Fix Our Parks

[G. Russell Juelg]

Russell, I understand the impact that roads have on salamanders and turtles and other amphibians and reptiles. There are public highways in New England (and I am sure, in New Jersey) where naturalists wait all night to help them cross so they aren't killed, because there's no other easy solution. I wonder if culverts can be installed to help this, on roads where closing would restrict too much access? And if there are specific roads that cut through critical habitat and migration routes, maybe they can be closed, especially if other roads that give access to the same area are maintained for registered vehicles.

"Just walk it" is pretty ableist. It is not feasible or desired to make every natural area accessible for people who can't walk or hike long distances, but it is discriminatory to take away access that has existed for decades without proof that registered vehicle access on a particular road is killing wildlife. As a hiker, I am in good shape and can walk it, but not everyone can. Taking away their access may even be illegal.

A couple of things we could explore on these topics. The obvious impacts of roads and traffic are direct mortalities that we all see. Less obvious, but still very seriously degrading to wildlife communities, are the direct mortalities we don't see, because scavengers pick up a lot of the dead or wounded animals, the effects of noise, visual stimuli, and air pollution, the direct loss of habitat, and, with dirt roads, compaction of soils and/or erosion. Biologists have thoroughly documented the effects of all kinds of roads, and while some species actually do benefit in some specific ways, the overall effects are overwhelmingly bad.

This has led to quite a lot of investment in strategies to design roads in ways that reduce some of the bad effects, and also strategies to reverse some bad effects via the installation of wildlife overpasses and tunnels, fences, and, as you say, in some cases volunteers to directly help crossing animals. Check out "Connecting Habitats Across New Jersey" here: https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/chanj.htm.

Studies that I have seen indicate that none of these strategies resolve the problems introduced by roads and traffic; they only reduce some of the bad effects. From the perspective of wildlife conservation, roads are just plain bad. The more roads you have, the worse the impacts. That's why no one should be surprised or offended when conservationists advocate for fewer roads. They're not trying to "lock up the land" or "close all the roads." They're just conservationists acting like conservationists. It would be most productive, in my opinion, for all of us to understand why they are advocating for the closing of some particular road, because, as you say, there may be "specific roads that cut through critical habitat and migration routes," and there may be other logical reasons.

I do understand that, if we ask why authorities are closing certain roads, and we are not given the reason, but are told, instead, to just walk, that's unacceptable. In the case of T&E species, they may not be able to give us the precise reason, because sometimes disclosing species-specific and location-specific information about T&E species makes the species more susceptible to unscrupulous collectors or even poachers.

I'm not sure how to address the issue of access for people with various disabilities. That's an important topic, and obviously extremely problematic in wilderness areas.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Maybe someone with more knowledge than I have can speak to this, but if you buy a Class 1 ORV from a dealer do you get a title that you have to bring to the DMV to register? If so maybe there can be a manual that's handed out to the buyer when they register it, if that's even a thing you have to do with them.

I think that's a great idea. As long as all ATVs and unregistered dirt bikes are banned from state lands, there ought to be a requirement that buyers are notified of the fact.

 

[Ben Ruset]

It's not malice. It's based on the fact that the DEP reports that over 90% of offenders flee from police. Why would you flee if you think you're abiding by the law?

Without breaking my rule on political discussion here, I don't necessarily trust the police. If I had the ability to not interact with a police officer, whether or not I was knowingly doing something illegal, I wouldn't.

I would stick around if there was a way that I could be identified after the fact, like a license plate because at that point "the jig is up".

 

[Ben Ruset]

I do understand that, if we ask why authorities are closing certain roads, and we are not given the reason, but are told, instead, to just walk, that's unacceptable.

I appreciate you recognizing this.

 

[smoke_jumper]

A couple of things we could explore on these topics. The obvious impacts of roads and traffic are direct mortalities that we all see. Less obvious, but still very seriously degrading to wildlife communities, are the direct mortalities we don't see, because scavengers pick up a lot of the dead or wounded animals, the effects of noise, visual stimuli, and air pollution, the direct loss of habitat, and, with dirt roads, compaction of soils and/or erosion. Biologists have thoroughly documented the effects of all kinds of roads, and while some species actually do benefit in some specific ways, the overall effects are overwhelmingly bad.

This has led to quite a lot of investment in strategies to design roads in ways that reduce some of the bad effects, and also strategies to reverse some bad effects via the installation of wildlife overpasses and tunnels, fences, and, as you say, in some cases volunteers to directly help crossing animals. Check out "Connecting Habitats Across New Jersey" here: https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/chanj.htm.

Studies that I have seen indicate that none of these strategies resolve the problems introduced by roads and traffic; they only reduce some of the bad effects. From the perspective of wildlife conservation, roads are just plain bad. The more roads you have, the worse the impacts. That's why no one should be surprised or offended when conservationists advocate for fewer roads. They're not trying to "lock up the land" or "close all the roads." They're just conservationists acting like conservationists. It would be most productive, in my opinion, for all of us to understand why they are advocating for the closing of some particular road, because, as you say, there may be "specific roads that cut through critical habitat and migration routes," and there may be other logical reasons.

I do understand that, if we ask why authorities are closing certain roads, and we are not given the reason, but are told, instead, to just walk, that's unacceptable. In the case of T&E species, they may not be able to give us the precise reason, because sometimes disclosing species-specific and location-specific information about T&E species makes the species more susceptible to unscrupulous collectors or even poachers.

I'm not sure how to address the issue of access for people with various disabilities. That's an important topic, and obviously extremely problematic in wilderness areas.

In all my years of traveling in the pines I have never seen a dead or injured animal on a sand road. Not to say it doesn’t happen but it seems rare to me even on highly traveled roads.

 

[Teegate]

I appreciate you recognizing this.

I was actually told that.

 

[Tony]

In all my years of traveling in the pines I have never seen a dead or injured animal on a sand road. Not to say it doesn’t happen but it seems rare to me even on highly traveled roads.

I agree I have been traveling the pines for over fifty years and very rare to see a dead animal on a trail.

 

[Ben Ruset]

I was actually told that.

Same. I was looking through old emails and saw someone else we both know say that he was told the same thing.

 

[bobpbx]

Read between the lines folks. Somebody is grooming us to accept road closures due to wildlife issues without explanation.

 

[smoke_jumper]

Read between the lines folks. Somebody is grooming us to accept road closures due to wildlife issues without explanation.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Broke Jeep Joe]

Read between the lines folks. Somebody is grooming us to accept road closures due to wildlife issues without explanation.

You can in all likelihood eliminate "due to wildlife issues" from that statement.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Read between the lines folks. Somebody is grooming us to accept road closures due to wildlife issues without explanation.

Here's what I said: "I do understand that, if we ask why authorities are closing certain roads, and we are not given the reason, but are told, instead, to just walk, that's unacceptable. In the case of T&E species, they may not be able to give us the precise reason, because sometimes disclosing species-specific and location-specific information about T&E species makes the species more susceptible to unscrupulous collectors or even poachers."

Look, if you're determined to misconstrue someone's statements, pretend they said the opposite of what they actually said, because you don't like what they are saying, that's certainly your right. And if you don't want to address the substance of what I'm saying, and you'd rather go to false insinuation and innuendo, you can do that too. It just doesn't make for productive dialogue. And if wildlife conservation isn't a priority for you, and a higher priority is your convenience to drive to wherever you want to drive, well, that's your value system. It's not mine.

 

[ecampbell]

Ed it is all about Morning Glory.

Why is it OK to shut down hundreds of acres to all use because of a small area of plants someone is fond of. Why can't they be protected by fences.

 

[Ben Ruset]

And if wildlife conservation isn't a priority for you, and a higher priority is your convenience to drive to wherever you want to drive, well, that's your value system. It's not mine.

Wow.

 

[bobpbx]

Here's what I said: "I do understand that, if we ask why authorities are closing certain roads, and we are not given the reason, but are told, instead, to just walk, that's unacceptable. In the case of T&E species, they may not be able to give us the precise reason, because sometimes disclosing species-specific and location-specific information about T&E species makes the species more susceptible to unscrupulous collectors or even poachers."

Look, if you're determined to misconstrue someone's statements, pretend they said the opposite of what they actually said, because you don't like what they are saying, that's certainly your right. And if you don't want to address the substance of what I'm saying, and you'd rather go to false insinuation and innuendo, you can do that too. It just doesn't make for productive dialogue. And if wildlife conservation isn't a priority for you, and a higher priority is your convenience to drive to wherever you want to drive, well, that's your value system. It's not mine.

I will address the substance of what you are saying. I have never seen the DEP close a road in any state forest or WMA over concern for the demise of an animal crossing a road or lying in the road. In fact, I'm more likely to see a citizen proudly showing the public how they helped an animal get off the road before they were run over. So that begs the question; is there a plan for the DEP to start doing that? Who is motivating that if so; themselves or the private conservation organizations in this great state.

 

[Boyd]

I'm more likely to see a citizen proudly showing the public how they helped an animal get off the road before they were run over.

This little guy was sitting right in the middle of a road in Peaslee a couple weeks ago, too scared to run away when I drove up. Got out, talked to him for a minute and convinced him it was a bad place to be. He then ran off into the bushes.

 

[NJChileHead]

Hi Russ,

I wanted to throw my thoughts in at this point, and hopefully offer a sound solution to the illegal ORV problem, but before I do, I'm going to come clean with my biases. We all have them, we all look at our world through the lens of our experiences, and no two viewpoints are exactly the same, so I'm going to admit mine up front for transparency.

While I was growing up, my father and I visited the Pine Barrens regularly. We fished, I herped and botanized, we canoed, I swam, and my father let me off the figurative leash to explore as he felt I needed. I now have a degree in Environmental Science, have a career as a science teacher, run an outdoors club at my school, regularly lead nature walks for several organizations, and do volunteer work as a naturalist. None of that would have happened had it not been for my formative experiences in the Pine Barrens. As a father, I take my own children (we started when my oldest was 3, now one is 11 and one is 14) to the Pine Barrens to canoe/kayak, fish, herp, botanize, swim, and explore. My hope is that the Pine Barrens will be accessible to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, etc. to fish, explore, herp, canoe, botanize, swim. etc.

In such a densely populated state, one of our most precious resources is our open spaces. There's a very large and growing body of research that supports the physical, mental, and emotional benefits of spending time outdoors. There was even a term coined by psychologists called "Nature Deficit Disorder", which describes the ill effects on children who do not spend enough time in the outdoors. In a state like NJ, what better place to do that than 1.1 million acres of pristine wilderness?

But there's more: bringing people into the outdoors when they are children and young adults helps to foster a deeper connection with the land, one that lasts a lifetime. I've seen this with my own children: my older boy wants to be a herpetologist (has wanted that since he was 7). While my younger boy does not express any career goals for more than a few hours at a time, it's noteworthy that one of his greatest loves is fishing, and he is a more staunch conservationist than my older boy. My younger boy recently said to me that if he became governor, he would put a complete moratorium on building in NJ, because we need fewer buildings and more forests.

My agenda here, if you will, is that repeatedly bringing people closer to nature, especially when they are young, fosters a much deeper love of nature than they can get through books, structured programs, activism, etc. If we want to foster the next generation of stewards, they need to be in the woods experiencing it first hand. You, me, Jason Howell, Emile DeVito, none of us are going to live forever-so if we really love the land, and really want to see it protected, we need to allow people to experience it deeply so that they can love it too and protect it when we're gone.

So that's my position: I want to see the Pine Barrens an open place for people, young and old, to play, recreate, learn, explore, and enjoy freely. Any talk of closing parts of the Pine Barrens is, to me, antithetical to the benefits it can provide to the residents of the state. Sure, someone can argue that if people want to get into the Pine Barrens they can "just hike", but we all know that he real beauty of the Pine Barrens is that we can move from one desired spot to the next in a vehicle, relax and spend time there without having to traverse many miles on foot.

Here's my main concern with any road closures: let's say that it is determined that a few roads need to be closed because of illegal ORV traffic. Once closed, this traffic will likely funnel to other roads. Will those roads then be closed? If so, then there will be an uptick in traffic on other roads, and those roads may be closed. Rinse, repeat.

Suppose the original MAP was launched and ORV drivers shifted their traffic to Brendan Byrne SF? Would there be a MAP for Byrne too? Etc.

My fear, and I think the fear of several others on here, is the slippery slope that is created once the denial of access to the public begins. To supporters, the MAP sounds like a good idea on paper, it sounds like the morally upright, conservation-minded thing to do, to protect a fragile ecosystem against the irresponsible and destructive use of vehicles that tear up the landscape. No one in their right mind would argue against supporting an initiative that protects open space against illegal activity, but the solution of road closures is unjust in that it does not selectively punish the small number of those who commit the offenses, but instead punishes the general public at large, and anyone who does not have a key to the gate. The truly moral and just thing to do here is to find a solution that benefits the needs of the many instead of punishing the many to spite the few.

Here's my proposal:

First, recognize that there are different groups of people recreating in the Pines. There are birders, hikers, kayakers, naturalists, campers, fishermen, hunters, herpers, explorers, photographers, bushcrafters, botanists, and people who just cruise around for an afternoon outside (legally). If we remove group labels for a moment, we can and should assume that just about all of these people 1) are following the law, 2) are not making trouble for anyone else and 3) care about the welfare of the land. Therefore, there shouldn't be conflict between these groups as a whole, nor should any of these groups or individuals who identify with these groups be treated with contempt by any government or not-for-profit agency.

Second, illegal ORV use is an issue and it needs to be addressed. I've seen a lot of jeeps and other ORVs moving through the woods (in numbers) and they are always on main roads and always seem cool and respectful. These groups don't appear out of nowhere, surely they agree to meet up beforehand-why don't folks try to get in touch with leaders of those groups, or people who coordinate the meetups, and talk with the leaders? Sit down over a few beers and chat with them. Assume that their group is never part of the problem but let them know there are some knuckleheads who are giving their hobby a bad name, and let them know that loss of access has been floated. Ask them for some ideas and ask them if they'll keep an eye out and help lean on anyone who isn't respecting the forest. If I could make my own magic happen I'd comp some of these guys a guided canoe or kayak trip for their effort, or something similar. I think alienating them would be the worst thing that could be done. If they're riding legally, there's no reason why there should be an 'us-and-them' with any of those groups, and I think they would be good allies in our endeavor to protect the pines.

Russ, I look forward to your thoughts. If you'd like to continue this conversation with a beer at the Pic one night, I'd enjoy that too.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Hi Russ,

I wanted to throw my thoughts in at this point, and hopefully offer a sound solution to the illegal ORV problem, but before I do, I'm going to come clean with my biases. We all have them, we all look at our world through the lens of our experiences, and no two viewpoints are exactly the same, so I'm going to admit mine up front for transparency.

While I was growing up, my father and I visited the Pine Barrens regularly. We fished, I herped and botanized, we canoed, I swam, and my father let me off the figurative leash to explore as he felt I needed. I now have a degree in Environmental Science, have a career as a science teacher, run an outdoors club at my school, regularly lead nature walks for several organizations, and do volunteer work as a naturalist. None of that would have happened had it not been for my formative experiences in the Pine Barrens. As a father, I take my own children (we started when my oldest was 3, now one is 11 and one is 14) to the Pine Barrens to canoe/kayak, fish, herp, botanize, swim, and explore. My hope is that the Pine Barrens will be accessible to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, etc. to fish, explore, herp, canoe, botanize, swim. etc.

In such a densely populated state, one of our most precious resources is our open spaces. There's a very large and growing body of research that supports the physical, mental, and emotional benefits of spending time outdoors. There was even a term coined by psychologists called "Nature Deficit Disorder", which describes the ill effects on children who do not spend enough time in the outdoors. In a state like NJ, what better place to do that than 1.1 million acres of pristine wilderness?

But there's more: bringing people into the outdoors when they are children and young adults helps to foster a deeper connection with the land, one that lasts a lifetime. I've seen this with my own children: my older boy wants to be a herpetologist (has wanted that since he was 7). While my younger boy does not express any career goals for more than a few hours at a time, it's noteworthy that one of his greatest loves is fishing, and he is a more staunch conservationist than my older boy. My younger boy recently said to me that if he became governor, he would put a complete moratorium on building in NJ, because we need fewer buildings and more forests.

My agenda here, if you will, is that repeatedly bringing people closer to nature, especially when they are young, fosters a much deeper love of nature than they can get through books, structured programs, activism, etc. If we want to foster the next generation of stewards, they need to be in the woods experiencing it first hand. You, me, Jason Howell, Emile DeVito, none of us are going to live forever-so if we really love the land, and really want to see it protected, we need to allow people to experience it deeply so that they can love it too and protect it when we're gone.

So that's my position: I want to see the Pine Barrens an open place for people, young and old, to play, recreate, learn, explore, and enjoy freely. Any talk of closing parts of the Pine Barrens is, to me, antithetical to the benefits it can provide to the residents of the state. Sure, someone can argue that if people want to get into the Pine Barrens they can "just hike", but we all know that he real beauty of the Pine Barrens is that we can move from one desired spot to the next in a vehicle, relax and spend time there without having to traverse many miles on foot.

Here's my main concern with any road closures: let's say that it is determined that a few roads need to be closed because of illegal ORV traffic. Once closed, this traffic will likely funnel to other roads. Will those roads then be closed? If so, then there will be an uptick in traffic on other roads, and those roads may be closed. Rinse, repeat.

Suppose the original MAP was launched and ORV drivers shifted their traffic to Brendan Byrne SF? Would there be a MAP for Byrne too? Etc.

My fear, and I think the fear of several others on here, is the slippery slope that is created once the denial of access to the public begins. To supporters, the MAP sounds like a good idea on paper, it sounds like the morally upright, conservation-minded thing to do, to protect a fragile ecosystem against the irresponsible and destructive use of vehicles that tear up the landscape. No one in their right mind would argue against supporting an initiative that protects open space against illegal activity, but the solution of road closures is unjust in that it does not selectively punish the small number of those who commit the offenses, but instead punishes the general public at large, and anyone who does not have a key to the gate. The truly moral and just thing to do here is to find a solution that benefits the needs of the many instead of punishing the many to spite the few.

Here's my proposal:

First, recognize that there are different groups of people recreating in the Pines. There are birders, hikers, kayakers, naturalists, campers, fishermen, hunters, herpers, explorers, photographers, bushcrafters, botanists, and people who just cruise around for an afternoon outside (legally). If we remove group labels for a moment, we can and should assume that just about all of these people 1) are following the law, 2) are not making trouble for anyone else and 3) care about the welfare of the land. Therefore, there shouldn't be conflict between these groups as a whole, nor should any of these groups or individuals who identify with these groups be treated with contempt by any government or not-for-profit agency.

Second, illegal ORV use is an issue and it needs to be addressed. I've seen a lot of jeeps and other ORVs moving through the woods (in numbers) and they are always on main roads and always seem cool and respectful. These groups don't appear out of nowhere, surely they agree to meet up beforehand-why don't folks try to get in touch with leaders of those groups, or people who coordinate the meetups, and talk with the leaders? Sit down over a few beers and chat with them. Assume that their group is never part of the problem but let them know there are some knuckleheads who are giving their hobby a bad name, and let them know that loss of access has been floated. Ask them for some ideas and ask them if they'll keep an eye out and help lean on anyone who isn't respecting the forest. If I could make my own magic happen I'd comp some of these guys a guided canoe or kayak trip for their effort, or something similar. I think alienating them would be the worst thing that could be done. If they're riding legally, there's no reason why there should be an 'us-and-them' with any of those groups, and I think they would be good allies in our endeavor to protect the pines.

Russ, I look forward to your thoughts. If you'd like to continue this conversation with a beer at the Pic one night, I'd enjoy that too.

Thank you. A lot of good points here. I was just out there today, in my off-road package F150. That's technically an "ORV." The us-vs-them isn't between law-abiding ORV users and conservationists. It's between the law-abiding and the law-breakers. The issue over road closures is a nuanced issue. It's not a debate, as some try to portray it, in a deliberate, deceitful fear-tactic, as if somebody is "trying to close all the roads." I'll get together with you over a beer anytime.

 

[Broke Jeep Joe]

I have always been told an ORV or Off Road Vehicle as a non-registerable, not for legal on road travel such as some dirt bikes, side by sides or quads. In turn, any vehicle that is legal to be registered and insured for on road travel on and off highways is considered "OHV" Off Highway Vehicle such as trucks, Jeeps, dual sports and the like.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

I have always been told an ORV or Off Road Vehicle as a non-registerable, not for legal on road travel such as some dirt bikes, side by sides or quads. In turn, any vehicle that is legal to be registered and insured for on road travel on and off highways is considered "OHV" Off Highway Vehicle such as trucks, Jeeps, dual sports and the like.

Not according to the State of NJ Joe. https://www.nj.gov/dep/commissioner/policy/orvpolicy.htm