Your Forest Under Attack: MAP Misinformation from the DEP

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
126
50
28
Some of your claims need to be addressed here as I found many of them inaccurate or misleading.


The claims that the Wharton MAP improves access to the forest is a blatant lie. Over half of the roads and trails in Wharton State Forest are being closed to motor vehicles, preventing users of the forest – most of whom have no interest in “four wheeling” – easy access to places that they have historically been free to roam. While some roads and trails have been damaged by irresponsible off-road vehicle use, the MAP provides no plan for the enforcement of these road closures. Without effective enforcement those who would carelessly damage the forest’s precious and irreplaceable natural environments would be free to continue their destruction while the overwhelming majority of the forest’s users would be closed off from huge swaths of public land.

Increased enforcement is indeed required and desired by MAP proponents, but many of your allies in the off-road community are not in favor of increased patrols. This Motorized Access Plan helps establish what roads can be maintained with the budgets available, thus ensuring Forest Fire Service personnel that they can navigate these roads in times of emergency. One firefighter was caught in a mud-wallow caused by off-roader abuse while trying to get away from an approaching fire. Where is your concern for our first responders?


The DEP has implemented the MAP unilaterally and without the opportunity for public comment. As a result of this back alley deal roads have been marked closed prior to any public announcement being made. The DEP had planned to wait until the end of the summer to announce the MAP, after it had closed many trails, but were forced to move the announcement forward to perform damage control over the widespread outrage at the secrecy of the closures. Their secrecy has been so complete that even elected officials in Trenton have been unaware of this plan.

I was there when Rob told Guy Thompson about the Motorized Access plan, he was hiding nothing. Rob has had many stakeholder meetings about the plan and continues to. He has already made modifications to the plan based on these meetings.


The funding for the plan came from the Recreational Trails Grant Program, a Federal Highway Administration program designed to provide provide funds to states looking to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both motorized and non-motorized recreational trail uses. Funding for the program is provided by federal taxes collected on gasoline. Interestingly, the State’s grant application makes no mention of road closures at all. Had they done so it is possible that the grant would not have been awarded.

The grant also covers road maintenance. Wharton is keeping open the roads that they will be able to maintain for the safety of guests and emergency personnel. I am a search and rescue volunteer and the importance of reliable navigation on these roads is hugely important. We have to deal with the off-roaders rutting up the roads at every low point, they are putting lives at risk for a short thrill.

The overwhelming majority of the visitors of Wharton State Forest use the road and trail system responsibly. These people will be disproportionally punished by the implementation of the MAP. Roads and trails that have been open for public use for decades, if not centuries, are now suddenly closed with no warning given.

My family has lived and worked in Wharton for centuries, they did not use jeeps and mud-trucks. All of the paths are open with the MAP and on 225 miles of them you can use a motor.

It’s true: The MAP brochure shows some pretty grim images of off-road devastation which are totally inflammatory and do not represent the impact that the majority of the people who drive on Wharton’s sand roads and trails have.

The damage is real. There is a large off-road culture that thinks driving through a vernal pool and wetlands is perfectly acceptable behavior. You know this culture exists and is by no means small. This plan wouldn't have been needed if it wasn't for their behavior.

One of the DEP’s jobs is to provide stewardship and protection of the natural and cultural resources of the forest. This would be the case even if the MAP was not implemented. As far as stewardship of the forest goes, there are many main roads that have been ill-maintained for years, and many historic buildings such as cotton mill at Atsion or the entire ghost town of Friendship have been lost from neglect or arson due to the state’s particular brand of “stewardship.”

I have seen the evidence of bonfires in Friendship ruins, I have been told the off-roaders have been trying to drive up the walls and use them as jumps. I've seen the trees the Park Service desperately put in the ruins to discourage this type of behavior.


The state has been closing some roads by barricading the way with freshly cut or dead fallen trees. Far from allowing swift access for emergency first responders, the crews will be held up. They will be losing valuable time clearing fallen trees from the road during a potentially life-threatening emergency.

This is false. I participated in the closing of a pushcut done by the Forest Fire Service as a temporary access point to an active blaze. The pushcut was always meant to be closed and off-roaders had gotten in and destroyed a pond at the end of the mile cut. The Forest Fire Service is completely in support of the Wharton MAP.


The fact that the mileage of the roads left open in Wharton is twice the length of the turnpike is irrelevant. Just as you’re not going to develop a true appreciation for the pinelands by driving through it on the parkway, you won’t get the sense of the wonder that the Pine Barrens has to offer on the wide, crowded sand roads that are now the only ones left open to the public. Remember, over 50% of the existing roads and trails have been CLOSED for public motorized access. Those roads, already crowded, are going to get much worse.

It is relevant if you don't want your whole forest to be roads. You won't get a true appreciation of the forest by driving over it. You need to get out of the car.

That might be true, but that mile that you have to traverse to get to a spot that was once conveniently located next to a road might now lie behind a mile of tangled briars, an impassable cedar swamp, or a river that would be dangerous to ford. Plus, if you were a kayaker looking to launch at your favorite secluded spot, or a photographer laden down with heavy gear, how feasible is it to bushwhack a mile or more through the woods to get to a spot that once was easily accessible? Not to mention the risk of exposure to poison ivy and disease carrying insects increases the more time you spend crashing through the forest getting to where you need to go.

There are risks in the wild. Poison Ivy is about the last thing you need to worry about in the Pine Barrens, it is very rare. The path to Mannis Duck Pond has been closed to vehicles for years and is still easily accessible on foot.

The wording of this is too vague. How exactly does the MAP make provisions for park visitors protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Disabled persons will be able to use their motor vehicles according to the Superintendent.

Another bald faced lie: The State is actively placing physical barriers on some of the closed roads, making it difficult if not impossible for emergency crews to access roads in time critical situations.

Again Ben, you are completely misinformed here. See the earlier comment.

It’s important to note that the Wharton MAP has been designed and approved without the input of the stakeholder groups. Now that there has been widespread outrage at the plan and legislators now questioning it the DEP is interested in meeting with certain “stakeholders.” It seems unlikely that, after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement the MAP, the state would incur the cost of changing the plan which would show that the DEP’s actions were a waste of grant money.

You are wrong here Ben, the DEP is actively seekingly constructive criticism and the plan to meet with stakeholders was in place well before the social media paranoia erupted. Changes have already been made based on these meetings.

Regarding the Photographs.

4 of the 7 pictures you posted were of the Pushcut to the Pond near Sandy Causeway I wrote about in earlier paragraphs. Two of the pictures from high crossing are not blocking any path. These images are very misleading.

I have a long family history in Wharton State Forest and I value it more than any place in the world. You should be helping us protect this place from further damage by these off-road enthusiasts and let our land managers do their job. You should be supporting our Forest Fire Service in their wish to protect the lives of their personnel and supporting our Park Police for increased enforcement. Please help us do this and please do not undermine this effort further. I am speaking to you as a person that grew out of this forest and who continues to work hard for its protection.
 
Last edited:
Apr 6, 2004
3,116
176
1,043
Galloway
Hi Jason,

I'd like to briefly respond to some of your points.

"This Motorized Access Plan helps establish what roads can be maintained with the budgets available, thus ensuring Forest Fire Service personnel that they can navigate these roads in times of emergency."

Couldn't those roads be maintained without shutting down the rest of them?

"This is a conspiracy theory. I was there when Rob told Guy Thompson about the Motorized Access plan, he was hiding nothing. Rob has had many stakeholder meetings about the plan and continues to. He has already made modifications to the plan based on these meetings."


I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory so much as an observation. The fact is that the vast majority of those who enjoy Wharton State Forest were unaware of what was being done, which is unacceptable.

"The damage is real. There is a large off-road culture that thinks driving through a vernal pool and wetlands is perfectly acceptable behavior. You know this culture exists and is by no means small. This plan wouldn't have been needed if it wasn't for their behavior."


I don't think anyone here is unaware of the damage. The debate is not whether or not there are people who selfishly and carelessly abuse wetlands and hills. The debate is whether or not all of the roads that the State intends to close should in fact be closed. ORV abuse can only be curbed by enforcement, not by closing the roads. Take Jemima Mount, for example. It has been closed off to motor vehicles, but the damage being done there only worsened.

"I have seen the evidence of bonfires in Friendship ruins, I have been told the off-roaders have been trying to drive up the walls and use them as jumps. I've seen the trees the Park Service desperately put in the ruins to discourage this type of behavior."

A travesty, I agree. Imagine if one of these vandals were caught and heavily fined. I bet that would be an excellent deterrent. I do agree that we ought to work together here. It should begin with level-headed discussion.

-Gabe
 

smoke_jumper

Piney
Mar 5, 2012
1,129
573
1,093
Atco, NJ
Jason
There are few people here that are more concerned about the safety of our FFS and first responders they me. Many of them are my friends and I fought beside them for years. The FFS finally has funds to adequately repair some of the main roads that should have been maintained before. Sweeping closures do nothing to helping further. How are they to help the problem you describe at Friendship? Are you going to close the roads to Friendship to stop that damage later? Of course we want our firefighters safe and vandals to stop destroying our woods but your generalizing statements do nothing to explain exactly how the MAP will accomplish that.

John
 
  • Like
Reactions: Broke Jeep Joe

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,333
1,123
1,093
41
Asbury Park, NJ
Some of your claims need to be addressed here as I found many of them inaccurate or misleading.

Increased enforcement is indeed required and desired by MAP proponents, but many of your allies in the off-road community are not in favor of increased patrols. This Motorized Access Plan helps establish what roads can be maintained with the budgets available, thus ensuring Forest Fire Service personnel that they can navigate these roads in times of emergency. One firefighter was caught in a mud-wallow caused by off-roader abuse while trying to get away from an approaching fire. Where is your concern for our first responders?
Hi Jason. I'm not part of any sort of "off-road community." I'm a photographer and history buff. I drive a Ford Taurus. I will say that, since this issue has come to light, I have not met or spoken with a single person who has not agreed that additional enforcement is necessary.

It's important to note that I am 100% against ORV damage and abuse. I always have been and always will be. I am only advocating for a saner, farer way to protect the forest while respecting the rights of the public to access their public land.

Closing roads and trails to law-abiding people is not going to solve the problem of damage being done by ORV abusers. It's going to just keep the law abiding people out, and since there's no enforcement, the abusers are free to run amok. How long have Quarter Mile, Hidden Lakes (in Greenwood WMA by Old Half Way), and Jemima Mount been closed to motor vehicle access, yet the damage caused by illegal entry has continued unabated?

As far as keeping closed roads passable for emergency crews, what about those roads that have been physically barricaded with fallen trees?

The DEP has implemented the MAP unilaterally and without the opportunity for public comment. As a result of this back alley deal roads have been marked closed prior to any public announcement being made. The DEP had planned to wait until the end of the summer to announce the MAP, after it had closed many trails, but were forced to move the announcement forward to perform damage control over the widespread outrage at the secrecy of the closures. Their secrecy has been so complete that even elected officials in Trenton have been unaware of this plan.

This is a conspiracy theory. I was there when Rob told Guy Thompson about the Motorized Access plan, he was hiding nothing. Rob has had many stakeholder meetings about the plan and continues to. He has already made modifications to the plan based on these meetings.
What groups did Rob meet with? Who are the people in those groups that he met with? Considering that a huge swath of forest has been shut down to motorized access I'm going to bet that IF he actually met with groups they were groups that would have towed the line and bent to his own agenda.

The funding for the plan came from the Recreational Trails Grant Program, a Federal Highway Administration program designed to provide provide funds to states looking to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both motorized and non-motorized recreational trail uses. Funding for the program is provided by federal taxes collected on gasoline. Interestingly, the State’s grant application makes no mention of road closures at all. Had they done so it is possible that the grant would not have been awarded.

The grant also covers road maintenance. Wharton is keeping open the roads that they will be able to maintain for the safety of guests and emergency personnel. I am a search and rescue volunteer and the importance of reliable navigation on these roads is hugely important. We have to deal with the off-roaders rutting up the roads at every low point, they are putting lives at risk for a short thrill.
And you're going to continue to have to put up with ruts in the roads as there's no provisions to actually keep people off those roads. The grant could have been awarded and the main roadways maintained without shutting down over 50% of the roads.

The overwhelming majority of the visitors of Wharton State Forest use the road and trail system responsibly. These people will be disproportionally punished by the implementation of the MAP. Roads and trails that have been open for public use for decades, if not centuries, are now suddenly closed with no warning given.

My family has lived and worked in Wharton for centuries, they did not use jeeps and mud-trucks. All of the paths are open with the MAP and on 225 miles of them you can use a motor.
I'm glad your family has a deep connection with Wharton. My great-grandfather spent a lot of time in the area that would later become Brendan Byrne State Forest. Other ancestors on my mother's side ran the sawmill at Van Note Camp.

I know you don't need a "Jeep" to get around Wharton. I also know that a Jeep or other four-wheel drive equipped vehicle can be driven through the woods without causing environmental damage.

As for the mud trucks, do you know what the maximum tire size of a vehicle in Wharton State Forest is? Do you know if such a rule has ever been enforced? Have you noticed Jeeps and mud trucks parked outside of the ranger station at Atsion totally un-harassed by any rangers or park police?

It’s true: The MAP brochure shows some pretty grim images of off-road devastation which are totally inflammatory and do not represent the impact that the majority of the people who drive on Wharton’s sand roads and trails have.

The damage is real. There is a large off-road culture that thinks driving through a vernal pool and wetlands is perfectly acceptable behavior. You know this culture exists and is by no means small. This plan wouldn't have been needed if it wasn't for their behavior.
Jason, I understand the damage is real. I've seen it firsthand. However I know that the majority of the forest has not been damaged, and that's after decades of motorized vehicle traffic.

In any event, you and others like you suggest that we punish the entire public for the actions of a few. That I find morally repugnant.

One of the DEP’s jobs is to provide stewardship and protection of the natural and cultural resources of the forest. This would be the case even if the MAP was not implemented. As far as stewardship of the forest goes, there are many main roads that have been ill-maintained for years, and many historic buildings such as cotton mill at Atsion or the entire ghost town of Friendship have been lost from neglect or arson due to the state’s particular brand of “stewardship.”

I have seen the evidence of bonfires in Friendship ruins, I have been told the off-roaders have been trying to drive up the walls and use them as jumps. I've seen the trees the Park Service desperately put in the ruins to discourage this type of behavior.
Yes, there has been intentional damage to some historic sites by irresponsible ORV users. I've never denied that, and in fact I have a history of complaining - loudly - about it. If the state was serious about stopping that there would have been more enforcement. Barriers could be erected to prevent people from taking a vehicle down into ruins such as the packing house at Friendship. Right now there's a lone guardrail on one end of the building. Where do people enter? The other end.

Remember, this is the state that "allegedly" torched the Cotton Mill at Atsion rather than do effort to secure, stabilize, and protect it.

Not every person with a Jeep is looking to light bonfires inside, or drive through, historic sites.

The state has been closing some roads by barricading the way with freshly cut or dead fallen trees. Far from allowing swift access for emergency first responders, the crews will be held up. They will be losing valuable time clearing fallen trees from the road during a potentially life-threatening emergency.

This is false and you know this is false. I am a first responder and I participated in the closing of a pushcut done by the Forest Fire Service as a temporary access point to an active blaze. The pushcut was always meant to be closed and off-roaders had gotten in and destroyed a pond at the end of the mile cut. The Forest Fire Service is completely in support of the Wharton MAP.
Jason, how do you reconcile that statement with the fact that there are barriers across roads and trails? There's photographs of people happily posing with their handiwork!

While we're talking about fire roads, the Forest Fire Service is one of the worst offenders for damaging the environment! How many roads have been cut through the woods in the course of fighting fires? How many have actually been remediated by anybody?

I had a meeting with Superintendant Auermuller where he lamented the number of roads that the FFS cut and did not repair, despite him saying that they were required to. He pointed out roads that were cut by the FFS all the way back in the 1930s! Decades of damage done by the FFS and now all of a sudden, on the eve of this new MAP project, they're suddenly concerned about closing off fire roads?

And, for what it's worth, fire is the best thing for the ecology of the Pine Barrens. If there's a fire that does not endanger lives or property, maybe the FFS would do better to let it burn and not cut so many roads through the woods.

The fact that the mileage of the roads left open in Wharton is twice the length of the turnpike is irrelevant. Just as you’re not going to develop a true appreciation for the pinelands by driving through it on the parkway, you won’t get the sense of the wonder that the Pine Barrens has to offer on the wide, crowded sand roads that are now the only ones left open to the public. Remember, over 50% of the existing roads and trails have been CLOSED for public motorized access. Those roads, already crowded, are going to get much worse.

It is relevant if you don't want your whole forest to be roads. You won't get a true appreciation of the forest by driving over it. You need to get out of the car.
I'd wager that the mileage of roads cut through the woods by the state is far more than any roads made by off-roaders. There the most damage happens when they make go-arounds for impassable obstacles. Trust me, when I see obstacles like that blocking a road I get just as mad as you do.

That might be true, but that mile that you have to traverse to get to a spot that was once conveniently located next to a road might now lie behind a mile of tangled briars, an impassable cedar swamp, or a river that would be dangerous to ford. Plus, if you were a kayaker looking to launch at your favorite secluded spot, or a photographer laden down with heavy gear, how feasible is it to bushwhack a mile or more through the woods to get to a spot that once was easily accessible? Not to mention the risk of exposure to poison ivy and disease carrying insects increases the more time you spend crashing through the forest getting to where you need to go.

There are risks in the wild, this isn't your front lawn in Asbury Park. Poison Ivy is about the last thing you need to worry about in the Pine Barrens, it is very rare. The path to Mannis Duck Pond has been closed to vehicles for years and is still easily accessible on foot.
What's your point? I understand the risks of being in the Pines. But there's being able to get to a spot safely and without damaging the environment as has historically been the case, and then being needlessly subjected to risks because someone unilaterally decided to close some existing roads and trails!

The wording of this is too vague. How exactly does the MAP make provisions for park visitors protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Disabled persons will be able to use their motor vehicles according to the Superintendent.
Until that policy is written down it does not exist. There's nothing saying that he won't deny a special use permit because he sees no reason for someone to go down a road. And does that special use permit allow you to drive down any road, or do you have to get a permit for each road you go on? Again - way too vague.

Another bald faced lie: The State is actively placing physical barriers on some of the closed roads, making it difficult if not impossible for emergency crews to access roads in time critical situations.

Again Ben, you are completely misinformed here. See the earlier comment.
The photograph proves otherwise.

It’s important to note that the Wharton MAP has been designed and approved without the input of the stakeholder groups. Now that there has been widespread outrage at the plan and legislators now questioning it the DEP is interested in meeting with certain “stakeholders.” It seems unlikely that, after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement the MAP, the state would incur the cost of changing the plan which would show that the DEP’s actions were a waste of grant money.

You are wrong here Ben, the DEP is actively seekingly constructive criticism and the plan to meet with stakeholders was in place well before the social media paranoia erupted. Changes have already been made based on these meetings.
Why have so many people - especially people in Trenton - been caught off guard? Why have so many local municipalities not been informed of what was going on. Maybe Superintendant Auermuller met with some people, but it must have been an extremely small, limited group. Given the widespread outrage over the MAP - from more than just the off-road community - I think that the DEP knew that this wouldn't pass scrutiny.

Regarding the Photographs.

4 of the 7 pictures you posted were of the Pushcut to the Pond near Sandy Causeway I wrote about in earlier paragraphs. Two of the pictures from high crossing are not blocking any path. These images are very misleading.
Here's the thing: the Wharton MAP is closing roads. There are pictures of people, known to have an agenda against "off-road" access, posing with cut trees. From what I understand there are plenty of paths all over Wharton that have been similarly cut. On top of that, why have live trees been cut?

I have a long family history in Wharton State Forest and I value it more than any place in the world. You should be helping us protect this place from further damage by these off-road enthusiasts and let our land managers do their job. You should be supporting our Forest Fire Service in their wish to protect the lives of their personnel and supporting our Park Police for increased enforcement. Please help us do this and please do not undermine this effort further. I am speaking to you as a person that grew out of this forest and who continues to work hard for its protection.
I AM helping to protect this place. If you had done any of your homework you would have seen that I am not anti-closure. I am simply against a blanket closure. Targeted closures and a ramp up in enforcement is the answer. How anybody can think that just calling some roads "closed" - not even having them all marked - and expect that the people who would destroy the environment to stay out is the height of lunacy.

Your idea of "protection" is to alienate tens of thousands of people who access the forest by closing off roads and trails that have been open for decades. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your flavor of protection. This could have been done better, albeit with a bit more effort, in such a way that would have closed off areas that needed protecting while keeping areas that are not damaged and have been used for decades passable.
 

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
126
50
28
Hi Jason,

I'd like to briefly respond to some of your points.

"This Motorized Access Plan helps establish what roads can be maintained with the budgets available, thus ensuring Forest Fire Service personnel that they can navigate these roads in times of emergency."

Couldn't those roads be maintained without shutting down the rest of them?

"This is a conspiracy theory. I was there when Rob told Guy Thompson about the Motorized Access plan, he was hiding nothing. Rob has had many stakeholder meetings about the plan and continues to. He has already made modifications to the plan based on these meetings."


I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory so much as an observation. The fact is that the vast majority of those who enjoy Wharton State Forest were unaware of what was being done, which is unacceptable.

"The damage is real. There is a large off-road culture that thinks driving through a vernal pool and wetlands is perfectly acceptable behavior. You know this culture exists and is by no means small. This plan wouldn't have been needed if it wasn't for their behavior."


I don't think anyone here is unaware of the damage. The debate is not whether or not there are people who selfishly and carelessly abuse wetlands and hills. The debate is whether or not all of the roads that the State intends to close should in fact be closed. ORV abuse can only be curbed by enforcement, not by closing the roads. Take Jemima Mount, for example. It has been closed off to motor vehicles, but the damage being done there only worsened.

"I have seen the evidence of bonfires in Friendship ruins, I have been told the off-roaders have been trying to drive up the walls and use them as jumps. I've seen the trees the Park Service desperately put in the ruins to discourage this type of behavior."

A travesty, I agree. Imagine if one of these vandals were caught and heavily fined. I bet that would be an excellent deterrent. I do agree that we ought to work together here. It should begin with level-headed discussion.

-Gabe

Hey Gabe,

I think one thing that is missing from this discussion is the tiny budget that Wharton State Forest has to upkeep roads and structures. This grant of just around 600,000 is making a huge difference for their short term ability to get things done. They didn't even have a dump truck before now. Roads that have recently been repaired such as Tuckerton rd. are already seeing abusive off-roaders causing damage. These abusive 4x4 drivers, though a minority, are causing huge amounts of roadway destruction and there is not a budget big enough to keep up with the damage being done. That combination is putting peoples lives on the line in an emergency and thats why this plan is so important to implement

Targeted closures, which is what we currently have, can not work without many more Park Police and the Division of Parks and Forestry does not have control over the number of park police allocated to Wharton and the budgets do not support it. At the Waterford meeting that some of you attended, it was brought up by more than one 4x4 enthusiast that they do not want any more police out there[we dont agree of course]. This Map creates more enforceable routes than currently exist, and thats why the plan is going to help protect these damaged areas. The targeted closure system that we have today is just a game of wack-a-mole because there aren't enough park police to sit on the many hot spots. However if you can watch the entrance and exits to multiple hot spots, you now have a chance of catching more of the land abusers. This is a very simple idea and I want to see if it can work.

I brought up the damage because the discussion on this forum has thus far been mostly absent of it so I appreciate you bringing up Jemima MT. My family brought me to Jemima Mt. in the early 90s when it only had one track going up the hillside. When I returned as a teenager in the 2000s the front of the Mount was completely annihilated and thats just one area. I was there just a week ago and the Gullies have continued to erode, now at about my eyeball height. The State is taking input on what roads should remain open, which is why refusing to participate in stakeholder input is not a productive move at all as Ben and Guy have done on behalf of you all.[According to their posts here.] Mark Texel was serious about being open to change and suggestions in a conversation I had with him after one of these town hall meetings.

Smoke_jumper, I can't see why you would be against the Forest Fire Service on this, they need these roads to be in good shape more than anyone and its not their job or the purpose of their budget to provide a playground for abusive off-road drivers.

Ben, you are only furthering the paranoia and misperception of what is happening here with this post. You put up pictures of hard-working, pine barrens loving, Wharton volunteers in order to demonize them while all they were doing was closing a Forest Fire Pushcut to protect a pond destroyed by off-roaders. Many of those same off-roaders are now spreading that picture around the internet. Do you know there has already been death-threats from this crowd?

Your misinformed statements are now dangerous and the people here should ask you to take this post down or edit it for accuracy in relation to the volunteer group.
 
Last edited:

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,333
1,123
1,093
41
Asbury Park, NJ
Ben, you are only furthering the paranoia and misperception of what is happening here with this post. You put up pictures of hard-working, pine barrens loving, Wharton volunteers in order to demonize them while all they were doing was closing a Forest Fire Pushcut to protect a pond destroyed by off-roaders. Many of those same off-roaders are now spreading that picture around the internet. Do you know there has already been death-threats from this crowd?

Your misinformed statements are now dangerous and the people here should respond like decent human beings and ask you to take this post down.
How dare you try to tie me to people who are making death threats! And don't try to label the people here as not being decent human beings because they don't find a problem with what I write. I can not believe how obnoxious you are. Firstly, who are the people who are receiving death threats? Second, I'll bet you $100 that anybody who does that is not a frequent visitor to my site. Frankly, you're the one posting misinformation.

You dismiss targeted closures as being impossible to enforce with the limited budget that Wharton has. How is a blanket closure then possible to enforce with the same, limited budget. Look, if there's a priority the money can be found. I am sure that the upper echelons in the DEP can either push for more money or adjust the budget to free up money for maintenance.
 

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
126
50
28
How dare you try to tie me to people who are making death threats! And don't try to label the people here as not being decent human beings because they don't find a problem with what I write. I can not believe how obnoxious you are. Firstly, who are the people who are receiving death threats? Second, I'll bet you $100 that anybody who does that is not a frequent visitor to my site. Frankly, you're the one posting misinformation.
.
You are alleging actions that were not taken by a volunteer group and propagating the image to multiple groups around the internet, not just the people here. I respect the people here and thats why I'm spending time here voicing my concerns for the safety of the volunteer group. You however seem not to be concerned.

I edited my previous statement, now to say "Your misinformed statements are now dangerous and the people here should ask you to take this post down or edit it for accuracy in relation to the volunteer group."
 
Last edited:

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,333
1,123
1,093
41
Asbury Park, NJ
You are the king of hyperbole.

1. All that I am alleging is that the DEP claims that there have been no roads blocked yet there are multiple areas that have in fact been blocked. There's photos of the people blocking them, including a work party that Superintendent Auermuller was present for and also included Al Horner. I don't know how simpler I can make this logic for you to understand.

2. I posted that article yesterday. That picture that you are accusing me of propagating to multiple groups has actually been around for a week now, I think. You're making the assumption that I am the source of that image, and I am not.

You didn't answer my question. Who is receiving death threats and where are they coming from? That's a serious allegation. Seems to me that if you were concerned about the safety of those people you'd be in more contact with the authorities rather than arguing with a bunch of people on a Pine Barrens history and ecology website.
 

smoke_jumper

Piney
Mar 5, 2012
1,129
573
1,093
Atco, NJ
If all you got out of my post was that I'm simply against the plan then apparently you didn't truely read it. Either you can't or do not want to answer any of the other questions I had. Until you can adequately explain how sweeping closures will accomplish what you say it's going to then yes I'm against them.
 

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
126
50
28
If all you got out of my post was that I'm simply against the plan then apparently you didn't truely read it. Either you can't or do not want to answer any of the other questions I had. Until you can adequately explain how sweeping closures will accomplish what you say it's going to then yes I'm against them.
My mistake, I addressed this to Gabe but I thought it would also cover what you had asked. I want to note that I do strongly support the need for more park police.


"Targeted closures, which is what we currently have, can not work without many more Park Police and the Division of Parks and Forestry does not have control over the number of park police allocated to Wharton and the budgets do not support it. This Map creates more enforceable routes than currently exist, and thats why the plan is going to help protect these damaged areas. The targeted closure system that we have today is just a game of wack-a-mole because there aren't enough park police to sit on the many hot spots. However if you can watch the entrance and exits to multiple hot spots, you now have a chance of catching more of the land abusers. This is a very simple idea and I want to see if it can work."
 

Jason Howell

Explorer
Nov 23, 2009
126
50
28
You are the king of hyperbole.

1. All that I am alleging is that the DEP claims that there have been no roads blocked yet there are multiple areas that have in fact been blocked. There's photos of the people blocking them, including a work party that Superintendent Auermuller was present for and also included Al Horner. I don't know how simpler I can make this logic for you to understand.
No there are not photos of people blocking roads. That photo is of a forest fire push cut less than a mile in length that lead to a pond that was being destroyed by off-roaders. You are being dishonest about that fact and you are feeding the paranoia that has circulated this debate.
 

smoke_jumper

Piney
Mar 5, 2012
1,129
573
1,093
Atco, NJ
No there are not photos of people blocking roads. That photo is of a forest fire push cut less than a mile in length that lead to a pond that was being destroyed by off-roaders. You are being dishonest about that fact.
That push line was a "road" for 6 years before it was closed. I agree it should be closed but it should have been done long ago. A lot of damage could have been avoided and we wouldn't even be talking about it now.