Recreation in the Pines... My thoughts

Status
Not open for further replies.

jeepinjp

New Member
Jan 6, 2003
20
0
1
NORTH JERSEY
Off-Highway is the nationally recognized term for what some call Off-road, there are a few reasons but primarily, most users ride or use old fire cuts,maintainence roads, logging roads etc, so indeed they are on a road but off of the typically maintained highway, this is particularly the situation out west in the middle of vast open areas and the rs 2477 right of way laws...but since we do not blaze new trails as we ride(or shouldn`t) we are on road but off-highway...
now that I am thoroughly confused I hope it helps you


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.
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
16
Off-Highway is the nationally recognized term for what some call Off-road, there are a few reasons but primarily, most users ride or use old fire cuts,maintainence roads, logging roads etc, so indeed they are on a road but off of the typically maintained highway, this is particularly the situation out west in the middle of vast open areas and the rs 2477 right of way laws...but since we do not blaze new trails as we ride(or shouldn`t) we are on road but off-highway...
now that I am thoroughly confused I hope it helps you
No, I'm hip. At PPA, we have been accustomed to using the term ORV, because the main problem we are trying to address is people going off the road. As I have said in the past, nobody is objecting to Jeep traffic or even monster truck traffic so long as they are traveling down a road, following the motor vehicle regs, not deliberately tearing up the roads, etc. Most of the trouble is being caused by people who drive off into the vegetation and make new trails for dirt bikes and ATVs and monster trucks.
 

jeepinjp

New Member
Jan 6, 2003
20
0
1
NORTH JERSEY
Great,
Agreed and most users do not appreciate others going off the trail either, as that is how we get a bad name.Now all thats left is for us to get comprehensive legislation designatiing legal areas and once they are open we can have fines and penalties for illegal use, we will have registration, id plates or stickers, and $$ for rehab, training and even L/E , trail repairs etc..

gotta run have a meeting..


No, I'm hip. At PPA, we have been accustomed to using the term ORV, because the main problem we are trying to address is people going off the road. As I have said in the past, nobody is objecting to Jeep traffic or even monster truck traffic so long as they are traveling down a road, following the motor vehicle regs, not deliberately tearing up the roads, etc. Most of the trouble is being caused by people who drive off into the vegetation and make new trails for dirt bikes and ATVs and monster trucks.
 

woodjin

Piney
Nov 8, 2004
4,274
243
1,043
Near Mt. Misery
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."

.
"ORv's have been damaging natural land, farmland and private property since this new form of recreation began over twenty years ago. The damage caused by these vehicles has made national and state headlines, and a newly published book (book title) is devoted to stopping this form of recreation on public lands."-J. Rhoads

As the article continues the term ORV is sometimes preceeded by the word "illegal" or "reckless" but often it is just "ORV". I think it would be tremendously helpful and fair if the PPA would inform the public of what illegal ORV use is, and equally important, what legal ORV use is.

Failure to do so makes it difficult for the public to draw a distinction between the two. MADD is self explainatory, ORV use and mis-use is not so clear cut. Do you dissagree that a brief description of the laws governing ORV use on state land would be helpful?

Jeff
 

woodjin

Piney
Nov 8, 2004
4,274
243
1,043
Near Mt. Misery
The thing is Russ, I have had alot of bad experiences with reckless ORV riders. I used to have kids riding past my house at midnight waking my baby up. I have to take the long way around to get to places from where I live now because roads have been closed due to reckless quad riders. I've seen environmental damage caused by reckless ORV users, and remember, I am a guy who has spent an insane amount of time in the woods. It angers me greatly. I blame these people way before I blame those involved in the movement to eliminate them.

But I know that increasing fines, and stricter laws, are not going to affect this behavior. 99% of these riders believe that they will never get caught, and 88% of them are right. I fear that inflammatory press and generalizations are going to affect the law abiding, environmentally aware riders like myself, and the enduro riders (you should see an enduro to appreciate how curtious these guys are) and the guy out cruising the pines in his jeep, or truck.

The solution is education. Sadly, many people view the pines as vast waste land, useless swamp land. If the PPA redirected it's effort from changing legislation to activily going to local schools and conducting presentations on the value and beauty of the pinebarrens, and responsibile vehicular use, I believe the results would be much more productive toward our common goal. Hell, some representatives from the enduro and 4x4 clubs would be overjoyed to work with the PPA on such an undertaking.

That's it. I'm tired. This subject has been beat to death.

Jeff
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
16
woodjin;48543As the article continues the term ORV is sometimes preceeded by the word "illegal" or "reckless" but often it is just "ORV". I think it would be tremendously helpful and fair if the PPA would inform the public of what illegal ORV use is said:
Jeff, I agree. We have two publications, the regular newsletter and the Pinelands Watch. We can also use our web site. I will talk to the folks and see if we can publish some sort of clarification.
 

Medford Piney

Explorer
Feb 25, 2008
121
1
18
Medford
:dance::dance::dance:

It's not exactly the original intent of the thread but....

This post has gone from......

an opening to discuss

confrontation about the subject

to understanding a condition and opposition exists

to a gentleman's agreement to try and remedy the situation


Looks like my task has taken it first infant steps...

Thanks to all involved....... :guinness:
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
16
Here are a couple of points that I think are important to notice for future discussion.

1. I will do everything I can to make sure any future PPA statements are more sensitive to the distinction between illegal and legal riding. In return, I would ask that riders (or those sympathetic to them) not make unfounded accusations. And no, it is not PPA's responsibility to quell every unfounded accusation that arises, just because it is perceived by some to be widespread. If we ask someone to back up an accusation with facts and details, that is not "hiding." That's a perfectly fair and reasonable request.

2. Similarly, I will do whatever I can to make sure PPA does not issue inflamatory statements. Others should make the same commitment in return. Please notice that it is not inflamatory for PPA to point out to the public that there is on ongoing problem out there. Stating facts that make certain people uncomfortable is not inflammatory.

3. PPA has been and is continually engaged in all kinds of educational programs about the valuable resources of the Pinelands. Riders are welcome at any time to forge an alliance with us on these programs or to suggest new programs. However, these programs cannot be viewed as an alternative to the effort to get legislation for the statewide program of registration that we are seeking.

4. PPA has been sending the same message since (I think) the year 2000, that we support the development of ORV parks. It's a position we adopted in response to many, many, meetings and communications and consultation with riders and organized riding groups. That doesn't mean that PPA would support the development of an ORV park that fails to conform with the CMP.

I will do my best to respond with courtesy to any and all who want to discuss these points. I hope we will all proceed with the principles of rational discourse in mind.
 

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,310
1,098
1,093
41
Asbury Park, NJ
Also, ORV use is an important part of the Pine Barrens, but is not really what this site is about. I feel very strongly about the issue, but it's dominated a lot of discussion here recently.

I think everyone has said what they want to say. If there's anything else, speak up otherwise I think it's best to close this thread this weekend and put it to bed.
 
Apr 6, 2004
3,116
176
1,043
Galloway
Well-said, Russel.

Russel said:
Here are a couple of points that I think are important to notice for future discussion.

1. I will do everything I can to make sure any future PPA statements are more sensitive to the distinction between illegal and legal riding. In return, I would ask that riders (or those sympathetic to them) not make unfounded accusations. And no, it is not PPA's responsibility to quell every unfounded accusation that arises, just because it is perceived by some to be widespread. If we ask someone to back up an accusation with facts and details, that is not "hiding." That's a perfectly fair and reasonable request.

2. Similarly, I will do whatever I can to make sure PPA does not issue inflamatory statements. Others should make the same commitment in return. Please notice that it is not inflamatory for PPA to point out to the public that there is on ongoing problem out there. Stating facts that make certain people uncomfortable is not inflammatory.

3. PPA has been and is continually engaged in all kinds of educational programs about the valuable resources of the Pinelands. Riders are welcome at any time to forge an alliance with us on these programs or to suggest new programs. However, these programs cannot be viewed as an alternative to the effort to get legislation for the statewide program of registration that we are seeking.

4. PPA has been sending the same message since (I think) the year 2000, that we support the development of ORV parks. It's a position we adopted in response to many, many, meetings and communications and consultation with riders and organized riding groups. That doesn't mean that PPA would support the development of an ORV park that fails to conform with the CMP.

I will do my best to respond with courtesy to any and all who want to discuss these points. I hope we will all proceed with the principles of rational discourse in mind.
 

BobNJ1979

Explorer
May 31, 2007
190
0
16
Also, ORV use is an important part of the Pine Barrens, but is not really what this site is about. I feel very strongly about the issue, but it's dominated a lot of discussion here recently.

I think everyone has said what they want to say. If there's anything else, speak up otherwise I think it's best to close this thread this weekend and put it to bed.
i would think a progressive and active website would want to discuss ongoing issues - why close a thread ? someone might want to add something a wk, two wks from now. this topic certainly will not be solved overnight..
 

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,310
1,098
1,093
41
Asbury Park, NJ
Because this website is primarily about the history of the Pine Barrens, not about land use issues or whatnot.

But, I'm flexible. If people see value in keeping it open, I'll keep it open. People should just keep it civil.
 

Medford Piney

Explorer
Feb 25, 2008
121
1
18
Medford
This all sounds fair, but being new to this sort of debate, I have some questions and comments and critiques to make... all civil and nothing personal...

and also the subject of this thread was about users learning to accept each other, work together and to educate from within..


1. I will do everything I can to make sure any future PPA statements are more sensitive to the distinction between illegal and legal riding.

Thanks,. But I think jeepinjp has a valid point about the definition of legal and illegal and the OHV users want to be able to responsibly enjoy their vehicles in the state, that is something that might be an issue


In return, I would ask that riders (or those sympathetic to them) not make unfounded accusations. And no, it is not PPA's responsibility to quell every unfounded accusation that arises, just because it is perceived by some to be widespread. If we ask someone to back up an accusation with facts and details, that is not "hiding." That's a perfectly fair and reasonable request.

I feel some or all of this was directed towards me, I think I got more caught up in the exchange with pinelandspaddler then the issue at hand.
as far as... it is not PPA's responsibility to quell every unfounded accusation that arises, just because it is perceived by some to be widespread....

again I was talking about what people feel, maybe it was to basic, if I may.., If you were to take 1 hiker, 1 camper, 1 geocasher 1 dirt biker 1 jeep person that all were somewhat familiar with this issue and read or watched members of the PPA speak on the subject and you asked then point blank, is the PPA against OHV's?? I believe most would answer yes. because it's either what that person wants, the end of them in NJ or it part of there leisure time. The PPA would be their ally or enemy, for loss of better words..

on the ask someone to back up an accusation with facts and details, that is not "hiding." That's a perfectly fair and reasonable request

Fair yes, give you that... when I used that statement, there was no venom intended, if it was taken that way, please know that it was not. you ask for evidence, so I asked also, that's all.. part of the exchange as described above.


2. Similarly, I will do whatever I can to make sure PPA does not issue inflammatory statements. Others should make the same commitment in return. Please notice that it is not inflammatory for PPA to point out to the public that there is on ongoing problem out there. Stating facts that make certain people uncomfortable is not inflammatory.

statement above is correct...
when I first heard of the meeting that were sponsored by the PPA last year and read the legislation introduced by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, to be honest, I was inflamed.


3. PPA has been and is continually engaged in all kinds of educational programs about the valuable resources of the Pinelands. Riders are welcome at any time to forge an alliance with us on these programs or to suggest new programs. However, these programs cannot be viewed as an alternative to the effort to get legislation for the statewide program of registration that we are seeking.

registration is something the PPA is looking for and the 'riders' are looking for, but I think the hang up with the riders is that they are being asked to pay and register, but they are given no facilities to ride in, (OHV parks) or state lands to ride in, like just about every state in the US. Plus there are issue on the extent of the registrations and it's benefits and also the issue of the continued permitting of the special events that have been going on here since prior to 1940

4. PPA has been sending the same message since (I think) the year 2000, that we support the development of ORV parks. It's a position we adopted in response to many, many, meetings and communications and consultation with riders and organized riding groups. That doesn't mean that PPA would support the development of an ORV park that fails to conform with the CMP.

here I think sits a small problem... If it is true and I have read it to be true, but also have read statements like what JR has written further back in the thread... about they would do no good... throwing in that they kill and injure people... so does walking down the street, so does playing football, so does driving a car.. There is a hint of sensationalism, but that is something you have agreed to try to stop or ease. I also think it will be hard to do if you have such OHV haters as Fred Akers and Jeff Tittle walking hand and hand with your organization. If you truely want to accomplish something, some sort of flexibility and compromise is needed and there is zero from them. Everyone knows they are against ORV use... I know someone who knows Fred and has chatted with him on the subject of OHV's that is how I reinforce my conclusion about him plus all that he writes and contributes to

I will do my best to respond with courtesy to any and all who want to discuss these points. I hope we will all proceed with the principles of rational discourse in mind.

That just some 1:15 a.m. ramblings half asleep, I can't wait to see this when I'm awake and wonder how much I edit???
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
16
Medford, thanks for your detailed answer. I think we are on the same page with most of this. Here's my feedback...

1. I will do everything I can to make sure any future PPA statements are more sensitive to the distinction between illegal and legal riding.

Thanks,. But I think jeepinjp has a valid point about the definition of legal and illegal and the OHV users want to be able to responsibly enjoy their vehicles in the state, that is something that might be an issue

***....Sorry, I'm not following you on this. Can you clarify?

registration is something the PPA is looking for and the 'riders' are looking for, but I think the hang up with the riders is that they are being asked to pay and register, but they are given no facilities to ride in, (OHV parks) or state lands to ride in, like just about every state in the US. Plus there are issue on the extent of the registrations and it's benefits and also the issue of the continued permitting of the special events that have been going on here since prior to 1940

***I think the riding facilities is an important issue, and I have discussed it quite a bit with other conservation folks and in this forum. Our original concept and presumption was that parks and registration would happen simultaneously, or nearly so. After all, the state (famously, now) had identified the establishment of several parks as a goal. I would be angry,too, if I were a rider hanging my hopes on this. This point, and the others you mention, deserve more discussion.

4. PPA has been sending the same message since (I think) the year 2000, that we support the development of ORV parks. It's a position we adopted in response to many, many, meetings and communications and consultation with riders and organized riding groups. That doesn't mean that PPA would support the development of an ORV park that fails to conform with the CMP.

here I think sits a small problem... If it is true and I have read it to be true, but also have read statements like what JR has written further back in the thread... about they would do no good... throwing in that they kill and injure people... so does walking down the street, so does playing football, so does driving a car.. There is a hint of sensationalism, but that is something you have agreed to try to stop or ease. I also think it will be hard to do if you have such OHV haters as Fred Akers and Jeff Tittle walking hand and hand with your organization. If you truely want to accomplish something, some sort of flexibility and compromise is needed and there is zero from them. Everyone knows they are against ORV use... I know someone who knows Fred and has chatted with him on the subject of OHV's that is how I reinforce my conclusion about him plus all that he writes and contributes to

***Not sure what refer to there in the opening...Who is JR? Anyway, I agree that the issue is not primarily about the hazards associated with riding, and that sensationalism is not the appropriate way to address anything. However, I think it is very important to notice that some of the ILLEGAL riding out there (as well as some of the LEGAL riding, for that matter) often involves juveniles who may or may not be trained and may or may not be riding under safe conditions. This is a legitimate point to raise within the context of the need for a statewide program, and I believe the riders mostly agree with this.

As for walking hand in hand with other individuals and organizations, please understand that I take very seriously the need for our close associates to make their presentations consistent with ours, both in content and in attitude, and I have already engaged in a rather extensive dialogue with some of them on this very point. I do what I can...
 

Medford Piney

Explorer
Feb 25, 2008
121
1
18
Medford
again... I was half asleep when I typed the info... my eye were closing faster then my mind was working and the connection from said partial brain activity to fingers was shorting out....

I'd be happy to clarify anything you like, I might add additional info and delete some too... due to the lack of brain fuction at that time...

I will come back online around lunchtime and honor your request.

another suggestion I like you to consider, maybe we could arrange some sort of meeting to really discuss this, so if one of us dosen't understand something or questioned something, it could be cleared up right away. Not an officail meeting at an office with tons of people around, a hike on the batona from caranzza to apple pie hill or whatever. or over some of your home brew where we won't get in trouble...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.