I met Al Horner at Barbara Solem's book signing at Batsto. I think he's a good guy, despite him chiding me for still using a film camera. (He's gone totally digital.)
That being said, he's got an agenda. If you look at his Pinelands Under Siege it's full of the most inflammatory language - it'd make Rush Limbaugh proud. Even in the note that Manumuskin wrote he comes across with a huge holier than thou attitude.
Right at the top of the email he shills for his new book. It seems like there's a lot of self promotion being thrown in with his indignation.
One of the largest problems, in my eye, is the destruction caused by off-road vehicles a.k.a dirtbikes, ATVs and over muscled 4 x 4 Jeep type vehicles.
A valid point. Dirt bikes and ATVs are 100% banned on state land now. Full stop. And yes, there's a lot of "over muscled" Jeeps/trucks riding around in the woods that are total overkill for the road conditions there. I have seen the destruction that careless drivers of these vehicles have done. Look at the mess at the lakes by Old Half Way. Look at the hotel cellar hole at Mount, or the continued destruction of the packing house ruins at Friendship. I personally see this willful damage sickening.
That being said, I have a hard time believing that every road that has been closed leads to an area damaged by ORVs. I also believe that Guy driving his car down some of these sand roads, or me (back in the day) driving my (stock) Jeep slowly down them while I was looking for some historic site damages anything.
Off-road vehicle users consider the land to be a motorized sports arena, that mindset is causing irreparable damage to our public lands.
Why does Al feel that he knows exactly what all ORV drivers think about the land? If this was Wikipedia there'd be a big [Citation Needed] next to that statement.
So why is it okay to run these vehicles through OUR state forest? What good comes from the noise, mud, grease, rutted roadways and destroyed wetlands? This is all quite the opposite of the beauty I attempt to share.
So wait a second, is Al the sole arbiter of what OUR state forest should be used for? While Al might not enjoy driving a Jeep down a deserted pine road, getting away from the bustle of the modern world, and escaping to a much simpler time, other people do. Now note that I am not saying that a guy with 44" tires on his Jeep in the middle of tearing up a road should be allowed. My point is that Al is pushing his opinions and views onto everybody. I'm not a birder, but does that mean that I should say "Who would want to bird in these woods. Ban those evil ne'erdowells and their insipid binoculars!" No. Just because I don't necessarily like an activity doesn't mean that others shouldn't be allowed to. Especially when it is land that allegedly belongs to us all.
On the volunteer front I have been working along with Rob Auermuller, Supt. of Wharton State Forest, with a group of Pineland Lovers to help with issues needing attention in the forest, one of which is off-road vehicle destruction. Pinelands Preservation Alliance was recently awarded a grant to fund a permanent volunteer group for Wharton S.F., provide needed tools and equipment, and do restoration work to 22 areas within Wharton that have been ravaged by off-road vehicle assaults.
Well, good to have confirmation that the PPA is behind this as well. Again, I think that the PPA has done some wonderful things, but they really do not realize that the woods belong to us all, and that things like closures and stuff should be done transparently out in the open.
So in short, I agree that the Pines should not be destroyed by irresponsible ORV users. But, I don't feel that folks like us, who drive down these roads and are mindful of the kind of damage that our vehicles can do, should be punished - especially since we're the majority of ORV users in the woods. But fine, if you want to make a huge decision like closing down roads that will affect tens of thousands of people, at least do it with some transparency. This pretty much swooped in out of nowhere. I know that there was some talk back in 2010 about it, but that was five years ago. You can't mention something five years ago and then just go ram it into law on whatever whim you have.
Secondly, the people that do this kind of damage are NOT going to be discouraged by "NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES" signs. They have them up at Old Half Way and yet people still drive back there. They have 1/4 mile closed, but people still go back there. If the state ACTUALLY cared about preserving the environment they'd step up the enforcement of the laws that are on the books.
In the end, the only people that will be affected are folks like you and me who would actually NOT drive down a closed road while the guy with the 44" mud tires will continue to drive willy nilly and suffer no consequences. The long and short of it is that human beings are selfish creatures. People still flick their cigarette butts out the window. People still don't recycle. People will pour old oil from their lawnmower out in their back yard. Road closures aren't going to stop people from being assholes. The ONLY thing that will remotely serve as a deterrent will be the park police issuing summonses.
Until that happens, or there is a sea change in how human beings think, those "ROAD CLOSED" signs will just stand sentinel over a bunch of rutted out impassable roads. And we'll have to look back and remember the times that we were able to enjoy the land that we collectively own before a small but vocal minority took it from us.