Fix Our Parks
- Thread starter TommyP
- Start date
Most people don't realize that years ago that road to the Wilderness area from Quaker Bridge was blocked at Quaker Bridge road with a sign saying the same as the 17706 photo above. Today you can drive most of the way down it.
Last edited:
I sure love hearing about roads being closed and reading the same pointless conversations we had back in 2015 over and over.
How many of those roads are actually passable? How many have already been closed? I agree it's a "starting point", but I don't see how it represents something that was voted on in a resolution designating which roads are appropriate for motor vehicle use. It's just a copy of maps that are out of date by 25 years or more.
It's like being assigned a book report in school, then turning in a photocopy of a review from the NY Times. What kind of grade would you get for that "effort"?
Last edited:
I think the main takeaways are that the Commission was saying, this is the "baseline" and that the motorized traffic "should" be restricted to roads depicted on this map (compilation of maps), or some revision of this map. It essentially was an attempt to encourage the DEP to use the "baseline" to go to work on revisions--whether more restrictive or less so. Also, the word "should" makes clear that the Commission is not announcing this as mandatory. The ball is in the DEP's court. And the DEP has done nothing (except maybe talk about it). It's a starting point, that's all. But it might be a moot point, because the DEP evidently has other ideas, which it may share with us all "one of these days."
Something has to be starting point right? At least the Commission put something on the table. People can say how they want to revise it. Yes, double dash is a motor vehicle road, and single line is footpath. The advantage to having a map is that it gives law-abiding users a clear picture of how they can comply, and it gives law enforcement a clear picture of how they ought to enforce.
That is a low resolution 1:100,000 scale map that has nothing to do with this discussion.
USGS has placed the whole historical topo collection on AWS, you can quickly browse all the NJ maps here. The ones being discussed here have names ending with the year and resolution (24000). Here you can see that the newest map of Jenkins is dated 1997.
geoTIFF versions are here
https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?prefix=StagedProducts/Maps/HistoricalTopo/GeoTIFF/NJ/
PDF versions are here
https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?prefix=StagedProducts/Maps/HistoricalTopo/PDF/NJ/24000/
Yep, it was an "oops" on my end
. The Atsion quadrangle is where I occasionally hike and camp. I'm curious about the "unimproved roads" that existed in 1997 and earlier. My initial plan is to adopt this quadrangle for the #FixOurParks. An easy route 20 miles from where I live to Atsion.
Last edited:
Ben, I understand why it may seem to you and others to be the same, and it may seem to be pointless, but the only way I know to solve persistent problems is to persist in trying.
The problem is in the way that people in leadership positions (besides yourself) in two of the organizations that make up Save Our Parks have tried to solve the problem. A lot of good will on the part of the PPA and, to a lesser extent, the NJCF has been squandered by the heavy handed tactics of the original MAP proposal from back in the day, handed down from upon high without consideration of anybody but the few people who live in the same ivory tower.
I agree that there should be a "map" that shows legal roads, and some sort of fair minded system for determining which ones are so damaged as to require closure, and we'd probably have that by now had it not been for the actions of several individuals. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how we move on from here now.
In the 1990s, when I was a resident of Gloucester Township NJ, I visited every township park that I could find, photographing the trash and damages. We have seven town council members plus a mayor, so I purchased nine copies of the photographs (one for my records). I went to the monthly meeting of the town council, and presented my findings (eight binders with photos, maps, and a short description of the conditions) during the public portion (limited to 3 minutes), stating my name, address, and the topic of my concerns. Keep in mind that it now became part of the public record that can be found on a tape recording and in the meeting minutes.
Four newly elected town council members were sworn into office about a month or two before, plus the mayor was up for reelection in two years. The combination of new town council members' desire to begin their terms with a series of accomplishments, and the mayor concerned about reelection, was probably the catalyst for passing of the resolution for funding and the approval by the mayor for Public Works to proceed with the parks' improvements.
In short, our state legislature is to enact the bills and authorize the funding. The departments are to proceed based on the bills enacted and the funding provided. Question now is can we time our efforts to coincide with the upcoming elections for assembly and senate, who can we vote into office that will enact the bills and provide funding for #FixOurParks, and who will be our governor?
Last edited:
I'm agreeing with you when you say let's not relive the past. Fresh start. Big picture. All the legitimate users want the state to dedicate more resources to state lands. Decaying roads and buildings need to be fixed. State parks should be an attraction, not an embarrassment. Illegal activities should be crushed, not encouraged. If we agree on the big items, then the smaller issues, such as exactly which avenues are legally available for motorized traffic, are small potatoes.
Sold. If you can't find peace and quiet using that map, then you are asking for too much.
That's correct. There are so many places to go to hike and not hear anything.
Color me skeptical. Let's talk at such a high level with little detail that it impossible to disagree then cede power to this group to fix the high level problems with which "we cant disagree" - sounds like a great recipe to get the MAP they wanted last time. Especially considering some of the names associated with this movement. I don't know Mr. Juelg, and I have no reason to believe he has nothing but the best of intentions, but I'm not so sure how much agreement there will be once the discussion moves beyond the big picture and into solutions, especially considering he is a PPA alumnus. Just because there is agreement on most of the problems does not translate into agreement on the solutions, and if I know one thing, it is I do not want the group that tried to bring us the MAP last time fixing anything for me this time.
NJ Bill A594 - Establishes NJ State Parks and Forests Foundation (link) (PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2022 SESSION)
"2. a. There is established in the Department of Environmental Protection a nonprofit, educational, and charitable organization to be known as the New Jersey State Parks and Forests Foundation. The foundation shall be devoted to the raising of funds for the support, including maintenance and development, and promotion of New Jersey’s State parks and forests."
"2. a. There is established in the Department of Environmental Protection a nonprofit, educational, and charitable organization to be known as the New Jersey State Parks and Forests Foundation. The foundation shall be devoted to the raising of funds for the support, including maintenance and development, and promotion of New Jersey’s State parks and forests."
Correct me if this statement is not a fact. Past efforts have been between those appointed into office and we the public, NOT between those elected to office and we the public. Elected officials have more skin in the game compared to those officials who are appointed. A new game plan is required to get out of this "no results" phase. IMHO let's regroup by: 1. information collection, 2. scope assessment, 3. new plan formulation, 4. new plan execution, then 5. conduct continuous follow-up.
