Spotlight Article on Off-Roading

[smoke_jumper]

It

Good info that will hopefully be shared with law enforcement to concentrate on areas.

It looks very thorough and there is a lot of good info there. It's a good base line for future studies to see what is working and what is not.

 

[PineBarrens Advocate]

A lot of this so called damage in being made up by the PPA in order to get there MAP. In the last few weeks I spoken to a few park officers and they said thing are quit and no new damage .

Not so sure about it being quiet with no damage "From March to July this year, officers recorded 629 violations by off-road drivers, compared with 679 for all of 2015."".....sounds fairly busy.

 

[smoke_jumper]

Not so sure about it being quiet with no damage "From March to July this year, officers recorded 629 violations by off-road drivers, compared with 679 for all of 2015."".....sounds fairly busy.

Thats the big question. Are the number of violations up because of increased activity or the result of increased patrols? Either way this study is the baseline for future decisions. As thorough as it is, the study by itself can't prove when these problem areas started. Some are likely 20 years in the making or possibly more. Turning that around in 6 months is impossible. A follow up study a year from now would indicate if the current plan is reversing the damage. Which should be a win in anyone's book if it is.
What i find interesting is map 4 of the study. It shows the damage that is on a road or off a road. All of the red dots on this particular map are already illegal and would be just made "more illegal" by any map. To add to that most of the blue dots are on roads that most think shouldn't be roads at all i.e. Cherry Hill Road.
I personally don't have a problem with developing a map. But it needs to start with all the established roads open and closing, if needed, problem areas.
Just remember a map is just lines on a piece of paper. It's open to interpretation, especially when there are no street signs to go by. But if it's posted or has a gate that was gone around there is no wiggle room left and any fine would be upheld.

 

[46er]

Just remember a map is just lines on a piece of paper. It's open to interpretation, especially when there are no street signs to go by. But if it's posted or has a gate that was gone around there is no wiggle room left and any fine would be upheld.

Exactly, which is why I favor a permit system, then there is no question. The state already has a system in place for mobile sportfishing, i.e. driving on the beach at 2 state parks. Easily adapted to Wharton, anyone driving on sand roads within the boundary of Wharton without a permit is subject to fine/vehicle confiscation. Applying for a permit requires a common sense vehicle inspection that takes about 15 minutes. There is an annual and a 3 day permit available and the cost is reasonable, about 50 cents a day for an annual MSFV permit. Wharton could dedicated all fee's to enforcement.

Permit requirements, easily adapted for Wharton;

The MSFV Permit:

• Will be issued only to the registered owner of the vehicle – the name on the license and registration must be the same.
• Leased vehicles must bring their lease paperwork.
• Company owned vehicles must show proof of ownership. A business card will be accepted, as long as it states “owner” or “president”.
• All documents must have a current, valid date.

You must apply for the MSFV Permit in person at the Island Beach gatehouse. You will be asked to present original vehicle registration, driver license and lease documents.

MANDATORY EQUIPMENT FOR A MOBILE SPORTFISHING VEHICLE (MSFV)

Permits are issued to 4-wheel drive vehicle owners for fishing purposes only. Carrying the basic equipment listed is required whenever the MSFV is on the beach.
1) Fishing equipment and bait and tackle for each person over 12 years of age;
2) Tire gauge;
3) Spare tire;
4) Workable jack and board/support for jack in sand (3/4 in. x 12 x 12 in. plywood square minimum size)
5) Tow chain or snatch line;
6) Shovel;
7) Flashlight;
8) Fire extinguisher;
9) Auto first aid kit;
10) Litter/trash bag;
11) Minimum of 1/4 tank of fuel.

 

[Teegate]

Wharton is just way to big for a permit system. It would be nice if it would work but I doubt it would. With thousands of people wanting one it would cause havoc for the state.

 

[oji]

But don't the IBSP permit fees go into a general fund?

 

[oji]

I'm thinking that the map they use for the beginning of the process should have every road, trail and firecut on it so they all can be included in the decision making.

 

[ninemileskid]

Exactly, which is why I favor a permit system, then there is no question. The state already has a system in place for mobile sportfishing, i.e. driving on the beach at 2 state parks. Easily adapted to Wharton, anyone driving on sand roads within the boundary of Wharton without a permit is subject to fine/vehicle confiscation. Applying for a permit requires a common sense vehicle inspection that takes about 15 minutes. There is an annual and a 3 day permit available and the cost is reasonable, about 50 cents a day for an annual MSFV permit. Wharton could dedicated all fee's to enforcement.

Permit requirements, easily adapted for Wharton;

NO PERMITS!

With all due respect a permit will do NOTHING to curb any illegal activity, it's merely a pass to allow you in, like a ticket to the movies. I got a beach buggy permit for years and witnessed other pass holders breaking the law / rules on a DAILY basis. The sticker on your bumper or windshield is just a sticker, stickers can't enforce anything, you will still need a Park Police presence. AND....if I want to hunt or fish Wharton I need to buy a license, and a permit ON TOP of all the taxes I pay? And 50 cents a day? Yeah, if you were in the woods every day, which just isn't possible for a working man with a family.
Stiffer fines and more patrols and no mercy for second offenders, while not the only solution, would help. Right now those who knowingly break the law are basically gambling they won't get caught. If they do, they pay the fine. If the fines go up and the potential for being caught goes up, the odds are less and less in their favor. Might make them think more about what they want to do.

 

[Boyd]

I have mixed feelings. I agree that the permit in and of itself doesn't stop illegal activity. However, the fees paid for permits could be used to improve enforcement (and also improve road conditions). The big question there is…. would it actually be used for that. I'm skeptical…

$180 would really rub me the wrong way. I might not object to a $50 annual fee though. FWIW, Maryland has a permit system. Not sure what it costs, but I was down there a few years ago and saw the signs that said a permit was required to drive on the dirt roads. Note that holders of hunting/fishing licenses are exempt.

http://dnr.maryland.gov/publiclands/Pages/orv.aspx

____________________

ORV Registration Requirements
An ORV is defined as a motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on land, water, snow, ice, marsh, swampland or other natural terrain. Off-road vehicles include a four-wheel drive or low pressure tire vehicle; an automobile; a truck; a motorcycle and related two-wheel vehicles; an amphibious machine; a ground effect or air cushion vehicle; a snowmobile; and a golf cart.

Vehicles registered with the MVA are exempt from purchasing the off-road vehicle permit when using DNR public lands as long as the operator is in possession of a valid Maryland hunting or fishing license.

ORV Registration Update - Off-road vehicles must be registered annually with DNR and display a registration sticker.

 

[Gibby]

Why do we have to surrender our freedoms? I'm not paying for any permits to access land that is ours. Prosecute those breaking the law! Make them pay a large fine, impound their vehicle and then hand them a shovel to fix their mess.

 

[Boyd]

I agree with you on principle, but how do we pay for that enforcement? They have already pulled resources from the rest of the pines into Wharton which is only 1/8 of the pinelands. I like the Pinelands Commission study on Wharton. But next they need to look at the bigger issue of the whole pinelands.

If greater enforcement has helped Wharton, it would be interesting to see if the damage just moves to Byrne, Bass River, the WMA's, etc. where nobody is minding the store.

 

[Gibby]

The money is available but the issues aren't a priority for the state.

 

[tsqurd]

If greater enforcement has helped Wharton, it would be interesting to see if the damage just moves to Byrne, Bass River, the WMA's, etc. where nobody is minding the store.

It will be interesting to see if/where the problem shifts, though, not sure one can say there is no enforcement in other areas. I've seen park police on numerous occasions this year in Lebanon and Bass River. The WMA's primarily fall under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Officers, with full enforcement authority, and don't have nearly the resource constraints as the Park Police with upwards of 60 COs. Speaking from what I have personally seen, the COs are pretty visible if one spends much time in a WMA.

 

[92 Blazer Jeff]

I agree with you on principle, but how do we pay for that enforcement? .

I say up the fines and use them to help pay for enforcement. That's a user fee I can live with.

 

[Boyd]

That's a user fee I can live with.

Me too. However, what's the annual cost, including benefits, to hire another officer? $200,000? And how about another vehicle for him to ride in, plus maintenance/etc? $50,000? That's gonna take a lot of fines, and vehicles auctioned off at bargain basement costs.

In the end, it probably just comes down to what @Gibby says, "the issues aren't a priority for the state", because there's no assurance the state would even dedicate the fines to enforcement.

 

[Teegate]

Lets review a few of the locations the state has marked on the maps. These locations are relatively easy to access so many of you most likely have already been by them.


Hampton Road back in the 1970's was not the road it is today. It was prone to flooding, especially from E. Stokes to Springers Brook. Because of the flooding the road would wash out often and extremely deep trenches would appear. I would be at E. Stokes looking NE down Hampton Road and watch the vehicles disappear as they went into the trenches. Only the best of vehicles could get down it during those times. The state had been dealing with this problem and started taking dirt from two locations on Hampton Road to do repairs. They are the two area's shown in the below photos.

Since the state caused this problem and they no longer are allowed to take dirt from these location they need to block them off and remove them from the map. Don't try to use your actions in the past to shove a MAP at us.

The next location is on Carranza Road a short distance from the Skit bridge. Why this is on there is beyond me. That location has been like that since at least 1995 and is nothing new. A blockage or more signage would go a long way to keep vehicles from traveling there.

The next location at Pine Crest was recently discussed on this site. 92 BlazerJeff's photo shows perfectly the dot on the map at this location is a lame excuse by someone to put as many points on the map as they can. The problem has been addressed and is working well. Putting the dot on that map just brings attention to it, and is deceptive. If you have not viewed it there is a recent photo of the spung at the below link . Check out the photo on the right.

https://forums.njpinebarrens.com/threads/how-do-we-stop-the-damage.11477/page-2#post-139704



It was very easy to dispute 4 of them and if I spent more time I could dispute many more I am sure. Until the map shows the real problem area's only .... to me it is nothing but deceit.


Guy

 

[46er]

I say up the fines and use them to help pay for enforcement. That's a user fee I can live with.

I believe the fines go to the local jurisdictions. I'm surprised the state hasn't begun an advertising campaign in other parts of NJ and other states explaining the new zero tolerance for land abuse and give examples of those already caught.

This issue has been looked at for a long, long time. The state can't find the money for increased enforcement or doesn't want to, the additional officers are just borrowed and at some point will be gone. IMO the only long term solution that will be effective for increased law enforcement presence is a permit with fees that are directed to enforcement. Very simple and effective. Vehicles are inspected before being issued the permit, LE spots a vehicle within the boundary with no permit, instant citation or confiscation, no discussion, none needed. It would be helpful if a local off-road club stepped up, as has the NJBBA on the beaches, to assist in education and keeping folks honest. A map is just something for some people to ignore.

 

[Teegate]

The state nixed the idea of a permit system and I doubt they will change their mind.

 

[46er]

The state nixed the idea of a permit system and I doubt they will change their mind.

As I said, IMO

 

[Tony]

Becarefful about wanting higher fines you could find yourself on the receiving end of one of those fine by
Accidentally being in an area your not supposed to be in. Then the shoe would be on the other foot.
I seen it happen where people in an area would complain about speeders in their development and they end up getting a speeding ticket because the police come in and write everyone. I think the fines on the books now
Are high enough.