Not that its any defense, but they were kids, still should have known better. I'm curious if they impounded the vehicles or not. The "new road" you saw may have been made by a recovery vehicle?
ORV Management In Sensitive Areas Of Wharton
- Thread starter Teegate
- Start date
Not that its any defense, but they were kids, still should have known better. I'm curious if they impounded the vehicles or not. The "new road" you saw may have been made by a recovery vehicle?
I was out there today, the spp had two ford pickups stopped at stokes rd. the thing is the signs are down the road a bit, not at the entrance of the road.
Last edited:
I turned down Stokes this morning to just get my car off the road and walked down to the signs to get a photo. When I came back and was backing out a truck came by and stopped. He warned me to not take my car down there or I would get stuck. I told him I was just getting off the road for a second.
This signs
This signs
Sound like they are still closing off roads to me. Why is stokes road closed that road has been there for years.
Why not keep it open and write the truck that are digging the mud holes up. I afraid that they are still going
To close off roads so just beware.
Why not keep it open and write the truck that are digging the mud holes up. I afraid that they are still going
To close off roads so just beware.
Hopefully they are just closing it till the road can be fixed. Then it will be reopened, time will tell.
I agree that this does not seem much different then the MAP plan. They have a better way of having repercussions stick with this than they did with the MAP. That's my opinion. First they have to catch them to ticket them.
This is from the "Stakeholder Meeting" that was posted earlier in this thread.....
CRITERIA FOR CLOSING AREAS
Decisions on restricting use, or "closing areas" for any reason are based upon the Division of Parks and Forestry’s authority to designate or direct any and all recreational or other use on its lands to such specific areas or locations as will be in the best interest of conservation, recreation, preservation and management of the natural and historic resources and the health, safety, and welfare of all persons concerned (NJAC 7:7-2.2) and to limit or close to the public use, specific areas, lands, waters and facilities under its jurisdiction whenever such action is deemed necessary for proper management and operation and/or in the best interest of health, safety and the general welfare of the public (NJAC 7:2-2.3).
Sound like they gave themselves the green light to do what they want...health and safety....best interest....conservation, recreation, preservation....natural and historic resources....proper management....general welfare of the public
They covered ALL their bases.
CRITERIA FOR CLOSING AREAS
Decisions on restricting use, or "closing areas" for any reason are based upon the Division of Parks and Forestry’s authority to designate or direct any and all recreational or other use on its lands to such specific areas or locations as will be in the best interest of conservation, recreation, preservation and management of the natural and historic resources and the health, safety, and welfare of all persons concerned (NJAC 7:7-2.2) and to limit or close to the public use, specific areas, lands, waters and facilities under its jurisdiction whenever such action is deemed necessary for proper management and operation and/or in the best interest of health, safety and the general welfare of the public (NJAC 7:2-2.3).
Sound like they gave themselves the green light to do what they want...health and safety....best interest....conservation, recreation, preservation....natural and historic resources....proper management....general welfare of the public
They covered ALL their bases.
Given the fact that the management that came up with the MAP in the first place is the same one that is still in control. It doesn't surprise me that the "sensitive areas" are some of the same areas that were closed with the original MAP. With that said it is a much different plan. Just ask The PPA , they are still blogging that it's not enough and are pushing for a "travel management plan" what ever that means. The fact that both sides are complaining tells me this is a fair compromise so far.
If you are heading on East Stokes Road towards Quaker Bridge.....on your left hand side just before you get to the Railroad crossing is a water filled area visible on satellite imagery, is it a spung, wetlands, or savannah? Or is it part of Springers Brook? I have not been down there in 20+ years and can't remember exactly. I drove down Hampton Gate a few months ago and when I looked down East Stokes the road looked in bad shape....
Perhaps that would be the case if one was to believe the MAP was the end game for the PPA, but they have been quoted in recent articles stating that they saw the MAP as a starting point. They would still be pushing for more even if the MAP was in place.
In regards to road closures I think all of us should take a wait and see attitude. I believe if they wanted more closed they would have done so. As I mentioned we were told 8-10-11 places would be closed and maybe some roads leading to them. Lets not over react.
Well said. From my point of view the only location that really effects me is from the ruins at Hampton to the Skit. Can I live with that if the other roads are left open .....yes.
I don't believe it to be just Wharton. I think they want to spread this to all state parks that they can.
There is evidence of this on the original MAP proposal, for those that recall, they designated motor vehicle closure with yellow dotted lines, you could see them leaving Wharton and continuing into Bass River in the Martha area, see the pic of the MAP section
Attachments
Glad to see these eight to eleven damaged and/or "natural area" sites receiving additional protection via targeted area closures. Closing 250+ miles of roads...no.....closing site specific areas that have been damaged (like Jemima Mount and 1/4 mile area) and State designated Natural Areas...yes. Logically, why would the State not apply this reasoning to all Pinelands State Forests? It would be helpful if the State would provide a brief statement regarding each of those areas and reasoning for closures. They are not required to do and it is certainly within their authority to close areas but for the sake of transparency it would be helpful.
I for one am not "glad" to see closure, however in these cases it is necessary for recovery due to the uneducated and un-monitored, un-repaired or un policed due to lack of manpower, money etc. In my opinion closure is failure on everyone's part. I can understand seasonal closure for herps etc, closure for repairs, or closure because it was never a road in the first place, but closure specifically dictated by a special interest group with a "because i say so" attitude is unwarranted in my opinion also. Remember the original MAP was not entirely a NJFS design
I've been in contact with the DEP over the last couple days seeking clarification of what is going on and I've been asked to try to get information out there about the facts. I'm due to have a follow up phone call where I'll probably have more, but I thought I would at least relay what I've been told so far. I've been told this is not a another implementation of the MAP, but rather an attempt to protect Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Granted, the DEP could have have communicated what is going on a lot better, I don't think this is a subversive attempt to reinstitute the MAP on their part. I'm am told that the 12 approved ESA's will be communicated and I'll relay them here as soon as I get them. If this is all we are going to see and there isn't another shoe yet to drop, it doesn't actually seem too bad.... Guy, I've asked for exactly what you have mentioned: provide a list of the ESAs and a reasoning of why they are closed. Also, are they permanent closures, seasonal or only until the area can be repaired. I hope to have these answers in the next day or so.