jia
Jun 11, 2007, 4:17 PM
Post #1 of 1
(784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
looks like based on the underlying communication the County was setting up climbers to take a mega hit in fines. the county wanted trail work done and said we don't need permits. a review of the issue
over the weekend brought this to light.
when i pointed this out to the Parks, then HC Parks sent along this response this morning. seems to me HC was looking and hoping climbers would do the trail work and then get hit w/ fines.
my response is below the county e-mail.
rock on.
jia
_________________________________________________________________
John A.
Just to clarify some issues referenced in your last message...
Hunterdon County didn't "pass (ed) a reg in an unusal and behind the door manner" (cut & pasted from your message). There were always County regulations against climbing activities, and summons had
already been written individually or collectively in several areas, depending upon the circumstances... as an unauthorized activity, conducting an unsafe act, disregard of posted regulations (where signs
were posted near rock areas), or in the case of off-trail access, it would have been against the environmental damage to critical steep slope habitats, and/or trampling/disturbance of wildlife or vegetation. The only change at the time was that the County clarified
specific language in the regulations. Beyond the concerns of this Department (where we do care about public safety, of course, but we are primarily charged with being custodians of the environment), the
County Risk Manager, County Counsel, and Freeholders were more fearful of accident-related problems like public injury & liability. So at
the time, the County clarified language in the ordinance package,
under the "Prohibited Acts:" section; the language is now as follows:
"...and climbing on, or rappelling from any cliff, rock face, or
boulder, with, or without the use of specialized equipment".
Speaking of liability concerns, waivers are not worth the paper they
are printed on. If someone is critically injured, or worse, you don't
think attorney for the family of an injured party isn't going to go
after the landowner, especially if it is a public agency, with
perceived "deep pockets?" If this has not been your experience with
the climbing community, I can show you MANY instances where reckless
acts, in violation of park ordinances (like unauthorized
swimming/drowning, injury/death from ATV/dirt bike use, even
slips/falls while doing seeming benign unauthorized acts on public
properties) have resulted in huge law suits/settlements. I have a
collection of articles written by James Kozlowski, an attorney for the
National Recreation & Park Assn., referencing many cases of litigation
against public agencies, where the signature of a liability waiver was
discounted in court (in cases where non-signatory family members
initiate the litigation).
Also, please contact me ASAP about the trail project issue. We need
to discuss and agree upon a precise plan before any trail work is
done. I still have my concerns about your "adopt-a-crag" trail
projects. They might focus hike-in impact to trails near rock areas,
but they do make access to rock areas easier, and thus contribute to
our problem. Although the earth around the Sourlands rock area is
pretty much compacted already, by climbing activities, I'm not sure
how a trail in that area could help. Also, we have stopped granting
Eagle Scout & other volunteer trail project in the Sourlands, for 2
reasons... 1. we feel there are already too many trails in the area,
to the detriment of wetlands on site; and, 2. some of the
unauthorized trails lead out of the park onto private properties,
where owners have asked us to loop these trails back into the park.
Even if we pile downed wood & other materials on unauthorized trail
sections, visitors quickly open them up again, much to the dismay of
our neighboring property owners.
As has been done in some park areas to promote re-vegetation, by
installing deer enclosures, I might even consider fencing off the
entire rock area at Sourlands (out to our authorized main trail), to
allow the reemergence of undergrowth. The problem is that although
fencing might keep deer out, all I would be promoting is a new fence
and rock climbing facility! As I've said before, show me a way to
reveg the crevices under & around rock sites, and I might be more
supportive of at least low altitude climbing. Short of climbers
appearing on the rock face by levitation, I really don't see how we
can re-vegetate, and then, reintroduce snakes, amphibians, birds,
insects, and other significant rock dwellers back to these sites.
Thanks,
John T.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CONTACT INFORMATION:
John G. Trontis, CPRP, Director
County of Hunterdon
Department of Parks & Recreation
P.O. Box 2900
Flemington, NJ 08822-2900
Office location: 1020 State Rt. 31, Lebanon, NJ 08833
Phone: 908-782-1158
FAX: 908-806-4057
Cell: 908-507-3327
E-mail: jtrontis@...
Web: www.co.hunterdon.nj.us - then click on "Parks & Recreation"
Mr. Trontis,
1. No need to discuss whats done is done. How it was brought about
is outside this discussion.
2. I ran a professional climbing guide service here in NJ for 10 plus
years. 8 pages of liability forms and we were still taken to court,
where the cases were tossed upon discovery. Liability issues in NJ
are covered by the NJ landowners liability act and other statutes, but
that for lawyers to debate. Yet hunting, cross country skiing,
hiking, bird watching , dog walking, etc.... are all allowed. Some of
these activities have well defined injury rates well and above that
found in bouldering. Then again one can't help but notice that
bouldering/climbing is listed next to CDS.
I would agree with reference on the Parks and Recreation Association.
This is the same organization that had two articles published in its
monthly manuscript over the last year that identifies that bouldering
in parks is a new and welcome activity for patrons.
3. Funny blaming climbers for compacting soil when climbers are but a
small % of overall park patrons and secondly climbers have not
trespassed in the parks since this started.
The issue about trail building would not be an issue until one reads
the following HC Parks Statement:
a. Prohibited acts for the protection of property: no person shall
make, excavate on, destroy, etc.... with any property, organic or
inorganic.
b. No person shall disturb wildlife or vegetation (sic) without
proper permit.
c. No person shall (sic) pollute waters ot remove a natural resource
without a proper permit.
So by this very admission of any trail work of the magnitude that was
proposed in the Sourlands that any such trailwork will be in direct
conflict w/ the Parks statues (w/ the fines in $1,000.00 range) I
strongly recommended to ANJ members that they do not get involved in
any such trail work, now or into the future. Numerous environmental
planners and others who I talked to support this stance because the
trail in question crosses through and upon wetlands.
I trust the park system not to press such charges and or allow such
work to proceed unless authorized (as you has asked ANJ do not do
anything unless ANJ checked w. the parks, first. As part of that
process ANJ came across the regs as above summarized) as you have been
above-board in all dealings. Its others in the County who I have a
"red-flagged" distrust for and upon.
ANJ discussions on this issue were predicated on a proper site
assesment to be done. The review of regulations is standard for such
projects in any Park system.
I'd be glad to further discuss this issue.
I remain, respectfully,
John Anderson
for Access NJ
ps: I would also anticipate, based on this line of discussion, that
anyone who is caught bouldering will have the maximum fine levied
against them by the Courts of HC.
|
