Proposed Changes to NJ State Park Regs

[brokejeepjoe]

Posted in General, feel free to move:


www.nj.gov/dep/rules/notices/20120716a.html

[gregobrien]

Thanks for posting this up!... I've been on the phone and at a few meetings regarding this rule change. We may set up a special NJTLC meeting to talk about this and discuss exactly what the issues are with the rule change.

This presents the potential to SERIOUSLY impact motorized access to PUBLIC LAND for all users. To fully understand the concern you must read the actual wording of the proposed rule changes. Some sections are worded very loosely and could be used to encourage harassment/citation of 4x4/motorcycle owners for simply driving down paved roads within state forest borders.

Other sections are extremely specific, suggesting they have been pushed for by special interests... such as banning "military surplus" vehicles from public lands. (ie. So I can't drive my M1009 military blazer with 31" tires to take my dog out for a walk?)

We have been talking to other groups about how to best handle the situation. It has been mentioned that the DEP submission form goes directly into the beauracracy and may fall on deaf ears. It is recommended that all correspondence be CC'ed to DEP COMMISSIONER BOB MARTIN. Direct phone calls are also helpful.

The vague and hostile nature of this rule change is unnecessary and amounts to profiling users based on their equipment. Not surprisingly much of the language matches the internal documents of various special interest groups. If the DEP simply enforces the existing rules regarding motorized vehicle operation and requires that all vehicles be road legal, registered, insured, and under XX,XXX pounds... then it would be an appropriate and enforceable rule change.

This rule change will not benefit the forest or change behavior. It will just encourage state park police harassment of honest and legitimate park users.

FWIW - I'm still blown away that a NJ state document would be released that refers to sport motorcycles as "crotch rockets"... somebody needs to lose their job.

[tomhedden]

Several of the national groups have already taken notice of this proposal and this will probably become a rather large and contentious conversation. Unfortunately, the language in the proposed rule change is vague, capricious and arbitrary enough to be used in many ways that would be considered hostile by the groups that make up this coalition. While the original intent of this language is unknown to me, the effect could be extremely malicious if interpreted by anyone wishing to promote an agenda that is hostile to four-wheel drive recreation and the enduro and dual sport motorcyclists. In fact, this wording is so vague that it could potentially have a negative impact on anyone using the forest.

We will be posting the date for an emergency meeting in the next few days.

Please note: the public comment period ends on September 15th so it is imperative that we get word out through the entire user community. Please pass the word!

[tomhedden]

The meeting to craft an official comment will be held on Wednesday, August 15th at 7:00 pm at the Red Lion Inn.

[tomhedden]

This is the link to post your own comments on the proposal.
www.nj.gov/dep/rules/comments

Under the Select Rulemaking field, select 01-12-06

Please remember that reaching out to your representative in the state government is also a good idea. Meeting with them is best, hand written letters are second best and emails and electronic comments are good but probably the weakest form of outreach.

[tomhedden]

We will be having a letter signing at the Pic-a-Lilli on Route 206 in Shamong on September 4th at 7:00 pm. The letter is posted here (in the Chairman's Desk section). I also encourage everyone to post copies of your own letters to this thread so that we can start to build a concerted argument and others can benefit from your thoughts as they draft their own responses.

Along with using the link in my previous post, please direct your comments to:

Bob Martin, Commissioner
401 E. State St.
7th Floor, East Wing
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]

It also helps to send a copy of your comments to your NJ State Legislators. If you do not know who that is, this link is helpful:
www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/legsearch.asp

Last but certainly not least, make sure the folks at the top know as well:
Governor Chris Christie
and
Lt. Governor and Secretary of State Kim Guadagno

www.state.nj.us/governor/contact/

Office of the Governor
PO Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-292-6000

If you do not wish to write, please register your voice with a call.

[tomhedden]

The following is the comment I posted to the link provided above. This is not the NJTLC letter, just my personal comment. I have provided it for informational purposes only.

I have lived in Tabernacle for over twenty years and watched the changes in the State Forests as various administrations in Trenton applied their own philosophies about how this incredible resource should be managed. As I observed the political battles play out between the various factions fighting to preserve their own notions of what these forest are or should be, I monitored what was actually happening in the woods. I have found that results are quite often counter to the intent of those crafting public policy. That is certainly the case with regard to the new amendments being proposed to N.J.A.C. 7:2. The attempt to divide the definition of motorcycles into two categories will, in the end, only hurt the forests.

I enjoy the woods in many ways. I hike the trails, canoe the rivers, cross-country ski and walk my dog. I also ride fully licensed and insured motorcycles in the state forests. I volunteer my time to help prepare and repair trails for permitted events for the equestrian and enduro communities and organize trail, river and road clean-ups. The safe and responsible enjoyment of the woods is so important to me, that I also serve as the Governing Committee Chairman of the New Jersey Trail Lovers Coalition. This is a group dedicated to both keeping the woods open to responsible recreation and teaching forest users from every user-group what that actually means.

My fear is that making new rules to keep out the responsible forest users at a time when state resources are so limited that law enforcement cannot even stop the most flagrant and damaging illegal activity will only increase the very activity these regulations are meant to curtail. Groups like the NJTLC and the various user clubs create a population of responsible forest users who work within their various disciplines to educate folks on the proper way to conduct recreational activities in an environmentally responsible manner. These proposed regulations would undercut that essential self-regulation and empower the least desirable elements within each user group. There are underage ATV riders wearing almost no safety gear riding under the power lines across from the Atco Drag strip every day of the week. Despite breaking almost every conceivable law, they exhibit no concern about being approached by Park Police. Construction dumping has again risen to sadly epic proportions. Almost every turnout along Carranza road is home to a pile of broken sheet rock or concrete debris. Incursions into Quarter Mile, an activity my group had worked with the State Forest staff to curtail, goes on unabated because there is no fear of being caught among the scofflaws.

The language in the proposal is vague enough to be maliciously interpreted by both sides of this conversation and this will, no doubt, form a good part of the debate. However, the real problem is in even trying to define an off-road motorcycle. The intent is flawed. In splitting the definition, the end result will be to keep the responsible user out of the equation and this will cause more damage to these incredible forests. The illegal activity will continue, fueled by a righteousness that will win converts from those who now only ride legally and responsibly and the Park Police will be unable to prevent this because they can’t even stop kids on quads. How can we expect them to handle a new challenge of adult riders on purpose-built racing machines? The Dual-Sport and Adventure bikes, culled by the new rules, will be replaced by converted Moto-Cross machines: lighter, faster and with far less safety equipment, truly “dirt bikes”. The state will lose revenue as licensing and registration of entire classes of motorcycles become irrelevant and this will further exacerbate the problem of underfunded law enforcement.

Amending the State Park Service Code in the proposed manner will hurt the forests. It will promote illegal activity and it will harm responsible, tax-paying forest users. There is an inherent animosity in the proposal that is uninformed and directed at the wrong people. In the end, if the rules are enacted, the voice of the responsible and moderate members of the effected communities will be silenced, leaving only those with no qualms about causing environmental damage with any credibility because they have predicted this effort all along and certainly in the eyes of those whose feelings are not fully formed, they will have been proven right.

[tomhedden]

I am happy to report that the NJTLC comment letter, signed by 150 people, is on it's way to Commissioner Martin, the Governor, Lt. Governor and the District 8 Office in Medford. I also met with Senator Connors and Assemblywoman Gove (District 9 legislators) this morning and they are engaged in the issue on our side. In fact, they informed me that they'll be sending a letter to the DEP themselves.

If you still have signed copies, please send them to Commissioner Martin directly, thanks.

[brokejeepjoe]

I would like to thank Tom and all the other members for taking time and getting letters signed and whatever other input there was.

[gregobrien]

Still ONE DAY left.... feel free to use your own style! I chose ABRASIVE:


9/13/12


To Whom It May Concern at the DEP,

As a lifelong resident of New Jersey from a family that has responsibly enjoyed recreation in our public lands for generations, I am disappointed in this rule proposal. The proposal represents new evidence of the DEP’s continued inability to understand proper land management. Furthermore, it represents our state governments stubborn persistence in believing all issues can be solved through an ever-increasing number of overly complex rules.
In this rule change, the DEP seems to have gone to great lengths to define extremely specific types of vehicles which are not permitted to access public land. The failure in this logic is that such specific definitions and descriptions open up more loop holes than they close… in the end only punishing otherwise law abiding citizens. Vehicles types don’t damage public land, vehicle operators choose to use them in that manner. These are behaviors that can already be regulated.

It seems reasonable to say that motorized vehicle use on public land is regulated by intersection of the state motor vehicle code and the items contained within the DEP rules being review here. New Jersey employs some of the strictest motor vehicle standards in the country. Any vehicle operated here is clearly held to a standard higher than any other state. Likewise, the DEP already employs the unrevised version of this document which spells out very specific guidelines and rules for motorized vehicle operation on public land.

When cross referenced, there is no undesirable activity occurring on public land that cannot be prevented, discouraged, and enforced to protect our resources while balancing recreation. To better understand why this document is being revised in such a curious way, I’ve spoken to a number of DEP employees over a period of months. I’ve been given explanations ranging from limited funding for State Park Police to public backlash for videos of reckless destruction of public land being posted on www.youtube.com

None of the explanations I have received are adequate justification for introduction of these new convoluted rules. Quite the opposite, when given these explanations I am immediately struck by the thought: Why would institution of new rules be seen as a better and more cost effective solution than expecting the State Park Police to use the evidence contained within these video to provide more efficient and effective enforcement? If the State Park Police cannot adequately enforce the existing rules (even when those guilty publicly display video evidence of themselves in the act), how will they be able to adequately enforce new rules?

The changes with which I am most concerned are:

1) Restrictions on Military Surplus Vehicles: These rule changes cite the weight and size of these vehicles as destructive to infrastructure on public lands. If that truly is the problem, doesn’t motor vehicle code provide an already existing authority to set maximum weight limits for public roads? Aren’t all vehicles marked/tagged with Gross Vehicle Weight Rating on the door frame? That seems easily enforceable? As someone that has clearance to purchase “military surplus vehicles” (more appropriately referred to as DEMIL Q materials) this category has an immense range. It could be a commercial non-military spec 20 ton over-the-road truck designed to haul over-sized loads, it could be an M35A1, it could be a military version of a civilian SUV or pickup truck, it could be a 15 passenger van (think canoe livery), it could be an economy car, it could be a moped… or anything in between. ALL of these vehicles have been demilitarized and our now eligible for road use within the existing guidelines of motor vehicle code. ALL are military surplus. Many of these vehicles are used by the municipalities that border public lands. How will the state park police enforce this law? Will they be given the extensive training required to identify these vehicles? Will they know whether a foreign military vehicle such as a Pinzgauer or Unimog was originally intended for military or civilian use? Or will they use the new rules to PROFILE vehicles and use their own personal JUDGEMENT to determine if the vehicle’s driver intends to break the existing rules? The latter is most likely how it will be enforced and given that logic all sports-type cars should be banned from the interstate system because their drivers might intend to break the speed limit that is already in effect.

2) Motorcycles: The DEP has gone through great lengths spell out only the TYPES of motorcycles that will be allowed on public lands. Given the DEP’s obvious lack of motor vehicle expertise, numerous categories were missed while only the most obvious and stereotypical were included. Are all motorcyclists riding a type not listed subject to citation by the State Park Police? Are road-legal side car motorcycles now not allowed on public land? How about street legal dual sport motorcycles? Sport Touring Motorcycles? Adventure Touring Motorcycles? It seems reasonable to expect that if I can buy a brand new motorcycle in compliancy with every law in the state and country… then legally ride into Trenton for a public hearing… it MUST be legal to ride down Carranza road without concern of citation by the State Park Police? This seems like another overly complicated rule that the NJ DEP can do without. The laws already clearly state what is road-legal in NJ and the DEP already has rules that are quite clear how such vehicles may be operated on public land. Will the State Park Police be funded for further training to understand these differences? Or will they use these new rules to PROFILE vehicles and use their own personal JUDGEMENT to determine if the vehicle’s driver intends to break the existing rules?

3) “Any vehicle that is capable of going offroad”: Yet another rule that is redundant with existing rules within this document. If an action by a person is against the rules, why do we need another rule to govern equipment? While an ATV is capable of going ‘off-of-the-road’ and is already not permitted within the rules, by all definitions other vehicles capable of going ‘offroad’ include an all wheel drive Subaru, a farmers pickup truck, and a standard run of the mill commuter motorcycle. It would be easier to make the argument that the unimproved roads of many state parks should be off-limits to vehicles NOT capable of going offroad. Citizens naïve enough to take dedicated STREET-ONLY vehicles down unimproved sand roads are forced to travel at speeds in EXCESS of the rules to avoid getting stuck in deep sand… therefore posing a threat to pedestrians, wildlife, and other motorists. If they follow the rules and drive at reasonable speeds they will most likely get stuck, damaging the soil/plant life, increasing erosion, and posing a danger to themselves. Since this rule change is extremely vague in citing the features that make a vehicle capable of going offroad, can we assume: the State Park Police will use these new rules to PROFILE vehicles and use their own JUDGEMENT to determine if the vehicle’s driver intends to break the existing rules?

In closing, these rule changes are poorly written and ill-conceived. While these are my primary concerns, these changes fail in many areas. These rules poorly address the actions of a small percentage of the public that, despite State Park Police claims, are easily tracked and confronted. Every NJ resident that actively utilizes public lands for recreation has seen the offenders in action, frequently operating in the same patterns week to week. There is no reason to further burden the law-abiding, tax-paying public of New Jersey with poorly written rules that further restrict their rights to public land. This is especially so when rules are written in a manner to encourage police profiling and harassment. I am concerned this will ultimately resulting in frivolous litigation that will further drain funding to enforce the original rules that were adequate in the first place!

Respectfully,

Gregory T. O’Brien

[gregobrien]

My wife, as usual, took a different (and more sensible) approach:


9/13/12

Regarding: DEP Revisions to State Park Service Code Dkt. No. 01-12-06

I am concerned with these current attempts to revise the definition of a motorcycle under the State Park Rules. As a new rider, I attended a STATE APPROVED motorcycle safety course sponsored by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. During this course, the primary motorcycles utilized in training were small dualsport motorcycles. The pervasive use of this type of motorcycle was described as being compatible with safe operation by “new riders, petite women, and those small in stature.”

This was my introduction into motorcycling and my introduction to this type of motorcycle. Year later, despite trying many different types of motorcycles, I still feel most comfortable riding a dualsport motorcycle. While there are other motorcycles aimed at female riders, the small dualsport offers weight and power over half that of other motorcycles while providing the rider improved mechanical leverage and maneuverability. Motorcycles are not cars and one size does not fit all. For me, dualsports are the ONLY option for riding. It is not a matter for going offroad, it is a matter of riding on the pavement safely! As a resident of Burlington County, many of my rides take me down roads that pass through state lands, both paved and sand.

Recently, I was informed through the American Motorcyclist Association that the NJ DEP has proposed a rule change that would restrict the types of motorcycles allowed to operate on public land. This is of particular concern to me because this definition quite obviously does NOT include the only type of motorcycle that I am able to safely operate: the dualsport motorcycle.

Since NJ DEP has proposed a new rule that will make it illegal to operate a dualsport on public land. Yet for many, we are taught in state-approved courses that dualsport motorcycles are the best (and in my case the only) choice for safe operation by “new riders, petite women, and those small in stature.”

I am left only to ask: Is the State of New Jersey’s DEP making a conscious decision to discriminate again new riders, short riders, and women by restricting our rights?

I would like to think as a tax paying citizen of New Jersey, on a day off I would be welcomed to
use the public land I have paid for with every work day.

Sincerely,
Lynsey O’Brien

[tomhedden]

The DEP has extended the public comment period for the proposal. Please don't take this to mean the conversation is closed. Continue to spread the word and make sure that everyone involved has voiced their opinion to their legislative representatives and the DEP. We're doing well at making Commissioner Martin aware that the public is unhappy about this proposal but we can't rest on this issue. The author of this proposal is certainly not going to relax.

[tomhedden]

Don't forget, we now have until October 14th to file comments with the DEP! Keep those cards and letters coming.