Fix Our Parks
- Thread starter TommyP
- Start date
Jessica and I were in the Parker Preserve last winter and something flew right over us but we did not see what it was. It was early in the morning and we were photographing a Bald Eagle. Not sure if someone else was doing the same thing using a drone.
It was mechanical.
It was mechanical.
Don't they have the sense to dig a hole and bury it? Cub Scouts 101.
Based on the toilette paper piles, no. And for gods sake do not look behind the green composting bathroom. It's Sh** pile, literally. There's even panties with major skid marks there. Someone did not make it out of the woods.
I wouldn't like to see drone use, for the same stated reasons it's restricted for regular civilians (interference with wildlife).
But why not regular old cameras? It seems like it should be easy to strategically place some motion-activated cameras at the most commonly-used ingress points and most-abused areas. Sure, it wouldn't catch everyone, like people riding in dirtbikes and quads directly off of paved roads, but it should catch people bringing in their ORVs on trailers, like these guys:
Has this already been tried?
But why not regular old cameras? It seems like it should be easy to strategically place some motion-activated cameras at the most commonly-used ingress points and most-abused areas. Sure, it wouldn't catch everyone, like people riding in dirtbikes and quads directly off of paved roads, but it should catch people bringing in their ORVs on trailers, like these guys:
Has this already been tried?
They always forget about the possible injuries that could happen until they happen. But believe me it going happen.
Editorial in todays Press of Atlantic City: https://pressofatlanticcity.com/opi...cle_8559b50c-1713-11ed-851f-03abebd4d496.html
A MAP and permit system are on deck for this year according to the editorial. Says the DEP will hold stakeholder meetings, but no info on when.
From the editorial:
"A DEP spokesman recently told New Jersey 101.5, “The specifics of the permit process are in development, but in general, permits would be issued for vehicle use of specified routes developed through input received via the access survey and stakeholder meetings.” And the DEP still plans to publish a map showing where access to Wharton is legal."
A MAP and permit system are on deck for this year according to the editorial. Says the DEP will hold stakeholder meetings, but no info on when.
From the editorial:
"A DEP spokesman recently told New Jersey 101.5, “The specifics of the permit process are in development, but in general, permits would be issued for vehicle use of specified routes developed through input received via the access survey and stakeholder meetings.” And the DEP still plans to publish a map showing where access to Wharton is legal."
If anyone's interested, the most recent episode of the Pinelands Podcast (a production of the PPA) is on the subject of Fix Our Parks and the Mullica River Fire.
I'm not endorsing any particular opinion shared on this show but I do enjoy these episodes, so I thought I would share.
I'm not endorsing any particular opinion shared on this show but I do enjoy these episodes, so I thought I would share.
Last edited:
Thanks. I was only able to listen to half of it. To much misleading propaganda for my taste.
Russ (if you are watching),
I listened to the podcast you developed. I take issue with some of your statements on the podcast.
Standing at that first beach on the Mullica that has suffered gully erosion, you said there are ‘hundreds and hundreds of places like this”. That’s hyperbole. If you don’t have a map of these and a description of damage to each, then you are only riling up your base of road closing proponents with that kind of talk. Roads need maintenance, yes, but don’t talk like the sky is falling.
You mentioned Monster trucks as the one of the main culprits for damaging roads. But seriously Russ, I don’t see Monster trucks in the woods that much anymore. I can’t even remember when. I think that fad is kind of in the past or has moved to sanctioned areas, and nobody should be using that term to close roads.
You made these statements in the podcast:
“We want to see fewer roads to preserve wildlife species”
“We want a network of authorized roads…”
“We want to close roads that threaten endangered species”
I knew that this is what you are up to, and I hope people fight your plan vigorously. This is so wrong. Why do you preservation organizations think it’s up to you to fight for road closings? We have snakes, salamanders, tree frogs in the pines, yes, and we always have had them. Driving on the roads will in no way drive them out.
Later on in the podcast you point out a damaged area that is “off the normal” road, and say this is the problem. While you’re standing there 3 motorcycles go by on the road, and you point out that they are okay, since they are likely legal. So, which is it Russ, are you for stopping people from going off the road with their vehicles, which I support, or are you ALSO trying to close roads you feel are hurting wildlife? It’s NOT your call, and many of us resent it deeply.
You mentioned that roads are closing up from not being used. I noticed that starting 5 years ago. Let those roads close and be satisfied Russ, stop trying to expand closures of roads that are still drivable.
I listened to the podcast you developed. I take issue with some of your statements on the podcast.
Standing at that first beach on the Mullica that has suffered gully erosion, you said there are ‘hundreds and hundreds of places like this”. That’s hyperbole. If you don’t have a map of these and a description of damage to each, then you are only riling up your base of road closing proponents with that kind of talk. Roads need maintenance, yes, but don’t talk like the sky is falling.
You mentioned Monster trucks as the one of the main culprits for damaging roads. But seriously Russ, I don’t see Monster trucks in the woods that much anymore. I can’t even remember when. I think that fad is kind of in the past or has moved to sanctioned areas, and nobody should be using that term to close roads.
You made these statements in the podcast:
“We want to see fewer roads to preserve wildlife species”
“We want a network of authorized roads…”
“We want to close roads that threaten endangered species”
I knew that this is what you are up to, and I hope people fight your plan vigorously. This is so wrong. Why do you preservation organizations think it’s up to you to fight for road closings? We have snakes, salamanders, tree frogs in the pines, yes, and we always have had them. Driving on the roads will in no way drive them out.
Later on in the podcast you point out a damaged area that is “off the normal” road, and say this is the problem. While you’re standing there 3 motorcycles go by on the road, and you point out that they are okay, since they are likely legal. So, which is it Russ, are you for stopping people from going off the road with their vehicles, which I support, or are you ALSO trying to close roads you feel are hurting wildlife? It’s NOT your call, and many of us resent it deeply.
You mentioned that roads are closing up from not being used. I noticed that starting 5 years ago. Let those roads close and be satisfied Russ, stop trying to expand closures of roads that are still drivable.