Who has gotten Litter Law tickets in 2013?

[Yarbrough]

[Cowper]

My observation/questions are:

All answers must be taken with a huge grain of salt. In some cases I know what the law says. In some I’m not sure. And even when I am sure, remember, I’m “sure” because I “read it on the internet”. I can’t promise you that the web page I read the law on isn’t out of date or incorrect. But FWIW, here are my answers:

None of the officers/interns standing in water had on a PFD - are they drown proof? No. But realistically, they are wading, with lots of help nearby. Maybe they’d be setting a better example by wearing PFD’s, but I don’t think they were in any significant danger. I’m not going to fault anyone for this one.

Had I been in a tube or on a pool float would I have gotten a ticket? Maybe. Some of the laws include tubes in the definition of vessel; others require PFD’s on all vessels. I could not find an EXACT reference that said for sure, in the same section of the law.

Had I been swimming down the river would I have gotten a ticket? No. Does this make sense? At least as much sense as making me wearing a seatbelt in my car, but not making me wear a helmet on a motorcycle.

Had I been floating on a log down the river would I have gotten a ticket? Officer discretion is my guess. Depends on if he decides your log is a vessel. It probably meets the legal definition because you are using it as a means of transporting yourself down the river.

They searched our boats like they were looking for more than bags – were they looking for drugs & underage drinking? Yes.

Could we have refused the search? Unknown. I’m sure some would say “yes” and start talking about the constitution. I’m equally sure AGF officers have some rights to search that exceed other LEO’s, so refusing a search may not have been an option. I don’t know!

Did they have a right to search boats without probable cause? Probably yes, under game and fish laws.

My last question is: Where the hell are these guys on the Buffalo & Spring Rivers in the “drunk zones” where folks do not have on PFDs & are so drunk they cannot paddle much less walk & have TONS of trash & empty bottles/cans all over their boats?
They are there too. See Dan’s post about a similar operation of the Buffalo. I’ve seen them multiple times on the Spring. They are not on every river every weekend, but they do get around. They are not on the Ouachita every weekend either, you were just “lucky”.

[Cowper]

I'm not aware of any regulations that specify how to secure gear; only trash. Not saying they don't exist, but I've never seen them.

I'm with Luke. I don't think you have to secure gear. Even under the litter law, if you read it carefully, your ice chest has to be designed with a secure closure to prevent spilling contents. But the law never says you have to tie it to your boat. On the other hand, the law does specifically require your trash container to be tied to the vessel.

I could call it a "smart" law. They don't have to tell you to collect your valuables. I've seen men grab their ice chest before they rescue their significant other. But trash bags? Those seem to be invisible once a canoe turns over. So the law only regulates that which needs regulating. The rest takes care of itself.

GOOD NEWS: The AGFC handbook is up to date on current litter law. Found it here: http://www.agfc.com/enforcement/Documen ... ations.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really, this is a pretty good track record. As I review this thread, I find:
1 Warning Ticket that should not have been given
1 "No PFD" ticket that is unfortunate, but given to someone who admits they were not in compliance
Multiple "near misses" with folks having to discuss compliance issues but not getting a ticket of any kind
This tells me that the majority of the officers may be up to date on the law, with just a few "outliers".

Our major concerns seem to be the continued use of the "enforcement" option without an equal effort to educate, and we would like to see education + enforcement at put-ins so that glass never gets on the river in the first place.

[prophet]

beer cans? that is my bailer and those are my backups in case i lose one

[Cadron Boy]

Tis a poorly written law. For example, if the law is to be strictly construed then it would forbid only glass containers -- and sheets of glass, glass fragments, metal shards and any "non-container" glass would be acceptable. Moreover the law would not apply to many ceramics -- glass is an amorphous, non-crystalline ceramic but there are many other ceramics that are crystalline in nature (and thus not glass) which could still be used as a container and which would still be harmful to feet and toes. Are ceramic containers acceptable? Conversely, what about non-destructible glass -- Santanoni, Hercuglass, Hammerglass, etc. -- are these too unacceptable? And if strictly construed -- the law would even forbid any occular prosthesis in which the glass eye "contains" MEDPOR or some other polyethylene, etc. This is just one example of many -- just dealing with the definition of "glass container" -- that can be taken from this law -- and there are many, many more.

Or if the law is not to be strictly construed and open to interpretation -- which it seemingly is -- then that gives the officers and prosecution way too much latitude with regard to its enforcement. And as shown some of these folks have a hard job interpreting the law -- even those portions that seem rather evident -- already. Moreover, if the law is to be liberally construed this also gives officers far more latitude with respect to favoritism or profiling -- I assure you someone like Richard (see above) in age and disposition is going to be given free passage while those that may sport a few tats, piercings and younger disposition are likely to be put through the wringer. Why is it deemed unacceptable for Zimmerman to "profile" while we are encouraging our law enforcement officers to do the exact same thing through such lossely construed laws? And when interpretation is left to the enforcement officers and courts we end up with situations where you can swim without a PFD and its legal but sitting within the confines of a boat it is not. Or why officers standing in shallow water don't need to wear a PFD while a paddler sitting in a boat in the same water does. Or why people on a plastic air float are treated differently than a paddler in boat equipped with floatation. This is asinine!

This is a law with good intent but with many possible bad outcomes. And with fines up to $500 per violation it can easily become a "money-maker" or "power grab" by the officers and court. As many have already indicated that are far better ways -- less intrusive, more effective, less confrontational -- that can be used to protect our rivers. This is what happens when folks depend on laws to effect behavior -- they end up creating entirely new forms of behavior and feelings of distrust and animosity that are often worst than the problem itself. Some folks will simply get the mindset: If I had a load of trash on board, glass containers, or whatever and saw a "river block" up around the bend I might be apt to toss it out rather than face fines and harrassment. That's how it works on our roadways -- (sarcastically -- have you noticed how clean our roadways are now with the passage of all our anti-littering laws?) and that is how it will play out on our rivers. It is about education and prevention, not enforcement and punishment.

[happy happy happy]

Not for a fact but at httd, Cowper .I grabbed a water bottle that looked as if it came from the raft you where in ?? So even the best of us can make a mistake and lose trash. Law or no law ,ignorance Hey is no excuse . Being the player or the officer. I thank what you do is good for all. Keep up the good work that you do.
Thank you (and if this was not the right person or raft I give my apologies too)

[Cadron Boy]

Indeed -- anyone such as Cowper who has removed tons of trash from our waterways over the years will lose a piece every once in awhile -- especially with his boat overbrimming with debris. And sadly the law is construed in a manner that such good deeds could be punished.

Moreover, when I do a river clean-up -- like most of you I just toss the stuff into the bottom of the boat -- cans, diapers, whatever -- most of it is not bagged or placed in a secure container until I reach the take-out. Moreover much of the stuff would not even fit in the mesh bags I carry -- I don't have a big enough bag to contain car parts, household appliances and carpet remnants. Moreover to equip my boat with a big trash container will make the boat top heavy and difficult to manage. Fortunately on the Cadron no drag nets have been set...YET...in part because it lacks the popularity of other streams and thus isn't a "money maker". But I have to think as an outfitter that to promote paddling on the Cadron only invites overzealous and/or inconsistent enforcement.

[Randy Dodson]

Does anyone think it possible that most of the officers DO know the updated version of the law but try to take advantage of a mostly uneducated public by ticketing based on the 2001 version. I'm not trying to be cynical but I find it hard to believe that officers sent out to enforce river laws have no idea what the current laws state.

If so, it would be like a cop giving you a ticket for driving 40 in a 45 mph zone and you being none the wiser.

[mgood]

Ok crew: I'm more than a little interested in this. This post will take a minute or two to read (sorry), and some people won't agree with everything I say.

First- for the people who have a problem with officers enforcing laws mid-paddle or mid-stream. If an officer checks you for a PFD at the put in, and you don't have it, then you simply don't paddle that day; however, if you paddle down-river and then are ticketed, at least you got to paddle (no officer in the world could legitimately argue to a judge that making you stop paddling on a river, miles away from your car, and making you carry your boat from that point on based on a no-PFD law is reasonable or within the scope of the law). The deterrence effect (through a fine) still plays a perfectly legitimate role, both individually and collectively. Also, it is not the job of the officers themselves to educate individuals on any law: in every state you are in, YOU ARE PRESUMED TO KNOW THAT STATE'S LAWS. Ignorance of the law is never an acceptable excuse in court. It's not a perfect rule, but it is the rule in almost every court in the nation.

Second-I'd like to address this:

Tis a poorly written law. For example, if the law is to be strictly construed then it would forbid only glass containers -- and sheets of glass, glass fragments, metal shards and any "non-container" glass would be acceptable. Moreover the law would not apply to many ceramics -- glass is an amorphous, non-crystalline ceramic but there are many other ceramics that are crystalline in nature (and thus not glass) which could still be used as a container and which would still be harmful to feet and toes. Are ceramic containers acceptable? Conversely, what about non-destructible glass -- Santanoni, Hercuglass, Hammerglass, etc. -- are these too unacceptable? And if strictly construed -- the law would even forbid any occular prosthesis in which the glass eye "contains" MEDPOR or some other polyethylene, etc. This is just one example of many -- just dealing with the definition of "glass container" -- that can be taken from this law -- and there are many, many more.

Or if the law is not to be strictly construed and open to interpretation -- which it seemingly is -- then that gives the officers and prosecution way too much latitude with regard to its enforcement. And as shown some of these folks have a hard job interpreting the law -- even those portions that seem rather evident -- already. Moreover, if the law is to be liberally construed this also gives officers far more latitude with respect to favoritism or profiling -- I assure you someone like Richard (see above) in age and disposition is going to be given free passage while those that may sport a few tats, piercings and younger disposition are likely to be put through the wringer. Why is it deemed unacceptable for Zimmerman to "profile" while we are encouraging our law enforcement officers to do the exact same thing through such lossely construed laws? And when interpretation is left to the enforcement officers and courts we end up with situations where you can swim without a PFD and its legal but sitting within the confines of a boat it is not. Or why officers standing in shallow water don't need to wear a PFD while a paddler sitting in a boat in the same water does. Or why people on a plastic air float are treated differently than a paddler in boat equipped with floatation. This is asinine!

This is a law with good intent but with many possible bad outcomes. And with fines up to $500 per violation it can easily become a "money-maker" or "power grab" by the officers and court. As many have already indicated that are far better ways -- less intrusive, more effective, less confrontational -- that can be used to protect our rivers. This is what happens when folks depend on laws to effect behavior -- they end up creating entirely new forms of behavior and feelings of distrust and animosity that are often worst than the problem itself. Some folks will simply get the mindset: If I had a load of trash on board, glass containers, or whatever and saw a "river block" up around the bend I might be apt to toss it out rather than face fines and harrassment. That's how it works on our roadways -- (sarcastically -- have you noticed how clean our roadways are now with the passage of all our anti-littering laws?) and that is how it will play out on our rivers. It is about education and prevention, not enforcement and punishment.

The law (located at http://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/20 ... -4/8-6-418" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) is actually a GOOD law that is very specifically written. While 8-6-418 (a) applies only to glass containers, 8-6-418 (b) (which we are discussing) applies to "all foodstuffs and beverages" being transported. Also, I don't think many judges would interpret 8-6-418 (a) to apply to glass eyes as well.

I would encourage all to distance this specific law and its interpretation from any type of high-profile criminal case (like the Zimmerman trial) for about 1,000,000,000,000 reasons (which I don't think I need to explain as many of them are obvious). As far as profiling goes, unless there is legitimate proof of officer profiling then it does no good to suggest such on a public forum easily viewed with a simple google search. An officer making a decision to not ticket one elderly individual does not prove a pattern of profiling.

I do love the line "It is about education and prevention, not enforcement and punishment." I think you hit the nail on the head, but you can't have the first set without the second as a deterrent (otherwise MOST people wouldn't follow it).


I think the law's main flaw is that it fails to distinguish between decked and non-decked boats. I suspect that the state legislature considered all kayaks to not be airtight (i.e. not wearing a skirt), which is a bad assumption. I can place trash in my decked kayak knowing that I will NOT be swimming from Remmel to rockport. I know the law can't distinguish from strong-rolling paddlers and weak-rolling paddlers, but it is a fairly large flaw in that capable people are placed into a category they do not belong in (into the "possible to tip/litter" where it is very unlikely to happen).

I tried a quick case search to see if anything had ever been published on this issue, and no dice. Seems like the best bet is to keep a dialogue going with ARGF, know the law, and wear a PFD.

[Cadron Boy]

I have to disagree with mgood -- first, I rather an officer stop me at the put-in than pull me aside midway on on a reach. First is safety is the issue wouldn't you think the officers would stop folks from even getting on the river without a PFD than stopping them after they have already been on the river for seveal hours. To me that's a "no-brainer". Moreover there is no pleasure is being pulled over mid-reach simply because "at least you got to paddle" -- whether I get pulled over at the put-in or mid-reach -- I'm not likely to find pleasure or reward in either instance.

Two, all this talk about the need for deterrence isn't good -- we can't keep locking folks up and punishing them with endless fines -- this country locks more people up than any other country in the world and subject its citizens to more fines and laws than any other country in the world. And it ain't working!! If the prospect of getting caught and spending time in jail or being severely fined are supposed to deter forward-looking rational potential offenders from criminal activity why are our prisons full, speeders common and trash covers our landscape. It is a detterent only as it incapcitates -- little more.

Third, the entire ignorance of the law is another tact taken by those who place such faith in deterrence. When it fact even the courts are "ignorant of the law":- nearly every trial hinges on the intricacies and interpretation of the our laws. Moreover everyone is ignorant of our laws -- there are simply to many and in many cases their complexity befuddles even trained legal experts. Now maybe mgood possesses such knowledge of all our civil, state and federal laws but most of us don't nor will we ever -- there are more than 300,000 separate federal regulations that might be the basis for criminal prosecution -- and that is just federal. If anyone is able to recite all 300,000 I would be most impressed. Moreover mgood is wrong -- ignorance of the law is in fact an acceptable excuse and has been used in defense of many citizens and cooporations who have been drugged into court -- but that be a different thread.

Fourth, profiling is profiling -- whether in our backyard or on the river -- and I'm not saying it is wrong per se -- in fact it comes both natural and is a rational reaction and can prove useful in determination of risks and criminal subjects. And in the field it certainly improves overall efficiency of those trying to make such assessments. But to say profiling in one instance in no way equates to profiling in another instance is patently false. All I am is saying -- and I'll continue to stand by it -- but when laws are loosely construed there is far more potential for profiling, cronism and favoritism. Moverover, in response to the statement "an officer making a decision to not ticket one elderly individual does not prove a pattern of profiling". Indeed other "sentiments" may be at play but regardless I believe the vast majority of us are going to be able to speak of instances where profiling is readily evident -- I see it frequently when I am traveling with my children (all in the 20s) -- it is so common I find it hard to fathom you reject such notions. In fact -- and I take this right from Wikipedia: profiling is an "investigative tool that is intended to help investigators to accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown criminal subjects or offenders". what this means is that profiling is actually used by law enforcement officers -- it is a tool that they use. And whether it be Zimmerman, a police officer or you or I -- profiling is profiling.

And fifth -- and lastly -- as to the statement: "You can't have 'education and prevention' without 'enforcement and punishment'. I totally disagree! I did not raise my kids that way and that I don't think that is who we as people should be treated. I am of the opinion you can have education and prevention WITHOUT deterrence and punishement -- in fact, I'll go on to say that effective education and prevention totally negates the need for punishment and deterrence. But as we see we live in a country where to many people support punishment and deterrence and believe it is the foundation to living a moral law-abiding life and thus precedes education and prevention. I do not share this position and I'll not budge from my position in endorsing education and prevention over punishment and deterrence.

[Deuce]

CB, I agree it would be better to improve the education component, specifically in this case posting personnel at the put in to educate people about the laws and the reasons we have them. I would LOVE to see that happen and like you find the fact that it doesn't unjust. However, to posit that this would eliminate the need for the punishment component is not realistic. Do you honestly believe the inebriated floaters on the Spring and Current Rivers don't know it's illegal for them to float and especially drive in that condition and the reasons why? What about the ones who are high on pot, meth, et al? Think if someone told them at the put in they weren't supposed to indulge in that kind of behavior they'd comply? Of course not, because they already know it's wrong but fully intend to do it anyway. The sad truth is the only thing with the potential to prevent or eliminate certain kinds of bad behavior is the prospect of punishment. This is why it must be included in any worthwhile enforcement effort, hence the law enforcement strainers.

There's also another angle for us to consider. We all know it's wrong to float drunk, but what is drunk and what does it take to get there? My cooler will contain more than two beers on a given day. What if someone at the put in insisted on looking in there and spuriously determined that the number of beers in my possession rendered it likely that I'd be guilty of BUI by the time I consumed them all? Which would be worse? That scenario, or someone down river with the abilty and discretion to observe my condition, note that I'm behaving myself and complying with the law, and make a logical and informed determination? Having experienced the latter many times I can tell you which of the two I would prefer.

[Cowper]

Wow, I’m too far behind, got to catch up. Stand by for another long post!

beer cans? that is my bailer and those are my backups in case i lose one

Where’s that darn “like” button?


(for the record, as this is a public forum, prophet is a responsible individual who does not litter, and HE IS JOKING!)

Not for a fact but at httd, Cowper .I grabbed a water bottle that looked as if it came from the raft you where in ?? So even the best of us can make a mistake and lose trash.)

Happy happy happy, Thank you thank you thank you! You got my back, you just saved me from many hours of self imposed community service. (not really, I’ll do it anyway). All my bottles were in an ice chest on shore. Technically, the bottle did not come from a raft that I was in. But only because I had just jumped overboard and swam to shore so that the passenger could begin learning how to row. I saw the bottle float free while the raft was still in the hole, but it was too far out and I didn’t think I could get to it in time. I even confessed the mistake and my intention to pick up additional trash (in penance) to a friend on shore. So you’re absolutely right, we all make mistakes, we all litter once in awhile, even if we don’t mean to and don’t know it. I would never find water bottles in eddies on white water streams if that wasn’t the case. I’ve used these points in trying to convince my friends that we should all pick up a little bit of litter every time we go out, so that we can guarantee a net positive at the end of the day.

Does anyone think it possible that most of the officers DO know the updated version of the law but try to take advantage of a mostly uneducated public by ticketing based on the 2001 version. I'm not trying to be cynical but I find it hard to believe that officers sent out to enforce river laws have no idea what the current laws state.

I don’t think so. This thread seems to be confirming that their handbook is now up to date, and so far for 2013 we have only one warning ticket and zero tickets with fines for “sturdy container but no mesh bag”. So to me it is looking more and more like the majority of officers may in fact be up to date. I know many must be, because on the Spring they give tickets for Styrofoam ice chests. That prohibition is something that got added to the law with the new version. And finally, I need to make this point: I’m pretty sure AGF and the officers do not profit in any way from the ticket. Mgood can check me on this ‘cause it is in the Arkansas litter statutes, but I’m more than 90% sure the money goes into a fund used by the local governments for good causes, NOT back to the State or to AGF.

Ok crew: I'm more than a little interested in this. This post will take a minute or two to read (sorry), and some people won't agree with everything I say.
I do love the line "It is about education and prevention, not enforcement and punishment." I think you hit the nail on the head, but you can't have the first set without the second as a deterrent (otherwise MOST people wouldn't follow it).

Well, I agreed with enough of what you said that I was willing to let it stand as the “closing arguments” for this thread, but I guess it wasn’t time for the thread to die yet. So here’s one of my favorite parts one more time for good measure:

Seems like the best bet is to keep a dialogue going with ARGF, know the law, and wear a PFD.

[Cadron Boy]

Deuce -- You actually confirmed my point -- as you stated folks on the spring know it is illegal to be drunk on the river yet do it anyway -- obviously the threat of a fine or punishment is not an effective deterrent. Similarly you can put people in jail all day long for meth and at the end of the month there will still be meth heads across the country. If folks think that drug laws and punishment deter drug users then they are sadly mistaken -- those who don't do drugs do so not because they fear punishment (a small minority) rather they don't do drugs because they don't want to harm their body, they don't like how they feel while on drugs, they don't want to diasppoint family and friends, they don't want to go against sacraments and commitments they have established for themselves, etc. Essentially all that stuff they were ingrained to believe through education.

If the rule of civilization is to simply write fines and punish people as a way to achieve some form of behavorial complaince -- it isn't going to work. Moreover it really isn't the kind of world we would want to live in for if laws and fear of punishment served as our primary incentive to live without harming others or the environment then total chaos would reign for fear of punishment isn't sufficient to deter crime.

I truly believe that punishment is not an effective deterrent (albeit it may prove useful for toddlers and dogs), that enforcement of our laws is often preferential and that we simply have too many laws -- especialy with regard to "consensual crimes" . I also believe that the entire judicial system "feeds itself" -- there is a lot of money to be made off our judicial system which has resulted in a lot of corruption and an entire workforce of social workers and enforcement officers and court officials whose self-interest oftens supersedes the interests of the community. And I speak from personal experience -- for as an "expert witness" I get $400+/hour for testimony and $4000+/day if I testify in court -- and I am just one little teenie part of the system -- there are hundreds of thousands of people just like me feeding at the trough of our judicial system. Only I don't mind throwing rocks at the glass house in which I live and prosper.

[sig]

Wow this thread has devolved from useful info sharing to off-topic rambling.

[Deuce]

Wow this thread has devolved from useful info sharing to off-topic rambling.

Well duh. Would you expect anything else from us?