NJ Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan

[Scroggy]

Hmmmm

"No motor vehicle other than fire, police or emergency vehicles or those vehicles used for the administration or maintenance of any public land shall be operated upon publicly owned land within the Pinelands."

"Other motor vehicles may operate on public lands for recreational purposes on public highways and areas on land designated prior to August 8, 1980 for such use by state and local governmental entities until designated as inappropriate for such use.."

Aren't these statements contradictory?

What exactly was designated as public highways and areas on land upon which vehicles can be operated recreationally?

It's awkwardly worded, but the "other motor vehicles" presumably refers to the "No motor vehicle", etc., so I think the second sentence intentionally carves out an exception from the first. The implication seems to be that before 1980, state or local governments designated some areas within the jurisdiction of the Pinelands Commission for off-roading, and these are still OK to off-road on, BUT the Pinelands Commission has the power to take some of them out-of-bounds for off-roading.

I'm ignorant of the history here, so I don't know what areas these would be. Presumably that corresponds to the "areas for authorized ORV use" in the DEP policy statement at https://www.nj.gov/dep/commissioner/policy/orvpolicy.htm.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Hmmmm

"No motor vehicle other than fire, police or emergency vehicles or those vehicles used for the administration or maintenance of any public land shall be operated upon publicly owned land within the Pinelands."

"Other motor vehicles may operate on public lands for recreational purposes on public highways and areas on land designated prior to August 8, 1980 for such use by state and local governmental entities until designated as inappropriate for such use.."

Aren't these statements contradictory?

What exactly was designated as public highways and areas on land upon which vehicles can be operated recreationally?

They do seem to contradict each other. Maybe what they meant to say was something like, "No motor vehicle other than fire, police or emergency vehicles or those vehicles used for the administration or maintenance of any public land shall be operated upon publicly owned land within the Pinelands--with the following exception--Other motor vehicles may operate on public lands for recreational purposes on public highways and areas on land designated...etc."

The key idea of the exception perhaps being that, of course, motor vehicles may be operated on public highways that traverse public lands AND they may be operated on other roads, so long as those roads are designated for use "prior to August 8, 1980..." I speculate that the writers of this language supposed that such designation would be accomplished by that date, but the reality was that it was not.

The other significant piece of this is that the CMP explicitly indicates that any such designations are subject to revision.

But, as I said at the beginning, I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

It's awkwardly worded, but the "other motor vehicles" presumably refers to the "No motor vehicle", etc., so I think the second sentence intentionally carves out an exception from the first. The implication seems to be that before 1980, state or local governments designated some areas within the jurisdiction of the Pinelands Commission for off-roading, and these are still OK to off-road on, BUT the Pinelands Commission has the power to take some of them out-of-bounds for off-roading.

I'm ignorant of the history here, so I don't know what areas these would be. Presumably that corresponds to the "areas for authorized ORV use" in the DEP policy statement at https://www.nj.gov/dep/commissioner/policy/orvpolicy.htm.

Yes, awkward, to say the least. And I agree that the second sentence apparently states an exception to the first. But I'm not aware of any state or local action that designated any Pinelands areas for "off-roading" before 1980.

That takes us into the quagmire of what is meant by "off-roading." Some users of that expression mean "off-highway" which isn't at all helpful, because "off-highway" would seem to include all kinds of secondary roads, many of which are paved and regularly, legally travelled. On the other extreme is the use of the term for literally leaving any kind of road and driving in vegetation, the forest understory, streams, rivers, and ponds, etc. So far, the animus associated with this topic has prevented any clarification, but we need to work toward clarification, so that means we need to be explicit as to what we mean when we say "off-road."

To my knowledge, no area whatsoever within Pinelands jurisdiction was ever designated for off-roading, in any sense of the word, before 1980. Somewhat later, the legal park in Chatsworth was established, under specific constraints and a timeline, then closed on schedule.

 

[pinelandpaddler]

To my knowledge, no area whatsoever within Pinelands jurisdiction was ever designated for off-roading, in any sense of the word, before 1980.

Russ, what do you mean exactly when you say "designated"?

 

[smoke_jumper]

Russ, what do you mean exactly when you say "designated"?

I think his confusion is in the term “off road”. Driving on Quaker bridge road is on road travel. Leaving the road and driving through the woods would be considered “off road”.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Russ, what do you mean exactly when you say "designated"?

Well, the issue isn't what I mean by that word. It's what the CMP means. The sentence is, "Other motor vehicles may operate on public lands for recreational purposes on public highways and areas on land designated prior to August 8, 1980 for such use by state and local governmental entities until designated as inappropriate for such use.."

So the answer seems to be found in the clause, "for such use by state and local government entities." To "designate" means to "indicate" or "specify," and if such designations are done by "state and local governmental entities" that would clearly mean that such designations, if there are any, are done by official governments. To my knowledge, that was not actually ever done until the Pinelands Commission published it's compilation of topo maps in the wake of the Wharton MAP fiasco.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I think his confusion is in the term “off road”. Driving on Quaker bridge road is on road travel. Leaving the road and driving through the woods would be considered “off road”.

The confusion about "off-road" is a separate topic from what is meant by "designated." The expression "off-road" is confusing because different people mean different things when they use the expression. If you take as the definition of "off-roading" literally leaving any semblance of a road and driving through wildlife habitat, then there is no legal availability for that at all in state lands, with the sole exception that Enduro events may be authorized as quasi-"off-road" activities. But even Enduro events have to be conducted on established trails. I don't believe that either the Pinelands Commission or the DEP are authorizing the creation of new dirt bike trails.

 

[Scroggy]

Russ, what do you mean exactly when you say "designated"?

I mean, that's the statute's language, not Russ's.

August 8, 1980 was the original target adoption date for the CMP.

As I read it, there's 3 layers to this statute:
Driving off the "public highways" in the Pinelands is illegal EXCEPT for areas "designated" by the state or county (maybe that's vague to include both legislative and executive actions?) EXCEPT when the Commission has taken parts of the "designated" areas back out of play for various reasons.

The only sure meaning I can attach to "designated" is that the state or local government took some kind of affirmative action to say "This area is OK for off-roading", rather than an area where off-roading has taken place by custom or tradition without explicit sanction. But we don't seem to know of any such an area, so the second and third layers of the statute would seem to be a dead letter.

I did check the "definitions" section of the portion of the administrative code that contains the CMP, but it doesn't define the phrase "public highway", which is a different can of worms.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I can't really figure it out, but I'm inclined to think that the framers of the CMP expected that some official body would designate which lanes of travel should be designated as legal lanes of travel in the Pinelands. They were aware, evidently, that motorized recreation has negative ecological impacts, so, accordingly, they expected it to be restrained. Not eliminated, but restrained. Now, we're at the point where it is almost entirely unrestrained. Dirt bikers are creating new trails at will. ATV riders are openly flouting the regulations. The Pinelands Commission is pointing to the DEP as the responsible party. The DEP has, so far, encouraged lawlessness by means of permissiveness. Wharton State Forest, not surprisingly, has become a haven violators, a place where illegal riding goes on unabated. Maybe it has gotten bad enough to put us at a turning point.

 

[bobpbx]

Wharton State Forest, not surprisingly, has become a haven violators, a place where illegal riding goes on unabated. Maybe it has gotten bad enough to put us at a turning point.

I don't see that. I disagree with you.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I think it's possible to make a distinction between advocating for access, if that's what you want to do, and carrying water for the illegal riders. To deny that we have a catastrophic trend toward ever-growing levels of illegal riding, one would have to be either uninformed or dishonest.

All you have to do is ride around on the legitimate road systems, and you can see all the new illegally-created dirt bike trails crossing them. I've seen dozens of trails newly created in the last several years. They start with someone flagging, often with blue tape, a completely new route through the forest understory. In a couple of months it becomes a very well-used dirt bike track cut deep into the forest floor. Alternatively, use Google Earth and zoom in on areas where the canopy isn't hiding the damage. You can go back and look at the same areas in earlier photos and see that tracks are increasing over time in areas that were formerly vegetated. Old fields converted to motorized playgrounds. Wetlands converted to muddy playpens for motor enthusiasts who either don't understand or don't care about the consequences of their behavior.

So, I do understand that some folks have bought into the slippery slope arguments, the idea that any reforms, and constraints on the illegal riding will result in Draconian measures. "They don't want anybody to go into the state forest!" "They're locking up the land!" I do understand that some people actually believe all that. Others, here, are much too smart to swallow that. And you should know that when you lend credence to those arguments, you're making yourself part of the problem.

As long as this problem remains unresolved, we need to talk about it. If you want to advocate for access, fine. That's your right. I'm going to continue advocating for conservation with reasonable access.

 

[enormiss]

So, I do understand that some folks have bought into the slippery slope arguments, the idea that any reforms, and constraints on the illegal riding will result in Draconian measures. "They don't want anybody to go into the state forest!" "They're locking up the land!" I do understand that some people actually believe all that. Others, here, are much too smart to swallow that. And you should know that when you lend credence to those arguments, you're making yourself part of the problem.

It's bought into because you don't need any new reforms. You said it yourself "...the idea that any reforms, and constraints on the illegal riding will result in Draconian measures". It's already illegal, making it more illegal does not solve anything but could/would further restrict legal access. I just don't understand, guess I fall into the less smart group.

 

[smoke_jumper]

I think it's possible to make a distinction between advocating for access, if that's what you want to do, and carrying water for the illegal riders. To deny that we have a catastrophic trend toward ever-growing levels of illegal riding, one would have to be either uninformed or dishonest.

All you have to do is ride around on the legitimate road systems, and you can see all the new illegally-created dirt bike trails crossing them. I've seen dozens of trails newly created in the last several years. They start with someone flagging, often with blue tape, a completely new route through the forest understory. In a couple of months it becomes a very well-used dirt bike track cut deep into the forest floor. Alternatively, use Google Earth and zoom in on areas where the canopy isn't hiding the damage. You can go back and look at the same areas in earlier photos and see that tracks are increasing over time in areas that were formerly vegetated. Old fields converted to motorized playgrounds. Wetlands converted to muddy playpens for motor enthusiasts who either don't understand or don't care about the consequences of their behavior.

So, I do understand that some folks have bought into the slippery slope arguments, the idea that any reforms, and constraints on the illegal riding will result in Draconian measures. "They don't want anybody to go into the state forest!" "They're locking up the land!" I do understand that some people actually believe all that. Others, here, are much too smart to swallow that. And you should know that when you lend credence to those arguments, you're making yourself part of the problem.

As long as this problem remains unresolved, we need to talk about it. If you want to advocate for access, fine. That's your right. I'm going to continue advocating for conservation with reasonable access.

Clearly your definition of “reasonable access” and mine are very different.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

It's bought into because you don't need any new reforms. You said it yourself "...the idea that any reforms, and constraints on the illegal riding will result in Draconian measures". It's already illegal, making it more illegal does not solve anything but could/would further restrict legal access. I just don't understand, guess I fall into the less smart group.

No, the problem is two-fold. (1) We don't have effective enforcement against existing regulations, and (2) we need more people who will be part of the solution.

The only constraints on illegal riding for which I'm advocating are effective enforcement against obviously illegal riding, such as making new trails through vegetation (like the ever-expanding illegal dirt bike trails) and closing down avenues that were never supposed to be part of the legitimate road system (such as in places like "quarter mile").

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Clearly your definition of “reasonable access” and mine are very different.

Reasonable access for me is maintaining as open most of the roads shown on the topo maps (something like what the Pinelands Commission adopted as the baseline). That would mean closing roads that were never intended to become public thoroughfares, such as lanes cut by firefighters in order to fight fires or lanes cut in order to get access to a forestry project. It would also mean closing any roads or trails that have been created illegally. And it would include closing roads that qualified biologists say are harmful to T&E species.

What's your definition?

 

[Teegate]

No mention of closing 539, 563, 532, etc.

 

[bobpbx]

Your statement below is your goal all along Russ. That opens the door to close any road you want closed.

"And it would include closing roads that qualified biologists say are harmful to T&E species."

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

No mention of closing 539, 563, 532, etc.

I have not heard of anyone or any organization advocating for such closures. Have you?

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Your statement below is your goal all along Russ. That opens the door to close any road you want closed.

"And it would include closing roads that qualified biologists say are harmful to T&E species."

I'm not a qualified biologist. I have no formal training as a biologist. So, no, it has nothing to do with opening any door for me to close any road I want closed. I have no authority whatsoever to close any roads. I have the exact same influence you have. I'm a private citizen trying to get my representatives to do what I believe they ought to do. Qualified biologists include people like John Bunnell, the chief scientist with the Pinelands Commission. I would defer to him on judgments as to which roads should be closed on behalf of protection of rare species.

 

[Teegate]

I have not heard of anyone or any organization advocating for such closures. Have you?

No. So why close roads in the woods when death is occurring on paved roads more than any. I drive and walk woods roads and recently made trails where snake dens and rare plants are, and I see very little issues with vehicles causing problems. I am not saying vehicles don't kill or damage T&E, I am just not seeing reasons to close roads. And one of the reason I believe the DEP is not doing what you hoped they would is the majority in the DEP and the general public agree with me and others.