...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.
RJ: I think it's probably like any other kind of crime. We can't stop any of it completely. But if we enforce against it, we will probably have less of it than we will if we don't enforce against it.
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.
RJ: I don't think anybody believes a quad going down a sand road is destructive. The problem with quads is that they are designed to go off road, and drivers typically want to go off road, and nobody thinks we can trust quad riders--as a group--to stay on the roads and abide by the laws.
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.
RJ: PPA supports parks, too, so long as the people who create them play by the same rules every other developer is obliged to follow. To say that we are against the parks just because we want ORV parks to be held to the same standards as other development is nonesense.
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.
RJ: I just have to keep pointing out that we would need a heck of a lot of gigantic ORV parks to satisfy the desires of the ORV enthusiasts. Many of the riders themselves have told us they don't expect to be satisfied with the park experience, and they are going to keep riding in the woods because they think they will always be able to get away from law enforcement. How do you square that with the idea that a few parks will really have much of an effect on the irresponsible riding that is going on? Like I say, yes, we need parks to try to give opportunities to law-abiding people. But we need to police the illegal element out there, and we will continue to need that no matter how many parks get built.
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.
RJ: I don't know of anybody trying to ban all motorized vehicles. We all use them and enjoy them. I think we need to focus strictly on the irresponsible and illegal activity. PPA supports the ban on ATV's in public wildlife lands (State Forests and WMA's), for reasons already stated.
Personally, I think there should be a similar ban on any vehicles that are designed or modified primarily to go off road. We need to develop some criteria to decide when is a vehicle has crossed the line from being a street (and perhaps rough road) vehicle, such as a jeep, and when that vehicle is really just a big toy for playing in the mud.
Now the monster truck guys can fire away...