Wharton State Forest 1966 Visitor Map nearly identical to 2024 draft Visitor Map

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
151
55
This is a direct comparison of the 1966 Wharton State Forest Visitor Map, which was published with the same basic form until modern standards for EMS and navigation made it obsolete and the new 2024 visitor map. The routes depicted in the new map are nearly identical to the old map, except for specific cases where bridges have washed out or camping areas have been designated to be wilderness areas and free from motor vehicle. I circled the few areas where routes had been removed, like at Lower Forge Wilderness camp and Buttonwood Camp, in blue. Private property I circled in Red.
wharton_vehicle_map_1966_2024_identical.jpg
 

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
151
55
The routes you are referring to have never been included on a State Park Map in New Jersey.

“With regard to the 1997 USGS quads, this was strictly photo-revision. I sincerely doubt any attempt was made to search for or apply local regulation with regard to land access or applicable state law on land disturbance. USGS makes no claim that those things have been shown.” - Roger Barlow US Geological Survey Geospatial Liaison
 

smoke_jumper

Piney
Mar 5, 2012
1,527
1,058
Atco, NJ
This is a direct comparison of the 1966 Wharton State Forest Visitor Map, which was published with the same basic form until modern standards for EMS and navigation made it obsolete and the new 2024 visitor map. The routes depicted in the new map are nearly identical to the old map,
Sounds like that the current map is obsolete as well by your description.
 
Last edited:

NJPinesExplorer

New Member
Sep 14, 2016
12
31
Mount Laurel, NJ
This 1966 map doesn’t change the fact that the DEP acknowledged the existence of 600 miles of primitive roadways in Wharton State Forest in their 2014 request for federal funds to maintain them. (Source) A visitor map that outlined recommended routes for vehicles while not closing over half of the roadways to legal access wouldn’t be nearly as controversial as the DEP’s VVUM road closure plan. The 1966 map and the VVUM are not equivalent. Also, note that the 1966 map indicates that “Jeep type vehicles” are recommended for the unpaved roads. There was an expectation that the roads may not be passable by regular cars on the 1966 map, yet such an expectation of a road today is justification for closure in the VVUM plan.

P.S. I was banned from the PPA-moderated “The Pine Barrens” facebook group for comments like this. I’m glad we can all speak freely here about the VVUM without fear of censorship due to differing opinions during civil discourse.
 
Last edited:

Piney4life

Explorer
Oct 8, 2015
381
128
51
Waterford
The rules for use of motorized funds from the rtp federal grant are strict on uses of said portion of funds.no road condemnation,not for making roads passable by low clearance vehicles .only to be used for grooming orv designated trails that we don't have in nj...now the question, in claiming this portion for the "roads" have they uknowly now declared the 600+miles in wharton orv trails ??
 

RednekF350

Piney
Feb 20, 2004
4,952
3,103
Pestletown, N.J.
Here's one significant difference.

The 1966 map was not issued with a looming dagger that would have made the use of all Wharton roads, other than those shown on that Candy Land-quality map, illegal. Whereas, the 2024 Map #9 does in fact come with that looming dagger, ready to be plunged into the hearts of thousands of responsible Wharton users.

I was in Wharton by 1966 when that 1966 map was made, following my dad around the Bulltown Rye Strips every fall looking for deer sign. In 1968 I got my juvenile hunting license and started hunting with him there. Oddly, none of the roads in the rye strip area are shown on the 1966 map. Were we breaking the law? No, we weren't. We were using named and unnamed secondary roads for access that everyone used without penalty. Just like today.
 
Last edited:
Apr 6, 2004
3,613
556
Galloway
Here's one significant difference.

The 1966 map was not issued with a looming dagger that would have made the use of all other Wharton roads, other than those shown on that Candy Land-quality map, illegal. Whereas, the 2024 Map #9 does in fact come with that looming dagger, ready to be plunged into the hearts of thousands of responsible Wharton users.

I was in Wharton by 1966 when that 1966 map was made, following my dad around the Bulltown Rye Strips every fall looking for deer sign. In 1968 I got my juvenile hunting license and started hunting with him there. Oddly, none of the roads in the rye strip area are shown on the 1966 map. Were we breaking the law? No, we weren't. We were using named and unnamed secondary roads for access that everyone used without penalty. Just like today.
Scott, don't confuse us with facts and logic.
 

Old Halfway

New Member
May 5, 2019
8
22
Old Halfway
He has no plan on discussing different views. He is on a smear campaign trying to discredit the topos. The ironic thing is he blocks anyone with different opinions then his own calling them trolls. Yet that’s all he does here is troll.
This exactly my experience with Jason. Once confronted with a truth he deems unbecoming of his agenda, he will block you (I was from the PPA backed Pine Barrens FB). Yes he called me a troll as well and then apologized right before he (or one of his likeness) turned off commenting and blocked me. For the record I was replying to the insinuation that the opposition to the closures was "small".

I've been warned by people who've had more interaction with him than myself that I should not waste my time or breath with him because there is no rationalizing his logic and he will operate just like we've all seen.

It's still funny to me to be called a troll by someone I see posting here there and everywhere pushing his agenda with skew, bias, unlike comparisons and all. I reckon it takes one to know one.
 

smoke_jumper

Piney
Mar 5, 2012
1,527
1,058
Atco, NJ
This exactly my experience with Jason. Once confronted with a truth he deems unbecoming of his agenda, he will block you (I was from the PPA backed Pine Barrens FB). Yes he called me a troll as well and then apologized right before he (or one of his likeness) turned off commenting and blocked me. For the record I was replying to the insinuation that the opposition to the closures was "small".

I've been warned by people who've had more interaction with him than myself that I should not waste my time or breath with him because there is no rationalizing his logic and he will operate just like we've all seen.

It's still funny to me to be called a troll by someone I see posting here there and everywhere pushing his agenda with skew, bias, unlike comparisons and all. I reckon it takes one to know one.
Let’s not forget that he gets paid to troll us. He gets paid block out anyone with a different opinion from his employer’s social media page. He gets paid to make propaganda videos and deceitful posts to sway public opinion. He gets paid to try and disrupt any opposition to his or his employers views. Unfortunately it goes way beyond being just a troll.
 

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
151
55
Here's one significant difference.

The 1966 map was not issued with a looming dagger that would have made the use of all Wharton roads, other than those shown on that Candy Land-quality map, illegal. Whereas, the 2024 Map #9 does in fact come with that looming dagger, ready to be plunged into the hearts of thousands of responsible Wharton users.

I was in Wharton by 1966 when that 1966 map was made, following my dad around the Bulltown Rye Strips every fall looking for deer sign. In 1968 I got my juvenile hunting license and started hunting with him there. Oddly, none of the roads in the rye strip area are shown on the 1966 map. Were we breaking the law? No, we weren't. We were using named and unnamed secondary roads for access that everyone used without penalty. Just like today.
Here is a question.

Who gets to decide what is a motorized vehicle route within a State Park? What criteria should be applied to determine whether or not a particular route should be available for use by (the entire) public?
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
14,193
4,292
Pines; Bamber area
Here is a question.

Who gets to decide what is a motorized vehicle route within a State Park? What criteria should be applied to determine whether or not a particular route should be available for use by (the entire) public?
That would be me. Give me unfettered access and my own criteria and with no right by anyone to turn over my decisions, and I'll get it done.
 
Top