# GC Rafters Fined



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

Paddlers Fined for Running Grand Canyon During Shutdown | Canoe & Kayak Magazine


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

Another example of the "make the shutdown hurt" concept in action.

We the people pay taxes to these politicians and bureaucrats (both political parties) and this is what we get. Thankfully, these two men stood up for their rights even tho it cost them considerable money to do so.


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

I think they made the right call. Also, they definitely would have won in court, but that would have cost many times more. It is too bad that they had to pay anything. I am also wondering why they let the adult daughter hike in, but no one else? 

Kudos to John and Brian!


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

This is one that I think is directly the fault of the park supervisor. This could have been avoided. Each agency is supposed to have contingency plans in place at the beginning of the year in the event of a spending gap. GCNP knew that people would be in the bottom of the canyon, understood the safety nuances of a river trip and should have advocated for thoughtful policy. Denying these passengers access and then fining them for prioritizing the safety of their trips was a malicious action on their part. They were interacting with people who launched before the closure. They should have been accommodated under the Anti-Defeciency Acts specific allowances IMHO. 

People know where I stood on the bigger issue, but in this case I applaud the boaters for making an ethical decision. Its just a shame the park took it as far as they did.

Phillip


----------



## RockyMt.Razorback (Apr 19, 2012)

This situation just goes to show you how much a Grand Canyon trip means to boaters. This guy Brian Kehoe decided to ignore the rangers’ orders, and hike down thinking he was facing $20,000 in fines 30 days in jail and a five-year ban on entering national parks and still decided that the trip was worth it. I'm glad that in the end he and his buddy were only charged $750, but they were willing to risk at lot more. Trips down the Grand mean a lot to boaters, that's why many people refer to it as "a trip of a lifetime". I have a grand permit for next year and it will be my first time down. I have applied to 7 consecutive lotteries and every follow up lottery that had dates that worked and it still took me 7 years to get a permit. I think I would be making similar decisions if something like this were to happen during my trip of a life time. 

I guess I really feel bad for the 3 people that decided risking it wasn't worth it. I think that would bother me for the rest of my life, at least way more then a fine would.


----------



## CBrown (Oct 28, 2004)

Rangers showed a lack of ability to assess/make decisions on a situational basis. They seemed to be digging their heels in on the issue like their Washington brethren which did no good for anyone. Way to let your asses hang out Rangers.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

While it's tempting to pile on the rangers, I've got a feeling they didn't have any choice in the matter and were simply doing their jobs as directed from above. Some things I noticed: The person with a blood relation to the TL was allowed to hike down and from the article it appears that no one was physically restrained from hiking down. The defendants were able to plead via conference call rather than appearing at a courthouse in AZ, and the fine was effectively about $50/day for being on the Grand below Phantom. The was also no ban mentioned in the article. Seems like it all could've been a lot worse if the NPS attorneys had wanted to really play hardball.

-AH


----------



## RockyMt.Razorback (Apr 19, 2012)

The was also no ban mentioned in the article. 
[/QUOTE]

In the article it says in the first paragraph 

"The penalty for defying the Grand Canyon closure and government shutdown could be as much as $20,000, 30 days in jail and a five-year ban on entering national parks. On the other hand, his party needed an experienced boatman to safely finish its trip"


----------



## alanbol (Jun 3, 2005)

A friend of mine was once ticketed camping in the back of his pick-up at the Lees put-in. He got a change of venue to San Jose, CA (another federal court) so he wouldn't have to travel to Flag. He showed up for his day in court, and the first thing that happened was the bailiff read all the hearings to be conducted that day. This is federal court. the charges were things like murder, arson, extortion, and then my friend's: illegal camping. After everyone stopped laughing, the judge called my friend up to the front and had him promise he wouldn't do it again. Case dismissed.

I bet that would have worked here, too.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

RockyMt.Razorback said:


> The was also no ban mentioned in the article.
> 
> 
> In the article it says in the first paragraph
> ...


Ok, it looks like I _should've_ said, "there was no ban mentioned in the article_* as being part of the punishment received by the defendants. *_"

Pardon my lack of clarity.

Let me try to make my point again. _Using the perspective of _ what I've heard about other cases of running the Grand Canyon after a ranger's told you not to do it,_ in this case_ it still seems like these guys got off pretty light - no equipment confiscated, no National Park bans, no jail time, and they paid less than 4% of the maximum fine. If you got busted for just about any other offense, you'd be skipping out of the courthouse after getting that proportion of the maximum penalties.

That's a funny story, Alanbol. In this day and age it seems they got about the next best thing to having to promise not to do it again.

-AH


----------



## CBrown (Oct 28, 2004)

It seems to me their situation was unique in that their group was already on. I am bagging on the rangers for not showing any flexibity in the situation. It seems like if there was going to be an exception, this would have been it. I understand they have a job to do but a little compassion in a hugly f'd up situation would have been nice to see. 
I wish they could have afforded to fight it in court (and won of course).


----------



## 86304 (Apr 15, 2008)

and that's why the fine was $750.

so the 'gov' would win. no contest!


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

I see this as having to pay $1500 to make sure their trip was safe. This is something that the Goverment should have foreseen and made arrangements for. It amounts to lack of planning on the part of someone other than the trip participants.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Wish I'd known about this case before they had their call. I'd have gladly kicked in for their legal defense. Could set a precedent. Maybe.

In any case, glad they had their trip and glad all returned safely.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

That's a very good point GC Guide. As the next Gov shutdown looms, we may need to be looking for a legal team ahead of time to assist after the take out. All the best, tom


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> That's a very good point GC Guide. As the next Gov shutdown looms, we may need to be looking for a legal team ahead of time to assist after the take out. All the best, tom


Sounds like we could realistically deal with this again in Jan.

Is anyone working directly with the river department and/or the Superintendent to have measures in place pro-actively to safely deal with the known problem? They have the opportunity to amend contingencies each year. Seems like we could help them with a "lessons learned" sort of approach. 

Phillip


----------



## GC Guide (Apr 10, 2009)

I would guess that Ceiba, Moenkopi and the other private outfitters are looking into it. I will try to find out and report back if there is any kind of "organization" to this.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

I'd encourage you to write the Superintendent direct AND cc your congressional representative. ASK for a response. And, post that here.

It is too easy for the NPS to avoid replying if you do not cc your congressional staff AND you do not request a reply. 

We are meeting with our congressional representative about this, and have asked to meet with the NPS as well. But please don't leave this to others. Get in there and get active and write a letter or two and then report back. K? Thanks, yours, tom


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I will send a letter to the GCNP Super, NPS Director .... might consider my Congressional Representative. A little hard to desire involving uber-conservative Chris Stewart in the conversation as I do not believe he would be a healthy ally or advocate. Its a shame they redistricted my region as Mattheson was a great moderate voice in these issues. 

Any key language that should be included? I know some of the spending gap terminology but may not have the best terminology for this explicit side of GCNP? Or is it best to be organic in expressing such issues to the park?

Phillip


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Phillip, my advice would be to include a cc to Stewart. I'd be organic and write to what you know. You might want to point out, respectfully of course, that everyone who joins a trip at Phantom is an important part of the trip, and once something is started pre-closure, it should be allowed to finish from a safety standpoint, with ALL participants.

Superintendent David Uberuaga
Grand Canyon National Park
PO Box 129
Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

I hope others will do the same! All the best, tom


----------



## DoStep (Jun 26, 2012)

Your uber-cons need to hear it too, definitely include him/them on your correspondence.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Good point doStep. I just met with our northern AZ congressional Representative. She mentioned she is working with UT on legislative efforts to allow the states to fund Park units during a shutdown. There is little time to do this, as we only have till January 15th. 


*H.R. 3311* (Stewart, R-UT-2), to direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements with States to allow continued operation of facilities and programs that have been determined to have a direct economic impact on tourism, mining, timber, or general transportation in the State and which would otherwise cease operating, in whole or in part, during a Federal Government shutdown that is the result of a lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes. 

We also talked about getting the business community, including Bill Parks at NRS, reimbursed for the funding they spent to help get the Grand Canyon open.

I can only encourage western river runners to do the same... yours, tom


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> Good point doStep. I just met with our northern AZ congressional Representative. She mentioned she is working with UT on legislative efforts to allow the states to fund Park units during a shutdown. There is little time to do this, as we only have till January 15th.
> 
> 
> *H.R. 3311* (Stewart, R-UT-2), to direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements with States to allow continued operation of facilities and programs that have been determined to have a direct economic impact on tourism, mining, timber, or general transportation in the State and which would otherwise cease operating, in whole or in part, during a Federal Government shutdown that is the result of a lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes.
> ...


Tom, 

That bill, known as the "PARCs" bill is one of the reasons I cannot ethically include him in this issue. Including him validates his authority which increases his currency. I hate that this situation is this politically complex but it is. 

The PARC's bill has nothing to do with creating a functioning, sustainable NPS system. Its about eliminating the direct consequences of their actions regarding their budget ideology. Functionally and metaphorically, he is offering up a bandaid for us to use for the limb he helped chop off. 

When you did dig into this issue you see the power structures. The Utah Legislature has been working for the last few years, and really for many decades, to underfund agencies. On top of that they are are working to forcefully transfer the lands those agencies maintain over to the state. This goal seems more viable when you chronically underfund the agencies that oversee them, i.e. back to square one.

I have no desire to support these legislative shenanigans. I do not believe this bill is viable in its current form as it conflicts with the Anti-Defeciency Act which explicitly restricts the ability of the federal government to enter into contracts/agreements exceeding the current years appropriations. As well, it seems to directly conflict with elements of the Constitution. 

I am not willing to support these short term gains that hurt us in the long run. I have expressed that opinion to Stewart. If they want long term change, which is what I consider to be the difference between governance and politics, then they need to make legislative efforts at a broader level that affects more than just the parks that produce a tourist revenue that translates into taxes for their districts. You either fund all of the park units or none of them IMHO. Allowing these uber-cons to choose piecemeal which parts of the NPS system, and Executive Branch in general, to operate lacks foresight. 

I may diverge from the average person here in this regard. I would rather face short term losses and fight for long term sustainability. I see his efforts and this bill as mutually exclusive with that goal. And January seems like a way to minimize harm to our community if that is the way the fight is heading. And that comes from someone who had their first GC trip in Jan.

I won't cc Stewart as it just provides ammunition (just look at all the hearing grandstanding during the shutdown) for a cause that is in conflict with my own. I will write a letter to him separately that addresses the harm he has done to the private and commercial communities in GCNP. I know he got the last email as I received a mailing from him today (hence why I brought up his name). I might try and cc someone else that is relevant to area but I need to do some research on that.

In the meantime, I will write a letter to those directly in charge of agency policy to see if they can make contingency plans that minimize harm to our community during these shutdowns. Unlike my congressman, I actually believe they care about our experiences and endeavors. 

And if you want to see why I am actively fighting my reps then read these links and quotes from my regional officials:

"San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman said he was eager to *assert county "jurisdiction" over *Natural Bridges National Monument and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area"

Gov Herbert requested Obama "hand over the keys" of the National Parks this week, not accidental language considering:

Herbert signs bill demanding feds relinquish lands in Utah | The Salt Lake Tribune

Iron County, my own, Sheriff Mark Gower:

“We will do it in an orderly and controlled manner, but we will do whatever is necessary to open those lands,” Gower said. When asked what he planned to do if met with resistance by the federal government, Gower said he still would open the federal lands. “I don’t want to use force or violence,” Gower said. “I don’t want it to get ugly, but at some point they are going to have to step aside.”


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Deleted....


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Restrac, Thanks for the excellent review of this! There is a bi--partisan effort looking for a simple way for the states to do something like "post a deposit" if you will, to fund the DOI for a few days ahead of the next possible shutdown date. That said, your point is very well made that others are looking for ways to wrest control of the western parks from federal to state control, which as you point out, is a non-starter. 

While I appreciate your willingness to suffer through a short term loss for a long term gain, I am hoping it is possible a short term patch to avoid Dirt Eddy can be devised while we wait for a long term fix for sustainable park funding can be sorted out. After all, river and backcountry travelers in Grand Canyon have little or no contact with NPS staff, and if there is a need for rescue assistance, those personnel are essential and are still available to assist should the need arrive. These folks would be better served by letting them head on downriver or into the backcountry then attempting to shut the River and backcountry down.

All the best, tom


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> While I appreciate your willingness to suffer through a short term loss for a long term gain, I am hoping it is possible a short term patch to avoid Dirt Eddy can be devised while we wait for a long term fix for sustainable park funding can be sorted out. After all, river and backcountry travelers in Grand Canyon have little or no contact with NPS staff, and if there is a need for rescue assistance, those personnel are essential and are still available to assist should the need arrive. These folks would be better served by letting them head on downriver or into the backcountry then attempting to shut the River and backcountry down.
> 
> All the best, tom


I should clarify, I don't think all short term fixes are inconsistent with long term goals. Its just up to this point I haven't see one from my representatives that bridges that gap.

Talk later,

Phillip


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Phillip, Understood. Let's see if we all can come up with something that your reps most likely won't agree with but "bridges that gap." All the best, tom


----------

