Request for opinions on harassment citation

[grover_larkins]

Sorry you see things like that Steve. On the other hand you were not being threatened for legal action by an idiot who had less sense than testerone. Was Djuna

wrong? I think not.... Admittedly this is only one side of the story but on the other hand it seems pretty consistent with my experience with a subset of the

enforcement troglodytes I've met over the years.

 

<p>

 

Additional examples:

 

<p>

 

A ranger (going through the waiting period while criminal bkgnd check was being performed -- mandatory for Federal Firearm Carry Permit for Law Enforcement)

at everglades N.P. informed me that she could search any Park Visitor's Vehicle whenever she wanted as an armed Law Enforcement Officer. I agreed that she

most certainly *could* since I am not inclined to argue with an armed individual but that I would most certainly press charges on unlawful search, armed assult and

battery, etc. unless she had clear probable cause or a search warrant (funny arrest warrants are NOT search warrants, gotta have both, can be one document but

both have to be there if the arrest is done away from the vehicle...). She took exception to this and, by happenstance, the State's Attorney for Brevard County was

standing in the Kiosk right behind me. His comment was; Honey, I'd be putting you in prison for that. She asked just exactly who he thought he was, he handed her

his card and she then attempted to slither under the door. Strange that a National Park Ranger would be so ill informed of the legal precedents, rules and criminal

codes under which she was scheduled to operate....

 

<p>

 

As another example -- A certain head of interpretation at Everglades N.P. wanted to charge all "Professional" photographers a fee to photograph in the Park. Funny

thing was that this was against a whole bunch of Laws beginning with two of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (commonly called the bill of rights). Press

and Due Process.... I simply asked him who he was, he refused to identify himself, and I then phoned the Park's Superintendent to ask if Mr. So & So was currently

at work or on vacation. I was informed that he was working and I then called the Superintendent and filed a complaint that Mr So & So was asking folks on

Anhinga Trail if they were professional photographers (he was dressed in civvies BTW) and refused to identify himself. A friend told me that he got a radio call about

5 minutes after I hung up the phone and took off like he had been scalded. Later found out that this earned him an official reprimand (identification MUST be

presented when requested and reasonably possible).

 

<p>

 

Now admittedly the 9999 other interactions I've had with Park personnel have been outstanding -- there are really great folks there!!! On the other hand why should

we, the owners of these parks, tolerate even one ill informed power mad jerk?

 

<p>

 

Other examples can be had: I filed a complaint about an area being shot up with 22 and 38 cal bullets -- it was never entered in the logbook. I checked since there

were new holes the next week if they had logged the complaint, they had not, I then sent a letter to the Superintendent. The Enforcement folks then started patrolling

that lake on a daily basis and, for the past 5 years there have been no more new holes.... I'd imagine that someone got their tootsies toasted for not logging that

complaint in the first time -- the site of the shooting was only 400m from the main park road and the bullets were headed that direction....

 

<p>

 

How about the ATF and the Weaver Case? Waco? If the enforcement agencies had followed policy and the appropriate statutes we would all have some spare

change in our collective pockets and 80+ people would not have died. Should we promote the guys in charge of these debacles (the FBI did until Congress got a

hold of that fact....). Jerks with guns cannot and should not be tolerated.

 

<p>

 

--

For pictures and information check out

http://www.fiu.edu/~larkinsg/nature_gallery_index.htm

 

<p>

 

 

[steve_graham]

Grover,

<P>

Thanks for the reply - I think we'll have to agree to differ on this stuff.

<P>

Do I think Djuna was wrong? Yes - but not criminally so. Do I thing the Rangers mentioned were wrong? Also yes - but also not criminally so. Certainly not the the length with being charged with "armed battery".

<P>

I'm a Brit and don't share the American appetite for legal proceedings, and furtunately I don't have to put up with the horrible situation of having our park rangers armed (or most of our police for that matter).

<P>

One other point, I think the State Attorney referral to a female park ranger was patronising and sexist, and probably the worst action in your story...

<P>

Photographers are not above the law and that applies to the good laws and the bad. Both your actions and that of Djuna make it look (right or wrong) as if you feel the protection laws should only apply to the grunt in the street and not the experienced and sympathetic expert. You're wrong.

[bill___2]

FWIW I've had both good and bad experiences also. I also suspect, however that what you may be dealing with are "petty govt. pipsqueeks" of the worst kind. Temporary Employees. Summer hires. Reserves. Yes, the NPS, FWS etc is full of them. Particularly in peak seasons. Yes they do often carry guns. Yes they are often working alone. Yes they are often very poorly trained.

 

<p>

 

Worst case....a boy in my high school class(way back in 71) called a NPS ranger "Smokey" and turned and walked away after a somewhat similar loud verbal confrontation. The "ranger", in front of witnesses, pulled his gun and shot the boy dead. The "ranger" was a high school teacher working as a temporary summer hire. I've also been a "reserve" cop and carried a gun. Believe me, every time I had to confront anyone I was scared to death. I was poorly trained also. I do not recommend that you try to tell the "officer" their job, it will only escillate things to no good end.

 

<p>

 

Thats my two cents.....

 

<p>

 

Cheers

[grover_larkins]

Bill,

 

<p>

 

I had heard that story nth hand and even recall reading about it at the time. The ranger was charged and convicted of murder as I recall.

 

<p>

 

The moral of the entire situation is 99+% of the Rangers out there in uniforms are decent folks and do a pretty good job given (a) inadequate training (b) little or no psychological evaluation and © poorly trained leadership. In these they are no different than just about any other Law Enforcement Agency -- on the other hand I am unwilling to allow any Law Enforcement Officer to pull any baloney on me and get away with it.

 

<p>

 

The National Parks, Monuments and Wildlife Refuges belong to the People, not the USF&WS, Dept. of the Interior, etc.. IF we, the owners, do not behave responsibly then perhaps we will not have these parks much longer.

 

<p>

 

Also, given the confrontational nature of this encounter, I would most definitely pursue any open legal avenues against the refuge and the citing officer personally in court. It may come to many as a suprise but many (most) Law Enforcement agencies will not back up the actions of their officers in Civil Proceedings if there is even a hint of misconduct involved. It would be my guess that policy requires posting of rules (generally statutes require this) and/or verbal notification (warning) prior to issuance of a citation. I would be suprised if the USF&WS would back up this Officer in this case because of these very reasons.

 

<p>

 

As a final note -- the police officer who parks his vehicle illegally whilst going in for a cup of coffee can lose his job and get a ticket at the same time -- since the citing officer's behavior was clearly more disruptive than Djuna's the officer may well be also in store for diciplinary action on these grounds. Here in Miami a few years ago we had a real rash of off-duty police being involved in fatal and serious car wrecks -- speeding and generally reckless driving were the culprits. After a newspaper and TV article the internal affairs dept. started checking on tag numbers pulled over and only *warned* and apparently put a dent in the *professional courtesy* policy of not ticketing brother officers and things improved markedly (now if we could stop the drunks from plowing into police cars we'd have it made...).

 

<p>

 

Good Luck and Best Wishes

[terry_danks]

Well, I have followed this thread through. Most of my

"big" wildlife pictures were taken in Denali back about

1968-72. It was a simpler time apparently.

I will be travelling to Badlands and Yellowstone next

month with a newly acquired "big" lens.

I was not aware that people with "big glass" have

a less-than-sterling rep with some parks folks. Nor

was I aware of prosecutions for being within 75 ft of

wildlife, etc.

Good I learned some of this stuff.

[tom_walker1]

Sorry to get in on this so late. But here at denali national park a few years ago two photographers were cited with $300 violations for approaching too closely to moose near the Wonder Lake Ranger station. They did not knuckle under but appeared before the magistrate in fairbanks. They represented themselves and WON the case. All charges were dismissed. Since I have been dealing with the NPS here for over 35 years as a freelance writer and photographer I was most concerned about this incident and took it upon myself to get audio transcripts of the trial. To boil it all down, the defendants did a TERRIBLE job of defending themselves, but the judge ruled in their favor because the Park Service ranger was so patently worng in his actions. Here in a nutshell is the relevent info: Federal law prohibits "INTENTIONAL" harrassment and merely approaching an animal shows NO INTENT to harrass. Also, about this time a judge in Hawaii threw out a case against a boat operator who had approached whales too closely. The judge said that in order to favorably prosecute, the agents needed 1) witnesses willing to testify, 2) videotape, and 3) PROOF OF INTENT to harrass. A NMFS agent was lamenting to me that this made enforcement almost impossible except in extreme cases. You might get cited and taken to court, but without proof of intent - throwing rocks - etc. - you'll likely win. Still cost you money either way. That's my take on this situation. Oh, by the way, after the case here at denali i was able to show the park officials that rangers were biased, untrained, and the approach rule too severe and variably enforced. This one we won - rangers are much better, the distance rule was reduced to 75 feet, and photographer relations improved.

[dr._steven_bein]

I was there a few years ago and an overzelious armed enforcement officer tried to harass me. Said I was in the herd of seals, which I was not. I informed her of that and continued taking my 4x5 shots. She accepted my explanation. She stated that just the animal looking at me was enough to confirm harrassment of the seals, which is false. She seemed happy to show off her stainless 357 S&W, but did not make any threatening motions or comments. She did give me her card when requested. We had no further problems.

I was there when some tourists put their kids on top of the seals. I told them it was a dangerous thing todo and risked their kids. They stopped. It is a wonderful place.

 

The eco- fanatics overdo their stance. The fact is that that colony is thriving in spite of early harrassment shows that humans do not always affect animals with our behavior. sometimes we do, but not there at this time.

There are now some docents and some signs which is educational and a good thing.

[beverley_m__st_louis_]

Djuna,

I have read these postings from 1998 with interest. By now there should have been an outcome. What was the ruling?