Camping outside of legal area

[CAG]

A LEO has the option to cite/arrest/warn. That is generally based on whether the officer believes that one is more appropriate than another as it relates to the feedback he/she gets from the violator. Will a warning take care of the issue or is the violator just not showing that he/she is going to learn from a warning and that a cite might make more of an impression on the violator.



As a former LEO, here was my clue with the novel above.

So again, I argue back, knowing it wasn't going to change his mind, but not just gonna stand there and take it either. IMO,

A warning did not seem like it would make the proper impression and correct the behavior.

[CAG]

Very often, they'll open with something like "Did you know that you're not supposed to park here?"

Never open with that type question. It only opens the entire violation to "discussion" which then goes downhill from there. If the violator wants to discuss the violation, the judge will be willing to listen.

[harryjr]

"So again, I argue back, knowing it wasn't going to change his mind, but not just gonna stand there and take it either."

Seldom a good plan to argue.

The best story I've ever heard about an encounter was a customer hollering, "I'll have your badge in the morning." The officer replied, "That may be sir. But I have it tonight."

[YelloDuc]

To those talking about arguing with law enforcement never being a good idea, I agree. Being an avid street bike rider and custom car/truck owner for the last 33 years (since I was 15) Ive currently been riding a bright yellow Ducati for the last 17 years (hence the name) I have had my fair share of being pulled over. 95% of the time I ride/drive away without a ticket. I have de-escalated situations where cops were furious after having chased me down. Once they realized that upon seeing them I immediately complied, pulled over, was polite, calm, and owned up to my violation(s). They realized I was just out having fun and not looking to put them or anyone else in harms way, to be combative or argumentative. Most of the time, I left with a warning. When I did get a ticket, it was deserved, and generally, I deserved a lot more. I appreciate law enforcement and understand they have a job to do, and especially now days, it's not easy. I fully support them. That said;
On occasion, I have come across an officer or two who was just an *******. Looking for any excuse to write me a ticket. I believe, when I am in the right, to defend myself, respectfully of course. I'm not gonna cow to anyone just looking to be an ******* and bullying with his authority. Again, I'm not combative, I'm not looking for a fight, or to be argumentative. But when I am right I will not concede.
In this situation, the officer, right off the bat, was professional, but on edge and imo looking to write a ticket. He questioned everything. I complied and was respctful. I can appreciate that he didn't know me from Adam and had to assume I was a bad guy, as his priority was to go home to his family at the end of the day. He made it clear, before we had any real conversation, and after I complied with the weapon situation, that I was in violation of multiple laws. The first being I was off road. I was not. Notice that he tried to get me for something that was false right away. Of course I'm gonna argue. I put a lot of time into checking to be absolutely sure it was a road, and there wasn't a sign stating that I shouldn't be there. He relented, and moved on. Now, I believed I was in the right about camping, but I did tell him that I was sure he knew better, being a ranger, and that I wasn't saying he was wrong, merely explaining my side of why I spent the night there.
It all ended well. He said he understood my point. He said he had a young child that was his priority to get home to. We chatted about that for a minute. I hate being wrong, but I own it when I am, though sometimes it's a hard pill to swallow. He has a national park to protect, I don't believe I was any threat to that, though I was in violation of a camping law. Now I know. In the end, it's worth the $130 for an experience and story I'll never forget.

[YelloDuc]

Originally Posted by harryjr

From the length of the original post, I imagine the conversation with the ranger was a lot more than, "Yes sir. What do we need to do to resolve this?"

Yes sir, it absolutely was.

[YelloDuc]

Originally Posted by harryjr

"So again, I argue back, knowing it wasn't going to change his mind, but not just gonna stand there and take it either."

Seldom a good plan to argue.

The best story I've ever heard about an encounter was a customer hollering, "I'll have your badge in the morning." The officer replied, "That may be sir. But I have it tonight."

I argued my point, never even entered my head to threaten his job or him. Have too much respect for him as an officer, and myself, to ever do that. Big, big difference

[gladecreekwy]

You knew you couldn’t camp there but like many other folks this summer you thought the rules didn’t apply to you. Illegal camping , campfires and resource damage have been out of control this summer. I have zero sympathy for whatever fine you had to pay. In my opinion whatever it was it’s too small. I sympathize with the rangers that have been busting their butts chasing people around and knocking on camper doors not knowing if there’s a firearm behind the door. I live here and we are sick and tired of people coming here and ignoring the rules. Worse summer ever

[CAG]

On occasion, I have come across an officer or two who was just an *******. Looking for any excuse to write me a ticket. I believe, when I am in the right, to defend myself, respectfully of course. I'm not gonna cow to anyone just looking to be an ******* and bullying with his authority. Again, I'm not combative, I'm not looking for a fight, or to be argumentative. But when I am right I will not concede.

Let me see if I can help you out here. Firstly the officer is not there to allow you to discuss, or argue the issue. That is what the court is for, attorneys get paid well for that. If you want to argue the fine points of the violation, go read the statute first, the officer already has. Then go to court and "discuss it with the judge" they get paid to decide whether you did or didn't do whatever.



Officers are generally always "on edge". It is a trained state of mind. It is what keeps us alive. Interestingly you say you were not off road. What does the Motor Vehicle Use Map say for that road, and that national forest? It may in-fact be listed as a non-vehicle road. If it had the logs you show it probably was. The forest service puts out maps with that information and some have downloadable maps for that purpose. In some cases MVUM data is free, in others you pay for a map, but I can tell you I do not venture into NFs in Arizona without one. Big time fines follow.



I was not there so rendering a verdict here is difficult, but from all indications you violated the law, and then failed the attitude test. You might have gotten by with a warning for the first, if, and a big if, you had not tried to argue your way out of it.

My usual response with these situations was "sign here, press hard, multiple copies".

[gladecreekwy]

He wasn’t in the National Forest. He was in Grand Teton National Park and the rules are very clear. He is just one of the hundreds of people this summer that chose to ignore them.

[CAG]

Originally Posted by gladecreekwy

He wasn’t in the National Forest. He was in Grand Teton National Park and the rules are very clear. He is just one of the hundreds of people this summer that chose to ignore them.

Potato-Pootaato. You miss the point. Who cares whether it was NF or NP? Same animal.

[gladecreekwy]

Absolutely incorrect. Completely different regulations. If it was NF he wouldn’t have broken the law.

[CAG]

If it was NF and the road was not on the MVUM he would be breaking the law. For further reference go to any NF web site and look for the MVUM map and rules. You get cited for being on roads that are not listed for vehicle use. The rules are a little different from one to the other but the last I knew the Dept of Interior runs both. Same animal.

And the point had to do with officer not the rules. You missed the point.

[Camper_bob]

Originally Posted by gladecreekwy

Absolutely incorrect. Completely different regulations. If it was NF he wouldn’t have broken the law.

I see CAG's point as being that the law was broken; no discussion there. But the outcome of the subsequent interaction with the LEO is what he's talking about. I think he's offering pointers on how one should and should not interact with law enforcement.

The way I see it, if I broke the law (whether I knew I was doing it or not), I should expect reasonable punishment. Anything less than a citation or fine in this case and I would be SUPER thankful for that, especially if it truly was an honest mistake and I misunderstood the rules. I would of course explain to the officer that I was unaware of the law, and explain WHY I may have been unaware, but I'd still expect a ticket.

But you also bring to light some potential background information. Based on what you've seen as a local, the ranger probably didn't feel like he had a choice but to write a citation as a MINIMUM punishment. If these types of violations are that common, I would direct my officers to at minimum write a ticket as well. If the person starts acting a fool, maybe there are other citations that are appropriate as well?

One example in my own experience with a Game Warden. I had harvested a trophy buck at my dad's deer lease. It was late by the time we had dressed the animal; we had taken our time because I wanted it mounted. We were all starving and the only restaurant in town was going to close soon, so we booked it out of camp to go eat. I neglected to tag the buck before I left camp. We got back and the local game wardens were conducting a routine inspection. OOPS!! I got to talking with them about this and that, and I'm known to be chatty in general. Got to talking when I noticed one Game Warden look at the other and knew I was about to get a ticket, so I hauled butt into the camp house and filled out my tag and attached it right in front of the Game Warden. He was WELL within his duties to write me a ticket, but he didn't, and for that I am SUPER thankful! I broke the law, and I knew it. And now we have a funny anecdote that includes a valuable lesson; tag your animal right away!

And look, now everyone who has read this thread is a little bit wiser.

[gladecreekwy]

Originally Posted by CAG

If it was NF and the road was not on the MVUM he would be breaking the law. For further reference go to any NF web site and look for the MVUM map and rules. You get cited for being on roads that are not listed for vehicle use. The rules are a little different from one to the other but the last I knew the Dept of Interior runs both. Same animal.

And the point had to do with officer not the rules. You missed the point.

Dept of interior runs the parks, department of agriculture runs national forests

[CAG]

Originally Posted by gladecreekwy

Dept of interior runs the parks, department of agriculture runs national forests

Potato-Paatatoos You missed the point. It is not about NPS/NFS it is about why the officer did what he did and what might have prevented the cite. I am sorry but I cannot make it much clearer than that.

[gladecreekwy]

Originally Posted by CAG

Potato-Paatatoos You missed the point. It is not about NPS/NFS it is about why the officer did what he did and what might have prevented the cite. I am sorry but I cannot make it much clearer than that.

You keep making statements that are wrong. I didn’t miss your point. Can’t make it any clearer than that

[DocBrown]

I have to say that this was a difficult read. I could not keep up with every detail. Not because it was long, but because it has no paragraph breaks.

That said if I understand it correctly, it was getting dark, you were far from what you knew to be a designated CG, so you made a campsite. Is that it in a nutshell? Had this been me I would have simply told him what you said happened. "It was getting dark and from what we understood we could overnight here. We didn't feel safe driving any farther".

The weapon aside, using a short explanation and sticking to basic facts, I think you would have got off with a warning. I guarantee you, and CAG please feel free to comment, that any LEO would rather you stopped in a place like that if you felt it was safer than continuing to drive. Not to mention you made an error in thinking you could camp there, you genuinely thought you could. LEO's can be sympathetic if you frame your comments the right way.

[YelloDuc]

Originally Posted by gladecreekwy

You knew you couldn’t camp there but like many other folks this summer you thought the rules didn’t apply to you. Illegal camping , campfires and resource damage have been out of control this summer. I have zero sympathy for whatever fine you had to pay. In my opinion whatever it was it’s too small. I sympathize with the rangers that have been busting their butts chasing people around and knocking on camper doors not knowing if there’s a firearm behind the door. I live here and we are sick and tired of people coming here and ignoring the rules. Worse summer ever

Obviously you didn't read my post. We didn't know we weren't supposed to be there. You sound like a lot of fun. But then I see where you're from. My drive through there, and now your response, makes me think they should rename the place Jackson A$$ Hole, rudest place I've been in a long time. You may think of me what you wish, but it is NOT clear that I couldn't camp there, even after looking to be sure. I was in the wrong and am happily paying the fine. There are a great many places where you can follow old dirt tracks, as long as there isn't a sign or a blockade. While I agree with you, this year has been a crap show for all the newbie campers and tourists, and I dislike crowds, I am not new to this, we just made an honest mistake. Thank you so much for your kind words and sympathy. I hope you have a wonderful day.

[gladecreekwy]

Originally Posted by YelloDuc

Obviously you didn't read my post. We didn't know we weren't supposed to be there. You sound like a lot of fun. But then I see where you're from. My drive through there, and now your response, makes me think they should rename the place Jackson A$$ Hole, rudest place I've been in a long time. You may think of me what you wish, but it is NOT clear that I couldn't camp there, even after looking to be sure. I was in the wrong and am happily paying the fine. There are a great many places where you can follow old dirt tracks, as long as there isn't a sign or a blockade. While I agree with you, this year has been a crap show for all the newbie campers and tourists, and I dislike crowds, I am not new to this, we just made an honest mistake. Thank you so much for your kind words and sympathy. I hope you have a wonderful day.

I did read your post I just don’t believe you. You could have easily googled the park rules that clearly state no camping outside of designated sites. They don’t put a sign at every road and pullout because the rules are clear. There is cell service there. You weren’t “happy to pay the fine” As you said you argued with the rangers. What did you think you found some secret camping area that the hundreds of other folks looking for camping missed? As for JH. Maybe the locals had a belly full of rude, entitled tourists that poured into our small town of 10,000 at the average rate of 50,000 per day in July and August. You chose to put your story on here looking for opinions and so here’s mine. Follow the rules and feel free never to return to Jackson a**hole

[YelloDuc]

Originally Posted by CAG

Let me see if I can help you out here. Firstly the officer is not there to allow you to discuss, or argue the issue. That is what the court is for, attorneys get paid well for that. If you want to argue the fine points of the violation, go read the statute first, the officer already has. Then go to court and "discuss it with the judge" they get paid to decide whether you did or didn't do whatever.



Officers are generally always "on edge". It is a trained state of mind. It is what keeps us alive. Interestingly you say you were not off road. What does the Motor Vehicle Use Map say for that road, and that national forest? It may in-fact be listed as a non-vehicle road. If it had the logs you show it probably was. The forest service puts out maps with that information and some have downloadable maps for that purpose. In some cases MVUM data is free, in others you pay for a map, but I can tell you I do not venture into NFs in Arizona without one. Big time fines follow.



I was not there so rendering a verdict here is difficult, but from all indications you violated the law, and then failed the attitude test. You might have gotten by with a warning for the first, if, and a big if, you had not tried to argue your way out of it.

My usual response with these situations was "sign here, press hard, multiple copies".

Yes, many years ago, I took a ticket I believed was issued wrongly, to court, presented my argument to the judge, and won. I know and understand the process. I get your points, and agree with you. Using your argument, however, do you really think, had i been pushing back too hard, and too argumentative, the ranger would've just left me with the one ticket? Especially if he was in the right, stating I was in violation of multiple laws. If I was too argumentative, and he was right about me being off road, why did he back off of it, and not give me a ticket for it? Again, I say, I am respectful, and willing to concede when I am in the wrong, but am not going to tuck my tail between my legs, when I am right. I'm curious, in your opinion, do officers ever fail the attitude test? Have you ever looked back on a ticket(s) you issued and realized you had a bad attitude? I know I can have a bad attitude, and it definitely can affect how I deal with others around me. I know a professional can, as a general rule, control this. But even the best of us slip up sometimes. I have received well deserved tickets from nice officers, just doing thier job. I've been let off with warnings, from nice officers, when I most definitely should've gotten a ticket, and I am grateful. I have, on a very small number of occasions been issued a ticket by an officer with a bad attitude. This guy was professional, but I could tell, pretty much from the start, he was looking to issue a citation. I definitely deserved the one I got, but no amount of yes sir, I apologise sir, was gonna change that, imo.

One of the things I left out was the second ranger, said and did very little, I got the idea she was in training. I could be wrong, but something about their interaction gave me that idea, and my GF seemed to think so as well. I kind of feel like he was showing her how it's done. Not a sense of bravado, but more by the book, this is how you do it. Anyway. I do appreciate your feedback and will continue to treat all LEOs with respect. My hats off to you for your service and all the hard work and danger you work through. Thank you