Big brother is watching....from somewhere near the I40 bridge in Topock

[spectra3279]

Here you go Steve- you asked for it. And we all know had it been my boat going this fast at the ride spot I'd have gotten a ticket in the mail. There was absolutely no reason for the wake as they were in CA leaving the gas dock way out of the refuge.

QUOTE]

Alex,
I have spoken to the officer who was operating the boat and yesterday I took the ferry over to Havasu Landing to take a look at that buoy line, all on my days off by the way because I wanted to get you a quick reply. I hear more than my share of excuses as a law enforcement officer and have to decide for myself every time how to weight the information I have received. I?ll give you a little more information and then see whether you still think this is a situation where you would issue a citation. I will also preface this by stating that up to 4th of July weekend I had issued scores of written warnings for wake and other violations but only about five citations based on photo enforcement around the mouth of the river and the I40 no wake zone. There will be additional tickets and warnings issued from enforcement over the weekend, but generally I probably average about three warnings for every citation I issue.
First, the officer behind the wheel is new to our staff and to boating. He started at Havasu a couple weeks ago and the day you photographed him was probably his third, possibly fourth, day on the water. Prior to coming here he completed the DOI Motorboat Operator Certification Course as part of his basic academy, but this is primarily instruction with only an hour or two of actual boat handling. He was not in any way involved in the boating CD or last year?s restrictions at Speed Alley. I think he?s going to be a great officer and a great boater very soon, but I do believe hands on experience is a key ingredient in both.
Many boaters on the water at Havasu have far less experience and are still required to know and obey the law, so my second observation is more important. If you go out to Havasu Landing right now, you will note that the buoy seen over his engine in your photo is the last in a series of buoys which extend ? mile or so to the south along their beaches. There are no buoys to the north for approximately 400 yards and the next buoy to the north is only faintly visible if you know to look for it. Now I have been boating on Havasu long enough to know that the no wake zone is meant to protect the entrance to the marina as well as the beach, but would a new boater reasonably understand the same? When I asked my officer about the photo, he was genuinely surprised to learn that he was still in the no wake zone. Further, in the ten minutes or so I spent at Havasu landing, I observed a jet ski doing donuts in the no wake north of the buoy as well as a wake boat pulling an inflatable with a kid. Two more jets skis came plowing into the marina itself and on the return trip the ferry got up to speed about 50? before the broken buoy line, just like my officer.
For me to feel confident in a no wake citation, I feel the vessel needs to be both above wake speed and in a clearly marked no wake zone. I would not write this ticket to you or anyone else because I do not feel my magistrate or my AUSA would consider the current no wake zone to be clearly marked as extending to the north of the marina entrance. I think you will agree from your experience in Speed Alley and at the Sandbar that when FWS wants to restrict an area, we mark it very thoroughly with a buoy about every 75-100? because we genuinely want people to understand and comply with the regulations.
But I will put it to you. Knowing what I have just told you, does this officer still deserve a citation? I am not going to write that ticket, but if you still think it is merited I will pay the ?fine?. When I issue a citation, 100% of the money received goes to a fund for victims of crime- not one penny goes to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I don?t know of way to make a voluntary contribution to that fund, but if you believe individuals in this situation should be cited I will contribute $130 (the standard collateral forfeiture amount on a first time wake violation within Havasu NWR) of my own money to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
It?s up to you, Alex. What do you believe should be the standard?

If your upholding the law, you should lead by example. People in positions of authority should be held to a higher standard than an everyday person. If you are going to issue a ticket, then should should know and follow the laws as written. Ignorance is no excuse and I have had the cops say that very thing.

 

[RiverDave]

alexJ

Good job buddy. You just earned a life time DOUCHE BAG title in my book. Perfect example of why I and many other LEO's on here don't speak directly about our agency. Way to prove our points clearly:finger.

Did I miss the post that caused that reply?

 

[RiverDave]

If your upholding the law, you should lead by example. People in positions of authority should be held to a higher standard than an everyday person. If you are going to issue a ticket, then should should know and follow the laws as written. Ignorance is no excuse and I have had the cops say that very thing.

Well said..

 

[RiverDave]

And...... Without turning it into a drinking and driving thread I'd just like to point out that inexperience was a keyword in the subject here.. Had that not been a cop boat everyone would say "fuckin drunks". Lol

 

[C-2]

SRice, ironically, it's for the very reasons you posted in your response that makes the photo tickets so unfair. You went thru extraordinary lengths to prove your point, but these same opportunities would not be readily available for most persons on the receiving end of a photo ticket.

Take the Prima Facia element out of it and keep it personable, I think that's all we ask.

It's good to read about the numerous warnings you have given, with only a few photo tickets issued, so I apologize for my "shame on you comment."

 

[RiverDave]

I have to admit I have been a little preoccupied with catching up after putting a lot of hours into those petitions..

Is there some reason people are being straight up ruthless to SRice in some of these replies? Making a point or having a differing opinion is one thing.. Getting personal and attacking is another. This guy isn't the guy that wrote you a ticket in HighSchool so try not take take out every negative thing that has happened to you in life from local or federal government onto him.

I personally see him on this board as the greatest opportunity to have intelligent dialogue with at least someone regarding the refuge in Lake Havasu..

With any luck it all he will become the face of the refuge on here as Boatcop was the face of PArker police for years.. Are we all going to agree on everything? No.. But their isn't any reason we can't keep it respectful, and reasonable.

The fact that he is taking his personal time to reply, personal time to take the ferry, etc obviously shows he is passionate, and listening.

 

[AEA]

He is selectively listening. Some reasonable questions have been asked and so far he has not addressed them.

 

[t&y]

Did I miss the post that caused that reply?

Nope it's right there in the thread...

If your upholding the law, you should lead by example. People in positions of authority should be held to a higher standard than an everyday person. If you are going to issue a ticket, then should should know and follow the laws as written. Ignorance is no excuse and I have had the cops say that very thing.

Absolutely. And all that Law Enforcement asks is that those who will hold judgement have actual knowledge and understanding of how Law Enforcement works.

 

[DaBank]

I have to admit I have been a little preoccupied with catching up after putting a lot of hours into those petitions..

Is there some reason people are being straight up ruthless to SRice in some of these replies? Making a point or having a differing opinion is one thing.. Getting personal and attacking is another. This guy isn't the guy that wrote you a ticket in HighSchool so try not take take out every negative thing that has happened to you in life from local or federal government onto him.

I personally see him on this board as the greatest opportunity to have intelligent dialogue with at least someone regarding the refuge in Lake Havasu..

With any luck it all he will become the face of the refuge on here as Boatcop was the face of PArker police for years.. Are we all going to agree on everything? No.. But their isn't any reason we can't keep it respectful, and reasonable.

The fact that he is taking his personal time to reply, personal time to take the ferry, etc obviously shows he is passionate, and listening.

I am glad he is here also.

If I read his response right he giving a excuse that any person that was pulled over would give. Please officer I am a good driver, I have no tickets,I do not live around here and I am not familiar with the law,this is my first time here, I will never do it again because now I know, etc. This sounds like what he is saying his officer told him. Now his response is that this officer is going to be a great cop but cut him some slack since he is so inexperience and just finished all his schooling but has no real world knowledge. I will try these excuses if I am ever pulled over and if I still get ticketed I will just show the judge this tread and say that I should be treated the same as this officer. And to top it off maybe the Judge will just have the officer pay my fines too. Like I said this rubs me the wrong way. I am very pleased and surprise that he will even response here on the board and I hope he continues but this type of wording is what is making this country a very scary place and I see that we are on a breaking point and civil unrest. I for one love cameras as I feel this will make people and government think before they act, and will also prove that many people have been arrested for no more than standing up to the gang/thug mentality of the many bad apples in Law enforcement.

 

[C-2]

Is there some reason people are being straight up ruthless to SRice in some of these replies?

For me, it's the type of tickets they issue. Misdemeanors, not infractions, for otherwise infractionable offenses. I'm pretty sure if you got one and then tried to fight it, you would be going ape shit too.

For starters, if you want to pay the ticket just to be done with it, you are agreeing to a Misdemeanor conviction.

If you want to fight it, go to Phoenix, enter a plea, get a court date in front of the Magistrate, collect your evidence, return for your trial in front of the Magistrate, or even a jury...all in Phoenix. Works out real well for us Cali folks.

The tickets are a prime example of coercive government at work. Don't get me wrong, I know laws must be enforced, but to do it in this fashion is one-sided with no remedy readily available. I don't even have a dog in this fight, other than the inherent unfairness on principle of a USDC ticket.

Why not simply let SBDO or AZGF, Mohave Sheriff send the message that it's time to slow down? You get the ticket, ouch that hurts; you learn from your mistake and move on.

 

[Joker]

At this point, if I were SRice, I would put in my 8 hours of work, go home and spend time with my family. It's like a shelter giving food to the homeless and they in return complain about the taste of the gravy. He's no Martha Stewart, but he's trying to create a sauce everyone will enjoy, Ain't gonna happen as we all have different taste buds.

 

[FreeBird236]

At this point, if I were SRice, I would put in my 8 hours of work, go home and spend time with my family. It's like a shelter giving food to the homeless and they in return complain about the taste of the gravy. He's no Martha Stewart, but he's trying to create a sauce everyone will enjoy, Ain't gonna happen as we all have different taste buds.

S.Rice has a tough hill to climb, he works in a time and for an agency that most people in Lake Havasu have lost all respect for and don't trust, only time will tell.

 

[hallett21]

Well said..

It might be me but some of these quotes aren't from the right people. Tapatalk issue?

 

[RiverDave]

He is selectively listening. Some reasonable questions have been asked and so far he has not addressed them.

I just read this entire thread start to finish, and I would agree with that. I am unsure why they wouldn't share the processes of camera use as they should be public knowledge anyways? There was a few other questions that were pretty standard that weren't answered as well.. Not sure I understand why, but there is always a way to get an answer, and in his defense he doesn't have to answer anything. I will say I agree that the silence creates problems though.

For me, it's the type of tickets they issue. Misdemeanors, not infractions, for otherwise infractionable offenses. I'm pretty sure if you got one and then tried to fight it, you would be going ape shit too.

For starters, if you want to pay the ticket just to be done with it, you are agreeing to a Misdemeanor conviction.

If you want to fight it, go to Phoenix, enter a plea, get a court date in front of the Magistrate, collect your evidence, return for your trial in front of the Magistrate, or even a jury...all in Phoenix. Works out real well for us Cali folks.

The tickets are a prime example of coercive government at work. Don't get me wrong, I know laws must be enforced, but to do it in this fashion is one-sided with no remedy readily available. I don't even have a dog in this fight, other than the inherent unfairness on principle of a USDC ticket.

Why not simply let SBDO or AZGF, Mohave Sheriff send the message that it's time to slow down? You get the ticket, ouch that hurts; you learn from your mistake and move on.

I'd go with that as well.. Why so harsh going straight to misdemeanors?

I am glad he is here also.

If I read his response right he giving a excuse that any person that was pulled over would give. Please officer I am a good driver, I have no tickets,I do not live around here and I am not familiar with the law,this is my first time here, I will never do it again because now I know, etc. This sounds like what he is saying his officer told him. Now his response is that this officer is going to be a great cop but cut him some slack since he is so inexperience and just finished all his schooling but has no real world knowledge. I will try these excuses if I am ever pulled over and if I still get ticketed I will just show the judge this tread and say that I should be treated the same as this officer. And to top it off maybe the Judge will just have the officer pay my fines too. Like I said this rubs me the wrong way. I am very pleased and surprise that he will even response here on the board and I hope he continues but this type of wording is what is making this country a very scary place and I see that we are on a breaking point and civil unrest. I for one love cameras as I feel this will make people and government think before they act, and will also prove that many people have been arrested for no more than standing up to the gang/thug mentality of the many bad apples in Law enforcement.

Having been told at least once in my life by an LEO that ignorance is no excuse I can sympathize with that logic.. The troubling part is when it's reversed and it in my experience rarely flies as an excuse for the citizen.

In SRice's defense again though he did left the hypothetical judge and jury up to AlexJ.. Said he would pay the fine? Albeit the whole misdemeanor, 5,000 dollar fine and six months in jail was left of of it.. But there was some kinda semblance of "hey I'll live by the sword and die by the sword" so at least he isn't do as I say and not as I do type..

 

[RiverDave]

It might be me but some of these quotes aren't from the right people. Tapatalk issue?

Tapatalk issue.. It's a software glitch that there is no fix for yet

 

[Taboma]

I'm not going to wear my RDP shirt when I boat on Havasu anymore

 

[SRice]

For me, it's the type of tickets they issue. Misdemeanors, not infractions, for otherwise infractionable offenses. I'm pretty sure if you got one and then tried to fight it, you would be going ape shit too.

For starters, if you want to pay the ticket just to be done with it, you are agreeing to a Misdemeanor conviction.

If you want to fight it, go to Phoenix, enter a plea, get a court date in front of the Magistrate, collect your evidence, return for your trial in front of the Magistrate, or even a jury...all in Phoenix. Works out real well for us Cali folks.

Let me correct some misinformation in your post. Yes, all of the violations in 50 CFR are Class B misdemeanors and if I write a mandatory appearance due to extenuating circumstances or if you chose to go to court AND LOSE, Congress says you have committed a misdemeanor. If, however, you pay the collateral forfeiture amount set by the US Magistrate you are not convicted and are not admitting guilt in the misdemeanor. You have simply paid some money into a fund for victims of crime, much like with an infraction you just give the state some money but have no criminal conviction. You have a record with the local Federal court and in our FWS database, but no criminal conviction. That's the way the Court does stuff, not FWS. It is probably intended to discourage people from tying up the Court's time and yeah I agree that's either coercive or a really good deal depending on your perspective.

 

[t&y]

Let me correct some misinformation in your post. Yes, all of the violations in 50 CFR are Class B misdemeanors and if I write a mandatory appearance due to extenuating circumstances or if you chose to go to court AND LOSE, Congress says you have committed a misdemeanor. If, however, you pay the collateral forfeiture amount set by the US Magistrate you are not convicted and are not admitting guilt in the misdemeanor. You have simply paid some money into a fund for victims of crime, much like with an infraction you just give the state some money but have no criminal conviction. You have a record with the local Federal court and in our FWS database, but no criminal conviction. That's the way the Court does stuff, not FWS. It is probably intended to discourage people from tying up the Court's time and yeah I agree that's either coercive or a really good deal depending on your perspective.

That is interesting. Are you guys citing Federal Statutes, State Statutes, or Civil/Municipal Statutes?

 

[RiverDave]

That is interesting. Are you guys citing Federal Statutes, State Statutes, or Civil/Municipal Statutes?

That is a great question.. Which laws are USFWS enforcing? CA? AZ? Coastguard? Because they are all slightly different. Especially regarding transom / gunwale riding, Age for life jackets and operators, etc..

 

[t&y]

Did I miss the post that caused that reply?

Looking back maybe my initial post was a bit of an over reaction Dave. I guess it is possible Alex didn't go out of his way to photo what he believed to be a "Law Enforcement" boat comitting what he believed to be a violation. And maybe he didn't do so and then take the time to post that picture on the net to a supervisor from the agency trying to get those employee's in trouble.

I guess a easy way to prove that, since he seems to be very concerned about people in the no wake zone, would be to post all the other pictures he took of the other non Law Enforcement boats comitting what he believes to be a violation. Surely he must have some... every time I've been through Thompson bay I've seen boats and jet ski's creating wake.

If that is truly the case, I'll apologize:thumbsup

 

[SRice]

That is interesting. Are you guys citing Federal Statutes, State Statutes, or Civil/Municipal Statutes?

Federal.

A wake violation could be cited in a couple ways but Code of Federal Regulations Title 50 26.22a for fail to comply with refuge regulations is most likely. On the water we have two other CFR which assimilate other Federal law (eg the Coast Guard regs in 33 CFR) or state law (Arizona Revised Statute) as misdemeanor 50 CFR violations. Another oddity of enforcement with the FWS is that we have "proprietary" jurisdiction to enforce essentially the property interests of our agency. Unlike when I worked for NPS in the "concurrent" jurisdiction of the Grand Canyon, we do not have jurisdiction in any common law felonies. If somebody commits an assault on the refuge, I'm gonna legally take whatever action is required to detain you (to include reasonable use of lethal force under the Graham v Connor standard) and then the county would prosecute. Even our OUIs are prosecuted by the county if they are felony level. It takes some getting used to.

 

[Racey]

This whole deal is one giant bureaucratic mess. I feel for all sides, SRice is just a cog in the machine doing his job. And on the other side people are getting dicked over and basically extorted out of money, "pay me, or fight me", sounds like an old mafia tactic.... The recourse to fight any of it, from a practical standpoint, is impossible unless you are completely retired and motivated, or independently wealthy.

Truly sad this is what the system has evolved into. :thumbsdown

 

[RiverDave]

Looking back maybe my initial post was a bit of an over reaction Dave. I guess it is possible Alex didn't go out of his way to photo what he believed to be a "Law Enforcement" boat comitting what he believed to be a violation. And maybe he didn't do so and then take the time to post that picture on the net to a supervisor from the agency trying to get those employee's in trouble.

I guess a easy way to prove that, since he seems to be very concerned about people in the no wake zone, would be to post all the other pictures he took of the other non Law Enforcement boats comitting what he believes to be a violation. Surely he must have some... every time I've been through Thompson bay I've seen boats and jet ski's creating wake.

If that is truly the case, I'll apologize:thumbsup

Seems pretty apparent you aren't aware of Alex's trials and tribulations regarding the USFWS over the last year..

He has every single right and more motive than anyone, to take a photo when he believes they are acting "above the law."

 

[t&y]

Seems pretty apparent you aren't aware of Alex's trials and tribulations regarding the USFWS over the last year..

He has every single right and more motive than anyone, to take a photo when he believes they are acting "above the law."

My statements stand, but if you'd like to give me the readers digest version of his issues I'm all ears.

 

[77charger]

Here you go Steve- you asked for it. And we all know had it been my boat going this fast at the ride spot I'd have gotten a ticket in the mail. There was absolutely no reason for the wake as they were in CA leaving the gas dock way out of the refuge.

QUOTE]

Alex,
I have spoken to the officer who was operating the boat and yesterday I took the ferry over to Havasu Landing to take a look at that buoy line, all on my days off by the way because I wanted to get you a quick reply. I hear more than my share of excuses as a law enforcement officer and have to decide for myself every time how to weight the information I have received. I?ll give you a little more information and then see whether you still think this is a situation where you would issue a citation. I will also preface this by stating that up to 4th of July weekend I had issued scores of written warnings for wake and other violations but only about five citations based on photo enforcement around the mouth of the river and the I40 no wake zone. There will be additional tickets and warnings issued from enforcement over the weekend, but generally I probably average about three warnings for every citation I issue.
First, the officer behind the wheel is new to our staff and to boating. He started at Havasu a couple weeks ago and the day you photographed him was probably his third, possibly fourth, day on the water. Prior to coming here he completed the DOI Motorboat Operator Certification Course as part of his basic academy, but this is primarily instruction with only an hour or two of actual boat handling. He was not in any way involved in the boating CD or last year?s restrictions at Speed Alley. I think he?s going to be a great officer and a great boater very soon, but I do believe hands on experience is a key ingredient in both.
Many boaters on the water at Havasu have far less experience and are still required to know and obey the law, so my second observation is more important. If you go out to Havasu Landing right now, you will note that the buoy seen over his engine in your photo is the last in a series of buoys which extend ? mile or so to the south along their beaches. There are no buoys to the north for approximately 400 yards and the next buoy to the north is only faintly visible if you know to look for it. Now I have been boating on Havasu long enough to know that the no wake zone is meant to protect the entrance to the marina as well as the beach, but would a new boater reasonably understand the same? When I asked my officer about the photo, he was genuinely surprised to learn that he was still in the no wake zone. Further, in the ten minutes or so I spent at Havasu landing, I observed a jet ski doing donuts in the no wake north of the buoy as well as a wake boat pulling an inflatable with a kid. Two more jets skis came plowing into the marina itself and on the return trip the ferry got up to speed about 50? before the broken buoy line, just like my officer.
For me to feel confident in a no wake citation, I feel the vessel needs to be both above wake speed and in a clearly marked no wake zone. I would not write this ticket to you or anyone else because I do not feel my magistrate or my AUSA would consider the current no wake zone to be clearly marked as extending to the north of the marina entrance. I think you will agree from your experience in Speed Alley and at the Sandbar that when FWS wants to restrict an area, we mark it very thoroughly with a buoy about every 75-100? because we genuinely want people to understand and comply with the regulations.
But I will put it to you. Knowing what I have just told you, does this officer still deserve a citation? I am not going to write that ticket, but if you still think it is merited I will pay the ?fine?. When I issue a citation, 100% of the money received goes to a fund for victims of crime- not one penny goes to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I don?t know of way to make a voluntary contribution to that fund, but if you believe individuals in this situation should be cited I will contribute $130 (the standard collateral forfeiture amount on a first time wake violation within Havasu NWR) of my own money to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
It?s up to you, Alex. What do you believe should be the standard?

Not to bust on you but just asking would you consider that pic of your agencies boat the equivelent of say a car doing 70 in a 65?Still above the speed limit but in reality not going to get a ticket.

I only ask because when i go thru a no wake zone by the 40 and headed upriver it takes a lil more throttle and may appear to splash but i aint no where close to making and intentional wake.

 

[RiverDave]

My statements stand, but if you'd like to give me the readers digest version of his issues I'm all ears.

On what possible basis do they stand? Don't show the authorities doing something wrong because.. They are the authorities? He's a douche for pointing out he woulda got a ticket for it?

C'mon.. That's crazy talk. He isn't tracking these guys or stalking them. He took a pic of something that happened next to him.


Alex has plenty of motive for posting them though. He was treated pretty shabbily after losing his favorite ride spot..

 

[SRice]

I am unsure why they wouldn't share the processes of camera use as they should be public knowledge anyways? There was a few other questions that were pretty standard that weren't answered as well.. Not sure I understand why, but there is always a way to get an answer, and in his defense he doesn't have to answer anything. I will say I agree that the silence creates problems though.
.

Dave, I'm still not going to answer that question, but I will explain why I'm not going to answer it. When cops started using RADAR, people who wanted to drive fast started using RADAR detectors. When cops started using red light cameras, people started wearing gorilla masks and covering their license plates. When we announce an OUI checkpoint, word gets around on forums like this and people avoid the area. Already on this forum people are advocating draping towels over their gunwales to hide their numbers, which is probably a more serious violation than the wake speed. We're trying something new. If it is working and people are slowing down in the wakeless areas, paying more attention to their surroundings and other boaters, and advising their friends to do the same, then I'm happy and I'm going to use that tool as long and effectively as possible. No disrespect, but I'm not sure you'd find any law enforcement agency out there eager to disclose all their tricks.

 

[RiverDave]

Dave, I'm still not going to answer that question, but I will explain why I'm not going to answer it. When cops started using RADAR, people who wanted to drive fast started using RADAR detectors. When cops started using red light cameras, people started wearing gorilla masks and covering their license plates. When we announce an OUI checkpoint, word gets around on forums like this and people avoid the area. Already on this forum people are advocating draping towels over their gunwales to hide their numbers, which is probably a more serious violation than the wake speed. We're trying something new. If it is working and people are slowing down in the wakeless areas, paying more attention to their surroundings and other boaters, and advising their friends to do the same, then I'm happy and I'm going to use that tool as long and effectively as possible. No disrespect, but I'm not sure you'd find any law enforcement agency out there eager to disclose all their tricks.

The cops were forced to describe all of those processes in detail. That is in every aspect from blood splatters on a murder, to BAC in DUI's and everything in between.

It's impossible to mount a competent defense without the information. Kinda goes back to sharing the discovery of evidence, right to know your accuser and those pesky documents known as the constitution and bill of rights and all that..

If I got a ticket, I'd get a JV lawyer and request all of it. No point in hiding it when anyone of these guys can request it and you have to give it to them.

 

[t&y]

On what possible basis do they stand? Don't show the authorities doing something wrong because.. They are the authorities? He's a douche for pointing out he woulda got a ticket for it?

C'mon.. That's crazy talk. He isn't tracking these guys or stalking them. He took a pic of something that happened next to him.


Alex has plenty of motive for posting them though. He was treated pretty shabbily after losing his favorite ride spot..

Dave, I have a different perspective because I deal with the cop watcher types all the time. They get cited, arrested, or contacted, then make it a mission to photo every law enforcement officer around and complain. "Look at what they are doing. If it were me I'd be getting a ticket" BS goes on all day long.

If those guys were aproaching him and he wanted to video the contact I'm 100% good with it. Contrary to popular belief, video proves the cops cases more often then not so that is not my complaint. I'm giving him the opportunity to post pics of all the other boats he photo'd that day allegedly comitting violations. If it was only the one boat that speaks volumes. He then took the time to post it on here. Could have handled that many different ways but he didn't.

I have my opinion and you are obviously free to have yours. Mine stands with me until proven otherwise.

So what was the henious act that the fish and game people perpertrated upon Alex?

 

[RiverDave]

Dave, I have a different perspective because I deal with the cop watcher types all the time. They get cited, arrested, or contacted, then make it a mission to photo every law enforcement officer around and complain. "Look at what they are doing. If it were me I'd be getting a ticket" BS goes on all day long.

If those guys were aproaching him and he wanted to video the contact I'm 100% good with it. Contrary to popular belief, video proves the cops cases more often then not so that is not my complaint. I'm giving him the opportunity to post pics of all the other boats he photo'd that day allegedly comitting violations. If it was only the one boat that speaks volumes. He then took the time to post it on here. Could have handled that many different ways but he didn't.

I have my opinion and you are obviously free to have yours. Mine stands with me until proven otherwise.

So what was the henious act that the fish and game people perpertrated upon Alex?

I'd tell you "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide". But I think that's your line..

Alex got fucked, and your right he has some motive to stick it back.. I don't see him pressing the issue, but if he wants too that is certainly his right as SRice described earlier. And no he doesn't have to accept the I'll pay the fine offer he can take it up the chain etc.. I doubt he will do it, but don't judge him if he does.

 

[t&y]

I'd tell you "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide". But I think that's your line..

Alex got fucked, and your right he has some motive to stick it back.. I don't see him pressing the issue, but if he wants too that is certainly his right as SRice described earlier. And no he doesn't have to accept the I'll pay the fine offer he can take it up the chain etc.. I doubt he will do it, but don't judge him if he does.

Got fucked over potentialy losing a ride spot? Yeah Dave, our priorities are a bit different in life.

By the way, WTH is Shabbily?:skull

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Dave, I'm still not going to answer that question, but I will explain why I'm not going to answer it. When cops started using RADAR, people who wanted to drive fast started using RADAR detectors. When cops started using red light cameras, people started wearing gorilla masks and covering their license plates. When we announce an OUI checkpoint, word gets around on forums like this and people avoid the area. Already on this forum people are advocating draping towels over their gunwales to hide their numbers, which is probably a more serious violation than the wake speed. We're trying something new. If it is working and people are slowing down in the wakeless areas, paying more attention to their surroundings and other boaters, and advising their friends to do the same, then I'm happy and I'm going to use that tool as long and effectively as possible. No disrespect, but I'm not sure you'd find any law enforcement agency out there eager to disclose all their tricks.

Also note that EVERY example you mentioned drivers are clearly and accurately told in advance that their speed is monitored by radar, or that there are red light cameras in the area. DUI and OUI checkpoints are and should be public knowledge. Filming people for the purposes of ticketing and enforcement should be made public. No the random sign on the bridge 50 feet up that says there is video surveilence in the area does not count, nor is it accurate.

Also keep in mind that it is not illegal to use radar detectors or wear a face concealing mask while driving. I'd also wager it is not against the law to temporarily accidentally (lol) obfuscate registration numbers from a camera that is not marked or declared as one being used for law enforcement, as long as numbers could still be seen by an officer in a boat on the water.

 

[Doc]

I've read this whole thread myself and I am not surprised.

Srice, no disrepect and this is my opinion only but you come off as you have a chip on your shoulder. Your comments on when you boat and evading questions like stated by others are just some of the reasons I think that.

You came up with an excuse for one of your officers as inexperienced, his 3rd or 4th day ect, well how long have the other two officers been on duty with you running boats? Couldn't one of them said hey no wake zone let's set an example? I mean me personally big deal I could care less. I see cops on the roads texting and using their cell phones while driving, using their lights to cross an intersection then turning them off once they are on the other side ect and it's not a big deal to me personally perk of the job and I laugh about it. The thing is some people are making a point that if all these agencies flooding the lake writing citations looking for revenue and throw in the camera situation it does get a little frustrating. Go ahead and add fish and game checking for mussles at ramps and while towing lol. Then we had the whole no wake zone situation that was about to happen. Don't get me wrong I'm all for getting people who shouldn't be driving off the water that could endanger the rest of us if they had to much but geez when is it to much?

For the record I don't hate law enforcement. I have family and friends that are parts of all kinds of different agencies. So while a part of me does appreciate what you guys do another part of me says otherwise. Hopefully this didn't come of as hatred toward you but more of how the system is becoming.

 

[RiverDave]

Got fucked over potentialy losing a ride spot? Yeah Dave, our priorities are a bit different in life.

Lol.. I didn't say that. I said his ride spot was closed arbitrarily and illegally.

He was treated shabbily after the fact by the refuge manager. (That's the part I think he got screwed on).

As for getting fucked.. You'd be singing a different tune if your favorite boating spot just got closed by someone, for no reason and they by passed federal mandates by lying to do it.

 

[t&y]

Lol.. I didn't say that. I said his ride spot was closed arbitrarily and illegally.

He was treated shabbily after the fact by the refuge manager. (That's the part I think he got screwed on)

As for getting fucked.. You'd be singing a different tune if your favorite boating spot just got closed by someone, for no reason and they by passed federal mandates by lying to do it.

Oh ok, so those officers on that boat closed down his ride spot?

 

[SRice]

Not to bust on you but just asking would you consider that pic of your agencies boat the equivelent of say a car doing 70 in a 65?Still above the speed limit but in reality not going to get a ticket.

I only ask because when i go thru a no wake zone by the 40 and headed upriver it takes a lil more throttle and may appear to splash but i aint no where close to making and intentional wake.

My officers are above wakeless speed in the photograph and on the lake, not the river. My question is whether that particularly no wake zone is adequately marked to give boaters fair notice, which I believe is as important as speed with that regulation.

We routinely make decisions on whether to warn or issue tickets and would probably factor in things like the speed and direction of the current as well as prior law enforcement contacts with the suspect. I did just work an OUI checkpoint with AZGFD where the operational guidelines were to cite every safety violation, So I cited for things that ordinarily I might have warned for. Likewise, I have contacted repeat customers who got citations for violations where I might have issued a warning for a first offense. No officer should tell you it is okay to go 5,10,15 over the speed limit. Even if we do cut people some slack, the speed limit is still the number on the sign.

 

[RiverDave]

Oh ok, so those officers on that boat closed down his ride spot?

Those officers breaking a law? Would those officers have any problems ticketing someone that was breaking the same law?

And those officers work for the refuge manager, whom is the one that closed Alex's little ride spot, and wasted countless hours of his time.

T&Y, I don't really care what Alex does with that program. If anything..

My only goal and objective in any of this is to get to know SRice better, get to be a communicable level and hopefully try to prove to him that myself in my boat are not imposing any environmental impact or unsafe conditions that would require more restrictions.. The vast majority of boaters are in that category, few fall out of it.. Those few should be dealt with individually, not with blanket resolutions impacting all.

 

[SRice]

If I got a ticket, I'd get a JV lawyer and request all of it.

Yep, you're right. Anybody who goes goes to trial will get discovery.

 

[t&y]

Those officers breaking a law? Would those officers have any problems ticketing someone that was breaking the same law?

And those officers work for the refuge manager, whom is the one that closed Alex's little ride spot, and wasted countless hours of his time.

T&Y, I don't really care what Alex does with that program. If anything..

Dave you realize officers do have exceptions to the law right? I'm no expert on maritime laws specific to that lake. But if they are anything like laws on the road, there are times when Law Enforcement in general can break a law in comission of his/her duties. The way these things are evaluated is how reasonable was the violation. Example is YES I can speed and go through stop signs even though most people on the road get all pissed because they can't. Pretty much like a guy in a no wake zone pissed over a "governement boat" creating a wake. If that guy took off like that right next to someone floating or swimming I would have issue with it, but that is clearly not the case.

I'd still like to know what Shabbily is? Think you missed it on edit.

 

[t&y]

. "Look at what they are doing. If it were me I'd be getting a ticket" BS goes on all day long.

Making a statement like that shows your daily intention whenever you come in contact with the public. Why don't Joe public have the right to call out a paid civil servant for not upholding the law and being employed as a criminal? Why would any business allow there employee's to break the law during they work day? Forget law's for a minute but why would I have someone work for me with no morals a tell people don't do that but hey fuck you I can do it and you can't say shit!!

Can Law Enforcement break the law during the comission of their duties? Answering that question should clear it up for you.

 

[SRice]

Lol.. I didn't say that. I said his ride spot was closed arbitrarily and illegally.

He was treated shabbily after the fact by the refuge manager. (That's the part I think he got screwed on).

As for getting fucked.. You'd be singing a different tune if your favorite boating spot just got closed by someone, for no reason and they by passed federal mandates by lying to do it.

Dave, I won't argue with you on this other than to say if FWS behaved illegally then somebody should sue FWS and get the buoys taken down. The people who made those management decisions obviously believe they were both legal and necessary, and those are the people who have made careers making similar decisions. I understand that many folks including several politicians have called the closure illegal, but just claiming that does not make it so. When two sides have different opinions on a point of law, they go to court where one side wins and one side loses (or they both lose and the lawyers make a lot of money).

 

[RiverDave]

Can Law Enforcement break the law during the comission of their duties? Answering that question should clear it up for you.

Not whenever they feel like it? Lol.

 

[RiverDave]

Yep, you're right. Anybody who goes goes to trial will get discovery.

Agency is supposed to be transparent.. You don't have to go to trial to get the low down on those cameras. Freedom of information act solves that..

The question is why not just be forthcoming and transparent as intended? That's the part I don't get..

Why does it have to be "us and them?"

We all want the same thing at the end? Safe, fun, recreation of the area, while preserving its natural, and hell in this case not natural beauty.


I'd like to lower the walls of "US vs THEM". Period.. It's not needed and creating a hostile relationship between two parties that should be working together.. Seems stupid on both sides, to me at least.

 

[t&y]

Not whenever they feel like it? Lol.

Absolutely right. So when that cop takes off in front of you do you know what he's doing?

 

[RiverDave]

Absolutely right. So when that cop takes off in front of you do you know what he's doing?

You can take a picture and find out later if it's your prerogative.. Hence the transparency.

You don't like transparency there is always the private sector? Or other countries that don't have things like the constitution.. For the people by the people of the people type stuff?

Are you not my people? Am I not yours?

 

[SBMech]

Dave, I won't argue with you on this other than to say if FWS behaved illegally then somebody should sue FWS and get the buoys taken down. The people who made those management decisions obviously believe they were both legal and necessary, and those are the people who have made careers making similar decisions. I understand that many folks including several politicians have called the closure illegal, but just claiming that does not make it so. When two sides have different opinions on a point of law, they go to court where one side wins and one side loses (or they both lose and the lawyers make a lot of money).

Are you for real right now?

Do you know that FWS had protocol to follow and did not follow one step of it?

As far as the legality is concerned, you offer this situation up to "lawyer it out".

WE should not have to do ANYTHING right now. FWS clearly broke the existing laws for closure in this case. A CLEAR overreach of authority.

If we need to "lawyer up" maybe you all should loose your jobs.

What a bunch of bullshit.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Agency is supposed to be transparent.. You don't have to go to trial to get the low down on those cameras. Freedom of information act solves that..

The question is why not just be forthcoming and transparent as intended? That's the part I don't get..

Why does it have to be "us and them?"

We all want the same thing at the end? Safe, fun, recreation of the area, while preserving its natural, and hell in this case not natural beauty.


I'd like to lower the walls of "US vs THEM". Period.. It's not needed and creating a hostile relationship between two parties that should be working together.. Seems stupid on both sides, to me at least.

It becomes US vs. THEM when things do not go their way Dave. They'd be happy as clams right now if the closures they proposed went through. The increase in enforcement is a means for THEM to further their misguided agenda.

If they came out and said "Look, we are not seeking to close any of the river any longer, but we are going to put up some surveilence here for the enforcement of X,Y and Z.. This would all be a non issue.

 

[SRice]

Why does it have to be "us and them?"

We all want the same thing at the end? Safe, fun, recreation of the area, while preserving its natural, and hell in this case not natural beauty.


I'd like to lower the walls of "US vs THEM". Period.. It's not needed and creating a hostile relationship between two parties that should be working together.. Seems stupid on both sides, to me at least.

Me too. You got ideas to prevent more accidents like the one that just killed that little girl up in Laughlin, please let me know. In the meantime I'm doing the best I can to prevent the next one. I'll go ahead and donate that $130 "fine" to Big Brothers Big Sisters. Regardless of whether it is reasonable to hold anybody responsible for a regulation which is not adequately posted (it isn't), it's money well spent. Good night.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Me too. You got ideas to prevent more accidents like the one that just killed that little girl up in Laughlin, please let me know. In the meantime I'm doing the best I can to prevent the next one. I'll go ahead and donate that $130 "fine" to Big Brothers Big Sisters. Regardless of whether it is reasonable to hold anybody responsible for a regulation which is not adequately posted, it's money well spent. Good night.

I get it and understand that safety is the goal but how may people are dying in no wake zones from reckless or drunken boating accidents? Video surveilence does nothing to further that end.

 

[SBMech]

Dave, I won't argue with you on this other than to say if FWS behaved illegally then somebody should sue FWS and get the buoys taken down. The people who made those management decisions obviously believe they were both legal and necessary, and those are the people who have made careers making similar decisions. I understand that many folks including several politicians have called the closure illegal, but just claiming that does not make it so. When two sides have different opinions on a point of law, they go to court where one side wins and one side loses (or they both lose and the lawyers make a lot of money).

I will add this as well. You , as well as anyone more intelligent than a doorknob, knows that any asshole with a badge or a gov ID can do whatever the fuck they want.

WE, the citizens that pay for all this fucking bullshit, have to police our own "advocates" and "officials" to keep them from just doing whatever the fuck they feel like.

A single patrol officer can close a road, "just because". No questions asked. Until it becomes permanent. Then we get to waste MORE money (our tax dollars) on PROVING to the stupid asshole that they were wrong to close it permanently.

No one here is going to just lay down and take this shit, because we have all seen it before in other places.

You want us to go to Court? You better believe that it will.