There's a push to ban fishing from jetties in NJ - get involved NOW

[Sudsy]

There's a push to ban fishing from jetties in NJ - get involved NOW Long Branch, Avalon, and a few other towns in NJ are at this moment making a concerted push to keep people off the jetties 24/7 as a matter of "Public Health and Safety." There's going to be a meeting this coming Wednesday, July 16, at Lisa Jackson’s office. Lisa is the head of the NJ Dept of Environmental Protection (DEP, the people who take the lead in beach access issues in NJ). The meeting is going to be between the lawyers for the towns and the DEP.

According to DEP rules, the public cannot be denied access to the water, including the jetties except when there's an exigent (exceptional) reason. The towns are using "Public Health and Safety," a buzz term in government, claiming that jetty rocks are slippery and sharp as their exigent reason. They are probably going to use as an excuse the cost of defending injury lawsuits even though they are not legally liable.

The way I see it, this smells suspiciously like Long Branch’s way of using the back door to legislate us off Elberon’s side roads. This is something they are trying to do now with parking regulations. These new parking regulations are probably against the DEP rules, forcing the town to try this angle. I’m not familiar with the other towns’ reasons as they are south of LBI and outside of the area with which I’m familiar.

What we have to do is barrage Lisa Jackson’s office with calls and e-mails letting her know how important access to the jetties is to us. Please be courteous and keep in mind that Lisa and the DEP are on our side. Lisa’s husband surf fishes (though probably not as hardcore as most of us). It's important that the DEP understands how many of us use the jetties and that we are extremely serious about protecting our 24/7 access to them.

For you out-of-state people, please mention the amount of money you spend in NJ on tackle, meals, and lodging and that you will be bringing that money elsewhere if you are denied jetty access.

[email protected]

Lisa.Jackson
Office of the Commissioner
401 E. State St.
7th Floor, East Wing
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402

phone: 609-292-2885
fax: 609-292-7695

[sadlsorz]

This is unbelievable to me. Whats next???

[Striperjim]

Obviously access to the beach.
They dont like the legions of unwashed and unshaved fishing in their neighborhoods. These coastal communities all have money thus political clout. But so do we - as orgs and groups who vote. The politicians do listen. Not all of them are morons but many are.
Political science. [yawn] LSATs [yawn harder]

Lawyer + Politician =

[Sudsy]

The way it works is that the local politicians listen to the townspeople screaming about fisherman on "their" beaches at all hours, making noise and leaving a mess (something that is our own fault and something we need to try and police ourselves). If that local mayor/councilman doesn't at least give the impression of trying to do what the people want then he/she loses votes and, more importantly, political contributions at the next election.

The state level politicians try not to get involved in "local" issues UNLESS they think it will get them more votes and political contributions for the next election.
Problem is that no politician wants to alienate blocks of people with large amounts of money.

Fortunately the people in the DEP are not elected and have proven that they will act in best interests of the general beach going public.

[Jimmy Z]

Hey Sudsy, is this because of that parking mess. Can't get 'em one way, we'll get 'em another.
Sad business.

[Sudsy]

I don't know for sure, especially in regards to the southern towns, but as far as Long Branch is concerned I have a pretty strong suspicion that that is the case.

[zimno1]

i sent this to lisa: not sure i worded it correctly.
How awful~ I heard news of jetty access being denied as a town ploy to keep people from fishing thier beaches where a lawsuit would be avoided (crock and we know it) clearly, the random traffic and parking are a nuisance to them but are we to believe them liable for anyone injured fishing in the tide line of any municipality>?gimme a break. another ploy to suppress people from a lifelong god given right to fish and fix their wagons finally. what if someone gets hurt there? like they care and I would venture they wish it would as perhaps it is not appealing to see people outside your window enjoying life's bounty and enjoying a day on the rocks. most of us wear protective (korkers) on our feet and if any law should be passed in regard to jetty fishing it should be wearing such equipment and not banning people from their sport. Next thing you know the surfers will be banned for exposure to the rip currents, please understand how ruthless this act would be and even though the numbers won't show it's support of killing this attempt it is the few of us who can and will be heard bringing to light the facts and arguments against such a bogus vindictive ruse

[Cappo]

Wow.

I am going to write up an email as well and send it to her. This is ridiculous.

[candleburnerZ]

Thats total "ca'ca".

Something must be done.

I'm gonna send an email about how important access is on jetties to fish. The fishing generations that have come, gone, and the ones tooo come on those jetties.

[MasterBaiter]

absolutely rediculous. I'm up in CT but if there is a petition or something I can sign, lemmie know cuz it only starts in NJ...who knows where it will end.

[zimno1]

well, i got a response from my email.
we now have a phone number to distribute & drive your regional rep. mad!

Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson has requested that I respond on her behalf to your recent e-mail regarding potential limitations on public access to tidal waters, specifically fishing access on jetties and groins.

As you know, the Public Trust Doctrine upholds that the public has the right to access tidal waterways and their shores and that these rights are held by the State in trust for the benefit of all the people. Accordingly, the Coastal Zone Management rules have always required public access to and along tidal waters and their shores when issuing permits for most coastal developments and activities, particularly along the oceanfront. Further, in recognition of the use of jetties and groins for fishing, the public trust rights rule required municipalities participating in Shore Protection Program funding to allow public access to jetties and groins, unless it is demonstrated that such access poses an extraordinary risk.

This exception will be applied at my discretion with the understanding that there are inherent risks associated with fishing from these structures under normal circumstances and that people engaged in fishing on these structures understand and accept such risks. In short, I would expect any restrictions on such jetties to represent exceptions rather than the rule.

Please contact the Bureau of Coastal and Land Use Compliance and Enforcement's Toms River field office at (732) 255-0787 and speak to the appropriate regional representative with any specific information you may have or receive related to public access restrictions. Thank you again for your interest and involvement in preserving public access.


David Rosenblatt
Administrator, Engineering and Construction
[email protected]
609.292.9236 Trenton
732.255.0770 Toms River

[Sudsy]

"the public trust rights rule required municipalities participating in Shore Protection Program funding to allow public access to jetties and groins, unless it is demonstrated that such access poses an extraordinary risk."

For the most part it's a very positive reply
However, I would like to see a detailed, concise definition for the term "extraordinary risk."
What we see as small to average risk might be construed by township attorneys as "extraordinary"

[zimno1]

you can bet that is right when push comes to shove/ how ya been>

[zimno1]

error in response?

Please be advised that the 3rd paragraph in the email (included below) you received from me regarding public access to jetties should have read as follows:

This exception will be applied at the Commissioner's discretion with the understanding that there are inherent risks associated with fishing from these structures under normal circumstances and that people engaged in fishing on these structures understand and accept such risks. In short, the Commissioner would expect any restrictions on such jetties to represent exceptions rather than the rule.

The error was made in the transition from the letter written for the Commissioner's signature to the email sent under my signature. Thank you for your understanding.

[Ed White]

I got the same reply regarding the correction....I guess when he said that "exceptions will be applied at MY discretion" it sounded too much like he personally was calling the shots, rather than "The Commissioner" ie: Ms. Jackson, who is probably his boss