Help Keep the Recreational Use Statutes in Connecticut Strong.

Please Send Comments Opposing SB. 445 to the Judiciary Committee.

Last year NEMBA, along with many other outdoor and environmental organizations, succeeded in strengthening the protections offered to landowners and municipalities who allowed free public access to their lands and trails.   The bill successfully became law last year. P.L. 11-211 -- a great victory for the trails community.

Now there are efforts to cut back protections offered to municipalities that allow free and public recreation on their land..  A new bill, SB. 445, is currently in the Judiciary Committee that would exempt boardwalks, beaches and sidewalks from municipal protection.  The JC will make a determination by Monday about whether to let it go on to the state senate.  Yesterday, I gave testimony along side our other partners in theConnecticut trails community, and now I ask your help too.

We urge CT mountain bikers (and anyone who enjoys open space) to contact the Judiciary Committee chair and other committee members and ask them to oppose “SB. 445- An Act Concerning Liability for the Recreational Use of Land.”

Consider mentioning the following points in your own words:

• The process of strengthening of the Recreational Use Statute was thorough and exhaustive.  P.L. 11-211 passed overwhelmingly and was the result of widespread bipartisan support.  There is no need to revisit this legislation at such an early date.

• Exempting boardwalks, beaches and sideways from the protections would once again make municipalities consider not allowing public recreation on their lands.  It would make them consider not investing in more open space since to do so would increase their liability concerns.

• Boardwalks on primitive natural surface singletrack trails are simple structures, sometimes only a couple of planks of wood laying over a patch of mud.  They are low-impact structures designed to protect the wetland resource and allow people more easy traverse a muddy section of trail.  They should not be made the target of slip and fall litigation.

• Beaches can be interpreted as any rocky or sandy access point to a water body, be it an inland stream or pond or the Long Island Sound.  Exempting beaches from liability protections would make municipalities consider preventing free public access to their waterways.hanks!

• Sidewalks may abutt or be part of paved bikepaths.  They should not become a liability target that would dissuade municipalities from creating more bike facilities.

Please send your comments to members of the Judiciary Committee by Sunday night, April 1^st.

Here’s how to contact members of the Judiciary Committee:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/MemberList.asp?comm_code=JUD

To read SB 445: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/TOB/s/pdf/2012SB-00445-R00-SB.pdf