|
|
Post by HamiltonLJ on May 1, 2011 15:26:23 GMT -5
The problem I see with this type of "misunderstanding" is that people will see the misinformation and not the correction.
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on May 3, 2011 11:51:55 GMT -5
The problem I see with this type of "misunderstanding" is that people will see the misinformation and not the correction. They further spread the "misunderstanding" by having the newsletter published in other places to increase the shock valve... thealternativepress.com/articles/orvs-and-public-land-not-perfect-together--2njtoday.net/2011/04/19/orvs-public-land-not-perfect-together/www.dailyrecord.com/article/CN/20110422/NJOPINION03/304220009/Off-road-vehicles-public-land-Not-perfect-together?odyssey=nav|headwww.app.com/article/CN/20110422/NJOPINION03/304220009/Off-road-vehicles-public-land-Not-perfect-togetherwww.topix.com/forum/city/pine-barrens-nj/TS8BFV8F06RP3AC0Ltwitter.com/#!/ConserveNJ/status/61044401845178368 www.facebook.com/ConserveNwww.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011110425007And there are more if you look...... I like this.... In response to Michele S. Byers’ disinformation campaign that appeared in your publication (“Off-road vehicles and public land not perfect together,” @issue, April 24), I was alarmed although not surprised to read that the executive director of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation promotes such Draconian measures under the mantle of “conservation.” The mission statement of her organization is “to preserve New Jersey’s land and natural resources for the benefit of all.” This, however, does not mean all of New Jersey’s residents. Deceptively, she goes on to deride the timing of the 2009 legislation that seeks to consider all of New Jersey’s residents, not just the wishes of a vocal minority. She quotes the Pinelands Preservation Alliance’s 12-point plan as if it is a perfect solution. Maybe for a select few who would cordon off all open space unilaterally it is, but for the vast majority it is not. In her reference of the 12-point plan she repeats words like “illegal,” “directive,” “citations,” “no-tolerance,” “fines,” “zero-tolerance,” “off-limits,” “stiff penalties,” “offenders,” “block access” and “strictly enforce.” Ms. Byers only speaks to off-road vehicle (ORV) use as illegal and destructive. She nobly claims “public lands are your lands, too,” but she isn’t talking about those residents who want to use the public lands for ORV or other responsible sporting use. Do not be fooled, she is talking about eliminating such uses. I was under the impression that public land in New Jersey was for all residents to enjoy. Ms. Byers’ ruse is merely the camel’s nose under the tent when self-proclaimed “conservationists” are allowed to set the agenda. Her militant stance betrays her true intentions. For far too long in New Jersey, the so-called “conservationists” have unjustly sought to criminalize and ignore that many of our most responsible residents are hunters, anglers, boaters, campers, outdoorsmen and, yes, off-road vehicle users. “Conservationists” conveniently dismiss the fact that we overwhelmingly fund natural resource protection through fees, licenses and actions. If it is allowed to continue unchecked, the totalitarian conservationist agenda espoused by Ms. Byers will eliminate these activities on public lands altogether. Like myself, I urge all to conserve and protect the natural resources of our Garden State. However, I am quite certain that public lands are just that — public — to be used and enjoyed by all. If Ms. Byers and her like are left to control the property, public lands would ultimately be encased in glass and only be allowed to be viewed from a distance, if at all. Let’s let the spirit of the 2009 legislation work toward its intended objective, which is to create an appropriate place for public use for all New Jersey residents, despite Ms. Byers’ impatience. www.dailyrecord.com/article/20110501/NJOPINION03/110430008/-Preserving-public-lands-means-ban-off-roading |
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 4, 2011 5:21:50 GMT -5
Medford, maybe you are not reading my posts. This forum was not started in order to provide new opportunities to bash the conservation community. You can do that in any number of other places. Would you please find a constructive way to express your concerns?
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on May 4, 2011 10:05:01 GMT -5
Not bashing anyone... Just pointing out how far reaching and wide spread the misinformation is being "put out there"
I didn't write the reply above, but I do agree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 4, 2011 13:52:22 GMT -5
Here's some of the material you quoted, and you say you agree with it: Ms. Byers’ ruse is merely the camel’s nose under the tent when self-proclaimed “conservationists” are allowed to set the agenda. Her militant stance betrays her true intentions. For far too long in New Jersey, the so-called “conservationists” have unjustly sought to criminalize and ignore that many of our most responsible residents are hunters, anglers, boaters, campers, outdoorsmen and, yes, off-road vehicle users. ... If it is allowed to continue unchecked, the totalitarian conservationist agenda espoused by Ms. Byers will eliminate these activities on public lands altogether. ...If Ms. Byers and her like are left to control the property, public lands would ultimately be encased in glass and only be allowed to be viewed from a distance, if at all. If you don't recognize that for what it is--useless, totally innaccurate, unconstructive bashing--and you want to continue posting and supporting that kind of crap, then I have to ask you to stop posting on this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on May 4, 2011 14:23:21 GMT -5
Here's some of the material you quoted, and you say you agree with it: Ms. Byers’ ruse is merely the camel’s nose under the tent when self-proclaimed “conservationists” are allowed to set the agenda. Her militant stance betrays her true intentions. For far too long in New Jersey, the so-called “conservationists” have unjustly sought to criminalize and ignore that many of our most responsible residents are hunters, anglers, boaters, campers, outdoorsmen and, yes, off-road vehicle users. ... If it is allowed to continue unchecked, the totalitarian conservationist agenda espoused by Ms. Byers will eliminate these activities on public lands altogether.... If Ms. Byers and her like are left to control the property, public lands would ultimately be encased in glass and only be allowed to be viewed from a distance, if at all. If you don't recognize that for what it is--useless, totally innaccurate, unconstructive bashing--and you want to continue posting and supporting that kind of crap, then I have to ask you to stop posting on this forum. Is it wrong to agree with that. Did I strike a nerve with you, what specifically is the problem there? What is so inaccurate?? How is it bashing? I guess it is bashing if you believe her stance and support it. Many many people feel and believe the sole agenda of people like her and the groups they belong to is to shut the forests down to all users, unless it is acceptable by their standards. The only reason they can not tell people to keep the class one vehicles off the sand roads is because the vehicles are completely legal and the roads in question are designated, legal "right of ways" recognized by the state and the townships which they are contained in. Is the NJCF and the PPA some sort of sacred group, one that can not be talked bad about? For years yourself and your colleges and peers have lead the charge to "rid the forest of thrillcraft", change policy in Trenton, change the Pinelands Commisions regulation to exclude and prohibit the use of motorized vehicles and sway public opinion that we are all a bunch of outlaws and have no regrades for nature. Hell, it's all over youtube and no more then a google search away. It's time for them to get onboard and work for a managed off road program in the state forest. That is the answer. A designated trail system of the fire cuts and plow lines and miles and miles of existing trails already in place. Then and only then can a registration and enforcement system effectively work to less and control the negative impact within the state forest system. |
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 4, 2011 15:24:20 GMT -5
I hope visitors to this forum will recognize an important distinction. NJTLC's mission is to promote cooperation among all the users of our open spaces, and the hope was that discussion on this forum would contribute to that goal. When it doesn't, please recognize that it represents only the attitude and perspective of the individual, not that of NJTLC.
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on May 4, 2011 17:17:41 GMT -5
That's why I am here to work with other users. To build a cooperative relationship and help them. To ensure access to the State forest is available for all. In fact I have been doing such for many years, you could almost say I have a resume with some doing just that. My ugly face and name has been publish in a national magazine for my assistance in an event that took place in Wharton a few years ago. There are members of this group that I have helped directly with their events.
Am I being out of step because I point out and state my feelings about groups that are far closer to anti-access then equal and fair access. Ones that mention NJTLC as an ally and support their agenda, when such support was NEVER given, I think not.
When ever I see things that even have a hint of anti or restricted access, I will bring it to the attention of NJTLC.
|
|
|
|
Post by melcrim on May 4, 2011 22:51:38 GMT -5
I have to agree with medfordpiney that there is no "bashing" going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 5, 2011 11:13:32 GMT -5
Here's opinion:
"It's time for them to get onboard and work for a managed off road program in the state forest. That is the answer. A designated trail system of the fire cuts and plow lines and miles and miles of existing trails already in place. Then and only then can a registration and enforcement system effectively work to less and control the negative impact within the state forest system."
We can agree or disagree on that idea, and discuss it without insulting each other.
Here's bashing:
"If Ms. Byers and her like are left to control the property, public lands would ultimately be encased in glass and only be allowed to be viewed from a distance, if at all."
There's nothing to discuss. It's nonesense, plain and simple distortion, purely negative in character. It's calculated to insult.
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on May 5, 2011 11:46:59 GMT -5
H ere's bashing: "If Ms. Byers and her like are left to control the property, public lands would ultimately be encased in glass and only be allowed to be viewed from a distance, if at all." There's nothing to discuss. It's nonesense, plain and simple distortion, purely negative in character. It's calculated to insult. First off, that is someone elses thoughts, and yes I somewhat agree with his feelings. AS many many many many people I have spoken to do.... Yet I still struggle to see any bashing invovled there. That is someones opinion that the radical consevationist is so against anything stepping into the forest they rather have it closed off. So Russ, please be very specific on the implied bashing, cause again I can not see any. Especially by me as you state, enough to ask me banned. So what do you consider the below quote?? Is it nonesense, plain and simple distortion, purely negative in character." fact, opinion??? newsfromthe15th.blogspot.com/2009/11/state-were-in-by-michele-byers.htmlNew Jersey’s open lands face substantial threats from off-road vehicles. Though they are illegal on public, preserved land, you would be hard-pressed to find a piece of New Jersey that hasn’t been damaged by ORV use.  ORVs destroy vegetation, kill and injure wildlife, create serious soil erosion problems, degrade air and water quality, produce noise pollution - harmful to wildlife and a nuisance to humans - cut wildlife off from feeding or breeding grounds, cause erosion and exacerbate the problem of invasive species. Even though there are many responsible ORV riders who respect the environment, far too many don’t. |
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on May 5, 2011 12:35:33 GMT -5
Do to the diversity of this group, without some conflict. Compromise and success will not be reached…
There is nothing personal here nor direct malice towards anyone(included the quoted writer), in person the very few times I have spoken to, I find Russ a very nice person, he has in the past been very helpful and informative (he helped me with information to purchase native pinelands plants for the landscaping around my house). I have attend one of his Jersey Devil encounters and spoke to him then also. Although our views might differ, as a person I can not say bad things about him. I would have no problem sitting with him after a meeting and having a cold Heineken or two with him…
It also be nice is some of the others who viewed these post 622 times to add thier thoughts and opinions... Cause if me and Russ are the only ones working here, it going to be real hard to find the middle ground to build upon..
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 5, 2011 13:09:34 GMT -5
First off, that is someone elses thoughts, and yes I somewhat agree with his feelings. You earlier posted "I like this" and "I agree with it." Most people would take that as an endorsement of that letter and would think that, by quoting the material, you were participating in the bashing. But now it's just "somewhat agree with his feelings," so, okay, we won't accuse you of bashing in that particular instance. We understand that you only "somewhat agree" with the feelings of the person who was doing the bashing. Now do we see eye to eye on that point? AS many many many many people I have spoken to do.... Well, I don't know how many that is, but it's beside the point. Yet I still struggle to see any bashing invovled there. That is someones opinion that the radical consevationist is so against anything stepping into the forest they rather have it closed off. I'm sorry that you are still struggling with the distinction between bashing and stating an opinion. So Russ, please be very specific on the implied bashing, cause again I can not see any. Especially by me as you state, enough to ask me banned. I already was very specific. And I am not hoping for you to be banned. I am hoping that, if you must do any bashing, you do it somewhere else, and that you use this forum for positive purposes. So what do you consider the below quote?? Is it nonesense, plain and simple distortion, purely negative in character." fact, opinion??? newsfromthe15th.blogspot.com/2009/11/state-were-in-by-michele-byers.htmlNew Jersey’s open lands face substantial threats from off-road vehicles. Though they are illegal on public, preserved land, you would be hard-pressed to find a piece of New Jersey that hasn’t been damaged by ORV use. ORVs destroy vegetation, kill and injure wildlife, create serious soil erosion problems, degrade air and water quality, produce noise pollution - harmful to wildlife and a nuisance to humans - cut wildlife off from feeding or breeding grounds, cause erosion and exacerbate the problem of invasive species. Even though there are many responsible ORV riders who respect the environment, far too many don’t. I consider that to be all factual. Is there something there that seems incorrect or inaccurate to you? |
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 5, 2011 13:51:04 GMT -5
Do to the diversity of this group, without some conflict. Compromise and success will not be reached… There is nothing personal here nor direct malice towards anyone(included the quoted writer), in person the very few times I have spoken to, I find Russ a very nice person, he has in the past been very helpful and informative (he helped me with information to purchase native pinelands plants for the landscaping around my house). I have attend one of his Jersey Devil encounters and spoke to him then also. Although our views might differ, as a person I can not say bad things about him. I would have no problem sitting with him after a meeting and having a cold Heineken or two with him… It also be nice is some of the others who viewed these post 622 times to add thier thoughts and opinions... Cause if me and Russ are the only ones working here, it going to be real hard to find the middle ground to build upon.. Thanks. I can confirm there are no hard feelings. We mix it up a little, but we keep the whole thing in perspective. I also agree it would be good to get more input from others. |
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on May 6, 2011 10:59:32 GMT -5
you would be hard-pressed to find a piece of New Jersey that hasn’t been damaged by ORV useI consider that to be all factual. Is there something there that seems incorrect or inaccurate to you?  Now that is absurd!!!! But technically if you divide New Jersey into 6 pieces that statement would be correct, RIGHT?? It is even more absurd then the continued use of 343,000 acres being destroyed, or should I say the continued use of the quote based on information obtained from the DEP. Which I still can not find how that number came about. Everytime I had questioned where that number comes from, the most direct answer I got was "from outside sources". |
|
ORVs destroy vegetation, kill and injure wildlife, create serious soil erosion problems, degrade air and water quality, produce noise pollution - harmful to wildlife and a nuisance to humans - cut wildlife off from feeding or breeding grounds, cause erosion and exacerbate the problem of invasive species. Even though there are many responsible ORV riders who respect the environment, far too many don’t.