Woodland targets off-road vehicles

Trailhead00

Explorer
Mar 9, 2005
375
1
18
43
Haddonfield, NJ
I thought all those rules and regulations were already in place? I guess now they are going to enforce them. Boy if you can't get away with riding in Woodland Township, you can't ride anywhere. I don't know what the state is going to do when the park in Chatsworth closes? They promised 2 parks before by 2005 and in the typical Jersay way nothing has been done. I guess the writing is on the wall or has been on the wall. If you want to ride and you live in New Jersey, you're in the wrong state. Many other states have established trails and/or parks to help deal with ATV's but New Jersey is clueless when it comes to this problem. I love to ride but now I take it PA and I'm moving a few weeks anyway. Remember one thing, ATV's are the "real" problem facing the pines, not overdevelopment, littering, illegal dumping and also the countless companies that got away with dumping everything they wanted to in the past. The other day I drove through a small puddle with my truck and I thought to myself, I better not do that again because I might throw the entire ecosystem out of whack!
 

LARGO

Piney
Sep 7, 2005
1,518
57
1,028
49
Pestletown
Trailhead00 said:
Remember one thing, ATV's are the "real" problem facing the pines, not overdevelopment, littering, illegal dumping and also the countless companies that got away with dumping everything they wanted to in the past.
I respect the other issues in your post, but I am not sure I can buy into this one. Overdevelopment is a significant problem. Littering goes without saying. Illegal dumping.... Let's compare. There is truth to disturbing the ecosystem and tirewash in puddles certainly disrupts things but.....
Remembering some things I cleaned up last year. A bunch of rusted and leaking Paint,thinner,Stripper cans out my way. Oozing goo as I picked them up. I would not be happy to see puddle wash eroding an area but the stuff that leaked from those cans and how it affected everything around it far outweighs what an ATV or ORV could ever do.
There was actually an area at the Wharton drop location for stuff like this. It had things you wouldn't imagine. I am not even getting on the ATV soapbox here. Just stating that this other stuff, in my opinion, is of a much more serious nature.
Anyhow, I hope your move goes well & I respect your thoughts.

g.
 

Boyd

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 31, 2004
6,923
1,214
1,093
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
Trailhead00 said:
I don't know what the state is going to do when the park in Chatsworth closes? They promised 2 parks before by 2005 and in the typical Jersay way nothing has been done.
I'm sorry, but that sort of thinking sounds just like every other group of people who feel "entitled" to something at "the state's" expense and it has a lot to do with why NJ has so many budget problems. In reality, who is "the state"? It's me, you, the guy next door, etc.

I don't know anything about this issue other than what has been discussed here in the past. If "the state" has some contractual or legal obligation to provide an ORV park then fine, it should be honored. But if it is just some pork that a special interest group was promised then it's about time we started saying no to that type of thing. If there's really a big demand for an ORV park then it should be a viable business proposition for someone. Let the people who use that park pay for it with entrance fees.
 

BEHR655

Piney
Feb 19, 2003
2,710
5
1,018
Merchantville, NJ
www.behr655.smugmug.com
Boyd said:
I'm sorry, but that sort of thinking sounds just like every other group of people who feel "entitled" to something at "the state's" expense and it has a lot to do with why NJ has so many budget problems. In reality, who is "the state"? It's me, you, the guy next door, etc.

I don't know anything about this issue other than what has been discussed here in the past. If "the state" has some contractual or legal obligation to provide an ORV park then fine, it should be honored. But if it is just some pork that a special interest group was promised then it's about time we started saying no to that type of thing. If there's really a big demand for an ORV park then it should be a viable business proposition for someone. Let the people who use that park pay for it with entrance fees.
Everybody is taking issue with everyone's statements so I'll jump in.
Boyd, with your line of thinking, the state should stop maintaining roads in the Pines. Why pander to the folks that want to drive, horseback or hike on those roads? Forget about making more hiking trails, they shouldn't even spend the money to keep up the markings on the existing ones. They should close down the State Parks altogether. Of course, that would anger the people that feel they are "entitled" to it's use.
The Pines are for everyone and that includes ORV owners.

Steve
 

Boyd

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 31, 2004
6,923
1,214
1,093
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
BEHR655 said:
The Pines are for everyone and that includes ORV owners.
That's OK. Read my post again, I didn't say anything about who the pines are for, I just questioned why someone feels entitled for our tax dollars to support their personal hobby.

As far as closing down the roads and parks.... sure give it a try. However if you did, I suspect there would be a public outcry and the funding would be restored. And that's how I think politics works. If a majority of constituents want something, they will probably get it. In the case of ORV parks, the obvious conclusion would have to be that the people who own these machines don't have enough political clout to get what they want.
 

BEHR655

Piney
Feb 19, 2003
2,710
5
1,018
Merchantville, NJ
www.behr655.smugmug.com
Boyd said:
That's OK. Read my post again, I didn't say anything about who the pines are for, I just questioned why someone feels entitled for our tax dollars to support their personal hobby.

As far as closing down the roads and parks.... sure give it a try. However if you did, I suspect there would be a public outcry and the funding would be restored. And that's how I think politics works. If a majority of constituents want something, they will probably get it. In the case of ORV parks, the obvious conclusion would have to be that the people who own these machines don't have enough political clout to get what they want.
I guess you didn't understand my reply.
Don't you feel entitled to drive on the roads through the Pines? The State maintains those roads. So why shouldn't they also foot the bill for an Off-Road park.
And I in no way endorse the closing of State Parks, I was just making a point.

Steve
 

Boyd

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 31, 2004
6,923
1,214
1,093
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
BEHR655 said:
Don't you feel entitled to drive on the roads through the Pines?
Honestly, I'm not so sure that I do. But the roads are open in the pines and I can drive down them. I'm not asking the state to do something new and special for me. If the state decided to close the roads then I would have to consider whether it was important enough for me to "get political" and persuade them to re-open. Or maybe I would react like Trailhead and move somewhere else.

Problem is, everyone has some special interest that they want the state to subsidize, but nobody wants to pay for anyone else's special interests. And nobody wants their taxes to go up.
 

Trailhead00

Explorer
Mar 9, 2005
375
1
18
43
Haddonfield, NJ
A few years ago, the way I understand it anyway, they decided one way to stop illegal riding was to increase the fines and so forth. Part of the deal was the state could increase the fines as long as they built 2 off road parks by 2005. I believe the head of the DEP at the time was Mr. Campbell. Well 2005 has come and gone and 2006 is almost over and there is not one park, plus the park in Chatsworth is closing within 2 years. Hey the state agreed and promised 2 parks. They did not keep up their end of the bargain but have you seen them go back to the old fines, which of course were less, heck no! I don't expect everything from the state but they did say that was part of the deal and they have not lived up to it. But I forgot, I was dealing with New Jersey. I'm going riding in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire this fall, both states have excellent trail programs. The funny thing is you would think by what the so called experts say that nothing would be left of their forest due do all of the ATV use, but it hasn't happened. Their state forest are as beautiful as ever.
 

Boyd

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 31, 2004
6,923
1,214
1,093
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
Well like I said, if "the state" made a promise in the form of a law or a contract then I'd agree they should honor it. I'll admit that I don't know anything about this specific issue. But the whole thing seems to be based on a lot of hearsay ("A few years ago, the way I understand it anyway"). So if ORV riders can point to some legal obligation which NJ has failed to uphold then they should use the system to make sure the promise is kept. But if it was just another case of a politician breaking their promise.... well that's not really a news flash is it?

But (based on what you say), it sounds like the higher fines are actually some sort of law. That's a different matter... politicians and their promises come and go, but once a law is on the books it will continue to be enforced.