The MAP is back

[Teegate]

All,

On the Batsto State Forest Facebook page, it has been mentioned that the MAP info will be posted online. You will not have to go to Batsto it appears.
Here are two line from the page.

We will release the draft on Jan 24 at 12 p.m. to view and comment on both online and in person at the Batsto Visitor Center.

The draft Wharton State Forest Visitor Vehicle Use Map will also be released for viewing online at noon on Jan. 24, in conjunction with the start of the open house.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Hi Russ. Thanks for the clarification. Indeed, this has been rehashed many times. Pardon me if you've detailed this before on this forum, but what exactly is the plan that you'd like to see implemented? Most here would agree that a balance needs to be struck between recreation and preservation.

The plan I would like to see is, first, a map showing which of the existing lanes of travel are officially *proposed* for authorized travel by motorists. Second, I would like to see a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed map. During that time, people could recommend revisions to the proposed map. This is what seems to be already planned.

Third, I would like to see a reasonably detailed response from the DEP to those recommended revisions. That way, if people recommend that some particular avenue should remain open, and the officials decide it should not be open, they can cite the criteria they applied in leaving it off the map.

For example, it could be something like, “Five hundred respondents lobbied for road such-and-such to be included for motorized travel. Road such-and-such crosses a high quality wetland, and motorized travel across and within that wetland has seriously degraded the quality of that wetland, negatively impacting both rare plant and rare animal populations. Consequently it will not be included.”

Fourth, I would like to see the authorities in the state who administer law enforcement adopt a new attitude regarding enforcement. The absence of a map for motorized access to state lands has routinely been held up as a major reason why we don’t have effective law enforcement. But the adoption of a map for WSF (or any other public lands) will not resolve the deeper problem, which is complicity, sympathy, and leniency on the part of law enforcement officers. The only way that will change is if people in leadership positions apply appropriate corrections.

 

[enormiss]

the adoption of a map for WSF (or any other public lands) will not resolve the deeper problem

I agree with most of your post and agree with the above 1000X.
That confuses me as to why a map is seen as the first needed step.

This is a BS excuse

The absence of a map for motorized access to state lands has routinely been held up as a major reason why we don’t have effective law enforcement.

 

[enormiss]

That barrier has since been fixed and there is now a quad trail around it. Any map certainly wouldn’t stop it.

 

[Teegate]

Some people just can't realize that those that want to destroy will always do so regardless of anything they try to do. All they are hurting are the people who believe in the same thing they do, except closures. Simple as that.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Some people just can't realize that those that want to destroy will always do so regardless of anything they try to do. All they are hurting are the people who believe in the same thing they do, except closures. Simple as that.

Sounds simple, and sounds like case closed. It's possible you grasp the situation better than I do. But, I would like to understand you better, because I remain skeptical of the idea that "those that want to destroy will always do so regardless of anything they [presumably the "they" here, refers to law-abiding citizens] try to do." Do we really need to surrender to the outlaw element? Do you really think that it's futile to insist that authorities, from the governor on down to individual state park police officers actually do what we pay them to do, i.e., enforce existing laws and regulations?

 

[Teegate]

Sounds simple, and sounds like case closed. It's possible you grasp the situation better than I do. But, I would like to understand you better, because I remain skeptical of the idea that "those that want to destroy will always do so regardless of anything they [presumably the "they" here, refers to law-abiding citizens] try to do." Do we really need to surrender to the outlaw element? Do you really think that it's futile to insist that authorities, from the governor on down to individual state park police officers actually do what we pay them to do, i.e., enforce existing laws and regulations?

Russ,

I didn't say anything about surrendering. You always try anyway you can to see things that are not there.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

Russ,

I didn't say anything about surrendering. You always try anyway you can to see things that are not there.

You know, this really is a key part of the issue we've been debating all these years. Your statement, which I quoted above, seems to imply that attempts to rein in illegal motorized activities are futile. Here's what you said: "...those that want to destroy will always do so regardless of anything they try to do." That sounds to me consistent with what the outlaw element has been saying--essentially, "You can't stop us." So if that's not what you meant, then please tell us what you did in fact mean.

 

[Teegate]

You know, this really is a key part of the issue we've been debating all these years. Your statement, which I quoted above, seems to imply that attempts to rein in illegal motorized activities are futile. Here's what you said: "...those that want to destroy will always do so regardless of anything they try to do." That sounds to me consistent with what the outlaw element has been saying--essentially, "You can't stop us." So if that's not what you meant, then please tell us what you did in fact mean.

I think the photo in post 24 proves my point.

 

[Tony]

The plan I would like to see is, first, a map showing which of the existing lanes of travel are officially *proposed* for authorized travel by motorists. Second, I would like to see a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed map. During that time, people could recommend revisions to the proposed map. This is what seems to be already planned.

Third, I would like to see a reasonably detailed response from the DEP to those recommended revisions. That way, if people recommend that some particular avenue should remain open, and the officials decide it should not be open, they can cite the criteria they applied in leaving it off the map.

For example, it could be something like, “Five hundred respondents lobbied for road such-and-such to be included for motorized travel. Road such-and-such crosses a high quality wetland, and motorized travel across and within that wetland has seriously degraded the quality of that wetland, negatively impacting both rare plant and rare animal populations. Consequently it will not be included.”

Fourth, I would like to see the authorities in the state who administer law enforcement adopt a new attitude regarding enforcement. The absence of a map for motorized access to state lands has routinely been held up as a major reason why we don’t have effective law enforcement. But the adoption of a map for WSF (or any other public lands) will not resolve the deeper problem, which is complicity, sympathy, and leniency on the part of law enforcement officers. The only way that will change is if people in leadership positions apply appropriate corrections.

I been riding in there for over 54 years and I see the same plants and animals now that I saw then. so don't give me that fake news

 

[Jon Holcombe]

I been riding in there for over 54 years and I see the same plants and animals now that I saw then. so don't give me that fake news

First, I would like to say that "Tony, you are a complete "F***ing" idiot. Shove your "fake news" up your a$$".

Re: a beautiful spot in the Pinelands. One day, this past October, I was warned by a person I know that a group was stealth camping. I continued on and they eyeballed me, obviously wondering if I was Park Police. I waved to them. They had a campfire, but I drove past and did my thing a couple hundred yards away.

While I was working, they packed up and left, and on my way back past their "camp site", I realized their campfire was still burning, flames and all. This area had just been through a major forest fire a year and a half ago. I poured water on it and covered it with sand until it was "visibly" extinguished. At that point I was actually in a quandry. Do I report this to Park Police? Since I had no license plate numbers, and since I don't want the area shut down to vehicle traffic, I decided to dummy up, and just drove home.

Fast forward to last Saturday. Same area, they had obviously been there again. This time they had built two campfires, and decided, probably in a drunken bit of late night fun, to start cutting down small healthy pines next to a wetland, cut down a row of small trees and brush by a river, push a somewhat rotted but still standing large pine into the river, push over a beautiful old ghost cedar by the river (this one in particular really pissed me off since it's in a bunch of my shots), cut down a number of smaller pines around their campsite, and take a hatchet to and significantly chop into a tall, mature and healthy pitch pine.

I considered my options, but thought doing nothing, would be a complete abrogation of responsibility, so I reluctantly called DEP. Officer was very nice, asked me to forward photos and a synopsis of what I saw, and I did that. He told me that he would contact the Forest office so they could come and do "clean up". Strike 1. He told me the PP do not go down that road very often because it is "treacherous". Strike 2. After i said you guys probably can't do anything at this point, he said "That's right". Strike 3. Not "we are going to step up enforcement, or step up drive bys in the area", but left me with the impression that the only action taken would be "clean-up".

I am 100% on the side of Russ. Although I don't know what the DEP is going to do, but signaling to the people that drive here from a distance, or other states that NJ is getting serious, is a good thing. Whether they create a permitting system, close roads, increase fines, etc., I think it may have SOME effect on traffic through the Pines.

On the other hand, I am 100% with Guy. If the Park Police is going to increase staffing by 500%, buy a fleet of new jacked-up 4x4's with big tires and winches and snorkels, and comb the forest for "evil-doers, then maybe something good will happen. But without a tremendously increased physical presence in the forest, idiots like this will continue to destroy it for everyone else.

I am afraid that one day soon I will find wood barriers on these roads, and now I will have to hike in at 4:30 in the morning when it's 25 degrees. But morons like Tony will simply drive around them and view the rules as a challenge to their absolute right to do anything they want.

I wonder how much money and time and manpower and how many lives of firefighters were put at risk during that wildfire from the summer of 2022? The assholes that did this damage could possibly be responsible for that event.

Will the forest recover? Of course. But ghost cedars remain standing a long time, and the one they pushed down by the river, makes me think very bad thoughts about the individuals that did it. And of a Neil Young song from 1970.

 

[bobpbx]

Whoa Jon, those sudden outbursts calling people nasty names with cursing are concerning. Take a tip from me, write them down on your post, but then go do laundry or something for a couple hours, and then return to look at what you've written. Chances are high you'll think better of posting that.

As far as the damage, that's not really that bad. Many times punk kids will do this kind of stuff, but the woods will recover. In fact, a plow line will do 50 times the damage to trees.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

Whoa Jon, those sudden outbursts calling people nasty names with cursing are concerning. Take a tip from me, write them down on your post, but then go do laundry or something for a couple hours, and then return to look at what you've written. Chances are high you'll think better of posting that.

As far as the damage, that's not really that bad. Many times punk kids will do this kind of stuff, but the woods will recover. In fact, a plow line will do 50 times the damage to trees.

Just casting pearls before swine Bob.

 

[Teegate]

You should be afraid of wood barriers on roads! That is why you can't be 100 percent for anyone who believes in road closures. You did what needed to be done and at that point it is up to law enforcement to stop them. You and I didn't do it and we should not be penalized for their actions. That is and always will be my position, and with what you do and where you go it should be yours as well. Be careful what you ask for or you will be walking on roads that you never thought would be closed.

 

[G. Russell Juelg]

I think the photo in post 24 proves my point.

That photo only proves what we already know, that there are reckless pig-headed outlaws out there. Spoiled brats who need to be apprehended and punished. I don't see how it might prove any point that you seem to be trying make. Like when you said, "Some people just can't realize that those that want to destroy will always do so regardless of anything they try to do." This implies that there is a truth, namely, that, "those that want to destroy will always do so regardless of anything they try to do."

But that's obviously false. If it were true, there would be no point in law enforcement at all. So, actually, these "some people" who don't "realize" what you realize actually would seem to acknowledge a very common agreement in civilized society, namely that, since there are willful outlaws among us, and since we want to restrain willful outlaw behavior, we have laws and regulations and we hire law enforcement officials to enforce those laws and regulations. Now, if those law enforcement officials aren't getting the job done, then we need to examine the situation and try to fix that. Maybe we aren't providing them with sufficient incentives and resources.

Now, in the past, you and many others on this board who oppose "road closures" have expressed the opinion that we do indeed need more law enforcement. One thing most of us seem to agree on is the idea that, if we had effective law enforcement, authorities probably wouldn't be motivated to close some of the roads. Some roads are candidates for closure primarily because they lead right up to motor-head playgrounds where reckless pig-headed outlaws routinely go in and destroy valuable wildlife habitats. Other roads are candidates for closure because they have become impassable for the average motorist due to deliberately destructive "riding" practices. And then, as I have often mentioned in the past, there are other criteria have to be taken into consideration, namely the ecological consequences of motorized traffic in general.

I actually hope most of us can focus on what we all seem to agree on, which is that an access plan for WSF will not solve the problem unless it is accompanied by effective law enforcement.

 

[Teegate]

I actually hope most of us can focus on what we all seem to agree on, which is that an access plan for WSF will not solve the problem unless it is accompanied by effective law enforcement.

I don't think you know me that well. I am focusing on closures and closures only and that is all I focus on. No need to bring up enforcement because I have always been for that.

 

[Tony]

First, I would like to say that "Tony, you are a complete "F***ing" idiot. Shove your "fake news" up your a$$".

Re: a beautiful spot in the Pinelands. One day, this past October, I was warned by a person I know that a group was stealth camping. I continued on and they eyeballed me, obviously wondering if I was Park Police. I waved to them. They had a campfire, but I drove past and did my thing a couple hundred yards away.

While I was working, they packed up and left, and on my way back past their "camp site", I realized their campfire was still burning, flames and all. This area had just been through a major forest fire a year and a half ago. I poured water on it and covered it with sand until it was "visibly" extinguished. At that point I was actually in a quandry. Do I report this to Park Police? Since I had no license plate numbers, and since I don't want the area shut down to vehicle traffic, I decided to dummy up, and just drove home.

Fast forward to last Saturday. Same area, they had obviously been there again. This time they had built two campfires, and decided, probably in a drunken bit of late night fun, to start cutting down small healthy pines next to a wetland, cut down a row of small trees and brush by a river, push a somewhat rotted but still standing large pine into the river, push over a beautiful old ghost cedar by the river (this one in particular really pissed me off since it's in a bunch of my shots), cut down a number of smaller pines around their campsite, and take a hatchet to and significantly chop into a tall, mature and healthy pitch pine.

I considered my options, but thought doing nothing, would be a complete abrogation of responsibility, so I reluctantly called DEP. Officer was very nice, asked me to forward photos and a synopsis of what I saw, and I did that. He told me that he would contact the Forest office so they could come and do "clean up". Strike 1. He told me the PP do not go down that road very often because it is "treacherous". Strike 2. After i said you guys probably can't do anything at this point, he said "That's right". Strike 3. Not "we are going to step up enforcement, or step up drive bys in the area", but left me with the impression that the only action taken would be "clean-up".

I am 100% on the side of Russ. Although I don't know what the DEP is going to do, but signaling to the people that drive here from a distance, or other states that NJ is getting serious, is a good thing. Whether they create a permitting system, close roads, increase fines, etc., I think it may have SOME effect on traffic through the Pines.

On the other hand, I am 100% with Guy. If the Park Police is going to increase staffing by 500%, buy a fleet of new jacked-up 4x4's with big tires and winches and snorkels, and comb the forest for "evil-doers, then maybe something good will happen. But without a tremendously increased physical presence in the forest, idiots like this will continue to destroy it for everyone else.

I am afraid that one day soon I will find wood barriers on these roads, and now I will have to hike in at 4:30 in the morning when it's 25 degrees. But morons like Tony will simply drive around them and view the rules as a challenge to their absolute right to do anything they want.

I wonder how much money and time and manpower and how many lives of firefighters were put at risk during that wildfire from the summer of 2022? The assholes that did this damage could possibly be responsible for that event.

Will the forest recover? Of course. But ghost cedars remain standing a long time, and the one they pushed down by the river, makes me think very bad thoughts about the individuals that did it. And of a Neil Young song from 1970.

maybe you can tell me that to my face and I show you what a puck you are

 

[Teegate]

Okay. Let's all stop the arguing.

 

[Boyd]

No matter how you feel about this issue, we need to be able to discuss it in a mature way. Any further abusive posts will be removed and the person who makes them will face suspension. Disagree as much as you like with the opinions that are expressed, don't personally attack the author.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

No matter how you feel about this issue, we need to be able to have a mature discussion of the issues. Any further abusive posts will be removed and the person who makes them will face suspension. Disagree as much as you like with the opinions that are expressed, don't personally attack the author.

Define abusive. If Ben uses the "F" word is that abusive? Is Tony uses the term "fake news", effectively calling someone a liar, and that post is liked by both moderators, is that abusive? This forum is not only controlled by moderators, but they obviously encourage a regressive mindset, and mock an open discussion. Hiding behind an "admin" badge is cowardly, since the deck is stacked in your favor. Cut me a friggin break.

Actually, on reflection, you can have your forum the way you want it. You can all speak to each other without dissenting voices. Not sure how to do this but remove me from the forum Boyd. Thanks.