Off Road Abuse of Wharton State Forest Continues
- Thread starter Jason Howell
- Start date
- Status
That gets back to the question of how much is enough. To some, any is too much. It would seem the "illegal" part was just a tool to get the large amounts of the forest closed to responsible forest enthusiasts. At least that was the starting point for which they were shooting.
Last edited:
That is the focus, but I have a big issue with how the actual roads are treated too. The 4x4 abuse is shutting down access to everyone and the taxpayers are footing the bill. Even Quaker Bridge is getting so bad that unless it is repaired soon it will be impassable to 2wd vehicles by this summer. That isn't from normal use, but from the type of driving shown in those videos.
The MAP didn't differentiate between people who wanted to drive a motor vehicle in the pines responsibly and those who wanted to be destructive.
Proponents of the MAP claim that just driving down a road or trail (not just veering off the trail and going into wetlands) causes environmental damage.
So yes, the "mudders" who leave the trail and tear up wetlands are a huge problem and you won't find anybody here advocating for that. The problem is this that the PPA is pushing to keep everybody in some sort of motorized device out, no matter how benign the driver's reason for being there is.
tsqurd, no resident should lose their right to our open space and it should be open for all aspects of responsible outdoorsmanship, but I don't want to see illegal activity accepted as a status quo either. 1.1 million acres should be enough for swamping, stone-hunting, botanizing, caneoing, hunting, birding, jeeping and herping if everyone behaves like adults.
Let's keep at it and we'll find something that works for all of us.
Let's keep at it and we'll find something that works for all of us.
I couldn't agree more!
Last edited:
Rob told me that he was receiving a lot of pressure to close the entirety of Wharton. I didn't ask for names but I have some ideas.
Anybody who thinks that the MAP wasn't a prelude to that happening is in denial.
What is your suggestion? Look at my post above and see the balance that I'm proposing. You can't shut off the roads to motor vehicle traffic unless you are telling the responsible outdoorsmen that I noted above that they can no longer use the forest. For all of the movement in this state to get people outdoors, and to get children outdoors to become the future generation of outdoorsmen and stewards, to participate in outdoor activities, and then to cut off the largest state forest in the state? It's not fitting.
The enforcement focus should be on those who are driving illegally in the pines-but there should be a focus on preserving (i.e. keeping open and available) the land for responsible use and responsible users-how else can this work besides the MAP? What else besides shutting down the roads can be done?
Maybe the pinelands adventures can donate some of it's profits from the canoe rentals to the sps to help repair quaker bridge road
In my opinion, the only way to manage this growing issue is to have enough police to monitor the miles of paths open to motor traffic. If we don't have the budget for police, then the areas most vulnerable to this damage need to be physically protected from vehicular use. I absolutely applaud the work that is going to be done at Jemima by some of the OTNJ folks. That type of protection needs to be monitored and repeated at dozens of locations in Wharton to have a shot at protecting them. The problem, as you are probably aware, is that these types of gates have simply been ripped down in the past or gone around. With that experience in mind, you have to begin looking at pinch points and larger areas that can be made defensible. This is more important when it comes to the wetland areas that are hard to cordon off. It's an age-old tactic of defending territory while outnumbered. -
If anyone wants an example of this, please visit Greenwood WMA. They put up the most massive steel and wire gates I have yet seen in the Pines and every single one was ripped out.
What you are suggesting sounds like preparing for the invasion of normandy
Agreed. For what else, I would suggest that the very limited area closures already in effect are helpful. As is the uptick in enforcement. Glad to hear that OTNJ will be partnering with the State to finally (FINALLY) close access to Jemima Mount. There are a few other areas (such as 1/4 mile) that need barriers as well. Although I support motorized access and I felt the previous MAP unfairly penalized law abiding citizens I do think there is room for reviewing additional roads/areas for closure. Bob Martin kicked the can down the street by walking away from creating a dedicated MAP....its in everyone's best interests to have a codified set of roads, the final question remains on what IF ANY additional should be closed? Maintaining primary access roads like QBR to 2wd standards (from 206 to the bridge) should be a no brainer...secondary roads should be listed as "4wd recommended"....any road built after 1997 usgs should be reviewed for closure...any road in a designated wetland should be reviewed. Closing 200+ miles was an overreach, identifying roads that should not be open in the first place and that severely impact sensitive areas while providing a legal roadmap seems like a reasonable approach. We shall see what happens.
You do know that map was implemented prematurely the exact words from asst director trontis" rob jumped the gun " at winslow twsp meeting
It should NEVER have been implemented.
It was and was not a draft plan and the ppa was all for it and assisted in the implementation
Understood , but it should never have been implemented without stakeholder input, transparency to the public. I understand the PPA's position (they are preservationist) and by that logic they were staying true to there position. However, I believe that the majority of the Pine Barrens should be based on a conservationist protection (access/use for a wide variety of outdoor activities) but there are some very small targeted areas that are exceptional and need further "preservationist" type oversight. I think we are on the right track, I just want DEP yo be in charge and be transparent and accountable to stakeholders with any further changes.
This is where you lose me Jason. There is either visible PP and/or local LE enforcement accompanied by stiff fines and penalties or there isn't. "Pinch points", "larger areas made defensible" sounds like a proposal from Colonel Flagg in an episode of MASH.
I think he is referring to that LEO cannot protect areas 24/7/365.....and that enforcement via onsite presence is just one tactic....blocking access to areas "larger areas made defensible" may be the only way to secure very sensitive sites via blocking pinch points (road access areas hemmed in by heavy tree/brush where barrier placement would be most effective).
If, for example you mean the way High Crossing Road is closed before Skit Branch so Jeeps cannot get to Quarter Mile, he said (his words): "these types of gates have simply been ripped down in the past or gone around". Which brings us back to LE. Or perhaps cameras triggered by vehicles.
- Status