|
|
Post by yellowdog on Dec 3, 2010 18:32:01 GMT -5
yeah i really dislike that the nomenclature is messed up too...
we aren't "off roading" in the pines
it's a shame that the people who write the articles take peoples statements and don't do due diligent research
we need to educate people
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 5, 2010 9:58:21 GMT -5
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. Here is what I sent to PPA to try to address this point: Jaclyn, when you get a chance, would you please revise the plan so that point #9 is deleted and the points re-numbered? Here is the current point #9: “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.” This is untenable as written, because there are thousands of vehicles that are equipped to do this that are well within the bounds of Class 1. There may be some way to tighten up the Class 1 requirements, but I have absolutely no idea how to approach that at this point. And, in any case, the issue is not primarily what the vehicle is capable of doing, but rather how and where it is being operated. What we need to focus on is enforcement of existing motor vehicle regs, so that people will get cited if they drive vehicles that violate the class 1 requirements, e.g., if someone gets a vehicle through inspection, and then makes modifications that are not permissible, such as putting on 44 inch tires. That issue could be incorporated into point #3, which could be revised to read, “Law enforcement agencies should cite people when they find them clearly driving off the roads or operating vehicles that are not street legal.” Call me if you want to discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 5, 2010 10:07:05 GMT -5
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. You know the world is full of popular misconceptions. Sometimes, these misconceptions are deliberately perpetuated by people who have an ax to grind or people who are holding a grudge. I don't know how else to say it except to keep pointing out that if you take a careful look at what PPA is saying, all they are saying is that they oppose illegal and irresponsible use of motorized vehicles. |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 5, 2010 10:16:24 GMT -5
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"..... Well, this misconstrues (not deliberately, I'm sure!) the whole situation. You are assuming that because you find the number implausible (1) it must not be true, and (2) PPA knows it is not true. In fact, the people who came up with the number may be able to defend their estimate in perfectly rational way. And, in any case, I can assure you that if the staff at PPA had any evidence that the number was somehow fabricated, they would not use it! Why don't we settle this once and for all? Why don't we all go to the horse's mouth and find out how the DEP arrived at that number? |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 5, 2010 10:31:49 GMT -5
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.. Okay, but PPA doesn't have an issue with people leaving the highways. They only have an issue with people leaving the roads. And they are not even opposed to off-roading in general. They are opposed to irresponsible and illegal off-roading. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowdog on Dec 5, 2010 11:56:46 GMT -5
Russ ..nice response with proposed changes...it's very fair and workable the way you worded it to the woman at PPA
|
|
|
|
Post by jeepinjp on Dec 5, 2010 12:34:06 GMT -5
I think you said it well here "all they are saying is that they oppose illegal and irresponsible use of motorized vehicles."As do all of the motorized enthusiasts here. A big part of it is that every motorized user here is part of an organized body be it a club or other organization that promotes the "Tread Lightly philosophy or something similar.We need to get that philosophy to those that are not associated to a club or organization.These are not OHV folks they are renegades.
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 5, 2010 15:38:52 GMT -5
I think you said it well here "all they are saying is that they oppose illegal and irresponsible use of motorized vehicles."As do all of the motorized enthusiasts here. A big part of it is that every motorized user here is part of an organized body be it a club or other organization that promotes the "Tread Lightly philosophy or something similar.We need to get that philosophy to those that are not associated to a club or organization.These are not OHV folks they are renegades. 10-4 on all that, and, just to emphasize, I am not claiming that PPA has been flawless in its attempts to address the renegade faction. They are learning as they go, like any of us. I will continue to press them to adjust their language, as needed, to avoid alienating OHV folks who are committed to legal and responsible use of their vehicles. For example, I have asked them to cite the source of that 300,000 acre figure. They should say, "according to the NJDEP..." and they should make it clear that DEP uses this figure with respect to the whole state, not just the Pinelands. |
|
|
|
Post by mudboy on Dec 6, 2010 10:06:12 GMT -5
Russ I agree with everything you stated. I would definately like to witness the results of the studies performed to come up with the number, I would also like to know, out of that 300k acres how much was Wharton. I just don't know who to contact to obtain this information.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowdog on Dec 8, 2010 17:11:05 GMT -5
the more we interact together , the less extreme some parties positions will become. most of the anger, fear issues etc are due to misconceptions that being together will eradicate
people have tried to talk before but this is the best bet i have seen in a while to actually band together and work together
we are all passionate about the outdoors and our rights to enjoy them!
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Dec 9, 2010 7:56:18 GMT -5
Russ I agree with everything you stated. I would definately like to witness the results of the studies performed to come up with the number, I would also like to know, out of that 300k acres how much was Wharton. I just don't know who to contact to obtain this information. The actual fabricated number they use is 343,000 which is just over an addtional 67 sq miles... 535.9375 total square miles or 1.5+/- million square feet Considering NJ is 8722 square miles their BS number is 16% of the state |
|
|
|
Post by mudboy on Dec 9, 2010 8:33:25 GMT -5
wow Thanks for pointing that out. It's ashame people have to fabricate stuff to try to prove something. I'd still like to see how they came up with the number. Plus whats considered damage and what is not. Putting out a huge number of acreage like that to the public is not good. If those numbers go federal It will make all of New Jerseys Park division look bad and law enforcement.
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Dec 9, 2010 10:11:39 GMT -5
Considering.... New Jersey has 6,450 miles of rivers, 24,000 acres of public lakes, 900,000 acres of freshwater and tidal wetlands, 120 miles of ocean coastline, and 420 square miles of open estuarine waters. That 16% is actaully low if only talking about land.. Numbers above taken fron NJ DEP website. www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/dyk.htm |
|
|
|
Post by jeepinjp on Dec 9, 2010 10:20:44 GMT -5
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. Just looking through here again and I must correct you Parks are the answer along with a managed OHV program and education.It has been proven in at least 20 other states, there is no reason NJ can`t do it. I can site many other state officials who have openly laughed at the state of NJ saying do they really think they can enforce it away. Now I am not saying it fully removes the illegal stuff but it give all those who want to be legal the opportunity to be and then we can all focus on curtailing the illegals. The simple observation you state are the unaffiliated users that are the smaller but often quoted, while the larger silent majority of legal users are not quoted and cant even get press for the great things a lot of them do i.e. Mike`s cleanup,this is part of the problem.. PPA list if as you say are trying to help should merely say as you so said""all they are saying is that they oppose illegal and irresponsible use of motorized vehicles". And we would all be on the same page with that statement and the unification could begin there. |
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Dec 9, 2010 11:46:00 GMT -5
|
|
