|
|
Post by gregobrien on Feb 25, 2011 15:17:23 GMT -5
Minnesota: A model state for OHV. www.dnr.state.mn.us/ohv/index.htmlNotice the complicated - but THOROUGH nomeclature: off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and highway licensed vehicles (HLVs) • Off-highway vehicles (OHVs) include all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-highway motorcycles (OHMs) and off-road vehicles (ORVs), such as 4x4 trucks or Jeeps. It becomes immediately evident that they have studied *and understand* the issues at hand. Minnesota has also provided an EXCELLENT history on the planning and development of their OHV system - an EXCELLENT tool for this group. www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/mgmtplans/ohv/ohvplanning.html |
|
|
|
Post by jeepinjp on Feb 26, 2011 18:05:23 GMT -5
quote author=bayberry board=general thread=131 post=1173 time=1298325960] I believe the version of the law that passed is lacking in several areas including any criteria for an APPROPRIATELY SIZED riding area. The riding parks were intended to provide a REAL alternative to illegal riding on public land... which is WHY they are tied to the registration/increased fines. NJ is the ONLY state in the US that has failed to even start to address these issues. Many of us have been to the Woodbine location when it was a private facility. It is a LONG drive for most all of NJ and once you include site plans for parking and buffer zones it offers VERY little area for riding. The other park locations which were shut down by local municipalities and other non-profit groups (read as you wish) have been the only plans that actually addressed the real problem in an honest and fair manner. JP is dead on. If that site is officially designated... then it is only so that other half of the law can be enacted. That site is not capable of solving any of the problems the law is intended to address. bayberry says I see that site as a first step. There are still two (MINIMUM!) parks to be sited. After that, the riding community has to continue to push for more facilities. Using words like "revenue", "destination", "revenue" "partial success", "need", "revenue". bayberry what is it that makes the site a good first step??? it is inadequate as relief to the OHV community which means it will not satisfy it`s stated objective.From my vast experience site # 2 and 3 will never materialize. bayberry says And yes, I do want the other half of the law enacted. I know people who ride quads and brag about how they drive across private property and how funny it is when the farm owner yells at them, but can't do anything because "he doesn't know who we are". I've been nearly run over by kids on ATVs on a pedestrian trail. Yes, I want them to display tags, so we have at least one tool to stop those idiots. I say the people who ride and brag as you say are the large minority, and this bill and these laws will not affect those people the fines are already on the books for state lands I also wonder if as you said you were nearly run over by kids on ATVs would you really have gotten a plate #  bayberry says Yes, I want fines that hurt. Without the other half of the law, the biggest, baddest sites won't be enough to draw off the selfish, ignorant riders. (I do realize that there will still be some "proud outlaws" out there.) I say what you fail to realize is that if a real OHV program is not established all the laws in the world will not help. You cannot enforce away such a large number of recreation users and this I have been told by many state and federal land managers.So the other 1/2 of the law will do no good unless it is part of an overall OHV program. I do need to ask where is it that you got so educated on OHV issues from some anti-access web sites no doubt!! bayberry says So instead of fighting the single park that's coming, work up a good campaign to push for other sites. I say Here`s an idea instead of trying to force a park the size of a ball field down the throats of the NJ OHV community help find a suitable location that will accomplish it`s stated goals. bayberry says If you just fight the Woodbine site, then you're left with neither half of the law. And daddyz is right - the next law will leave motorized trail users out in the cold. I say Well that`s an interestingly empty ultimatum and it holds no factual basis actually quite the opposite as one of the individuals that worked on this bill for years and helped craft the changes that gave us the park before the rules kick in, I wonder how we would be in the cold? I will be again at every hearing and committee meeting,I will be calling and emailing every legislator and leading the charge of the OHV community. So lets stop with the BS and work as I thought this coalition was intended.... bayberry says So. Stop bitching and work out a plan. i say ditto Give us some examples of how it was done in other states. Preferably in locations that somewhat resemble congested New Jersey.[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by bayberry on Mar 2, 2011 18:56:57 GMT -5
I do need to ask where is it that you got so educated on OHV issues from some anti-access web sites no doubt!! I haven't read any "anti-access" sites. I don't know of any. I joined this coalition to work with other trail users on ways that we can make sure that everyone gets a share of the Pines, and work to keep the a-hole element from destroying the land. You don't know me, and you don't know a thing about me. I'm tired of the knee jerk reactions to anything other than an echo of your opinions. The paranoia and general nastiness toward non-motor trail users shown by certain people here will alienate the other trail users who you need to work with in order to get what you want. I will be again at every hearing and committee meeting,I will be calling and emailing every legislator and leading the charge of the OHV community. You're leading? That's gonna be a short parade. |
|
|
|
Post by gregobrien on Mar 3, 2011 15:13:19 GMT -5
So far I'm disappointed with both of you and the board in general. We know many people have different, and at times, opposing opinions - so why bait each other into an argument when it is the easiest thing to find? We need to be more constructive if we are going to make a difference.
I moderated a HIGH volume web board for years... and this type of stuff is why I ultimately left. That board was full of people that enjoyed the same interests - and they STILL couldn't function as a community.
1) If you wouldn't say it to someone's face - don't post it.
2) Don't ever presume to know someones background or involvement - You don't.
3) Don't ever lose your head on a message board... because for all intents and purposes, it isn't the real world and very rarely do you convince anyone of anything.
That is why I don't have a 'screen name' - I just have my 'name' these days. If I post it - I will say it directly to you... and I expect the same in return.
I will say that knowing JP personally - he has more experience in these issues than a rooms full of your average enthusiasts. If his statements are coarse or abrupt - it is because that is how things often work in public land issues due to a long history of conflict.
When it comes to legislative action - he does lead parades... and people do follow. Not my opinion... just simply his track record.
Finally, while there are not 'anti-access' groups - there are groups, no matter what there mission statement, that hold access RESTRICTIONS very high on their list of priorities. For JP or bayberry or russ or joed to bicker about whether or not they are 'anti' access is simply semantics.
We all know the players in the game, but everyone is playing dumb. No matter our current or past affiliations - this group is NOT any of those other groups and it should NOT be ALLOWED to align with their agendas. If NJTLC doesn't serve a unique purpose - why have it in the first place? So we can feel important?
Any knee jerk reactions or paranoia are simply people speaking out that have a 30 year history of rights and access being taken away without any sort of plan or rationale from those in authority.
These issues are WHY we are here.
That said - I am generally OPPOSED to the idea that this group can get anything done in a web-based format. With so many different view points, interests, attitudes, and experiences.... web based 'debate' will only divide us.
If anyone here STRONGLY feels that NJTLC can accomplish *anything* - then I advise you to strictly limit your posting and choose your words very carefully. Organizations that make a difference are first BASED in the *real world* and this web-board, IMHO, can only serve to bog down the process and widen divisions between PERCEIVED groups.... when in reality... we are probably closer to one large group and one large segment of society in NJ.
That's all I have to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeepinjp on Mar 3, 2011 20:07:24 GMT -5
Greg,
First I apologized for possible letting emotions get the best of me and disappointing you. I find it difficult to sit by when I know what is written is either a stretch or inaccurate but I will do my best to contain myself. Thank you for keeping me on track.. I also apologize to the board for allowing inaccurate statements to get to me. Greg you have been a valuable asset to the OHV community and I thank you for the kind accolades. Like you I use a user name that is known and it includes my initials.
I am hear to lend my expertise and to try to insure shared access while educating those who may accidentally cause undue impact to our natural areas. I hope episodes like this do not undermine the success of this board..
|
|
|
|
Post by gipsie on Mar 4, 2011 7:19:42 GMT -5
Well said both of you.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeepinjp on Mar 4, 2011 9:35:24 GMT -5
Greg and I both thank you gipsie
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on Mar 5, 2011 19:09:09 GMT -5
1) If you wouldn't say it to someone's face - don't post it. 2) Don't ever presume to know someones background or involvement - You don't. 3) Don't ever lose your head on a message board... because for all intents and purposes, it isn't the real world and very rarely do you convince anyone of anything. Thanks, Greg. I concur with all of that! I do think, though, that we need to focus a bit more closely on these expressions "anti-use" and "anti-access." And I do believe it is more than mere semantics. "Anti-use" expresses a fundamentally different concept from "restricted-use." And "anti-access" expresses a fundamentally different concept from "restricted-access." My only point being that, in order to make progress, we need to make clear distinctions. So far as I know, everyone who has joined this group recognizes that we need restrictions on the use of motorized vehicles in places like the state forests. For example, no one, in this group, has supported the idea that riders should be allowed to leave designated roads and drive through vegetation. That's a restriction, but it is certainly not "anti-use" or anti-access." The topic of this thread, however, involves the subject of where "ATV Parks" may be appropriately located. Maybe if we focus on that specific topic, we can work together to help make it happen. |
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Mar 6, 2011 0:04:04 GMT -5
So far as I know, everyone who has joined this group recognizes that we need restrictions on the use of motorized vehicles in places like the state forests. For example, no one, in this group, has supported the idea that riders should be allowed to leave designated roads and drive through vegetation. That's a restriction, but it is certainly not 'anti-use' or 'anti-access I think you are wrong there Russ.. The few "designated roads" are NOT ENOUGH to satisfy most of the trail users within this group and certainly by far the majority of everyone that ACTUALLY visits and uses the forest. That's all I use and need when I take my kids out there hiking Batona and other areas. But there is a much larger amount of various users that want a managed trail system in place, consisting of smaller jeep trails, usable fire cuts and single track trail. Barring access to anything that would go into any sensitive areas. Because it is called the NEW JERSEY TRAIL LOVERS COALITION. not the close everything down but the 7 designated roads that appear on taxmaps. And the purpose of this group was to keep "trails open" So if there are people out there that want to restrict use to only the "designated roads", they are ANTI-ACCESS, and they should go form their own group, because State LAW already gives anyone with a complaint Title 39 vehicle access to those roads, states it right on the State Forest signs hanging all over the forest .... I consider "designated roads" Iron Pipe Rd, Quaker Bridge Rd, to name a few of the few... But if your definition of a designated road includes 2 track jeep trails, fire cuts and single track trails and not just the "sand highways" then I withdraw my comment Maybe there is a need to clearly define terms used, such as "designated roads" and "trail" within the organization not to confuse or misinterpret verbiage used. |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Mar 6, 2011 8:29:00 GMT -5
I can't possibly be wrong, because I didn't make the statement that you indicate I made.
But since the debate here (and I hope we agree, we are having a friendly debate, rather than a heated argument) really doesn't fit the title of the thread, I will take up some of these other points in a separate thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Mar 6, 2011 13:24:34 GMT -5
I can't possibly be wrong, because I didn't make the statement that you indicate I made. But since the debate here (and I hope we agree, we are having a friendly debate, rather than a heated argument) really doesn't fit the title of the thread, I will take up some of these other points in a separate thread. No hostilities at all... Disagreement is not a indication of war.. |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Mar 6, 2011 14:22:55 GMT -5
No hostilities at all... Disagreement is not a indication of war.. 10-4, Brother. |
|
|
|
Post by jeepinjp on Mar 8, 2011 9:46:32 GMT -5
so then back to discussion of park/parks..... how about a pros/cons list ?? my suggestion is 2 separate ones one for the park that is presently being discussed and one for parks in general.. thoughts?? |
|
|
|
Post by gregobrien on Mar 14, 2011 14:24:40 GMT -5
Nobody?
I'll bite:
Any suggested park(s) should be appropriate in size and layout so that it can sustainably manage the anticipated use (indefinitely) with reasonable volunteer maintenance.
I'm pretty sure there are established and widely accepted national guidelines regarding this? Perhaps you have a link or document JP?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeepinjp on Mar 15, 2011 12:43:01 GMT -5
Nobody? I'll bite: Any suggested park(s) should be appropriate in size and layout so that it can sustainably manage the anticipated use (indefinitely) with reasonable volunteer maintenance. I'm pretty sure there are established and widely accepted national guidelines regarding this? Perhaps you have a link or document JP? Yes, there are and I do but not with me,I will post within next few days as I have a lot of meetings this week. |
|
