Isn't the sticking point just finding appropriate places to spend it? I know you guys are in a tough spot, because if you are too close to neighborhoods, the people are likely to object to noise and traffic. If you are in a natural area, us tree-huggers will object to the affects on wildlife. We have suggested that the riders get organized and creative and work with real estate agents to identify appropriate sites, but riders seem to be focused exclusively on getting what the state promised, and it doesn't seem that they have put any effort in this direction. Personally, I think you will get what you want much faster if you organize, pool your resources, and buy the land you want. You could probably work with a developer who has the expertise. Maybe an old industrial site? Maybe a piece of farmland that would otherwise turn into some kind of housing or commercial development?
Chatsworth Atv park
- Thread starter ICANOE2
- Start date
- Status
Isn't the sticking point just finding appropriate places to spend it? I know you guys are in a tough spot, because if you are too close to neighborhoods, the people are likely to object to noise and traffic. If you are in a natural area, us tree-huggers will object to the affects on wildlife. We have suggested that the riders get organized and creative and work with real estate agents to identify appropriate sites, but riders seem to be focused exclusively on getting what the state promised, and it doesn't seem that they have put any effort in this direction. Personally, I think you will get what you want much faster if you organize, pool your resources, and buy the land you want. You could probably work with a developer who has the expertise. Maybe an old industrial site? Maybe a piece of farmland that would otherwise turn into some kind of housing or commercial development?
The Pine Barrens aren't unique to this sort of thing - I remember snorkling in the Keys, where much of the coral was dead, mostly due to unknowing boaters. The reefs are a source of life for many microscopic animals, which in turn are a source of life...and so on. Many years ago, I jetskiied in the Bay, and the faster and more airborne I could get, the more I loved it - but then I found out how destructive this is to the bay's ecology, and never did it again. Our natural areas are fading fast, and they must be protected. I'm sure we're all guilty, sometimes without knowing it, of some form of destruction of nature. Sometimes it's necessary; other times it can be prevented. Just walking through the Pines, I see tiny plants, some of which I'm sure are endangered, so I avoid stepping on them. I see ground holes, probably inhabited by a Pinelands creature. I don't crush it by stomping on it - I leave it alone. Driving off-road, I don't think this is possible, but correct me if I'm wrong. I just think we all need to practice compassion and moderation.
Ben, drench yourself with Deep Woods OFF, puff on a big cigar, and it will keep some of the flies away! Also, bring someone along who is not drenched with OFF and is not smoking a cigar, and virtually all the flies will leave you.
I agree that the off road community has to become more orgainized and I think they are trying with groups such as NJOHVA and the Atlantic Grand Prix racing series is also great. I believe Dale Frietas is behind both of them. If the off road community came together and decide to buy a certain piece of land for their activity I GUARANTEE the state and organizations like the PPA would have a problem with it. It would be so scrutinized that it would be very difficult to do it. So the same problem persist if either the state does it or some private group does it. If it is near houses then those people will complain and if they stuck the park in the middle of the wharton state forest than people would complain it was in the middle of the woods. It would just go around and around.
I don't want to speak for Dale but I can say that I have had conversations with him in the past about this very subject. I thought Dale had a great idea when he created the Atlantic Grand Prix racing series. It gave ORV guys and girls a place to race in and around New Jersey. He figured if we don't have the land access we could at least but on some races and that will give riders a place to enjoy their sport. The problem has been putting races on in New Jersey. He said you have to jump through hoops to get anything done in New Jersey. He added that putting races on in PA and NY were much, much easier. It got so bad last year that he considered cancelling the NJ races because the state and organizations "protecting" the pine barrens caused such headaches. Dale kept fighting though and is really the one behind getting the new park created in Mays Landing (I think). I participated in the New Jersey races this year and the turnout was great. It shows how many love the sport of off road riding and how many just want a place to enjoy it.
That Atlantic Grand Prix is organized and is a AMA sanctioned event and still has numerous problems in New Jersey, problems you just don't encounter in other states.
I still say open up the state forests. Issue permits like you do for the beach buggy guys.
I don't want to speak for Dale but I can say that I have had conversations with him in the past about this very subject. I thought Dale had a great idea when he created the Atlantic Grand Prix racing series. It gave ORV guys and girls a place to race in and around New Jersey. He figured if we don't have the land access we could at least but on some races and that will give riders a place to enjoy their sport. The problem has been putting races on in New Jersey. He said you have to jump through hoops to get anything done in New Jersey. He added that putting races on in PA and NY were much, much easier. It got so bad last year that he considered cancelling the NJ races because the state and organizations "protecting" the pine barrens caused such headaches. Dale kept fighting though and is really the one behind getting the new park created in Mays Landing (I think). I participated in the New Jersey races this year and the turnout was great. It shows how many love the sport of off road riding and how many just want a place to enjoy it.
That Atlantic Grand Prix is organized and is a AMA sanctioned event and still has numerous problems in New Jersey, problems you just don't encounter in other states.
I still say open up the state forests. Issue permits like you do for the beach buggy guys.
Does this mean no vehicles in the woods? So I should park my truck at Atsion and walk into the Wharton State Forest if I want to explore. If we should only walk in the woods than fine, everyone with a vehicle out. So to any birdwatchers who might want to cut down a dirt road to go look somewhere else they are out of luck to, unless they want to walk. Rules should stay the same for everyone.
I think that if a road is maintained and graded by the State (or other public entity), unless there are specific signs prohibiting access, that road is for the use of ALL registered vehicles, and common sense should prevail. Roads like Friendship-Speedwell or Quaker Bridge among many others, are maintained. I worry about the old abandoned roads that the woods have partially taken back.
This is how rumors get started. If you check the context, you'll see that I was responding to Ben, who proposed driving his jeep down a TRAIL (not sure what kind of trail he meant--some roads are called "jeep trails"). There are roads all over the public lands all over the Pinelands, and anybody can drive those roads with a street legal vehicle. They don't even have to be maintained roads. But when people veer off the road to drive on hiking trails, or over vegetation, or to play in a wetland, or drive up and down a stream, or even a dry open area, that is illegal, and that's the kind of activity that makes the public less sympathetic to the ORV cause.
Well, that's exactly what I meant. A "trail" meaning one that would be suitable for a vehicle. I don't mean driving on the Batona trail, or blazing my own trail.
But there are many "trails" that are/have been used by vehicles that do not show up on a topo map. Many are overgrown. Some are not. That's the real crux. Do we ban vehicles from them? In some ways you're losing history if you let nature reclaim them.
Obviously anything that is destructive to the ecosystem is bad. You can argue that walking in a bog can be destructive. You can say that the exhaust from your car going down Quaker Bridge Rd. is destructive. There has to be a sane and sensible limit.
But there are many "trails" that are/have been used by vehicles that do not show up on a topo map. Many are overgrown. Some are not. That's the real crux. Do we ban vehicles from them? In some ways you're losing history if you let nature reclaim them.
Obviously anything that is destructive to the ecosystem is bad. You can argue that walking in a bog can be destructive. You can say that the exhaust from your car going down Quaker Bridge Rd. is destructive. There has to be a sane and sensible limit.
I agree that it's not always clear whether something is a road or whether it is the scar left behind from somebody trampling vegetation with a big truck or ORV, but it's pretty obvious sometimes. As far as old roads becoming overgrown, I'd be inclined to drive them myself, sometimes, if that's clearly what they are. What worries me is that sometimes those old roads lead to sensitive areas, and if I help lead the way into those areas, there's bound to be a few Yahoos that will follow me in the near future, and go frolicking OFF that road into a pond or meadow or something, right on top of globally imperilled plants and animals. You can see that happening all over the Pinelands.
I haven't really seen that, but then again I am sure you get around more than me.
Anyway, do we close the roads to the Yahoo's and then end up not being able to enjoy them ourselves? It's the same problem with ATV's. You have a minority that cause problems, and the "easiest" solution is just to ban everyone.
That's what I am afraid of.
Anyway, do we close the roads to the Yahoo's and then end up not being able to enjoy them ourselves? It's the same problem with ATV's. You have a minority that cause problems, and the "easiest" solution is just to ban everyone.
That's what I am afraid of.
I don't ride quads (ATV's?) or dirt bikes but if I understand your position Russell, you are saying that the minute I park my street legal dual sport and climb aboard my ATV (Quad?) I will lose all respect for the land and mankind?. Sorry but that is convoluted logic at its finest.
If a road is being routinely used to get into sensitive areas where people are regularly tearing up habitat for globally imperilled species, then I think it should be closed. We might have to put up gates, so that the people who really need to use that road, such as fire-fighters and law enforcement people can still use it. But maybe we don't need to close roads to law-abiding citizens, if we could adequately enforce the laws against the lawbreakers.
I sure wish that we had the PPA back around 1800. Those obnoxious railroads would have never messed up all those sensitive areas. And actually, the pines would never have been settled. And I'm sure you could have stopped those pesky stagecoaches heading to the shore. Imagine how loud that must have been, all those hooves, and the dust! Then you had the invention of the car. If you would have got a jump on that one they would be outlawed from the get- go. But even so, you would have been able to ban those infernal contraptions from the pines, which in the early 1900's had NO paved roads. But alas, you were not here yet, so the automobile was actually welcomed by the residents of the pines. Then, these son of a gunning people who had these automobiles got sick of getting stuck on all of these terrible sugar sand roads and they wanted the government to pave them! Can you imagine? These people went out and spent all that money on these machines that could transport them, then they expected the government to build roads for them?
Russ, I wish you could have been there then to tell them that their noisy, polluting automobiles were exclusionary to the enjoyment of everyone else in the pines. Then we would have no stupid roads which are made from really bad things, and worse yet, divert rainfall into ecologically sensitive ponds and streams. But then again, if that were the case, we would have never had a Pinelands Commission, and they wouldn't have needed their million dollar a year "watchdog group" PPA. I guess we all have to work.
Tom
Which reminds me- when RT 539 was repaved this year how did the contractor get away with dumping thousands of tons of diesel laden millings at the entrance to an area so ecologically sensitive that a gate has been in place as long as I can remember, except for when they decided to bulldoze the area to "simulate" the way a pine forest reacts to fire? Were you guys not watching our watchdog group last summer?
Russ, I wish you could have been there then to tell them that their noisy, polluting automobiles were exclusionary to the enjoyment of everyone else in the pines. Then we would have no stupid roads which are made from really bad things, and worse yet, divert rainfall into ecologically sensitive ponds and streams. But then again, if that were the case, we would have never had a Pinelands Commission, and they wouldn't have needed their million dollar a year "watchdog group" PPA. I guess we all have to work.
Tom
Which reminds me- when RT 539 was repaved this year how did the contractor get away with dumping thousands of tons of diesel laden millings at the entrance to an area so ecologically sensitive that a gate has been in place as long as I can remember, except for when they decided to bulldoze the area to "simulate" the way a pine forest reacts to fire? Were you guys not watching our watchdog group last summer?
Tom,
Chill. We can all discuss our points without getting worked up into a froth. I'm very happy that Russ is here and we're all discussing it maturely.
Chill. We can all discuss our points without getting worked up into a froth. I'm very happy that Russ is here and we're all discussing it maturely.
Whiting, I'm not sure I follow you. What's your point? I will try to respond if I understand what you are trying to say.
I don't need to look closer. You said street legal bikes are fine but should I park it and climb on a quad...." 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. " I would need more to hang my hat on than that.
I don't think that anybody is arguing that a Jeep or a dual sport can't do as much, if not more, damage than an ATV.
The thing is, ATV's have never been allowed to be used on "public roads." Public roads include paved roads such as the Turnpike as well as unpaved roads like Nash's Cabin Road.
If you think about it, the Policy Directive basically clarified that ATV's can't be used on public roads (again, they never were allowed) as well as off those roads (say in a pit, or field, etc.)
Listen, that's fine and I support that. I also support people being able to drive their Jeeps and Dual Sport bikes (which are allowed on the Turnpike as well as Nash's Cabin Road) throughout the Pines.
I don't support people blazing their own trails, no matter what vehicle they use. But you know what, it's going to happen no matter how big the fines are, and no matter how much they step up enforcement. Until they turn Wharton into a gulag and start shooting riders, it's going to happen.
Do I think that a quad going down Quaker Bridge Rd. is going to cause more environmental damage than my Jeep? No. The only reason why they're excluded was because they never were able to be there in the first place.
I support new parks for two reasons:
1) The state promised them. As a citizen, I don't like it when my elected officials promise things and don't deliver. I don't find it acceptable, and I feel there needs to be some sort of accountability for what is going on. The DEP is really not the most transparent organization, and it ought to be.
2) More legal, safe places to ride means less people out breaking the law. Sure, there will always be a few people doing what they want. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't provide for those who follow the law. WMA's are funded primarily from money taken in from hunters. ORV parks should be funded from money taken from mandatory ATV registration, fines collected, and trails money from the gas tax fund.
I can easily see where some groups - perhaps not the PPA - would love to ban motorized vehicles in the Pines altogether. This is something that worries me. However, until this happens, it's just conjecture. I think if that happened, more people would be likely to stand up since many people - equestrians, hikers, hunters, canoeists, etc. would be affected.
The thing is, ATV's have never been allowed to be used on "public roads." Public roads include paved roads such as the Turnpike as well as unpaved roads like Nash's Cabin Road.
If you think about it, the Policy Directive basically clarified that ATV's can't be used on public roads (again, they never were allowed) as well as off those roads (say in a pit, or field, etc.)
Listen, that's fine and I support that. I also support people being able to drive their Jeeps and Dual Sport bikes (which are allowed on the Turnpike as well as Nash's Cabin Road) throughout the Pines.
I don't support people blazing their own trails, no matter what vehicle they use. But you know what, it's going to happen no matter how big the fines are, and no matter how much they step up enforcement. Until they turn Wharton into a gulag and start shooting riders, it's going to happen.
Do I think that a quad going down Quaker Bridge Rd. is going to cause more environmental damage than my Jeep? No. The only reason why they're excluded was because they never were able to be there in the first place.
I support new parks for two reasons:
1) The state promised them. As a citizen, I don't like it when my elected officials promise things and don't deliver. I don't find it acceptable, and I feel there needs to be some sort of accountability for what is going on. The DEP is really not the most transparent organization, and it ought to be.
2) More legal, safe places to ride means less people out breaking the law. Sure, there will always be a few people doing what they want. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't provide for those who follow the law. WMA's are funded primarily from money taken in from hunters. ORV parks should be funded from money taken from mandatory ATV registration, fines collected, and trails money from the gas tax fund.
I can easily see where some groups - perhaps not the PPA - would love to ban motorized vehicles in the Pines altogether. This is something that worries me. However, until this happens, it's just conjecture. I think if that happened, more people would be likely to stand up since many people - equestrians, hikers, hunters, canoeists, etc. would be affected.
King, look at what you just quoted. If I said, "Too many of the apples are bad" you wouldn't accuse me of saying, "All the apples are bad."
My point was that the behavior of some of the ATV riders (too many) has caused people to not trust ATV riders in general.
- Status