NJ Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan

G. Russell Juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
284
51
Burlington County
Why does there need to be an argument?
First, roads and motorized traffic have serious negative ecological impacts. The legal road system in New Jersey has catastrophic effects, such that the NJ Fish and Wildlife people are engaged in a project to try to reduce those effects. See:


Since we are trying to mitigate the effects of roads and motorized traffic with respect to roads that, in all probability, will never be closed, it doesn't make sense for us to compound the problem by allowing people to expand the road system. The patches of wildlife habitat within the bounds of the existing, legal roads are extremely valuable and should be protected. They're like miniature sanctuaries.

Second, we live in a democratic republic where citizens, if they want to support and sustain the republic, must embrace the rule of law. Even if someone doesn't care about the ecological impacts of making and using illegally-created lanes of travel, they are bound, by the legal system, to abide by the laws and regulations that forbid that activity. To do otherwise is to support lawlessness.
 

G. Russell Juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
284
51
Burlington County
I know your shtick Russ. I've known you for 20 years. You love playing with words and seeing how others react to them, or perceive them, or how they interpret them, or defend their meaning. You want us to say "okay, yeah, I can see that designation being useful, or this one, and maybe parts of that one". You only want more allies to have a strong backing to close the roads you and your science buddies want closed, but you are barking up the wrong tree. I'll never give in. But maybe you'll find one person on here to join your cause. Go for it.
Evidently, you and I aren't making any progress on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smoke_jumper

smoke_jumper

Piney
Mar 5, 2012
1,554
1,082
Atco, NJ
Look, you can call a road a
First, roads and motorized traffic have serious negative ecological impacts. The legal road system in New Jersey has catastrophic effects, such that the NJ Fish and Wildlife people are engaged in a project to try to reduce those effects. See:


Since we are trying to mitigate the effects of roads and motorized traffic with respect to roads that, in all probability, will never be closed, it doesn't make sense for us to compound the problem by allowing people to expand the road system. The patches of wildlife habitat within the bounds of the existing, legal roads are extremely valuable and should be protected. They're like miniature sanctuaries.

Second, we live in a democratic republic where citizens, if they want to support and sustain the republic, must embrace the rule of law. Even if someone doesn't care about the ecological impacts of making and using illegally-created lanes of travel, they are bound, by the legal system, to abide by the laws and regulations that forbid that activity. To do otherwise is to support lawlessness.
Look you can call any road that you want to close an “illegal and inappropriate lane of travel” or anything you want if it makes you feel better. When you say that they were never meant to be roads you are acknowledging they are indeed, currently roads.
Some roads whether legally or illegally in my opinion do need to be closed. But closing roads should be a last resort. Your interpretation of the CMP you posted on #71 and mine are different. It clearly says “from time to time” it’s not all encompassing. By not agreeing with your interpretation does not mean I support lawlessness. That’s just the same as me saying you want to close the roads to all motorized traffic because some of the people on that side of the argument want exactly that.
The bottom line is that we have different opinions. I’m not asking you to change yours I’m only pointing out the differences. You can choose not accept mine if you want.
 

G. Russell Juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
284
51
Burlington County
Look, you can call a road a

Look you can call any road that you want to close an “illegal and inappropriate lane of travel” or anything you want if it makes you feel better. When you say that they were never meant to be roads you are acknowledging they are indeed, currently roads.
Some roads whether legally or illegally in my opinion do need to be closed. But closing roads should be a last resort. Your interpretation of the CMP you posted on #71 and mine are different. It clearly says “from time to time” it’s not all encompassing. By not agreeing with your interpretation does not mean I support lawlessness. That’s just the same as me saying you want to close the roads to all motorized traffic because some of the people on that side of the argument want exactly that.
The bottom line is that we have different opinions. I’m not asking you to change yours I’m only pointing out the differences. You can choose not accept mine if you want.
First, let me just say, thank you for not resorting to ad hominem arguments.

Second, if you are indeed a smoke jumper, as your screen name indicates, my hat is off to you. Firefighting runs deep in my family. My dad was a firefighter, and his dad was the Fire Marshall of San Antonio for many years. I was never a firefighter, but I did Jump School at Fort Benning, and I jumped out of more than a few “perfectly good airplanes.”

So, I just want you to know that I engage in debate with you not as an opponent, but as someone who is a fellow citizen, with common experience, hopefully searching with you for the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smoke_jumper

smoke_jumper

Piney
Mar 5, 2012
1,554
1,082
Atco, NJ
First, let me just say, thank you for not resorting to ad hominem arguments.

Second, if you are indeed a smoke jumper, as your screen name indicates, my hat is off to you. Firefighting runs deep in my family. My dad was a firefighter, and his dad was the Fire Marshall of San Antonio for many years. I was never a firefighter, but I did Jump School at Fort Benning, and I jumped out of more than a few “perfectly good airplanes.”

So, I just want you to know that I engage in debate with you not as an opponent, but as someone who is a fellow citizen, with common experience, hopefully searching with you for the truth.
Actually I was never a smoke jumper, I was screen name I used in a BBQ forum and it seemed fitting to keep it lol. I was a volunteer fire fighter/EMT for over 10 years and was active in the FFS in those years as well. Being a firefighter goes back in my family at least 3 generations and probably more.
I really don’t desire to debate what the right course of action is to address this problem but I really don’t think it needs to be near as drastic as some want it to be.
 

noboat

Explorer
Feb 1, 2010
323
156
63
Waterford Works
When my son was growing up, I bought him a Kawasaki 100 and showed him how to ride it on the trails behind Bamber. Then, I bought him a used 125 and he ran that around a bit, even in the sand plant next door. I'd do it again. He was not out testing spungs or wetlands. How many people on this board have done the same?
me
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobpbx

RednekF350

Piney
Feb 20, 2004
4,985
3,188
Pestletown, N.J.
I started out legal in the Pines when I first got my motorcycle license in 1975. Road two different tagged DT-400's until '83 when I bought a brand new CR-480. No choice but to blast around with one eye over my shoulder with that widow maker. :) Luckily, I was never once pursued or approached by rangers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c1nj and bobpbx

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
14,419
4,541
Pines; Bamber area
I started out legal in the Pines when I first got my motorcycle license in 1975. Road two different tagged DT-400's until '83 when I bought a brand new CR-480. No choice but to blast around with one eye over my shoulder with that widow maker. :) Luckily, I was never once pursued or approached by rangers.
Yeah, when I first moved to bamber in 1982, I had a 125 hodaka and I rode it in Greenwood Forest with only a beanie for head gear.
 
Top