Letter to the Press

[gipsie]

This was forwarded to me by Dave Nash from MCI. I am not sure all the details, but from what I understand, there was some bad press about the 1/4 mile and Greg replied. I do not believe his reply was ever printed. I will find out more info and post it as I get it, or perhaps Gregory or Dave will stop in and fill in some details....


Letter To Lee Procida Of Atlantic City Press


Lee,

I have been frustrated by the content of a recent article run concerning 'offroad damage'. I see this article as another in a string of incomplete articles in multiple publications which confuse the public. This is complicated further by biased releases from the Pineland Preservation Alliance grandstanding to further their political agenda and tell the version of the problem that best suites their political needs. I'm am a strong proponent of protecting the PineBarrens and an Environmentalist, but I do not like how the current environmental organizations do things.

There has been a recent frenzy of activity intended to create negative publicity and sway opinions WITHOUT ever defining the actual problem at hand. While the Press of AC has done a better job than most to represent multiple sides of this issue, these articles continue to show bias and be fraught with inaccuracies.

Issue 1:
Definitions: We all wish the vehicle industry and government would have had more foresight in this issue, because poor terminology is destroying both legislation and public opinion.

a) ORV - currently an unregistered Off Road Vehicle (in NJ) such as a dirt bike/dirt-only motorcyle, all terrain vehicle/ATV, or UTV/Side-by-Side are all currently illegal to operate on state land. Directly addressed in recent legislation.

B ) MotorVehicle or 4x4 (aka OffRoader or Mudder) - a registered/insured/street legal motor vehicle currently allowed on ANY public road or established road in a State Forest. These may be modified to the point of being barely legal or they may be a vehicle unchanged from how it was bought and manufactured. Both modified and unmodified cars and trucks have been used in an illegal manner to create "1/4 mile"

c) Motorcycle (aka Dualsport/Enduro motorcycle) - a registered/insured/street legal motorcycle that can be used either on either paved or unpaved roads. The rules for these are no different than for a car, truck, HarleyDavidson, or Vespa scooter. They may be used on any paved road or any established pathway in the state forest - at times under Special Use Permit.

Issue 2:
OHV Parks: NJ passed legislation because it needs ORV parks to provide young riders and non-land owners a place to ride and be educated on responsible use. NJ has sat on the sidelines far to long on this... as I understand it we are the only state in the union without a public ORV area. NJ public land management has a very long list of failures and the lack of a proper educational component associated with an approved ORV area is big one by far.

Organizations such has PPA and other groups have argued that the environmental impact is too great and 'people shouldn't buy them if they don't have a place to ride them'. However, every other state has ORV areas and NJ has also undertaken many other public projects which have significant environmental impacts such as: public golf courses (fertilizer pollution), public marinas (outboard motor pollution), public ski areas (run off), public hiking trails (erosion), public bicycling trails (paved strips through natural areas), publicly stocked fishing lakes (unbalanced stream/lake ecology), etc. So if NJ residents should not buy OHVs, they also shouldn't buy golf clubs/boats/skis/hiking boots/bicycles/fishing poles either? That logic is flawed and selfish.

It's just easier and more gratifying for these small environmentalist groups to fight an ORV park than it is to take on a real problem like a new strip mall or parking lot.

Issue 3:
Failure to Enforce Laws: The NJ pinebarrens have always had a lawless side that extends beyond folklore. For the past several generations, almost every rural southern NJ resident could point out obvious areas of illegal activity in the Pine Barrens. Dumping, teenage drinking, large bonfires, graffiti, drugs, driving through mud in wetlands, illegal shooting. In the 70's and 80's, some areas were so plagued by illegal activity that you could find dozens of stolen vehicles used to destroy public land until they were inoperable, then rolled over, set ablaze, and shot at.

Those past actions have no more association with the community of responsible enthusiasts working to make things better than '1/4 mile' currently does - they are the fault of government apathy and represent years of unchecked criminal behavior by individuals that belong behind bars. 1/4 Mile is one of several locations in the Pine Barrens slowly reverting to the lawlessness of 30 years ago since recent budget cutbacks.

It's not some new phenomenon, Springsteen was singing about it in 1973: "My machine she's a dud, I'm stuck in the mud somewhere in the swamps of Jersey." With recent budget cuts and changes in how young people communicate electronically, this history of recurrent illegal activity has accelerated rapidly this time around in the absence of law enforcement. If funding is restored, these same areas will begin to heal and be overgrown within several years.

My main areas of concerns are these:

- the PPA is using the Press of AC to further it's political agenda and deceptively fight responsible ORV use. I've been to '1/4 Mile' and the damage isn't caused by 'ORVs' or 'All Terrain Vehicles' as PPA refers to in every article... the PPA is using these similar terms to confuse the issue among the public and sway opinion. They hope to further their cause to using images of *criminal damage* caused by street legal automobiles to change laws, prevent ORV parks, and keep other groups of responsible citizens out of the State Forest. The damage at '1/4 Mile' is caused almost exclusively by Trucks and SUVs with different tires -- many of which are just like those PPA members and myself drive to access other areas of the Wharton. Furthermore, it is not the TYPE of vehicle, it is how and where they are being misused and what's not being enforced that is at issue. PPA knows this, but keeps conveniently shifting their terminology in these articles to chip away public opinion on recent legislation. Legislation which is a COMPLETELY separate issue from crimes at 1/4 mile.

- Some of these articles make *direct* reference to BLOG replies as if they hold any legitimacy? A trend I find disturbing in modern journalism! I could go on tomorrow and anonymously post *anything* I wanted about any issue without any truth or accountability for my statements. As an overzealous environmentalist, I could post as 5 different people or 30 different people and completely sway the apparent tone of the response to the article. People have already had their own *copyrighted* words plagiarized and their identity stolen by environmental extremists looking to sway 'online public opinion' to articles such as these.

- Special Use Permits: There have been many recent references to Special Use Permits. PPA is calling for them to be outlawed and I can't think of a more irrational action than this. Special Use Permits are the states procedure for overseeing *any* organized event. From a Jeep trail ride on *legal* dirt roads, to a motorcycle rally on approved trails, to an equestrian horseback riding event. So because some 17 year old gets drunk every Friday and Saturday night around a bonfire then drives his truck into a swamp without police intervention, a family oriented horse, motorcycle, or Jeep club can't hold an ORGANIZED event with invited Police and DEP supervision on Sunday?

Youtube and internet websites contribute far more to forest damage... more than any Special Use Permit *ever* could. When these grassroots clubs apply for a Special Use Permit - they PAY the State Park Police salaries to be there for the day and make sure all laws/rules are followed. So even during a state budget crunch, the police are paid to be there by citizens to witness firsthand that things are done right... invited in by responsible enthusiasts. Paid or not, the Police won't even go to '1/4 mile'.

It would be horrible to lose Special Use Permits, because this process is perhaps the ONLY REMAINING TOOL the state has left to educate users on mature and responsible use of state land. The state could do a tremendous amount of public relations at these events, but instead they typically just collect the money and sit in their cars. An end to Special Use Permits and it's review process would mean one LESS avenue the state has to actually control how public land is used.

Activities at "1/4 Mile" fall FAR outside anything related to a Special Use Permit. I don't know of any permit events even allowed near that area. The motorists causing this damage are not required to have any additional permit... nor would they care to apply for one. They are individuals driving regular cars and trucks, drinking beer, and starting fires. They can drive through the State Forest just like they drive down Route 206 and a minority of them can choose to drive recklessly into sensitive wetlands areas just like they can chose to make an illegal U-turn through a wet ditchline in the middle of the Parkway.

As you can see, this problem is challenging to pin down. It a problem of education and mentality, not JUST machinery categories. For instance, here is a group from NYC driving Subarus CARS (the environmentalist vehicle of choice next to the Prius) recklessly in areas around 1/4 mile proving you can destroy anything nice if you put in enough effort:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbz-BSdk140

I don't know if my point of view has been helpful in these issues, but I am always available for public comment.

Sincerely,
Gregory O'Brien
BS - Biology Stockton College
MPT - Stockton College

[mudboy]

I agree with alot of what he has to say. However there are a few corrections I believe he needs to be informed on.
ORV is split into two classes in Jersey. Class 1 being vehicles that can be registered an insured and driven legally down any road. Class 2 being vehicles that cannot be driven legally. Either way I disagree with the acronym ORV. I believe this acronym makes my hobby look worse to an uneducated person. ORV= Off-Road Vehicle. I personally partake in Off Highway Vehicle use (OHV). I know it sounds rather petty but like I said ORV leaves a bad taste.

I agree with him on the parks. In alot of states the local areas welcome OHV parks as a boost in the local economy. Illegal OHV useage will never stop 100% just as drinking and driving has not and will not. However I can see decreasing the percentage. Everytime I look at the "State Marina" in Forked River on Rt 9, I feel my blood pressure begin to increase as it just shows the sense of ignorance that a large percent of people in this state have.

As far as "the outlaws" go. I was in the scene in the early 90s which was when the "outlaw scene " was dwindling. I do agree that as law enforcement starts to dwindle down the outlaw scene will increase. I agree that it is a way of the pines that was bred into alot of native locals.

I can not speak for the rest of the PPA but i know that Russ is not against OHV use but is against irresponsible OHV use. If listened to carefully the recent articles mention " illegal offroad activities" "not all ORV users". The main thing that gets me is how the press uses the current events. I personally contacted about 8 or 9 newspapers and news stations about the recent Cleanup put together by Mike Tarsia. Not one showed up. Typical press does not care about Positive subjects. They'd rather continue to show the public the negativity. This is a problem that I believe affects peoples lives way beyond just OHV use. people get sucked into the media frenzy lijke programmed robots and believe what the media wants them to believe. I personally avoid this coruptness by not listening to the news at all and only voting Republican .

Special Use Permits. I believe should be followed by everyone and provide a level of education to those who are new to the forest. It is important for Special Use Permit holders to follow all rules. Heres the big kicker though. One of teh rules states to stay on "Established Roads" There is not one definition to what is "established" though. Blowing a trail through a virgin Swamp is easily identified as not staying on a established trail, however an area like 1/4 mile would appear to have numerous fun established trails to an uneducated person. Todays generation doesn't even know that place was once a vernal pool. Most of them were still in diapers at that time or not even born yet.

What it boils down to is I have stepped up to the plate to try to communicate with the "other side" (environmentalists). I'm looking to be eduacted and also educate them on some subjects. If everyone has a common knowledge of everything it is alot easier to discuss issues without them tuirning into brawl. The only way i will brawl is if I ever feel used or start seeing massive trail closers at that point I would have to step aside and fight for my beliefs.

I'm also alwasy open for public discussion with anyone.

[russ]

That's a very long letter that addresses a lot of different issues, so I will restrict my answer to the part about PPA. I am happy to either defend or criticize PPA. But we have to get the facts straight first. Greg is clearly misinformed with respect to his statements about PPA, and if anyone in our organization wants to take his allegations one by one, I will be happy to do that. I think all of them are false, but they are commonly held assumptions or beliefs among many of the folks in the ORV/OHV community, and it is a mystery to me as to why they persist.

[jeepinjp]

I also agree with some of Greg`s points,I believe they are too long winded and in too many directions for the newspapers to publish which may be why he is experiencing difficulty there.
But more importantly as pointed out by mudboy are the use of acronyms, the nationally accepted term for motorized recreation is OHV (Off Highway Vehicles) which is there use by the silent majority of responsible motorized recreation user. Whereas they use fire cuts and other forest roads but generally do not use a highway, ORV or Off Road Vehicle insinuates that the user is blazing there own trail and not staying on the designated roads.

Also he seems to attack to many other user groups which is never a good thing, and that is as far as I have seen here the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish. Are there anti access groups out there that spew a lot of nonsense, of course but non of us, users or anti access are without fault and that's why this group if done correctly can in my belief make a difference.

Also on the special use permit subject, remember he is writing from a specific use standpoint i.e. Enduro and most users here would not be subject to them as they are for events rather than driving your street legal vehicle down a title 39( motor vehicle code) road in the forest. Yes they need to be a part of an OHV/Forest management tool kit.

I don't want to make this too long either so that's all for now. I know both Dave and Greg and know there frustrations and would also hope they would get on here to help be a unified voice..

I am not always available for public comment but am available to help here....

[mudboy]

Russ you are strictly stating that all of his bashings on the PPA are incorrect, right? Not everything else he brought up? If this is the case you mention "I think all of them are false, but they are commonly held assumptions or beliefs among many of the folks in the ORV/OHV community, and it is a mystery to me as to why they persist. " I'm still in question of what the PPA wants to see happen. I know what your goal is within the OHV community, but theirs, I'm not 100%. One reason I could see the OHV community having a negative opinion on the PPA, is this, www.pinelandsalliance.org/protection/work/currentissues/offroadvehicles/.
The very first paragraph states that ALL ORVs are illegal. second pargraph states this "the public needs to be aware of what options are available to prevent ORV use on public and private land". Take the first Paragraph and that sentance, someone who is not familiar with legal ORVS (Class 1), is going to be furious and looking to turn in even the legal ones. Halfway down the page you have this :
ORV parks are not the answer to illegal ORV riding. Legislation that requires registration and tagging and increased enforcement is necessary to deter illegal riding and protect private properties and conservation lands from trespassing and destruction.
This is one persons OPINION. I'd like to see a general public vote localized to the areas with ORV parks.
It's not until the very bottom of the page where it is even mentioned that not all ORVs are illegal, by this time the average person reading who does not partake in ORV use is going to be loosing his head on how bad these "things" are.

Then to finalize it there is the PPA plan on resolving the issue of illegal ORV use. Number 9 states that anything equipped to be a class 1 ORV should not be legal in the state of NJ, then directly under it is where talking to jeep club leaders to further educate their members when 98% of the jeeps in jeep clubs have been modified to some extent. So in one part the PPA is saying they should be banned and in another part they are saying to educate them. It just doesn't go hand in hand.
Also one last false statement. the PPA states that over 300,000 acres of damaghe occurs each year. if thats the case the whole Pinelands reserve should be diminished to ruts, plowed over trees and every trail should be impassible. 300,000 is almost 3/4 opf teh Pinelands preserve and for anyone that frequents the pines can clearly see that that is a false statement.
Russ, this is not to get in a battle with you personally, you know I like you and support pretty much everything you have mentioned in previous times, however the PPA needs to update either A) their education, or, B) their website. With comments such as they have on their site it would be hard to believe that the PPA as a whole is not anti ORV

[HamiltonLJ]

I can only tell everyone this! In August when all this hit the press including NJN, AC press, Philly enquirer and Jackson paper I know I'm missing a couple. I contacted all of them with no replies from any! Then I got in contact with Russ, Dave, John and Jaime and we met for the first time and decided something has to be done! I also contacted MCI, OCCR, ECEA and numerous other groups. I also contacted numerous people on Youtube, FB and other social networks to bring these matters to light! That's when the NJTLC was born! Ever since the first people stepped up (4 - 4WD enthusiast and at the time an employee of the PPA) Illegal activities in Wharton are down considerably. If your looking for good press It's not going to happen! Good news don't sell!! We couldn't even get anyone there to cover the cleanup with 120 cubic yards of trash and more than 100 tire were taken out of the forest!

[russ]

Nov 23, 2010 9:46:23 GMT -5 mudboy said:

Russ you are strictly stating that all of his bashings on the PPA are incorrect, right? Not everything else he brought up?

I have to do this one step at a time, because otherwise, in my experience, these issues get all tangled up. Yes, I am saying that his criticisms of PPA are incorrect. I certainly don't want to try to comment on all the other points he raises.

[russ]

Nov 23, 2010 9:46:23 GMT -5 mudboy said:

One reason I could see the OHV community having a negative opinion on the PPA, is this, www.pinelandsalliance.org/protection/work/currentissues/offroadvehicles/.
The very first paragraph states that ALL ORVs are illegal.

Okay, here's what I find in the first paragraph:

"The term ORV is all-encompassing of all-terrain vehicles, motorized sportbikes, motorcycles, minibikes, motor scooters, go-carts, swamp buggies, mopeds, snowmobiles and any other motor-driven vehicle which is not authorized to be licensed by the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles for use upon the public highways."

Notice, (whether or not you agree with the definition PPA has published), they are not saying ORV's are illegal. They are only saying that ORV's, as they have defined them, are vehicles that are "not authorized to be licensed by the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles for use upon the public highways."

That doesn't mean it's illegal to own or operate one. It just means you can't legally operate one on a public highway.

[russ]

Nov 23, 2010 9:46:23 GMT -5 mudboy said:

second pargraph states this "the public needs to be aware of what options are available to prevent ORV use on public and private land". Take the first Paragraph and that sentance, someone who is not familiar with legal ORVS (Class 1), is going to be furious and looking to turn in even the legal ones.

I think PPA is just saying that if you have a street legal Class 1 vehicle, they do not include that in their definition of "ORV." Again maybe they need to revise their definition of "ORV," but they are not implying that people should turn in to the authorities street legal vehicles (that happen to be capable of going off-road) being driven in accordance with the law.

[russ]

Nov 23, 2010 9:46:23 GMT -5 mudboy said:

Halfway down the page you have this :
ORV parks are not the answer to illegal ORV riding. Legislation that requires registration and tagging and increased enforcement is necessary to deter illegal riding and protect private properties and conservation lands from trespassing and destruction.
This is one persons OPINION.

Actually the position of the staff at PPA. Whether you agree with it or not, it is a perfectly defensible position. It's based on the simple observation that many of the riders are not interested in parks and actually brag publicly about how much they enjoy being outlaws. Parks would be helpful, and hopefully we will get some, but they are not THE ANSWER.

[russ]

Nov 23, 2010 9:46:23 GMT -5 mudboy said:

Then to finalize it there is the PPA plan on resolving the issue of illegal ORV use. Number 9 states that anything equipped to be a class 1 ORV should not be legal in the state of NJ, then directly under it is where talking to jeep club leaders to further educate their members when 98% of the jeeps in jeep clubs have been modified to some extent. So in one part the PPA is saying they should be banned and in another part they are saying to educate them. It just doesn't go hand in hand.

The point in question is:

9. The NJ Motor Vehicle Commission should revise the state regulations to make sure that vehicles that are specifically equipped to drive through deep mud and water do not qualify as Class 1.

I agree that you have a fair criticism here, and remember, you persuaded me to change my opinion on that. The question is, should that point #9 be scrapped completely? If so, I'm sure I can get PPA to do that.

[russ]

Nov 23, 2010 9:46:23 GMT -5 mudboy said:

Also one last false statement. the PPA states that over 300,000 acres of damaghe occurs each year. if thats the case the whole Pinelands reserve should be diminished to ruts, plowed over trees and every trail should be impassible. 300,000 is almost 3/4 opf teh Pinelands preserve and for anyone that frequents the pines can clearly see that that is a false statement.

I see the source of confusion here. Those figures were published by the DEP. That is their estimate for the state, not just for the Pinelands. They are NOT meant to indicate that every year ANOTHER 300,000 acres of undamaged land gets newly damaged. I think the idea is that, in the estimate of the DEP, there is ongoing (every year) damage to about 300,000 acres, statewide.

I don't know how DEP arrived at that figure, but, in any case, PPA should cite the source and clarify that it refers to the whole state.

[mudboy]

Russ my post was in response to this "commonly held assumptions or beliefs among many of the folks in the ORV/OHV community, and it is a mystery to me as to why they persist. ". It's very easy with the way they have it worded, to believe they are ani ohv.

[jeepinjp]

Nov 24, 2010 16:19:28 GMT -5 russ said:

Nov 23, 2010 9:46:23 GMT -5 mudboy said:

Also one last false statement. the PPA states that over 300,000 acres of damaghe occurs each year. if thats the case the whole Pinelands reserve should be diminished to ruts, plowed over trees and every trail should be impassible. 300,000 is almost 3/4 opf teh Pinelands preserve and for anyone that frequents the pines can clearly see that that is a false statement.

I see the source of confusion here. Those figures were published by the DEP. That is their estimate for the state, not just for the Pinelands. They are NOT meant to indicate that every year ANOTHER 300,000 acres of undamaged land gets newly damaged. I think the idea is that, in the estimate of the DEP, there is ongoing (every year) damage to about 300,000 acres, statewide.

I don't know how DEP arrived at that figure, but, in any case, PPA should cite the source and clarify that it refers to the whole state.

No matter the source a good organization would/should not post as fact things they know to be a fabrication..This statement has always been just a huge stretch, my feeling is that every area they find with possible OHV damage they consider that whole acre as damaged regardless of weather the damage is to 1 square foot or one acre the whole acre is "damaged".....

[jeepinjp]

Nov 24, 2010 15:34:45 GMT -5 russ said:

Nov 23, 2010 9:46:23 GMT -5 mudboy said:

One reason I could see the OHV community having a negative opinion on the PPA, is this, www.pinelandsalliance.org/protection/work/currentissues/offroadvehicles/.
The very first paragraph states that ALL ORVs are illegal.

Okay, here's what I find in the first paragraph:

"The term ORV is all-encompassing of all-terrain vehicles, motorized sportbikes, motorcycles, minibikes, motor scooters, go-carts, swamp buggies, mopeds, snowmobiles and any other motor-driven vehicle which is not authorized to be licensed by the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles for use upon the public highways."

Notice, (whether or not you agree with the definition PPA has published), they are not saying ORV's are illegal. They are only saying that ORV's, as they have defined them, are vehicles that are "not authorized to be licensed by the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles for use upon the public highways."

That doesn't mean it's illegal to own or operate one. It just means you can't legally operate one on a public highway.

And the preferred and nationally accepted term is OHV not orv, as we do not go off road meaning leaving the trail and blazing a new one, we go off highway meaning using forest roads..