New ORV Plan Ideas

[Ben Ruset]

DEP to try again to regulate ORV use in Pinelands | NJ Spotlight News

Use of off-road vehicles on state property in Pinelands has been a long-running source of rancor between the drivers and NJ conservationists.

www.njspotlight.com

On the surface this seems reasonable.

 

[pinelandpaddler]

DEP to try again to regulate ORV use in Pinelands | NJ Spotlight News

Use of off-road vehicles on state property in Pinelands has been a long-running source of rancor between the drivers and NJ conservationists.

www.njspotlight.com

On the surface this seems reasonable.

But what lies beneath?

 

[Ben Ruset]

But what lies beneath?

A lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, if this is anything like 2015.

 

[Teegate]

That MAP is 6 years old. It is not valid but may be one day.

 

[bobpbx]

Where on the map are there reports of “off-roading”?

I'm pretty sure they were telling you on that map, that you are off-roading if you were not driving on the yellow-highlighted roads.

 

[Teegate]

The map says the yellow lines are the designated routes. Again, this was never implemented so you don't have to deal with this yet. Plus, at least one of the routes shown is already closed by the ignorance of a township.

 

[imkms]

The comment “launching a permitting system for off-road drivers” has got me worried. I’ve seen permit systems put in place in other states where it was expensive, prohibitive and in some cases only limited to a certain number of permits to be issued. Hopefully, those problems won’t happen here.

 

[bobpbx]

Based on the current logic then remove the blazes for the hikers and remove the "keep out" signs for the flora and fauna enthusiasts. Let everyone find their own way by what’s shown on the map.

There was an overly aggressive campaign by the Pinelands Preservation Alliance to get this done immediately, if not sooner. So, they contacted the Wharton State Forest Supervisor and got him on their side by feeding him horror stories showing where drivers are destroying the environment. A lot of what they were showing him was in fact true. People were leaving the old roads and making their own and tearing up lowlands, where they clearly should not have been if they themselves cared about the environment.

Therefore, there was a squeeze play on either side of us responsible people who love the woods and want all roads to remain open so we can have the same access that has been provided for 100 years. It got out of hand, as the Forest Supervisor with citizen helpers were putting up little signs (that could easily be run over) and cutting trees blocking access to long-standing roads. So, we people who use the roads responsibly contacted their legislative representatives and saved the day. That map is now on the scrap heap, where it belongs.

 

[bobpbx]

Yes, a new set of challenges will become part of enjoying the Pinelands IF permits are required.

"Less Steps Are The Best Steps" in all processes, a.k.a., "Keep It Simple Somehow".

Good for the Goose? Good for the Gander! The regulations should be uniform, IMHO.

During hikes in the Pinelands: I've seen plenty of empty plastic bottles, empty food wrappers, used diapers, and torn clothes discarded along the footpaths.

Adding to the list: live trees with axe/hatchet marks, bark removed, branches sawed off, and with hammered in nails at the campsites.

I agree 100%, people in general are irresponsible. The worst to me, is people who feel it's cute to put kitschy crap on the trees and the side of the path; like doll heads, stuffed animals, painted rocks, and homemade signs. Let the woods be the woods, that is what most of us want and why we go out there; to leave civilization behind for a few hours.

 

[Teegate]

So, we people who use the roads responsibly contacted their legislative representatives and saved the day. That map is now on the scrap heap, where it belongs.

Bob is correct, many people worked hard to make this happen. All of them deserve quite a bit of credit. In that group was one unsung hero who without a doubt turned that fiasco from a certain loss into a big time win. When he first pitched the idea to me I was stunned at what he said, and sure enough his idea worked. Within weeks town meetings were all the rage and the DEP was struggling to keep up. Eventually, they ran out of steam. It is now 6 years later and most people have no idea that because of him we can enjoy the woods as before. I thanked him the last time I saw him and will do it again whenever I see him in the future.

 

[manumuskin]

all those yellow roads are the sissy roads.If the road is on topo it's legitimate,of course half of those are gone and there are some new roads that are totally viable,well used and occasionally maintained.

 

[MuckSavage]

The proposed implementation of the MAP was a tough time. The "town hall" meeting at Hammonton H.S. was conducted wonderfully in my opinion.

 

[Boyd]

Hence, one of the reasons why I'm going to visit one of the offices to obtain the "up to date" map and regulations.

I think the point is... there isn't any "up to date map". As others have posted, that was a proposal that wasn't adopted. The USGS 24k topo map was a benchmark that was suggested during those discussions.

If the road is on topo it's legitimate,of course half of those are gone and there are some new roads that are totally viable

Those 24k topos were discontinued twenty years ago but many of them haven't been revised for 50 years or more. The USGS has now disavowed them and considers them as "historical documents" instead of "maps".

As for the "regulations", they are all available here:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_2.pdf

 

[MuckSavage]

Hmm, so they're still pushing the MAP. @NJCoastal The TNJT is set on legal roads. That was the intention of the route. It's been re-routed and revised multiple times to keep it legal & reasonably safe.

 

[Boyd]

The only confusion is about a friend who went to the Atsion Office last September.

There's an old saying, "never ask a public official a question unless you already know the answer".

 

[MuckSavage]

Maybe I'm wrong in this assumption, but if it feels wrong, it probably is. I stay off that road.

 

[enormiss]

I traveled on the Trans New Jersey Trail, from Brendan T Byrne State Forest to Batsto Rd near Batsto Village last weekend. Brendan T Byrne SF to Quaker Bridge was relatively easy in my compact SUV 4WD, but Quaker Bridge to Batsto (along Goodwater Road) was a little more interesting.

You could take any legal vehicle on it but, the TNJT (Trans NJ Trail) was inspired by/for dual sport motorcycles

 

[manumuskin]

I think the point is... there isn't any "up to date map". As others have posted, that was a proposal that wasn't adopted. The USGS 24k topo map was a benchmark that was suggested during those discussions.



Those 24k topos were discontinued twenty years ago but many of them haven't been revised for 50 years or more. The USGS has now disavowed them and considers them as "historical documents" instead of "maps".

As for the "regulations", they are all available here:

https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_2.pdf

I haven't been revised in over fifty years and I"m still viable,though barely so

 

[bobpbx]

From the document...https://www.nj.gov/pinelands/home/meetings/documents/031721LUCIS_minutes.pdf....in the Public Comments Section:

"Margo Pellegrino asked about illegal, off-road vehicle use and disrupting soils."....."Commissioner Lloyd said he is interested in knowing what off-road vehicle use does to soil retention and carbon in the Pinelands."

I'd like to know the answer too. Very odd thing to bring up in a topic like that.

 

[Boyd]

I haven't been revised in over fifty years and I"m still viable,though barely so

I love the old 24k USGS topo's, they are what got me interested in maps when I was just a kid. But they really don't reflect the current reality in many cases. For example, Bulldozed Road should be familiar to most people, it is on all my maps, it's on OpenStreetMap and even on the new USGS National Map. It shows on the aerials back to the 1980's, but it's not on the old 24k topo map.

https://boydsmaps.com/#16.00/39.734361/-74.649052/pines1999/0.00/0.00

Devious-Mount Road is another well-known road on current maps like my topo's, OpenStreetMap and the USGS National Map. But it's not on the old 24k Topo's either.

https://boydsmaps.com/#16.00/39.737909/-74.632272/pines1999/0.00/0.00

These are just a couple examples, there are plenty of others.