Recreation in the Pines... My thoughts

[Medford Piney]

again I am talking about the people perception, and I would say that after Russ comment...

"Sound advice. I have already advised my colleagues (and myself) to be careful not to paint all the riders with the same brush, and to try to avoid generalizations and emotive language that offends law-abiding riders. Future statements issued by PPA for the clarifications you advise, may be helpful."

That he also might think that the the PPA is perceived by the public as anti ORV.

And again, you failed to show anything that paints them differently. you have decided to hide behind the..... "you made the first comment so the burden is on you"

So what are we all doing here anyway... Pissing in the wind and telling the others it's raining out..

 

[pinelandpaddler]

And again, you failed to show anything that paints them deffrently. you have decided to hide behind the..... "you made the first comment so the burden is on you"

I must admit that I'm not privy to this debate. Help me out here. I want to know what the PPA has said or written which indicates that they are anti-ORV. I'm not hiding behind anything, as there is nothing for me to hide from. Like Jerseyman, I have no dog in this fight.

Also, I don't see where anyone is arguing the fact that many people perceive the PPA to be anti-ORV. The issue is whether or not they actually are.

 

[Ben Ruset]

I must admit that I'm not privy to this debate. Help me out here. I want to know what the PPA has said or written which indicates that they are anti-ORV. I'm not hiding behind anything, as there is nothing for me to hide from. Like Jerseyman, I have no dog in this fight.

Have you read the two issues of Pinelands Watch, and Jacqulin's article in the newspaper?

 

[pinelandpaddler]

Yes, I have read those, Ben. I am not beyond glancing over things. I'll look them over again tonight.

 

[Ben Ruset]

In my opinion, and this is an opinion that seems to be pretty widespread, they're pretty inflamatory and give off the impression that the PPA is totally anti ORV.

The reason why Russ posts here is because I posted a pretty scathing article on the site after reading the old Pinelands Watch newsletter a few years ago, and emailed the PPA about it. Jacqulin emailed me and started attacking me. Russ was CC'd on the emails and gave me a call and we spoke for about an hour over it.

The issue cropped up again, and I reached out to Russ and invited him to post here and explain the PPA's position, which according to Russ, is much less inflammatory then what is actually getting published.

Edit: Also, I'm by far not an ORV enthusiast. I don't even know how to shift correctly. I've ridden a quad twice, and it was an automatic. I would never buy one, I would never own one. I am content to drive my Jeep around. The reason why I get worked up over this is because I see the whole debate as one sided and I disagree with how the DEP is handling the issue.

 

[BobNJ1979]

In my opinion, and this is an opinion that seems to be pretty widespread, they're pretty inflamatory and give off the impression that the PPA is totally anti ORV.

The reason why Russ posts here is because I posted a pretty scathing article on the site after reading the old Pinelands Watch newsletter a few years ago, and emailed the PPA about it. Jacqulin emailed me and started attacking me. Russ was CC'd on the emails and gave me a call and we spoke for about an hour over it.

The issue cropped up again, and I reached out to Russ and invited him to post here and explain the PPA's position, which according to Russ, is much less inflammatory then what is actually getting published.

Edit: Also, I'm by far not an ORV enthusiast. I don't even know how to shift correctly. I've ridden a quad twice, and it was an automatic. I would never buy one, I would never own one. I am content to drive my Jeep around. The reason why I get worked up over this is because I see the whole debate as one sided and I disagree with how the DEP is handling the issue.

Ben - you are what i call "an equal opportunity user". what the pines used to be full of.. what I am as well.. i think this is the same situation as "ppl building a house along a highway and then complaining about noise". what was there first ? back in the 60's and 70's, on any wkend, the center of chattsworth used to always have dirt bikes around.. they would come in for lunch..

 

[Ben Ruset]

Hey, listen, I'm the first person to say that I am happy that I don't have to worry about listening to ATV's or worrying about one of them flying into my Jeep when I drive around the pines.

Like I've said - ad nauseum - my problem stems with the way the DEP handled the whole mess. They created this mess, and they've done a pretty good job of passing the buck off to everyone else. That said, I think it all comes down to everybody coming together and wanting to find a solution.

I don't expect the PPA to go out and try to raise funds for a park. That's the riders job. What I do expect is the PPA (and every other interested group) to work together to find a workable compromise that both sides (the environmentalists and the ORV community) can walk away from the table and feel they've gotten what they want. But sadly the PPA publishes articles that stress the work they're doing to increase legislation and fines and not really anything that truly helps find a real solution -- if there's places for people to ride, there will be less people in the woods (less environmental damage) and once there are legal places to ride, it's better to jack up the fines to punish the scofflaws.

In the end the PPA will continue to not "get it" and publish articles that make it seem anti-ORV, the ORV community will continue to roll over and allow themselves to be kicked and not do anything to help themselves, and people like me will wonder why everyone can't just drop the bullshit and the get over their own egos and do something real to put the issue to bed.

 

[Medford Piney]

wonder why everyone can't just drop the bullshit and the get over their own egos and do something real to put the issue to bed.

I think you just reworded the opening statement of mine in this thread in a much shorter, more to the point and not so politically correct manner...

I think the problem with the DEP is the director is appointed by the Govener and as we know our goveners don't seem to last more then 4 years as do the head of the DEP, so in turn policies change right along with them...

 

[BobNJ1979]

ben - you speak true and sound words.. my only argument is that, in fact, ORV users and environmentalists can co-exist in the same forests.. it happens in others states, but NJ can't seem to make it work.. it also makes money in other states....

 

[pinelandpaddler]

if there's places for people to ride, there will be less people in the woods (less environmental damage) and once there are legal places to ride, it's better to jack up the fines to punish the scofflaws.

I'm with you there, Ben.

 

[Ben Ruset]

ben - you speak true and sound words.. my only argument is that, in fact, ORV users and environmentalists can co-exist in the same forests.. it happens in others states, but NJ can't seem to make it work.. it also makes money in other states....

I wonder what the size of the other states parks are compared to ours.

The whole idea behind a dedicated ORV park is brilliant though. It's a huge swath of land that you don't have to worry about running into any hikers, equestrians, Jeeps, etc. They probably have medical staff on hot standby if you need. They're insured and they require riders to carry insurance so that means that if you're hurt due to someone's negligence, you're not SOL. They have trails for various skill levels.

It is totally a win-win for everybody involved.

The first round of fines and legislation scared all of the law abiding people out of the woods. The only people left are the ones who don't care, and no amount of fines are going to stop them. I agree with the PPA that there should be mandatory registration and insurance, and part of the money collected for registration go towards maintaining trails.

There's not many Pinelands groups that have the clout and reputation that the PPA has. They say things and people listen. They do a lot of good work, and generally I have a lot of respect for them. That said, I bet that a lot of people in the PPA, or involved in the PPA, or who receive the PPA newsletter are more 'extreme' environmentalists (ala Fred Akers) who would like to see every ATV crushed and their riders banished to another planet. I can understand why the PPA would want to take a hard line against ORV's -- it's what the constituency wants. I can only imagine if Fred Akers found out that Russ rode on an ATV -- there'd probably be an angry mob outside his house.

The whole situation sucks. It's really just a matter of people working together instead of working on their own agendas.

 

[Medford Piney]

It seems Russ is doing HIS best to get the message out that the perception is worst then the reality. If his colleges heed his advice, the perception should start to turn.

I commend Russ for stepping forward and giving that advice to his fellow members, I bet it could have looked negatively on him to some. But it is the start that is needed to accomplish what I talked about in the original post.

I think we need to stop... here...

Russ........

Thanks for what you have done, while you might see it as just a few words and nothing special, it is a point that needs to be addressed.
Hopefully it will eventually turn into the first step in a positive direction for everyone to sit down and work things out..


PS..... I hate the new name of this forum...

 

[pinelandpaddler]

PS..... I hate the new name of this forum...

What new name?

 

[Ben Ruset]

A short lived april fools joke. Nothing to be seen here, move along.

 

[jeepinjp]

Bruset,

Reading your post here, I am forced to respectfully disagree with you as the definition of ORV(the anti motorized term) better said as OHV Off-Highway Vehicle the nationally preferred term. A Jeep is most definetely an OHV especially if you are using it Off- Highway i.e. on dirt roads in state parks etc. If that is what you are doing then you are an OHV Enthusiest. It will take all factions of OHV users (ATV`s, OHM`s, Jeeps, Fullsize trucks, etc) to come together to accomplish the goal of legal riding facilities in NJ. Make no mistake once the anti`s take the quads and dirtbikes out of the woods.........guess who`s next..... you had best be an enthusiest...... divided we all fall...............
just my 2 cents and not intended to offend any OHV user.......

In my opinion, and this is an opinion that seems to be pretty widespread, they're pretty inflamatory and give off the impression that the PPA is totally anti ORV.

The reason why Russ posts here is because I posted a pretty scathing article on the site after reading the old Pinelands Watch newsletter a few years ago, and emailed the PPA about it. Jacqulin emailed me and started attacking me. Russ was CC'd on the emails and gave me a call and we spoke for about an hour over it.

The issue cropped up again, and I reached out to Russ and invited him to post here and explain the PPA's position, which according to Russ, is much less inflammatory then what is actually getting published.

Edit: Also, I'm by far not an ORV enthusiast. I don't even know how to shift correctly. I've ridden a quad twice, and it was an automatic. I would never buy one, I would never own one. I am content to drive my Jeep around. The reason why I get worked up over this is because I see the whole debate as one sided and I disagree with how the DEP is handling the issue.

 

[jeepinjp]

Truth is in the Definition

Russell,
How are you ?? been a while.. I was reading thru the posts here and had a few comments. First I salute you for getting on an ATV and seeing what it is about, I must caution you to be careful as it is addictive. That being said as you said the PPA is only against illegal ATV or OHV use or activity, not anti OHV but in NJ all OHV use is virtually illegal, so by definition PPA is against all OHV use.
See DEP Policy directive 2002-001http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/releases/orvpolicy.htm

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

Well, my concern in this discussion was to discover whether there was any specific thing PPA has said or done to give anyone the impression that we are "anti-ORV" rather than "anti-illegal-ORV-activity."

Blurring this simple distinction seems to me similar to someone saying "Mothers Against Drunk Drivers are anti-drivers." The facts they state, the opinions they quote, the tone they adopt, their attitude, and, no doubt, their body language, are all directed against a specific kind of driving, not driving in general. Why don't they praise the good, sober drivers? Because it is presumed that drivers should be good and sober. Good, sober drivers don't cause an inordinate amount of trouble. MADD is trying to help solve or at least alleviate a problem.

So with PPA, the tone, quotes, the facts, the effort to get legislation, the type of legislation we seek, the support for increased fines are all directed toward what? ORV's in general? People who operate ORV's legally and responsibly?

No. Illegal ORV activity.

 

[Ben Ruset]

That being said as you said the PPA is only against illegal ATV or OHV use or activity, not anti OHV but in NJ all OHV use is virtually illegal, so by definition PPA is against all OHV use.

No, they're against illegal use. Whatever is legal falls outside of the "virtually all" and that they're okay with.

The problem is to expand the number of legal venues for ORV use.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

... as you said the PPA is only against illegal ATV or OHV use or activity, not anti OHV but in NJ all OHV use is virtually illegal, so by definition PPA is against all OHV use...

Not sure what you mean by "virtually illegal." A act is usually legal unless it has been codified as illegal, right? Maybe you meant "virtually all OHV use is illegal."

Anyway, I think I get your drift, and I think Ben has it right. Right now, it's legal to ride unregistered vehicles on your own property, or, I suppose, on a friend's property where you have permission, and in the few designated facilities.

While you're here, maybe you would help us understand the preference for the expression OHV rather than ORV. It would seem that the expression Off Highway Vehicle is just a broader category.

 

[jeepinjp]

definitions

Bruset,
Touche, OK in NJ the only legal venue is NJORVP and special use permitted uses per the policy directive.I agree we need to greatly expand the legal venue.My point is this they say they are against illegal riding, since there is minimal opportunity for legal usage, and with NJORVP closing in a few months, they are not knocking down any doors trying to see that we have legal venues. I am not just directing this at PPA but all conservation groups who say they are not against legal use but these same groups have pushed DEP to establish these policies and virtually outlaw OHV use in NJ, so yes I say they are against OHV use....................virtually..................

No, they're against illegal use. Whatever is legal falls outside of the "virtually all" and that they're okay with.

The problem is to expand the number of legal venues for ORV use.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Bruset,
Touche, OK in NJ the only legal venue is NJORVP and special use permitted uses per the policy directive.I agree we need to greatly expand the legal venue.My point is this they say they are against illegal riding, since there is minimal opportunity for legal usage, and with NJORVP closing in a few months, they are not knocking down any doors trying to see that we have legal venues. I am not just directing this at PPA but all conservation groups who say they are not against legal use but these same groups have pushed DEP to establish these policies and virtually outlaw OHV use in NJ, so yes I say they are against OHV use....................virtually..................

We go around and around on this topic. What, exactly, do you want PPA to do?