Fix Our Parks

[Teegate]

Ed it is all about Morning Glory.

 

[Broke Jeep Joe]

not a collaboration between the state and every private citizen who wants to throw in their uneducated opinion.

WOW. Granted not everyone would be an expert in this arena, but damn choose your words Russ, some of us common folk may know more than you think.

"New funding mechanisms, such as those that have been successful in other states, can be adopted in New Jersey."

Unless they are MV access related?

 

[TommyP]

You should have posted a "help" on here

I appreciate it but I had no signal and had to walk back to the Carranza memorial to even make a phone call, and it was 6pm by then. if it was early in the day I would have. A couple in a red truck, driver named Phil, offered help but the wrecker was on the way. They gave me their mobile number in case the wrecker never showed. Always Towing in Jamestown took good care of me. The payment stung, but that'll teach me to measure washouts and use the go-arounds every time!!!

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

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.

I think it would be an interesting, but very time-consuming project for me to respond to all the individual points you make. If you want me to, then, out of respect for our friendship, I will do that, but I will have to go point by point, one at a time. And I would recommend that we do that in a separate thread.

I should emphasize that it was not my intention when I logged on, to defend PPA against its critics, though I think it deserves that defense. My intention was to try to offer facts about the #FixOurParks campaign. The discussion ran in this other direction because you and others think that, since PPA is leading the campaign, and you don’t trust PPA’s intentions, then you don’t want to be involved.

That’s fine. You don’t have to sign on to the campaign. But you agree with the stated goals, so you could independently let state authorities know that.

As I said at the beginning, a primary, long term goal of the campaign is to create a foundation that will raise money and coordinate with the state in order to do needed projects on state lands. Look at the VanClef report to see how big the backlog is and what are the particulars. There are buildings that need to be repaired or re-built. There are roads that need to be fixed and maintained. There are jobs that need to be filled.

A mid-range goal is to get the state to adjust its budget so that many of the issues listed above will be addressed with state money. No telling how long it will take to get a foundation started, but there probably are ways that the state could direct money to these things, if only it is motivated to do that. And the foundation is not likely to be able to pay all the bills.

A short-term goal, which you indicate agreement on, is that authorities need to do effective law enforcement to the extent they’re able. Yes, they’re stretched too thin, and yes, we know they can’t chase scofflaw riders on ATVs and dirt bikes. But we also know they’re not writing tickets even when they have the opportunity to do that.

So, if we want to stay on the topic of FixOurParks, the point I would emphasize is that everybody who cares about our state lands can contact both elected and appointed officials, and let them know that we want these improvements. The more people who speak up, the more likely we will see progress.

 

[Ben Ruset]

I think it would be an interesting, but very time-consuming project for me to respond to all the individual points you make. If you want me to, then, out of respect for our friendship, I will do that, but I will have to go point by point, one at a time. And I would recommend that we do that in a separate thread.

I should emphasize that it was not my intention when I logged on, to defend PPA against its critics, though I think it deserves that defense. My intention was to try to offer facts about the #FixOurParks campaign. The discussion ran in this other direction because you and others think that, since PPA is leading the campaign, and you don’t trust PPA’s intentions, then you don’t want to be involved.

That’s fine. You don’t have to sign on to the campaign. But you agree with the stated goals, so you could independently let state authorities know that.

As I said at the beginning, a primary, long term goal of the campaign is to create a foundation that will raise money and coordinate with the state in order to do needed projects on state lands. Look at the VanClef report to see how big the backlog is and what are the particulars. There are buildings that need to be repaired or re-built. There are roads that need to be fixed and maintained. There are jobs that need to be filled.

A mid-range goal is to get the state to adjust its budget so that many of the issues listed above will be addressed with state money. No telling how long it will take to get a foundation started, but there probably are ways that the state could direct money to these things, if only it is motivated to do that. And the foundation is not likely to be able to pay all the bills.

A short-term goal, which you indicate agreement on, is that authorities need to do effective law enforcement to the extent they’re able. Yes, they’re stretched too thin, and yes, we know they can’t chase scofflaw riders on ATVs and dirt bikes. But we also know they’re not writing tickets even when they have the opportunity to do that.

So, if we want to stay on the topic of FixOurParks, the point I would emphasize is that everybody who cares about our state lands can contact both elected and appointed officials, and let them know that we want these improvements. The more people who speak up, the more likely we will see progress.

So for sure I didn't write this with the intention of you needing to address each point nor defend the PPA. You stopped working for them right around the time that the MAP came out. My whole point was stressing was the reasons why people are both skeptical and do not trust the leadership in Wharton and the PPA. I've said the same things to Jason (privately) too in a sort of "help me help you" sort of way.

So in that vein, earlier in this thread you said

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.

I understand your thought process here, and I understand that emotions run high, but man, cut out the word "uneducated" and you have a much more reasonable sounding sentence that isn't going to put off so many people. I think the most important thing is that everyone feels heard and that their opinion matters, regardless of how things ultimately are decided.

I have the utmost respect for you and the work that the NJCF does. The Parker Preserve is amazing, back when I owned a vehicle that could get me there I enjoyed exploring the NJCF land near Aserdaten. I want to see more land preserved, especially land that is open for people to enjoy like the Parker Preserve. The uphill battle you're going to face, as you've seen here, is that you've hitched your wagon to an organization with a PR problem that, rather than actually address the problem, continues to double down on the tactics that make people not trust it.

I'm comfortable reaching out to the DEP leadership independently to help find a solution that most level headed people would think is fair. Ideally one that doesn't require closing of legitimate roads.

 

[TommyP]

I'm reading all these and I respect the opinions and stances of everyone here. I come from a hiking background and I admit that I had an "anti" stance towards ATV and dirt bikes, and even MOUNTAIN bikes, because I hiked for years in north NJ where bicyclists and off-roaders sometimes used trails maintained by the NY/NJ Trail Conference. The fix for mountain bikers was giving them trails they COULD use, and encouraging them to join the groups that helped maintain these trails. I used to want to ban all ATVs but now I see the only workable solution as giving them trails where they can legally use their vehicles, because they will never "use them on private land where they have been given permission."

Imagine advocating for banning hunting on all state land and saying "ask private landowners"? It would make you seem like you had a grudge against all hunting, and rightly so. If the state will allow the sale of these vehicles they are going to have to address this. (Philly is seeing the same issue on their streets. But that's another discussion)

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.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I understand your thought process here, and I understand that emotions run high, but man, cut out the word "uneducated" and you have a much more reasonable sounding sentence that isn't going to put off so many people. I think the most important thing is that everyone feels heard and that their opinion matters, regardless of how things ultimately are decided.

I try not to put in too much time during working hours here, but I do want to address this misunderstanding. First, look at the context. The context was map-making. I am an uneducated person in map making. I'm educated about other things, but not about map-making. So if I were to assert that I ought to be consulted about how to make a map for motorized travel in WSF, that would be presumptuous. It would be much better for me to say, "Let the people who are experts at mapping work on the project, then, when they are ready to propose something, I would love to have the opportunity offer my opinion."

 

[Boyd]

It would be much better for me to say, "Let the people who are experts at mapping work on the project

Map-making is really just a mechanical process that involves a knowledge of techniques and the software that is used. Making the map would be the final step of the process, after there is agreement on its content. Knowing *what* to put on the map requires a completely different type of knowledge and experience. People with that knowledge could just make photocopies of existing topo maps and scribble on them with magic markers (or whatever), then hand it off to somebody with GIS experience to turn it into a digital map.

And no, I am not "that guy". This whole issue is way too contentious and anyway, my map-making has moved beyond the Pines and New Jersey, to a larger region that will continue to expand.

 

[Ben Ruset]

I try not to put in too much time during working hours here, but I do want to address this misunderstanding. First, look at the context. The context was map-making. I am an uneducated person in map making. I'm educated about other things, but not about map-making. So if I were to assert that I ought to be consulted about how to make a map for motorized travel in WSF, that would be presumptuous. It would be much better for me to say, "Let the people who are experts at mapping work on the project, then, when they are ready to propose something, I would love to have the opportunity offer my opinion."

I think we're talking past each other at this point. I understand the context. I disagree with the idea that the "uneducated" shouldn't be able to offer an opinion.

If you're talking about people having the technical skills to sit down at a computer, fire up ArcGIS, and make an actual map then yes, I'd say that requires special knowledge that most people don't have. If you're talking about figuring out a baseline to start (Pinelands Commission map, 1997 topos, Rob's MAP, etc.) then yeah I think people ought to be able to weigh in.

You get more flies with honey.

 

[Boyd]

If you're talking about people having the technical skills to sit down at a computer, fire up ArcGIS, and make an actual map then yes, I'd say that requires special knowledge that most people don't have.

Including me!

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I think we're talking past each other at this point. I understand the context. I disagree with the idea that the "uneducated" shouldn't be able to offer an opinion.

If you're talking about people having the technical skills to sit down at a computer, fire up ArcGIS, and make an actual map then yes, I'd say that requires special knowledge that most people don't have. If you're talking about figuring out a baseline to start (Pinelands Commission map, 1997 topos, Rob's MAP, etc.) then yeah I think people ought to be able to weigh in.

You get more flies with honey.

To clarify one point, I never said, "the 'uneducated' shouldn't be able to offer an opinion." I was talking about a process concerning when they should do that. My opinion is that the uneducated, in terms of the technical aspects of mapping--people like myself--should have their opportunity to comment after experts have created a proposal. I think it should be an efficient process, because it's long overdue, rather than a long drawn out crowd-sourcing process.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I'm reading all these and I respect the opinions and stances of everyone here. I come from a hiking background and I admit that I had an "anti" stance towards ATV and dirt bikes, and even MOUNTAIN bikes, because I hiked for years in north NJ where bicyclists and off-roaders sometimes used trails maintained by the NY/NJ Trail Conference. The fix for mountain bikers was giving them trails they COULD use, and encouraging them to join the groups that helped maintain these trails. I used to want to ban all ATVs but now I see the only workable solution as giving them trails where they can legally use their vehicles, because they will never "use them on private land where they have been given permission."

Let’s see if we agree on what the basic facts are, because, otherwise, this tends to get confusing in a hurry. Here are “just the facts, ma’am”, as I understand.

• I don’t know anybody that wants to ban all ATVs. Anybody can go buy one.
• There are lots of legal constraints on ATV usage.
• Nobody is trying to ban ATVs on state lands; they’re already banned on state lands by regulations that have been in place for decades.
• A lot of people operate ATVs legally. A lot of people would like to have more legal opportunities.
• Evidently a lot of people operate them illegally, knowing full well what the legal constraints are, and with the deliberate intention of using them illegally.
• In spite of the illegal nature of the activity, illegal riding of ATVs is popular and common.
• Nobody is forcing outlaw ATV riders to ride illegally. That’s a choice they make.
• Illegal riding of ATVs is continuing to degrade and destroy valuable wildlife habitat and hiking trails.

If we agree that I have expressed the facts accurately, then it seems the next step is exploring the various proposed options to address the illegal riding problem, which seem to be:

• Step up effective enforcement. Lots of ways to do that.
• Set up more places for legal ATV use. Various things have been proposed.
• Some combination of the two, as Bob proposed earlier.

Hopefully, I haven’t said anything controversial so far. Does that all seem right to you?

 

[bobpbx]

Russ, who are these stinking experts!

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Russ, who are these stinking experts!

They don't want to be named publicly! They're all too modest!

 

[Ben Ruset]

To clarify one point, I never said, "the 'uneducated' shouldn't be able to offer an opinion." I was talking about a process concerning when they should do that. My opinion is that the uneducated, in terms of the technical aspects of mapping--people like myself--should have their opportunity to comment after experts have created a proposal. I think it should be an efficient process, because it's long overdue, rather than a long drawn out crowd-sourcing process.

The actual words you wrote were:

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.

No, you didn't say the actual words "the 'uneducated' shouldn't be able to offer an opinion" but any reasonable person would think that's what you were getting at by "not a collaboration between the state and every private citizen who wants to throw in their uneducated opinion".

Anyway, you keep saying that you're not an expert in the technical aspects of mapping. What, in your mind, does that even mean? What does a mapping expert do?

 

[Ben Ruset]

Let’s see if we agree on what the basic facts are, because, otherwise, this tends to get confusing in a hurry. Here are “just the facts, ma’am”, as I understand.

• I don’t know anybody that wants to ban all ATVs. Anybody can go buy one.
• There are lots of legal constraints on ATV usage.
• Nobody is trying to ban ATVs on state lands; they’re already banned on state lands by regulations that have been in place for decades.
• A lot of people operate ATVs legally. A lot of people would like to have more legal opportunities.
• Evidently a lot of people operate them illegally, knowing full well what the legal constraints are, and with the deliberate intention of using them illegally.
• In spite of the illegal nature of the activity, illegal riding of ATVs is popular and common.
• Nobody is forcing outlaw ATV riders to ride illegally. That’s a choice they make.
• Illegal riding of ATVs is continuing to degrade and destroy valuable wildlife habitat and hiking trails.

If we agree that I have expressed the facts accurately, then it seems the next step is exploring the various proposed options to address the illegal riding problem, which seem to be:

• Step up effective enforcement. Lots of ways to do that.
• Set up more places for legal ATV use. Various things have been proposed.
• Some combination of the two, as Bob proposed earlier.

Hopefully, I haven’t said anything controversial so far. Does that all seem right to you?

It would probably be more helpful to use the Class 1 or Class 2 ORV definition instead of the generic "ATV". Class 1 covers everything that can't be used in the woods (like a quad and dirt bikes I suppose?) and Class 2 covers anything that can be used on a NJ highway such as a Jeep or a properly registered and insured dual sport motorcycle.

My stance is that any Class 1 ORV should not be allowed on state land, which is already prohibited. Class 2 ORVs I'm fine with so long as they're being operated responsibly and not causing damage.

I don't necessarily agree with the malice you attribute to the people that use Class 1 ORVs on state land. I think a lot of it is ignorance. How would someone actually know that they can't be used back in the woods, especially when you see people riding around them all the time? Nobody is going to stop and read some faded sign nailed up to a tree and understand what the difference between a Class 1 and a Class 2 ORV is. I doubt that the dealers of the vehicles are telling the people who buy them, or even if they themselves know what the regulations are.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here but not every person driving in the woods in a legal or illegal vehicle is degrading and destroying valuable wildlife habitat and hiking trails. Someone could drive a quad down many of the wide heavily used roads like Quaker Bridge Rd. and Washington Turnpike and not cause a problem. That's not an excuse for illegal ORVs being there, nor am I saying that people aren't out there riding in places that are being damaged, but just that you're villifying a bunch of people in a way that seems pretty unnecessary.

It would be swell if there was some sort of outreach to the manufacturers of the Class 1 ORVs (Yamaha, Suzuki, etc.) to say "Hey, here is a problem and we need help trying to get it under control. How can we educate your dealers to let people know where they can and can't drive?" Education could be a valuable part of this.

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.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

The actual words you wrote were:



No, you didn't say the actual words "the 'uneducated' shouldn't be able to offer an opinion" but any reasonable person would think that's what you were getting at by "not a collaboration between the state and every private citizen who wants to throw in their uneducated opinion".

Anyway, you keep saying that you're not an expert in the technical aspects of mapping. What, in your mind, does that even mean? What does a mapping expert do?

Ben, you're going to have the final word on this. I know that. And this is my last comment on the topic. But you misrepresented what I said. Here's the entire quote, for the record, (emphasis added):

"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."

Whatever you may think "any reasonable person to be," no reasonable person would take that quote and misrepresent it as if I said, ""the 'uneducated' shouldn't be able to offer an opinion."

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I don't necessarily agree with the malice you attribute to the people that use Class 1 ORVs on state land. I think a lot of it is ignorance. How would someone actually know that they can't be used back in the woods, especially when you see people riding around them all the time? Nobody is going to stop and read some faded sign nailed up to a tree and understand what the difference between a Class 1 and a Class 2 ORV is. I doubt that the dealers of the vehicles are telling the people who buy them, or even if they themselves know what the regulations are.

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?

 

[bobpbx]

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?

That's an unfair twist on Ben's point (carried into his follow-on paragraph); that even though they are outlaws, they are not necessarily tearing up the environment by driving recklessly through the woods and breaking their own trail.

 

[Broke Jeep Joe]

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.

The last time I bought a new bike was quite a few years ago, for those of you that recall Mt. Holly Yamaha on 38 in the small building (that's how long ago!) it was a class 1, not a dual sport and it came with a certificate of origin, which is not recognized the same way as a title in NJ so no ability to legally register it in this state.