Chatsworth Atv park

[Ben Ruset]

So citizens as a whole should expect and accept government promises that don't get kept?

Let's all roll over and take whatever gets handed to us.

That's a great idea.

 

[whitingrider]

Welcome to the site, box986.
Here is the link to the policy directive from 2002 which took me from law- abiding enthusiast and transformed me to a life of crime: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/commissioner/policy/orvpolicy.htm
Off roaders pay for the right to travel off road on state land. There is a federal program known as the Recreational Trails Program which refunds a supposedly proportinate amount of the gasoline taxes collected to each of the 50 states. These monies are in the millions and have been flowing into New Jersey for years. So it seems after all the ORV crowd has been paying their own way.
In every other state ATV's and motorcycles are ridden responsibly and legally. West Virginia has some of the greatest trails thanks almost entirely on the cooperation of their state government and the federal RTP, adding millions to that economy.
I am going to upload some pictures to the members gallery of the devastation done by people tryng to block access to the Forked River area. Personally, I think it's worse than the tracks left by these machines and it doesn't seem to be working.
One last thing. I think that the best way to personally explore our great region is on an ATV.

 

[Boyd]

So citizens as a whole should expect and accept government promises that don't get kept?

I didn't say that. I said we shouldn't be surprised when politicians don't keep their promises. If you are then we must live in different states... or different countries!

I also said, if the ATV riders have enough political clout they will get what they want. Or if there was some legal obligation for the state to provide an off road park then they could use the courts. But AFAIK, neither of these approaches have worked so far or we wouldn't have threads like this one.

 

[Ben Ruset]

Is there some legal obligation to have State Lands open to hikers, canoeists, equestrians, kite flying enthusiasts, etc.?

It'd be nice to see the ORV community band together, but it's hard since they don't have the money or clout that the environmental groups have.

It starts with ATV's, and ends with the banning of all motorized vehicles on State Land. It's something that we all - even those of us like myself who do not own an ATV - need to be concerned about.

 

[Trailhead00]

I always thought it was funny that I couldn't take my ATV in the state forest but I could take my enduro because it was "street legal." I can do just as much damage with an eduro as I can with an ATV. I can probably do the most damage with my completely legal four wheel drive truck. The trails and roads are already established in the pines so why not let us use them? As long as the ATV is insured, registered and heck, make us throw plates on there like they do in other states, or would that make too much sense. Let ATV's only be able to ride on certain days or in certain areas. I'm sure there could be a compromise.

 

[Ben Ruset]

Enduro's are legal because because they're a class 1 ORV. If they banned class 1 ORV's then nobody would be able to drive a motor vehicle on state land, since the qualification for what goes in what class is if they're legal to be used on paved roads.

ATV's, quads, etc. are not.

 

[box986]

Welcome to the site, box986.

I am going to upload some pictures to the members gallery of the devastation done by people tryng to block access to the Forked River area. Personally, I think it's worse than the tracks left by these machines and it doesn't seem to be working.
One last thing. I think that the best way to personally explore our great region is on an ATV.

Thanks for the welcome whitingrider. I will be looking forward to those pictures. I agree, riding a ORV is a great way to explore the pinebarrens.

 

[whitingrider]

They're in the member gallery. Have fun
Tom

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

PPA trying to ban ORVs?

Yeah, I tangled with Jaclyn Rhoads a while ago when I posted a piece about the PPA and ORV's on my site a while ago.

http://forums.njpinebarrens.com/showthread.php?t=2896

The original editorial is gone because I had a talk with Russ Juleg and he had me convinced that the PPA wasn't really all about banning ORV's everywhere.

Hearing about Jaclyn Rhoads in this thread, perhaps it was unwise of me to delete that article. Maybe Russ or the rest of the PPA folk should chime in sometime.

Sorry I got distracted from this debate! I'm not the lead person for PPA on this, but I am involved, and I do have a personal interest in it. Please fill me in if I am missing some key points, but it seems I need to repeat what I said before. PPA has been falsely accused of trying to ban ORV's entirely. I can't stop anyone from misrepresenting PPA, but I can remind people to look for facts instead of rumors. Our position and statements on this have been published many times. We believe the laws should be enforced against illegal ORV activity. We believe that ORV recreation should be done in parks that are designed for the purpose, not on land that the public preserved for its natural resource values. We believe that any proposed ORV park should have to pass the same tests that any high-intensity development of land should pass. Find an appropriate site, make sure your development plan can be legitemately approved, buy it, and build your park, and so long as you play by the rules, you will hear no objection from PPA.

 

[Ben Ruset]

Right, however that seems to be not happening. And what will happen is that when Chatsworth closes, there will be a huge spike of people riding where they shouldn't be, and in the end, everybody will lose as a result.

It seems that it would be far better that Chatsworth continue to operate while the search for new parks continues.

It also seems that while Russ can deliver the message of what the PPA is all about, other people representing the PPA in the media can not, and it looks like the PPA is anti-ORV.

I still think that environmental groups need to take more of an active role in solving this problem, because saying "not our problem" or "not in my backyard" isn't going to solve anything, and in the end, it's really the environmental groups that will lose out.

I'm happy that there are no ORV's on State Land. But lets find places where they can go, or find state owned land that might be appropriate for them to be used on, otherwise they'll just go wherever they want.

The State and the environmental groups seem to have done a great job in criminalizing the entire hobby, maybe they should devote some of that energy to finding a real solution.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

One thing at a time. It often seems that ORV riders are saying, and you are repeating the logic here, "We want to do ORV recreation, but it's expensive, so we want the citizens of New Jersey to pay to give us a place to do it. If they don't give us what we want, we will do whatever we want to do, even though we know it's illegal and our fellow citizens strenuously object."

I just want to know how many people think this is a line of logic that responsible citizens should respond to. Isn't this just a form of coersion, a threat, a sort of stealthy blackmail? As a citizen of New Jersey, do I have any responsibility to engage in a debate with or placate my friends and neighbors when they approach me with this logic? Isn't it better for me to say that they should commit themselves to a law-abiding and respectable strategy to try to achieve their goals?

 

[Ben Ruset]

The DEP Policy Directive states:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/commissioner/policy/orvpolicy.htm

The Department's Division of Natural and Historic Resources shall work to develop appropriate recreational areas for lawful ORV users that meet the requirements of the preceding paragraph, with the goal of having two new such facilities in operation by 2005. The New Jersey Trails Council shall participate in this effort by establishing an ORV subcommittee representing a cross-section of interested environmental, recreational, ORV industry and ORV user groups. No current state park, wildlife management area or other environmentally sensitive area will be considered in this review and selection process.

I read that and my interpretation is that it's ultimately the state's responsibility to provide the space and funding for those parks.

I'm not a hunter, but part of my tax dollars goes to maintaining the shooting ranges at the various WMA's in the State. I'm not an equestrian, but part of my tax dollars goes towards maintaining horse trails at various parks. Part of the gasoline tax is supposed to go towards paying for trails for ORV's. Where's that money going?

If the State came along one day and said nobody is allowed to herp or catalog flowers or bird watch on State Land, you can't honestly tell me that everyone would abide by that rule. The State came along, banned the use of legal ORV's on State Land (which was legal), promised to build new parks, and then didn't.

I think that debate and discussion on this topic is great! I certainly try to see both sides of the issue. But, I think in the long run, it's better if everyone involved worked towards a solution, since it's going to benefit everyone else. Saying it's the ORV'er's sole problem to deal with is not productive.

The other alternative would be to outright ban ORV's. That should involve closing the DMV to registration of new ORV's, and forcing all of the ORV dealers to stop selling them. Then the State should require everyone who owns one to sell it, or buy them from the citizenry for scrap value.

Does anybody see the irony in a State that will happily let you buy, register, and insure an ORV and then only let you use it on private property, where there's no requirement to register or insure it?

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

First, I will assume that most of us can agree that the public should not be coerced into giving up land to a special interest group just because that interest group has some members that threaten the rest of us. So, hopefully, we don't have to keep arguing about that.

Next, I agree that the public money can and should be directed to motorized recreation. My main point is that the ORV community should not pretend this is the sole avenue for them to get what they want, as if they are hamstrung until the state provides parks. The GOAL stated by the DEP is not an ironclad public obligation. Riders need to see that their preferred form of recreation creates some very serious and special complications.

I can go to a Wildlife Management Area and hunt, fish, trap, hike, watch birds, or, usually, simply enjoy the natural beauty and peace and quiet.

The fly in the ointment for ORV recreation is that it is exclusionary to virtually everything else the other users may want to do. It follows that you need a special place to do this. A place where you won't interrupt the activities of your fellow citizens. If you are waiting for the state to find such a place and provide it for you, you shouln't be surprised that the state, as always, moves along very slowly.

There is an alternative. Just as hunters often pool their money and buy a piece of land they can have to themselves, riders could do that. Entrepreneurs have bought land to build and operate private golf courses. If an ORV group would commit to this goal and work responsibly to achieve it, I don't see why it couldn't happen.

But if you are holding out for the state-owned ORV park--especially if you think it can be built on top of a wildlife community that was preserved for its natural resource values--you shouldn't be surprised if you have lots of opponents and a long and disappointing wait.

 

[whitingrider]

especially if you think it can be built on top of a wildlife community that was preserved for its natural resource values--you shouldn't be surprised if you have lots of opponents and a long and disappointing wait.

You just said you can hunt if you choose to in a WMA. What about the people that don't feel that acceptable? How about the photographers and birdwatchers who don't care for the muzzle blast of a 12 gauge shotgun?
What about our federal fuel taxes going back to the state SPECIFICALLY to fund the Recreational trails program? In the past, if you were on a motorbike and you came upon a group of horseback riders, you pulled over, cut the motor and waited for them to pass. With hunters, you slowly go away from the direction of their drive and continue on your way. It worked that way since I was a boy and my Dad took me out in his 1962 station wagon and I sure with just a little common sense it could still work.
Tom

 

[Ben Ruset]

Everyone,

Please be kind to Russ. He's nice enough to come on the forum and explain the PPA's stance on things. I welcome both sides of every issue here. Please show him the same sort of respect that you'd show any other poster here.

I'd be nice if Russ posted more often.

 

[whitingrider]

I forgot to thank you, Ben for your excellent points.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Tom, believe me, I see your point! I have been out there teaching a map and compass course and found me and my group in between the standers and the drivers. That gets the blood pumping a little bit. But, I grew up hunting, so I don't think of it as really dangerous.

My point is that ORV recreation conflicts with other activities much more than any other form of wilderness recreation. If we can work together to identify sites that don't present these conflicts we might make some significant progress.

 

[bobpbx]

In the past, if you were on a motorbike and you came upon a group of horseback riders, you pulled over, cut the motor and waited for them to pass. With hunters, you slowly go away from the direction of their drive and continue on your way. It worked that way since I was a boy and my Dad took me out in his 1962 station wagon and I sure with just a little common sense it could still work.
Tom

Tom, it ain't like the old days, and it isn't about common sense. Young people ride like they are the only ones in the woods. I have been surprised countless times rounding a corner and having to swerve mightily to avoid hitting an entire PACK of teenagers who's daddy has opened their wallet for a big bad ATV. I have seen groups of 20 at a time in the Forked River Mountain area. Their focus is on going fast and creating clouds of dust in their wake.

The good side? Once they DO see you they are respectful and do not trash the woods like homeowners and small contractors. They usually stick to the trails too, so that is a plus.

 

[james ungehajer]

Tom, it ain't like the old days, and it isn't about common sense. Young people ride like they are the only ones in the woods. I have been surprised countless times rounding a corner and having to swerve mightily to avoid hitting an entire PACK of teenagers who's daddy has opened their wallet for a big bad ATV. I have seen groups of 20 at a time in the Forked River Mountain area. Their focus is on going fast and creating clouds of dust in their wake.

The good side? Once they DO see you they are respectful and do not trash the woods like homeowners and small contractors. They usually stick to the trails too, so that is a plus.

Bob

My car nearly got hit on a turn on the way to the Frm's by 4 ATV'S, excessive speed was their forte.

Jim

 

[Trailhead00]

To weigh in on this subject I'll say this: I think other activities such as illegal dumping, logging and the air force have done more harm to the Pine Barrens than ATV's ever have. Back in the 70's and 80's you could do almost anything you wanted in the pines as far as riding was concerned. I don't remember the Pine Barrens simply fall apart because of it. The pines we know today are much different than what existed 50 years ago. The amount of timber that was cut down was astonishing. The trees were needed to support the local community. The pines have probably been untouched the past 20-30 years. I'm just saying man has done much more damage to the area in the past and ATV's are not destroying everything in sight like some people make them out to be. There are plenty of trucks in the woods everyday with big huge tires, I'm sure they do more damage. I always hear about 1,000's and 1,000's of acres destroyed by ATVs and I simply do not see it. Most of the roads and trails they ride on were established along time ago. It shouldn't surprise me that New Jersey can't figure this out like some other states have and I almost no longer care. A bunch of my friends still ride, we just do it somewhere else like PA, MD and Delaware. I even purchased my ATV in PA and so did most of my friends. I always thought it was funny that I can ride in my friends old Bronco with 35 inch super swamper tires and an engine that has at least 400 HP but I can't "legally" take my ATV anywhere on state land. Okay, makes perfect sense. I honestly haven't seen the terrible damage that ATV's have done to the pines and I have been riding out there for years. What I have seen is a large forest fire started numerous times by the air force, also toxic waste dumps in and around the area and big huge holes dug out in puddles and in stream crossings from gigantic 4x4's. I also shouldn't say ATV's and should use ORV's. It's not just ATV's, there are many motorcycles that ride illegally in the pines. They are even harder to catch because they can fit almost anywhere. There are tons of single lane trails throughout the pines from motorcycles, not ATV's. Just venting, sorry, this is a touchy subject for some of us.