|
|
Post by HamiltonLJ on May 6, 2011 19:07:10 GMT -5
We can agree to disagree! But hopefully some good can come of it! As long as we keep it civil! And non of this  |
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 6, 2011 19:23:27 GMT -5
Now that is absurd!!!! But technically if you divide New Jersey into 6 pieces that statement would be correct, RIGHT?? Yeah, I agree that statement cannot be evaluated properly unless somebody specifies what is meant by the word "piece." I wouldn't have written it that way. But I don't think that flaw makes the sentence absurd. Also, it's fair to ask the reader to notice the context. We are talking about public lands. I would be surprised if you can direct me to a single state forest or wildlife management area that hasn't been adversely impacted by illegal ORV recreation. That's not an indictment of the entire ORV recreation community. It's a simple observation. 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". I'm curious about that figure myself. I have recommended that people who object to that number should ask the folks at DEP how they arrived at it. Who did you talk to? |
|
fry
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by fry on May 6, 2011 19:39:31 GMT -5
This is a clear example of why areas of the forest should not be closed, but people should be educated on how to use it. Putting up signs and closing access is admitting guilt of some sort. The path we are going on there willl be 343,000 acres of forest closed to everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 7, 2011 6:20:11 GMT -5
This is a clear example of why areas of the forest should not be closed, but people should be educated on how to use it. Putting up signs and closing access is admitting guilt of some sort. The path we are going on there willl be 343,000 acres of forest closed to everyone. None of us want any part of the state forests closed! Even the 1/4 area is not closed. You can still go there. You just can't drive motorized vehicles there. The reason is because there used to be a wildlife community there, and that wildlife community has been destroyed by motorized traffic. The only way to let that wildlife community recover is to restrain people from driving around in it. The only areas we are interested in closing to motorized traffic are areas where people were never supposed to be driving in the first place. And we are educating people. That's a big part of what we are trying to do. But that's not going to solve the problem by itself. If everybody was willing to be educated we wouldn't need laws, regulations, or official restraints. But unfortunately, there are people out there who don't want to be educated. They are the ones who deliberately drive past the "No Motorized Vehicles" signs, tear the signs down, build bonfires, and leave their beer cans out there. They are the ones who make it necessary to step up law enforcement. |
|
|
|
Post by treedodgingfool on May 7, 2011 8:39:23 GMT -5
Having read this whole thread, I do not understand where the "bashing" is in MefordPiney's post, but that is besides the point now.
As for "not being able to educate everybody" and the idea that "more laws, regulations or official restraints" will eliminate the issue, that's a slippery discussion. The current laws on the books would be effective IF the man-power to enforce them was there. It's not. Creating more laws and stiffer fines doesn't make enforcement anymore effective if there isn't the man-power to enforce them to begin with. Education through peer pressure is free, effective and fosters a culture of responsibility. There will be those that refuse to be educated, but generally these are people that I would be hard pressed to consider part of the OHV community since they are not involved nor care to be. These individuals are not active or involved with any organizations, not interested in protecting OHV use and if they couldn't use their OHV's anymore, would just find another past-time to ruin. It's unfortunate that the responsible OHV recreationist are always being clumped together with the "fair weather, non-dedicated" abusers.
It would be the same as me outlawing all permission to hunt on my personal property to all hunters because of the "issues" a few trespassers have given me (tearing down "posted" signs, breaking glass, stealing, leaving trash and feces behind, etc.). Instead of just saying "nobody is allowed," I still allow those that are responsible the right to hunt on my land.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokejeepjoe on May 7, 2011 10:12:37 GMT -5
Couldn't have put that better myself if I tried treedodger! calling for more laws will only help other organizations accomplish what the members of this coalition are trying to supress. I agree totally with non affiliated enviornmentally uneducated people or people that plain just don't care where they go or what they damage are the major issue here. Most of us here see it first hannd and do our best with peer education. Folks like that do just the opposite when they are told that they can't do something or go somewhere, it's disheartening to have them lumped together with responsible folks that do abide by the rules and regs in an attempt to keep what we have.
|
|
fry
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by fry on May 7, 2011 20:39:47 GMT -5
Two good posts here. We should concentrate on these ideas instead of "bashing" the state park police and targeting our next area of the forest we shoud close. Trail lovers coalition should be just that. What is the true agenda here?
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 8, 2011 6:59:49 GMT -5
Having read this whole thread, I do not understand where the "bashing" is in MefordPiney's post, but that is besides the point now. Thanks for joining the discussion! It never occurred to me that the concept of "bashing" would be so problematic. I actually see it from both sides. I have criticized some of my colleagues in the conservation community for bashing the motorized recreation community. Let's suppose, for example, that someone were to say, "These motor-heads won't be happy until they turn Wharton State Forest into one big ORV park." Now I would call that statement "bashing," and I would object to it for several reasons: 1. It uses an insulting term for the group. 2. It lumps all the people into one group, rather than acknowledging the diversity within that group. 3. It distorts the true intentions of the majority of the people in that group. 4. It's purely negative. It can't possibly contribute to a positive approach to the problem. 5. It is intended to damage the reputation of the group. So, it seems to me that both sides need to steer away from those kinds of statements. It would be much more constructive for all of us to focus the debates on specific problems and specific ideas to solve those problems. |
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 8, 2011 7:49:38 GMT -5
As for "not being able to educate everybody" and the idea that "more laws, regulations or official restraints" will eliminate the issue, that's a slippery discussion. The current laws on the books would be effective IF the man-power to enforce them was there. It's not. Creating more laws and stiffer fines doesn't make enforcement anymore effective if there isn't the man-power to enforce them to begin with. For one thing, I didn't say anything about eliminating the issue. But aside from that, I don't understand your point. Are you saying that, since law enforcement isn't what it ought to be, you don't want any laws or regulations? Or you are only opposed to additional laws and regulations? Or you agree with the current laws and regulations, but you don't want them to be enforced? And is this your general perspective on laws, regulations, and enforcement, or is it just with respect to motorized recreation? |
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on May 9, 2011 8:07:14 GMT -5
it's fair to ask the reader to notice the context. This seems to be an ongoing theme when certain "misinformations" are placed in print. The "READER" should notice the content. When actually the information is placed and worded to sway opinion to better the stance of the broadcaster. Awhile back there was an article in a local Philadelphia paper, it was about orv use and the destruction they were causing to this this area, an old sand mine, the feature "spokesman" was Fred A. One photo in the article was F.A. straddling a tire track claiming it to be of an ATV, I clearly seen it was from a truck or SUV. I emailed the writer and he said he know it was from a truck, and not an ATV, but it is up to the reader to make that determination.  ??  |
|
|
|
Post by treedodgingfool on May 9, 2011 11:07:52 GMT -5
As for "not being able to educate everybody" and the idea that "more laws, regulations or official restraints" will eliminate the issue, that's a slippery discussion. The current laws on the books would be effective IF the man-power to enforce them was there. It's not. Creating more laws and stiffer fines doesn't make enforcement anymore effective if there isn't the man-power to enforce them to begin with. For one thing, I didn't say anything about eliminating the issue. But aside from that, I don't understand your point. Are you saying that, since law enforcement isn't what it ought to be, you don't want any laws or regulations? Or you are only opposed to additional laws and regulations? Or you agree with the current laws and regulations, but you don't want them to be enforced? And is this your general perspective on laws, regulations, and enforcement, or is it just with respect to motorized recreation? I know you did not use the word "eliminate" and am sorry if you feel that I was "putting words in your mouth". I used this word in reference to the intended objective of adding additional laws. The issues with more laws and regulations is redundancy. There are already a lot of laws and ordinances currently on the books dealing with noise, trespassing and illegal OHV use. The current issue is that any law is only as effective as enforcement is at enforcing it. More laws on the books does not make the laws more effective, just more confusing and easier for misinterpretation. Yes, this is my view of "laws" and regulations in general. Laws are pointless IF they can't or aren't enforced! What's the point of creating more redundant regulations? To make a State Senate or Assemblyman pat his own back and feel like he/she accomplished something? This is part of the reason NJ is such an over-regulated, over-agencied mess-of-a-state to begin with. I do want to see regulations do their intended job, but they can't unless they're enforced! |
|
|
|
Post by gregobrien on May 9, 2011 14:11:14 GMT -5
lissa for governor  |
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 9, 2011 16:37:04 GMT -5
... The issues with more laws and regulations is redundancy. There are already a lot of laws and ordinances currently on the books dealing with noise, trespassing and illegal OHV use. The current issue is that any law is only as effective as enforcement is at enforcing it. More laws on the books does not make the laws more effective, just more confusing and easier for misinterpretation. ... Laws are pointless IF they can't or aren't enforced! I do want to see regulations do their intended job, but they can't unless they're enforced! It seems to me there are two separate (but related) points. First, there are, as you say, existing laws and regulations. Secondly, there is the possibility of creating new laws and regulations. With respect to the first point, I would suggest: (a) There is a point to laws and regulations, even if they aren't adequately enforced; that is, many citizens will voluntarily honor those laws and regulations, despite whatever deficiency there may be in enforcement. (b) If law enforcement isn't what it needs to be, then maybe that's a problem that can be corrected. With respect to the second point, I'm not sure what additional laws or regulations you are concerned about. Are you talking about the registration law that was passed last year that has some conditions that will come about as soon as there are some sites designated for ORV parks? I don't remember saying anything about that. |
|
|
|
Post by gregobrien on May 9, 2011 16:50:04 GMT -5
opps... wrong thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on Jun 2, 2011 7:19:18 GMT -5
FYI...I don't know when they did this, but the article has been revised. See njconservation.org/blog/?p=67. The part about NJTLC has been separated entirely from PPA's plan: Individuals from various recreation and user groups have started a New Jersey Trail Lovers Coalition to help protect our trails. All are welcome to join the group; details can be found at njtlc.proboards.com/.
If you would like to read more about the Pinelands Preservation Alliance and their 12-point plan to address motor vehicle destruction of state land, please visit www.pinelandsalliance.org. I'm also working on a new article to update NJCF supporters on the philosophy and goals of NJTLC. It will specifically mention the error in the original article and emphasize that NJTLC was created to not only "protect our trails" but to become a true coalition. My intention is to put a positive spin on this, so long as there is supporting evidence. I don't expect to get to the forum regularly, so if you would like to suggest anything that you think should be included in my article, please send me a separate copy by email. |
|
