Fix Our Parks

[Jon Holcombe]

(1) state land regulations would have to be revised. (so why not get your new group to push for that).
(2) it's probably almost impossible, in the Pinelands, to satisfy the regulation (see (1) above).
(3) there would be vehement public opposition, due to the fact nobody thinks it's possible to contain the riders. (Thats a supposition that limits ideas).

Bob, I am not an ATV rider, but is it reasonable to think that if there were areas that were "ATV Legal", that would stop the incursion of ATV's into illegal areas? It seems to me you are simply encouraging more ATV purchases, and the more people that own them, the more likely they are to ride into areas that are not strictly "set-aside" for ATV's. I do not see the logic in your proposal. You aren't talking about GTO's drag racing at Atco. These are "All Terrain Vehicles" and they are designed to ride into savanna's, and streams, and meadows and into the woods.

Encouraging ATV's means encouraging more illegal activity.

 

[bobpbx]

I think they need an outlet, yes. Just like they had in Chatsworth. Put about 8 of those in a ring around the pinelands. Use half the fees to create task forces to patrol the taxpayer owned pines for scofflaws, with heavy fines. They won't be able to tell their legislators they have no place to ride.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

I think they need an outlet, yes. Just like they had in Chatsworth. Put about 8 of those in a ring around the pinelands. Use half the fees to create task forces to patrol the taxpayer owned pines for scofflaws, with heavy fines. They won't be able to tell their legislators they have no place to ride.

The world has changed, population has expanded. Creating 8 parks around the Pinelands National Reserve sounds like a plan to encourage far greater ATV use (currently illegal and I assume for a reason). Handing keys to 14 year old kids and teenagers and expecting them to ride responsibly? Ride here, not there, follow rules, and by the way, maintain ecological balance in the Pinelands? There are 50 year old men that don't follow the rules.

I would look for a way to cut back (without closing roads) on the number of vehicles (permits) and absolutely NOT look for ways to dramatically increase the number of currently illegal vehicles.

 

[Broke Jeep Joe]

This resurrects an old debate. Three big impediments are (1) state land regulations would have to be revised; (2) it's probably almost impossible, in the Pinelands, to satisfy the regulations; and (3) there would be vehement public opposition, due to the fact nobody thinks it's possible to contain the riders. There's no reason to believe that the existence of a legal place (or multiple such places) to ride would significantly reduce the amount of illegal traffic, so the sector of the public that cares about natural resource conservation would be asking, why should we accept the sacrifice of this land, when we're already seeing unacceptable negative impacts that aren't being addressed?

If we are willing to consider following PA's model for volunteerism to maintain forests, why cant we follow PA's model for ATV usage? How do they do it? The riders break the law because there is no other outlet in this state, not that it makes it right but c'mon Russ, put the shoe on the other foot. I'm guessing Bob is correct in his assumption, however I must ask why you think you are the "end" of the conversation when it comes to how the public uses the forest? Is there no room for discussion other than preservation? My way or the highway? You come here after years of not posting anything and want to "discuss" how we all use the forest? come to "agreements" on what is to be closed? I think @Pinesbucks said it best with no closure at all until laws are enforced. You want to advocate for something? Use your power within the state to fund more LEO's. Once that is done we can discuss what else needs to be done to designate ROW's of travel.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I think they need an outlet, yes. Just like they had in Chatsworth. Put about 8 of those in a ring around the pinelands. Use half the fees to create task forces to patrol the taxpayer owned pines for scofflaws, with heavy fines. They won't be able to tell their legislators they have no place to ride.

Although I can't agree that they "need" an outlet, I think your concept is good. I also think that there may be a case for a carefully regulated program for certain kinds of ATVs. I guess there's a class of vehicle that might be better called a utility vehicle that is used at moderate speeds, such as by hunters. I can't imagine anyone being opposed to ATVs in the state forest if there wasn't such a chronic case of irresponsible riding and widespread destruction of wildlife habitat. If a plan, like the one you propose, could actually be implemented, such that the illegal riding could truly be controlled, that would be marvelous. The trick would be actually finding the places and actually proving that the law enforcement would be truly effective.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I must ask why you think you are the "end" of the conversation when it comes to how the public uses the forest? Is there no room for discussion other than preservation? My way or the highway?

Joe, we're probably gonna agree on some things and disagree on others. You say what you think, and I say what I think. That's just the nature of debate.

 

[enormiss]

Creating 8 parks around the Pinelands National Reserve sounds like a plan to encourage far greater ATV use (currently illegal and I assume for a reason).

ATV's are legal, the state gladly collects the tax on the sale, registration money, and fuel tax.
I don't own one and get the desire to keep them out of areas but they need somewhere to ride them. They aren't going away.
Also I wonder how many people incorrectly think the registered, tagged, and insured motorcycles they see are illegal.

 

[Broke Jeep Joe]

Joe, we're probably gonna agree on some things and disagree on others. You say what you think, and I say what I think. That's just the nature of debate.

Debate, Discussion or Dictatorship? I do agree with many of your points here and the dare I say it, PPA's points. However to me closure is failure.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

ATV's are legal, the state gladly collects the tax on the sale, registration money, and fuel tax.
I don't own one and get the desire to keep them out of areas but they need somewhere to ride them. They aren't going away.
Also I wonder how many people incorrectly think the registered, tagged, and insured motorcycles they see are illegal.

It's legal to own an ATV and ride it on your own property or on a property where someone has given you permission. It's not legal to ride one on state lands. The fact that legal opportunities to ride them is limited sounds like a good reason to not buy one unless you can take advantage of those legal opportunities. The fact that lots of people like to do something that is illegal is not a reason to cater to those people. If, however, the state is determined to cater to them and create parks for them, without destroying valuable wildlife habitat, and while simultaneously demonstrating that it can reverse its current policy of complicity, leniency, and permissiveness, then the ecologically-conscious members of the public might accept that.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Debate, Discussion or Dictatorship? I do agree with many of your points here and the dare I say it, PPA's points. However to me closure is failure.

Not sure where you're trying to go with this, Joe. I certainly don't have any dictatorial powers. If I did, I would dictate to the law enforcement agencies to start effectively enforcing the regulations and laws. The only power I have is the same as the one you have, which is to state my opinion and present my arguments. To me, the issue about closing roads is more complicated than either "close all the roads" or "don't close any roads." I don't know anybody who has argued or is arguing that we should close all the roads. As I mentioned earlier, there are a few categories of "roads" that should be closed, and that includes roads (and trails) that were created illegally, and roads that were created by firefighters, which were never intended to be public thoroughfares.

 

[bobpbx]

As I mentioned earlier, there are a few categories of "roads" that should be closed, and that includes roads (and trails) that were created illegally, and roads that were created by firefighters, which were never intended to be public thoroughfares.

Russ, I don't get why you are so worked up about some of the open roads. Is there a wish list of roads and trails you want the state to close? Let that sleeping dog lie and work on getting the needed enforcement.

 

[Boyd]

Russ, maybe you can enlighten us on this. The PPA has a published policy for "Managing Off-Road Vehicle Use on Preserved Lands". Among other things, it says:

"State land managers shall designate, map and mark those roads that are safe for motorized vehicles", "land managers shall determine the types and intensities of uses it can sustain" and "State land managers shall monitor designated roads and mark them as closed".

To me, this sounds like a written description of the MAP which was created by the Wharton "land manager".

https://pinelandsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Policy-Recommendations-for-Managing-Off-Road-Vehicle-Use-on-Preserved-Lands-4-2019.pdf

The PPA is one of four founders of "Fix Our Parks" and seems to be taking the lead, since they hold the copyright for the website, they posted the video and they are listed as the contact for the site.

The Fix Our Parks website lists three "Specific Campaign Goals" and number two is "Give more power/authority to the Superintendents to have the flexibility to complete projects."

About the Campaign | Fix Our Parks NJ

www.fixourparksnj.org

Connecting the dots, this might lead one to believe that Fix Our Parks supports a MAP created by superintendents using their new powers. But I don't want to jump to any unwarranted conclusions. Maybe you can tell us how these pieces fit together?

 

[Ben Ruset]

If anybody fancies a trip down memory lane, here's 8 pages of posts from 2008 where we're all making similar arguments to ones now.

I only re-discovered it because I was curious if Russ had posted in any of the non-ORV discussions on this site recently. I really don't want to be cynical, but given his long absence it looks like he's just here to push this agenda rather than participate in the community in general. That's fine but I hope these ORV related threads eventually burn themselves out. There's so much other great stuff to celebrate and discuss about the Pine Barrens.

If solutions were to be found by hammering this agenda on internet forums or social media, they would have been found by now since this has been debated on this site all the way back to it's beginnings in 2003.

 

[enormiss]

If, however, the state is determined to cater to them and create parks for them, without destroying valuable wildlife habitat, and while simultaneously demonstrating that it can reverse its current policy of complicity, leniency, and permissiveness, then the ecologically-conscious members of the public might accept that.

Catering... Kind of harsh. Do we use the same term for other recreation?
And creation and enforcement doesn't need to (shouldn't) be simultaneous.

 

[tsqurd]

He seems to be overlooking or not care, that whether he/you/I/we like it or not, there are is a non-insignificant number of New Jersey-ians that choose to recreate on ATVs. Would seem to me the DEP has the obligation to take those people in to account looking at their guiding principles.

And how arrogant to assume that one is not ecologically conscious if they choose to recreate on an ATV.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Russ, I don't get why you are so worked up about some of the open roads. Is there a wish list of roads and trails you want the state to close? Let that sleeping dog lie and work on getting the needed enforcement.

If you read some of the scientific literature on the impacts of roads and motorized traffic on wildlife habitats, you'll see why I'm worked up. And I've seen with my own eyes that over the last 10 years or so, the situation is getting steadily worse. You're out there all the time. You're well acquainted with the aerial photography that shows how bad it is. I don't understand why you're not worked up about it. As I discussed in another forum, the legal road system is, by itself, a death knell to many of our wildlife species, especially especially reptiles and amphibians, but it also has general negative effects on the entire ecosystem, due to noise, visual stimuli, air pollution, soil compaction, direct destruction of plant communities, and soil erosion. To put it as simply as possible, the legal roads and traffic are bad enough. Why would we want to compound that by continuing to condone illegal roads, trails, and traffic?

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Russ, maybe you can enlighten us on this. The PPA has a published policy for "Managing Off-Road Vehicle Use on Preserved Lands". Among other things, it says:

"State land managers shall designate, map and mark those roads that are safe for motorized vehicles", "land managers shall determine the types and intensities of uses it can sustain" and "State land managers shall monitor designated roads and mark them as closed".

To me, this sounds like a written description of the MAP which was created by the Wharton "land manager".

I'll try to take this a piece at a time. We all know that PPA not only endorsed, but also assisted in the creation of Rob's MAP. PPA is a conservation organization, so no one should be surprised that they took the actions they did. On the other hand, some of the criticism they received was patently unfair, even absurd. For example, it was widely reported by PPA critics that this was a slippery slope, and the true hidden agenda was to eventually "close all the roads." There was also considerable circulation of the conspiracy theory that PPA was plotting with Rob to have Pinelands Adventures become the only way for people gain access to the state forest.

Regardless, we all know what the final outcome was. DEP did nothing. The intelligent thing would have been to postpone all the closures except the ones that obviously needed to happen, such as illegally-created roads and trails, and go to work on a revision of the MAP that would be more generally accepted. Obviously, that would have been a real challenge, but the forest needs some kind of a map, and DEP officials at the time took the coward's way out.

For seven years, the outlaw riding has gone on unabated. We still need maps. People who put a premium on protecting the ecosystem will lobby for less roads. People who put a premium on access and convenience will lobby for more. We live in a democratic republic. We will sometimes argue with each other.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

The PPA is one of four founders of "Fix Our Parks" and seems to be taking the lead, since they hold the copyright for the website, they posted the video and they are listed as the contact for the site.

The Fix Our Parks website lists three "Specific Campaign Goals" and number two is "Give more power/authority to the Superintendents to have the flexibility to complete projects."

About the Campaign | Fix Our Parks NJ

www.fixourparksnj.org

Connecting the dots, this might lead one to believe that Fix Our Parks supports a MAP created by superintendents using their new powers. But I don't want to jump to any unwarranted conclusions. Maybe you can tell us how these pieces fit together?

The specific goal "Give more power/authority to the Superintendents to have the flexibility to complete projects" is because for the last 7 or so years, there are common sense projects that park superintendents would like to do, but they have been held back by DEP officials. There are hundreds of places, for example, where it's obvious that riders are routinely leaving the road system and driving in wildlife habitats such as ponds, streams or continually widening eroded areas on stream and river banks. There's no logical reason for authorities to stop state lands managers from putting up barricades in such situations.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

If anybody fancies a trip down memory lane, here's 8 pages of posts from 2008 where we're all making similar arguments to ones now.

I only re-discovered it because I was curious if Russ had posted in any of the non-ORV discussions on this site recently. I really don't want to be cynical, but given his long absence it looks like he's just here to push this agenda rather than participate in the community in general. That's fine but I hope these ORV related threads eventually burn themselves out. There's so much other great stuff to celebrate and discuss about the Pine Barrens.

If solutions were to be found by hammering this agenda on internet forums or social media, they would have been found by now since this has been debated on this site all the way back to it's beginnings in 2003.

Yes, I am trying to push my agenda, but if you look at the situation in terms of the impacts of illegal riding on the ecosystem, I think you'll want to push the agenda too. I know you care about conservation. If you would rather not have this discussion on the forum, I absolutely would agree to stop! Those who want to engage on it have the opportunity to do so on other sites. I just know there are a lot of people on this forum that are Pine Barrens enthusiasts and experts, so, I was hoping we could make a fresh start on an old problem. And, if you ask me, this discussion is way better than those we had back in 2008. Much less rancor, and much more of a logical approach to the problem.

 

[Boyd]

Thanks Russ. As I understand, you're saying that the development of a map should be a collaborative process as opposed to letting the park supervisors create it (which is apparently what the PPA wants)?