|
|
Post by mudboy on Dec 9, 2010 12:11:21 GMT -5
Heres the thing though. I BELIEVE Russ agrees that OHV parks will help drop the amount of 4x4 damage thats occurring within the Pine Barrens. He's stating that it's not the answer. Whats meant by the word "Answer" I don't know. My guess would be to completely stop Damage occurring within the pines. If thats the answer thats being looked for, I'd hate to say, but that answer won't ever be found. Finding an answer to dramatically reduce the amount of damage occurring, I would have to say OHV parks.
I believe there is a common misunderstanding between a regular old trail ride and actual mudding/hillclimbing. A trail ride throuygh the woods is nothing more than what other environmentalists, photographers, hunters, etc. would be doing to get from Point A to Point B. The only slight difference is that we enjoy the ride through the woods. There is no reason Tread Lightly rules cannot be followed while encountering a chalenging part of the trail. You can't hate us jusdt because we specially equip our vehicles to handle a rough terrain. Fact is that vehicle engineers have yet to design a vehicle that based on driving through our unique trails that we have. A percentage of the road damage is caused by people trying to drive underequipped vehicles through terrain that their vehicle just wasn't designed to do.
Mudding/Hill climbing. Going off into a muddy area being a old gravel pit or spung or anywhere else that contains the gooey substance that we call mud. Going off into a hilly area being a old gravel pit or natural risen area. There are trails out there that contain mud that aren't damaging anything. As far as hills go I don't believe there is.
What I'm getting at is that more of the destruction that is going on out there is from people that want to play in the mud or climb a rather challenging hill and pushing their vehicles capability to the fullest. The Pine Barrens is not the place for this. It's the reason 1/4 mile got the way it did along with Jemima and the backside of Apple Pie Hill. This is where an OHV park will benefit. ?The trails of the Pines simply do not offer anything challeging enough to a season 4x4 guy to present a challenge.
I personally participate in both Mudding on private property and trail riding through mostly Wharton and Greenwood WMA. I'm telling you now. the terrain of the Pines would change if there was a local park to south jersey that had hills and mud. Not water, but mud, thick gooey cover your vehicle mud.
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Dec 9, 2010 12:43:50 GMT -5
Also, having parks would give the opportunity for children to ride their ATV/Dirtbikes within the state and spend that money locally. There would be less minors out riding without supervision if they knew dad was bringing them riding on the weekend. Last year I packed up my truck and took my son, 10 years old out to PA to a campsite that caters to atv and dirtbikes, not a very challenging area for me, but a place he can ride, I filled my truck up with gas here in NJ, but every other penny I spent was local, from the campsite fees to buying food, I leave with an empty cooler and buy all my food local, sometimes even from roadside stands. This year we are looking to head to Fla in Feb. there is a few State Forest there where you can camp and buy a pass to ride. Almost the same terrain as the pines here, just a few palm trees thrown in...
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Dec 9, 2010 15:07:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by HamiltonLJ on Dec 9, 2010 19:50:06 GMT -5
I'm a little confused! So if 300,000 acres a year are being destroyed. And this has been going on for 10 yrs that means 3 million acres have been destroyed. The state is 4.492 million acres with 1.876 million being forest! I think we have a bigger problem than I thought.   |
|
|
|
Post by mudboy on Dec 10, 2010 6:30:37 GMT -5
Feel blood pressure rising
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 11, 2010 20:46:08 GMT -5
Like I say, (1) PPA should cite its source (which is the DEP). I have asked them to do that, and they have told me that they agree to do so. (2) All of us should try to find out from the DEP how they arrived at their figure. I have been tied up with work deadlines, so I apologize for not taking the time to research it. Anybody know people at DEP who can account for that figure? JP? The bottom line though, is that our organization doesn't need to agonize over this. Our organization is committed to Leave No Trace. So we all agree to stay on the roads/ Jeep trails. We all agree not to leave a track and start driving over vegetation. Some of these Jeep trails may not remain open, because they were created illegally and/or they impact T&E species. Okay, that's a call that is going to made by the state park people, and we can try to influence those decisions. But let's not get distracted from our primary goal, which is to set an example of responsible use of the open spaces, so the next generation of users can enjoy the same things we have come to enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Dec 11, 2010 21:55:28 GMT -5
Like I say, (1) PPA should cite its source (which is the DEP). I have asked them to do that, and they have told me that they agree to do so. (2) All of us should try to find out from the DEP how they arrived at their figure. I have been tied up with work deadlines, so I apologize for not taking the time to research it. Anybody know people at DEP who can account for that figure? JP? The bottom line though, is that our organization doesn't need to agonize over this. Our organization is committed to Leave No Trace. So we all agree to stay on the roads/ Jeep trails. We all agree not to leave a track and start driving over vegetation. Some of these Jeep trails may not remain open, because they were created illegally and/or they impact T&E species. Okay, that's a call that is going to made by the state park people, and we can try to influence those decisions. But let's not get distracted from our primary goal, which is to set an example of responsible use of the open spaces, so the next generation of users can enjoy the same things we have come to enjoy. Russ... A question please. What is your position about the use of existing single tract trails and fire cuts for recreational use, by street legal motorcycles, horses and other non-motorized users as part of a managed program. In addition what is your position for the use of those same trails and fire cuts for events with a "special use permit" from NJ DEP by those same user groups mentioned. Just about every trail out there was at one time made illegally, there is only what 7 or 8 actual taxmap recognized roads out there. |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 12, 2010 7:38:03 GMT -5
Russ... A question please. What is your position about the use of existing single tract trails and fire cuts for recreational use, by street legal motorcycles, horses and other non-motorized users as part of a managed program. In addition what is your position for the use of those same trails and fire cuts for events with a "special use permit" from NJ DEP by those same user groups mentioned. Just about every trail out there was at one time made illegally, there is only what 7 or 8 actual taxmap recognized roads out there. First, I want to emphasize that I am not a policy maker, nor do I have any more influence over policy makers than anyone else. I don't make contributions to any political parties or individual candidates, so I have no political clout. This is just my opinion. I think that any and all proposed motorized recreation activities ought to be analyzed in terms of their probable impacts on the ecosystem. That should be the starting point. That's where the discussion should begin. If someone says this or that road or trail ought to be open for dirt bikes, ATVs, Jeeps, or whatever, we need to know what will be the probable impact on the plant and animal community in that location. The second question should be, if anyone proposes to open up this or that trail for one or another kind of use, "Can the activity be contained?" To me, that's one of the biggest issues with the enduros. We might all agree that some trail system can be used for a one-day event, but can we have any assurance that that trail system won't become a regular thoroughfare? So, no, I don't think the firebreaks should be generally open for regular use, because nobody has evaluated that proposal in terms of its ecological impact, and nobody can police that activity. As for applications for special use permits, I think each one needs to be analyzed in terms of those same two questions. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowdog on Dec 12, 2010 10:13:29 GMT -5
in the mid 70's a kid raced his bike outta a fire break and hit his helmet on the metal mirror of my buddys CJ that was driving on the trail ...spliting his skull and killing him
bikes on breaks can be dangerous when intersecting the roads out there
|
|
|
|
Post by HamiltonLJ on Dec 12, 2010 18:20:49 GMT -5
I actually think the existing firebreaks should be used! If there not used they'll become over grown again and if theres a fire they'll cut new ones creating a big impact! Just my 2 cents!
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Dec 13, 2010 8:05:00 GMT -5
Can the activity be contained? To me, that's one of the biggest issues with the enduros. We might all agree that some trail system can be used for a one-day event, but can we have any assurance that that trail system won't become a regular thoroughfare? So, no, I don't think the firebreaks should be generally open for regular use, because nobody has evaluated that proposal in terms of its ecological impact, and nobody can police that activity. As for applications for special use permits, I think each one needs to be analyzed in terms of those same two questions. Sounds to me like you are painting the enduros as bad and in a negative light, Almost seems like there is a roadless agenda going on in Wharton. Is keeping only the dirt roads (public right of ways) that can not be closed an access plan??? Number one all special use permit are analyzed for their ecological impact that is the sole reason for the review process. Number two what contains any of user type from revisiting an area of a prior event they took place in??? |
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Dec 13, 2010 11:40:22 GMT -5
Most of the time when a user group defends their sport it sometimes sounds like they are defending illegal use of the forests and lands. This is certainly not the case. The benefit of special use permits to the environment is the spreading out and minimizing the impact of a large user group that has been enjoying the trails of the state for 70 some years. With the events spread over several states and different parts of NJ at different times of the year and year to year changes of the routes, it takes pressure off any individual area. Also the review process ensures that no T&E species will be impacted based on standards imposed by NJ DEP and additionally The Pinelands Comm.
We commend the PPA for bringing attention to the problem of illegal orv usage in the forests. The fact that they made a simple mistake and inadvertently attributed some of the damage to special use permit groups we hope was nothing more then an unfortunate misstep. We see them as partners in conservation and hope to someday work alongside them in any projects that will make the forests a better place. PPA and NJCF are seen as the keepers of the forests and have a wide following, a following we would like to join and be seen as partners and not as adversaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by medfordpiney on Dec 16, 2010 9:59:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 17, 2010 13:44:01 GMT -5
Can the activity be contained? To me, that's one of the biggest issues with the enduros. We might all agree that some trail system can be used for a one-day event, but can we have any assurance that that trail system won't become a regular thoroughfare? So, no, I don't think the firebreaks should be generally open for regular use, because nobody has evaluated that proposal in terms of its ecological impact, and nobody can police that activity. As for applications for special use permits, I think each one needs to be analyzed in terms of those same two questions. Sounds to me like you are painting the enduros as bad and in a negative light, Almost seems like there is a roadless agenda going on in Wharton. Is keeping only the dirt roads (public right of ways) that can not be closed an access plan??? Number one all special use permit are analyzed for their ecological impact that is the sole reason for the review process. Number two what contains any of user type from revisiting an area of a prior event they took place in??? I really don't think I painted anything as bad or in a negative light. I gave you my opinion and stated a fact or two. I don't know anything about a "roadless agenda" in WSF. I don't understand your question about an access plan. I have previously posted some very specific statements about the WSF access plan, the primary point being that all of us are free to contact Rob Auermuller and make recommendations to him. When you say, "all special use permit are analyzed for their ecological impact that is the sole reason for the review process," you need to take into consideration that these reviews are merely cursory. I'm willing to bet that there is not a single reputable wildlife biologist in the state who would say that the review process adequately answers all the pertinent questions. And just because I make that observation, that doesn't mean I think the enduros should be abolished. I just think the review process should be a genuine evaluation. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last question. Presumably, if someone gets a special use permit, they are allowed to do something that they would not normally be allowed to do. Some segments of the trails used in (at least some) enduros are not supposed to remain open for general use after the enduro is done. However, everyone knows that local people do continue to use some of these trails after the event. So that's a problem that needs to be addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by russ on Dec 17, 2010 13:57:15 GMT -5
We commend the PPA for bringing attention to the problem of illegal orv usage in the forests. The fact that they made a simple mistake and inadvertently attributed some of the damage to special use permit groups we hope was nothing more then an unfortunate misstep. We see them as partners in conservation and hope to someday work alongside them in any projects that will make the forests a better place. PPA and NJCF are seen as the keepers of the forests and have a wide following, a following we would like to join and be seen as partners and not as adversaries. What are you referring to when you say that PPA "made a simple mistake and inadvertently attributed some of the damage to special use permit groups..."? I am quite willing to bring it to their attention, if you can refer me to the specific mistake. Also, who is seeing who as an adversary? Again, you have some specific reference in mind? |
|
