Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: National Park Service pledges to change unpopular Yukon-Charley boat checks

  1. #1
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default National Park Service pledges to change unpopular Yukon-Charley boat checks


    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    So they are going to stop the ridiculously dangerous mid river stops but otherwise continue to harass folks in a location where they have zero jurisdiction... awesome!

  3. #3
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Maybe the State should send two brown shirts there on that part of the river and do the "safety checks" and make it very visable to the NPS. Make a showing of force..........

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  4. #4

    Default

    What do the "safety checks" consist of? If I'm driving along in a car I would like a heck of a lot better reason for being pulled over other then "Just wanted to make sure your not going to hurt yourself". A boat should be no different especially in such a remote setting where we rarely encounter other people.

  5. #5

    Default

    All to often, a new young trooper would come to any small town in Alaska. After a few zealot attempts at making the laws work in that community, that young trooper would awaken to his car, on fire. It has often been the Alaska Way. I suspect, that way is not entirely lost.
    squab (probably of Scandinavian descent; skvabb, meaning "loose, fat flesh") is a young domestic pigeon or its meat

  6. #6
    Member Yukoner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Whitehorse Yukon
    Posts
    1,345

    Default

    I was following that trial, and man, it was very 1984-Brazil-esque. "You must comply!". He was making a run for the Canadian border, yeah right.
    With a little common sense, rangers could perform boat checks without ticking off the locals or making the park service look bad. Buy common sense is anything but common.
    Never wrestle with a pig.
    you both get dirty;
    the Pig likes it.

  7. #7
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskan9974 View Post
    What do the "safety checks" consist of? If I'm driving along in a car I would like a heck of a lot better reason for being pulled over other then "Just wanted to make sure your not going to hurt yourself". A boat should be no different especially in such a remote setting where we rarely encounter other people.
    I believe just like the USCG, troopers and NPS personnel responsible for law enforcement have the right to perform such inspections on Alaska waters or water flowing through the park.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  8. #8
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    Recent update, sounds good to me..

    http://newsminer.com/view/full_story...ce=alaska_news
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

  9. #9

    Default

    I understand that the Troopers and CG have that right but being on a waterway I didn't think that NPS had the jurisdiction to do that, but going from the court case apparently they do.

  10. #10
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Has there been any resolution on the court case? Did I miss it? If I recall correctly, the judge had planned to take 6-8 weeks to deliberate on the mattter, but it's been way, way longer than that.

  11. #11
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Go Uncle Don!!

    Yeah me too, what happened in the case????

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  12. #12
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    With all due respect to Congressman Young, this recent effort to completely stop any NPS enforcement within Yukon Charley is the wrong approach. As I told his office, we need fed enforcement and support with our state personnel on fish and wildlife issues. The wording inserted into the bill is highly ambiguous and would likely prevent such enforcement within Yukon Charley.

    I have turned in wanton waste cases before, it's the one thing I will simply not allow to go unreported. I informed both NPS and AWT. NPS rangers cited the party within Yukon Charley. They had to report to AWT in Fbks, then to court.

    As I also told Young's office, some NPS rangers have joint dual enforcement capability granted to them by the state (after they take a course) whereby they (NPS rangers) are authorized to enforce F&G laws even on state lands.

    The facts are that we don't have enough wildlife troopers to cover the state. We depend on feds (USFWS/NPS) to enforce our F&G law in fed areas, and perhaps many don't realize it but our state troopers/wildlife troopers work with the fed officers all the time too, they support each other because personnel is often lacking in broad areas of the state. Mr Young is of the opinion from what I gathered that feds should not be able to enforce any of our F&G laws anywhere in the state, on any lands. Sigh.

    Art, no judgment yet on the Wilde case far as I know, not sure what is going on with that, why it is taking so long. But I have to think that works in Jim's favor. At least I hope so. Imagine there is a lot of behind doors wrangling on what it could mean if the judge finds in favor of Jim <grin>.

    In closing, no one, including me, wants NPS rangers to be badge heavy or harass visitors in Yukon Charley or anywhere else. They should not be stopping boats in motion for safety checks either, and they won't be doing that any longer. But we can't have good wildlife mgmt without wildlife enforcement. We don't have enough troopers and we do depend on feds for some of that enforcement. Preventing such enforcement, which is what Don Young's language would do in YUCH, is the wrong approach imo. Some of us are working at trying to improve things in YUCH...I'm one of those people. Disappointed still on some things but after attending meetings with leadership staff and writing a boatload of letters and emails over the last 8 months or so I do think things are improving.

    Best to all,



  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKBassking View Post
    I believe just like the USCG, troopers and NPS personnel responsible for law enforcement have the right to perform such inspections on Alaska waters or water flowing through the park.
    They have a "right" to "perform such inspections" (safety?), and this does not interfere with the 4th Amendment?:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    I find it interesting that people argue in favor of the "rights" of government.................

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •