Ben, I appreciate that you have put a lot of thought into this, and are trying to take both sides into account.
I will point out again, that the state did not promise anything. A goal was stated, and the achievement of that that goal proved to be more problematic than any of us realized. What makes it problematic is the nature of the sport, not the nature of the environmental community. If you know of a piece of real estate that is appropriate for an ORV park, please share your knowledge. I take issue with the way you characterize the environmental advocacy side. Not my problem? I've been working on this since 1999, and much of that time has been spent meeting with riders.
Russ, here's the text of the policy:
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
It says the Division of Natural and Historic Resources shall work to develop those parks. Yes, the wording of "goal" doesn't put a firm timetable on it, but the verbage is clear. The state committed to building those parks. They have to be made. It's pretty clear that this is a promise for those parks to appear. Maybe they're appear in 2008. Maybe they'll appear in 2020. Who knows.
The problem as I see it is that the environmental groups hear ORV and instantaneously their minds close. People like Fred Akers are averse to ORV's operating anywhere, even on land owned by a private club. My gut feeling tells me that if the opening of a park became a real possibility, the PPA would fight very hard against it. We all know that pretty much everywhere you look in the Pinelands, you will find a T&E species, even in areas set aside for growth.
Pedestals? Most of the time, we are beating our heads against the wall trying to stop the State agencies from allowing developers to run rampant on wildlife communities. You present us as if we have some kind of special access and influence with the DEP.
You absolutely, totally do. You're a very well connected agency that has a lot of pull with the public. You know how to generate publicity and put heat on people when it's appropriate. Sure, it's hard to go against the developers, which is why it's so easy to go after a soft target like ORV riders. They're far less funded, and it's so easy to spin public opinion away from riders. One photo of a tiretrack through a bog published in the paper is pretty damning.
Take a look at the money that stands behind the developers and builders in the state, and compare that with the money that supports the enviros, and then think about who contributed to whose political campaign. Don't forget the old saying, "Follow the money." Take a look at some of the things the evironmental communtiy has been trying to achieve, some of the broader issues, and see have many times and in how many ways the state has stone-walled, and delayed, and failed to meet goals and promises. We're not struggling to protect a form of entertainment. We're mostly struggling to protect people from pollution and wildlife communities from obliteration.
Which is great! Listen, I wish you guys could have prevented the building of that huge super Wawa at 539 and 70. I see the dump near Chicken Bone near 72 and I wish something could have been done to stop that. You want to talk about destruction? That's destruction on a scale far larger than what irresponsible ORV riders will ever do.
I'm not sure of what you recommend as a compromise on the enviro side. Are you saying that the enviro's should look the other way when somebody wants to build an ORV park on top of T&E species habitat?
Where do you see me saying that?
Are we digging our heels in because we continue to do what our supporters say they want us to do? Or are you saying that we should contact real estate agents and tour the state with them, searching for the right place, help arrange the deal for the riders, coordinate the deal with the state agencies, advocate for the park in opposition to the local people who don't want the extra noise and traffic? Suppose we did that, and just handed the parks to the riders on a silver platter. Suppose we did all their work for them. Would it really do anything more than alleviate some small percentage of the illegal activity out there?
Hey you know what, actually if the PPA cooperated with riders clubs to help them find appropriate properties, and educate them on riding responsibly, it would actually go a long way towards doing something positive for the environment. The mission of the PPA, and organizations like it, is to protect the environment. Providing riders places to go and offering a safe, legal alternative to riding in places they shouldn't go would be a huge win for the environment. Unfortunately nobody wants to see it that way.
Also, the PPA could say to the DEP "hey, you know we'd see less riders in the woods if you'd actually do your job and keep your promises."
I think I must live in a dream world, though. Or maybe because I'm not beholden to either side I can see the forest through the trees. I am sure that nothing I will ever say here will change anybodys mind, which is incredibly sad because I think a solution would be easy to find if people worked together to solve a problem and dropped the "not my problem" attitude.
