Outdoor Adventure USA

Dave, of course they know it constitutes "litter". but that's irrelevant and after the fact. The fact would be that the glass is already lost to the sand and is now a danger to public safety. Now the law will preempt that possibility and it will be enforceable before an incident like this can occur. There was no enforceable law that stated you cannot have a glass container in these areas. In this case, current anti-litter laws do nothing to protect public safety until after a dangerous situation is allowed to occur.
Also you're not bursting any bubbles, in fact, you're furthering my point here actually. I will argue that the reporting option did not exist before this. Before this, a citizen had no legal ground to report another individual walking around with a glass bottle in his hand, or burning a pallet. However, he would now.

As for the BLM's tolerance or lack of enforcement....Hold on counsel. What your stating here is that the officers should have always enforced and operated void of discretion and stuck to the black letter in all instances. If so, should we have them begin citing all who hang out at the remote hot springs areas? Should the NPS and all other agencies operate in kind. Come on, you're not a stick in the mud. I know a whole lot of people who visit these remote places...the Saline Valley hot springs for one. No one is being offended in such remote places. What they are targeting here are the young sand nymphs that like to be ridden/paraded topless (or worse/better?) up and down the camping and staging areas on quads at the ORV areas.....yep, right in front of Gandma and the kids. We need to get our heads around this scenario to really understand why these new laws are beneficial.
Also,your statement regarding enforcement as the means by which the public becomes aware is ludicrous. We print laws in this country, and we make them accessible. Not only do we print them...we post them. Minimally, they are prominently posted at the entrances to these ORV areas.

jgorm wrote:

DaveK wrote: We are suffocating under a mushrooming and ever increasing burden of new laws. Many are duplicates, many are ridiculous, and many are outdated, but few are removed. From my perspective, I see the true magnitude of the laws that we are expected to obey. There are literally millions of pages of laws and the number is growing. We have full time legislatures that do nothing but produce a never ending stream of more laws. In the vast majority of cases, including here, we don’t need more.

+1

Personally i liked the desert years ago when there was the lawless feel to it. 95% of all the people are respectful and don't cause trouble, or do stupid things like burn pallets in the middle of areas were trucks might drive. The other 5% of idiots will do whatever they want and no amount of laws will stop them. No glass bottles?? haha that is total BS and wont' stop me from having a good beer around a campfire on BLM land. I'll probably have to use a cup so i don't get a ticket.

If you are outside these ORV areas your chances of being cited for any of the three issues.... pallets, glass bottles, or nudity are about nil. If an officer were to see you in a remote area with a glass bottle the most he'd do is ask you to properly dispose of it when you're done. These laws are over the top because these people and places tend to get over the top. It's that simple.

xtatik wrote:Dave, of course they know it constitutes "litter". but that's irrelevant and after the fact. The fact would be that the glass is already lost to the sand and is now a danger to public safety. Now the law will preempt that possibility and it will be enforceable before an incident like this can occur. There is no law currently that states you cannot have a glass container in these areas. Current anti-litter laws do nothing to protect public safety until after a dangerous situation is allowed to occur.

I think you are missing the point here. It is not those who possess the glass bottles who should be targeted, it is the group that break the bottles and leave them. This poorly drafted law makes it a crime to merely posses a glass beverage bottle, whether consumed or not. That is ridiculous. These are not the people that you should be concerned with - it should be the idiots who break the bottles and leave the glass. Poorly drafted laws ensnare the innocent with the guilty and should be avoided.

I know you believe that the mere existence of a law, that prohibits possession, will “preempt the possibility of broken glass”, but I think you are in error. Punish the wrong-doers who litter and not those who act responsibly.

xtatik wrote:As for the BLM's tolerance or lack of enforcement....Hold on counsel. What your stating here is that the officers should have always enforced and operated void of discretion and stuck to the black letter in all instances. If so, should we have them begin citing all who hang out at the remote hot springs areas? Should the NPS and all other agencies operate in kind. Come on, you're not a stick in the mud. I know a whole lot of people who visit these remote places...the Saline Valley hot springs for one. No one is being offended in such remote places. What they are targeting here are the young sand nymphs that like to ridden/paraded topless (or worse/better?) up and down the camping and staging areas at the ORV areasin front of Gandma and the kids. We need to get our heads around this scenario to really understand why these new laws are beneficial.

Yes, Randy, I am saying that the BLM should have enforced the existing laws and stuck to the black letter of the law. That is supposed to be how it works. It seems like you are suggesting selective enforcement. For us sticks-in-the-mud, you apparently want enforcement, but in areas where no one is offended, just let it go??? No, that is not how the law works. And it is not how these new rules will work! While you may have missed the full impact of this new set of laws, you should be aware that it covers all of the 11 million acres of land managed by the BLM in Southern California, not just the postage stamp areas you have mentioned.

xtatik wrote: Also, your statement regarding enforcement as the means by which the public becomes aware is ludicrous. We print laws in this country, and we make them accessible. Not only do we print them...we post them. Minimally, they are prominently posted at the entrances to these ORV areas.

I think you are laboring under a misconception. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. We are not required to post the laws to enforce them! If you are really concerned about getting the word out to the people who already know that they are littering, then all the BLM has to do is print the EXISTING laws and start enforcing them. What’s ludicrous about that.

xtatik wrote: If an officer were to see you in a remote area with a glass bottle the most he'd do is ask you to properly dispose of it when you're done. These laws are over the top because these people and places tend to get over the top. It's that simple.

Is that a provision of these new laws that we haven't seen yet - The "I'll-let-you-go-because-you-are-in-a-remote-area" clause???

DaveK wrote:

xtatik wrote:Dave, of course they know it constitutes "litter". but that's irrelevant and after the fact. The fact would be that the glass is already lost to the sand and is now a danger to public safety. Now the law will preempt that possibility and it will be enforceable before an incident like this can occur. There is no law currently that states you cannot have a glass container in these areas. Current anti-litter laws do nothing to protect public safety until after a dangerous situation is allowed to occur.

I think you are missing the point here. It is not those who possess the glass bottles who should be targeted, it is the group that break the bottles and leave them. This poorly drafted law makes it a crime to merely posses a glass beverage bottle, whether consumed or not. That is ridiculous. These are not the people that you should be concerned with - it should be the idiots who break the bottles and leave the glass. Poorly drafted laws ensnare the innocent with the guilty and should be avoided.

No Dave, it is you who is missing the point. Let's do an experiment. We'll start with two assumptions 1) You're a responsible individual 2) You know the precise weight of an empty glass container. If you were to walk out over a dry sand area and have an accident whereby the glass container was shattered at just about 4' from over the sand. Being responsible you would collect all the pieces you could find, right?. But, what would be the likelihood of collecting a match in weight to what the container weighed before being broken?....fat chance!
To your point above....in a sand dune environment, anyone who breaks a bottle whether accidentally, or with intent, will leave glass behind. You can't just sweep this stuff up!
I agree with you regarding poorly written laws. The reality is that the laws that existed were the poorly written and unenforceable. Now they are better defined and more enforceable than before.
In the past, would you really expect BLM officers to comb through the camping areas listening for the sound of broken glass...ready to pounce? What type of enforcement plan would that be given the environment they have to work in? The "ex post facto" plan hasn't worked and the result is a whole lot of glass and other dangerous human detritus being left in the dunes.

DaveK wrote:

xtatik wrote: If an officer were to see you in a remote area with a glass bottle the most he'd do is ask you to properly dispose of it when you're done. These laws are over the top because these people and places tend to get over the top. It's that simple.

Is that a provision of these new laws that we haven't seen yet - The "I'll-let-you-go-because-you-are-in-a-remote-area" clause???

No Dave, it would be a demonstation of the same discretion all peace officers have to use everyday. The same discretion the courts themselves have recognized and understood for all time.

DaveK wrote:Yes, Randy, I am saying that the BLM should have enforced the existing laws and stuck to the black letter of the law. That is supposed to be how it works. It seems like you are suggesting selective enforcement. For us sticks-in-the-mud, you apparently want enforcement, but in areas where no one is offended, just let it go??? No, that is not how the law works. And it is not how these new rules will work! While you may have missed the full impact of this new set of laws, you should be aware that it covers all of the 11 million acres of land managed by the BLM in Southern California, not just the postage stamp areas you have mentioned.

Dave, as someone mentioned earlier the 11m acres as a whole don't get a whole lotta' management.
Are you suggesting that these traditional "clothing optional" hot springs areas should have seen more citations written for nudity in the past? I mean, it's not my thing, but it is something that has been tolerated for decades.....should this cease?
The BLM isn't insensitive to the reasons why people venture out into these different areas and in most cases they are the most lenient. These different areas all require different management plans.
Unless you like to burn pallets or streak through campsites in your birthday suit...I seriously doubt you'll be impacted by these laws. And, let me know when you get your first citation for popping a cork out in BFE.

xtatik wrote:No Dave, it is you who is missing the point. Let's do an experiment. We'll start with two assumptions 1) You're a responsible individual 2) You know the precise weight of an empty glass container. If you were to walk out over a dry sand area and have an accident whereby the glass container was shattered at just about 4' from over the sand. Being responsible you would collect all the pieces you could find, right?. But, what would be the likelihood of collecting a match in weight to what the container weighed before being broken?....fat chance!
To your point above....in a sand dune environment, anyone who breaks a bottle whether accidentally, or with intent, will leave glass behind. You can't just sweep this stuff up!

OK, Randy, let’s just see who missed the point.

I am ready for your experiment. The problem discussed in your experiment involves a responsible individual who collects all of the pieces of glass that could be found. All this time I thought we were concerned about the yahoos who picked up nothing. Just how big is the problem involving responsible people who pick up everything they can.

No, the point here is not the glass left by the responsible individual, if any. The point here is the litter left by a small but careless group of desert users who don’t pick up anything. Don’t punish the responsible individual because of the actions of a group of irresponsible knuckleheads. That is the point. And that is one reason why these rules are poorly drafted

xtatik wrote: I agree with you regarding poorly written laws. The reality is that the laws that existed were the poorly written and unenforceable ones. Now they are better defined and more enforceable than before.

I challenge you to demonstrate which of the present laws are poorly written and unenforceable. My guess is that no one in the BLM even knows what they are because they haven’t bothered to enforce them. My guess is that you don’t know what they are either. Without doing a Google search or any other research, what do the present laws say?

xtatik wrote:In the past, would you really expect BLM officers to comb through the camping areas listening for the sound of broken glass...ready to pounce? What type of enforcement plan would that be given the environment they have to work in? The "ex post facto" plan hasn't worked and the result is a whole lot of glass and other dangerous human detritus being left in the dunes.

Ex Post Facto???? Sorry, there are no ex post facto laws in this discussion. I will assume your reference to the "ex post facto plan” that hasn't worked, has something to do with the current scheme of laws and the enforcement, or lack thereof. And I assume that you are intimating that this new set of rules will work better and make a difference.

One of the fundamental flaws in this theory is a failure to take into account that there are no changes, mandated by the new rules, that deal with the issue of enforcement by the BLM. So are we to assume that enforcement will remain the same or are they going to beef it up? Two questions need to be answered. One, if they have not altered their enforcement approach, and it is the same as before, how can you possibly expect a different result under these new laws? And two, If their enforcement plan has improved, it begs the question - why didn’t they get more aggressive before these new laws were considered?

I genuinely hope you are not expecting that this problem will get better merely by the implementation of some new laws. Because without enforcement, things will not improve. Just like it is now!

xtatik wrote:

DaveK wrote:

xtatik wrote: If an officer were to see you in a remote area with a glass bottle the most he'd do is ask you to properly dispose of it when you're done. These laws are over the top because these people and places tend to get over the top. It's that simple.

Is that a provision of these new laws that we haven't seen yet - The "I'll-let-you-go-because-you-are-in-a-remote-area" clause???

No Dave, it would be a demonstation of the same discretion all peace officers have to use everyday. The same discretion the courts themselves have recognized and understood for all time.

I am struck that it would be unwise to count on the "discretion" of law enforcement if one chooses to break the law. Good luck if you go that route!

xtatik wrote:

DaveK wrote:Yes, Randy, I am saying that the BLM should have enforced the existing laws and stuck to the black letter of the law. That is supposed to be how it works. It seems like you are suggesting selective enforcement. For us sticks-in-the-mud, you apparently want enforcement, but in areas where no one is offended, just let it go??? No, that is not how the law works. And it is not how these new rules will work! While you may have missed the full impact of this new set of laws, you should be aware that it covers all of the 11 million acres of land managed by the BLM in Southern California, not just the postage stamp areas you have mentioned.

Dave, as someone mentioned earlier the 11m acres as a whole don't get a whole lotta' management.
Are you suggesting that these traditional "clothing optional" hot springs areas should have seen more citations written for nudity in the past? I mean, it's not my thing, but it is something that has been tolerated for decades.....should this cease?
The BLM isn't insensitive to the reasons why people venture out into these different areas and in most cases they are the most lenient. These different areas all require different management plans.
Unless you like to burn pallets or streak through campsites in your birthday suit...I seriously doubt you'll be impacted by these laws. And, let me know when you get your first citation for popping a cork out in BFE.

Randy, you can't expect people to have any respect for the law if law enforcement is going to be selective in their enforcement. If you don't like the law, change it. Until then it is LE's duty is to enforce the law without reference to the fact that some people like to go naked. I can assure you that there are plenty of people who don't like it, even in the remote areas.