Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > General Adirondack Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-12-2008, 08:19 PM   #21
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
Me too, the only problem is the people now in uniform are not of the leave it to beaver generation! They seem to be getting a little disrespectful lately! Just an observance!!!!!
DRIFTER is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:22 PM   #22
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
So if you walk on 6" snow, you can posthole and there is no requirement to wear shoes.What's your solution?
To some of life's little problems there are no ready solutions. In those particular cases we have to fall back on common sense (and in this case, the common sense of a judge).
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:25 PM   #23
WinterWarlock
One foot in front of the other
 
WinterWarlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Schroon Lake, NY
Posts: 2,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK-DRIFTER View Post
Me too, the only problem is the people now in uniform are not of the leave it to beaver generation! They seem to be getting a little disrespectful lately! Just an observance!!!!!
I agree - that's why I mentioned it in both directions. Clearly the officer thought he deserved more than he was given, and the perp gave less...

In situations like this I try to remember Steven Covey's reminder..."Seek first to understand, and then to be understood"
__________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. Ed Abbey
WinterWarlock is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:29 PM   #24
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
Recent story, believe it or not, I just got pulled over for 78 in a 65....I explained I haven't had a speeder in 27 years and I had a little road rage problem going on and was trying to distance myself from that person! I was asked for license and registration. After zero discussion I was handed two tickets, one for 78 in a 65 and another for failure to signal.....No lowering tickets due to previous history, no discussion, no nothing...total disrespect!!!!!
Money for the state, thats all It comes down too....It wasn't like that years ago, its just a heartless business!

Last edited by DRIFTER; 05-13-2008 at 06:41 AM..
DRIFTER is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:29 PM   #25
Mavs00
I am the sith
 
Mavs00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterWarlock View Post
Maybe it's just me, or my age showing, or I don't know what - but I was taught to treat folks in uniform with respect. In fact, I was taught to treat everyone with respect...but I guess that's just for the "Leave it to Beaver" generation. If you read the real story, and not the sugar-coated version posted here, that's what really happened, and the snow shoe regulations were just an excuse for someone who wanted respect, and someone who didn't care to give it...both had personal expectations the other couldn't/didn't meet.

I think WW hits it on the head. It's obvious Kevin made a correct call on his use of snowshoes and he obviously "possesed" them. I think the Ranger probably approached him to engage him conversation about the fact that he wasn't wearing them (? possible to educate) since he has no idea of Kevin's experience when approaching him, and a big part of his job is education.

SOMETHING TRANSPIRED during the interaction to make him pissed, feeling disrespected, whatever..... and that's what the ticket was for. They only give out 3 tickets a year, and you can bet if they were hell bent on enforcing it, they could give out 3 in an hour at the LOJ. I have on many occasion not had my snowshoes strolling off the trail there and noone has said a word.

The ranger might have known full well that Kevin could get out of it, but by still issuing the ticket, made it a major PITA for him. Maybe that was his goal?

I think this is less about Kevin's use of snowshoes, than it is about the interaction between the ranger an Kevin. I'm still having a hard time seeing any meaningful change that will come of this or that any lasting impact to the regulation will occur, because it simply is not that big an issue (as evidenced by only 3 citations this year for the same infraction). I imagine the only other time it's given out would be for cases where someone is obviously in violation (like the don't carry snowshoes at all and are postholing like crazy and destroying the trail, which does happen too). This doesn't fall into that for me.
__________________
"I can feel your anger. It gives you focus. It makes you stronger. " Supreme Chancellor
Mavs00 is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:36 PM   #26
Mavs00
I am the sith
 
Mavs00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK-DRIFTER View Post
Recent story, believe it or not, I just got pulled over for 78 in a 65....I explained I haven't had a speeder in 27 years and I had a little road rage problem going on and was trying to distance myself from that person! I was asked for license and registration. After zero discussion I was handed two tickets, one for 78 in a 65 and another for failure to signal.....No lowering tickets due to previous history, no discussion, no nothing...total disrespect!!!!!
Money for the state, thats all I came down too....It wasn't like that years ago, its just a heartless business!
Total disrepect to who? YOU?

.......... or by you, to him for giving him a BS personal excuse for a willful violation of the vehicle and traffic codes. If you were guilty, it hard to see you were disrespected in that exchange, unless you elaberate? Was he rude, did he cuss you out or something?
__________________
"I can feel your anger. It gives you focus. It makes you stronger. " Supreme Chancellor
Mavs00 is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:44 PM   #27
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
Listen, disrespect is what it is and will always result in certain consequence! The main problem is when there is a lack there of and no previous history of abuse and the end result is the same! The old ,' human factor ', is being removed and being replaced by a monetary one!
DRIFTER is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:45 PM   #28
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
What BS story are we talking about?

Last edited by DRIFTER; 05-12-2008 at 09:13 PM.. Reason: fluff
DRIFTER is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:47 PM   #29
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
Give me a minute and I'll write my BS story for you!
DRIFTER is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:50 PM   #30
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Just out of curiosity, without doing some research, can you tell where a Rangers powers end and an ECO's continue?
Again, just to reiterate, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I wasn't at the Loj that day, I didn't see the trail, I don't know Kevin, I didn't count how many other shoeless hikers the ranger had to chase down. I'm just interpreting the facts as they have been presented.

But...

To answer your question, and to the best of my knowledge, EnCons and Forest Rangers are both peace officers, with almost identical enforcement capabilities. For all I know a Forest Ranger can issue a speeding ticket. The only real difference is the focus of a Forest Ranger's job versus that of an EnCon. All of this was brought up elsewhere on this forum back in April.

The 8-inch threshold happens to be what DEC determined to be the point at which a posthole turns from a nuisance to something that could potentially twist an ankle. A line had to be drawn somewhere. It's like the 150-foot camping setback rule. If your tent is set up 149' 11" from the shore, is that extra inch going to make a difference? The idea is not so much the number, but the idea that at-large camping too close to trails and waterways tends to create a more noticeable impact and therefore should be regulated. The number 150 is just a tool so that Rangers can make clear decisions in the field. A regulation that's too vague and open-ended can be easily second-guessed.

We've only heard Kevin's side of the story here. We haven't heard, nor are we likely to hear, what the Ranger knew that day. Maybe other hikers were complaining about people creating postholes that day. Maybe not all of the trails were so hard-packed. And so on. Therefore I reserve my judgment--in criticizing either Kevin or the Ranger in pursuing such a trivial, inconsequential matter.

As for hikers making their own judgment calls, remember this is the High Peaks.

For the same reason DEC sometimes issues a "mud season" advisory (none so far this year);

For the same reason campfires had to be banned;

For the same reason bear cannisters had to be mandated;

For the same reason at-large camping is about to be banned...


...that reason being that some High Peaks visitors have demonstrated an overall inability to make proper judgment calls for themselves...

...well, as I said before on other topics, these regulations affect all of us who choose to visit the High Peaks Wilderness. I consider myself an experienced hiker too, and yet I'm just as bound by these regulations as anyone else.

And most importantly:

Ignorance of the law [and who enforces it] is no excuse.

If anyone has a specific and valid reason for opposing a DEC regulation, the beautiful thing about our democratic system is that there are more productive ways of making a change than defying a Forest Ranger. A Forest Ranger is a guy (or gal as the case may be) being paid to do a certain job. And that job is to enforce regulations governing the public use of state land.

And if someone wants to get in the Ranger's face and make a federal case out of a simple violation, the Ranger is perfectly capable of stepping back and letting the "perp" rack up misdemeanor and even felony charges.
Bill I. is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:55 PM   #31
Mavs00
I am the sith
 
Mavs00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK-DRIFTER View Post
What BS story are talking about?
I didn't say the story was BS (you gotta read what I wrote), In fact, I bet it's interesting as hell (so do tell)

The exscuse however, kinda is..................... or at the very least, THE COP musta thought it was.
__________________
"I can feel your anger. It gives you focus. It makes you stronger. " Supreme Chancellor
Mavs00 is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:59 PM   #32
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
First, [again], I haven't had a speeding ticket in 27 years, I am not a speeder.....I guess that doesn't account for anything, although if I were a frequent offender it would, right! I was followed by a late model Mercedes with a black haired ,[pony tailed man], chasing me and cutting in front of me for no apparent reason at least 8 times and hitting his brakes . After entering the thruway, he still pursued me, I tried to lose him to diffuse a strange situation....Don't you believe the officer after running my license should have checked if a black Mercedes went through the speed pass lane at the entrance to the thruway??????? Sorry for any spelling or grammer fluffs...I was rushed!

Last edited by DRIFTER; 05-13-2008 at 12:10 PM..
DRIFTER is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 09:00 PM   #33
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
To some of life's little problems there are no ready solutions. In those particular cases we have to fall back on common sense (and in this case, the common sense of a judge).
Exactly: which is the whole point of this. And it wouldn't have been necessary for it to be before a judge if:

The regulation defined exactly under what conditions the snowshoes had to be worn. Since you can posthole at less then 8" and you can not posthole on 3' then the ordinance as written does not serve it's purpose.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 09:05 PM   #34
Wldrns
Member
 
Wldrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Western Adirondacks
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK-DRIFTER View Post
........Just a guess, but isn't ECO federal and DEC state.......So I imagine ECO'S are the bad boys? Especially on federal land!
No no no, ECOs and Rangers are both state employees. Check this NYSDEC web page to see descriptions of various employment categories (click on the left panel).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildriver View Post
For all I know a Forest Ranger can issue a speeding ticket. The only real difference is the focus of a Forest Ranger's job versus that of an EnCon.
Ask a ranger - he or she will tell you that they do have the power to issue speeding tickets. I have never heard of one doing so, but they sure can.
__________________
"Now I see the secret of making the best person, it is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth." -Walt Whitman
Wldrns is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 09:16 PM   #35
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wldrns View Post
Ask a ranger - he or she will tell you that they do have the power to issue speeding tickets. I have never heard of one doing so, but they sure can.
That's what I thought, but I didn't want to state it as fact. Someone recently told me that a Forest Ranger recently threatened to issue him a ticket because he didn't have a license plate on the front of his truck.
Bill I. is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 09:21 PM   #36
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
I'm waiting mavs double o,,, stop doing spell check! Don't ban me though, I'm sensitive!
I did tell.....

Last edited by DRIFTER; 05-12-2008 at 09:51 PM..
DRIFTER is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 09:22 PM   #37
Wldrns
Member
 
Wldrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Western Adirondacks
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildriver View Post
That's what I thought, but I didn't want to state it as fact. Someone recently told me that a Forest Ranger recently threatened to issue him a ticket because he didn't have a license plate on the front of his truck.
Yup... not hearsay. We have a favorite High Peaks ranger (not the one who is subject of this thread) address a guide's training seminar every year. That question of speeding tickets has come up often, and he says as a peace officer he has the power to enforce the law in general, not just environmental law.
__________________
"Now I see the secret of making the best person, it is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth." -Walt Whitman
Wldrns is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 09:28 PM   #38
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
To the best of my knowledge there are two entities out there..... One is federal and one is state and the one that is federal would have more power.

Last edited by DRIFTER; 05-13-2008 at 12:12 PM..
DRIFTER is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 09:30 PM   #39
Rik
H-E-R-O
 
Rik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Safe Place
Posts: 1,000,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post

Now if someone attempted a hard packed trail in the winter without carrying snowshoes, then i think there would be justification for ticketing. If the law read that it was required to have snowshoes, but not spicfically that you had to wear them, i think that would accomplish the spirit of what the DEC is trying to do

No one likes to postho,e so if they had to carry the shoes. I'm sure that 99% of the people would wear them when necessary.

Hawk
I'm not sure I agree that 99% would wear them but I do appreciate your new found faith in humanity!

I can see someone postholing right down the trail with little light weight snowshoes on their pack, "obeying" the law. I see it every winter.
__________________
Die Free and Live
Rik is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 09:32 PM   #40
Rik
H-E-R-O
 
Rik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Safe Place
Posts: 1,000,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by aft paddle View Post
I'm a little curious as to why only one person of two hiking together was issued a ticket and the other was not!!
It would be great to hear Valerie's version of the events if she is willing.
__________________
Die Free and Live
Rik is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.