I agree that the ATV traffic is not as destructive as the big truck traffic. The main difference is that the big trucks are more identifiable and drivers are more likely to be apprehended and cited for violations. I suppose that if everybody would abide by the rules, stay on the roads, not destroy the roads by cutting ruts, not put other people in danger by speeding, not cause a disturbance by racing loud engines, etc., then we would all get along just fine. The truth is that the driver of any motor vehicle can cause problems, so all of these vehicles should be licensed and tagged, in order to help law enforcement. Even so, it seems that ATV and dirt bike riders are burdened by the fact that some of them (a minority, no doubt) are outlaws, and they like being outlaws, and they have no intention of abiding by the rules, because they enjoy being able to evade the law enforcement people. I see ATV riders doing this all the time. Setting up parks is not going to make these people change. That's why we need law enforcement.
Chatsworth Atv park
- Thread starter ICANOE2
- Start date
- Status
I agree that the ATV traffic is not as destructive as the big truck traffic. The main difference is that the big trucks are more identifiable and drivers are more likely to be apprehended and cited for violations. I suppose that if everybody would abide by the rules, stay on the roads, not destroy the roads by cutting ruts, not put other people in danger by speeding, not cause a disturbance by racing loud engines, etc., then we would all get along just fine. The truth is that the driver of any motor vehicle can cause problems, so all of these vehicles should be licensed and tagged, in order to help law enforcement. Even so, it seems that ATV and dirt bike riders are burdened by the fact that some of them (a minority, no doubt) are outlaws, and they like being outlaws, and they have no intention of abiding by the rules, because they enjoy being able to evade the law enforcement people. I see ATV riders doing this all the time. Setting up parks is not going to make these people change. That's why we need law enforcement.
Russ, I'm glad to have the chance to discuss this subject calmly and I hope rationally.
As far as atv's comming around curves carelessly, that type of thing has been going on as long as I can remember, only it involves alot of careless drivers and riders and has resulted in some fatalaties. I myself was guilty of this in my youth in the days of Smokey & the Bandit. I tore through the so fast and carelessly in my Firebird that I and my friends are lucky to be alive. I think an educational aspect could be required before permission granted to anyone travelling in the pines. It seems to work fairly well at Island Beach State Park with the beach buggies. You have to carry jacks, tow straps, etc. and you recieve information on rights of ways on the beach, how to drive in soft, sand, places to stay away from, etc. This is also a good example of a place which is environmentally sensitive and mixed users co- exist in harmony
And Bobpbx I know that alot has changed, proper parenting one of the most detrimental. Just go to any mall on a Friday evening to watch the self- absorbed mommies and daddies dropping off their "tweens" to learn lifes lessons from their peers.
Thanks, Tom
As far as atv's comming around curves carelessly, that type of thing has been going on as long as I can remember, only it involves alot of careless drivers and riders and has resulted in some fatalaties. I myself was guilty of this in my youth in the days of Smokey & the Bandit. I tore through the so fast and carelessly in my Firebird that I and my friends are lucky to be alive. I think an educational aspect could be required before permission granted to anyone travelling in the pines. It seems to work fairly well at Island Beach State Park with the beach buggies. You have to carry jacks, tow straps, etc. and you recieve information on rights of ways on the beach, how to drive in soft, sand, places to stay away from, etc. This is also a good example of a place which is environmentally sensitive and mixed users co- exist in harmony
And Bobpbx I know that alot has changed, proper parenting one of the most detrimental. Just go to any mall on a Friday evening to watch the self- absorbed mommies and daddies dropping off their "tweens" to learn lifes lessons from their peers.
Thanks, Tom
The biggest problem is that there are no licensing requirements, and no requirements from the State to have every new ATV reg'd and insured like automobiles are.
I think forcing people to register and insure their ATV's, as well as making licensing requirements (and honestly, making AGE restricted licenses) would be a tremendous help. The registration money could be put towards trail maintenance and law enforcement. Hopefully having older riders out there would lead to a larger portion of responsible riders.
Many, many, many law enforcement units now use ATV's (confiscated under the DEP Policy Directive) to go after other ATV riders. If an officer who is most likely a more skilled rider has an ATV, I don't really see how these other riders can get away.
Again, it's a matter of no change is going to solve the problem 100%. Has our "war on drugs" stopped the drug problem in America? No, in fact some would argue that it's made it worse. This is the exact same thing. Baby steps are needed to help solve the problem. And everyone - regular people, ATV riders, environmental groups NEED to come together and work to find a solution.
Listen, we all know that environmental groups are generally anti ORV. But, we've seen that even with the policy directive, it hasn't solved the problem. It's time for a different tactic.
Russ, you mentioned that the PPA has tried to outreach to ATV riders. Who have you dealt with, and what was the result, if you don't mind me asking?
I think forcing people to register and insure their ATV's, as well as making licensing requirements (and honestly, making AGE restricted licenses) would be a tremendous help. The registration money could be put towards trail maintenance and law enforcement. Hopefully having older riders out there would lead to a larger portion of responsible riders.
Many, many, many law enforcement units now use ATV's (confiscated under the DEP Policy Directive) to go after other ATV riders. If an officer who is most likely a more skilled rider has an ATV, I don't really see how these other riders can get away.
Again, it's a matter of no change is going to solve the problem 100%. Has our "war on drugs" stopped the drug problem in America? No, in fact some would argue that it's made it worse. This is the exact same thing. Baby steps are needed to help solve the problem. And everyone - regular people, ATV riders, environmental groups NEED to come together and work to find a solution.
Listen, we all know that environmental groups are generally anti ORV. But, we've seen that even with the policy directive, it hasn't solved the problem. It's time for a different tactic.
Russ, you mentioned that the PPA has tried to outreach to ATV riders. Who have you dealt with, and what was the result, if you don't mind me asking?
It's interesting that you used the FRM in you example. Last summer, my wife and I went to the FRM, in an attempt to find/figure out where the 2nd mountain is in relationship to the well-known mountain. As we were walking, several people (age unknown) came flying up an incline and damn near ran us over. They didn't stop to apologize, no hand wave, etc. I guess it was our fault for not paying attention (tongue in cheek) or for not hearing them coming, but we were so intensely looking for the mountain and enjoying the scenery and all other external senses took a nap.
I agree that every ATV should be registered, insured and should have plates on it. To sell ATV's like they do in New Jersey is rediculous, oh wait, it's New Jersey. They sell them and offer no rules except do not ride in a state forest. I agree that having more police and more rangers will not solve the problem totally. There will always be people who will ride illegally like there will always people who will speed or race on the streets. I think changing the rangers to the Park Police or whatever they are now is offenesive and helps to create some of the rift between riders and law enforcement. I just think "park state police" is offenssive in general. We do not need more police anywhere, not in the townships and especially not in the woods. Has more police ever really solved any problem? Does adding more police to Philadelphia really cause the murder rate to drop? No, you have to deal with the real issues at hand. The local and state police take up a huge part of the budget and our taxes pay their salaries. Back to ATV's. There are federal laws in place like you have to be at least 6 or 7 to operate an ATV and it can only be up to 50cc's. Then from 12 to 15 you can operate a 90cc machine, which is not very big, not very fast and most kids don't want them because they have already outgrown one that size. At age 16 you can ride any ATV you want. Part of the problem is that with an ATV like mine I know a ranger is not going to catch me. For one it is too fast, two I'll bet all the money I have I am a much more experienced rider than he is and three I probably know the trails better too. I'm not bragging but I think some other riders have the same attitude, they know it will be very hard for them to get caught. We always laughed and said "only the new guys got caught." Most experienced riders also know where the rangers mostly are and where they are not. I think a big part of the problem is that it has a become an "us versus them" issue and for it to change that wall has to be broken down. But when the state promises (they did it) 2 new parks by 2005 and in return they could raise the fines for illegal riding then they don't follow through but keep the high fines a lot of riders lose even more faith with the state. Another part of the problem is that a lot of riders like the sense of freedom an ATV gives them. A freedom to explore and go places they normally wouldn't. That's one reason why ATV parks don't always work. In New Jersey the parks are or would be rather small and it gets rather boring after a day of riding. People on ATV's want to go out and see what else is out there. I think that is another reason why you still see people breaking the rules even when there is a park. So, what do you do? Like I said before I would make mandatory just like buying a car to register it, title it, tag it and make up an ATV license. Heck you need a motorcycle license to ride a motorcycle, why not an ATV license then? There needs to be a compromise from both sides and until they meet and hammer it out the status quo will continue.
I can relate, Trailhead! As I said before, the hands down best way to explore the woods is on an ATV.
Sure, some riders go too fast, but some hunters stay outlater than 1/2 hr after sunset, and some hunt on sundays, but no one is talking about banning them. And don't get me wrong, I'm a hunter, I'm a fisherman, I'm a hiker, a birdwatcher, and I'm trying to learn some photography. I haven't seen any signs posted for hikers who wander off the Batona Trail?
Maybe the mindset of these off-roaders has something to do with another well known group who were taxed by a government which didn't represent them- The Fathers of our Country.
Thanks, Tom
Sure, some riders go too fast, but some hunters stay outlater than 1/2 hr after sunset, and some hunt on sundays, but no one is talking about banning them. And don't get me wrong, I'm a hunter, I'm a fisherman, I'm a hiker, a birdwatcher, and I'm trying to learn some photography. I haven't seen any signs posted for hikers who wander off the Batona Trail?
Maybe the mindset of these off-roaders has something to do with another well known group who were taxed by a government which didn't represent them- The Fathers of our Country.
Thanks, Tom
10-4. I can relate. I have some personal memories like that too. That's why we need to think this through together. We have both responsible and (mostly young) irresponsible riders out there. We have people with big trucks, ATV's, and dirt bikes. They want to have fun, and, let's assume most of them respect their fellow citizens. Registered and tagged trucks and dirt bikes can navigate designated roads and are subject to the traffic regs like everyone else. ATV's aren't allowed on public roads or public lands. All of these riders want to do their thing, which is OFF-ROAD stuff. I think the answer is to establish ORV parks rather than violate the laws and disrespect your fellow citizens. You can accomplish that via two avenues. 1: Buy some land that is suitable and make your park. 2: Wait for the state to follow through on its "goal." Number one seems a better strategy to me, even if the state does finally come through, some day.
One important point is that, as far as I know, the law enforcement people have a policy of not chasing due to the dangers. They are supposed to use their ATV's and bikes to get into areas that need to be patrolled and try to write citations without chasing people.
Secondly, I wish everybody would recognize this very simple distinction: the enviro groups are not anti-ORV. We are against ILLEGAL use of ORV's. I know that many of the riders believe that what they do should not be illegal. That's a separate point that I would be happy to discuss. The botton line right now is that there are laws in place, and we are part of the public that wants those laws enforced. Work to change the existing laws if you want, but if you continue to violate the laws and you get caught and have to pay consequences, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Third, to answer your question, Ben, PPA conducted a series, of public meetings to explain what we are doing and why we are doing it. I know that we didn't try to keep these meetings secret, because I still see posts in this forum where riders and others were talking about it, and some riders did attend some of the meetings.
I think that these dialogs may have been somewhat helpful, in that it allowed some of us to come face to face and have some direct interaction. That helped, at least a little bit, I think, to alleviate some of the animosity. We're all human beings, were all citizens of New Jersey. We disagree on this issue, but we can still be civil toward each other.
Where we seemed to agree:
1. There should be a statewide program to register all ORV's (perhaps with some exceptions).
2. There should be some parks, and part of the funding for the parks could be generated by the registration fees.
3. There will always be some outlaws out there, so establishing parks will not adequately address the problem of illegal traffic.
I should mention here, that although we have said these two things loud and clear and publicly and repeatedly, there are still some who continue to misrepresent us and say that we want to ban all ORV's or that we are anti-ORV, etc. We have held dozens of meetings, ever since, I think, the year 2000, and we have invested an enormous amount of time trying to understand how to address this issue, and we have consistently published this same message, and consistently worked toward these goals.
So, where it seems we had to agree to disagree was:
1. We think the current laws should be enforced. Some of the riders clearly don't.
2. We think penalties should be stiffer. No surprise, riders who routinely violate the law don't want this.
3. We think all forms of ORV traffic (trucks, ATV's, bikes) contribute to significant natural resource damage. Some of the riders clearly don't.
4. We don't think the Pinelands is a good place to build an ORV park. At least some of the riders do.
5. We don't think PPA should violate the principles that created our mission, by endorsing any ORV program or strategy that includes ongoing destruction of natural resources in the Pinelands. Some of the riders think we should give in or give up, because they think we are only making things worse.
Have I missed anything? I think that if we could focus on one point of disagreement at a time, and maintain mutual respect (this goes to both sides of the debate) we might make some progress. I am willing to try.
I'll jump back in. Russ, have you seen the other thread that just started in this forum?
1. Current laws are being enforced. I know that Manchester Township has an ATV enabled police force made up of ORV's that have been confiscated under the DEP policy directive. I am sure that other communities are reaping that benefit. I also know that many people have been cited and paid those $1000 fines. What happens to that money?
2. Why should penalties be stiffer? The DEP put the policy in place, and fell through on their "goal" of having additional parks. Is the goal to have additional penalties in place to discourage riders, or to make money. Right now it looks like a money grab.
3. ORV traffic that stays on trails (ones that appear on topo maps, and even ones that don't) are fine, in my book. Here we begin to see the slippery slope. Do we criminalize me, who takes my Jeep out and down some tight trails to explore the Pines? I'm not out actively trying to destroy the ecosystem of the Pine Barrens - when do I begin to be the criminal? And how do you address the claims of 300k acres of land damaged by ORV use? That's 3x the size of Wharton State Forest.
4. Just because land is in the Pinelands doesn't make it intrinsically valuable. I know that may be a tough pill to swallow for some people, but if you follow that same line of thinking, then why is there development in the Pines? Go look at the dump off 72 near Chicken Bone. Go look at all of the sand and gravel companies around. Who's lobbying for their closure? Aren't they more destructive to the land and ecosystem than say places like the Chatsworth ORV park?
5. The PPA's mission is to protect and preserve the Pinelands. By becoming part of the solution, and helping riders find a safe, legal place to ride, you lessen the impact on the rest of the area, and become a helpful part of the solution.
These are just my opinions. I don't want you to take them as attacks on you (Russ) or the PPA itself. I guess I have a somewhat unique view on the situation as I am not an ORV rider and I do have a love of the environment in the Pine Barrens. I think that there can be a compromise somewhere, and I guess both sides (at least the PPA is bothering to post about theirs) don't really see that.
1. Current laws are being enforced. I know that Manchester Township has an ATV enabled police force made up of ORV's that have been confiscated under the DEP policy directive. I am sure that other communities are reaping that benefit. I also know that many people have been cited and paid those $1000 fines. What happens to that money?
2. Why should penalties be stiffer? The DEP put the policy in place, and fell through on their "goal" of having additional parks. Is the goal to have additional penalties in place to discourage riders, or to make money. Right now it looks like a money grab.
3. ORV traffic that stays on trails (ones that appear on topo maps, and even ones that don't) are fine, in my book. Here we begin to see the slippery slope. Do we criminalize me, who takes my Jeep out and down some tight trails to explore the Pines? I'm not out actively trying to destroy the ecosystem of the Pine Barrens - when do I begin to be the criminal? And how do you address the claims of 300k acres of land damaged by ORV use? That's 3x the size of Wharton State Forest.
4. Just because land is in the Pinelands doesn't make it intrinsically valuable. I know that may be a tough pill to swallow for some people, but if you follow that same line of thinking, then why is there development in the Pines? Go look at the dump off 72 near Chicken Bone. Go look at all of the sand and gravel companies around. Who's lobbying for their closure? Aren't they more destructive to the land and ecosystem than say places like the Chatsworth ORV park?
5. The PPA's mission is to protect and preserve the Pinelands. By becoming part of the solution, and helping riders find a safe, legal place to ride, you lessen the impact on the rest of the area, and become a helpful part of the solution.
These are just my opinions. I don't want you to take them as attacks on you (Russ) or the PPA itself. I guess I have a somewhat unique view on the situation as I am not an ORV rider and I do have a love of the environment in the Pine Barrens. I think that there can be a compromise somewhere, and I guess both sides (at least the PPA is bothering to post about theirs) don't really see that.
Atv
Ok I have been rideing atvs in the pines since 1984 and hunting since 1974 I remember the trails back then and they looked the same for years until the late 1990s or early 2000s the the state came in and plowed all the trails flat and made some of the trails that you could not even ride on because they were to small big and wide enough to drive a bus on now if they want to close down the pines to atvs that is fine with me but then it should be closed to everyone no hikeing,hunting,rideing, boating,nothing just close it and let no one enter and all should be happy that sounds fare to me just use all that state money and build a fence around it like fort dix proublem solved.:jeffd:
Ok I have been rideing atvs in the pines since 1984 and hunting since 1974 I remember the trails back then and they looked the same for years until the late 1990s or early 2000s the the state came in and plowed all the trails flat and made some of the trails that you could not even ride on because they were to small big and wide enough to drive a bus on now if they want to close down the pines to atvs that is fine with me but then it should be closed to everyone no hikeing,hunting,rideing, boating,nothing just close it and let no one enter and all should be happy that sounds fare to me just use all that state money and build a fence around it like fort dix proublem solved.:jeffd:
Don't worry, I know you are speaking candidly and honestly. I don't interpret that as an attack. Let's keep talking...
Right. What I am sure is going to happen is that normal law-abiding people who would use a park if it was offered will recognize the deterrence, as they probably have since the DEP Policy Directive came in effect, and give up the sport. There will always be the fringe who won't care, and will do what they want. Those are the people who should realize targeted enforcement.
I see the requirement of a registered and insured ATV to be the cornerstone of any successful ORV policy. Once you're spotted, and an officer has a plate number, it doesn't really matter if you run or not.
It makes perfect sense for groups who want a park to band together and buy one and build it. The simple reality of that is that it'd be nearly impossible to do. Every environmental group in the world would go up against it and litigate against it, every NIMBY person would be against it -- it's simply impossible. At least the environmental groups receive the benefit of some public funds when they purchase land for conservation.
This is why the idea of the state paying for those parks is so important.
It is in the interest of everybody - the DEP, the PPA, riders, and you and myself as NJ Citizenry to see this happen. I firmly believe that those parks being there will keep more people out of places where they shouldn't go. Once parks are in place, I'd be totally in favor of increased fines and regulations against rogue riders.
This whole thing reminds of of Prohibition. In the end, what seemed like a "noble" cause caused more problems than it solved.
You should find some time and click around the forums, Russ. You'd probably find a lot of discussion here that you'd like. I know the PPA wants to focus a bit more on history, and there are many people here (myself included) who are also fans of the ecology of the area.
Unfortunately I don't think there's a lot of hope for an easy solution anytime soon....
whitingrider said:
Maybe what's needed is more education. I know that when my own daughter went to school (in the Pinelands area), she didn't get much of an education on the importance of preservation and the delicate balance of nature, much less the importance of the Pine Barrens in history. I enjoy off-roading with my 4WD myself, but I take it easy, and stay on the beaten path, so to speak. If I want to explore, I walk. There's a lot in the Pines that the majority of people around here aren't aware of. And there are always going to be vandals. A while back I stopped at Harrisville - the fenced-in part - and found that someone had actually cut the chain to break in.
As far as the NJORVP, I think it should stay open.
As far as the NJORVP, I think it should stay open.
I know! I have read through some of the other material, and you have a lot of good discussions going on. I don't have any trouble finding time, but I definitely struggle about how to put it to best use!
The problem I have (one of many, haha) is the part about the state saying it is illegal to ride in or on state property. Which means you can't ride in state forests. I don't feel that it should be illegal to ride in the state forests. The PPA says they are all for "legal" riding, that's part of the problem, there is only one place to legally ride and that's Chatsworth and that is closing next September. The state forests should be opened up to ORV's. I'm not saying all of them, I'm saying some of them or parts of them should be. That would help to elleviate some of the problem.
http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2006/06_0068.htm
This shows how much money the state got from the federal government for trails in 2006. I think it says 1.7 million dollars. It states in that document that the money is to be used for hiking, some other uses and also motorized vehicles. Yet when you see where the money was spent, none of it was for motorized vehicles. Maybe I don't like hikers and hiking, maybe I don't like fishing because I think it is cruel to stick a hook through a fish and maybe I don't like hunting because it is cruel to shoot a defenseless animal but hey money is spent on those sports. For the record I don't feel that way, just trying to make a point. Not everyone likes the same thing and one activity shouldn't take in all the money.
This shows how much money the state got from the federal government for trails in 2006. I think it says 1.7 million dollars. It states in that document that the money is to be used for hiking, some other uses and also motorized vehicles. Yet when you see where the money was spent, none of it was for motorized vehicles. Maybe I don't like hikers and hiking, maybe I don't like fishing because I think it is cruel to stick a hook through a fish and maybe I don't like hunting because it is cruel to shoot a defenseless animal but hey money is spent on those sports. For the record I don't feel that way, just trying to make a point. Not everyone likes the same thing and one activity shouldn't take in all the money.
See, there I have to disagree. I do a lot of walking in the Pine Barrens. But there's just times that where you're trying to go is very impractical to walk to.
I wouldn't want to walk to Nash's Cabin from the beginning of Nash's Cabin Rd., for example. Especially on a hot July afternoon with all of the flies out. Yuck.
I wouldn't want to walk to Nash's Cabin from the beginning of Nash's Cabin Rd., for example. Especially on a hot July afternoon with all of the flies out. Yuck.
Well, I respect your wish for more opportunities to do the kind of recreation you want to do. Right now, you can ride street legal bikes and street legal 4WD vehicles all over the state forests, as long as you stay on designated roads. You can ride non-street legal vehicles on your own property or on a friend's property or at Chatsworth. If you want to expand those opportunities for non-street legal vehicles, you can buy an appropriate piece of property, or you can wait for the state to fulfill its promise. But riding ATV's in the state forests--whether on designated roads or off the roads--will always be opposed, because too many ATV riders have demonstrated that they have no respect for the land or for their fellow citizens. You might consider it a case of a few bad apples ruining it for the rest. Similarly, riding off road in state forests will always be opposed, because it destroys wildlife communities, and the state forests and WMA's are some of the few remaining places in the state where we have a chance to protect these things.
- Status