Colliers Mills Being Heavily Abused by ORV's

[Ben Ruset]

Another Jason thread gone sideways.

 

[46er]

I see a pattern....

 

[GermanG]

We rage when members of certain environmental groups make sly comments about us so I don't think we should resort to that level too.

Plus there's a lot of environmentalists on this site, and only a few of us are mental.

While I expect it from developers and others motivated by either greed or indifference to rape the environment, I cringe when anyone who pursues outdoor activities denigrates environmentalists. The term can be accurately applied to a broad range of people and organizations, and the PETA and other extremist groups are in the fringe minority. My transition into an environmentalist, both philosophically and professionally, stemmed from a passion for hunting, fishing, hiking and camping. I was aghast at the destruction by development of the continually shrinking natural areas of our state. At first I was simply motivated by the loss of areas where I pursued my passions. Gradually, curiosity about my surroundings led my to delve into botany, birding, herping and historical explorations as well. Anyone who pursues any or all of these activities who is NOT an environmentalist is either a fool or using their own narrow and inaccurate definition of environmentalist.

 

[46er]

I look at myself and most folks here as conservationists, there are some, such as those supporting the MAP that are more the environmental type; note the small letters Just saying, there is a difference. In focus groups conducted by the Univ of Wisconsin, this is how the public views both, and based on recent discussions, appears pretty accurate;


Environmentalist: Someone whose agenda and work is driven by a set of over-arching beliefs - an ideology.
Conservationist: Someone who is working on a practical solution to a particular problem

Environmentalist: The environment is to be saved, preserved, set aside, protected from human abuse.
Conservationist: The environment is something we use, so we have to conserve it and take care of it, so that others can use it in the future.

Environmentalist: From somewhere else - a national, international, or state capitol group
Conservationist: Local, a neighbor or community member

Environmentalist: Extreme, radical, impassioned
Conservationist: Practical, balanced

Environmentalist: Rarely satisfied
Conservationist: Pragmatic

Environmentalist: Gloomy
Conservationist: Solution-oriented

Environmentalist: Plays a necessary role - a public conscience and watchdog. Makes a difference.
Conservationist: Contributes to the community. Makes a difference.

Environmentalist: Slightly superior/righteous
Conservationist: Just one of us

Environmentalist Stereotype: Greenpeace activist
Conservationist Stereotype: Local duck hunter

 

[bobpbx]

I'd like to see the makeup of those focus groups 46'r; region, age, gender, income, education, political party, etc. Results seem very skewed.

 

[46er]

Results seem very skewed.

In what way? The University would probably have that info.

 

[GermanG]

Several of those distinctions are comparing conservationists to preservationists, not to environmentalists. Nothing of substance that I see there anyway, mostly self-serving and inaccurate characterizations. A group will rarely be accurately defined by its detractors.

 

[NJChileHead]

"Environmentalist: The environment is to be saved, preserved, set aside, protected from human abuse.
Conservationist: The environment is something we use, so we have to conserve it and take care of it, so that others can use it in the future."

I'm having some trouble with this one, and with some other definitions. I think that it's problematic overall to try to pigeonhole people in either group, because I think that an overwhelming number of (let's use the term outdoorsmen for now) will sit somewhere between the extremes.

I think that you can look at environmental conservation from three different standpoints:

1. Human-centered: defined as the conservationist is defined above, the only inherent value in preserving/conserving (however you want to phrase it) the environment is based on what direct benefit we humans can derive from it. The slippery slope is that anything not of direct value may be met with apathy at most.

2. Bio-centered: the inherent value in preserving/conserving etc. the environment is in the benefit and inherent value of living things themselves; trees/plants, animals, etc. The slippery slope is that it is contradictory to #1 and may be perceived as putting the value of animal and plant life above the value of humans.

3. Eco-centered: I would define this as seeing the inherent value in preserving/conserving the environment coming from the linkage of one living thing to another (ultimately including us). Everything is part of the chain including us, whether we accept it or not. For example, cutting the head off of a snake doesn't benefit us because they are mousers and keep white footed mice numbers down, which carry Lyme, etc. As much as we may try to use technology and agricultural practices to divorce ourselves from the natural world, we can't escape being a part of the food chain in one way or another. A brief look at the effects of colony collapse syndrome on agriculture shines a light on this very quickly. Therefore, a completely utilitarian view of the natural world around us is short-sighted, because the inherent value then goes to what we can use, and whatever we can not use becomes devalued (even if it may be an essential but overlooked part of the ecosystem).

I believe #3 to be the healthiest and most grounded of the three perspectives, because there is mutual weight given to perspective #1 and #2, and the overall theme is that all should benefit accordingly.

 

[Ben Ruset]

I think the media, especially conservative media, has turned "environmentalist" into a word with negative connotations. That being said, there's plenty of environmental activists that play right into that stereotype.

The biggest problem is that people are not taught, from an early age, to understand and appreciate nature and the role that we play as the stewards of the planet.

I bet that educating people at a young age would go a long way towards instilling a sense of respect in people for not only the environment but other human beings. This would preserve the forest better than any road closure could.

 

[PineBarrens Advocate]

"Environmentalist: The environment is to be saved, preserved, set aside, protected from human abuse.
Conservationist: The environment is something we use, so we have to conserve it and take care of it, so that others can use it in the future."

I'm having some trouble with this one, and with some other definitions. I think that it's problematic overall to try to pigeonhole people in either group, because I think that an overwhelming number of (let's use the term outdoorsmen for now) will sit somewhere between the extremes.

I think that you can look at environmental conservation from three different standpoints:

1. Human-centered: defined as the conservationist is defined above, the only inherent value in preserving/conserving (however you want to phrase it) the environment is based on what direct benefit we humans can derive from it. The slippery slope is that anything not of direct value may be met with apathy at most.

2. Bio-centered: the inherent value in preserving/conserving etc. the environment is in the benefit and inherent value of living things themselves; trees/plants, animals, etc. The slippery slope is that it is contradictory to #1 and may be perceived as putting the value of animal and plant life above the value of humans.

3. Eco-centered: I would define this as seeing the inherent value in preserving/conserving the environment coming from the linkage of one living thing to another (ultimately including us). Everything is part of the chain including us, whether we accept it or not. For example, cutting the head off of a snake doesn't benefit us because they are mousers and keep white footed mice numbers down, which carry Lyme, etc. As much as we may try to use technology and agricultural practices to divorce ourselves from the natural world, we can't escape being a part of the food chain in one way or another. A brief look at the effects of colony collapse syndrome on agriculture shines a light on this very quickly. Therefore, a completely utilitarian view of the natural world around us is short-sighted, because the inherent value then goes to what we can use, and whatever we can not use becomes devalued (even if it may be an essential but overlooked part of the ecosystem).

I believe #3 to be the healthiest and most grounded of the three perspectives, because there is mutual weight given to perspective #1 and #2, and the overall theme is that all should benefit accordingly.

Agree with #3, also would like to mention the physical, mental and spiritual health benefits to humankind by having access to nature. A classic win-win by promoting conservation and for exceptional/critical areas and/or ecosystems, preservation.

 

[smoke_jumper]

I bet that educating people at a young age would go a long way towards instilling a sense of respect in people for not only the environment but other human beings. This would preserve the forest better than any road closure could.

I agree 100%. My 9 year daughter old has no problem identifying many plants and animals in the pines. She also knows the roads better then some of my friends. She likes harassing beavers making them slap their tails and run. When she sees a snake it's game over and wants to go home though (I'm working on that one). We constantly bring home trash from our favorite locations (which is usually from kayakers and canoe rentals). When those little brown signs appeared last July she couldn't understand why some of our favorite places were closed off even after I explained that it was to stop the damage. I'm hope that as she gets older her respect the pines would only grow.

 

[NJChileHead]

I think the media, especially conservative media, has turned "environmentalist" into a word with negative connotations. That being said, there's plenty of environmental activists that play right into that stereotype.

The biggest problem is that people are not taught, from an early age, to understand and appreciate nature and the role that we play as the stewards of the planet.

I bet that educating people at a young age would go a long way towards instilling a sense of respect in people for not only the environment but other human beings. This would preserve the forest better than any road closure could.

Could not agree more.

 

[Jason Howell]

really quite sad as this continues.

 

[PineBarrens Advocate]

Good morning, the folks at NJ Fish and Wildlife who regulate use at this Wildlife Management Area can be reached by phone or mail : http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/contact.htm

The regulations concerning motor vehicles are :
Motor Vehicles

"No person shall operate an unregistered vehicle on roads under the control of the Division of Fish and Wildlife. All motor vehicles are restricted to established public roads and parking areas. The use of dog sleds and dog carts, off-road vehicles, ATVs, motorized trailbikes or snowmobiles is prohibited on all Wildlife Management Areas unless authorized by the Division."

The question is whether that road the Jeep is on is an "established public road". If it is, then the Jeep driver is acting lawfully (albeit that is an awful lot of erosion taking place). If it's not an established public road, then it would be great if the proper authorities are notified and corrective action taken. I have never visited this area (to far North for me), glad to see someone concerned.

 

[46er]

really quite sad as this continues.

Have you reported them Jason? You are aware you can also file a summons against them; just need the plate number, a call to regional LE and a little time. To help you along, here is the number for that region; Central Region Office, Law Enforcement - 609-259-2120

 

[Jason Howell]

Have you reported them Jason? You are aware you can also file a summons against them; just need the plate number, a call to regional LE and a little time. To help you along, here is the number for that region; Central Region Office, Law Enforcement - 609-259-2120

I'll do this one today, will you get the next one? Whats your take on the plate numbers? looks like N75GBA to me.

 

[Tony]

First of all Jason this is not continuing to happen. I was out riding my legal dirt bike yesterday at hidden
Lake off of rt72 and obseved that's fish and game had a number of quads and trucks apprehended and were
Issuing summonses. So the police are doing their job so stop the bitching.

 

[Jason Howell]

First of all Jason this is not continuing to happen. I was out riding my legal dirt bike yesterday at hidden
Lake off of rt72 and obseved that's fish and game had a number of quads and trucks apprehended and were
Issuing summonses. So the police are doing their job so stop the bitching.

You say this isn't continuing to happen and at the same time you say you are witness to multiple violations? Some tickets are issued, and the problem just continues. I spoke with one Conservation Officer about hidden lakes, and his quote was striking. Last summer they issued over 170 tickets at that one location and the riders just keep coming back. They just view a once in a blue moon fine as the price of admission. We need to do more than just issue tickets(pun intended).

 

[Piney4life]

Open the 3 off road parks that the state said they would

 

[46er]

I'll do this one today, will you get the next one? Whats your take on the plate numbers? looks like N75GBA to me.

I already have Jason, several times, unlike those that just like to post about them As far as the plate #, you have to witness the illegal event, not use someone's UTube vid. I would think you would be aware of this.