# Wider net cast for boozing on water



## cma (Dec 19, 2003)

Can an innertube be considered a raft?


----------



## Fuzzy (May 25, 2005)

No more Big South laps on a 12 pack


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

While my first reaction is WTF?, I'm not sure I'm really that concerned about this being enforced anywhere that I will be. I can't really see a park ranger motoring up on day 2 of Cat and giving you a ticket for drinking. Talk about a way to rack up some negative river karma. Also, the ticket is for the person in control of the vessel. So if I'm not "in control" of my kayak at the time, I'm innocent, right? 

COUNT


----------



## EZ (Feb 10, 2004)

This does look like it may have an impact on rivers with a bigger Ranger presence like the Arkansas. Those guys love to give lots of parking tickets and harass you at put ins and take outs already.


----------



## Granpa (Feb 4, 2006)

The world is really starting to suck. I mean it was sucking before, but this is really adding to the overall suckiness of the whole thing. I can understand if there was any chance of my canoe or raft for that matter coliding into an innocent bystander and killing them like a car, but that is not the case here. Fuck the man on this one thats for sure.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

EZ said:


> This does look like it may have an impact on rivers with a bigger Ranger presence like the Arkansas. Those guys love to give lots of parking tickets and harass you at put ins and take outs already.


In my experience they are pretty chill. I have "forgotten" to pay more times than I can count and I always get a warning. One of the rangers even paddled up to us chiefing some glaucoma medicine on private property the other day and kindly let us finish before me moved on!

I seriously doubt that the Ark rangers will be too strict on this one. 

How would they identify you as drunk anyway? Hitting rocks? Swerving? As far as they know I'm just a lousy boater with a good old fashioned Mormon Pepsi in my koozie!


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

ANyone know where Utah stands on the matter?


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

I think you're allowed to drink 3.2 on the water... as long as you have at least three wives and you are appropriately dressed. Order clothing online at: FLDS Dress




Dave Frank said:


> ANyone know where Utah stands on the matter?


----------



## pinemnky13 (Jun 4, 2007)

Great the fun police must of lost their ass hamsters and now want to take it out on us, what am I going to do with that keg of busch light now?


----------



## jmrolak (Jul 8, 2008)

Wow am I glad this just went into effect today. We just took off of The Gates of Ladore and met some Rangers employed to remove a Dory at Winnies who would have loved to ticket us. The fun police were really concerned and stopped to talk to us 4 times! If you can't escape onto a wide desert river in the middle of no where, where can you escape?


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

The ONLY way someone could hangup at Winnies is if they were on very bad LSD. Simple booze wouldn't be enough!



jmrolak said:


> Wow am I glad this just went into effect today. We just took off of The Gates of Ladore and met some Rangers employed to remove a Dory at Winnies who would have loved to ticket us. The fun police were really concerned and stopped to talk to us 4 times! If you can't escape onto a wide desert river in the middle of no where, where can you escape?


----------



## Tumbles (Mar 12, 2008)

Randaddy said:


> In my experience they are pretty chill. I have "forgotten" to pay more times than I can count and I always get a warning. One of the rangers even paddled up to us chiefing some glaucoma medicine on private property the other day and kindly let us finish before me moved on!
> 
> I seriously doubt that the Ark rangers will be too strict on this one.
> 
> How would they identify you as drunk anyway? Hitting rocks? Swerving? As far as they know I'm just a lousy boater with a good old fashioned Mormon Pepsi in my koozie!


I think it will depend on the ranger...some of those guys are really out for ya....

Had a friend lay his sleeping bag down about 3-4 feet from the little designated sleeping box at our hecla site. Ranger rolled up in the morning and gave him a ticket for illegally camping (even though our group had like 4 sites reserved).

so might be more of a roll of the dice with this one.....


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

The only way they could enforce this is if rangers started carrying breathilizers.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

I too have found the Ark Rangers to be particularly cool. Perhaps the illegal camping ticket had to do with some other circumstances? I mean, how could you be a dick with a job like being an Ark Ranger?

This no boozing and boating law fundamentally changes the legality of many playboating sessions, but at the same time points to the root of my lack playboating skills.


----------



## kevdog (Jun 7, 2007)

Oh, they will, they will. As the economy starts to deteriorate, they'll be doing more and more of this to increase "revenue", especially on waterways in poor rural parts of the state. 

My frustration with all this BUI/DUI crap is it was originally about people getting drunk, getting in their cars and killing someone other than themselves. Now you can get a DUI on a bike, a horse, a canoe, none of which I believe you can seriously hurt ANYONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF. Also, they deliberately write these laws as ambigiously as possible, makes it easier to write tickets.

It's really time to start demanding a repeal of the laws. 



COUNT said:


> The only way they could enforce this is if rangers started carrying breathilizers.


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

I've met cool rangers and dick rangers just about everywhere (Ark, MFS, WW, Deso, etc.). Surprisingly, though, the coolest was the Salt. Old badass looking Apache dude. Showed him my permit, asked him if he wanted to check out our firepan, groover, etc. and he just said "Nah, you look like you know what you're doing, have a good trip." Tatshenshini dudes seemed pretty cool too, but I digress.


----------



## sj (Aug 13, 2004)

Ladies and gentelmen I think what they are after here is the motor boater ,jet skier. And I think it is more of an after the fact law. As in we caught these idiots doing X now we have a bigger book to throw at them. Say next time a jet skier kills a tubber. 

Granted if an Ark ranger chooses to be a dick he has a bigger book. But look at this lodgicaly is the state going to throw more law enforcement officers into their BUI program I think not. I did not see anything about appropriatoin of funds to go after the BUI crowd.

There are places were the local Law enforcement and the Federals in the same areas have made it clear they are not boater freindly you might want to be more careful in these places. But i don't see it changing any of my river days. sj


----------



## kevintee (May 7, 2007)

sj said:


> Ladies and gentelmen I think what they are after here is the motor boater ,jet skier. And I think it is more of an after the fact law. As in we caught these idiots doing X now we have a bigger book to throw at them. Say next time a jet skier kills a tubber.


They already had laws against driving a motorboat, jet ski etc. But why should it be their concern that I enjoy getting fawked up and practicing my roll?


----------



## sj (Aug 13, 2004)

Kev in the article the jet ski is mentioned in the same sentence as sailboat raft ect. I feel while they were tightning Jet ski laws they threw the rest in. sj


----------



## randomnature (Jun 10, 2007)

In control or operate. How about drifting and for that matter, I don't ever claim to be in control. THE RIVER IS!


----------



## tallboy (Apr 20, 2006)

Granpa said:


> The world is really starting to suck. I mean it was sucking before, but this is really adding to the overall suckiness of the whole thing. I can understand if there was any chance of my canoe or raft for that matter coliding into an innocent bystander and killing them like a car, but that is not the case here. Fuck the man on this one thats for sure.


don't worry about it granpa, they won't bust you for puttin back cough syrup. besides, you don't even have a vessel to get busted in anyway!!!


----------



## rafterbrooks (Nov 6, 2004)

*boozin*

Well, on my soapbox again. Yep, it sucks. But WE can help the situation by not being obnoxiously drunk around "other" boaters. The get-in and get-out fall into these catagories as well. Pay attention people.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

sj said:


> ...Say next time a jet skier kills a tubber.


I just pictured this happening and it made my day! Maybe we should allow jetskis on the Poudre... :grin:


----------



## waveTrain (Oct 31, 2006)

COUNT said:


> The only way they could enforce this is if rangers started carrying breathilizers.


 
If you get harassed, you could refuse the breathalyzer. You cannot have your Drivers License revoked for BUI. Anyhow a decent cop is going to wait until you hop in your car and really bust you. Then its hello interlock, goodbye dinero. 

My advice is to show police, rangers and the like; that river boaters are a dynamic group of respectful and responsible people that don't need to be harassed. Now, if that were only true...

Perhaps carry a garbage bag at all times. If harassed, pretend to be a do-gooder on a river clean up. Maybe that would earn favor with them.


----------



## WhiteLightning (Apr 21, 2004)

Carry a garbage bag, and tell them that the 30 pack of beer cans in it were empties that you "cleaned up" from shore.

So does this mean that I could get pinched while hammered floating on a pool raft?


----------



## original durangotang (Jul 11, 2008)

In the "Good Old days" we never left shore without a cooler full of beer on ice. And that was with Commercial raft trips. As I recall we never had any problems. Even in serious water.

The boatmen were free to drink as much as we cared too. Although we never over did it.

And on my first Grand Canyon trip I took 15 cases of beer . . . for myself. I was obviously math impaired since I could NEVER drink a 12 pack a day. Even back then.

But as I get older I have come to see the connection between the outdoors and alcohol as being very negative. An awful lot of people need to drink to have fun and that strikes me as a more than a bit wierd.

(Plus I spent some time working on an ambulance. If you want to get a distaste for alcohol, try that. Drunks are not very funny.)

It would seem the new regulations are not that onerous. They may be common sense. To be enforced after something occurs.

But I would bet the number of boating accidents attributable to alcohol consumption are insignificant.

And while I don't partake of the weed any more I would recommend it in the wilds. It serves to enhance your experience without messing with your motor skills.


----------



## Jon-O (Sep 17, 2004)

I am disappointed that paddlers are not outraged by this. Cool cops or not, there is clear difference between a jet ski and a kayak. This is like comparing walking to ice skating. It's a bad law and need to be treated as such -- in court. 
First of all, who sponsored this legislation? We need to know and make sure this person is exposed as an over-reactionary safety nut who does not understand the most basic fundamentals of this country. 
Second, anyone -- anyone -- who gets pinched by this nonsense needs to write about here, explaining the circumstances accurately and clearly. We'll all need to donate what we can for this victim to fight in court. Again, with the right fight we can challenge this. 
BTW: The best post so far is to refuse the breathalyzer. Nice one -- and that is exactly what I would do too. Never do the cops' job for them. 
Lastly, in defense of the Ark Rangers: They've always been cool to me. But I'd much rather rely upon my rights.


----------



## JustinCider (Jul 19, 2005)

If anyone cares to read the revised bill here is the html link:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2008a/sl_186.htm

and here is the link in pdf format:

State Bill Colorado - Bill Center


----------



## Matt J (May 27, 2005)

I am not an attorney but as I remember refusing the breathalyer is usually considered a criminal offense due to implied consent laws akin to obstruction of justice.

I would guess that those of you that predict the proverbial book to be thrown just got larger are correct. Rangers could in fact usually apprehend an obviously intoxicated paddler using public drunkeness laws but this new law will probably directly effect liability in private accidents as well as nuisance charges at put-ins and take-outs.

Perhaps a legal defense fund should be started. The first paddler to be arrested for non-motorized BUI will in effect be the test case. If this case is dismissed then the precendent for subsequent arrests would be weakened. Personally my money is on the first case coming from the Pumphouse to State Bridge section. Unfortunately it's difficult enough to get boaters to pony up for the booze much less a defense fund to keep them out of jail after consuming it.


----------



## mlmercer (Aug 1, 2008)

I for one am outraged!!
One of your personal freedoms was just taken away folks...
SNAP OUT OF IT!!
Stop being so complacent "...just be cool...keep it on the down low..."
This is America!! What happenned to stand up and fight for what you believe in.
Last time I checked, we call this place the Land of the Free
Well, everyday it seems to be getting less and less Free
Yessir, the good old days when we used to be able to take a cooler on the river and people acted responsibility. Thing is...the good ole days were last weekend and people were still acting responsibly.

"It would seem the new regulations are not that onerous. They may be common sense. To be enforced after something occurs."
ARE WE ALL OUT OF OUR MINDS?? Yea, let's outlaw everything and leave it up to the cops to decide...you can't be serious.
(sorry Durangotang...i'm sure your intentions were in the right place)

I'm sorry folks, but I had to say something
There is no way that having an ice cold beer on a hot day on a cool river can be a threat to public safety or the greater good.
They try to rope you into submission with the alcohol is bad thing...you must need alcohol to have fun...how sad and pathetic...
wake up!! This has nothing to do with unhealthy/excessive/reckless substance abuse...it has to do with freedom. At some point, it might be nice to be free enough to enjoy that icy beer after reeling in a trophy trout or popping some bubbly on an anniversary trip.
Sure, they might not enforce it right now, but I don't ever want them to.
what's next...we can't boat at all...for fear 'something' might happen.
Fear is an irrational reaction to something that hasn't happenned yet.


----------



## JustinCider (Jul 19, 2005)

Good point Matt J, but remember in a DUI you give your expressed consent to a blood or breath test when you sign your drivers license. When kayaking or rafting I have signed nothing expressing my consent to submit to these tests. 

Remember, while driving and in this case boating, a portable breathalyzer and roadside motor skill tests are completely voluntary. They are only used to establish probable cause. Only a blood test or a certified breathalyzer in a cop shop can be used to determine BAC as far as the courts are concerned. 

In a DUI, if you refuse all tests they suspend your license for one year. While boating what can they suspend? Besides, who carries ID on them when they are boating? I know I don't. 

If I were on a jury I know I would not be able to convict somone of a BUI if there were no chemical test proving that their BAC was .08 or higher. I certintaly wouldn't want to be the test case, but, I would think your chances would be pretty good of beating the charge if you refused all tests. Especially on miltiday trips where I do the majority of my boozing. Yee haw!


----------



## Jon-O (Sep 17, 2004)

The two legislative sponsors are named below. They have written a sloppy law and deserve to be hammered in the same we all are about to be hammered by the police.
If you live near Boulder or Summit County, please send a reasoned email, stating why jet skis are different from river-powered soft rubbery inflatables. How one law applies to both is unimaginable.
Striking how Boulder is out front on this one. So yes, it is safe to say that tubes are a large part of this. 
Rep Tupa: you just became no more than a lowly tax collector.
Needless to say, don't vote for these people. They have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic freedom and liberty. This is a deal breaker.

RON TUPA 
Colorado State Senator, District 18 (Boulder, Gunbarrel, Niwot, parts of Longmont)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4872 
E-Mail: [email protected]

DAN GIBBS 
Colorado State Senator, District 16 (Silverthorne)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4873 
E-mail: [email protected]

*Gibbs & Tupa Pass Bill Decreasing
** Legal Alcohol Limit for Boaters *

DENVER—Today the Senate Transportation Committee passed Senate Bill 159, which would improve public safety on Colorado’s waters by lowering the legal limit for blood alcohol content (BAC) from 0.10 to 0.08 for boat operators.

Sponsored by Senators Dan Gibbs (D-Silverthorne) and Ron Tupa (D-Boulder), the bill stipulates that boaters above the .08 threshold would be charged with boating under the influence. The bill also expands boating under the influence to include all vessels, not just motorboats or sailboats.

“Drunk boating is as serious an issue as drunk driving, and just as dangerous,” Tupa said. “Senate Bill 159 will help ensure public safety on Colorado waterways by applying the same blood alcohol content limit for boats as we have for cars and motorcycles.”

“I’m happy to see this bill pass unanimously out of committee today,” said Gibbs. “This bill will help reduce instances of dangerous activity so that Coloradans can safely enjoy our state’s beautiful lakes and rivers.”

The penalty for operating a motorboat or sailboat under the influence would include a mandatory five days in jail and up to one year in county jail. Additionally, lawbreakers could face fines between $200 to $1,000 as well as community service.

In 2007, there were 27 reported cases of boating under the influence. Currently, 36 other states have similar regulations for boating.

The bill next moves to the full Senate for consideration.


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

Count...day two on cat wont matter since its Utah law and also NPS rules, which I'm not sure on.

Dave...Utah rules..from what I understand after spending enough time in Junction is that its illegal to bring anything over 3.2 into Utah in the first place. Not that it has stopped us. The rules I was told, was drinking is NOT legal on the water, ONLY when you are on shore in Utah. That was our rules at the school for Outdoor Program trips.


As for the rest, it seems a dumb law. Granted I have seen trips where people are so drunk they are falling off rafts, getting second degree sunburns from passing out, ect..but that should be our responsibility as boaters to take care of our selfs and friends.

From that article though, most of it seemed to relay to lake use. Watch out for the rangers on Ruby Horsethief, they seem to find a reason to ticket people for any reason, this just adds on.


----------



## Matt J (May 27, 2005)

mlmercer said:


> I for one am outraged!!
> One of your personal freedoms was just taken away folks...
> SNAP OUT OF IT!!
> Stop being so complacent


Perhaps your anxiety over loss of personal freedoms would be better focused on the the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.


American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law


----------



## david23 (Oct 24, 2003)

I think it's silly that this applies to river vessels. It all comes down to personal responsibility. When people start getting ticketed for paddling after a few beers, we're fucked. This could lead to us being ticketed for endangering ourselves by dropping a 25 footer or intentionally entering a powerful hydraulic (read: playboating). 

On the other hand, it's about time they crack down on people motorboating under the influence (all Wedding Crasher jokes go here). Seriously though. I had a buddy that was being pulled in an inner tube up at Reudi reservoir when a drunk boater ran over his rope, between him and his boat. That's unbelievable.


----------



## mlmercer (Aug 1, 2008)

Believe me. I'm very outraged by the FISA issue, but that's a subject for another forum.


----------



## Jon-O (Sep 17, 2004)

Alright. Here is my letter that will be sent to Tupa and Gibbs later today. I may drop the second graph because there is legal carve out excluding 'single chamber vessels,' yet I have every suspicion this will be lost on cops. Feel free to let me know of any edits. And feel free to cut and paste for your own letter. 

Rep Tupa:
There is considerable debate among the rafting community on the new BUI law which took effect yesterday and was sponsored by you and Senator Gibbs. Some, including myself, feel this is poor legislation because it casts an overly broad net over boating activities that have virtually no relation to one another. In this case it is jet skiing and rafting. One vessel is hard and fast, the other soft and slow. The law is appropriate for jet skis, which have a propensity to hurt others, while inappropriate for rafts which are often powered by a sole operator and have yet to claim an injury of a second uninvolved party. In short, injuries are unheard of when one is 'run down' by a raft operator. And there is no use for a law that protects oneself from oneself only. 
 Alternatively, there is healthy criticism that this law serves the purpose of providing extra revenue for certain jurisdictions, such as on Boulder Creek, in connection with tubing. I hope we can agree that this is not a good reason for writing law. Moreover, if tubing is the issue, then why have you included rafters?
 There is some consensus that enforcement of this law will result in a court challenge. Before the river community gets too uptight about this issue, I invite you to explain the reasoning applied to this law and its relation to rafting. Please offer re-assurances that a solo rafter on, say, the upper Colorado class II (replete with authorized PFD, throw rope and other safety equipment) will not be cited for exceeding the consumption of one beer. 
 Proponents of the ambiguous concept of 'safety' have run amok in this legislation. The law prioritizes state interest (citation revenue) over public interest, such as the right to enjoy certain freedoms absent harm on others. Colorado rafters, including myself, believe this would not be difficult to challenge in court using a few simple statistics.
 We look forward to your response.


----------



## sj (Aug 13, 2004)

Jeez notice how the 2 inciters here are on their 2nd and 3rd post. Hmmm. Are they just board buzzards or more. I mean we all know Law Enforcement has people who work the web. Admin? Not one for conspiricy theories but something here is amiss. sj


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Imagine that, 2 democrats involved.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

I'll grant you that Dems tend to embrace the "Nanny State" philosophy more that Repubs... except when it comes to gays, Terri Schiavo, religion in politics, etc.

Mostly, the cosponsors of this legislation are pinheads who happen to be Dems. Frankly, if drunken powerboaters and jetskiers were only killing themselves, most of us would smugly smile and call it natural selection at work. But they are hurting other people and a couple of "do-gooder" politicos decided to suck all boaters into their vortex of stupidity.



mr. compassionate said:


> Imagine that, 2 democrats involved.


----------



## kevdog (Jun 7, 2007)

In the name of "safety" we lose our "freedom". Politicians are elected to "do something" so they "do" onerous things like this. We have so many laws on the books these days that they can get you for something, they just have to look hard enough. But just the simple fact that we are having this conversation, means that things are going to change over time. 




DurangoSteve said:


> I'll grant you that Dems tend to embrace the "Nanny State" philosophy more that Repubs... except when it comes to gays, Terri Schiavo, religion in politics, etc.
> 
> Mostly, the cosponsors of this legislation are pinheads who happen to be Dems. Frankly, if drunken powerboaters and jetskiers were only killing themselves, most of us would smugly smile and call it natural selection at work. But they are hurting other people and a couple of "do-gooder" politicos decided to suck all boaters into their vortex of stupidity.


----------



## Jon-O (Sep 17, 2004)

Thanks DurangoSteve for the clarification in your last graph. Agreed. And that is what I'm getting at in my letter posted above.
For the record, I am not involved with law enforcement or legislation in any way, save this outrage. But even if you do not believe that, it doesn't apply to matter at hand. That is: no more rafting and beer drinking. That's the issue. No angle. And I think we'd be better off united here than divided.


----------



## Grif (May 21, 2008)

Could someone explain to me why I can't boat drunk? My two hobbies are boatin' and whoopin' my old lady. I'm always drunk, so wouldn't it be better for me boat? 

I guess the law just wants my old lady to get it good.


----------



## Emmielou (May 1, 2007)

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that this clause will protect you:
"The amount of alcohol, as shown by analysis of the person's blood or breath, in the person's blood is 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood or 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath at the time of the commission of the alleged offense or within two hours after operating a vessel, *if the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did not consume any alcohol between the time of operation and the time of testing*;"

Just take a good old chug out of that last bottle of whisky right after the ranger calls you out. Or just open a bottle at the take out...he can give you a public consumption of alcohol ticket, but can't prove that your intoxicated state began on the river. Just stash the green, and don't sniff any glue if you patch your boat. 



JustinCider said:


> ...remember in a DUI you give your expressed consent to a blood or breath test when you sign your drivers license. When kayaking or rafting I have signed nothing expressing my consent to submit to these tests.


The law states:
"A person who operates a vessel or who is in actual physical control of a vessel on the waters of this state shall be deemed to have expressed consent to the provisions of this subsection (4)."

So you don't need to sign anything to be held under its provisions.

And in defense of Utah rangers at least, we've shared beer and a bag of wine with some cool rangers at the cisco takeout.


----------



## pinemnky13 (Jun 4, 2007)

Ilike your style Emmielou, thats the way to row
Thanks for the advice


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

I had heard of something similar for a DUI, chuck your keys over a 100 feet from your car, lock yourself in the car and chug something boozey while the cops watch. I believe it is due to this clause with the hopes of only getting the open container ticket, ect........

I asked my buddy who is a Arapahoe Sheriff and he just laughed and said he would love to see a person do that and it would in no way affect how he would process the arrest other than noting it in the report and adding the additional charges.

But I agree, at that point, hell its gotta be worth a try with enough funding a lawyer should be able to do something


----------

