NJDEP Bans Off-Road vehicles from public land

[ZippySLC]

http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/releases/02_0095.htm

The New Jersey DEP has banned off-road vehicles from all public land.

They have two classes for ORV's:

Class 1: Pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, etc.
Class 2: Quads, dirtbikes, ATV's, snowmobiles.

Class 1 vehicles are allowed on public land provided they stick to "roads and highways." A call to the ranger station at Wharton informed me that they define road as 'something that appears on a topo map.' This is great except that it closes a lot of the smaller trails that branch off and connect the various larger trails.

Class 2 vehicles are prohibited from public lands, period.

Fines start at $1000, and the DEP is working on a way to confiscate your vehicle if you are caught.

The DEP claims that 300,000 acres of public land has been destroyed by ORV's. Wharton State Forest alone is only 100,000 acres. A size that the DEP suggests is 6% of the total land area of the state. I think we'd have seen and heard more about that if that were true.

While laws like this are great at preserving the environment, they cut off access to a whole group of people. The ranger said that they have been having problems with people blazing their own trails through the woods, or driving on areas that normally are underwater but are dry because of the grought, and generally being where they shouldn't be. I support the idea of keeping people off those places, but by just having a blanket ban on ORV's you're creating a bigger problem. People who don't respect the land aren't going to respect the law, and the people who do respect the land will not be able to enjoy the Pine Barrens. This surely won't be the silver bullet that the DEP thinks it will be, and only serves the interests of those who want to shut everyone out of the wilderness.



---
NJPineBarrens.com - Exploring the Ghost Towns of Southern New Jersey

 

[JeffD]

While some of the ideas, such as keeping vehicles on the roads, sand and paved, are good, I agree that some of this is extreme. A blanket ban on ORV's, extreme fines for even a minor violation, red tape, etc., does smell like opportunism, a back door way to keep people out of the forest. We'll have to watch this one. Seems like we may have a Green Gestapo in the form of the Department of Environmental Prosecution.

It's analogous to gun control. The bad guys won't respect the law and decent, law abiding citizens get penalized when you go after the actual thing or activity rather than holding people who do wrong personally accountable. Guns don't kill; people do. I can understand banning loud vehicles from certain areas. But if you can keep something like a dirt bike quiet, why restrict it? The one that I saw driving along Quaker Bridge Road one time was fairly quiet. The DEP needs to go after the gross violators, not people who are using the outdoors responsibly. Under the guise of protecting the environment, a hidden wilderness cult agenda may very well be afoot.

What concerns me is the destortions. It smacks of the ends justifies the means alarmism used to push an agenda where it wouldn't see the light of day if an honest accession were made. The environmental extrermists have been losing ground recently, and they are capable of anything before they going down for the count.

 

[BobM]

Jeff, really....you provide me so much amusement with your running commentaries. You are a riot!

 

[ZippySLC]

Bob:

You didn't believe me when I said this was going to happen. You mentioned in another thead that you own a dirt bike. How do you feel about not being able to ride it in the Pine Barrens?

Unless you ride on private property with permission from the owner, there's really no place to ride anymore.

-ben



---
NJPineBarrens.com - Exploring the Ghost Towns of Southern New Jersey

 

[BobM]

Actually Ben, I own a "dual sport" motorcycle, which means it is equally at home on dirt roads. It is licensed, registered, insured, and inspected, which puts it in class one, which means I can go on any road that is on a topographic map. This is a hell of a lot of roads, so I cannot conceive of running out of roads to ride, ride, ride!

Bob

 

[ZippySLC]

I am officially stupid.

I was under the impression that -all- ATVs, bikes, etc. were under Class II. I don't know why I thought that, since the policy says that any registerd vehicle is allowed on public land.

Well, then, if the policy only prevents unregistered/uninsured vehicles, then I support it 100%.

Thanks for making me double check the policy.

---
NJPineBarrens.com - Exploring the Ghost Towns of Southern New Jersey

 

[Teegate]

Ben,

Just a little suggestion.

When you post to this board, put the http and all the other info to make your site a link. Again, just a suggestion.

Guy

http://www.NJPineBarrens.com

Exploring the Ghost Towns of Southern New Jersey

 

[ZippySLC]

I didn't know this board supported HTML tags. A lot of them do not (mine included.)


Edit: I had to add a style="color:black;" statement to my HTML command, otherwise my link would come out white, and orange on a MouseOver. Weird.
---
NJPineBarrens.com - Exploring the Ghost Towns of Southern New Jersey

 

[Teegate]

It is interesting that every time you made a change to the link, I received an email. I did not think that editing does that. I edit all the time. If you receive notification by email, do you ever received multiple email messages from me?

Guy

 

[ZippySLC]

No, I just deleted the messages when I saw that they didn't work right. Sorry about that.

---
NJPineBarrens.com - Exploring the Ghost Towns of Southern New Jersey

 

[BarryC]

Re: "dual-sport" motorcycle.
Bob,
It sounds to me as if a dual-sport motorcycle is the same thing as what we called an "enduro" 20-25 years ago. It has lights, turnsignals, and is registered for highway use. I figured those things would come under the same heading as cars and trucks, as you say.
I wonder if Enduro was just a brand-name for a dual-sport. I wonder if each manufacturer calls it something different.
Anyway, to my knowledge, unlicensed, unregistered vehicles have always been prohibited from state land. Why are they making a big deal out of it now. People talk as if it's a new law. All they are doing is cracking down on enforcement of an existing law.

 

[BarryC]

Jeff,
You said:
"It's analogous to gun control. The bad guys won't respect the law and decent, law abiding citizens get penalized when you go after the actual thing or activity rather than holding people who do wrong personally accountable. Guns don't kill; people do. I can understand banning loud vehicles from certain areas. But if you can keep something like a dirt bike quiet, why restrict it? The one that I saw driving along Quaker Bridge Road one time was fairly quiet."

Loud vehicles? Who said anything about noise? They aren't banning off-road vehicles from state land because of the noise they make. It's because of the damage they do. If ATV's were driven slowly, maybe they wouldn't do so much damage, and of course if they stuck to existing roads the same would hold true. But they don't, not always anyway.

 

[BobM]

Barry,

Most motorcycle companies have an "enduro" model, which means it is built to withstand the beating they are subjected to in an "enduro" race. For instance, Suzuki would have a 250CC enduro, and Yahmaha would have a 250cc enduro model also. The actual name is an enduro race. I used to watch them frequently around Chatsworth in the early 70's. One was called the "sandy lane enduro". In it contestants travel through a trail (often 80 miles of trails which also use sand roads) blazed by others before the race. These trails are twisty and tortuous, with collisions with pitch pines common. The race is not against each other per se, but against the clock. If my memory serves me well, if you maintain a speed of aroung 24 MPH, you come in with a good time.

I have no problem with enduro events being held in the pines, as long as they are sanctioned by the state, well thought out to avoid sensitive areas, and are inspected and audited to ensure they do. I would also not like to see more in an area than could handle them.

 

[JeffD]

I agree that dirt bikes, ATV's and such should avoid environmentally sensitive areas and use an area within its capacity to handle the impact. The problem Ben and I have is the blanket ban of these vehicles. A place such as the gravel pits, as you mentioned, German, would meet this requirement. In some of the Pennsylvania State Parks, areas are set aside for mountain biking. Areas were designated along old railroad beds, which are underlaid with gravel and are well above the water table, where the bikes would do minimum damage to the environment. Conversely, in the park where I worked, mountain bikes were restricted to the paved bike/hike paths. The park is a 1700 acre, highly visited park, which borders a major creek, with flood plains and wetlands. The park also had a problem with many deer and human created trails which sliced and diced through the vegetation. The park considered designating an area in a remote section of the park, at a higher elevation. There was a potential conflict with the equestrians, which we referred to as hackers, who entered the park, free of charge and responsibility, from a rent-a-horse farm just outside the park border. Unfortunately, this practice of what the PA State Parks called ROGUE CONCESSIONERS was well entrenched, and a throng of unskilled horse riders regularly entered the park, crossing the covered bridge, which they messed up as they passed through.

I mentioned noise from a dirt bike, Barry, to explore reasons for keeping them off the regular unpaved roads. I can certainly understand the legal issue if the bike isn't licenced. The question is, is a licenced dirt bike allowed on these roads? Evidently they are, as you mentioned Bob. I wholeheartedly agree that any vehicle should stay on the roads, paved on unpaved, and not ride willy-nilly, slicing and dicing the vegetation in its way. There is a question, however, about staying on roads found on a topo map. Now there are well-defined sand road offshoots from the sand Quaker Road, for example, where one can drive a hundred feet or so to park and get out to explore the woods on foot. They are fairly high, so they have little negative impact on the environment. Some of these roads are posted NO MOTOR VEHICLES, as they lead to a wilderness area. It's good that this is the case. This is just a relatively small area for people who want to rough it and have a more primative experience.

I believe that there must be the proper balance in the Pine Barrens, where there is adequate access so people can enjoy various areas, and environmental protection. Although the people, like myself, who sometime want to rough it are most likely in the minority, I would like to see more wilderness campgrounds become available. It wouldn't involve closing alot of roads, which I'd hate to see, but would allow folks to go into the woods with a backpack and enjoy the absence of cars, etc. The area along the Batona trail between Apple Pie Hill and the Carrazanza Memorial is a nearly continuous forest, with, mainly in the beginning, an occasional sand road that cuts through. It's a nice area, but the problem is that there's really not an adequate ending destination for the average hiker for a day trip. It would be nice to be able to backpack and camp for the night somewhere between Apple Pie Hill and Carrazanza. It's quite a hike between these two points!

I remember the first time I drove to New Mexico from Pennsylvania, I brought my backpack and equipment. The first night I stopped at a campground in a national forest in Ohio. It was early in the "season", so only the fancy campsites with electrical hookups as such which would accomodate an RV were available. The primitive campsites weren't available. I explained to someone at the ranger station that I was self-contained and didn't need such a fancy campsite. I was told I could camp in the pine forest up on the nearby mountain close to the firetower, and I was given directions. I felt like Nick Adams in the Ernest Hemmingway short story where an army veteran goes into a similar forest after a war. I hiked in a little ways and set up camp. In the morning, I made breakfast at a picnic table by the fire tower. Although the tower was unmanned, a sign said I could enter at my own risk. So I climbed the tower. After I left the forest, noone, other than the staff that told me about the area, would have known I was even there.

By the way, the last time I went by Quaker Bridge, I found some graffitti on the bridge. I also found some ruts on Quaker Road, on the decent about 100 yards before the bridge. I went around where the sand was mostly bare. I couldn't find where I went around on my way back, so I drove right through. Evidently, it looked worse than it really was.