I've been fined!

[digonswine]

OK-I'm not THAT indignant.

Here--I was at a tiny lake in northern Wisconsin-no motors, etc.

My wife and I were staying at the only campsite on the lake-there are no houses-just us(awesome!)

I was fishing in my kayak in 3 feet of water, 10 feet from shore-fully licensed, no illegal fish in the boat.

A forest service young man paddles up to me and asks for my info-I give it to him.

BUT--I have no life jacket in my kayak.

I am fined $160.00.

I did know the rule about life jackets, but being a great swimmer(not needed) and a very experienced boat guy, I threw caution to the wind.

The feller got through with the particulars and said he needed to site me about the life jacket. Needed to. I think not.

I asked him how much the fine was and he did not even know-he had to look it up. If he is going to affect my income, shouldn't he know this?

So. . .I know these people have jobs to do, but what happened to discretion or personal judgement? I was truly doing NOTHING wrong at all and was not behaving unsafely.

I support the forest service, but black and white crap thinking like this makes me less supportive and more distrustful.

$160.00 is a lot for me. 3 feet of still water-no one on the lake-tell me I was unsafe and deserving of "punishment"-or was it a young guy throwing authority in my face. I know this pales in comparison to other misuses of power, but it is frustrating and disappointing.

[itsrobert]

1. Glad to hear that. I have been fine too.

I hope you continue to be fine.

[warrant46]

86. WI DNR = Scott Walker's division of the Die Geheime Staatspolize

Lucky you didn't have 2 hooks on your line or disturb a hibernating bear

A bear is hibernating in a bald eagle nest at the top of a tree on the Chippewa Flowage while several of the birds look on. "You can imagine they're thinking, 'Now what?' " said Ron Eckstein, a state Department of Natural Resources wildlife biologist who has spent many years researching bald eagles.
The bear was reported to DNR officials by Jennifer Ehrlichman of Hayward, who first spotted it while snowmobiling in Sawyer County with her boyfriend. She said they first thought they had spotted something in the nest at the top of a 45-foot aspen Dec. 31, and returned on New Year's Day with a camera outfitted with a telephoto lens.

Jonas is worried that people will find out the bear's specific location and disturb the animal. He noted it is against the law to do so. Entering the den of a bear in hibernation carries a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

[digonswine]

96. Can you clarify what you mean, please?

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. Rules is rules.

Years ago, we had four men drown in our lake when their fishing boat overturned in less than 3 feet of water, 50 feet from the shore. Two of them were supposedly "terrific swimmers".

You "threw caution to the wind" and it came back like a boomerang. That's life.

[digonswine]

11. Not a fishing boat-

a small kayak--look-a family could take their kids across a lake 50 times the size of this one on cheap float tubes and no such fine. There is a place for common sense.

Again-not a huge deal, but not a fair punishment for my crime.

[cleanhippie]

85. You stated in your OP that you were fishing from your kayak. A kayak is a boat.

And from that boat you were fishing, no? That makes your kayak a "fishing boat".

Do the rules state that only "fishing boats" must have PFD's or is that for all boats?

Methinks that you could easily have this citation dismissed by going to court. You are right in that the Forest Ranger was somewhat arbitrary and could have used better on-site discretion to handle this. Good luck.

[digonswine]

104. I won't fight it-

I did it.
I am sensitive about justice-what is right and what is wrong.
I don't expect to change some little law because I was (slightly) wronged by it.

My post was more about people and my wishful expectations of them.

Again-a young guy, probably new to the position. I would handle it differently.

Also-this is why I could never be a LEO. This is not a complement to them-it just is.

[srican69]

70. Rules "are" rules.

Rules happen to be the plural form of the noun 'rule'.

[cherokeeprogressive]

74. And Grammar Police is Grammar Police.

Some things never change...

[The Straight Story]

3. If you fell and hit your head/etc you might not be able to swim, hence the life jacket (nt)

[digonswine]

6. Hit my head on what?

Plastic boat-clear water-shallow and clear-no danger. Maybe a stroke or something? I'm as likely to be face-first in the water in that case.

[The Straight Story]

10. Hence the 'etc'. Leg cramp, etc (nt)

[digonswine]

12. A leg cramp walking to shore-right.

People wade out deeper than this and it is encouraged-with movement-impeding hip waders.

[rug]

4. Sorry about the fine.

But with all this crap about the NSA I found this to be refreshingly quaint.

A forest service young man paddles up to me and asks for my info-I give it to him.

[digonswine]

8. Please read my last bit in the post-I'm not pretending this is the end of the world.

[rug]

17. I know. I'm not belittling it.

I just have this picture of the ranger paddling out to you. I wonder what would have happened if you started paddling away in the other direction.

[digonswine]

20. Yeah--not much-

a bigger fine, maybe, not a shot to the back

[Tien1985]

5. Same law in Maine

Sorry for your fine, that's a lot of money.

[msongs]

7. the primary job of law enforcement is generating income nt

[mokawanis]

9. I don't care what his motivation was

he was being a dumbass when he gave you that fine. He could have exercised a little common sense and discretion and cut you some slack, since you know how to swim and you were 10 feet from shore on a calm lake.

[digonswine]

18. Not surprisingly-

I agree with you. Again-no swimming would have been necessary.

He is a young man and probably new to the position. I will write and give some suggestions for better PR and more sensible use of power.

It is, most likely, a thankless job. He was professional and I was polite--but still a silly decision.

[LondonReign2]

55. Congrats on how you handled it

Most people would have ahandled such a ticky tac fine as this in a much less pleasant matter.

That said, I wouldn't pay it, unless you plan on using this lake a lot in the future.

Some fines are just dumb.

[digonswine]

65. I do, indeed, plan to use the lake-

I will pay the fine. He was not out of line, really. I would have handled it differently.
This lake is a gem and there is NO ONE there almost always.
Just a handful of people know this sweet spot. Complete solitude. I figure--hey-it's 2 bucks a day for a year. I'll take the PFD next time, even if I know I won't use it.

[Earth_First]

13. Its possible there are many more laws you are unfamiliar with...

...I would suggest referencing boater safety laws in your state to avoid future citations.

It sucks, yes...however you were in violation of said laws during one of the biggest boating weekends of the year...

[digonswine]

22. I know the laws here-and I know I was in violation-

it does not make it right. Again-discretion on the part of those invested with authority is vital to maintaining trust.

[PoliticAverse]

77. I prefer 'equal protection under the law' to 'discretion'. n/t

[BlueJazz]

14. The fine is ridiculous and insulting. The prick could have given you a warning.

Fines are the rich persons way of fucking with the poor.

Fine the rich ? Chicken feed
Fine a single mother ? Devastating

[HardTimes99]

41. Administrative fines are a highly regressive form of taxation, since they absolutely

fail to make distinctions based on an offender's ability to pay.

I'm using the word 'taxation' very liberally here. But excessive fines do have a disproportionate effect upon those least able to pay them.

[digonswine]

66. I agree-

it was annoying that he did not even know the amount he was taking from me.
Personally, I think all fines should be based on income-I have no clue how this would work, but it would be equitable.

[PoliticAverse]

80. So you think there should be jail time instead ? n/t

[BlueJazz]

101. No. I think anybody who gets a ticket for offenses like the one in the post or for driving should...

...be required to do some community service or whatever to help the community.

Maybe a few hours on the persons day off or in cases that are more serious a LOT more hours.

I also think there should be a fine but just to cover the basic court costs (20 bucks)????

This stuff about fining a poor struggling person who may have to go without food or power or heat because he/she made
an error in their driving habits is one of the most disgusting form of punishments in society.

One can always say "Well, don't speed and always come to a complete stop and yadda, yadda..etc"
That would be fine if humans were perfect and NEVER made an error.
And..also...one can say "Life isn't fair". True, but it's up to us to try to make it as fair as possible.

I've see WAY too many of my parents rich friends get tickets for stuff and just laugh them off.
So, I guess you can kinda see where I'm coming from.

[digonswine]

107. I agree with what you said and all-

but this was not the case.
I agree that fines are regressive.
I am poor, but not so much that it will cost me food or shelter. Fer Peet's sake-I was on vacation-not fishing to put food on my family.
Again-what I have described is not what you describe.
I think we are butting against the same wall, though.

It seems as though that you are re-stating the idea of-do the crime-do the time.
I agree that this is unfair at best and immoral and unjust at worst.
My little problem pales in comparison to the unfair treatment of the poor and the awful consequences of fining the poor for so being.

[BlueJazz]

113. I understand (and there's a but)..But...what if you were poor? What if you borrowed the equiptment ?

You're fine with it. (excuse the pun). I'm NOT fine with it. Punishment should not be a matter of Luck or if the stars..
were in the persons favor. ..or if you DID forget it.

And something else. One Hundred and Sixty dollars ??
I mean, son-of-a-bitch...that's the price of a 24" computer monitor.

The idea of Fines is to "Cause you to remember the next time you do so and so..."

Not stick a 2x4 up your ass.

I guess we'll agree to disagree

[digonswine]

118. I would guess that we do not disagree

[HardTimes99]

105. You may not have been paying attention to a spate of articles recently

in the alternative press about the appearance of the Debtors' Prison, v. 2.0. In many cases, people who have been fined large amounts as a part of their sentence or plea agreement are unable to pay the fines and jailed as a result.

So you think there should be Debtors' Prisons?

See how straw men work????

Well, anyway, in a progressive system, monetary fines would be calibrated around a person's ability to pay, rather than a regressive system that fines millionaires the exact nominal amount it fines the working poor.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

62. You know what's devastating?

Pulling a nine year-olds body from a river a day after their father's boat capsized.

[nobodyspecial]

15. What did you expect?

I guess the the forests service worker is supposed to arbitrarily enforce the law. He just asks if you are a good swimmer and how experienced you are and takes your word for it. Only people who admit they aren't good swimmers should get tickets. I guess if you told him you couldn't afford the fine, he should just not write the ticket.

You knew the law and chose to ignore it because you are special. It wasn't an abuse of power. The guy was just doing his job, made more difficult by people like you who believe they are above the law or that it should be selectively enforced, as long as you don't get dinged. You gambled today and lost. Them's the breaks.

[digonswine]

23. Not so much-

you sound like a person who sees no gray.
Look at the situation as I laid it out. Tell me I was being unsafe. And please explain.

A guy buys 10 mg of pot and is sentenced to prison. Well--he knew the penalty-tough shit!

I know my situation is not the same or nearly as dire-but, again--if there is room for personal discernment in law enforcement-there is NO WAY we can trust any LEO-period.
It is not cut and dried as you suggest.

[kestrel91316]

53. Unlike laws against pot, the life jacket law is NOT unjust in any way.

It directly saves lives.

[digonswine]

68. No argument from me-

My idea was it would be nice for LEO to use discretion and treat each situation separately and not in some reflexive manner. I do not disagree with the law and I don't begrudge the feller. I think a more experienced person would have not made the same decision.
Please note-from my OP--I am NOT terribly indignant. It is a minor thing(not monetarily).

[trotsky]

78. +1 n/t

[TeeYiYi]

16. I'm on your side...

It should have been a warning.

TYY

[digonswine]

100. Yeah-a warning would be nice-and appropriate

[Brickbat]

19. Works for me.

[digonswine]

24. Please explain why it is just-

explain how I was being unsafe and deserved this hefty fine.

Because it is against the rules? Why can people ride motorcycles w/o helmets?

I consider this to be a stupid activity--totally legal here. No deer will come out and cause me to brain myself on the edge of my plastic boat.

What is the danger? Or is there no room for judgement?

[Neoma]

44. Ugh

If you've ever seen a motorcycle accident, you wouldn't compare that. Heads are like eggs in that case.

Note: in some states helmets is illegal, in some states it's not.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

21. 3' of water? You should have stepped out of the boat and asked what the fine was for f-ing wading.

[ileus]

25. Hey he's working to make that Christmas party a little nicer.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. You deserved to be fined

I guess it's the "authoritarian" in me. But seriously, an ounce of prevention...too many people drown needlessly because.

[digonswine]

27. Then tell me how I was endangering myself-

I have not seen one response that has even tried.
I don't expect anyone to truly care about this-but is indicative of a complacence with those who exert control.

Really-I will admit if I am wrong-I am not stupid or careless.

By the way--I WILL respond-but DU is not working for me tonight, so it may be tomorrow!! Some sites are OK and some are not responding.

[nobodyspecial]

28. lol

"Really-I will admit if I am wrong"

You knew what the law was and knowingly disregarded it. The law does not stipulate feet of water, proximity of the shore, swimming ability or expertise. I just don't get the point. We have laws. They are enforced. We don't get to pick and chose which ones "common sense" tells us to follow. If you believe you were so wronged, appeal it.

It was a holiday weekend. They always put out extra patrols on those weekends just to keep the highways and waterways safe and casualty free.

So, do you wear a seat belt in your car? Or are just an excellent driver so the law really doesn't apply to you?

[digonswine]

32. The point is-

there should be some room in enforcement for those doing the enforcing to use sensible judgement. It could be that the guy was instructed to issue tickets no matter what--I doubt it, though.
I don't feel I was wronged, exactly-I'm not foaming mad if you did not glean that.
This is not really about me and I don't want special treatment. I feel that each situation should be treated individually in all things, whenever possible.

The seat belt example is not the same.

[LanternWaste]

56. Running a stop-sign in the middle of the desert with no traffic for miles around does not endanger t

Running a stop-sign in the middle of the desert with no traffic for miles around does not endanger the driver either; and one may even justify to themselves that it is also neither careless nor stupid.

I'm also told by those who consider themselves clever people and good drivers that when *they* do a mere five miles over the speed limit in a school zone that they are not, in fact, endangering themselves or others, and are not acting in a careless fashion.

We often rationalize to ourselves that many safety protocols do not indeed, apply to us as we have absolute knowledge of the relevant safety issues we ignore, and thus project our own failures onto anyone possible. It's human nature I'd imagine.

[digonswine]

71. No projection here-

I know the way people are, and how I am. This is not rationalization.
I ignore no safety measures where others are involved. I am hyper-aware of the rights of others.
I do not blame the ranger-I simply think that someone should be able to use their judgement and decide what is right.
I know that regulations do not enforce what is right, but individuals can at least try to do what is right.
I also know that it is impossible to make a judgement over the intertubes based on what I have described.

I was as safe in what I was doing as a person is wading in foot-deep water. SO what?--ranger did not know what I was to do next.
No blame, no projection.
I have also been treated very fairly by the DNR in the past.

[LanternWaste]

98. yes... it's the very definition of rationalizing one's actions.

yes... it's the very definition of rationalizing one's actions.

"individuals can at least try to do what is right...."
You then are the arbiter of what is right, and may make infallible distinctions between right and wrong in this case based on what objective measure?

Again... Insert Rationalization Here, Rinse, Repeat, Lather.

[digonswine]

108. A helpful bit of pablum

[galileoreloaded]

29. you are in good company

[nobodyspecial]

31. Yes, let's get rid of laws

That'll work.

[LanternWaste]

57. I'd imagine that also applies to those who stop at red lights.

I'd imagine that also applies to those who stop at red lights. (Insert rationalization here)

Else, we merely pick and choose which laws to follow and discard the others via the mechanism of personal and subjective convenience.

[friendlyFRIEND]

91. I don't need to stop at red lights

I have this uncanny ability to scan an intersection from far away to pick the right time to cross without a needless stop.

[digonswine]

99. Yup-it is the exact same thing-

Exactly-way to go! Haha-what a selfish rube is this OP!

[lpbk2713]

30. All law enforcement is about generating revenue

That "protect and serve" stuff has been kicked further on down the list of priorities.

[pipi_k]

47. In defense of

law enforcement, sometimes they are actually serving by protecting people from their own stupidity.

Or, as someone else mentioned, protecting others from suffering the consequences of someone's stupidity.

Like when people go swimming in places they're not supposed to, need to be rescued, and end up wasting thousands of dollars in taxpayer money, not to mention putting someone else's life in danger.

How does law enforcement stop people from doing stupid (often illegal) things?

By slapping them on the hands over and over again?

No. They make it financially painful for the person to keep doing it.

And, if we really want to be real about generating revenue, how about replacing taxpayer money wasted on rescuing people from their own stupidity...

[Sheldon Cooper]

33. Answer one simple question:

Why didn't you have a life jacket in your kayak? Why?

The law requires it and from what I gather, you don't even need to wear it, just have it in the boat with you. Yet you didn't have one. You're demanding that everyone else answer your question, how about you answer mine?

[digonswine]

34. I forgot it

I'm not demanding anything here.

[Sheldon Cooper]

39. This seems rather demanding to me:

Then tell me how I was endangering myself-

I have not seen one response that has even tried.
I don't expect anyone to truly care about this-but is indicative of a complacence with those who exert control.

Maybe 'demanding' is a bit too strong - but in this whole thread you've certainly been insistent that someone justify the behavior of the ranger when it's pretty clear that you won't accept any justification for it.

I think you screwed up and should take your medicine like a big boy. I don't think the ranger was out of line for issuing the citation, you may not have felt endangered but how is he supposed to know that? Lots of people drown in shallow water, and when you don't follow the rules you endanger not only yourself but anyone who may try to rescue you. Next time, remember the life jacket and *poof* the problem goes away. Now go ahead and call me an authoritarian, I'm fine with that.

Another question, and really it's just out of curiosity, if you were only going to be three feet from shore, why get in the kayak at all?

[digonswine]

45. I don't really feel that the ranger's actions need to be justified, exactly-

I have said he was professional, etc.
It impossible for me to get across the exact situation in words, so I imagine it would be difficult for someone to come up with a response.
Yes--I take the life jacket from now on and probably won't forget-too poor to forget-but not because it is unsafe(depending on the situation, of course).
In a perfect world, people in authority could use judgement on a case-by-case basis and err on the side of least harm. I would like a little program to go through his mind. Like--"If I cite this guy for this infraction, he is out $160.00(in my case, at least). Do I think this is warranted?"
It could be that he did think something similar to that-I can't know. But that is how I would LIKE it to go for everyone in every situation.
It is one reason I could never be in that position-I simply could not approach situations in a black-and-white way and enforce rules I think are ethically wrong(I don't think PFD rules are wrong, necessarily by the way).

On your last question--It is difficult to get the right angles and hit the holes where I think the bass are when fishing from shore. Some shorelines are so entangled with trees or brush, that it would be impossible to even get a cast out in any case. Less bugs when in a boat. Also-from shore, each time you reel in either your bait or a fish, you are reeling them toward the obstructions on the shoreline. From a boat, you are reeling away from these.

[aikoaiko]

35. "what happened to discretion or personal judgement?"

It sounds like you both used yours poorly.

[digonswine]

72. If you were there-you would not say so-

I know you would not. I can't describe the area well enough and should not have started this OP to begin with. There is no way to react to me in a reasoned way. The situation was what it was. Just don't assume I was being unsafe and endangering others, please.

I used no poor judgement, except that I assumed no LEO would show up on this unoccupied puddle. Actually-I knew where I was going and knew that a PFD would be useless.

[HappyMe]

36. The fact of the matter is,

is that a life jacket is required for everyone on board any kind of water-craft.

I have never seen a person kayaking without their life jackets ON.

[digonswine]

75. Not on a floatie tube-

the thing most likely to fail.

I don't disagree with the law. I disagree with its implementation.
I do recognize that I am angling toward a perfect state. But a boy can dream

[HappyMe]

82. A perfect state of what?

So you are basically peeved because you got caught.

[digonswine]

109. No-

please read some of my other responses here, if you care to--and then respond.

[Lars39]

37. How did he know you were going to stay 3'

from the shore?

[dembotoz]

38. be happy you did not get shot--Our Northwoods now have armed masked thugs pretending to be guards

if it wasn't for the bunch of northwoods foliage you could mistake the picture for syria

[MineralMan]

40. I'm betting you'll have your life jacket with you

in the future. You don't even have to wear it. But you do have to have one in or on your kayak. There's a reason for the law. You think the fine is too large. Well, so do I, but I have no issue with your being issued a citation.

[digonswine]

73. $20 bucks would be fair-in this case

I would like the ranger to know the cost of their decision. It might affect it.

[MineralMan]

76. Yeah, that would be about right.

Put a couple of rings on the top of the kayak and bungee the lifejacket to them. You don't have to wear it. Or, if you have a cargo net, put the life jacket in it.

[digonswine]

102. It is no problem-

I will carry the vest-period.

This is not my first rodeo--

by the way--I like your OP's and keep it up.

[lost-in-nj]

42. I was just wondering

I wonder if the "forest service young man" was new to the job and he thought maybe this was a test.

In some fields they send out ringers to make sure people are doing their jobs. Yours sounds like the perfect scenario for a newby test.
just a thought out of left field

lost

[digonswine]

79. He was young and I bear him no grudges-

He was most probably new-these jobs are hard to come by.
I have talked to many in Nat Resources-not a good time-no jobs. They try to do well in a tough and thankless field.
I would guess that most people lie and try to get away with stuff.
I was honest and had my info. I thought he would appreciate a straight-shooter. My mistake.
I will take the PFD from now on.

[Baclava]

43. might as well cut out your car seat belts and complain when they give you a ticket for that too

You got caught - it happens - you're lucky they didn't confiscate your kayak - you don't mess with boating regulations - they will bust you every time


when I take my canoe out in the bay - never get bothered, I know they're watching me - I make sure they see orange life vest - that's the first thing they see

[digonswine]

103. I should not feel lucky that they did not take my property-

that's like-Horrible-RIGHT??

Tell me why I should feel lucky about that. Cripes-they had every right in the world to take my stuff. I'm lucky I still have the car with which I transported it. I'm a lucky boy

[pipi_k]

46. Sorry...

no sympathy from me.

It's not an intrusive law. It's not totally senseless, unlike some laws against, for example, illegally bathing a moose in your bathtub.


Hey, there are laws mandating the wearing of seatbelts. I hate wearing a seatbelt, but I wear it anyway. Why? Because I don't want to pay a fine and have it show up as a moving violation on my record.

That's life.

[digonswine]

48. I do not think the law is senseless at all.

I just want some good sense when enforcing it-for everyone.
Please do read my other responses if you have time for a clearer sense of what I am talking about--if you care to.

BTW-I will not be able to respond for now to posts--my internet-especially DU right now and last night, is amazingly ssssllloowww. . .

[pipi_k]

50. I think there was good sense

in enforcing it.

You say you weren't any deeper than 3 feet, but how was he supposed to know you weren't headed for deeper water?

Just because you said so?

He's supposed to know that? He's supposed to believe that?

I'm not really sure what you mean by the statement that you want good sense when enforcing the law.

If it's a good law, then it should apply equally to everyone...and a case in point here...

Mr Pipi has a tendency to drive a little too fast. He is a retired police sergeant. Whenever he's been stopped for speeding, the cop takes a look at the sticker on the windshield and lets him off without a fine. I think that sucks, personally. I think he should be fined just the same as everyone else would be. It just might stop him from "forgetting" how fast he's going. And it just could save a life someday.

If the day ever comes when he's stopped for speeding and actually gets a ticket (with a fine), I will not be upset. I certainly won't say so, but I'll probably be fist-pumping on the inside.

Break the law, pay the fine...I don't care who the person is.

[digonswine]

90. Yeah-he should get the ticket!

I only disagree with you a little bit.

I know what my intentions were-and they were safe. I don't take risks. I am not faulting the guy, either.

What I would like to see is some gradation of fines.
What I did does not compare to a fellow taking his 3 yr old out in a speed boat without a PFD. The fine is the same.
I am a fellow of nuance and wish there was some.
But-if there was some, I know, that these things would be challenged more.
I should have not started this OP at all.
There are two ways to look at it. 1--break the law-pay the fine.
2-Does what I did warrant such a hefty fine?
It is like so many things-I should not look to the law to find fairness.

By the way-when I was younger, I was cited twice for minor speeding. Pulled over twice and fined twice-fine.

My wife, in the past, has been pulled over 3 times for speeding-only warnings.

There is some discretion in these things.

[Orrex]

49. You weren't punished for being unsafe

You were punished for breaking the law.

I understand that you're frustrated that he didn't exercise discretion in your favor, but that's how it goes. I know many people who've been received much larger fines for similarly "harmless" violations.

If you you can't do the time...

[polichick]

51. I guess you'll remember the life jackets next time...

Who knows, maybe you or someone else will need one and it'll all be for the best.

[kestrel91316]

52. If you don't like the rules for playing in National Forests, go play in a private lake.

Hell, go buy your own lake, and if you have an accident and drown, nobody will even notice.

Meanwhile, the Forest Service is trying to prevent needless deaths and risky body retrievals. Just like the rules about fire safety.

In the alternative, you could move to Somalia, the libertarian paradise that doesn't bother with rules.

[digonswine]

93. That is not a measured response-

You don't give me many options.

I can be slightly miffed at a silly fine, or I can go and be killed somewhere.

Nice bombast

[Atman]

54. No (or not much) sympathy.

I live on a lake. It's pretty big; 180hp I/O or 80hp OB motors allowed. Our town has no police department, but we have a "marine" cop. Last year, after living here for six years, I got "pulled over" by the marine cop. My offense? Being more than 100' from shore without a vessel. IOW, I was floating in a big inner tube. No boat. Apparently illegal.

I've paddled out into the middle of the lake on my tube, no one ever stopped me. But this time the summer cop nailed me and actually escorted me back to shore. He wouldn't tow me or bring me aboard, he just ran along beside me until I reached my dock (why not until I was as the 100' point?) at which he issued me a "warning" not to stray too far from shore again.

So, they do have leeway, but the law is the law. Unfortunately, you got a dick ranger.

[digonswine]

95. You are brave!

The lake I was on allowed no motors-electric or gas.
I would guess that if he brought you aboard, it would mean he was responsible for your safety.

Reminds me of a time I needed a set of jumper-cables.
The fellow looked the other way while used them(DNR)-if they help you out-they are responsible for the consequences.
Ridiculous but true.

[Ms. Toad]

58. A dear friend of mine lost his brother on senior sneak day.

I did know the rule about life jackets, but being a great swimmer(not needed) and a very experienced boat guy, I threw caution to the wind.

The kids were in a boat which capsized on a calm lake. No life jackets. My friend's brother stayed alone with the boat while others went for help because he was a great swimmer (a lifeguard) and they were worried about what would happen if they lost the boat they had borrowed.

No one knows for sure what happened, other than that he drowned while they were getting help. On a calm lake. With a still partially floating boat to hang onto. Even though he was a strong swimmer regularly charged with ensuring the safety of others in the water.

His family would be thrilled to pay a $160 fine, if it keeps other parents and siblings from the grief they suffered.

[cbdo2007]

59. LOL - Yep, the rules are just for everyone else.

Seriously, get over yourself and just follow the rules.

"Black and White crap thinking" is in place because the officer shouldn't have to spend his whole day questioning everyone about their activities and debating with them if they should be allowed to follow the rules or not. Rather than him having to make a "Pros and Cons" list for why he should or shouldn't give you a ticket, as a true supporter of the Forest Service, I would much rather his resources be used to ticket offenders of the laws that are put in place for their own protection.

I thank and applaud this officer for his knowledge of the rules and his courage to stand up to people like you!

[digonswine]

119. It does take courage-

to come up on a deserted lake upon a fisherman in low water, the courage it takes for a fellow with a sidearm and radio-I can't imagine.
I had no choice in anything-he was armed to the teeth and I am not a crazy paranoid gun-toter, hell-bent on a confrontation.
I should cheer him for his courage and bravery.
Thank god he was keeping me safe. I am so safe now.
I can no longer put at risk those who would serve to save me. Cudos.

[Initech]

60. I got fined $225 for jaywalking. I shit you not.

I was with my buddies bar hopping, and we were crossing the street and a bunch of asshole undercover cops nailed a group of like 20 people crossing the street. That sucked.

[friendlyFRIEND]

92. lighten up

they will need the cash the next time they get sued for shooting someone holding a garden hose nozzle.

[Initech]

97. This is the same police department that has been under investigation for the last six years.

For brutally attacking and killing a homeless man. The department has been under fire for their conduct ever since.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

61. Mind you, you didn't even have to wear it

Just have it.

Sorry, bub.

[11 Bravo]

63. If you had jumped from your kayak and started swimming, would you still have been cited? Or ...

are swimmers also required to have PFDs?

[FarCenter]

64. The law must be enforced with impartiality

Start making exceptions for some people, then other people are going to be upset that they don't get exceptions too.

You might be a good swimmer, but how about people who don't float.

[digonswine]

123. I just want sensible enforcement-not special treatment.

[nobodyspecial]

130. Sensible enforcement

= I don't get a ticket.

At any point in this thread, will you own up to your own culpability in this? Are you carrying a life jacket next time?

[digonswine]

132. Yes I will-

I said I will-
Now you can feel superior and justified in dickish behavior.
I would guess that you know what I was saying all along but like to act like I just want special favors--congrats.

[NightWatcher]

67. Request a jury trial

I'm so sick of cops not protecting nor serving but instead, raising revenue for the city. Red light cams, speed traps, stupid fines and such are not keeping us safe and only serve the city with revenue.

[digonswine]

110. That's nuts-

I did do what I was accused of-I did do it.
I just thought the response was out of order.

Remember-this was a young man-most likely new to the job. I do not feel my rights were
infringed upon or whatever. I simply want a measured response.

[Jokerman]

69. A fine is appropriate but I think $160 is excessive.

Most fines are artificially inflated to make up for lost tax revenue.

If you had kids in the boat and no jackets that would be different.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. You should have gotten out of your kayak and asked him to join you in a walk to shore.

[cbayer]

83. No one should ever go out in a boat without enough life jackets for everyone on board.

You might consider taking one of the boating courses that are probably offered for free in your area.

Ignorance of the rules is never an excuse.

The guy was just doing his job.

[digonswine]

112. I appreciate your response-

and I like your responses to others in other posts-

Thank you no-I am a veteran of boating and will learn nothing from a boating course.

I know what I am doing.
If it is not obvious-please read my other responses in this thread.
And as you will(hopefully) read in my other responses-I know that he was just doing his job. He
was professional and had the indifferent patina of others that preceded him.
It is a wall that needs to come down.
I don't know what it is like to do the job-one has to talk in a martial fashion and only let people be people when they prove they are
above board. It must suck.
I would hate to do that and could not.

[cbayer]

115. Then you might have availed yourself of the information on what kinds

of fines you might be facing if you broke one of the most basic and critical rules in the boating world.

Someone else might have let you off with a warning, but this one didn't and he was well within his rights to do this.

I doubt this is the first time you have gone out without a PFD, Perhaps he was aware of that.

And the fact that there was no one else around makes it even more critical that you have a PFD.

You breaks the rules, you takes your chances.

BTW, I've been boarded by the coast guard, and being approached by Fish and Game really pales in comparison.

I got caught shoplifting when I was 15 years old. I thought they were excessively harsh and unfair to me, but it never, ever occurred to me to shoplift again. Maybe this little incident will make you more vigilant about having a PFD in the future, and maybe, just maybe, you might be very glad you have it one day.

Sounds like a lovely place you have found. We also seek out isolated places and there is nothing quite like it. Enjoy!

[digonswine]

122. Truly I will not go out w/o a PFD-

I have learned throughout my life to depend upon my own judgement.
This is not sufficient for some--I will play the game.

If you knew the exact situation, I would bet you would agree with me.

Yes--it is a great place--the fewer that know of it, the better.

Like I said to another in this(misbegotten) thread--I like your posts. Keep it goin'

[cbayer]

124. Thanks, digsonwine. The feeling is mutual.

I might feel the same. I really disliked the coast guards checklist (about two pages worth) and though much of it was unnecessary.

But, other than some fire extinguishers that had expired and a waste removal plaque, we met all the criteria.

I don't like bureaucracy, but since I am able to avoid it for the most part, I try to comply when I have to. It reduces the chance that I will be harassed.

Have a great summer and enjoy the beauty and solitude. It is truly a joy few people get to enjoy.

[digonswine]

125. I should have said-

to all I replied to on this thread--
If I met you in person-we would be friends.

It is so easy to get offended here.

And none of this matters at all. I love a good disagreement, but I love this place.

I only say this to you since you are consistently level-headed. It does not go unnoticed!

Fair winds---

[OregonBlue]

84. It seems excessive to me. He could have given you a warning. Sorry. $160 is a lot.

[OldEurope]

87. What would happen if

someone got injured and sued the campsite because of not insisting on obeying the rules?

[digonswine]

111. Not applicable-

this is a National Forest site-no litigation required. We assume a certain risk in the using. Please see some of my other responses.

[closeupready]

88. I support this law and the officer, though the fine is high.

But that's just the way it goes.

[GoneOffShore]

89. I was fined this week.

Stopped in the breakdown lane of a motorway in France near Annecy to consult a map and reprogram the GPS. We were there 3 or 4 minutes and suddenly there was a van in front of us and two gendarmes got out.

No ifs ands or buts. "License, documents, please. You can't stop here" "We're lost." "Papers, please. This is the breakdown lane. Follow us, please."

3 kilometers later we pull over. They get out, escort me to the van and I'm obliged to take a breathalyzer test. Lucky me, it had been 4 hours since lunch and I was well under the limit. But because we had stopped in the breakdown lane, the fine was 35 euros, payable in cash, on the spot. No points, a "quittance" was issued and we went on our way.

I didn't think I deserved the fine, but as was explained, those are the rules and if you know them or not, you must follow them.

[PoliticAverse]

106. "35 euros, payable in cash, on the spot."

I wonder if there is someone keeping track of those 'quittance's.

[GoneOffShore]

128. In triplicate.

And it went into a locked box in the van.

[bike man]

94. The "forest service young man" did NOT affect your income. You did.

I did know the rule about life jackets, but being a great swimmer(not needed) and a very experienced boat guy, I threw caution to the wind.

The feller got through with the particulars and said he needed to site me about the life jacket. Needed to. I think not.

I asked him how much the fine was and he did not even know-he had to look it up. If he is going to affect my income, shouldn't he know this?

You buy your ticket, you take the ride. Actions have consequences. You chose not to take the required life jacket.

[digonswine]

116. You do know-

that this is exactly what is said to anyone befouled by the justice system?

I am not seeking solace from those here-

BUT-you do the crime-you do the time is what they say to anyone who chafes their bottoms, yes?

[bike man]

117. Hard to tell what you are seeking here. An admission that you know that you were

in the wrong, that you did so willingly and knowingly, and now a whole series of posts about the unfairness of the penalty.

'Penalties are for others', is the gist of what one might take from this discussion, 'but not for me, because, after all, it is MEEE.'

[digonswine]

121. I am seeking nothing-

please read my other responses and see what a dick I am.

Really -do it, please

I am anything but a prick.

I would advise you to not treat other like they are assholes.

[nobodyspecial]

129. Yep

Bout sums it up.

[Heddi]

114. Good. You deserved it. You knowingly flaunted the rules

You (yes you, Michael Phelps-grade swimmer that you are) can drown in 1 inch of water. ONE INCH. Stop rolling your eyes and realize I know what I'm talking about. I"m an ER Nurse and have been involved with NUMEROUS cases of people who drowned, or nearly drowned in water less than 1 foot deep. And I'm just talking about the adults. The people whose friends and famililes who accompanied their dead/dying bodies to the ER would say again and again how no one thought this would happen because the victim was SUCH A GREAT AND ADEPT SWIMMER.



That fine is to remind you that when you go ass over head in the water, and you're flailing about, it's not just your life in danger, but you're also endangering the poor fool who's risking THEIR life to save your dumbass, "I'm too good to wear or carry a life jacket because I can swim, damnit!".

And like someone up thread said: so this poor Forrest guy is supposed to say "Oh gee, you can swim? Okay, I trust you!" and let you on your way? Or take 30 minutes out of his day to weigh your ideas of pros and cons and gee should he get a ticket? what's his yearly income? Oh but he gets a pension, too, but what about the mortgage....?

fuck that.

YOU weigh the pros and cons when you decide to knowingly break the law. That's YOUR responsibility, not the ranger's. YOU cost yourself income, not him.

You want pros and cons: here you go:

Taking a life jacket on the boat: PRO--don't get a ticket CON--I don't like safety orange
Not taking lifejacket on the boat: PRO--um, yeah CON: Oh I get docked $160

So if you're not willing to take 8 seconds out of your busy weekend of fishing and frolocking to weigh the pros and cons of your decision, why should the forest ranger?

fuck that.

Suck it up. You knowingly broke the law. Deal with it. Maybe that'll be a gentle reminder to carry the required gear next time you go out.

"But officer, I don't know why you're giving me a ticket for going 83 in a 50mph zone. See, I'm a good driver, there's no one else on the road, and I've never had an accident. Seriously...who am I going to injure besides myself...?

[digonswine]

120. I'm glad you got that out of your system-

it is cathartic.

You clearly read NONE of my responses and jumped to the conclusion.

You did type a lot of words, though.
I hope it was helpful to you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

126. Heddi's was probably the best response on the whole thread. Yet, you insult...

It's an excellent point she made about an emergency responder putting their lives on the line for people who think the rules don't apply to them. Yet, you insult...

I hate when someone pisses and moans about getting caught doing something wrong and being punished for it. For thinking punishment is what should be imposed on OTHER people, but not yourself. Maybe it WILL make you think twice in the future, but I'm betting it won't. From the responses I've seen you post in this thread you're exactly the kind of person who will do it again, get caught, and piss TWICE the river you did this time.

Look, it's painfully obvious you thought this thread would go different than it did. Personally I'd delete it, and get over myself. I don't think you're going to find much more sympathy here than you already have.

I'll take Heddi's first responder meme a bit farther... I always marvel when people slither out onto thin ice to save the moose, or deer, or whatever animal wanders out on and falls through. Me? I'd let them drown. It strengthens the gene pool. When they drown, the genes that made them wander out on frozen water are effectively cut off. By saving them, people guarantee one or more of the animals' progeny will sooner or later do the same. I predict that if you haven't already, you'll spawn young'ns that think the laws that restrict others will not apply to them. Hope no one gets hurt...

[cbdo2007]

131. Excellent response!

[Boudica the Lyoness]

127. Nanny state! Only children should wear them.

What would ranger rick had done if you didn't have a kayak/water craft, but was just standing in the 3 feet of water. Do you need to wear a life jacket then?