# Grand Canyon - Alcohol Citations by the Park River Patrol



## GCPBA (Oct 22, 2009)

About one week ago GCPBA posted a President's Letter containing an update of various topics. One was the resumption of river patrols by the NPS.

Read the full letter here:

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/...-presidents-letter-december-2017-a-86793.html

This was included in the letter: " I have been informed that on the first patrol there were a number of citations written for no PFD worn while on the river, campfires built directly on the beach with no firepan or blanket, drinking while boating (we are awaiting clarification of the circumstances of the citations), and several for drug possession and drug paraphernalia possession."

GCPBA received further information regarding the alcohol and drug citations. They are seeing a lot more than just marijuana. Action will be taken if the river patrol encounters groups who are obviously falling down drunk or hallucinating. Likewise if a bong is passed around or mushrooms are out in the open. People are on Federal Land and the laws prohibiting drugs apply.

GCPBA will continue to monitor this for private boaters benefit.

GCPBA RiverNews is a service of Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association.
Join and Support GCPBA. Visit our website www.gcpba.org.
We are on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/groups/1424392787831584


----------



## CoBoater (Jan 27, 2007)

> no PFD worn while on the river, campfires built directly on the beach with no firepan or blanket, drinking while boating (we are awaiting clarification of the circumstances of the citations), and several for drug possession and drug paraphernalia possession


wow some people just dont know how to act.

if shrooms, bongs and pipes are sitting out in the open more than 10 seconds after the rangers come into view, they should be issuing citations for stupidity too.

wow


----------



## daairguy (Nov 11, 2013)

GCPBA said:


> Action will be taken if the river patrol encounters groups who are obviously falling down drunk or hallucinating.


haha


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Well, it is a safety issue if that's the case. I wasn't aware there was some kind of open container law.:roll:


----------



## smhoeher (Jun 14, 2015)

Sure hope we're not going to see more rangers and surprise inspections.


----------



## CoBoater (Jan 27, 2007)

sure hope they're busting people trashing campsites & building fires without firepans and giving them hell.


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

^^^^^^^
Yeah, no shit! Un-believable!!


----------



## mikepart (Jul 7, 2009)

It would be interesting to see some data on the rate of incidents during the period when there were no patrols compared to a similar time period when the rangers were around...

Anyway, on to more serious things: 

What were the alcohol citations? I found some sources online that stated that OUI in Arizona only applies to powered watercraft, but the Arizona Game and Fish boating laws pamphlet states that "No person under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs shall be in physical control of any watercraft." That means rafts and kayaks too. 

Interestingly, the Utah State Parks website states: 
"A person operating a motorboat on Utah’s waters ins considered to have given consent to take any field sobriety test requested by an officer who feels the person in operation is under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. If arrested, your boat, trailer, and tow vehicle may be impounded.
Alcohol is allowed on all boats; however, it is against the law for a person under the influence to operate a motorboat."


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though in Utah, you can have a couple of beers while you float down the river in a raft, but in Arizona, you might loose you drivers license, raft, truck, and trailer. If this really is the case, please don't tell the Utah Legislature that Arizona has a stricter alcohol law than Utah or they will surly change it.


This actually has me a bit concerned. Generally, I try to stay on the right side of the law, but the thought probably would have never come to mind that on the seventh day of a Grand Canyon Rafting trip, I should hold off on that third beer until we pull into camp or risk having a ranger swoop in and effectively ruin my life for the next couple of years.


----------



## smhoeher (Jun 14, 2015)

The solution to all this is discretion and common sense.


----------



## dsrtrat (May 29, 2011)

*Here You go, this is the general regulation.*

*Electronic Code of Federal Regulations*

e-CFR data is current as of December 28, 2017
Title 36 → Chapter I → Part 2 → §2.35

Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property 
PART 2—RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION 
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrie...c54a5361ce18ea7c&mc=true&n=&r=SUBPART&ty=HTML
*§2.35 Alcoholic beverages and controlled substances.*

(a) _Alcoholic beverages._ (1) The use and possession of alcoholic beverages within park areas is allowed in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) The following are prohibited:
(i) The sale or gift of an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age, except where allowed by State law. In a State where a lower minimum age is established, that age limit will apply for purposes of this subparagraph.
(ii) The possession of an alcoholic beverage by a person under 21 years of age, except where allowed by State law. In a State where a lower minimum age is established, that age will apply for purposes of this subparagraph.
(3)(i) The superintendent may close all or a portion of a public use area or public facility within a park area to the consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or to the possession of a bottle, can or other receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage that is open, or that has been opened, or whose seal is broken or the contents of which have been partially removed. _Provided however,_ that such a closure may only be implemented following a determination made by the superintendent that: 
(A) The consumption of an alcoholic beverage or the possession of an open container of an alcoholic beverage would be inappropriate considering other uses of the location and the purpose for which it is maintained or established; or 
(B) Incidents of aberrant behavior related to the consumption of alcoholic beverages are of such magnitude that the diligent application of the authorities in this section and §§1.5 and 2.34 of this chapter, over a reasonable time period, does not alleviate the problem. 
(ii) A closure imposed by the superintendent does not apply to an open container of an alcoholic beverage that is stored in compliance with the provisions of §4.14 of this chapter. 
(iii) Violating a closure imposed pursuant to this section is prohibited. 
(b) _Controlled substances._ The following are prohibited:
(1) The delivery of a controlled substance, except when distribution is made by a practitioner in accordance with applicable law. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery means the actual, attempted or constructive transfer of a controlled substance whether or not there exists an agency relationship.
(2) The possession of a controlled substance, unless such substance was obtained by the possessor directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner acting in the course of professional practice or otherwise allowed by Federal or State law.
(c) Presence in a park area when under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance to a degree that may endanger oneself or another person, or damage property or park resources, is prohibited. 
[48 FR 30282, June 30, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 10683, Apr. 2, 1987]
Need assistance?


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

Not hearing a lot about no pfd, no fire pan. That is some sad news. Please respect the river. Please respect the place. Follow the regulations. there is a reason the regs are there... mostly due to people being disrespectful and stupid.

Drink too much, ruin your own day and your own trip. Keep your drug use under the radar. Don't be an asshole. Don't ruin the experience of others. If you can't comprehend that, then stay home.


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

Remembering Kaitlin Kenney...

http://missoulian.com/news/local/pa...cial&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share

I've made some iffy choices, been the free spirit and have been lucky enough to
survive those experiences. As SarahOfTheWaves said, please respect the river.


----------



## buckmanriver (Apr 2, 2008)

Would anyone like to come forward with stories of being cited by the Rangers on this patrol trip? 

It would be nice to get the perspective the river runners involved. 

Another point of irony is that NPS trips are now run without alcohol due to their own history of river parties.


----------



## GilaRobusta (Mar 19, 2015)

"there partying" or you know with holding food from female staff unless certain sexual proclivities were satisfied. Kind of the same thing right? Boatmen ruining beer for the rest of us...


----------



## daairguy (Nov 11, 2013)

GilaRobusta said:


> "there partying" or you know with holding food from female staff unless certain sexual proclivities were satisfied. Kind of the same thing right? Boatmen ruining beer for the rest of us...



What?


----------



## GilaRobusta (Mar 19, 2015)

Point of Irony. Parks Service alcohol issue was not alcohols fault.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

GilaRobusta said:


> Point of Irony. Parks Service alcohol issue was not alcohols fault.


He's talking about the recent scandal involving sexual harassment of female staff on NPS River Patrol trips. Here's the HCN article on it:

Grand Canyon park’s 15-year failure on sexual harassment

The NPS banned alcohol from their river patrol trips but I would be surprised if having a few beers in camp is the kind of thing being targeted by the Rangers. 

-AH


----------



## buckmanriver (Apr 2, 2008)

2tomcat2 said:


> Remembering Kaitlin Kenney...
> 
> Part 3: Missing: UM student disappeared 130 miles into Grand Canyon river trip | Local | missoulian.com


This is such a heartbreaking story.


----------



## jmack (Jun 3, 2004)

I would just like to point out that that the regulations quoted earlier in this thread are incomprehensibly vague, and subject to a wide range of interpretations. I guess this would be okay if the assumption that most of you are making, that all park rangers are reasonable, was true. Unfortunately, having been unjustifiably shaken down by park rangers on a couple of occasions (in other national parks, not the Grand Canyon), I can assure you that it is not.

This is a sad example of how far this website has fallen. When I joined it (over a decade ago), it was adventurous kayakers trading beta and friendly jabs. Now it seem to be scared rafters nodding approvingly at the exercise of unchecked authority, and ads for mail-order brides. Oh well.


----------



## buckmanriver (Apr 2, 2008)

It is also worth knowing that according to the data 1.03% of the GCRA incidents in 2017 were drugs/alcohol related. 

While 50.69% were Fatigue/ Physical Condition related. https://arcg.is/0aKSS1

I wonder how much resources NPS puts towards reducing the majority of issues in contrast to the river patrols focused on the 1%?


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

At a recent GC private trip orientation, the Ranger did say that you could be charged with a BUI if operating a boat under the influence. The Ranger did not make a distinction between motorized or non Motorized.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

buckmanriver said:


> It is also worth knowing that according to the data 1.03% of the GCRA incidents in 2017 were drugs/alcohol related.
> 
> While 50.69% were Fatigue/ Physical Condition related. https://arcg.is/0aKSS1
> 
> I wonder how much resources NPS puts towards reducing the majority of issues in contrast to the river patrols focused on the 1%?


One is regulated, the other is not nor can be. 

I am all for the community chatting about better ways of risk management, ie fatigue (didn't read link) but I definitely don't want the park mitigating such an issue. If a ranger sees a drunk boater in the canyon and has cause for citation, so be it. Alcohol and boating has been a regulated issue for ages. I don't want the NPS expanding their scope into generally preventing injuries any more than the already do though. The Grand is one of the few remaining multi-day expeditions for most of us and that should come with a profound self-reliance. If we start heading down the road much further then boating in the Grand will be more like backcountry management in Zion, ie overbearing.

PS..from a quick check of gis link I would wager the NPS already spends significant resources on "fatigue/physical condition" given the majority of incidents are in the day hiking and overnight hiking category. The permit process for backpacking is rather intrusive and I have personally experienced them trying to claim a route is too difficult or inappropriate because of the concern for physical difficulty. They wouldn't deny me a permit but they interacted with multiple times before my trip to try to talk me out of it. Its a different conversation but encouraging the NPS to take on the mantle of personal risk management isn't a slippery slope to be worried about in the future but one we already slid down.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Wait.
Rangers in the canyon??
And they're busting drunks and dopers??
Well, that does it.
Schutzie will not be returning to the canyon.
I mean, what would be the point?


----------

