Warning for all: Rumor of New BLM Rules
Posted December 14, 2002 - 08:27 AM
Posted December 14, 2002 - 03:55 PM
Aggravate the situation with the business-as-usual need for each govt agency to show how badly they deserve MORE funding for things like helicopters to chase dirtbikers and you are going to see law enforcement gone goofy. They rely on statistics to prove their usefulness and needs----NOT results. For them, "results" are defined as "busts". This means they MUST write more tickets.
Just like administrators and politicians MUST come up with MORE rules and laws. Again, NOT results. This is the spiraling excess that is killing what used to be a free country. I am sure you need a permit, muffler, and catalytic converter just to fart in California...and there will be nine rangers there with sound meters and ticket books and three politicians/administrators looking for face-time on tv!!!
I respect law enforcement officers as individuals doing a job (some better than others), but I have zero respect for govt. that FAILS in it's mandate to keep our public areas open and useful. It is unfortunate that the LEO's are the govt representatives who must bear the face to face frustration of citizens fed up with their bosses. FIRE their bosses!!! Never pass up an opportunity to attack THEM and hold THEM publicly responsible for their failures. Not the LEO's. We need some statistics, too.
It usually comes down to fat slob administrators with personal agendas who have reached the position at which they are totally incompetent and will therefore remain there until they retire since they can't be fired. Worse yet, they often enter politics for this very reason! And those are the people in charge of the law enforcement...
It should go without saying that WE need to shoulder the responsibilty of ruthlessly policing our own ranks as well. Zero tolerance for those who paint targets on our backs! Need to be an idiot? Fine. So do I sometimes. Do it on private property. There is a time and place for everything.
Posted December 16, 2002 - 08:12 PM
It's entirely possible. My friends were actually the guys in example 1. The guy in example 2 is a friend of a friend. It's entirely possible he took a few liberties with the facts, and it is likely that Ranger Nelson is doing a little track covering of his own. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Look, I am the first one to support Law Enforcement until they step across that line where they become "Law Punishment". My wife works in law enforcement and many of my friends are on the job as well. Never would I condone breaking the law. I firmly believe that you should play by the rules, and if you don't like them, find a way to change them! Problem I have is when the supposed good guys break the rules, or they feel they should dole out a little extra punishment just because they or their bosses may not agree with our activities.
I also have several friends that participate in SCTA races. I think if the guy was over the speed limit in the pits, he SHOULD get a speeding ticket. If he was 200 yards away from the pits, they should have left him well enough alone. Did this start out as a Felony? Don't know. If not, why would he need a public defender for a speeding ticket? Don't know that, either. Should it have been reckless driving? Your guess is as good as mine.
I read the same story on the D-37 page as I heard from my friends. Considering the history of BLM presence and the dramatic increase in the, shall we say, "enthusiastic" law enforcement in the Hwy 395 corridor from both the Barstow and Ridgecrest offices of BLM, it is all too believable.
I agree with Barry Nelson on many of his issues. But as long as we're laying out all the facts, we should discuss that the land the guys in example 1 were riding on was in the process of being closed because of a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. They sued BLM over a technicality in the law, and BLM decided they didn't have enough money to fight in court, so they caved in. Since when has it been acceptable for an Agency of the Federal Government to go against their own previously decided policy because someone filed a lawsuit? Since when did the Feds not have the budget for a court battle to defend their decisions? They just opened the lawsuit floodgates for any group that doesn't like an Agency's decision. In any other scenario, there would be a full-blown investigation into why some private group of environmental knuckleheads can dictate policy to the US Government. And then Barry Nelson has to go out and enforce this on a very unwilling public that in reality knows it's being pushed off its own land.
We all understand that he's not making the policies, just enforcing them. But we can't seem to get through to his bosses that do. So, his enthusiastic enforcement becomes a big argument. Maybe over the internet.
I feel somewhat for the Rangers that have to do their jobs, but they're big boys. And they have all the cards.
Posted December 16, 2002 - 08:56 PM
Posted December 18, 2002 - 07:17 PM
Posted December 19, 2002 - 08:32 AM
Posted December 23, 2002 - 09:43 PM
When we showed up they had extra staffing ready for us but it wasn't enough. They checked our names against a list, searched our vehicles and gear and let us through. However, we had such a good organized response that it became too time consuming for them to check everyone thoroughly. They just checked the trucks and let everyone through whether they faxed forms or not.
To make a long story short they were just doing there jobs even though it was a big hassle. They came down to the park to talk to us and we fed them hotdogs and drinks and they said that for our Poker Run on Jan 1st they won't require everyone to fax forms in advance. We took this as a huge amount of success because of our actions. If it wasn't for the club showing the security we are not a threat and we are responsible they allowed us more freedom. I'm sure the food helped as well.
If we write letters i think another set should go to see how we can help federal and state agencies. They are always hurting for money so if we help occassionally with trash clean-up, brush clearing, rock clearing, you name it, I think it would go a lot further than writting a lettter to a congressman or Senator that doesn't give a rats behind. i.e Fienstien and Boxer.
Anyway, it's a little roadhouse tactic and just my $.02 worth.
Posted December 24, 2002 - 05:35 AM
Posted December 26, 2002 - 06:53 PM
I agree with jschner also. Volunteering for trail maintenance is a very positive influence on the land use agencies we must deal with.
Also, I have had mostly good experiences with most of the Rangers I have run into. When they are reasonable, they always seem to get all the cooperation they need. For the most part, my only beef is with the upper management types and the edicts they place on their field Rangers. They have to deal with enforcing some VERY unpopular new regulations. My biggest complaint is when mgt of individual BLM offices decide to re-interpret what the regulations say. Then I get a little upset.
Update: I have heard from a reliable source that the guy in my example #1 may have been warned before his citation, and that he may have sassed Ranger Nelson. If this is true, it's just stupidity and I wouldn't blame the Ranger, but the rider.
Posted December 28, 2002 - 09:27 AM
My brother received a ticket on his motorcycle for just changing lanes a few too many times in traffic. Every lane change was signaled and legal.
When he went to court to fight it the officer claimed he popped a wheelie.
When I went to court to fight a ticket the officer lied.
This happens all the time.