Recreation in the Pines... My thoughts
- Thread starter Medford Piney
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Medford Piney
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?
This is more related to the directive posted from the DEP and nothing to do with the PPA, I guess I would like to see opportunities for non-street legal bikes, if managed properly within the state forest. But on the flip side, more bike manufactures are producing more machines that are DOT approved, be it entry level or racable right off the showroom floor, so it might not be as much as an issue later down the line.
ALL NOTE: WHEN I TALK OF OFF ROAD RIDERS I ONLY REFER TO LAW ABIDING AND RESPONSIBLE ONES...
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.
hard to believe anything a political figure spouts out of their mouth, refering to people in Trenton and Washington or any state capitol for that matter, no one here involved in the conversation... as far as a park meeting the CMP and all, I am not familiar enough to comment or counter to that effect, but I think that converting an old strip mine to a park is completely reasonable and if there are some areas that to remain untouched then it could be worked out
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 truly 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.
JR = Jaclyn Rhoads
Opening... true and read it to be true = that the PPA wants the establishment of the parks, but it appears that JR sort of contradicts this statement with her remarks.
as far as juvenile rider and training.... that is BAD PARENTING... my son has a small 50cc 28 year old motorcycle. I have a place for him the ride it, a friend owns 28 acres outside of Franklin Twp in Gloucester County and an adjacent farm that the owner gave permission (in writing) to use as long as no crops are present or planted.. The only requirement I put on him is that he must show complete control riding his bicycle, he has no interest in the bike but always wants to ride the MC... he has not yet and he is 8. So I guess it safe to assume I agree also with that point..,.
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...
You certainly can not change or influence everyone... doing what you can is all you can do... I fully understand that... I have done things in the past within the internet MC community and found I can not change or influence everyone either... but I have gotten my message to some and have been putting forth another which seems to be sinking in to more then before...
Additional... no one ever asked me this no one seemed to care... I had no intention of getting this political on this website, I wanted to remain in the background. I only stumbled across this website while looking for information about the Pine Barrens so I could share and witness it with my children. Even the start of this thread was to highlight that people who use the PB in the many different ways can share it if use responsibility, that they should reach out to newcomers and "bad apples" to enlighten them and that dialog between the different user groups should not be heated and close-minded. I feel there is plenty of space to protect and share the natural resource we have here in Southern NJ. I am a day hiker, backpacker, nature observer, skier, Mtn Biker, I canoe and Kayak, camp, in everything from primitive campgrounds to the family campgrounds, a cub scout leader, I participate in clean up sponsored by many different groups, I, when I had one, drove my 4x4 p/u on the roads in the pines, I have been involved in the reforest project in Lebanon SP many years back, I have ridden on a quad but never owned one, I have participated in many enduros in south jersey from the early 80's until about 8 to 10 years ago. I am a 22 year member of a local enduro club and the sanctioning association on the east coast and still participate in their functions; I have been actively trying to bridge the gap between different user groups. There is one such event this weekend in Wharton where this comes to play. I have agreed to participate in a event geared towards getting disable vets to the outdoors so they can see it first hand and out of their hospital rooms….
I HAVE in the past vented total venom towards the PPA on MC related websites, but the anger turned to sadness with turned to activeness which moved to the desire to work with everyone and end the fighting now it has move to another new direction. I have been banned from MC websites because after reasonably trying to talking with people about wrong doings, I tried another tactic that was pretty successful but deemed wrong by the site owner…. He more approved that people talk about what they want even if illegal then someone trying to educate and hold them accountable for their actions… I no longer visit that site..
I sure I missed something, I’m sure someone will look at me in a negative way because I do something they do not approve of, but I reference back to the first post in this thread of what I teach my children….. that even if someone dislikes you for want you enjoy and do always be polite and respectful, even if they are not……
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?
This is more related to the directive posted from the DEP and nothing to do with the PPA, I guess I would like to see opportunities for non-street legal bikes, if managed properly within the state forest. But on the flip side, more bike manufactures are producing more machines that are DOT approved, be it entry level or racable right off the showroom floor, so it might not be as much as an issue later down the line.
ALL NOTE: WHEN I TALK OF OFF ROAD RIDERS I ONLY REFER TO LAW ABIDING AND RESPONSIBLE ONES...
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.
hard to believe anything a political figure spouts out of their mouth, refering to people in Trenton and Washington or any state capitol for that matter, no one here involved in the conversation... as far as a park meeting the CMP and all, I am not familiar enough to comment or counter to that effect, but I think that converting an old strip mine to a park is completely reasonable and if there are some areas that to remain untouched then it could be worked out
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 truly 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.
JR = Jaclyn Rhoads
Opening... true and read it to be true = that the PPA wants the establishment of the parks, but it appears that JR sort of contradicts this statement with her remarks.
as far as juvenile rider and training.... that is BAD PARENTING... my son has a small 50cc 28 year old motorcycle. I have a place for him the ride it, a friend owns 28 acres outside of Franklin Twp in Gloucester County and an adjacent farm that the owner gave permission (in writing) to use as long as no crops are present or planted.. The only requirement I put on him is that he must show complete control riding his bicycle, he has no interest in the bike but always wants to ride the MC... he has not yet and he is 8. So I guess it safe to assume I agree also with that point..,.
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...
You certainly can not change or influence everyone... doing what you can is all you can do... I fully understand that... I have done things in the past within the internet MC community and found I can not change or influence everyone either... but I have gotten my message to some and have been putting forth another which seems to be sinking in to more then before...
Additional... no one ever asked me this no one seemed to care... I had no intention of getting this political on this website, I wanted to remain in the background. I only stumbled across this website while looking for information about the Pine Barrens so I could share and witness it with my children. Even the start of this thread was to highlight that people who use the PB in the many different ways can share it if use responsibility, that they should reach out to newcomers and "bad apples" to enlighten them and that dialog between the different user groups should not be heated and close-minded. I feel there is plenty of space to protect and share the natural resource we have here in Southern NJ. I am a day hiker, backpacker, nature observer, skier, Mtn Biker, I canoe and Kayak, camp, in everything from primitive campgrounds to the family campgrounds, a cub scout leader, I participate in clean up sponsored by many different groups, I, when I had one, drove my 4x4 p/u on the roads in the pines, I have been involved in the reforest project in Lebanon SP many years back, I have ridden on a quad but never owned one, I have participated in many enduros in south jersey from the early 80's until about 8 to 10 years ago. I am a 22 year member of a local enduro club and the sanctioning association on the east coast and still participate in their functions; I have been actively trying to bridge the gap between different user groups. There is one such event this weekend in Wharton where this comes to play. I have agreed to participate in a event geared towards getting disable vets to the outdoors so they can see it first hand and out of their hospital rooms….
I HAVE in the past vented total venom towards the PPA on MC related websites, but the anger turned to sadness with turned to activeness which moved to the desire to work with everyone and end the fighting now it has move to another new direction. I have been banned from MC websites because after reasonably trying to talking with people about wrong doings, I tried another tactic that was pretty successful but deemed wrong by the site owner…. He more approved that people talk about what they want even if illegal then someone trying to educate and hold them accountable for their actions… I no longer visit that site..
I sure I missed something, I’m sure someone will look at me in a negative way because I do something they do not approve of, but I reference back to the first post in this thread of what I teach my children….. that even if someone dislikes you for want you enjoy and do always be polite and respectful, even if they are not……
I also quit a job I had for 4+ years, with a large local engineering company that strickly focused on the development of new large scale housing projects, mainly because the medthod they used to design was clear cut, strip, build and regrade... It was against what I felt was right and push the envelope to far.
I stepped away for a few days , and see this has grown and there are a lot of good posts but Russell a few comments, and you and I know we have been down this road about this subject for many, many years now.
Excellent comments and information Jeepinjp. I think it is clear that both MP and jeepinmp are very active on this subject outside of this disscussion. I think you both provide fine examples of environmentally aware riders.
I agree that much of the facts stated in the PPA articles are exaggerations, and misinformation. Specifically, as was already stated 1)acres impacted by ORV use 2)the popularity of 2 stroke engines, 3)the severity of the situation.
Russ, do you have any idea how they came up with that acreage? I can only surmise that they are accounting for all areas where ORV's have been. Legal and illegal.
Also, could anybody supply any good reason why motorcycles (with the largest tire rarely exceeding 5" in width) should not be allowed on fire breaks?
Jeff
I agree that much of the facts stated in the PPA articles are exaggerations, and misinformation. Specifically, as was already stated 1)acres impacted by ORV use 2)the popularity of 2 stroke engines, 3)the severity of the situation.
Russ, do you have any idea how they came up with that acreage? I can only surmise that they are accounting for all areas where ORV's have been. Legal and illegal.
Also, could anybody supply any good reason why motorcycles (with the largest tire rarely exceeding 5" in width) should not be allowed on fire breaks?
Jeff
that's a question i'd like answered.. esp, considering, if you talk to any forest service worker (from a grunt to a warden.. in my case), they say they have no problem w/ legal riders riding the fire breaks.. they're fun, could be easily maintained, are pre-existing (made by the forest fire service), usually run in a preset direction, and could serve as a great basis for a trail system.
Bob, I've heard similar statements made by a member of the forest fire service. Ben, it mostly just deepens the break a bit. I could see your reasoning as it might widen around the turns but a motorcycle riding on it usually is a little restricted from it's depth and doesn't lay into the turn enough to widen it. They are generally too narrow for quads.
Jeff
Jeff
fire breaks are wider then the typical trail that a hiker or 2 wheeled bicycle or motorcycle would use. the berm on each side from the cut created also contains the traveled path through the woods. If they were designated as part of a trail system, I'd bet the enduro clubs would, within the SF they use would take on 100% of the maintenance involved (if no others joined in) in keeping them clear (downed logs and such) to prevent 'wondering' onto the forest floor. downed trees and logs normally only create a 'by-pass' around them in the vegetated floor... With a "rotation" of open trails it gives the used breaks or trail system some time to heal, if you may, and the depth of the loosened soil is reduced, just from time and rain compacting the soil again. The same practice is used at Clayton Park and Mercer County park in the woods were they allow Mountain bikes to ride and maintain the trails also. The tires don't really remove and dig up the soil, it sorts of fluffs up the sand. Rotation of firecuts within the system was a practice the enduro clubs had used for decades. Until they were disallowed or limited in there usage, it allowed the ground to compact and the "whoop de do's" to erode and level out. Use a fire cuts for a few years then stay out of it for 3,4,5 to sometimes 10 years.
Hint.. hint... to the folks who cut down trees out there thinking they are stopping motorized travel.... .. not accusing anyone here... but it is a common thing to find out there... large trees cut down across fire cuts and trails, counter productive if you ask me..
yea.. AND you're damaging the forest.. live or dead (The tree). something could have been living in that tree - now you just used it for a roadblock..
Trying to catch up here.
1. Okay, as for acres impacted by ORV's, I don't know how the DEP arrived at that figure. Has anyone investigated?
2. Not clear on the 2 stroke engine issue. What's that all about? The amount of air pollution?
3. The severity of the situation is undoubtedly a subjective thing. Let's think about the ecological impacts of motorized traffic.
I'll try to catch up more tomorrow morning...
Medford Piney: "... I guess I would like to see opportunities for non-street legal bikes, if managed properly within the state forest."
If by "non-street-legal bikes" you mean unregistered and untagged, how could they be managed properly? One of the biggest issues for enforcement is that you can seldom identify a rider who is in violation.
If by "non-street-legal bikes" you mean unregistered and untagged, how could they be managed properly? One of the biggest issues for enforcement is that you can seldom identify a rider who is in violation.
Medfor Piney: "as far as a park meeting the CMP and all, ... I think that converting an old strip mine to a park is completely reasonable..."
The devil's always in the details. It really is impossible to generalize, because so many of these old mines have become breeding ponds for T&E species, and you might have all kinds of water quality or other T&E species issues. Finding an appropriate site for an ORV park is probably the biggest problem we have.
The devil's always in the details. It really is impossible to generalize, because so many of these old mines have become breeding ponds for T&E species, and you might have all kinds of water quality or other T&E species issues. Finding an appropriate site for an ORV park is probably the biggest problem we have.
As you suggested education is a critical component of the management of any contriversy and many national organizations have already done much of this. Try NOHVCC http://www.nohvcc.org
Tread Lightly http://www.treadlightly.org for starters.
I am not for that. Many fire breaks go through areas they never should have in the first place, like sphagnum bogs. The first time a little log falls down near the firebreak that does go through a bog, and what happens, they go around it, tearing up more of the bog.
No, that is not an answer to allow them to run willy-nilly up any old fire break.
The answer is that the State and the riders need to get together and create a master plan.
PART 1): They should design enduro trails in, say, Wharton (4), Byrne (3), Greenwood WMA (2), Bass River (1), Double Trouble (1), Pine Plains (1). Those trails should always be maintained and rotated for sanctioned events. They should not be dug into sensitive bogs, although I still think you can have them go through muddy areas and some pitch pine lowlands for good fun and adventurous effect. No more should ever be allowed than these initial dozen.
Part 2) I think they should create 6 to 8 ORV parks on the periphery of the pines (in the pines, but not deep in the pines). The state needs to pressure some who own large blocks of land that are conducting resource extraction to turn over some of that land to help the ORV park. After all, why do they get to gouge the hell out of the land and not put it back the way it was? There should be a penalty for doing that, and contributing to an ORV park should be it. Also, it wouldn't hurt the state to give a little land up, seeing since this is a no-win situation as is.
Part 3) FREEZE the current road/trails that are now on topo maps, and allow any registered vehicle to use these roads. If new roads appear to pop up due to heavy riding, close them down somehow.
Part 4) Increase enforcement, fines, penalties (take their ATV/bike) for any riding other than 1-3.
Russell,
Identification has been a problem and in suggestions I have made to many a motorized recreation bill(legislation) which among other things include an id system of a sticker with id #`s on both sides or front and rear of machine, or possible licence plates.But these are parts of a complete program and the primary component is legal venues without which there is no compromise....other aspects are safety and enviro education, mimimun safety gear,max. dbs(noise levels) spark arrester,as well as enforcement and many other that make up comprehensive OHV programs. These same principals work in about 35 other states to the satisfaction of both sides, we in NJ need to move futher.As a member of the trails council I know hope to bring more motorized knowledge to the council, I hope.
One other very important piece of the puzzle is funding and for those of you unaware OHV fuel gas tax pays for trails for all NJ USERS be it motorized trails(0) hiking trails (1500 miles) biking and equestrian trails etc. only in NJ do the people who pay get nothing in return and the people who fight against us get so much....
How many legal venues of what size would be required? Do you have any specific places in mind? I agree that the OHV fuel tax is an important issue. If that money were to be applied to a piece of property, what do you think it could buy?
Understood... but if the land owner is able to reopen the operation and start the sand mining again, wouldn't that defeat the same concern you have??
on another point, if a portion of the land might or could support T & E species, why could it not be only a "protected nature landscape" section within the park?? I have no worries that something like that would receive support from anyone that would be positively involved with a proposed park. Fence it if necessary. The the park would then serve in 2 forms, recreation and protection. Sensitive areas could be simply off limits. Easy to enforce, it would be part of the agreement to join with substantial consequences if violated. Remember off roaders ride to also enjoy what nature has to offer, not just to make noise and spin tires.
Not discounting the rest of your post, but I'm afraid some will only see that part...
In my opening up the use of fire breaks, I am not proposeing the use of every single one. Any that would enter areas like you state would not be included in any proposed trail system. Further more, what would create more damage? Suitable breaks being used as part of a start trail system, or running that bull-dozer with the break plow thru the woods again??
- Status