Editorial: ORV Use in the Pine Barrens

Status
Not open for further replies.

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
bobpbx said:
Whoops. Better clarify that for me Russ. By "you", are you saying "you who own" a piece of land that doesn't have significant natural resource? The reason I ask is, I don't consider a leatherleaf bog (especially a semi-dry one) a significant natural resource. But if its on state property, I don't like to see some yahoo tearing it up. I might want to gaze at it some day. Its all of ours to enjoy.

I understand that we can debate what constitutes a significant natural resource. In the context of private property--again, this is not the primary issue--I would say that if someone is destroying a leatherleaf bog on his own private property, he is degrading a wetland, which is a significant natural resource. Even if it is semi-dry, the presence of that plant makes the area a wetland by definition. So PPA would be opposed to that and would probably ask the owner to to restore the wetland and may even ask authorities to investigate the matter. If the leatherleaf bog is on public property, then the case is open and shut. It's illegal to destroy public property.
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
LongIslandPiney said:
You certainly cannot group ORV's all together, but that's what alot of environmentalists do. The ATV's IMO cause the most damage. They often drive through with reckless abandon, and in one case tried to run me off the trail.
Jeeps and 4x4's do not cause as much damage, and I certainly see no problem with allowing them on the longer woods roads. Especially when you're 10 or more miles in, hiking that and back is impossible for most, so you've got to drive there.
Here on LI vehicles (cars,4x4s,etc) are allowed on the longer "main" dirt roads that are in most of the DEC preserves. Often it is the only way for hunters to access the area.
In the end it really all depends on the driver. Even an ATV driven right won't cause damage or be a disruption.
So certain there should be some trails for ATV's as well. Illegal ATV riding is a problem because there is NO WHERE to ride them legally.

It's hard to say what kind of vehicle causes the most damage because, as you say, it really depends on the driver. The main point is that motor vehicles of any kind should stay on the road in natural areas. I think the reason ATV's are banned on the state lands is because too many ATV riders have demonstrated that they have no respect for the law or for law enforcement officials. If we made trails for them, we have no reason to believe they would stay on them. They've proven this all over the country. Maybe it's a case of a few bad apples ruining it for the rest.
 

woodjin

Piney
Nov 8, 2004
4,274
244
Near Mt. Misery
ATV's or quads are always going to be more destructive than motorcycles just due to tire size. To say that they are more destructive than a 4x4 strictly comes down to the rider/driver. Quads have become very very popular in the last 10 to 15 years and out number alll other forms of ORVs so it makes them seem more destructive...alot of it is sheer numbers. I don't ride quads myself, but I have seen them riden responsibily. I think that it is just a number game of why quad riders seem to have the most disregard for the environment.

I hate to point fingers but if I can this once, I have noticed that out of state and North Jersey riders have far, far less regard for the woods than the locals. I have seen this first hand and it is fustrating. The Chatsworth ORV park was very successful in that it lured the Outsiders away from the woods.

Jeff
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
woodjin said:
ATV's or quads are always going to be more destructive than motorcycles just due to tire size. To say that they are more destructive than a 4x4 strictly comes down to the rider/driver. Quads have become very very popular in the last 10 to 15 years and out number alll other forms of ORVs so it makes them seem more destructive...alot of it is sheer numbers. I don't ride quads myself, but I have seen them riden responsibily. I think that it is just a number game of why quad riders seem to have the most disregard for the environment.
Jeff

That sounds right to me. Another point though, is that quad riders tend to take their vehicles into places where dirt bikers wouldn't. Like riding right down a stream or into a pond or other soft, wet areas where a dirt bike just can't go through. Worst of all, in my opinion, is the big trucks.
 

supercilious

Scout
Jun 27, 2004
35
0
I read the previous posts, and i admit scanned a bit of them, but noone mentioned the history of ORV, or more easy ATV's. I seriously doubt ATV destruction is even near the levels indicated, but to be honest, its the history of ATV's that i agree with the banning of them. As a teenager in the mid 90's, we who had ATV's were mixed, it was us farm boys, or people living near farms (or girls, trying to not be sexist). There was no "utility quad" or that stuff then, and most people didint own ATV's, they were some odd thing that certain people owned to go around, and rip up trails (trails made of SAND, not plants), and farmland. When i was riding, people had places to ride, either illegal, or legal, but places available to be driven from their homes on the ATV itself. Now illegal was not into crops, or forest, just sand trails, or back roads, it was more of a fun transportation machine then anything else. The real problem is, which i know people, is people having a house, with a backyard i could in all seriousness, piss across to the neighbors yard from any direction, owning ATV's. These people are the ones going out to these places, and are just going bezerker, and getting mad when they cant drive over someones soybeans, or go into the local baseball field, or into a state park. These people have no reason to own an ATV, but they can, but should not be supported by the State of New Jersey in tax money for them to ride. Anyone can own one, but i see no reason in state support for "riding places". The ATV/Dirt Bike market has totally exploded since the late 90's, and you can see it in the price hike of the same ATV in just 5 years, its insane, but demand allows it. ATV's or whatever dont need to be supported by tax dollars in any way, if you own one, and if you want to do doughnuts in your 5' by 5' yard, then thats your choice, not to go riding on my farm, or in the pinelands because you think you have some right just because you spent $7000 for something that cost $3000 new less then 10 years ago. To hit the insurance issue, its all about idiots injuring themselves, others, or property that has drove this need for insurance, but its really because of the expansion of unneeded ownership. I am against insurance for any ATV/ORV, because people can own them for their own purpose, and be covered by homeowners insurances, health insurance, etc, you punish them to support people who sue/claim when they dont need an ATV, but cripple themselves or run over someone, let their estate, and future estate be liable. As for the pollution problem, this is outright stupid to compare an ATV or "ORV" to an automobile. When you drive you auto down the road, most likely when it leaks fluid on the road (they all leak something) it is washed into storm drains. Storm drains lead direct into creeks, streams, and eventually into the Delaware or Atlantic. They are just pushing pollution into water sources, when leaking fluid in anywhere else is just put into the top layer of ground, and not concentrated into an ecosystem. As for air pollution, this two cycle, four cycle debate, lets put it into autos, a weekend of ATV riding is less then most people pollute just driving to work, so the pollution argument is outright idiotic, and yes, i did not mention, lawn care, or the products you buy that create pollution from their creation, or the electricity you will use to make some stupid response to pollution, fix the real problems, not a boom ATV sales to hammer on the pollution they create.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
12,381
2,599
Pines; Bamber area
supercilious said:
These people have no reason to own an ATV, but they can, but should not be supported by the State of New Jersey in tax money for them to ride. Anyone can own one, but i see no reason in state support for "riding places".

I agree with that thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top