Rafters get citation in Mexico

[presidio]

The Wild and Scenic River Designation carries across the border. 

No, it does not. In no way does the designation 'carry across the border'.

Read carefully the enabling legislation...

The National Parks and Recreation Act
Public Law 95-625
November 10, 1978
provides for the addition of the Rio Grande segment
ADDITION OF RIO GRANDE SEGMENT
SEC. 702. Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof:
“(17) RIO GRANDE, TEXAS.—The segment on the United States side of the river from river mile 842.3 above Mariscal Canyon downstream to river mile 651.1 at the Terrell-Val Verde County line; to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary shall, within two years after the date of enactment of this paragraph, take such action with respect to the segment referred to in this paragraph as is provided for under subsection (b). The action required by such subsection (b) shall be undertaken by the Secretary, after consultation with the United States Commissioner, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, and appropriate officials of the State of Texas and its political subdivisions. The development plan required by subsection (b) shall be construed to be a general management plan only for the United States side of the river and such plan shall include, but not be limited to, the establishment of a detailed boundary which shall include an average of not more than 160 acres per mile. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be in conflict with—
“(A) the commitments or agreements of the United States made by or in pursuance of the treaty between the United States and Mexico regarding the utilization of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, signed at Washington, February 1944 (59 Stat. 1219), or
“(B) the treaty between the United States and Mexico regarding maintenance
of the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the international boundary between the United States and Mexico, signed November 23, 1970.
For purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act with respect to the river designated by this paragraph, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary, but not more than $1,650,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands and not more than $1,800,000 for development.”.

[EdB]

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'.

I presume the ranger could've waited until said boat left the Mexican side to issue a citation for the improper waste disposal. I don't think they (the boaters) were going to camp out all day.

BadKnees, perhaps I should've said "let it go" instead of "let 'em go". Same idea. Relax just a bit.

[EdB]

And in regards to homerboy's question: what are the regs for entering Mexico? I've always heard it's OK to cross into Mexico anywhere. It's just commonly cited that the border crossings are closed in the park because it's illegal to re-enter the U.S. at an unauthorized crossing, correct?

[presidio]

I presume the ranger could've waited until said boat left the Mexican side to issue a citation for the improper waste disposal. I don't think they (the boaters) were going to camp out all day.

I am simply amazed at the parsings being undertaken to somehow justify or enable the alleged enforcement action.

Here's the deal. You might see a violation outside your jurisdiction that continues inside your jurisdicion...then you could take an enforcement action for the violation that occurred under your purview. However, you cannot observe a violation outside your jurisdiction and then take action on that violation when the person enters your jurisdiction but does not continue the violation once in your jurisdiction.

Is this such a hard concept to understand, or is it more that it's hard to accept that the 'idols of the outdoors' aren't very good at what they do and make mistakes?

[Al]

Is a permit like a contract that one has agreed to adhere to?

Al

[presidio]

Is a permit like a contract that one has agreed to adhere to?

Al

Sure, in the context that there are enforceable elements...but, you cannot create an expectation of compliance if the terms are not completed.

It's like this. When you go in the park and pay your tax to gain entry, you typically are given information about the raft of prohibitions that then apply to your presence in the park.

However, let's say you pay the tax, tape the receipt to your windshield and then promptly turn around and never go in the park. You can drive around anywhere you want outside the park with your receipt prominently displayed and there is no way, shape or form that the park regulations apply to you. You are OUTSIDE their jurisdiction.

Now, extend this concept to crossing the international boundary. It's the same. The park might tell you they have control, but they most assuredly do not. Go build a campfire on the park boundary near Study Butte, but demonstrably NOT on the park. There's not a thing they can do about it. You might be trespassing on private property or violating a county burn ban, but you are NOT violating any real or perceived park regulation. It doesn't matter that the park doesn't like it, doesn't want to look at it, or appeals to your emotional triggers about it being 'bad' for the park, they have zero control. So it is on the river beyond the international boundary.

It's one thing for people who are inclined to do so, to observe the park rules outside the park, but it's quite another for the NPS to attempt to enforce said rules if you choose to not observe them.

This is where the disconnect occurs, the NPS thinks it can dictate conditions of use in places they don't control because they are breathing their own air, and it lacks oxygen. They are dizzy with their own importance, self-righteousness, and assurances they know and do best. This river issue belies the fantasy.

[EdB]

I presume the ranger could've waited until said boat left the Mexican side to issue a citation for the improper waste disposal. I don't think they (the boaters) were going to camp out all day.

I am simply amazed at the parsings being undertaken to somehow justify or enable the alleged enforcement action.

Here's the deal. You might see a violation outside your jurisdiction that continues inside your jurisdicion...then you could take an enforcement action for the violation that occurred under your purview. However, you cannot observe a violation outside your jurisdiction and then take action on that violation when the person enters your jurisdiction but does not continue the violation once in your jurisdiction.

Is this such a hard concept to understand, or is it more that it's hard to accept that the 'idols of the outdoors' aren't very good at what they do and make mistakes?

Presidio, fer chrissakes, I did not say the rangers were justified in what they did. It's an obvious slam dunk - they don't have jurisdiction in another country.

The lack of proper waste disposal (actually a requirement to have a bagless waste disposal system, a/k/a portable toilet) was a violation that occurred on both sides of the border, unlike the ground fire, so they would have had jurisdiction as soon as the boaters got back on the river.

My point was, and still is, the rangers could've avoided the whole issue of jurisdiction had they not written a citation for something that occurred on foreign soil. Lack of a portable toilet was an ongoing permit violation - it did not end once the boaters left foreign soil. Sure it was something the rangers observed on the Mexican side, but once both parties are back on the water the rangers have the legal right to stop the boaters and inquire about their waste disposal system. If they were gung ho to get these boaters for something, they would've been smart to wait until that point and then cite them for lack of a toilet.

That is hardly a 'parsing' to justify or enable their action.

[presidio]

And in regards to homerboy's question: what are the regs for entering Mexico? I've always heard it's OK to cross into Mexico anywhere. It's just commonly cited that the border crossings are closed in the park because it's illegal to re-enter the U.S. at an unauthorized crossing, correct?

Homero will have to address the specifics of Mexican immigration law.

However, generally, unless you are attempting to circumvent national customs laws (like in the US attempting to export undeclared monetary resources beyond a certain threshold) the losing country typically does not care how or where you exit. It is the concern of the gaining country how and where you enter. Why would this be? Well, gee, it's because each country's jurisdiction ends at the border. Even if you are leaving in a place or circumstance where the losing country doesn't want you to do so, once you step across the line you are beyond their control. It's that jurisdictional thing again, duh.

So while it's not normally illegal for a US citizen (and I suspect a Mexican citizen) to exit their country of citizenship wherever they choose to do so, it is illegal to enter any country at other than an official port of entry.

This is the basis for closing entry into the US from the unofficial (actually, at one time they were class B crossings, and thus official) ports at Boquillas and Santa Elena. Nothing in US law says you cannot still go across the river at Boquillas, you just cannot legally reenter the US there but must go to Presidio or Eagle Pass. Very inconvenient if all you want is a plate of tacos, some cerveza fria and a little harmless international camaraderie.

Note that this does not take into consideration whether the Mexican government would consider your entry at Boquillas legal or not. Considering the inane stupidity of DHS ('we protect you at all cost to your constitutional rights' or 'we have nothing to fear but fear itself and we are afraid of everything') it would not be surprising to find that you would be considered in violation of Mexican immigration law if for no other reason than stupidity begets stupidity, even though national sovereignty is the overarching issue on both sides.

[presidio]

Presidio, fer chrissakes, I did not say the rangers were justified in what they did. It's an obvious slam dunk - they don't have jurisdiction in another country.

The lack of proper waste disposal (actually a requirement to have a bagless waste disposal system, a/k/a portable toilet) was a violation that occurred on both sides of the border, unlike the ground fire, so they would have had jurisdiction as soon as the boaters got back on the river.

My point was, and still is, the rangers could've avoided the whole issue of jurisdiction had they not written a citation for something that occurred on foreign soil. Lack of a portable toilet was an ongoing permit violation - it did not end once the boaters left foreign soil. Sure it was something the rangers observed on the Mexican side, but once both parties are back on the water the rangers have the legal right to stop the boaters and inquire about their waste disposal system. If they were gung ho to get these boaters for something, they would've been smart to wait until that point and then cite them for lack of a toilet.

That is hardly a 'parsing' to justify or enable their action.

Okay, right you are. I will accept that. Actually, I got a little tangential and mis-directed my comment to you. There are other postings that seem very much to seek some way to rationalize what occurred to the favor of the NPS. I apologize for using it in your post.

However, you are making the assumption that you MUST carry a bagless waste disposal system. That is NOT what the regulation says.

It does say 'The National Park Service requires all commercial outfitters and private river parties to carry out their solid human waste. We require all river users to carry out solid human waste in a bagless system compatible with RV dump stations' and 'All solid human waste must be carried out, with the following exception: kayak-only or single-canoe trips. Carryout is encouraged, but not required, between the Santa Elena Takeout and Talley, and between Solis and the Boquillas Canyon entrance.'

You must remember this rule applies only where the NPS has jurisdiction and the fact that you may not have such a system in your possession is NOT evidence you have or will violate the rule, no matter how badly the NPS wants to believe it true. If you 'do your business' on the Mexican side (and hopefully are properly burying it as would be acceptable to anyone but the NPS...there's that reality issue again), then you do not have any waste generated under park jurisdiction to 'carry out'. The park might assume you were in violation (and you might even be so) but absent their observing you violating the rule on their turf, they cannot truthfully state you have not complied with the rule. You could even carry the system and never use it, and that proves nothing.

This is one of those areas where everyone assumes the rule is airtight, but it most certainly is not. The NPS would lose any such speculative citation (which of course never should be written) contested in court since they could not demonstrate probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that a violation occurred in the face of sworn defendant testimony that all disposal was outside the US. Thus, a rule that is easily understandable and enforceable on any river running THROUGH a national park, loses its effectiveness and bite when the river is on their boundary, half of it is beyond their control, and there is no practical way to restrict paddlers' use to the US half of the river. This would be true also for commercial trips.

A competent ranger would understand the difficulty of such and would not make the kinds of mistakes so grossly evident in this case.

Want to have some scatalogical fun? Take a river trip without any collection system and scupulously photo-document each pit stop as being undeniably in Mexico. Take the citation, do not mention the photos, go to court, enter photos in evidence, embarrass the NPS, ask the judge to chastise the agency, go home vindicated. Of course, if the NPS was smart enough to ask for 'discovery' prior to a court appearance you would have to fork over the photos and then only the dumbest of rangers would want to proceed, so your fun might be truncated (or not depending on intelligence levels).

Bottom line, if this situation occurred as described, I would go to court in a heartbeat; the NPS has no case.

[presidio]

One other thing a lawyer would have fun with all day is this...

'All solid human waste must be carried out, with the following exception: kayak-only or single-canoe trips. Carryout is encouraged, but not required, between the Santa Elena Takeout and Talley, and between Solis and the Boquillas Canyon entrance.'

What does it mean where carryout is not required? Does that still apply only to kayak-only or single-canoe trips or does it also now cover large private party and commercial trips. It's certainly not clear and because of the punctuation, it cannot be inferred that the second sentence now does not encompass commercial trips. I suspect the NPS intends that large private party and commercial trips carry out regardless of where they may be but it is in no way clear that's the case, and it is more convincing that no one is required to do so in the places exempted.

Just another example of ambiguous, very poorly written 'regulations'.

Another thing of interest is that while the regulation requires firepans on the river... 'River users must contain campfires in firepans' (presumably meaning both the W&S portion and that not in the W&S river but part of the park, but it doesn't say that, the requirement to carry out waste is very much less clearly stated. In fact, it would appear the NPS infers it is okay to not carry out waste only in the above-mentioned areas of the park and that all waste along the entire W&S portion must be carried out (the US side only, of course). This makes no sense inasmuch as the inter-canyon portions exempted above surely must see more use than the W&S portions.

So, the regulations are even more poorly written and harder to interpret than I thought when I started dissecting it. It's baffling that no one has cleaned their clock in court yet.

Who writes this kind of nebulous regulation? Obviously no one who has had any legal training. Of even more concern is that it appears these things get established with no legal oversight; otherwise they wouldn't be so poorly done.

The NPS would be more honest if they acknowledged that the rules apply only to the US side, but that they 'would appreciate users complying on the Mexican side'. Then they could try to make you feel bad if you didn't, but they still couldn't enforce it.

Admitting you don't have jurisdiction is not a weakness, just a fact of law.

[Roy]

the regulations are even more poorly written and harder to interpret than I thought when I started dissecting it. It's baffling that no one has cleaned their clock in court yet.

It's the border.  Practically speaking, laws and regulations get enforced selectively everywhere (some more than others), but along the border the "grey areas" are a lot bigger.  I'm willing to bet these regs were intentionally left vague to avoid involving US-Mexico border treaties, and allow the Rangers and other locals room to use their own discretion (which in this particular case seems to have led to a mistake).

It'd be interesting to know what when on in staff meetings at the Park after this got out.

[Undertaker]

Just a suggestion but if when you are ever on or near the river pack you plastic baggie with waste and as you drive out of the park stop by Panther Junction and carry the baggie in and show them you obeyed the LAW. Critically speaking the bag should be red with the hazardous waste notice posted. 

[presidio]

It's the border.  Practically speaking, laws and regulations get enforced selectively everywhere (some more than others), but along the border the "grey areas" are a lot bigger.  I'm willing to bet these regs were intentionally left vague to avoid involving US-Mexico border treaties, and allow the Rangers and other locals room to use their own discretion (which in this particular case seems to have led to a mistake).

It'd be interesting to know what when on in staff meetings at the Park after this got out.

No. It's not because of the border. While it's unlikely this kind of boundary issue would exist in non-border parks (half a river in the park, the other half privately-owned or by another agency), the result would be the same. The NPS cannot enforce anything where they lack jurisdiction.

Yes, there always is discretion when acting on non-felony violations....but, you have to have a violation before you can exercise discretion. Some officers use it better than others, and it starts with knowing what the hell you are doing. In this instance there doesn't appear to be much indicating the ranger understood that, nor the limits of his authority.

As to the staff meeting, who knows?

Under the best of circumstances they would hash this out and make clear what they already should know (and immediately address the apparently bogus charges). Alternatively, they may be completely clueless, which would not be entirely unexpected. Worst case, bunker mentality may set in because they are being questioned regarding a complete lack of competence.

I vote for bunker mentality. Why? How many times have you ever seen the NPS admit it made an error?

[Medic]

Presidio,

Is it your opinion that LE Rangers should not enter Mexico under any circumstances?

[jeffblaylock]

Presidio,

Is it your opinion that LE Rangers should not enter Mexico under any circumstances?

I suspect Presidio believes LE rangers should not enter any space he occupies

I am curious if there is some memorandum of understanding between the NPS, the boundary commission, and the Mexican government regarding policing the W&S river. Absent that, I chalk this up to two wrongs don't make a right. The river runners were wrong to willfully ignore the rules, dumb as the rules may be, especially given their experience and notability. If the rangers were acting outside their jurisdiction, then that is also a wrong.

Of course, one could probably make an argument that the river runners were also illegally in Mexico, which, absent enforcement, is not a problem I guess.