I just saw this as well. You beat me posting it. It even says atvs are legal in Wharton!!
NJ Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan
- Thread starter G. Russell Juelg
- Start date
Legal on the Wildwood Beach too. Makes transporting the cooler and umbrella much easier.
Guess I should have kept reading, I did't get past #1 and contacted them that is incorrect.
Site is based in Canada
Site is based in Canada
We live in the age of widespread dis-information and the celebration of lawlessness. Only time will tell if truth and lawfulness will win.
Lawlessness and truth with open roads is what I want.
Hello. I am one of the volunteers that have been helping forestry staff maintain the WSF mountain bicycle trails since 2006.
To point out again, whenever there is a large amount of negative comments about one user group or another on social media. We notice an uptick in vandalism in the forest. Nobody likes spending time/energy to fix vandalism.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
To point out again, whenever there is a large amount of negative comments about one user group or another on social media. We notice an uptick in vandalism in the forest. Nobody likes spending time/energy to fix vandalism.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Last edited:
Sling, your post is kind of cryptic. I'm not understanding what you are saying here, but it may be just me. When you say "hello" at the start, and "thank you for your help in this matter", who are you adressing that too?
Hi Bob,
Let me first say that I appreciate this forum and all that contribute to it. The photos, maps, history, and personal stories are interesting, enjoyable, and occasionally extremely humorous.
Thank you for the question about my previous post. The hello was a general salutation to everyone. Followed by a quick intro as to who I am (I'm admittedly a long time lurker on this forum), and a brief observation of the timing of past increases in petty vandalism in the forest (relative to the timing of derogatory posts on social media by Al Horner). My closing sentence was a simple plea for civility in discussions between/about the various user-groups/stakeholders that enjoy NJ's forests. For no other reason than to keep the petty vandalism down to a manageable level.
As for cryptic, my work experience got me into the habit of writing brief e-mails (and posts), so that management will read them. Management also liked to see pastel colored pie charts and graphs included too. But I figured this audience had no desire to see that.
Let me first say that I appreciate this forum and all that contribute to it. The photos, maps, history, and personal stories are interesting, enjoyable, and occasionally extremely humorous.
Thank you for the question about my previous post. The hello was a general salutation to everyone. Followed by a quick intro as to who I am (I'm admittedly a long time lurker on this forum), and a brief observation of the timing of past increases in petty vandalism in the forest (relative to the timing of derogatory posts on social media by Al Horner). My closing sentence was a simple plea for civility in discussions between/about the various user-groups/stakeholders that enjoy NJ's forests. For no other reason than to keep the petty vandalism down to a manageable level.
As for cryptic, my work experience got me into the habit of writing brief e-mails (and posts), so that management will read them. Management also liked to see pastel colored pie charts and graphs included too. But I figured this audience had no desire to see that.
That was my mistake there but I will blame my spell checker
I do not support lawlessness.That’s good to hear. What I would like to do is investigate, with you and anyone else who may want to engage in rational discourse about this matter, what might be the legitimate constraints on motorized traffic in the Pinelands. Somewhere between totally unrestrained access and totally unreasonable restrictions, there must be a level of motorized access that meets the goals expressed in the CMP:That was my mistake there but I will blame my spell checker
3. The Commission shall from time to time designate areas which are inappropriate for use of motor vehicles. Such designation shall be based upon the following considerations and upon consultation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and other interested persons:
- A need to protect a scientific study area;
- A need to protect the location of threatened or endangered plant or animal species;
- A need to provide a wilderness recreational area;
- A need to prevent conflicts with adjoining intensively used recreational areas;
- A need to protect historic or archaeological sites;
- A need to protect critical wildlife habitats;
- A need to address a situation of public health and safety;
- A need to protect extensively disturbed areas from further impact; and
- The extent to which such road closure would substantially impair recreation access to and uses of surrounding resources.
Quite a list you have there Russ. Covers all roads, I'm sure. That's your plan, right? By the way, what is this meet up all about? Should chain saws be supplied?
The updated regulations. I have not read it yet, gonna take a nap.
No offense, but what's the point of discussing any of this?
I think everyone, or almost everyone, on these boards agrees that spungs and asphodel and pine snakes are good and we would like to see more of them and those doing well. So I think we also all agree that people should not be riding off the road through public lands and wrecking those things, and it seems like the current law against that is not being very effectively enforced (if they're also riding up the public roads and through Jon's backyard, etc.), and maybe is not even known about.
Giving the Pinelands Commission new powers to close roads, or opening an ORV park, are speculative projects that would require years of political grooming to put through. It's possible that long discussions of these topics will reveal unexpected areas of agreement; on the other hand, I think it's more likely that it will expose differences in how much we value the different, and sometimes conflicting goals of Pinelands management. Those values are very nebulous and case-specific and not easily subject to quantitation and reasoning on general principle.
I think a lot of this thread makes more sense if you assume that many people are doing some sort of balancing act like that, but assume that it's not socially acceptable or legitimate to assign any other value than zero to motorized access to certain points in the Pines, relative to conservation. If you accept the premise that herp conservation will always take priority over motorized access, then acknowledging that "roads are bad for snakes" isn't just a neutral statement of fact; it's also a wholesale concession of the right to drive anywhere in the Pines, because any road anywhere is bad for them at some level and there's no legitimate argument to be made against that. I mean, if someone said "closing this obscure segment of road means this hibernaculum has a 70% chance rather than a 20% change of surviving for the next decade", I'd probably say that the value of (possibly) saving the snakes outweighs the value of driving down that particular road; on the other hand, if the proposition was "close all the sand roads in Wharton and the chance of the pine snake surviving there goes from 2% to 5%", I'd probably take the view that it was time to pack it in. Other people can and would disagree! But I don't think you can elucidate a principle that can be applied to both situations regardless of context.
As someone with friends on both sides of the debate, who's been unhappy to see the degree of rancor that's developed among people that should be allies since the original MAP came out in 2015, I think that tactically, I think the potential gains are much bigger going after the things we all agree on (it's outrageous that off-roaders feel free to blaze their own trails through the forest and potentially run over hibernacula, through wetlands, or God knows what) than trying to push people to approve of things (new road-closure authority, new ORV park) that may never happen or be helpful if they do.
I think everyone, or almost everyone, on these boards agrees that spungs and asphodel and pine snakes are good and we would like to see more of them and those doing well. So I think we also all agree that people should not be riding off the road through public lands and wrecking those things, and it seems like the current law against that is not being very effectively enforced (if they're also riding up the public roads and through Jon's backyard, etc.), and maybe is not even known about.
Giving the Pinelands Commission new powers to close roads, or opening an ORV park, are speculative projects that would require years of political grooming to put through. It's possible that long discussions of these topics will reveal unexpected areas of agreement; on the other hand, I think it's more likely that it will expose differences in how much we value the different, and sometimes conflicting goals of Pinelands management. Those values are very nebulous and case-specific and not easily subject to quantitation and reasoning on general principle.
I think a lot of this thread makes more sense if you assume that many people are doing some sort of balancing act like that, but assume that it's not socially acceptable or legitimate to assign any other value than zero to motorized access to certain points in the Pines, relative to conservation. If you accept the premise that herp conservation will always take priority over motorized access, then acknowledging that "roads are bad for snakes" isn't just a neutral statement of fact; it's also a wholesale concession of the right to drive anywhere in the Pines, because any road anywhere is bad for them at some level and there's no legitimate argument to be made against that. I mean, if someone said "closing this obscure segment of road means this hibernaculum has a 70% chance rather than a 20% change of surviving for the next decade", I'd probably say that the value of (possibly) saving the snakes outweighs the value of driving down that particular road; on the other hand, if the proposition was "close all the sand roads in Wharton and the chance of the pine snake surviving there goes from 2% to 5%", I'd probably take the view that it was time to pack it in. Other people can and would disagree! But I don't think you can elucidate a principle that can be applied to both situations regardless of context.
As someone with friends on both sides of the debate, who's been unhappy to see the degree of rancor that's developed among people that should be allies since the original MAP came out in 2015, I think that tactically, I think the potential gains are much bigger going after the things we all agree on (it's outrageous that off-roaders feel free to blaze their own trails through the forest and potentially run over hibernacula, through wetlands, or God knows what) than trying to push people to approve of things (new road-closure authority, new ORV park) that may never happen or be helpful if they do.
I see a big problem.
A. State Parks and Forests
The document says: Some State Parks and Forests have public roads within the boundaries of the park. “All motor vehicles operated on lands under the jurisdiction of the State Park Service shall be subject to Motor Vehicle Laws of the State of New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 39-1 et seq., all rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and this chapter.” N.J.A.C. 7:2-3.3. Properly licensed and registered ORVs, such as jeeps and pick-up trucks, that otherwise comply with the motor vehicle provisions of Title 39 are allowed to operate on established public roads and parking areas like any other motor vehicle,....etc.
B. Wildlife Management Areas
There is no similar caveat afforded to Wildlife Management Areas. It only says that "ORVs and ATVs are generally prohibited in Wildlife Management Areas"
Let's hope this is just an oversight, otherwise hunters would be walking and non-hunters will also be pissed off (highly).
A. State Parks and Forests
The document says: Some State Parks and Forests have public roads within the boundaries of the park. “All motor vehicles operated on lands under the jurisdiction of the State Park Service shall be subject to Motor Vehicle Laws of the State of New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 39-1 et seq., all rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and this chapter.” N.J.A.C. 7:2-3.3. Properly licensed and registered ORVs, such as jeeps and pick-up trucks, that otherwise comply with the motor vehicle provisions of Title 39 are allowed to operate on established public roads and parking areas like any other motor vehicle,....etc.
B. Wildlife Management Areas
There is no similar caveat afforded to Wildlife Management Areas. It only says that "ORVs and ATVs are generally prohibited in Wildlife Management Areas"
Let's hope this is just an oversight, otherwise hunters would be walking and non-hunters will also be pissed off (highly).
I think the point of discussing anything (especially in a "forum") is try to reach better understanding of the topic. There's a lot of angles to this topic, and a lot of misunderstanding, much of it generated by a lack of knowledge, such as the knowledge I am trying to acquire specific to the responsibilities and authority of the Pinelands Commission with regard to the issues. I'm a little clearer on it now than I was before. Your post is long and covers a lot of ground. I agree with some of it and disagree with some other parts of it. We could have a cordial debate, and ignore the folks who post here in the spirit of grandstanding and trolling. I mean, the various points you raise illustrate the complexity of the topic, don't they?
This is not updated regulations. It's a guidance document summarizing existing regulations.