Point well taken. I'll withdraw the word. But I do think we need to recognize that, just because a lot of people want to do something that is illegal, that, in itself, is not a justification for for failing to enforce the regulations or using taxpayer dollars to create legal places for them to do their activities. And if we do end up creating more public parks for this sort of thing, I do think the enforcement would need to be simultaneous, or, ideally prior to the creation. I think it will be impossible to sell the idea of state-funded ORV parks to the general public, unless the general public is absolutely sure that enforcement part is really happening.
Fix Our Parks
- Thread starter TommyP
- Start date
I apologize if I seem not to care. I do recognize that a lot of people love to ride dirt bikes and ATVs. The distinction I try to always remember to make is the one between legal recreation and illegal recreation. I don't criticize people who ride ATVs and dirt bikes legally. And, yes, people who ride legally are quite likely to be ecologically conscious. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
If the superintendent was able to have the money and support from the DEP to block the specific roads that have truly been created by illegal activity then I suspect the majority of the public would not have a problem. But again, I am certain that he/she would be wanting to close roads that don't fit that category. History proves this to be true. And I believe most of the posting members of this site will agree.
Last edited:
My personal opinion (I'm not speaking for #FixOurParks, or PPA, or NJCF) is that we are so long overdue for having maps on state lands, it would be best for the DEP to officially recognize the map created by the Pinelands Commission as the baseline, but that strict enforcement of that map should not happen (except in cases of obvious violations, such as people driving in ponds) until the map has been revised based on appropriate expert recommendations, followed by public comment.
What I don't agree with is interminable delays, and what seems to be DEP's current plan, which is, essentially, starting from scratch, effectively using a crowdsourcing approach to the project. That would open the door to DEP having to review God knows how many public recommendations, in a long drawn out process, many of which would be coming from people on both sides of the issue who have no expertise on the matter. As you emphasized earlier, there are all kinds of revisions to that map that would be appropriate.
So, in short, yes, I agree with a collaborative process, but I believe the collaboration should be primarily one between the state authorities and experts, such as yourself, not a collaboration between the state and every private citizen who wants to throw in their uneducated opinion.
Well, the history of the last seven years seems to show that officials are content to let all hell break loose out there. Maybe we could think of it this way. DEP officials could stop hindering superintendents from doing the no-brainer stuff. Then once we get the no-brainer stuff completed (if that ever happens), if the superintendents want to close something that's debatable--and there are other logical criteria that may apply--these officials certainly don't have to leave the door open. They've proven that they're inclined to stop just about everything, so if something controversial comes up, I would think they are likely to err on the side of blocking a good project, rather than allowing a bad one to go forward.
Last edited:
It's not unreasonable to conclude that the PPA really does want to shut down most motorized access in the Pine Barrens, given the actions and statements that its members make in pushing the issue. In the strictest definition, driving any vehicle down a road in the Pine Barrens is detrimental to the habitat. So why would the PPA even allow for that? And if they did, what's the criteria for saying "damage is acceptable here" and "damage is not acceptable here"? That was a question that I asked many times and never got a good answer for.
As far as Pinelands Adventures getting a monopoly on forest access, yes maybe that idea is a little far fetched but the timing of when it was founded was terrible. Also, during the Mullica River fire the social media accounts for the state forest fire service specifically said that "Pinelands Adventures trips are cancelled". Why does PA get honorable mention and not other outdoor recreation providers? Even if it's innocent it's still a terrible look to see the state seemingly showing some sort of favoritism.
From what I understood, the DEP stepped up enforcement in Wharton after the MAP failed. Lots more people were getting ticketed. People posted here about noticing a heavier police presence in Wharton. Also, the state allowed Open Trails NJ (a largely ORV based organization) to put up barricades around Jemima Mount which stopped the destruction of it. I know for a fact that OTNJ invited the PPA to help put the barriers up as an olive branch and they refused.
If the state park police have slowed down enforcement then that needs to be fixed because there really is no excuse for that.
Per the DEP ORV policy, Class II ORVs (which are things like quads that can not be legally operated on a NJ highway) are not allowed in the forest. The forest is closed to them, MAP or not. I don't know what the current rule is regarding the maximum tire size allowed in state forests, but I remember driving towards Atsion along Quaker Bridge Rd. and saw that several people had trailered in lifted vehicles with huge tires. I didn't see any plates on them, probably because they've been modified so much that they're not able to be driven on the highway legally. The forest is also closed to them. So what, actually is the point of a MAP if all of this damage is being done by vehicles that shouldn't be there in the first place?
Finally, nobody should be cutting illegal trails through the woods (does this actually happen?) and the NJ Forest Fire Service should figure out a way to close off access to any roads they've needed to make to fight fires as soon as the fire is out.
I think we're probably in agreement with all of this. So outside of the new trails, FFS "roads", and places that are obviously heavily damaged, what else needs to be closed?
I am worked up about it. You should see some of my posts on the subject of the craziness in my area (Greenwood Forest WMA). But I don't subscribe to the idea that roads should be closed. Not at all. In fact, they should be maintained better for those of us who use them responsibly. There are many roads I drove in the 80's that I can't now due to the deep puddles.
You read scientific literature on the impacts, ok. That gives me pause. Is the non-government scientific community so worked up about it, that they are now studying snake and reptile movements in order to use the data for road closures?
Here we go again
what impact to wildlife are you talking about. there are more deer out the today then there was 40 years ago.
Come on, Russ. Just look at all of the things that Al Horner has said. Jason and his friend's documentaries. All of the press releases that the PPA has released. A long, long time ago I was on a cleanup with Emile DeVito and he was positively raging about keeping ORVs out of the woods. (I didn't even really know who he was at the time and my impression is wtf is up with this guy.) You can also look at how the PPA has not engaged with the off-road community at all, and when OTNJ offered to collaborate with them to close Jemima all they got was crickets.
When I say that these arguments are in bad faith, this is what I mean. You and I both know how the players in this game feel. No, they have not released a statement that says "we want to close off the entire forest to everybody" but their actions and attitude say they do.
What about the rest of what I had to say in my post? It's kind of lousy that you'd ignore all of that other stuff to try to entrap me with this.
Ben, I do want to be fair and respectful, but that post was quite long, and, if you want me to respond to all the individual points you raised there, I will try, but it will take some time. I only took the first point, because it is quite a claim, and one that I do not have any reason to believe. If most motorized access in the Pine Barrens is illegal access, then it certainly would be true that "PPA really does want to shut down most motorized access in the Pine Barrens." I don't think that's what you meant though. I think you meant that you believe PPA wants to shut down most of the access, whether legal or illegal. I wanted to see if you actually have any evidence to support it, rather than a list of general references to PPA's campaign to address illegal ORV activity. That's not entrapment. It's just asking you to cite evidence, just as you might ask me to cite evidence if I make a particular claim.
Seems most people agree enforcement of current policy is broken. Why and what can be done seems like a good starting point to Fix-OUR-Parks.
If enforcement of current policy is broken now, it will be broken even if a new policy is implemented. It will always be "same old same old" until this state finds a way to pay for it. I don't ever see that happening.
#FixOurParks is specifically designed to address both problems. (1) Enforcement can be effective, even under the current budget constraints, if only enforcement officials would make it a priority. (2) New funding mechanisms, such as those that have been successful in other states, can be adopted in New Jersey.
Sorry, this is going to be another long one.
I don't have any outright official statements from the PPA saying that they want to close every road. But let me explain why people think they do.
Looking back through old emails between myself and some members of the forum here I saw where Rob, when questioned about about upland routes to the southern side of the Mullica during the Woodland Township meeting to discuss the MAP, was very dismissive to the other person and said that it shouldn't be a big deal to walk. I've had that said to me by both Jason and Rob. I know Rob isn't the PPA, but if you look at the emails that I have via the OPRA request I made a few years ago, the PPA really seems closer to him than they ought to be.
Why would an upland route be closed in the first place? Nobody ever said what makes it a problem. So is whatever entity in charge just going to capriciously close whatever roads they feel like it? The arbitrariness of thst is problematic as hell.
If you also look at Al Horner's and Jason's statements over the years, they've also had a lot of incendiary language about ORV use in the Pines. Most of it is justified, but there really is nothing that sets normal people driving a Jeep/truck through the woods apart from the people who destroy the woods. I've pointedly asked Jason (privately) what he thinks are acceptable vehicles in the woods and he didn't have an answer. They paint a very negative picture of people driving back in the woods.
The PPA's hostility towards anybody who disagrees with them, their biased and incendiary reporting about what's going on in the woods, the MAP being created in secret without public involvement, their closeness to Rob as evidenced by the OPRA emails, their refusal to engage at all with any ORV groups, being involved in closing trails with Rob before the MAP was even announced, and the fact that they refuse to accept that "motorized recreation" is in fact a valid "recreation" would lead any reasonable person to feel like they don't want people driving in the woods. Full stop.
So did they actually say "we want to close every road in the forest?" No. But Rob's dismissing people's concerns and the PPA's actions in all of this say another thing. That's why you have people from various different groups, some of which aren't involved in motorized recreation at all and who agree with you on 99% of what you're asking for being against the PPA and the MAP. Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why?
There was a meme going around on the internet a few years ago: "Well, well, well... if it isn't the consequences of my own actions." I think there might actually be a map of some sort had some people advocating for it toned down the rhetoric and climbed down from their ivory towers.
Barricades were recently put up in the Carranza area that block ALL entry, not just motorized vehicles. Wings to these barricades are tight to the surrounding vegetation at obvious choke points, preventing hikers, bicycles and horses entry, all supposedly legal activities.
You can get in if you are one of the privileged that has a key.
I know people who used to hunt these areas but can no longer get to them. There spots were 2 miles in and they like to bait. There is NOTHING on the roads that they could hurt.
At least Apple Pie Hill has a man gate.
You can get in if you are one of the privileged that has a key.
I know people who used to hunt these areas but can no longer get to them. There spots were 2 miles in and they like to bait. There is NOTHING on the roads that they could hurt.
At least Apple Pie Hill has a man gate.