Rafters get citation in Mexico

[henry lightcap]

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. 

[mediopelo]

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.

[badknees]

The ranger appears to have overstepped his authority if he issued a citation for an act that occurred in Mexico. If he actually issued the citation in Mexico, then he certainly was outside of his jurisdiction.

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.

[mediopelo]

We seem to be talking at cross purposes here. There is an agreement with Mexico without which river trips would be impossible since craft must at times be on the Mexican side of the line down the middle of the river. Permit holders are held responsible for complying with the conditions of their permit in order not to endanger the agreement and supposedly the rangers saw them violating them. If they issued the ticket on Mexican soil certainly it is invalid.

[Roy]

The article specifically states that they were on private land and had the owner's permission.  Maybe a case could be made for runoff contaminated with human waste, but I think even that's a stretch.  Personally, I think the Rangers weren't just out of their jurisdiction, but maybe even guilty of trespassing. 

[westtex]

Personally, I think the Rangers weren't just out of their jurisdiction, but maybe even guilty of trespassing.

It is well known that all of the land on the Lower Canyons past Black Gap is privately owned.  I don't think trespassing is a concern. 

Please keep in mind at all times that you are on private land on this entire stretch of the river.  The terms and conditions of your Lower Canyons permit recognize this and are written accordingly to acknowledge both the generosity of the landowners as well as their concerns.  Your responsible behavior will help determine the long-term success of this unique arrangement between the National Park Service and private landowners.

http://www.nps.gov/rigr/planyourvisit/private-property.htm

[badknees]

We seem to be talking at cross purposes here. There is an agreement with Mexico without which river trips would be impossible since craft must at times be on the Mexican side of the line down the middle of the river. Permit holders are held responsible for complying with the conditions of their permit in order not to endanger the agreement and supposedly the rangers saw them violating them. If they issued the ticket on Mexican soil certainly it is invalid.

Can you cite the agreement? I have not been able to find any information that indicates the  Management of the Wild and Scenic River modifies any International Boundary agreements?

[henry lightcap]

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 to the gradient boundary at the edge of the river on the United States’ side. The gradient boundary, as recognized by the state of Texas, is defined as located midway between the lower level of the flowing water that just reaches the cut bank and the higher level of it that just does not overtop the cut bank. The river bed of the section of the Wild and Scenic River downstream from the park is the property of the state of Texas.

[Roy]

Personally, I think the Rangers weren't just out of their jurisdiction, but maybe even guilty of trespassing.

It is well known that all of the land on the Lower Canyons past Black Gap is privately owned. I don't think trespassing is a concern.

Please keep in mind at all times that you are on private land on this entire stretch of the river. The terms and conditions of your Lower Canyons permit recognize this and are written accordingly to acknowledge both the generosity of the landowners as well as their concerns. Your responsible behavior will help determine the long-term success of this unique arrangement between the National Park Service and private landowners.

http://www.nps.gov/rigr/planyourvisit/private-property.htm

Think about this a bit;  the landowner specifically gave these guys permisssion to build that fire.  Now some Yankee Ranger shows up and tells them all - including the landowner - that he's got authority to override personal property rights IN MEXICO!  I'd say Mexican property owners are far more likely to have "concerns" about this than about a fire they OK'd in the first place.  And far more likely to question any agreement they've made with the Park Service.

[westtex]

Think about this a bit;  the landowner specifically gave these guys permisssion to build that fire.  Now some Yankee Ranger shows up and tells them all - including the landowner - that he's got authority to override personal property rights IN MEXICO!  I'd say Mexican property owners are far more likely to have "concerns" about this than about a fire they OK'd in the first place.  And far more likely to question any agreement they've made with the Park Service.

We don't know exactly what was said there by the ranger.  We only have what Bowden recalls.  The fact is we don't know anything for certain here, except that there was a fire without a pan and no groover.  Like the district ranger said, the rule is based on the honor system.  Bowden and Hayes broke that honor system. 

Hayes said that he thought it was a dumb rule, and I am all in favor of breaking dumb rules, but he didn't seem to argue the permission stance.  They probably won't contest because they were breaking the rule because it was dumb, not because they had permission. 

At least that is how I see it.  Ten other people could argue it ten other ways. 

[Ay Chihuahua!]

Think about this a bit;  the landowner specifically gave these guys permisssion to build that fire.  Now some Yankee Ranger shows up and tells them all - including the landowner - that he's got authority to override personal property rights IN MEXICO!  I'd say Mexican property owners are far more likely to have "concerns" about this than about a fire they OK'd in the first place.  And far more likely to question any agreement they've made with the Park Service.

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.

I think we are witnessing evidence of the fact that the permit rules need to be changed to accommodate for the rights of the Mexican land owners.  If you give permission for a fire on your private land, that's it...done deal...burn it.

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

And, I agree with you 100%.  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?  After the next good rain, there will be zero evidence that a fire was ever there.  And, btw, doesn't charcoal help purify the water? 

Then there is the issue of carrying out your crap in a little baggy.  Pullleeeze!  There's a rule I will never abide by.

[mediopelo]

Everything depends on what exactly the charge was, and you can't tell that from the story. If it is a stand-alone charge of violating the Scenic Rivers Act by building a fire in Mexico it won't stand if the person wants to go to the trouble of fighting it. If it is for taking out a river use permit and doing certain things contrary to its conditions, even if those things were in Mexico, it seems to me to be a very different situation. If the people had not had a river use permit the rangers would have had no grounds to charge them with anything other than not having the permit once they re-entered U. S. territory.

As for the text of the agreement between the two countries to allow float trips and to camp on the Mexican bank I don't know where it would be found and possibly there is not even a formal agreement. In that case the Park Service is very much in the wrong by seeming to imply that they can give rafters permission to enter a foreign country, if only to camp on the river bank or use the Mexican half of the stream. I know that unless things have changed recently it would be illegal for a non-citizen to camp on the U. S. bank unless he had been admitted by U. S. immigration.    

[championbaum]

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

[bjbriggs]

I bet they got a ticket for not using a fire pan. It is required on the Rio Grande. We always use a fire pan.  It is nice to be able to burn your trash so you don't have to carry it with you. When we were on the river in November, there were mexican men  on the mexican side burning all the bushes and wood left from the flood. I think it would be good if they went along the river and burnt all the brush left from the flood it pretty bad.   

[Joe]

I’m curious, how many of the people critical of the NPS, the rangers, or the regulations in this case are river runners and regular users of the Rio Grande? 

I don’t work as a river guide anymore but I used to, and there are rules on proper river etiquette that should be followed, whether you’re on the Colorado in the Grand Canyon or the Rio Grande in the Lower Canyons.  As it says in the newspaper article:

Jan Forte, longtime owner of Big Bend River Tours in Study Butte… was critical of users who ignore rules on proper river etiquette. “I think that's a piss-poor attitude. If anyone is on the river, and they don't use a fire pan, they are not a river runner. They don't have any respect for the river or the country,” she said.

And no one’s asking you to carry out your crap in a little baggie. If you’re on a one-boat trip, it’s fine to dig a cat-hole. If you’re on a larger trip,

The National Park Service requires all river users to carry out solid human waste in a bagless system compatible with RV dump stations. Kayak-only or single-canoe trips are exempt from this requirement.

And how many people talk to the Mexican landowners along the Rio Grande? When I was a river guide in Big Bend, I only did the Lower Canyons once, but I did Colorado Canyon about 25 times, Santa Elena Canyon about 20 times, Mariscal Canyon once and Boquillas Canyon twice. Only very rarely did I see another human being that wasn’t also on a river trip, and I never met a landowner.

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.