Motorized Access

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
126
50
From a recent discussion on social media, I was able to view this argument more dimensionally and I came to an understanding on how close we are on this motorized debate.

Jemima was the subject of the discussion and the thread's originator was making the claim that the Pinelands can take it and Jemima is just a hill.

Mr. Ruset
"Yes, four wheel drivers have a right to access the forest, but not to enter areas that are closed or destroy sites that are geologically significant. And just because you don't think they are important doesn't mean that they aren't. Would you drive your truck over Old Faithful or up the side of Chimney Rock just because you're a tax paying citizen and have "rights?" Functional society doesn't work that way."

Mr. Chapman
"Yes, sharing is caring, but sharing responsibly is caring even more. Demanding unfettered access regardless of historical and geological concerns is not caring at all."

Mr. Coia
"We are both opposed to the MAP. That said, the ignorant and arrogant nonsense you routinely spew only hurts our side and fuels the opposition. Clearly, you have no interest in geology, and that is a shame. What is more of a shame is that you advocate destroying the land simply because you value cheap thrills over conservation. And you have the audacity to use the word "conservation" in your phony facebook page?"


ORV Enthusiast

"I'm glad that we agree on MAP but I'm pass this issue. Agreement on one issue doesn't mean agreement on all. I believe that there are hills in the pinelands that should be open to four wheeling and I haven't been presented any information to change that opinion"


We may differ slightly on what will work best to solve this problem, but it's clear that our goals are much the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maggie

Maggie

Scout
Sep 16, 2015
43
23
Three Bridges, NJ
Your job now is to grab Carleton by the lapels and compel him to understand that treating everyone against the map like 4-wheeling rebels is wrong-headed, stubborn, and counterproductive, and will eventually hurt his bottom line big time.

That seems to be exactly it. Most of us are reasonable and essentially agree. There really shouldn't be rancor here.
I mean...I am a new member/poster here so shouldn't presume to speak for the members at large, but have read enough to believe that this is a mainly level-headed group of conservation-minded people, not whatever you call those people that do bad things to the pines (and other natural places).:)
 
Last edited:

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
126
50
That seems to be exactly it. Most of us are reasonable and essentially agree. There really shouldn't be rancor here.
I mean...I am a new member/poster here so shouldn't presume to speak for the members at large, but have read enough to believe that this is a mainly level-headed group of conservation-minded people, not whatever you call those people that do bad things to the pines (and other natural places).:)

I agree Maggie. I also have to say I am proud to be for once on the same side as you all in advocating for preservation. It also gives me confidence that Mr. McGinnis(aka ORV guy), who so openly proclaims his right to drive over Jemima or through any pond or spung, is so vehemently against the original MAP. He clearly believes it would be atleast somewhat effective in preventing him from engaging in that behavior. Mr. Druding, whom I respect, confused me a bit by calling Mr. McGinnis an ally of himself and NJpinebarrens.com - If your goal is to protect these places, Mr. McGinnis and others with similar intentions are not your allies.
 
Apr 6, 2004
3,242
278
Galloway
The thing is, Jason, that the MAP debate is multi-faceted. On the one hand, most of us here are in agreement with you and others in opposing ORV abuse and the mentality so tragically exhibited by Mr. McGinnis et al. On the other hand, we disagree on both the extent of the closures proposed by the initial MAP and the manner in which is was being implemented. It's really not a black-and-white issue because of the fact that there is more than one issue at stake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobpbx and Teegate

SuperChooch

Explorer
Aug 26, 2011
321
319
44
Jason, the main point of my post was to defend Ben and Gabe and to point out how utterly ridiculous it was that he picked out those two attack, not to strike an allegiance with Jack. I can agree with Jack that we both think the MAP and how it came about is wrong. I can also think that it is moronic to attack Ben and Gabe and thinking that it's ok to rip up Jemima Mount. Those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Does that help clarify? I think many would agree that our relationship with you is similarly complicated, but on the other end of the spectrum.
 
Last edited:

SuperChooch

Explorer
Aug 26, 2011
321
319
44
Might I also add that this attempt to try to force everyone into a box as either friends or enemies is part of the problem. This is a nuanced discussed and there is a spectrum of opinions. The simple "for or against" concept is not a sufficient model of reality. This is why the public needed to be involved. One or a couple groups, regardless of how intentioned, could not solution this issue alone.
 

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
126
50
Jason, the main point of my post was to defend Ben and Gabe and to point out how utterly ridiculous it was that he picked out those two attack

He went off on them because they took a position against what he wants, which is unfettered ability to drive over any part of the Pines regardless of significance. I think its great Ben, Gabe, Mr. Chapman took a stand against it, but Jack is far from alone on that opinion.
 

smoke_jumper

Piney
Mar 5, 2012
1,131
576
Atco, NJ
He went off on them because they took a position against what he wants, which is unfettered ability to drive over any part of the Pines regardless of significance. I think its great Ben, Gabe, Mr. Chapman took a stand against it, but Jack is far from alone on that opinion.
You are correct there are more people that share his far left position. There are many that fall on the far right as well. Not everyone can be pleased. The MAP in its original draft did not account for the majority of the people that fall in the middle.
 

SuperChooch

Explorer
Aug 26, 2011
321
319
44
You are correct there are more people that share his far left position. There are many that fall on the far right as well. Not everyone can be pleased. The MAP in its original draft did not account for the majority of the people that fall in the middle.
Agreed, I think that now (I hope) we will be on a path where not everyone is happy with everything, but most people are happy with most things. The only people who will totally unhappy are those on either extreme.
 
Top