Press Editorial - Fishing On Lower Bank Bridge

Some problems take a while to surface. A dispute about fishing from the Lower Bank Bridge over the Mullica River took 24 years to come to a boil - and reveal that state and county governments probably caused the problem.


The Pinelands Commission and Burlington County government apparently neglected when rebuilding the bridge in 1992 to include the required public access for fishing and crabbing.

County and commission representatives said they'll look into why it wasn't done, even though the commission instructed the county to include a fishing platform as a condition of approval (which was granted in 1991).

 Stories in The Press about the plan for the bridge and its construction don't mention the fishing platform or a reason to omit it. That would be a serious loss that the public would want explained, so we think the likely explanation is that the commission and the county just dropped the ball.

Fishing access has become the norm for bridge and causeway projects in South Jersey. The splendid Ocean City-Somers Point causeway, rebuilt a few years ago, included a long section for fishing and crabbing, with lots of adjacent parking. The Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge between Egg Harbor Township and Ocean City, rebuilt several years before that, included turning a portion of the old bridge into a fishing pier with parking.

Facilities for fishing and crabbing access are necessary to ensure the public can use waters that are publicly owned. Years ago, before there were so many people living in and visiting the shore, fishing and crabbing could be done from many more locations. Many have been lost to development, or to prohibitions when growing auto traffic was deemed to be hazardous


For nearly a quarter century, people fished from the walkways of the Lower Bank Bridge, despite signs listing fishing among prohibited activities (but not referencing the law involved). Then this year, Washington Township, on the Burlington County side of the bridge, started enforcing its ban on fishing.

There were the usual complaints of trash (yes, many fishermen are sloppy and don't clean up after themselves) and the "hazard to traffic," as the Washington Township mayor put it. Some of that is motorists who find it unbearably inconvenient to slow down when driving near people.

Some on the fishing side suggested that maybe discrimination was part of the motivation of fishing foes, since the people fishing are often Asian, black or Hispanic. That's unlikely, especially in the absence of strong evidence for it. There is a common bias against public water access, but it is this: Those who own waterfront properties and boats often prefer to have the water access for themselves, rather than sharing it with poorer people. That's why public access laws and facilities are required


The sad aspect to the Lower Bank Bridge dispute is that it could have been avoided had the fishing platform been built.
The owner of an adjacent and recently rebuilt home said the property was empty for decades and available at low cost. That could have been bought and used for parking.

We're interested in the explanation by the Pinelands Commission and Burlington County for why they didn't provide the required fishing access. Maybe there's a reason why this bridge can't have the access typical of so many others, but it better be a good one.

Otherwise, next we'll want to hear what steps they're taking to provide the access now in a way reasonably satisfying to all involved.

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/our-view-lower-bank-bridge-should-have-normal-fishing-access/article_b3f3951a-1777-11e6-899a-c3d9cb7f236b.html

Related posts
http://gadfly01.blogspot.com/2016/04/fishermen-chased-off-lower-bank-bridge.html

http://gadfly01.blogspot.com/2016/03/no-activities-allowed-on-lower-bank.html

Sharks????
http://gadfly01.blogspot.com/2009/08/gadfly-readers-does-anyone-have-any.html