Looks like the PPA released a new piece of science fiction today.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) needs to hear to from you. Otherwise, they will think only people in trucks and ATVs care about what happens to the largest state-protected forest in New Jersey!
Right, because the ~5000 people who signed the petition against the way the MAP was rolled out are all driving trucks or ATVs. Let's gloss over the fact that people like environmentalists, historians, kayakers, hikers, botanists, geocachers have also come out strongly against the MAP.
The DEP has been struggling to implement a motorized access plan for Wharton State Forest as a first step in overcoming decades of abuse.
The DEP is struggling because of the ham fisted way that one of their local administrators rolled out the MAP. Who would have ever thought that people would get upset because over 50% of the roads and trails in the forest were being closed
without any forewarning or input from the people who use the forest. No, literally, one day "No Motorized Vehicles" signs started appearing all over the forest without any explanation. Had it not been for the MoveOn.org petition I started, the DEP would have waited until all of the signs were up before they announced the closures. That same local administrator chastised me for making that petition, because it's apparently not acceptable for people to have a voice in this.
Let's also not forget that the DEP has been struggling to enforce decades long closures of areas such as Jemima Mount and Quarter Mile unsuccessfully. How would adding more closures actually stop the damage?
Yet - last week DEP management ordered the removal of signs like you see here. Now river banks and habitat for threatened species appear to open to abuse by motor vehicles once again.
If you care about New Jersey's State Forests and their plants, wildlife and the rights of citizens to enjoy some parts of the forests without motorbikes, jeeps and trucks please take action today!
River banks and habitat for threatened species should not be open to abuse by anybody. OpenTrailsNJ, NJOA, and NJPineBarrens.com have all advocated for targeted closures to sensitive areas. Those trails to the river banks? Close 'em.
The second part of their statement is an interesting ethical dilemma. So some citizens have the right to tell another bunch of citizens how they should or should not enjoy the forest? Why does the PPA get to be the final arbiter on how people can enjoy the forest?
I like to explore the Pines year round, including hunting season. I would never dream of lobbying the state to abolish, or severely curtail, hunting simply because I don't like the sounds of rifles firing.
I learned how to share in pre-K. It seems like the PPA could use a refresher course.
This isn't just about Wharton State Forest - it is about all parks and forests in the state of New Jersey and how we protect our natural resources in an increasingly crowded state. Wharton State Forest must have a detailed map for its visitors showing where people can drive their vehicles legally. And it must be accompanied by signs in the state forest itself. There is no getting around the following facts:
Agreed. The majority of people fighting against the MAP believe this to be true. And a really high quality map of Wharton showing all of the trails and pointing out historic, natural, and scenic sites would be welcome.
#1 - Informal trails to river banks, go-arounds, fire service push cuts to wetlands, and informal ATV playgrounds must be closed immediately. These are not official roads and their use by trucks and ATVs is causing great damage. Even the most minimal responsible stewardship requires these to be closed to motor vehicles.
Agreed, mostly:
- Fresh trails should not be cut by anybody but the DEP. Period.
- Go-arounds happen when road conditions deteriorate to a point where the road is impassable. Had Wharton State Forest been funded properly and road maintenance occurred there would be less of a need for them.
- Fire service push cuts shouldn't go into sensitive wetlands, in my opinion, but if they do then the Forest Fire Service should close them off immediately. In fact, this is what they are supposed to do, but they haven't been doing it.
- Informal ATV playgrounds? What is that? ATV's have been illegal to operate on state land since Commissioner Bradley Campbell banned them in 2002. If there are ATVs out in the Pines (and yes, there are) then the state needs to get serious about enforcing its own laws.
#2 - Some sand roads are being abused, riddled with puddles that get deeper every time a truck (or even a vehicle of any type) drives through or spins its tires. These must be closed until they are made safe and there is a sustainable plan to protect them over time. This kind of damage keeps responsible visitors out and prevents emergency services from using these roads, posing a threat to us all.
First off, the proposed MAP itself would keep responsible visitors out far more effectively than any road that's riddled with puddles. Second of all, can the authors of this melodrama keep a straight face and say that they've never driven through a puddle in the Pine Barrens?
Looks like they can't, since that's Al Horner's (a very vocal pro-MAP activist) driving his Ford Escape through a puddle in the Pine Barrens. It's hyperbole to say that driving through a puddle makes it worse. If you keep to the side and go slow, your impact is negligible. Puddles form naturally in the Pine Barrens. It was a common occurrence for stage coach wagons to get mired in the mud while transiting the Pines. It's no different today.
#3 - There are some sand roads in exceptional places that should be closed to motorized vehicles because of their great natural resource value for wildlife and plants. Unfettered access year round to these special natural areas harms rare wildlife and plants, damages wetlands and encourages off-road driving into critical habitats.
Absolutely! I've always advocated for road closures that target specific areas rather than a blanket closure like the proposed MAP. In fact we'd welcome working with the DEP and organizations like the PPA to identify those areas that need to be closed. But it has to be done scientifically. Just because one area has a population of endangered snakes, shouldn't mean that thousands of acres nearby can be shut down, especially when the main scene of snake death by auto is happening on a major road nearby.
#4 - Law enforcement is essential - the State Park Police has not effectively enforced motorized vehicle and other rules in Wharton State Forest, in part because of lack of will and in part because there are too many sand roads and trails for the police to monitor. A well-publicized access plan is essential to getting effective enforcement against damaging and illegal activities.
Agreed. However, when has the PPA fought with Trenton for a budget increase for the State Park Police to buy the necessary equipment to actually patrol those closures? The PPA has a history of yelling very loudly about ORV damage, but besides advocating the closing off of access, they've never done anything actually useful to solve the problem. A well publicized plan IS essential to getting effective enforcement against damaging and illegal activities, and all of the stakeholders and the DEP are working to come up with one -- that's FAIR.
All of this is just a temper tantrum from the PPA because they're not getting the draconian closure plan that they want.
#5 - The Forest Fire Service, hunters, horseback riders and other recreationists agree with these proposals, but their voices are being drowned out by "official" representatives whose primary goal is to promote truck and ATV recreation in all parts of Wharton State Forest, without respect for natural resources or the interests of those who enjoy the forest in other ways than driving.
Firstly, the FFS is part of the problem. And, if the closures did happen, the roads that they want to be able to use in case of a fire will grow over and be impassable. So either someone is putting words in the FFS spokespersons mouth or they just haven't thought it through. Yes, some other recreational organizations support the proposed MAP. And some don't. Why do the pro-MAP people think that their opinions should matter more? There's almost 5000 people from ALL walks of life that petitioned the DEP to rethink the MAP.
The NJOA (New Jersey Outdoor Alliance) is against the proposed MAP and they represent one of the largest user groups of the forest - the hunters. The PPA loves to try to downplay the fact that the public is against this plan - by demonizing anybody who disagrees with them, and hoping that the people who read their email blasts aren't smart enough to look at the facts and come to a reasonable conclusion on their own.
#6 - Wharton State Forest must have a detailed map for its visitors clearly showing where vehicles can and cannot go and what behaviors, motorized and non-motorized, are permitted in the State Forest.
Totally agree. A map (lower case) has been sorely needed. Hopefully, when a better motorized access plan is put together after consulting with all of the user groups there will be one that will allow everyone to safely and responsibly enjoy Wharton State Forest.
Carlton's Personal Note:
I was out on a hike with a friend in Wharton State Forest last weekend. As we headed out to one of our favorite spots we noticed a few signs that said No Motor Vehicles barring vehicles from driving down into the Mullica River.
There was a sense of relaxation as we turned off Batsto Fireline Road towards Mullica River Beaver Pond and passed one of these signs. Since the sign had been installed earlier in the summer, there were no tire tracks in the sand - just footprints and a single bicycle track.
We saw a big truck pull up to the sign, stop - and then continue on its way. The driver apparently had no interest in a place he or she could not drive into!
The sign worked. We also met a man who spends a great deal of time running in Wharton State Forest. We talked about the absence of trucks and cars from the river bank, and he said "Isn't this great!" He had also seen the signs work in other parts of Wharton this summer and fall.
Unfortunately, DEP management ordered this and other similar signs removed last Thursday, perhaps forever, perhaps just until a final plan is adopted. It's a terrible shame to see the river bank opened up again to those who will abuse this beautiful place.
The Motorized Access Plan is supposed to balance the needs of the users with the needs of the ecosystem, and the needs of motorized vehicle drivers with other forms of recreation.
I hope you will take action today and share this with your friends and family. Wharton and all of New Jersey State Forests are already suffering severe damage.
Yes. The MAP worked as intended.
It's keeping law abiding citizens out of areas that they could have safely and responsibly enjoyed. However go look at Quarter Mile - there's fresh tire tracks back there. The people who will go out and willingly destroy fragile wetlands, tear up puddles, and make a nuisance of themselves are not the kinds of people who will care about No Motorized Vehicles signs. They haven't for the past 30+ years - why will they now?
One could surmise that the PPA wants to keep people out of the forests so that they, and a selected few other people, and enjoy the forest privately. Well, I've been exploring the Pine Barrens for the last 15 years, and even with the free for all that has gone on there are plenty of places all throughout the woods where you can find peace and solitude.
Look, it's not about who's got more rights than others, despite how the PPA wants to spin it. We all realize that we have to share the forest. We all realize the need for closures in certain areas. We all realize the need for more enforcement for ANY motorized access plan to work. We all realize that there should be a high quality MAP produced that will show people around the forest.
The people who are against the MAP agree with most of the positions that the PPA has taken. Why is the PPA constantly throwing tantrums instead of joining us at the table with the DEP and other user groups to come up with a FAIR access plan?
