• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

NJ seeks to ban MV's in state forests

OL AG '89

Member
743
9
18
Location
Kingwood, Texas
Never been there, but I hear its nice.....
NOTHING like TEXAS, but then what is????

Anyway comments sent in defense of the intelligent!!!
not the wreckless!!
 

SteveKuhn

New member
1,227
4
0
Location
Hasbrouck Heights NJ
The problem isn't in trying to manage and preserve valuable areas, or in policing violators who damage them. The problem is in specifically banning 2 types of MVs without regard to how they are operated. That's bad rule-making.

Steve
 

jerseyjeep2003

New member
224
1
0
Location
Gloucester City NJ
Once an area is irreversibly damaged, and the ecosystem is demolished, then all the FWD types need is a good unreclaimed West Virginia strip mine to off road in. If you haven't seen one of those in person, you'd appreciate what the Park Rangers are trying to stop from happening in your state.

This is what has happened in the pines, There were abandoned gravel pits that we used to play in. Well then people started expanding outward further and further away from the pits. It got to the point that for many miles around the pit there were hundreds of concentrated trails and mud pits. This happened around every old pit. So yes, this is EXACTLY what they are trying to prevent. For you NJ guys that are advocating revolution, I know you all know where Hidden Lakes is. I remember when there was nothing more there than a dock and a rope swing! No truck trails, no broken glass. Oh yea, there was a boxed in natural spring. The wheelers drove right through that. I actually have pictures of it back then but I do not have a scanner.
Rick, actions like what happened to Hidden Lakes are exactly what are pushing our Eco friends and state regulators to close the woods to all off roaders. But, not everyone that wheels the Pines are buttholes. Some of us do care about the habitat. We also care about our hobby and want to see the trails stay open to EVERYONE. I know there are a limited number of Rangers to enforce the laws. But, my thoughts are with enforcing the laws that control those who don't care about the condition they leave the trails in. ANY vehicle can have a negative impact on the environment IF the operator tries to spin the wheels and "tear it up". I once asked a ranger if there was anything I could do if I saw someone out there with reckless abandon. She said not to try and stop them, as there ARE people that carry weapons in the woods and things could get nasty. But, I should call the ranger station and let them handle it. My philosophy is: If you get stuck because you were doing something stupid, then you are staying stuck...no help from me. BUT, I will call the rangers and get you some help.
 

rickf

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
3,124
1,615
113
Location
Pemberton, N.J.
My philosophy is: If you get stuck because you were doing something stupid, then you are staying stuck...no help from me. BUT, I will call the rangers and get you some help.

It is funny you say that because it makes me think. I have never left anyone stuck or broken down in the woods, it not my nature. During the day is not bad in spring or fall but summer and winter can be dangerous and night any time of the year is dangerous.How would you feel if you found out that someone you left in a hole and called the rangers ended up dieing while trying to get out or maybe the Rangers never showed up or could not find them? I feel the same as you with calling the Rangers but I will not leave someone stuck. Someday I might be the one stuck and that Ahole may be the only other person out there. Plus I can go to bed at night knowing I did not leave anyone in danger, regardless of how much of an idiot they were.

I am going to the Virginia Rally over Labor day and Gilbert at the rend of the month, after that I would like to take a ride through the pines to see how things have changed. Maybe we can get together for the day.

Rick
 

SteveKuhn

New member
1,227
4
0
Location
Hasbrouck Heights NJ
Got a call today from State Sen. Bob Gordon's office asking if I wanted to make any additional points because they're reviewing the rule. I had sent him a copy of my comments to the bureau. Nice to know that stuff like that gets read and registers. It was worth taking a few minutes to write something.

Steve
 

rickf

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
3,124
1,615
113
Location
Pemberton, N.J.
Note that you said "his office" called, not him. True, it is nice that someone is reading it but I believe that is called "screening" . Now, Will the senator actually see it?

Rick
 

SteveKuhn

New member
1,227
4
0
Location
Hasbrouck Heights NJ
Who knows what'll happen? I'm not too proud to take a few minutes to talk to a staffer. To me it's better than dead air and better to be able to say I let them know what I think.

Steve
 

marksgarage2

New member
216
0
0
Location
Southampton, NJ
If this passes I am moving out of state. Those fire roads will grow in and they wont be able to put out the fires. Just another kick in the pants from NJ. Its a great place to live if you dont like the outdoors. And we all know they will still tear up the pines at night nomatter what laws they pass!
 

marksgarage2

New member
216
0
0
Location
Southampton, NJ
Hey Rick. Heading to the pines this weekend with the landcruiser. Matts farm got shutdown also. No more anything there. This is one sorry state anymore. I sold my shop and hope to move out of NJ within a year.
 

rickf

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
3,124
1,615
113
Location
Pemberton, N.J.
Hey Rick. Heading to the pines this weekend with the landcruiser. Matts farm got shutdown also. No more anything there. This is one sorry state anymore. I sold my shop and hope to move out of NJ within a year.
PM me your number and I will give you a call. I lost your number a while ago.

Rick
 

saddamsnightmare

Well-known member
3,618
80
48
Location
Abilene, Texas
August 5th, 2012. (Reprised July 23rd, 2014)

Beyond getting perilously close to "political speech", I can see you fellows in NJ have a problem. The problem is that too many unthinking people are damaging the State forests and parks with off road vehicles of every type, and so an administrative solution has been proposed. Unfortunately, with too few Park Rangers to take out, ticket and impound the offenders rides and wallets, the rest of you all get tarred with their brush. Regrettably, if it were me, I'd err on the side of enforcement, impoundment and heavy fines untill the offenders are properly dispatched, but if the damage is as extensive as they seem to say it is, perhaps it might be well to close the area until clean up efforts, wildlife and plantlife can reestablish itself.
Most Park Services have first a mission to protect and preserve, then, and only then, to make the areas available for reasonable recreation purposes. Once an area is irreversibly damaged, and the ecosystem is demolished, then all the FWD types need is a good unreclaimed West Virginia strip mine to off road in. If you haven't seen one of those in person, you'd appreciate what the Park Rangers are trying to stop from happening in your state.
For those advocating revolution, please do give it a shot, there are many of us sworn to uphold the law as part of our jobs, so I believe we would enforce it where and how it is needed to best solve the problem and protect the resource. It is talk like that, and behavior like those folks who are tearing up the Parks, that builds a case for more control and more limited access. If you can't handle having the resources protected, please move west and mess up other areas where people value their land less then their "Rights", the result might just decrease the pressure on your state parks, but I doubt it, as the east coast is much too populous now for that to have a substantial effect.
It may be that too many of "us" value our present rights too much, to place any real value on the condition of the world we are creating for the future generations, otherwise we would be doing many things in our daily lives much differently. Just my "IMHOP", but in any case some solution will be reached down your way, let's hope that reason and not just emotion and "wind" prevails.....:shock:

(Additional thought added to the above original post 7-23-2014 KFM)

Just additional food for your thought: How many of us realize that on June 30th, 1864, during the bloodiest year of our Civil War, and facing the possibility of no being re-elected, that President Abraham Lincoln made a gift to you and I, and all the future? The first "Preservationist" President set aside the "Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of Big Trees" as a grant to the State of California that they might be preserved for the use of the common man and woman, never to be granted away for private development. No other leader in history had ever done such a thing, and we and all generations to come benefit by such things, but it also imposes upon us the duty to see these site are handed down in an unaltered state for the future generations to enjoy. What this original post of mine, and No. 38 above does place upon us, is the choice to either accept the duty, or not. Once these areas are destroyed they will never be recreated again.... A pretty heavy load, isn't it? We can either be the solution or the problem....:D

Personally, I do believe that most of us are willing to accept the duties and carry on the charges to both preserve these memorable sites, and educate our fellow users in the proper care of the gifts that they have been given, much as we attempt to preserve our rather unique historical vehicles.... Now is OUR chance to make a positive difference and help the Rangers protect all such areas set aside for us and for the future.
 
Last edited:

tim292stro

Well-known member
2,118
40
48
Location
S.F. Bay Area/California
Not that I disagree with the thought process here, as an Eagle Scout - I was brought up with "Pack out what you brought in," and "Leave a place nicer than you found it." From the posts here I can see that they were close but wrong, I'll be teaching my son "Pack out more than you packed in AND leave it nicer than you found it".

Though many here may disagree with me - I agree with the concept of generally locking out 4WD from most if not all local, State, and Federal parks. I would prefer that rather than specifically calling out certain types of vehicle, that all vehicles be equally treated. Rather late for any law I'm sure but I have some suggestions:


  • The law(s) should be specifically written to ensure that vehicle restrictions be placed on off-road trails only. Respecting and acknowledging that State and Federal vehicle codes and laws already cover on-road vehicles - even when within park boundaries.
  • Maps of the park should be current and clearly show the roads that are "On-Road" - it will be much easier for Johnny Law to argue that you are off-road, and much easier for you to argue in court with GPS logs that you were "On-Road". The map that they issue when you enter the park that day shall be legally binding in this respect.

However, I also think that exceptions for off-road use should be possible and codified:

  1. A "4WD Club" or group of off-roaders doing a tour of the site - this would be a special event permit, and would be managed by the club in cooperation with the Rangers. They could pay for the Ranger's salary for the day(s) with the permit fee. Allow the Rangers to review the plan for the tour and have them accompany the club or group on the ride, Site Rangers hold approval/disapproval rights and can make alteration suggestions. This will include the number of vehicles permitted and can vary based on type and weight of vehicles. Ranger shall have say when you are breaking your agreement to "Tread Lightly", and that will immediately end your permit - after which your entire group would have to leave immediately. Failure to leave immediately, goto item #4. If your group is asked to leave, they will not be eligible to apply for a permit for:
    1. Minor damage (rutted a road, widened a trail, littering) - 1 year.
    2. Major damage (vehicle versus nature collision, vehicle on vehicle collision, torn up meadow) - 5 years
    3. Catastrophic damage (forest fire, fuel or lubricant spill) - 10 years.
  2. Limit the number of Tour permits that can be obtained annually for each site, and hold a "lottery" for the permits issued versus the applications. This will limit the total number of wheels that roll on a given site. Doing a lottery will ensure that the less financially capable "clubs" would be able to access the sites.
  3. Require as a condition of the permit that clean-up or improvement of the site be mandatory, this shall be part of the ride plan that the Rangers approve. This is similar to a service project that most Boy Scouts should be familiar with.
  4. Violations: As part of the law, make arrest of all present and the immediate seizure of an un-permitted vehicle the penalty for being caught driving in the park, along with mandatory community service as part of your incarceration (go to jail at night for bed, wake up and fix what you ruined - sentence goes until you fix what you broke). Park shall sell the vehicle as part of the funding for the repairs, highest bidder auction.


I'm thinking this way since SS does rallies, other groups do too - that would be an organized event. Event organizers would control who they allow to attend, people would still get access, and the parks would end up nicer. It would also make it much easier for the Rangers and legislators to tell "who doesn't belong" which is really what this type of law it about. Putting a bright colored tag in the window of the vehicles that are on the special event permit.

This architecture should reduce or eliminate profiling based on a type a vehicle (it's up to you to explain why you were nowhere near your planned tour on your permit), retain controlled access to these resources, and leave the places generally improved. Also, with the restriction of the number of vehicles, it would provide a way for the younger generations to "learn the ropes" - I'd envision this working by the senior people in a club or group bringing their vehicles and letting the younger ones ride and drive with the tutelage of the more experienced. I'd hope that as the younger one get older and get their trucks running - the clubs and groups would allow them to start bringing their trucks (swapped roles).

Having an obvious permit in the window on a tour would allow people not included on the tour to tell that they should be there, and give a method of reporting should something be done incorrectly (not permit = report, permit + bad behaviour = report). With the usage of GoPro type cameras - the use of which is bemoaned earlier in this thread due to the actions of the vehicle operator), could instead be a log of your trip for others when posted to YouTube - and also your defense should someone try to report you without due cause.


Sure it's not as much fun as spinning your tires and tearing up the side of a rock face, but it's not "no access". It's controlled curated access - which reflects more what a park is: a nice place for everyone to visit.


[Edit:] Most of these ideas come from the tour permit concept which even applies to hikers out here in California - want to go somewhere on someone's property or a backwoods area in a general park, need a tour permit. [/Edit]
 
Last edited:

quickfarms

Well-known member
3,495
25
48
Location
Orange Junction, CA
This has been an issue since I grew up in New Jersey. Back in the day it was full size trucks with 40" or 44" mudders or super swampers.

We switched to mini trucks and jeeps to eliminate the trail damage.

Most of the trails that used to run would be damaged if you ran a 6x6 down them. The brush trucks have full cages to protect them.

Further south in New Jersey there are many trails that look more like dirt roads.
 

Jeepsinker

Well-known member
5,399
455
83
Location
Dry Creek, Louisiana
Tim292stro,
While I was raised the same as you were, and agree with some portions of what you posted, there is much that I do not agree with. Some of the things you posted seem way overboard and downright draconian. Don't get me wrong, when people do wrong they should be punished, but just like some California laws, there is a place for some of it and it is in California only....
 

tim292stro

Well-known member
2,118
40
48
Location
S.F. Bay Area/California
Personally I think some California laws, well... I'll leave that one where it is... :)

My concern is that people are treating the wilderness areas like a game of Grand Theft Auto - do as much crap as fast as you can with no consequences because the reality is everyone can't be watched at all times. Some of my suggestions may in fact be draconian by most people's standards - for example the seizing of a vehicle used in the destruction of a wilderness area, and the forced repair of the damage done. Sure it's your hard earned cash, time, and personal pride in that vehicle, and the convicted will probably have to do hard labor to fix what broke - but if you use your vehicle and freedoms like you are indiscriminately shooting a mini-gun into a crowd of 1000 civilians and 3 insurgents to get the insurgents, there's gonna have to be a severe consequence. Doing the work to repair the damage themselves is a hard earned lesson in realizing the scope of the damage they did - kind of like having your kid fix the neighbor's flower garden after they rode their bike through it (different scale).

The unfortunate reality is that while these laws (proposed or passed) affect us negatively, these laws are not necessarily written for people like you or me - they are written for people who did not have the benefit of boundaries when they were being raised, or maybe had too many boundaries and were constantly testing them for weak spots like a velociraptor in a cage...

I personally like the rules which are visible from a distance and so are easy to abide by, sting like a brick wall if you run into them, and as consistently as a brick wall. It's my personal opinion that if we had well constructed laws/rules, we'd need fewer of them in general - you'd have the occasional nut who tries to wee on the electric fence to see what it does, but that's why we have TV shows about screw-ups talking to cops. I'm sure if we had more better behaved people we wouldn't have a State that's trying to become our Nanny (currently they seem to think we need one).
 
Last edited:

USAFSS-ColdWarrior

Chaplain
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
18,538
5,822
113
Location
San Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas USA
Why is this thread reinvigorated?? Nothing has changed. Just wondering why this discussion restarted
1. Because it's an internet forum.
2. Because it remains an OPEN internet forum.
3. Because in surfing the internet, and specifically this website, new eyes become aware of this preexisting discussion on this internet forum.
4. Because they can.

IMHO
...with tongue in cheek.
(Hope you heard me chuckle as I typed that.)

Carry on.
 

clinto

Moderator, wonderful human being & practicing Deuc
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
Supporting Vendor
12,596
1,129
113
Location
Athens, Ga.
Some of the things you posted seem way overboard and downright draconian. Don't get me wrong, when people do wrong they should be punished
Although in theory I agree with this; in execution it's nearly impossible. The agency in charge of an area would have to have sufficient manpower to more or less watch every vehicle in the area and document misuse/abuse.

Then it gets to the already overworked court system, which doesn't have enough courthouses, judges, bailiffs, etc. Then we can either send the offenders to the already overpopulated jails or we (the court system) can fine them.

Once we fine them, inevitably someone will sue the govt. saying that the public lands should be usable by the public in any way desired, so that's another 3 years of legal bills to defend themselves.

I understand why in these instances they just do outright bans: They don't have the manpower or budgets for a more nuanced solution.
 

jeepinjp

New member
5
0
0
Location
NJ
That is the atypical east coast response. But in reality it is public land and some(with specific qualifications )s/b open to the public. And in other parts of the country where there are plenty of publicly run OHV parks and trails, they use volunteers and volunteer groups to both do maintenance and also to report wrongdoers and it is quite successful for years. Those who follow the files will gladly turn in those that jeopardize their opportunity to wheel legally.
 
Top