ORV Management In Sensitive Areas Of Wharton

Teegate

Administrator
Site Administrator
Sep 17, 2002
25,951
8,695
BTW, if you were at any of the council meetings when the Superintendent said that Jemima was pristine except for one road up it in the 1990s it is important to know it had a road up it as far back as 1979 and maybe even the 60s. And he kept mentioning that there was a geodetic marker up there and making it seem that someone damaged it in more recent years. But the truth is it was damaged and just flush with the ground when I was there in the 70s. I believe I have a photo of it in my slides and will have to make some time to look for it. Here it is in 2002 ...13 years ago. Nothing new for sure.


geodetic.jpg
 

smoke_jumper

Piney
Mar 5, 2012
1,606
1,164
Atco, NJ
The road was not there in 1970, judging from historic aerials. Jemima is actually great example of what is wrong with the MAP.
There was absolutely a road up Jemima in the 70's. Now there's many though. It's been closed to vehicles for years but each year I go there seems to be a new one and the existing ones are getting worse. With the plan it will take 3 rangers to close off Jemima. When one stationed there for a month on the weekends would get the point across
 
Apr 6, 2004
3,620
564
Galloway
There was absolutely a road up Jemima in the 70's. Now there's many though. It's been closed to vehicles for years but each year I go there seems to be a new one and the existing ones are getting worse. With the plan it will take 3 rangers to close off Jemima. When one stationed there for a month on the weekends would get the point across

It was certainly there in the 70's, but it wasn't there in 1970. I think a few steep fines would go a long way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smoke_jumper

Maggie

Scout
Sep 16, 2015
43
23
Three Bridges, NJ
I’ve been very reluctant to add anything here (especially as my first post on the site). I’ve read almost all of the posts in this thread over the last couple of months.

I completely understand the gut level opposition to changes in lawful access to various areas in the Wharton state forest. The idea of being denied something you have always had is hard to take. And certainly something to rail against, fight to the end. I agree with all that has been said on one level. On the other hand, we can all probably agree that New Jersey is completely unique. It is unlike our neighbors Pennsylvania and New York. Those are big states with big acreages and scattered populations (outside of the major or minor metropolises). They can absorb ORV and ATV use with much less overall impact. New Jersey cannot absorb these impacts—we are too small. New Jersey is a tiny, crowded state sandwiched between several megalopolises; the most densely populated in the country as everyone knows. We are blessed with this truly amazing landscape, the Pine Barrens. The Wharton forest protects a large but continuously diminishing portion of it. It is a state treasure. It is a national treasure. Dare I say, a world treasure?

You want it to be the same as it was when you were younger. I do too. But it isn’t. It just isn’t. When my father (who is still alive) was born, the population of New Jersey was about 3.75 million. By the time I was born, the population had increased by 3 million. Today it is a little less than 9 million.

There has been a suggestion that because some of these are roads have been open for 200 years that they should remain so. That may be so, but 200 years ago, they were traveled by foot, horse, or horse and buggy, not by the things chewing up the sand today. And the population of the state was less than a quarter million.

This relatively small area simply cannot absorb the impacts it is faced with today. There are so many examples of these impacts. It is undeniable.

Everyone who has spent any time in the Pine Barrens over the years can attest to the fact that the impacts from motorized vehicles have been dramatic, astounding, profound.

Besides the obvious impacts of torn up roads, wasted wetlands, and party sites (some small, some gigantic), there are other impacts. The most important, obviously, would be loss or destruction of habitat for the non-human inhabitants; next, loss or destruction of the integrity of important historic and cultural sites; last, perhaps, is the loss of the sense of wilderness that some people (e.g., me) enjoy—that is freedom from noise, freedom from fumes, freedom from trash. Some people might say, “so what” and they are entitled to that. As God is my witness, as a lifer here…I just want, no…crave a little peace and quiet.

There it is: my first post. I think this is a first-class, wonderful site and I’ve really learned a lot and enjoyed reading. If you hate me for wanting some restrictions on motorized transit in the pines, so be it. Thanks for reading, if you made it to the end.
 
Apr 6, 2004
3,620
564
Galloway
Welcome, Maggie.

"This relatively small area simply cannot absorb the impacts it is faced with today."

What exactly do you mean?

"There has been a suggestion that because some of these are roads have been open for 200 years that they should remain so. That may be so, but 200 years ago, they were traveled by foot, horse, or horse and buggy, not by the things chewing up the sand today."

Are you suggesting that all dirt roads in the Pines should be closed to motor vehicles? I'm just not sure I see what you're getting at.
 

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,619
1,878
Monmouth County
www.benruset.com
Maggie, that was a great first post. And I don't think that anybody will hate you for wanting some restrictions on motorized access in the pines. In fact we all realize that there's a problem and something needs to change to fix it. I support road closures in areas where there's been significant ecological damage or where there's a clear threat for damage to happen.

Yes, the MAP closes some several hundred year old roads, and yes, back in the day there was wagon traffic. That wagon traffic often got mired and stuck in the mud just like today's vehicles. In any event, I feel that the MAP is too heavy handed. It closes roads that there's no real good reason to close. Thy're dry, they travel through uplands and do not show any sign of environmental damage. Closing them serves no good purpose.

Have you had a chance to spend a lot of time in the pines?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Broke Jeep Joe

Maggie

Scout
Sep 16, 2015
43
23
Three Bridges, NJ
Welcome, Maggie.

"This relatively small area simply cannot absorb the impacts it is faced with today."

What exactly do you mean?

"There has been a suggestion that because some of these are roads have been open for 200 years that they should remain so. That may be so, but 200 years ago, they were traveled by foot, horse, or horse and buggy, not by the things chewing up the sand today."

Are you suggesting that all dirt roads in the Pines should be closed to motor vehicles? I'm just not sure I see what you're getting at.

Thanks for the welcome pinelandpaddler...
No, I definitely did not mean to suggest that I think all of the dirt roads in the pines should be closed...that would be all of them pretty much, wouldn't it? (smile). I just mean that a thoughtful examination of the status quo is warranted and that some of them should close, while others remain open. This is such a sensitive subject and such an important one. I do not mean to be glib, or cavalier. I mean to be respectful.
 

SuperChooch

Explorer
Aug 26, 2011
394
429
48
If you hate me for wanting some restrictions on motorized transit in the pines, so be it.
There are folks here who are very passionate about this topic, including me, but I don't think you will find anyone here who hates you for having your opinion. :)
 

Maggie

Scout
Sep 16, 2015
43
23
Three Bridges, NJ
Maggie, that was a great first post. And I don't think that anybody will hate you for wanting some restrictions on motorized access in the pines. In fact we all realize that there's a problem and something needs to change to fix it. I support road closures in areas where there's been significant ecological damage or where there's a clear threat for damage to happen.

Yes, the MAP closes some several hundred year old roads, and yes, back in the day there was wagon traffic. That wagon traffic often got mired and stuck in the mud just like today's vehicles. In any event, I feel that the MAP is too heavy handed. It closes roads that there's no real good reason to close. Thy're dry, they travel through uplands and do not show any sign of environmental damage. Closing them serves no good purpose.

Have you had a chance to spend a lot of time in the pines?
Thank you for the welcome, Ben. I have spent quite a bit of time in the pines over the years. Not so much as you and many of the members of this site probably--I do not want to overstate it. I am a NJ native but was first introduced to the pines by my grad school advisor back in 1987. Some Rutgers alums on the site might remember him--Dr. Richard Ilnicki (weed science). "Doc" was a true Pine Barrens enthusiast and he gave me the pines bug, plus some pretty cool books (smile). Everyone who knows me in my real life today knows that "I love the Pine Barrens".

This subject of motorized access in the pines is so difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben Ruset

Teegate

Administrator
Site Administrator
Sep 17, 2002
25,951
8,695
As for eliminating noise, if you see my post yesterday of my exploration of the woods near Rockwood, I was quite a ways out there far from vehicle traffic. However, the sounds from 206 of vehicles crossing those strips cut in the middle of the road just resonated through the woods. In the past year or so the addition of those annoying little cutouts have ruined the opportunity of getting out there and not hearing noise. The same goes in Lebanon along route 70.

Guy
 

smoke_jumper

Piney
Mar 5, 2012
1,606
1,164
Atco, NJ
Welcomed to the forums Maggie. Don't think for one second that you would not be welcome here if you're for the MAP. I personally enjoy listening to other opinions. I like to hear both sides of any argument and form my own opinion. I usually fall some where in the middle like most of us. I truely believe that no matter what side one is on they are equally passionate about the pines. I also believe that most of the people that this plan is targeting are just sitting by and watching. (If you know you're doing something wrong the last place you want to be is in the spotlight;)) You even agree that the plan is too restrictive. A change this large needs more public input. I have no problem comprising some my freedoms to benifit the pines but this plan is to heavy handed and has to many holes for it to work
Hopefully as these public and stakeholder meetings are constructive and can accomplish a better plan. Please keep up the constructive conversation and we all might wind up on common ground which I don't think we are that far from.
 

manumuskin

Piney
Jul 20, 2003
8,673
2,586
60
millville nj
www.youtube.com
I heard a couple years back they were ticketing folks for no seat belts while driving the sand roads in Wharton.Come on! It's not about your personal safety ,it's about revenue.If I have to unlock the seat belt to jump out and remove snakes from the road that are trying to get out of the road I might take to long and miss being able to rescue them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pinelandpaddler

Broke Jeep Joe

Explorer
Mar 8, 2006
781
476
Waterford Twp
I heard a couple years back they were ticketing folks for no seat belts while driving the sand roads in Wharton.Come on! It's not about your personal safety ,it's about revenue.If I have to unlock the seat belt to jump out and remove snakes from the road that are trying to get out of the road I might take to long and miss being able to rescue them.

The seat belt thing is 100% true!
 
  • Like
Reactions: manumuskin

woodjin

Piney
Nov 8, 2004
4,342
328
Near Mt. Misery
Hi Maggie and welcome to the forum. You are correct that the pines are threatened by their geographical location, being so close to such enormous populations of people. Populations that are forever increasing. A greater number of people provide for a greater threat in damage to sensitive areas of the pines. I think most everyone opposed to the MAP recognize this sad fact. This is one of the reasons many of us were opposed to the clustering regulations implemented a few years back.

The problem is in the methodology. Targeted closures with enforcement of those specific areas would be far more effective than these mass closures. targeted closures in the past have been unsuccessful due to lack of enforcement. Enforcement can be applied in several ways, possibly even in ways that are economically feasible considering the state's allocation of funds toward enforcement in the state parks.

It is also important to realize that horses and wagons often created greater damage to the roads than modern day, stock, vehicles. Also realize that nearly all of the pines have been significantly altered since europeans started exploiting it in the 1600's. Often creating damage far beyond what we see today. This is not to say that damage created today is justified by historical context, but that we must keep things in perspective. The pines are less about "pristine" and more about the relationship of humans and nature. We are very fortunate that people recognized the natural and historical significance of the pines and were able to successfully preserve it to a large extent. I think many here feel that the MAP will be ineffective in preventing future damage in the pines and will be very effective in diminishing the culture of the pines.

anyway, Maggie, no one is going to fault you for your opinion when you are clearly concerned about the future and health of the pines. We are all very concerned about that.

Jeff
 

tsqurd

Explorer
Jul 29, 2015
183
142
South Jersey
Hey Maggie - Welcome! I read your post this morning and it's been on my mind all day. I had started a response, but woodjin pretty much captured the point I wanted to make before I hit "post".

Just a point or two that I would like to add. I spent the better part of yesterday in Wharton and it seemed as many others had the same idea. The camp ground was packed, canoe tours passing by, hikers, bikers and horse back riders. Everyone I saw, except the one group of grumpy kayakers, seemed to be pleasant and respectful of others and the forest. I sat by Quaker Bridge for some time and was entertained by watching passer-bys. Surprisingly, I only saw one 4 wheel drive pass by, a Subaru Forester, the rest were 2 wheel drive cars. I was quite surprised no one got stuck. What I did not see all day - a single big lifted trucks and only one ATV, which was on a trailer headed out of the forest looking showroom new. At the same time, when I got off the beaten path, at times via roads slated to be closed on the "DRAFT" map that was posted and now removed, I did not see a single person. Only noise was coming the birds, the occasional airplane and me. So yes, there are a lot of people using the forest, but regardless of what certain MAP proponents claim, the entire forest is not overrun by environment destroying ORVs, the damage isn't everywhere, but limited to a few specific locations, and the opponents of the MAP are certainly not limited to ORV enthusiasts. Hopefully, hanging out here you will see that and I'm sure if you need some suggestions on where to find some peace and quiet, you can get that here too!

So, back to why your post has been on my mind all day - I can't help but think you are making a case, weather intentional or not, to limit access to the forest, not just to motor vehicles, but to everyone. And that I find truly troubling.
 
Top