Rafters get citation in Mexico

[presidio]

It is absolutely illegal for U. S. officers to enter Mexico to issue a ticket but I believe that this is basically a case of bad reporting and that that did not happen.

Maybe, but the NPS has taken no opportunity to say it didn't happen, rather they want to try and justify why they took the action.

U. S. government has an obligation to Mexico to enforce the permit conditions with regard to actions in Mexican territory. 

No they do not. The US government, through its amateur police arm the NPS, can neither grant nor deny actions in Mexico. There is NO authority.

[mediopelo]

If I'm in a canoe and have a river permit, I can move back and forth between the two banks of the Rio for as long as my permit lasts.  I still can't legally enter Santa Elena, MX.

I am still trying to find just where and when the Mexican government agreed that a person with an NPS river permit can go beyond the border of Mexico in the middle of the river, much less camp on the Mexican side. I didn't find it in a quick look at either of the treaties linked to here. If such an agreement exists all the NPS can properly do is inform the permit holder of what the law is, or possibly attach conditions to the permit in the interests of good relations with Mexico. In the absence of such an agreement they have no business even suggesting that permit holders can camp in Mexico or use the Mexican half of the river.    

[presidio]

As an author and well know river runner, Bowden should have been doing more than just following the rules.  He should be holding himself to a higher standard and setting an example for others to follow.  He also should have received a ticket for the waste violation.

That being said, if the ranger entered Mexico to issue the ticket, he was in the wrong as well.  If an official from another country tried to give me a ticket for something in the US, I would raise a **** storm.

This is incredible. You guys need to step back and take a deep breath. There needs to be an analytical separation from what you think ought to be occurring so that you can then understand it isn't about doing nice/right on the part of the user, but having a complete lack of legal standing for enforcing park regulations outside the park. The issue here is not the emotional 'oh, we have to protect the parks' but, rather, compliance by the agency with jurisdictional, sovereignty and constitutional issues. Using the logic I'm seeing in many of the posts there is a willingness to simply ignore due process because 'well it's best for the park'. BS.

Look at the tone of many of the posts. There seems to be agreement the citations shouldn't have occurred, but in the next breath it's...well they agreed to the conditions. You cannot have it both ways. Take the park/fire/river out of the equation and substitute any other real crime and the absurdity of this becomes apparent.

[presidio]

Since it appears I'll me making more comments, I thought it would be appropriate at this point to make an observation.

First, the media should be all over this. The reported facts indicate the NPS has taken an extra-territorial action, without any apparent authority to do so. However, so far, the NPS has not refutted the claim that an enforcement action DID occur in Mexico.

Now, the NPS is going to decline all comment on the basis it is a 'pending criminal case. However, if in fact the report is in error, nothing in the case would be compromised by stating the enforcement did not occur in Mexico, if such did not happen.

Furthermore, nothing about the case would be compromised by the NPS revealing how it is they have such authority as they believe they possess. After all, such an ability would be granted by legislation, so what would be the big deal about citing said authority?

Will it happen? I'm not holding my breath.

I can see places in their regulations where the NPS gives themselves authority over non-federal lands (and I have not yet researched this stated control), but I have never seen any language, anywhere, that gives any implication they can extend their control to another country.

[presidio]

Then it is illegal to camp on the Mexican side.

Al

It very well may be, but that is up to Mexican authorities to address.

[presidio]

This is a tough call.  Would there be such an outcry had this incident occurred in Fern Canyon?  I think not.  The more people complain, the easier it will be for all of us to loose the privilege of camping in Mexico during river trips.  Had a well known author not been in the responsible party, I doubt we would have heard much about this incident. 

It's not about where in Mexico it happened, or to whom, it's about jurisdiction.  Lack of jurisdiction makes wrong anywhere, wrong everywhere.

[presidio]

Sorry Al, the USA cannot write a valid permit for the use of Mexico lands.

I don't think anyone would claim that the U. S. has the right to give a person permission to camp in Mexico but it sure has the right to find a person in violation of the conditions of the the agreement with Mexico that makes the permit possible--the privilege of floating in Mexican territory--when it sees them violated.

You assume there is an agreement. If such exists the NPS makes no mention of it. The reality is more that the region is so remote there is no official presence on the Mexican side and, absent the park there would be little on the US side. While not impossible under international treaty, it is highly unlikely the Mexican government would grant the US any authority to enforce anything on the Mexican side of the river. Why, well then US enforcement would have jurisdiction over Mexican citizens in the zone. Ain't gonna happen.

[presidio]

Regardless of what anyone thinks about the behavior of the rafters,  The Wild and Scenic River Boundary and Mangement does NOT extend beyond the International boundary.

EXACTLY !

[presidio]

There is an agreement with Mexico

Really? I'd like to see it.

[presidio]

This is interesting.

http://www.nps.gov/rigr/planyourvisit/wildscenic.htm

The NPS’s jurisdiction on the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River downstream from the park boundary includes only the river area from the United States/Mexico international boundary in the middle of the deepest channel iver downstream from the park is the property of the state of Texas.

Guess the amateur police force needs some training.

This statement by the NPS pretty clearly indicates there is no 'agreement' with Mexico.

[presidio]

I agree with you 100% and I think you stated it well.  The problem though, as I see it, is the fact that you must have a permit to be on the river and that permit has restrictions attached to it.  The Bowden group violated the terms by which they were permitted to travel on the river.

All hail to the NPS. They always know best. If they have a rule it must be necessary. All hand to the holodeck for another fantasy adventure.

...I am all in favor of breaking dumb rules....

Not according to what you just said.

I personally feel it is just plain stupid to require a fire pan and the removal of the debris from a fire.  For what purpose?  You're on the river bank for crying out loud.  Who gives a damn? 
Then there is the issue of carrying out your crap in a little baggy.  Pullleeeze!  There's a rule I will never abide by.

Who cares? Why, the NPS, of course. As in the real Disneyland, the Disneyland of the outdoors also cannot tolerate any appeance of things being less than perfect or out of control. When you're out of touch with reality the way the NPS is, the rules you make seem entirely reasonable, even though any rational person sees otherwise.

[presidio]

the singing mexican always has a fire going, and so do the mexicans by the hot springs who sell stuff.....on the mexican side.

They're not just selling it on the Mexican side, it's in the park. The park knows this but do you ever see a ranger, BP officer or Customs officer there enforcing not only a known, but daily violation of the border closure? No, you do not. Why? Well, I guess they are all too busy ignoring the obvious in favor of enforcing laws they don't have.

[presidio]

I’m glad the NPS river rangers are enforcing the rules, whether it’s on river-right or river-left. The system works, even if it may not follow the letter of the law. Look what happened to the informal border crossings at Boquillas, Santa Elena, and Paso Lajitas when the law was enforced.

You'll mind plenty when this kind of mentality is applied to other laws. Why not? What's the difference?  This is an example of 'it's okay because it protects the river, so we don't care whether it's legal or not'. That's a slippery slope you don't want to go down.

[presidio]

Seems like the easiest (maybe the smartest) thing would have been to cite them for the improper waste disposal and let 'em go on the lack of firepan. That would still get the point across but eliminate the issue of jurisdiction, wouldn't it?

No. When you lack jurisdiction you have no authority for any perceived 'violation'.

[badknees]

Seems like the easiest (maybe the smartest) thing would have been to cite them for the improper waste disposal and let 'em go on the lack of firepan. That would still get the point across but eliminate the issue of jurisdiction, wouldn't it?

No. When you lack jurisdiction you have no authority for any perceived 'violation'.

"let em go on the lack of firepan" HUH? , how can somebody "let 'em go", when they didn't have any legal basis for citing them in the first place.