Public Trust - Access Issues from Ocean City to Stone Harbor, NJ

[bunkerjoe4]

Folks, the time has come to correlate some of these stories and data relating to restricted access.

The case of Brookhaven, Long Island got me to thinking. I see that some progress has being made, but the bottom line is this:

Despite petitions, respectful meetings where reasonable people had intelligent dialogues, and one encouraging statement after another.... nothing is concrete at this point.

The fishermen who were fishing that beach for years, and some for decades, still have not received access they deserve. I believe this is a violation of their Constitutional Rights. I further believe many towns are aware of this when they close access and create legitimate "concerns" to mask the true intention of keeping fishermen off the property in question.

Well, I'm mad as hell, and not about to take it anymore! Remember the movie "Network"?

It is my contention that although progress has been made, the ultimate goal is to get people back to fishing in these areas they had previous access to, and to make that happen in a timely manner.

If you look at the major Constitutional legal issues that have been resolved in this country -- many were ultimately resolved in the courts of justice.

I have some experience seeing how this has worked through the eyes and stories of others who have had some success. It is my contention that in many cases, unless the town is faced with potential legal action, they will stonewall and try to make the issue go away.

It may not be necessary to go to court, as many cases are settled beforehand. Others have said the same thing here. I am just re-phrasing it.

I am setting up a series of threads, each dedicated to a specific town or area with Public Trust Access Issues. I would encourage all who are interested to gather and deposit any information in these threads you wish. If you feel it may be relevant, please post it.

Moreover, if anyone wants to cite our sources to help another case I am not aware of, feel free. I feel all web sites and fishing organizations should work together on these issues.

Furthermore, I will offer $100 from my pocket toward a retainer for ANY legal action that is begun in any of these areas. I might ask if others would consider contributing towards an attorney retainer, but that would be entirely up to you folks.

It doesn't matter to me whether I live there or it will affect me, and I would like you folks to please consider it as well, even if you think you can live your lives without getting involved.

Please remember this caveat:
Access, once lost, is rarely if ever re-gained.

I firmly believe this, but also believe if enough people get involved, we fishermen will prevail. These are our constitutionally protected rights, folks! Please don't let others carelessly trample on them.

This thread will focus on access issues in Avalon to Ocean City, NJ. The other threads will be titled for the areas they will concentrate on.

If there is any area I have omitted or merits a thread, please let me know and I will start it.

I believe in my heart that the towns in question will not respect us as fishermen unless they feel they have a chance to lose in court and lose face. I am willing to give whatever support I can, and that of the site's publicity, to act as a resource to make this happen.

Thanks in advance for whatever help you can provide, folks. You are not obligated to do so. You have every right to do nothing. All I ask is for you to consider if access in an area near to you was restricted or closed, how would you feel?

Thanks again, folks! You have all been great so far. There are some good soldiers here, but we must constantly enlist others to win this battle.

[bunkerjoe4]

I have received a report that a fisherman was kicked off a jetty in Ocean City, NJ, by the police. No reason was given other than he was not allowed to fish there.

I would appreciate if anyone could help to confirm, deny, or clarify this. Thanks.

[bababooey]

from the courier




Are NJ's beach access efforts washing away?


By WAYNE PARRY
The Associated Press

AVALON, N.J. - Looking forward to walking along that special stretch of New Jersey beach next summer? Not so fast.
Shore towns worried about high costs and courts worried about overextended government power are pushing back hard against New Jersey's efforts to expand public beach access in a state where some oceanfront property owners still think the sand belongs only to them.

Aided by a handful of volunteer beach access advocates, the state has made some progress in recent years making sure that the shore does not remain the private sandbox of a privileged few, adopting regulations calling for public access points and public restrooms.

It also used the threat of withholding funds for crucial beach replenishment projects as leverage for shore towns who might not be anxious to make beaches more open to the general public.
But those efforts have suffered a series of setbacks in recent weeks. An appeals court ruled last month that the state Department of Environmental Protection had no right to order towns to allow 24-hour access to their beaches, or to require bathrooms there.

Some lower-court rulings also went against the DEP in local beach access cases, including one that sought to force Long Beach Island property owners to sign easements allowing public access to part of their oceanfront property before beach replenishment would be allowed.

Those projects, which pump tons of sand from the ocean floor onto the shoreline, are vital to keeping up with New Jersey's erosion, as well as making sure the multi-billion-dollar tourism industry thrives at the shore.

And a proposed state law would place wide swaths of industrial or urban waterfront areas off-limits to the public, citing security and economic concerns.

It may add up to a confusing summer next year, with people unsure of which stretches of sand they're legally allowed to be on, and when they're allowed to be there.

"There is just a major assault on all the gains we've made in getting people to the water," said Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society, a coastal advocacy group. "People are trying to privatize the ocean, and make it something that belongs to a few instead of to all.

"The end result is more of the public is going to be excluded from beaches they're paying millions of dollars for," he said. "That's the insult added to injury."

Ralph Coscia, co-founder of Citizens Right to Access Beaches, or CRAB, said his group expected resistance to allowing greater public access to the shoreline.

"We knew there would be pushback on this, but if these decisions are allowed to stand, it could undo years of work in terms of trying to make sure the public can use public beaches," he said.

New Jersey's attorney general's office plans to ask the state Supreme Court to rule on the beach access case that was brought by Avalon, a Cape May County beach community that complained about having to spend millions of dollars to buy land for parking lots and bathrooms near the beach. The borough also cited safety concerns in allowing people on the beach in the middle of the night.
"People come down to the shore, decide to party, get tipsy, go for a swim at 2 in the morning, and if they drown, the first thing their family will do is sue the town because we allowed it," said Mayor Martin Pagliughi.

New rules adopted by New Jersey a year ago required public access points every quarter-mile and bathrooms every half-mile on any beach that has gotten public money. The access points requirement has not been affected by the court challenge.
The push for greater beach access in New Jersey came as the state helped pay for numerous beach replenishment projects. In 2006, the state sued Sea Bright and nine private beach clubs there seeking public access to beaches that were replenished with taxpayer money. The case is in mediation.

Under the Public Trust Doctrine, a legal concept adopted by New Jersey that dates back to the Roman Emperor Justinian, the public has the right to swim in coastal waterways and walk along their shores.

But a bill proposed by state Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May Court House) would prohibit the DEP from requiring public access to transportation, military seaport, industrial, and energy facilities, and also would bar them from requiring the companies to pay for public waterfront facilities elsewhere to make up for the lack of access, which is currently done.

Van Drew said he originally had security concerns in mind when he sponsored the law. But he now cites the economic crash as another reason not to burden industry with expensive rules.
"I get the Public Trust Doctrine; I really believe in it," he said. "But enough is enough already. We already have enough regulations and fees in New Jersey. In the best of times, we can craft visionary legislation that will enable us to do all the things we want. Not now. Times are tough, businesses are closing, people are unemployed, and oh, by the way: here's more regulations and another fee."
,,,

[surferman]

This sux, I wonder where in the public trust this falls under?

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/n...cc4c03286.html





Ocean City to reinstate beach curfew


By MICHAEL MILLER Staff Writer, 609-463-6712 | Posted: Wednesday, July 8, 2009

‘If I didn’t have young kids, I’d be at the beach at night,’ says Eric Beil, of Quakertown, Pa.

Photo by: Matthew Strabuk






OCEAN CITY - The city's beaches will be off limits again to stargazers, starlight surf fishermen and romantic couples strolling under the moon.
City Council will vote tonight to reinstate a beach curfew between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. after a state court said towns could limit beach access.
In June 2008, Ocean City joined several other towns in allowing 24-hour beach access as a condition imposed by the state Department of Environmental Protection to participate in its beach-replenishment projects. But now that the state Supreme Court has struck down this condition, Ocean City Council wants its regulations back.
"I wasn't real comfortable when we changed it before, but I understood that (otherwise) we wouldn't get money from the state," Councilman Scott Ping said. "I don't care for the idea of keeping the beaches open 24/7. It makes it a lot more difficult to police as far as the kids down there partying and that kind of stuff."
Council will conduct a public hearing on the curfew at a meeting 7 p.m. tonight at City Hall. Many other Cape May County shore communities have similar or identical restrictions to keep people off the beach at night.
Ping said he talked to Police Chief Chad Callahan, who agreed that the curfew would make it easier to enforce quality-of-life issues such as noise. Callahan could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Capt. Jay Prettyman said the curfew would give police more latitude to keep the peace in beachfront neighborhoods.
The measure passed without dissent on first reading. Council President Susan Sheppard said she did not expect any opposition.
"Council decided it was best to make sure the beaches were safe," she said, adding that she did not take advantage of the open beaches when she had the chance.
"I'm in bed by 9," she said.
The city supports the ordinance, Business Administrator James Rutala said.
"It will provide another level of security," he said.
Despite the curfew, city police will continue to make regular patrols on the beach, he said.
Some beachgoers Wednesday said they thought the restrictions were unnecessary. Eric Beil, of Quakertown, Pa., and his 5-year-old son, Ethan, munched French fries on the Boardwalk. He said people should take personal responsibility for their behavior.
"It's a double-edged sword. I can see the reasoning for keeping it safe," he said. "But if I didn't have young kids, I'd be at the beach at night."
Joan Eshleman, of Myrtle Beach, S.C., said people should be free to walk the beach whenever they please.
She and her three sisters shared a Boardwalk bench in their beach attire while they swapped stories and laughed. They have been coming to Cape May County since they were little children.
"Why should I give up my walk? That's disgraceful. Don't they remember when they were a teenager?" she asked. "Choice, choice, choice, give us a choice. We're fighting two wars, aren't we? Isn't that about freedom?"
Her sister Rosemary Votta, of Glenwood, Pa., agreed. She fondly recalled stealing away to the beach with a boyfriend.
"A number of them over the years," she said, prompting giggles from her sisters. "We went under the Boardwalk. God gave us the beach. Let us use it."

If approved today, the curfew goes into effect July 29, the Clerk's Office said. But for those who want to enjoy the moonlight's reflection on the receding surf, there is always Corsons Inlet State Park on the island's south end.
State parks still offer 24-hour pedestrian access to the beaches, a DEP spokeswoman said.

[DarkSkies]

Here's a report from another site. A guy was kicked off a Stone Harbor jetty for night fishing. Although it's common for this on some jetties down there, the new DEP ruling
http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/...ead.php?t=6772
just makes it a lot easier for towns to make these rules. Get used to it, people.

Well after fishing on jettys for 25 plus years the unthinkable happened, two cops waved me off the jetty and asked me not to fish from it. First a saltwater license now this. What next ? Our fishing future looks bleak !

The cops were very polite, it was about 8:00 to 8:30 pm. I do understand their concern, but I am a grown man and I know the risk. Most importantly though, the fluke were biting on the end of that jetty. Oh well.

The reason given here was the officers were concerned for the guy's safety. This could easily be applied to the jetties of Monmouth county now that the DEP no longer has our back.

[cowherder]

It's sad to think that they can make up any rules they want now.

[njdiver]

Code of the Township of Ocean, New Jersey (Ocean County)

Title 12
STREET, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES

Article I
Launching of Boats


12.16.010 Findings.

A. The township owns or controls the street and lands over mean high water mark, as follows:
1. Northerly end of Compass Road and Capstan Road, they adjoin the shore line of oyster Creek;
2. Southerly end of Shore Drive where it adjoins the shore line of a lagoon;
3. Along the shore line of Barnegat Bay at the easterly end of: Beacon Drive, Nautilus
Road, Demmy Avenue, Dollmore Avenue, Ocean Avenue, Michigan Avenue, Adriaric
Avenue, Baltic Avenue, Pacific Avenue, Bonita Road and Point Road.

B.The launching of boats and fishing on those lands has caused congestion of traffic, a menace to the safety and welfare of the users of roads in this area, unsanitary conditions and the creation of noise and confusion to the residents of this area. (Prior code 55-8.1)


12.16.020 Prohibitions.

A. No person shall launch any boat, raft or other marine device from any township street or lands at or along the shoreline of:
1. Oyster Creek at the northerly ends of Compass Road and Capstan Road;
2. The lagoon where it adjoins the southerly terminus of Shore Drive;
3. Barnegat Bay at the easterly ends of Beacon Drive, Nautilus Road, Demmy Avenue, Dollmore Avenue, Ocean Avenue, Michigan Avenue, Adriatic Avenue, Baltic Avenue, Pacific Avenue, Bonita Road, Point Road and Atlantic Avenue.

B. Excepting the township-owned dock,, no person, firm or corporation shall fish, crab, seine or otherwise engage in the activity of catching fish or shellfish from any township street or lands at or along the shore line of:
1. Oyster Creek at the northerly ends of Compass Road and Capstan Road;
2. The lagoon where it adjoins the southerly terminus of Shore Drive;
3. Barnegat Bay at the easterly ends of, Beacon Drive, Nautilus Road, Demmy Avenue, Dollmore Avenue, Ocean Avenue, Michigan Avenue, Adriatic Avenue, Baltic Avenue, Pacific Avenue, Bonita Road, Point Road and Atlantic Avenue;
4. North Harbor at the northerly terminus of Vessel Road. (Prior code 45-8.2)

Chapter 12.16

DOCKS AND BOATS
Article III
Public Dock at the Easterly Terminus of Bay Road

12.16.080 Hours for fishing and crabbing.

The public dock will be open to fishing and crabbing during the hours of six a.m. to six p.m., prevailing time. Any person who refuses to cease fishing or crabbing on the dock during the hours it is closed for such purposes, and after being requested to do so by a police officer or other authorized official, shall be guilty of a violation of this chapter. (Prior code § 5-9B.5)

12.16.090 Refusal to leave-Violation.
Any person who refuses to leave the dock or pavilion when it is closed, after being requested to do so by a police officer or other authorized official, shall be guilty of a violation of this chapter. (Prior code $5-9B.6)

12.16.100 Penalty.
Any person convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be subject to the penalty as provided in Section 12.20.080. (Prior code $ 5-9B.7)


http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/codes/2941_A/Title%2012%20-%20Streets,%20Sidewalks%20and%20Public%20Places.pd f#xml=http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/searchresults.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=37&Index=C%3a% 5cProgram%20Files%5cdtSearch%5cUserData%5c2941%5fA &HitCount=5&hits=259e+266b+2a10+2a1a+2a30+&hc=10&r eq=fishing

[porgy75]

There seems to be no hope for the fisherman.

[fishinmission78]

Its about the $$, they cater to whoever brings more revenue to the town.