Group is being over run by Anti use types...

[medfordpiney]

There was a post when I first joined about how someone felt this group was to heavy with the Jeep crowd... Now it seems that this group is WAY TO HEAVY with the anti access (for lack of a better term) type.. Although I was unable to make the the last meeting due to a prior commitment (the last one scheduled).. It seems like the things are getting stacked against the "trail users" here... maybe I am over thinking this but I know I am not the only one whom thinks this...

[B!lly Jones]

I agree but I'm keeping an open mind as it might just be the open seats being filled.. again we did ask for every user group.. we all don't have to agree completely ,we just have to work together to insure that access to these lands remains open for every user group. time will tell my friend and if it seems like its getting two one sided the group will fail at its goal. its going to take alot of back and forth and many disagreements to achieve our mission statement but in the end its for the best

[HamiltonLJ]

At the last meeting we had a bunch of Dualsport guys on hand and I'm sure there not anti access! This group was started to help keep the trails open! If anyone wants to see trail closures then they should find another group!

[bayberry]

I don't recall a single statement made by anyone at the meeting that was in favor of anti-access laws. Actually, it was good to see the variety of trail users represented at the meeting. There were horse riders, kayakers, geocachers, dualsport folks (who explained to use why that term was better for them than "Enduro"), hikers, 4wheelers, and people who just plain love the Pines Barrens and want to work on constructive ways to stop the destructive {expletive deleted} from destroying our trails.

[gregobrien]

I agree bayberry, but I understand medfordpiney's concern... there were several people that have targeted us in attendance. I hope that they are there with an open mind and ready to work together AND I accept that any 'young' group is bound to experience turbulence.

I also think alot of folks are JUST starting to find out NJTLC exists... so the NJTLC leadership will need to have patience and exercise due diligence in ensuring that all groups are fairly represented. There is no reason this group should become unfairly weighted - but it will take effort to maintain a balance. Virtually all people at the meeting are affiliated with other organization which hold VERY strong opinions and several people there I have run into at Senate Hearing Committee meetings in Trenton... so politics will be unavoidable.

For now, I believe we should focus our efforts on POSITIVE 1/4 mile volunteerism and let publicity get the word out. It could be up to a year before all groups are FAIRLY represented in the NJTLC. Reaching out to 1-2 members of a community doesn't always get the word out or fully express the importance of what NJTLC is trying to do... especially when the most active individuals are always out in the woods and never on the computer.

[russ]

What evidence can you provide that the group is being over run by "anti-use" people? If that really is happening, then we need to deal with it right away. Who are these "anti-use" people? We have a pretty small membership list right now, so we should be able to find them. You mean they joined the organization and falsely claimed to enjoy recreation in the open spaces of New Jersey? They really don't want anybody to do anything out there? We better find these people and kick them out.

[treedodgingfool]

I've read but a few threads on here and do understand what attitude "medfordpine" and "greg" are referring to. As long as everyone, including those who have been on "oppposite ends of the table" in regards to trail-use and access, can come to an agreement and focus on protecting NJ's trails from the "real" enemy. Development and the almighty dollar that spawns it. Nature is resilient and can heal fairly quickly, just not from being razed to make way for another housing development or parking lot at a box store. I joined to protect "Open Spaces" for all trail recreationist, non-motorized and motorized (I enjoy mutiple trail uses). It just happens that motorized uses require more of my attention to protect since they are under constant threat by anti-access groups.

[russ]

Okay, but I'm still confused about this term, "anti-access." I can take my 4WD motorized vehicle and drive all over south Jersey. I have been doing it for more than a decade. Others, here, far longer than that. Hundreds of miles of little sand roads criss-crossing all over the place.

If I stop and get out and walk, I can hardly find a piece of land where I can walk a couple of kilometers without intersecting a road/trail that is open to motorized traffic.

So please help me out here. Are you telling me there are people out there who are trying to close all those roads? I haven't met them, and I would like to meet them and try to understand what they are trying to do! I keep hearing about these "anti-use" and "anti-access" people. "Somebody please tell me how I can meet one.

[jeepinjp]

Russ,
You are kidding aren`t you ? You know there are those that that would like nothing more than to outlaw all motorized recreation some even on this bb by the looks of some posts here..

[russ]

I have yet to meet anybody who wants to outlaw all motorized recreation. Everybody I know, even the ardent hikers, will drive around out there. I keep asking for somebody to introduce me to an "anti-use" or "anti-access" person, and I don't get any answers.

What I would like to recommend is that we stop using the terms. Those terms are like "tree-hugger" or "motor-head." They are put-down terms. They tend to divide us. They exaggerate the differences between us.

We are trying to focus on our common interests here, so that we can stop arguing among ourselves like children, and keep the discussions on a rational adult level. I know that you and everybody else on this forum is committed to that goal, so why don't we adjust our language a little bit?