Pinelands National

Lakeshore
Environmental Issues – Dr. Dan Moscovici

Mani Arango, Colleen Ebert,

11/3/22 ENVL 4300
Madison Post, Cheyenne Fraley
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to identify and establish the functionalities and benefits of the
Pinelands National Lakeshore conservation located in southern New Jersey. Specified and allowed uses of
the land were identified through various maps indicating trails and marked boundaries for specific
activities. Information and resources were gathered pertaining to fees and funding obtained by the
Lakeshore as well as the general operations maintained throughout the conservation. Benefits of the
conservation to the nearby town, Fredville, were also analyzed, in addition to possible pressures Fredville
could pose for the conservation. The findings resulted in the Pinelands National Lakeshore being profit-
bearing and imposing many benefits on Fredville, but also receiving considerable pressures onto the
conservation from the town’s development.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Fees and Funding 4

Benefits of Conservation 5

Pressures of Developed Land 5

Introduction
National Lakeshores offer a unique combination of resources including inland lakes and deep
forest (U.S. Department of the Interior). These features are an integral part of Pinelands National
Lakeshore and offer numerous activities for a wide diversity of visitors to participate in through passive
and consumptive outdoor recreation. Passive recreation such as hiking and birdwatching is allowed in all
National Parks, including National Lakeshores, in the United States. National Lakeshores, however, boast
the uncommon characteristic of allowing the consumptive recreations of hunting and fishing in
accordance with state and federal law (Daues, 1991). This National Lakeshore is a conservation;
therefore, it prioritizes the proper use of the landscape and nature rather than protecting it from use (Lane,
2020).
To maximize interest in nature
and visitation to the protected area,
Pinelands National Lakeshore allows
walking, running, hiking, equestrianism,
canoeing, kayaking, bird watching,
mountain biking, hunting, fishing, and
camping. Diversifying activities that are
available to the public encourages
ecotourism as made evident by the
421,000 recreation visits to Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore in 2001
Figure 1: Map of hiking and biking trails on Pinelands National
(Stynes & Sun, 2003). Several of the Lakeshore. Acquired from Trailforks.

allowed activities are multifaceted and

involve other interests in addition to
ecotourism. Being outside in nature is a
foundational part of hiking, mountain
biking, and equestrianism, but these
activities necessitate a certain landscape
or trail system to accommodate them.
Figures 1 and 2 display the designated
trail networks made available for those
wishing to participate in hiking or
mountain biking while Figure 3 details
Figure 2: Map of mountain biking trail around Pineland National
the trail assigned to horseback riding. In Lakeshore. Acquired from Trailforks.

Figure 3: Map of guided horseback riding trails around Pinelands
National Lakeshore. Acquired from Trailforks
Pinelands National Lakeshore is free of charge, however equipment rentals and hunting access permits
provide a source of profit for the Lakeshore (Figure 6).
addition to a trail network, Pinelands
National Lakeshore has separate areas for
hunting and fishing (Figure 4). While there
is no area specifically designated for
birdwatching, most of the Lakeshore is
available for this type of passive recreation.
There are multiple open-field recreation
areas as displayed in Figure 5, and lodging
options available for visitors who wish to
extend their stay at the Lakeshore overnight.
The Lakeshore Lodge provides amenities
such as organic produce from the horse farm
inholding within the Lakeshore. Entrance to

Figure 4: Map of hunting and fishing zones within Figure 5: Map of amenities and land use on Pinelands
Pinelands National Lakeshore. National Lakeshore.
 Nationally protected public lands, such as Pinelands National Lakeshore, provide individuals with
the opportunity to enjoy and feel connected to nature as well as giving them a chance to participate in
outdoor recreation. In a study conducted at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, visitors said they were
able to identify the ideas of “preservation, peacefulness, a sense of wonder, and uniqueness as significant
meanings the park holds for them” (English, 2006). Providing wildlife connection opportunities for
visitors can in turn have a beneficial effect on the protected land. Detailed in the Journal of Wildlife
Management, individuals who participate in outdoor recreation are on average 4.5 times more likely to
exhibit environmentally positive and conscious behavior (Cooper et al, 2015).

Fees and Funding

The Pinelands National Lakeshore collects
fees and receives funding through on-site activities,
permits, and an on-site gift and produce shop.
Funding is also received through the Great American
Outdoors Act and the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (U.S. Department of Interior, 2022). As
participation in outdoor activities grows, the outdoor
industry has become an economic powerhouse in
recreation (Seifer, 2019). The Pinelands National
Lakeshore is required to obtain funding and monetary
collection to ensure the Lakeshore can steward
degrading lands, control wildlife disruption and water
quality from the recreation that takes place (Seifer,
2019). Fees collected from rentals include use of
single and tandem kayaks, canoes, and the purchase
of hunting and fishing access permits (Figure 6).
Visitors wishing to purchase these rentals and permits
for activities may do so at the Lakeshore Lodge Figure 4: Fees and Funding collected onsite by the
Pinelands National Lakeshore. Created by Cheyenne
visitor center. The Lakeshore Lodge also has a gift Fraley, 2022.
shop and a produce market with items from the Horse
Farm inholding which has an organic farm on their site. The Horse Farm allocates their produce to the
Lakeshore’s Market in return for use of the Lakeshore trails for guided horseback riding; all profits from
the produce market goes to the conservation. The National Lakeshore aims to be self-sufficient in
maximizing revenue for the area as funding cannot be relied on through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund as funding is constantly fluctuating (Walls, 2009). Overall, the Lakeshore is profit-bearing due to
the recreation and permits supplied, especially with the nearby town. Though, prices will remain at a fair
price nonetheless to ensure visitor satisfaction and constant visitation (Hatfield, 1991).

Benefits of Conservation
The Pinelands National Lakeshore will provide numerous social, environmental, and economic
benefits to the surrounding town and communities. Accessibility to nature-based recreation and public
lands is immensely important to human health and mental well-being. The scenery, trails, and various
recreational activities throughout the conservation provide great social opportunities, especially for locals
in the nearby town in search of public access to nature. Positive participation and perspective on protected
areas from gateway communities surrounding the land is a powerful tool to help maintain successful
environmental conservation (Zhang et al, 2020). Although nature and outdoor activities are extremely
beneficial to human health, many unprotected ecosystems face threats of degradation due to
anthropogenic activities such as deforestation, uphill cultivation, and human development (Gwandu,
2013). Therefore, having a protected, public parcel will guarantee proper conservation of the natural
environment for locals and visitors to enjoy.
Economically, the Pinelands National Lakeshore would produce immense revenue from visitor
spending as well. In 2001, park visitors at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore spent $14.8 million within
the local area, generating an average of $4.6 million in direct personal income (Stynes, 2003). In 2004,
park visitors at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore spent $15 million within 30 miles of the park (Stynes,
2006). In addition to visitor spending, the produce from the Horse Farm would provide local food sources
for the local communities and visitors to encourage sustainable, local spending. Providing local food
systems to communities can have smaller economic impacts but can also be linked to various other
benefits such as increased quality of life, social capital, and community participation (Hughes & Boys,
2015). Implementing fees for hunting and fishing permits within the park can also result in direct
economic and environmental values by maintaining wildlife populations that affect the nearby
communities (Benson, 1989).

Pressures of Developed Land

Although development in and around protected areas supports the provision of ecosystem
services, employment opportunities, and conservation of cultures, there are still plenty of social and
environmental pressures exerted. Leroux and Kerr (2013) measured the effects of land development in
and around Canadian protected wilderness and found that development around protected areas may
increase pressure for development within parks. Although land development was far less extensive inside
than outside protected areas, several protected areas had substantial development inside their boundaries,
and nearly half of protected areas had roads.
Protected areas are not always beneficial to the communities that surround them, particularly
indigenous or native groups. State authorities and conservation organizations often ignore problems of
conservation-induced impoverishment (Brockington & Schmidt-Soltau, 2004) and protected areas may
cause more harm or inconvenience to local groups. Development controlled by conservation authorities
within protected lands leads to involuntary relocation, residency without access to resources, and
assimilation (Roa & Geisler, 1990). Developed and private lands can restrict access to public lands as
well; unless the owner of an inholding has granted a form of use to the public, which they are not
obligated to do, members of the public on surrounding land have no right to access the private property
(Zale, 2022). Private development can also cause habitat fragmentation, loss of wildlife connectivity and
diversity, adverse impacts on watersheds and ecosystem services, and degradation of the aesthetics of a
protected area.
Inholdings, such as the Hospital and Horse Farm located on Pinelands National Lakeshore, pose
significant challenges to public lands management, ranging from access and boundary disputes to adverse
impacts on wildlife, habitat, watersheds, and cultural and historic resources. Because they fall under the
jurisdiction of the local government, inholdings lead to problems with innholder access, boundary
disputes, burdens on efficient federal public lands management, barriers to public access, adverse impacts
from incompatible development, and real estate speculation (Tanner, 2002). An inholding within public
lands complicates federal land management responsibilities and increases the costs of forest land
management agreements as well as compliance with federal laws. They complicate fire mitigation
activities; making controlled burns more expensive, time-consuming, and dangerous than they would be
on other public lands because of the risk of the fire spreading to structures on an inholding (Zale, 2022).
Human land use degrades and reduces the effectiveness of protected areas as reference sites for
understanding and predicting the effects of global change on biodiversity (Leroux & Kerr, 2013) and
despite the advances made for protected areas in recent years there are still biodiversity hotspots and areas
of important habitat that are not adequately protected. Land development and human influence has had,
and will continue to have, a devastating impact on habitat and species survival; recognizing the need for
both will require recognizing conflicts and incompatibilities (Brockington & Schmidt-Soltau, 2004).
Works Cited
Benson, D. (1989). Changes from Free to Fee Hunting. Rangelands. 11(4), 176-179.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/10730/10003
Brockington, D., & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2004). The social and environmental impacts of wilderness and
development. Oryx, 38(2), 140-142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605304000250
Cooper, C., Larson, L., Dayer, A., Stedman, R., & Decker, D. (2015). Are Wildlife Recreationists
Conservationists? Linking Hunting, Birdwatching, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. The Journal
of Wildlife Management, 79(3), 446–457. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24365388
Daues, T. V. (1991). Furbearer activity relative to habitat in pictured rocks national lakeshore (thesis).
University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/80500
English, K. Y. (2006). Barriers to minority participation in interpretive public programs at Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore (thesis). University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point.
http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/81046
Gwandu, L. G. (2013) Effect of Anthropogenic Activities on Degradation of Lakeshores: A Case of Lake
Babati. The University of Dodoma. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12661/1523
Hatfield, R. (1991). The role of recreation fees in public land management. Reno ProQuest Dissertations.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/304513108?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Hughes, D. W., Boys, K. A. (2015). What We Know and Don’t Know About the Economic Development
Benefits of Local Food Systems. Choices, 30(1), 1-6.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/choices.30.1.03
Lane, T. (2020) Conservation vs. Preservation. Northwest Arkansa Land Trust.
https://www.nwalandtrust.org/post/conservation-vs-preservation
Leroux, S. J., & Kerr, J. T. (2013). Land development in and around protected areas at the wilderness
frontier. Conservation Biology, 27(1), 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
1739.2012.01953.x
Rao, K., & Geisler, C. (1990). The social consequences of protected areas development for resident
populations. Society & Natural Resources, 3(1), 19-32. https://archive.org/details/sim_society-
natural-resources_1990_3_1
Seifer. J. (2019). Funding Mechanisms for Federal Public Land Agencies. Journal of Science Policy and
Governance. 15(1).
https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/seifer_jspg_v15.pdf
Stynes, D. J. (2006). Impacts of Visitor Spending on the Local Economy: Apostle Islands National
Lakeshore, 2004. Michigan State University (National Park Service).
http://www.npshistory.com/publications/social-science/mgm2/parks/apis.pdf
Stynes, D. J., & Sun, Y. (2003). Impacts of Visitor Spending on Local Economy: Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore, 2001. Michigan State University (National Park Service)
http://npshistory.com/publications/social-science/mgm2/parks/piro.pdf
Tanner, R. (2002). Inholdings within wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness, 8(3), 9.
https://winapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness/NWPS/documents/Tanner1.pdf
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2022, August). Land and Water Conservation Fund (U.S. National Park
Service). National Parks Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.htm
U.S. Department of the Interior. (n.d.). Pictured rocks national lakeshore (U.S. National Park Service).
National Parks Service. Retrieved October 31, 2022, from https://www.nps.gov/piro/index.htm
Walls, M. (2009, January). Federal funding for conservation and recreation - resources for the future.
Resources For the Future. https://media.rff.org/documents/RFF-BCK-ORRG_LWCF.pdf
Zale, K. (2022). Inholdings. Harv. Env't L. Rev., 46, 439.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/helr46&div=14&g_sent=1&casa_token=
&collection=journals
Zhang, Y., Xiao, X., et. al. (2020) How Important is Community Participation to Eco-environmental
Conservation in Protected Areas? From the Perspective of Predicting Locals’ Pro-environmental
Behaviors. Science of The Total Environment, 739.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139889