigger viability issue. From the quick google search I just did, it sounds as if the area permitted was only a few acres and there were some very restrictive requirements.
As far as the Woodbine park, the article also states the state received no bidders to run the park, that sounds as if there was some bigger viability issue. From the quick google search I just did, it sounds as if the area permitted was only a few acres and there were some very restrictive requirements.
Eminent domain chatsworth pit reopen off road park make trail loop for atv down to 72 back to main pit im sure chatworth would welcome the revenue
Seem that they had a nice compromise. Would seem the NJCF, given their resources, could play a major role in coming up with a positive solution & help reduce illegal ORV activity, if they had the will.
Just found this:
So much for the restoration, it looks like the NJCF trashed a place that was well cared for by ORV enthusiast, pretty ironic. Has anyone been back there recently?
So much for the restoration, it looks like the NJCF trashed a place that was well cared for by ORV enthusiast, pretty ironic. Has anyone been back there recently?