Jump to content

NJ Bill A1930


Frolickin

Recommended Posts

I browsed the bills sponsored by a local Assemblyman the other day. I came across A1930. This bill "provides for the protection of certain publicly-owned archaeological sites and findings, and establishes penalties." This bill was drafted with the assistance of a local archeologist after Cumberland Furnace was found to be excavated illegally. The land about this site is currently being sold and there is a push to "do something about it." I applaud the effort for this is my home area.

 

In A1930, however, is sub-section b:

"No person may litter or abandon any material on State park or forest property held pursuant to the provisions of [this amendatory and supplementary act] P.L.1983, c.324 (C.13:1L-1 et seq.) ."

 

I am concerned about that.

 

I called Assemblyman Van Drew's office this morning and spoke with an assistant who worked on the bill. I explained my concern regarding sub-section b and indicated that I did not believe that it was needed to protect archaeological sites. I explained a little about the effects this wording may have upon geocaching (we don't abandon or litter, but others may interpret geocaching as doing that). Yes, I had to explain the game to her.

 

She asked me to send her a letter explaining the issue and how it would affect geocaching. She will forward the concern to the Office of Legislative Services who will determine whether the wording in sub-section b would affect the game or not. If so, the bill's language can be amended.

 

My understanding is that there is another bill, A3101/S2473, that deals with this issue. I have been unable to read that for the NJ Legislature's web site is choking on the .asp (I thought I was the last one who used .asp these days).

 

Obviously, whatever letter I send to Assemblyman Van Drew should present geocaching well. I am open to suggestions.

Link to comment

I just got off the telephone with Alan Mounier. Mounier is a local archaeologist. We had spoken before about another topic, but this one was truly eye-opening. A1930 was introduced to the Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee (composed mostly of South Jersey assemblymen). We both believe it must be the same bill as A3101/S2473. Mounier indicated that that bill had been introduced last year to the same committee.

 

I mentioned sub-section b. Mounier, before he heard anything from me, said that part of the bill is frivolous and has nothing to do with his interests. He also mentioned that he had recommended to Van Drew that that should be dropped from the bill. He and I are in agreement.

 

We discussed the impetus of the bill. It goes back 30 years and was introduced then, but died when the representative was arrested for planting illegal drugs on his opponent during a campaign. Interesting . . .

 

We discussed Cumberland Furnace. Although we would like a bill to address that site, the site is on private property and logistically there is little that the state would be able to regulate. So, it seems that impetus that I stated in the above post was incorrect.

 

We then discussed geocaching. He is all for it! He said that as an archaeologist, abandoned ammo boxes would provide a unique opportunity for archaeologists of the future. I suggested that I would not relish the conclusions a future archaeologist might make about a society which leaves McDonald's toys in the woods.

 

His POV is that sub-section b is frivoulous because there must be code elsewhere that regulates littering. He suggested to me that we research NJ code to find the definition of littering. This makes a lot of sense. Certainly, what we do is not littereing or abandoning. But let's clarify that.

Link to comment

I have been trying to locate the "official" definition of littering. It is not as easy as it sounds.

 

What I have gleaned thus far . . . in 1985 there was Solid Waste Management Act. In it was a program, since re-named the Clean Communities Program. Sometime between 1985 and today, the following definition was established for littering:

"Litter" means any used or unconsumed substance or waste material which has been discarded, whether made of aluminum, glass, plastic, rubber, paper, or other natural or synthetic material, or any combination thereof, including, but not limited to, any bottle, jar or can, or any top, cap or detachable tab of any bottle, jar or can, any unlighted cigarette, cigar, match or any flaming or glowing material or any garbage, trash, refuse, debris, rubbish, grass clippings or other lawn or garden waste, newspapers, magazines, glass, metal, plastic or paper containers or other packaging or construction material, but does not include the waste of the primary processes of mining or other extraction processes, logging, sawmilling, farming or manufacturing.

13:1E-215 Definitions relative to the Clean Communities Program.

 

The Clean Communities Program provides money to communities to help them stamp out littering. To receive money, each municipality had to pass a littering ordinance. It is thought, but not necessarily the case, that municipalities have used the above definition. Municipalities were under no mandate to use that definition.

 

All that makes sense. If I toss a soda can onto the street of Anytown, NJ, I am certain there is some ordinance which I have broken.

The lady I spoke to at the Clean Communities Program was unable to state equivocally whether or not the above definition would be the one used for state lands. I offered the same example: If I toss a soda can on the ground in a state park or forest, what definition of littering would a state law use. She felt it would be the one in the Clean Communities Program, but is uncertain.

 

My search will continue. If, however, the above definition is the one that would be used, I cannot see how a cache would be considered litter. The operative word in the definition seems to be "discarded". A cache is not discarded.

Link to comment
My search will continue. If, however, the above definition is the one that would be used, I cannot see how a cache would be considered litter. The operative word in the definition seems to be "discarded". A cache is not discarded.

 

Thanks for all the time and effort you are putting into this. Let this be an example for anyone in any state that feels the need to get permission for geocaching. If you're not willing put as much time, effort and follow through into it as Frolickin

has, it might be better to leave well enough alone. Good job Frolickin.

Link to comment

Well, I decided to call a state park and ask directly. I was provided some information, but was also told that there had been a discussion about caching. That sparked my interest. I asked whether it was a local discussion (within the state park) or broader. I was told it was among all the state parks.

 

The superintendent of the state park I contacted will get back to me later with some more specifics, but he recalled the discussion going along the lines that all caches in state parks will be considered litter unless permission is granted. He said something along the lines that only EVENTS would be approved. He seemed shaky on what he was saying.

 

I asked a follow-up and he said he would dig for the information. We have been playing phone tag since.

 

This is not sounding good at all.

Link to comment

I broached the issue of geocaching with a State Park employee at Allaire and was told that there was a discussion about geocaching. Sounded to me like more than a local park discussion. The consensus was that geocaching is a form of recreation which is aligned with the purpose of the parks in the first place. I also had a conversation with a Conservation Officer in North Jersey who echoed the same interpretation.

Link to comment

I know that a similar issue has come up in the climbing arena. NJ State Parks have some rules where activities not specifically listed as "approved uses" are by definition not approved uses. I don't know the specifics (suffice to say - I've never been hassled climbing in state parks but continue to do it knowing I'm risking a ticket) - but remember reading a great deal of who-ha about this on Gunks.com and the Access Fund websites some time ago.

 

Seems silly - but this mindset has made rock climbing off-limits in many state parks in NJ (although they recently started offering the purchase of a "special use permit" for a fee.). Actually, rock climbing is illegal in most places in the area (there are cliffs in NJ that see some action in Allamuchy, Watchung, Garret Mountain, Mills Reservation, etc... ) Delaware Water Gap is pretty much the only legal public area to climb in NJ left (although I don't know if that' part of Worthington State Forest or the DWG National Park where the climbing takes place). When you think how minimal the impact is of free climbing (and how much it's been restricted), makes you wonder about future cache restrictions.

 

I understand the need to avoid overuse in our parks, but don't understand how the regs could be written to automatically exclude any activity not on the "approved" list. Makes me wonder if lying around, napping on a bench, and making-whistles-out-of-blades-of-grass is approved.

Link to comment
NJ State Parks have some rules where activities not specifically listed as "approved uses" are by definition not approved uses.

I'll have to look into that. I was just reading the State Park Service Code (Title 17, Chapter 2, which does not seem to be online).

 

I spoke again with the superintendent of Parvin State Park.

 

No decision about geocaching has been made on the state level. He said it is on the agenda to be discussed at a future meeting of state park superintendents. The ultimate decision will be made by the director.

 

We had a pleasant chat. It seems to me that, at least as far as this guy is concerned, an education effort will need to be made so these folks know what they are deciding.

 

He mentioned that because it’s a “new” thing they would want to control it. I offered the idea of canoeing. If there is a lake, people can show up with a canoe and not register with the park. Likewise for people going on a hike. Why then would someone need to register a geocache. He seemed to understand the absurdity of that. ;)

 

He kept thinking there would be droves of people plopping around parks at a time. I assured him that is not normally the case. Events, from what it sounded like, will more than likely require a special use permit. But really, that isn’t anything to be concerned about.

 

He finally got the idea that we don’t bury and don’t have foreign substances in the ammo boxes. The guy seemed pretty on-board with the idea.

Link to comment

Education is the key. The caches in state parks and forests generally don't receive a lot of visits. I think one of the misconceptions land managers have is that hordes of former couch potatos will suddenly be tramping throught the woods, GPS in hand.

In reality it's quite the opposite. Most geocachers around here are avid hikers and nature enthusiasts who find geocaching to be another way to enjoy the outdoors.

 

Fro, keep me in the loop. I'd be willing to help...whether its education, writing letters, or meeting with the parks personnel.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

It sounds like we have a chance to get this situation straightened out before a decision is made by the State Land Managers, which we wouldn't even have known about if it wasn't for Frolickin watching out for us all. Thanks Fro!!!

 

IMHO... The simplest way to satisfy land managers and geocachers would be for the state to classify Geocaching as a form of Hiking and abide by the rules already in place for hikers.

 

If any help is needed at this end of the state I am willing to help too!

 

Ski...

Link to comment
IMHO... The simplest way to satisfy land managers and geocachers would be for the state to classify Geocaching as a form of Hiking and abide by the rules already in place for hikers.

Be careful with that. If the "rules for hikers" require hikers to stay on trail, you might wind up like one situation I'm aware of, where the land managers only allow caches that can be reached without leaving the trail.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Be careful with that. If the "rules for hikers" require hikers to stay on trail, you might wind up like one situation I'm aware of, where the land managers only allow caches that can be reached without leaving the trail.

 

I'm not aware of any rules for hikers in NJ state parks and forests, other than no littering and no cutting of standing trees.

Link to comment
Be careful with that. If the "rules for hikers" require hikers to stay on trail, you might wind up like one situation I'm aware of, where the land managers only allow caches that can be reached without leaving the trail.

 

I'm not aware of any rules for hikers in NJ state parks and forests, other than no littering and no cutting of standing trees.

Link to comment
IMHO... The simplest way to satisfy land managers and geocachers would be for the state to classify Geocaching as a form of Hiking and abide by the rules already in place for hikers.

Be careful with that. If the "rules for hikers" require hikers to stay on trail, you might wind up like one situation I'm aware of, where the land managers only allow caches that can be reached without leaving the trail.

 

Steve

"For this cache pleae bring a 15ft. telescopic pole, or a baitcaster with 40lbtest and a big magnet" :mad:

Link to comment
Amazing how New Jersey, the state that has allowed some of the worst pollution in the nation to occur, is now worried about a couple ammo cans in a state park. These guys need to get a grip on priorities

 

I really don't think the people in the field are worried. We have illegal ATVers tearing up the landscape, illegal dumpers, poachers and the like. Those are who they are after. In fact the rangers in the field seem to approve of geocaching, in that they have made no complaints about it, or any move to stop it.

 

The problem is, as it often is in this country, that there is someone sitting behind a desk somewhere without enough to do.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...