Geo-criminals Part Ii

[+Mule Ears]

In a recent thread I expressed surprise at the heavy penalties for violating a trail closure ($5000/6mos. jail). I emailed several questions to the Coronado National Forest (the area of the closure) and received a reply today. When I closed the original thread, I promised an update when I received some answers. Today I received a response from the ranger in charge of the area.

 

Q: The closure appears to apply to this entire trail (as there is a closure sign at the Tunnel Spring trailhead), but the first real contact with the burned area is about 4 miles into the trail (from Tunnel Spring). If you include portions of the trail that are downhill from the burn, but not necessarily in contact with it, the unaffected portion might extend 2.75 to 3 miles in from Tunnel Spring. Given these conditions, is it necessary to close the entire trail?

 

A: Yes! until I have it adequately surveyed for hazards .

 

Q: On 10/29, there were quite a few hunters in area around the trail, and some carried out their deer by hiking along the trail. Were they in violation of the trail ban and liable to the $5000 fine/6 mos. jail? It seems likely that they intercepted the trail after bushwhacking around the area and had not seen the sign at the trailhead. Would this affect their liability?

 

A: Yes! The closer is for the burned area and access into that area by trail Or cross country.

 

Q: Under what circumstances would a hiker receive the full brunt of

the maximum $5000/6 mos. jail penalty? Would there have to be aggravating circumstances, or would just being found on the trail be sufficient? I understand the need to cooperate with recovery efforts, but it seems like a very steep penalty.

 

A: It is a US District Court Judge decision and would be based on knowledge and intent of the violation.

 

Q: Would the closure signs be more effective if they included the potential fine/jail time? I only discovered this information after visiting the Coronado National Forest web site.

 

A: The Closure order has the violation limits identified. The object is to keep the physical signing simple.

 

Q: Please don't misconstrue my questions--I get that a huge effort will be required to recover from this devastating fire. But I'll admit to being completely shocked at the magnitude of the fine, not to mention the possibility of jail for hiking on a closed trail.

 

A: Thanks for your questions.

 

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Keith L. Graves

District Ranger

Nogales Ranger District

[+Miragee]

Why does the Forest Service have to protect us from ourselves?

 

How long will it take them to have it "adequately surveyed for hazards?"

 

The trail I wrote about in the other thread has a burned out bridge as a "hazard" and the trail has been closed for more than two years . . . That particular hazard over a washed-out gully is easily-traversed . . .

 

A sign stating the hazard (landslide, missing bridge, etc.) and allowing someone to "proceed at their own risk" makes more sense than closing an entire trail . . .

 

Oh well . . . this could be another interesting discussion . . .

[+mtn-man]

Why does the Forest Service have to protect us from ourselves?

They close these areas until they can make sure they are safe for whatever reason. It makes it so they can manage the area and so they don't have to deal with any type of accident that may occur. Having participated in several FS rescues (both for live and dead people), I can tell you that an injury is a huge disruption. Everyone has to drop what they are doing and respond immediately.

 

Carrying someone out, either alive or dead, is no fun chore. The longest I have helped haul someone is 2.5 miles. I've done that one for people that were alive and that were dead. The shortest was about 1/2 + mile, but it was up a 60 percent grade. That one was no fun at all. Live people are more stressful since you are trying to get them to a hospital. Once I had to run 2.5 miles out, grab a med pack kit for the EMT and walk it back in with them. Then we had to transport the person out. You don't really have to rush when they are deceased at least. You do have to wait for the coroner to show up though, and most of them are not hikers. I've walked out in the dark as we traded off carrying the body out in a misty light rain (the 1/2 + mile 60 percent grade rescue).

 

Until you have had to carry someone out by hand over rough terrain, you might not fully appreciate why closure of some of these areas takes place.

[ElmoClarity]

Why does the Forest Service have to protect us from ourselves?

When the ranger talks about checking for hazards, I read it as check for hazards that may injure a person, OR by allowing access via the trail, injure the trail or environment. Using the trail could cause more damage to the trail itself and cost even more to repair.

[+sept1c_tank]

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Can someone please interpret this for me?

[+Mule Ears]

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Can someone please interpret this for me?

No clue.

[+mtn-man]

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Can someone please interpret this for me?

I take that as standing at an overlook on a trail and enjoying the view, but not wanting to actually go beyond the trail to see what's there.

 

Good think people like Lewis and Clark decided to press on. Otherwise, the east coast would be a little more cram packed with people right now!

[+sept1c_tank]

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Can someone please interpret this for me?

I take that as standing at an overlook on a trail and enjoying the view, but not wanting to actually go beyond the trail to see what's there...

Allowing that Ranger Graves did intend that interpretation, how might it be applicable to his response to Mule Ears?

[+Mule Ears]

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Can someone please interpret this for me?

I take that as standing at an overlook on a trail and enjoying the view, but not wanting to actually go beyond the trail to see what's there...

Allowing that Ranger Graves did intend that interpretation, how might it be applicable to his response to Mule Ears?

It seems to be a permanent part of his sig. When I thanked him for his reply and said I would spread the word, he sent me a followup message with the same phrase at the end.

 

Thanks...we'll be looking at maintenance needs on AZ trail and the 2 primary loop in Madera (Super/Baldy) next week and hope to have some more open by Dec.1.

 

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Keith L. Graves

District Ranger

Nogales Ranger District

 

So I don't think that it's intended to be applicable to this specific situation.

["Paws"itraction]

I actually took it more as a statement of fact: We overlook (don't notice) the boundaries we do not intend to pass.

IOW: If I'm not intending on breaking the rules by going into a Forbidden Zone, I may not be as likely to notice, or pay attention to, the signs saying that I am, in fact, going into a Forbidden Zone.

 

Which makes no sense to me, because if I'm wanting to avoid the FZs, I'm sure as heck going to be on the alert for signs designating said FZs.

 

Either that or it was a slightly snotty comment along the lines of "we ignore the boundaries we SAY we don't intend to cross" - IOW, justifying our transgression with "I didn't realize I was <on Private Property / In the Forbidden Zone / where I wasn't supposed to be>."

 

That's my interpretation of it, anyway.

 

edit:

Hmf. Mule Ears' response wasn't there when I started to type my post. Therefore, since it's a permanent part of the Ranger's sig, please disregard everything I said above and I'm going with mtn_man's answer.

Edited November 16, 2005 by "Paws"itraction

[+sept1c_tank]

I actually took it more as a statement of fact: We overlook (don't notice) the boundaries we do not intend to pass...

That was my first take, too.

 

But I guess if it is part of the ranger's signature, the point is moot. (I like my signature better.)

[+Map Only]

Why does the Forest Service have to protect us from ourselves?

They close these areas until they can make sure they are safe for whatever reason. It makes it so they can manage the area and so they don't have to deal with any type of accident that may occur. Having participated in several FS rescues (both for live and dead people), I can tell you that an injury is a huge disruption. Everyone has to drop what they are doing and respond immediately.

 

Carrying someone out, either alive or dead, is no fun chore. The longest I have helped haul someone is 2.5 miles. I've done that one for people that were alive and that were dead. The shortest was about 1/2 + mile, but it was up a 60 percent grade. That one was no fun at all. Live people are more stressful since you are trying to get them to a hospital. Once I had to run 2.5 miles out, grab a med pack kit for the EMT and walk it back in with them. Then we had to transport the person out. You don't really have to rush when they are deceased at least. You do have to wait for the coroner to show up though, and most of them are not hikers. I've walked out in the dark as we traded off carrying the body out in a misty light rain (the 1/2 + mile 60 percent grade rescue).

 

Until you have had to carry someone out by hand over rough terrain, you might not fully appreciate why closure of some of these areas takes place.

I feel that one should be free to choose one's own comfort level in the back country. Unlike the freeway, you only risk the safety of your own party and those who would rescue you.

 

On to rescuers - When it isn't safe or possible to recover a dead or injured person, they shouldn't be recovered. The subject of the rescue made the choice to take that specific risk. I as a rescuer am also free to choose the level of risk I will face in recovering you from the backcounty. If people in Western Washington stop getting hurt and dying in the backcountry, I will have to come up with a new hobby.

 

To sum up, If you get hurt in my area, I or my compadres will come scrape you up, and enjoy the experience.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Q: Under what circumstances would a hiker receive the full brunt of

the maximum $5000/6 mos. jail penalty? Would there have to be aggravating circumstances, or would just being found on the trail be sufficient? I understand the need to cooperate with recovery efforts, but it seems like a very steep penalty.

 

A: It is a US District Court Judge decision and would be based on knowledge and intent of the violation.

Uh oh.

 

The use of the word intent is interesting. Intent to do what? Intent to ignore the sign? Intent to do damage to the area? Intent to put yourself or others in a dangerous situation?

 

Since you did pass beyond the sign with both knowledge and some intent, I'd say you may find your fate in the hands of a US District Court Judge.

 

Don't worry, Mule Ears. We'll bake you a cake with a file in it.

[+Mule Ears]

The use of the word intent is interesting. Intent to do what? Intent to ignore the sign? Intent to do damage to the area? Intent to put yourself or others in a dangerous situation?

I'd bet he means whether or not you intentionally violated the ban. Of course, this is tricky to determine, because the primary witness providing testimony to this effect would have to be the violator.

 

Since you did pass beyond the sign with both knowledge and some intent, I'd say you may find your fate in the hands of a US District Court Judge.

 

Don't worry, Mule Ears. We'll bake you a cake with a file in it. 

 

Hey, I appreciate it! I'd do the same for you. Now we have a felony conspiracy

[+clearpath]

Better be careful and not get caught, Mule Ears. They would probably throw the book at you ...

[mpm]

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Can someone please interpret this for me?

It's a quote from "The Rambler" by Samuel Johnson:

 

Power and superiority are so flattering and delightful, that, fraught

with temptation, and exposed to danger, as they are, scarcely any virtue

is so cautious, or any prudence so timorous, as to decline them. Even

those that have most reverence for the laws of right, are pleased with

shewing that not fear, but choice, regulates their behaviour; and would

be thought to comply, rather than obey. We love to overlook the

boundaries which we do not wish to pass; and, as the Roman satirist

remarks, he that has no design to take the life of another, is yet glad

to have it in his hands.

[+Mule Ears]

Better be careful and not get caught, Mule Ears.  They would probably throw the book at you ...

Yes, that's my thought. It's pretty clear that the high penalty is intended to make up for the low probability of getting caught. After all, it took them months after the fire to get a sign up at the trailhead--how often could they be patrolling?

 

So if I were to get caught, they'd want to put my head on a pike as a warning to others. I'd get the max.

[+sept1c_tank]

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Can someone please interpret this for me?

It's a quote from "The Rambler" by Samuel Johnson...

Thanks, mpm. It sounds like Ranger Graves is well read.

 

That same (most often quoted since Shakespeare) author said, "Nothing ... will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must be first overcome." (Rasselas)

 

Anyway, sorry for the detraction. Now on with the topic.

[Zoptrop]

Along the same lines...

 

A while back I inquired about a fine regarding swimming in a certain portion of a river in a Texas State Park. (upstream portion was banned, downstream portion was ok) It was like $500 or so. The park ranger was very polite and pointed out that while the ban seemed "arbitrary" there were lots of whirpools and dangerous currents in the "upstream" portion of the park and that they had had several drownings there over the past years and so the state had decided to close that section of the river.

 

I asked him if anyone ever "really" got fined or arrested for swimming there and he said "every summer".

 

Of course the question arose after we had spent the day swimming in that area - glad we didn't get into trouble for it. Naturally I won't do that again, but at the time we didn't see what the big deal was. Now I know.

[+RobRee]

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass"

 

funny - the real quote is

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not wish to pass."

 

my partner at work likes to use the saying. quoted from Samuel Johnson (edited laugh - i had jackson.) when people ask "Why is this... Why is that..?" questions. he hits them with that line as a response , and says "That is a boundry you do not wish to pass."

 

he's the philosipher ... i am more of a realist.

 

interesting cooinky dink, or good placement of a misquote???

 

read original use HERE.

Edited November 17, 2005 by robree

[+JimmyEv]

You should've asked the ranger if USFS personnel entering the area get hazardous duty pay. If they do, then the area really is hazardous. If not, well then...

[+wildearth2001]

You should've asked the ranger if USFS personnel entering the area get hazardous duty pay. If they do, then the area really is hazardous. If not, well then...

exactly

[+joefrog]

Carrying someone out, either alive or dead, is no fun chore. The longest I have helped haul someone is 2.5 miles. I've done that one for people that were alive and that were dead. The shortest was about 1/2 + mile, but it was up a 60 percent grade. That one was no fun at all. Live people are more stressful since you are trying to get them to a hospital. Once I had to run 2.5 miles out, grab a med pack kit for the EMT and walk it back in with them. Then we had to transport the person out. You don't really have to rush when they are deceased at least. You do have to wait for the coroner to show up though, and most of them are not hikers. I've walked out in the dark as we traded off carrying the body out in a misty light rain (the 1/2 + mile 60 percent grade rescue).

Ya know, fuzzy fella... after reading this, I either REALLY want to hike with you, or never, EVER do. I just can't decide!

[4wheelin_fool]

Q: Would the closure signs be more effective if they included the potential fine/jail time? I only discovered this information after visiting the Coronado National Forest web site.

 

A: The Closure order has the violation limits identified. The object is to keep the physical signing simple.

 

This is the part that I dont understand. If they really are serious about preventing unauthorized entry, they should communicate the fines on the signage, rather than increasing the penalty and not noting it. A simple, mandatory $500 fine written and seen on the trailhead should deter most people, rather than a ambiguous "trail closed" sign, with potential of a $5000 fine 6/months jail which no one knows about.

[+Team Red Oak]

I'm not so sure I saw the ranger's answers as protecting us from ourselves as much as protecting the USFS from liable. I know most of us take responsibility for our actions, but there are people who don't.

 

So if someone is hiking a trail where there was a recent fire or flood and a bridge is missing and they try to cross the water and get hurt then they sue becasue the rangers didn't close the trail. It's all the ranger's fault because the hiker didn't have the required skill or equipment but decided to attempt the crossing anyway.

The USFS probably doesn't have the resources to check the trails and get them opened in a timely manner which is a shame.

 

Dawn

[+Renegade Knight]

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Can someone please interpret this for me?

It's about women.

[+Miragee]

I'm not so sure I saw the ranger's answers as protecting us from ourselves as much as protecting the USFS from liable. I know most of us take responsibility for our actions, but there are people who don't. 

 

So if someone is hiking a trail where there was a recent fire or flood and a bridge is missing and they try to cross the water and get hurt then they sue becasue the rangers didn't close the trail. It's all the ranger's fault because the hiker didn't have the required skill or equipment but decided to attempt the crossing anyway.

The USFS probably doesn't have the resources to check the trails and get them opened in a timely manner which is a shame.

 

Dawn

That is why I stated:

A sign stating the hazard (landslide, missing bridge, etc.) and allowing someone to "proceed at their own risk" makes more sense than closing an entire trail . . .

The two-year-old burned-out bridge in the Regional Park here spans a dry gully (except during torrential rain) that can be traversed. It is no more hazardous than the open trails that proceed over rocky crags to the top of the peaks.

 

The forests are Public Lands that should be open to the public, not closed because a Ranger doesn't have the resources to properly survey trail damage. JMHO

 

If that is why the trail is closed, then it is time to allocate more funds to the Forest Service.

[+sept1c_tank]

"We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not intend to pass".

 

Can someone please interpret this for me?

It's about women.

Ahhh, now it all makes sense.

[+Team Red Oak]

I fully agree that we should allocate more resources to the USFS in order to maintain our parks and forests.

 

I didn't really mean it's the ranger's fault if someone gets hurt. I just meant that is how some people think. Certainly not most of us.

 

Some people will always twist things and events to make the outcome someone else's fault. Even closing the trails completely won't keep someone from trying to sue when their own stupidity is at fault. But at least the rangers can say the entire trail or area was closed and you should have checked at the ranger station first.

 

I understand the ranger's possible reasoning even if I don't like the trail closing.