Fix Our Parks

[enormiss]

Like this one! I made a bad decision and needed a tow. That's right near the Carranza memorial, I was showing a friend the old Jersey Central line and missed the go-around.

You should have posted a "help" on here

 

[Teegate]

How is a permit system going to stop illegal activity when these individuals are out all night long? I remember hearing them at 7AM at Quarter Mile 5 years ago. I am a morning explorer and we never see the park police in the woods in the morning and I am sure they are not out there during the overnight. This past weekend before 8AM I saw a vehicle parked by a dim road that goes to rattlesnakes. I don't know what they were doing and I am sure the park police would never catch them if they were poaching. It is just not safe for me to wander down there and confront them.

It is just unreasonable to think in this state with all of the individuals who use the pines that permits, plastic signs or for that matter gates will stop anyone from doing illegal activity.

 

[tsqurd]

Thats the thing - people set on not obeying the current law are not going to be detered by a permit. Now if the objective is to reduce the number of legal visitors, a permit system should work quite well.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Russ, it sounds like they're following the model we use here in Pennsylvania (don't know if we originated it). The basic idea, as I heard it explained to me, was that our DCNR (=DEP) people anticipated funding cuts, more deferred maintenance, and so on, and wanted to set up a structure that could backfill some Parks and Forests needs with volunteers. It would act as a sort of "civilian auxiliary" to the paid State structure: the overall foundation sets some broad guidelines, but it's divided into chapters organized for individual parks or forests. The chapter officers are volunteers (the relevant park or forest superintendent is an ex officio board member). Typical activities are fundraising, maintenance or minor building projects, and nature/historical programming, in my experience.

My chapter is a little weird because we're attached to a state forest with some large, relatively primitive parcels, so a lot of our work is maintenance/ecological restoration. I assume any volunteer group attached to the Pinelands state forests would turn out in a similar way. It does let some things happen that would proably not get done by State people due to budget or time priorities (whether driven by lack of resources or maybe politics). I'm not sure this foundation is the right tool for the general problem being discussed here, but my general experience is that it's had a positive effect in letting people who are not State employees improve the condition of State lands.

(Hi, everyone, BTW. I've been lurking here for about 20 years before registering--yes, I remember the old forum software with the member galleries--and most of the botanists know me and can probably guess who I am from my avatar and my usual habitat on a different set of barrens to west'ard.)

Thank you! Sounds like an excellent model for NJ to follow!

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

"raising of funds" can be defined across an entire spectrum of possible actions. Can one possibility be a prelude to a portion of public land being sold to NGOs so that the proceeds can allow the increase in the state's funding of the public places experiencing high volumes and requiring additional resources? Until the methods of "raising of funds" can be clearly spelled out we need to remain suspicious. Your last sentence shown above is key.

To the best of my knowledge, we're very much in a brainstorming stage. I don't know if public lands can be sold to NGO's. If so, it may be an option in some cases. The concept, as far as I know, is that the nonprofit org would raise money for specific actions that it believes are priority actions AND are actions that the state authorities agree to. The nonprofit org (as I understand) needs to be independent of the state government, but also sufficiently coordinated with state government, so that both entities can identify priority uses of money raised by the nonprofit, and create projects that spend the money responsibly.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

You will be just giving them ammunition to close another area, they will do nothing more and we will loose more freedom for nothing.

Notice how often this comes back to law enforcement? If we had effective law enforcement, there would be very little need to close any roads or areas. If all the law-abiding users would send a clear and emphatic message to the state that we want effective law enforcement, and keep insisting on it until we get it, we'd have a very different situation out there. More protection of wildlife communities. Less need to argue about closing roads and areas.

 

[NJCoastal]

To the best of my knowledge, we're very much in a brainstorming stage. I don't know if public lands can be sold to NGO's. If so, it may be an option in some cases. The concept, as far as I know, is that the nonprofit org would raise money for specific actions that it believes are priority actions AND are actions that the state authorities agree to. The nonprofit org (as I understand) needs to be independent of the state government, but also sufficiently coordinated with state government, so that both entities can identify priority uses of money raised by the nonprofit, and create projects that spend the money responsibly.

I'm scratching my head on this one:

See page 95, line 46 on attached PDF file.

 

[Teegate]

Notice how often this comes back to law enforcement? If we had effective law enforcement, there would be very little need to close any roads or areas. If all the law-abiding users would send a clear and emphatic message to the state that we want effective law enforcement, and keep insisting on it until we get it, we'd have a very different situation out there. More protection of wildlife communities. Less need to argue about closing roads and areas.

You are absolutely correct.

 

[Scroggy]

I've always wanted to do maintenance for NJ where streams cross roadways, but when I asked, they said my group would need insurance. Does PA require Insurance for those wanting to participate in your state forests?

No! That's one of the advantages of the foundation structure. We do have to sign waivers, get logged in a DCNR database, and they just rolled out a new policy on sawyer training, but we are covered. (I think one of our people got workman's comp from the state after sustaining a minor chainsaw injury long ago...he was deemed an employee for the duration of the activity, the way it was structured.)

 

[TommyP]

How did you miss the go around? Eyes closed?

I had driven through this a month or so ago and ass-umed it was the same ... it was not!

 

[Broke Jeep Joe]

Russ, it sounds like they're following the model we use here in Pennsylvania (don't know if we originated it). The basic idea, as I heard it explained to me, was that our DCNR (=DEP) people anticipated funding cuts, more deferred maintenance, and so on, and wanted to set up a structure that could backfill some Parks and Forests needs with volunteers. It would act as a sort of "civilian auxiliary" to the paid State structure: the overall foundation sets some broad guidelines, but it's divided into chapters organized for individual parks or forests. The chapter officers are volunteers (the relevant park or forest superintendent is an ex officio board member). Typical activities are fundraising, maintenance or minor building projects, and nature/historical programming, in my experience.

My chapter is a little weird because we're attached to a state forest with some large, relatively primitive parcels, so a lot of our work is maintenance/ecological restoration. I assume any volunteer group attached to the Pinelands state forests would turn out in a similar way. It does let some things happen that would proably not get done by State people due to budget or time priorities (whether driven by lack of resources or maybe politics). I'm not sure this foundation is the right tool for the general problem being discussed here, but my general experience is that it's had a positive effect in letting people who are not State employees improve the condition of State lands.

(Hi, everyone, BTW. I've been lurking here for about 20 years before registering--yes, I remember the old forum software with the member galleries--and most of the botanists know me and can probably guess who I am from my avatar and my usual habitat on a different set of barrens to west'ard.)

Just a question, does PA support ATV/UTV use in their state forests? If so, what is the requirement?

 

[Broke Jeep Joe]

So it would appear they do indeed offer ATV use in the state forests in PA:

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Recreation/...ding is only permitted,not open to ATV riding.

I would imagine that looking into something like this as a revenue generator for NJ would be immediately out of the question even though in my opinion it would be a bigger cash cow than a permit system for MVs. It would make sense to me to at least broach the subject since most of this thread and many others are devoted to "illegal" ATV use in NJ state forest and WMAs. I personally do not own an ATV and probably wouldn't even if they were legal here. It seems to be a large enough issue and has such a huge following that it needs to be considered as an option for those folks just as much as hiking, biking and regular MVs.

 

[bobpbx]

So it would appear they do indeed offer ATV use in the state forests in PA:

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Recreation/WhatToDo/ATVRiding/pages/default.aspx#:~:text=ATV riding is only permitted,not open to ATV riding.

I would imagine that looking into something like this as a revenue generator for NJ would be immediately out of the question even though in my opinion it would be a bigger cash cow than a permit system for MVs. It would make sense to me to at least broach the subject since most of this thread and many others are devoted to "illegal" ATV use in NJ state forest and WMAs. I personally do not own an ATV and probably wouldn't even if they were legal here. It seems to be a large enough issue and has such a huge following that it needs to be considered as an option for those folks just as much as hiking, biking and regular MVs.

I agree. There is enough fringe land, in my opinion, where trails could be set up. But no one outside the state should by welcome; we are too small of a state to accept them. And I would go further to say that it could be state land, but definitely not in the heart of the pine barrens.

 

[Broke Jeep Joe]

I agree. There is enough fringe land, in my opinion, where trails could be set up. But no one outside the state should by welcome; we are too small of a state to accept them. And I would go further to say that it could be state land, but definitely not in the heart of the pine barrens.

I completely agree with all of that Bob.

 

[enormiss]

And the quarries could take a cue from readingoutdoors.com/

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

There is enough fringe land, in my opinion, where [ATV] trails could be set up. .... And I would go further to say that it could be state land, but definitely not in the heart of the pine barrens.

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?

 

[bobpbx]

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?

(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).

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

(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).

So, the one to focus on is #3, because #FixOurParks is based on the principle that ecological integrity of public lands is an overriding concern, so we wouldn't want to see regulations revised to allow more degradation of habitat. If you have any reason to believe it is possible to contain the riders--and by that I mean reduce the illegal activity to a tolerable level--share that evidence. For example, is there any evidence that outlaw ATV riders are going to change their ways on their own volition? Are law enforcement officers going to do a 180 and start effective enforcement? Or do you know anyplace in the US where a state has established sufficient legal opportunities for ORV riding with the consequence that the illegal riding and wildlife habitat degradation has diminished?

 

[bobpbx]

So, the one to focus on is #3, because #FixOurParks is based on the principle that ecological integrity of public lands is an overriding concern, so we wouldn't want to see regulations revised to allow more degradation of habitat. If you have any reason to believe it is possible to contain the riders--and by that I mean reduce the illegal activity to a tolerable level--share that evidence. For example, is there any evidence that outlaw ATV riders are going to change their ways on their own volition? Are law enforcement officers going to do a 180 and start effective enforcement? Or do you know anyplace in the US where a state has established sufficient legal opportunities for ORV riding with the consequence that the illegal riding and wildlife habitat degradation has diminished?

Oh, I see. You first sentence is telling. No sense in discussing this any further then. FixOurParks is interpreted to mean, no ATV parks anywhere, anytime unless they meet your stringent criteria.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Oh, I see. You first sentence is telling. No sense in discussing this any further then.

Well, yes, my first sentence is telling. "...ecological integrity of public lands is an overriding concern..." I do understand that a lot of my friends and neighbors disagree with that. And, for those who disagree with that principle, I think you're right. There's no sense in discussing this any further. But I'm pretty sure that a lot of my friends and neighbors do agree with that. So, for them and me, there is a good reason for further discussion.