Busted for shore fishing at Bonita Point 8/7/09

you should be working for TMZ, dude.

 

YAY!!!!!!!

thanks bill
I dont think the NCKA was ever about kayaking or fishing for Judd
very sad

Thank you Bill!!

  I Feel a Balance in the Force...... 

I posted this personal experience knowing it would spark a controversial debate. It has evolved into a debate over officer safety vs. abuse of power. My  original intention was to spark a thoughtful debate about the public’s access to our public lands. I understand the power of words and would hope that my being honesty would make people think and evaluate what sort of freedom we are fighting for and hope to preserve.

The Bonita Cove area is protected from the prevailing winds by beautiful, rocky bluffs - which if those dedicated officers put in that trail I suggested, would be a productive, safe place to go yack when everywhere else is blown-out.

I think what disgusted me and infected the tone of my post was my perception of the officers’ lack of purpose, and one of the officers’ aggressiveness and eagerness to find a more submissive or vulnerable member of the public to reprimand.

Let me be very clear about some more facts. I saw the signs that said Bonita Cove Closed, so I walked toward the Gate, to the rocks to the east of the cove. There were rangers and seal people all over the place - including to the west, in the cove, at what appeared to be the “closed beach”. I figured that if it wasn’t OK to fish outside the cove, someone would have gone down there and told those guys to leave, or stopped me on my deliberate walk on an obvious trail down to the beach.

On my way down the driveway to the start of the trail, I passed a sign that said private residents only. I thought that was in reference to parking, so I walked passed it, it looked like the rangers house to me. I figured that he would have stopped me if he had a problem with me using the driveway as access. Public easements often run along the edge of property down to the beach and there was no sign about any closer at the trailhead. Besides this is beautiful, federal land - we all own it.

For me, it’s a tragedy when such access places are obscured or illegally closed - the very fabric of our freedoms is predicated on the common law idea that all people should have equal access to the ocean and share in the benefit of it’s wondrous resources.

On my way down the trail, I saw what I believe to be the same two officers spin their tires, driving away from the ranger’s house, where they could watch me from the top of the cliff. Shoot, at that point I thought they were interested in the fishing action.

After watching them observe me, I headed back up the trail because of the crowd of fishermen (7 on two rock outcroppings) and the apparent lack of action.

Even when the trooper skidded down the driveway, I though maybe the guy was zealously looking for an accurate fish report.

But when the aggressive officer got out and followed his “procedures”, I’d have to say, my jaw dropped and I was afraid for my safety. I had not said a word and he was angry with me, even shaking. Because of his unexplained anger, I thought maybe this guy was one of the seal people, so I started asking some questions.

1. Where precisely is the closer? He claimed the whole coast west of the Gate.
2. What about Kirby Cove? He stumbled a little, but then noticed I was not wearing my license and used the opportunity to change the subject and contest my right to access the beach and ordered me to the curb (although I am pretty sure you only have to wear the license when you are actually fishing - i don’t wear mine in the tackle shop).

Things were getting worse for me, I scrambled to undermine the legitimacy of their actions to stop and hassle me. I informed him of a recent court case in La Jolla regarding public access vs. beach closer for harbor seals. I told him the judge’s proposed solution was playing loud dog barking noises to scare away the seals - ridiculous, but in my favor. He had no idea, but was slightly amused - things were moving back in my direction. I could tell he was not one of the seal people.

I proclaimed that I have paid DFG for the license since the first year I had to buy one and kept on buying them and the additional stamps even after it was exposed DFG had misused the money that was supposed to go toward enhancing habitat. I told him what it looked like, my knowledge of regulations and my tape. One would hope that after the hundreds of dollars I have paid,  it would make sense for DFG to keep track of such things in a machine they call a computer (sending out renewal notice may actually boost revenue, add a little information and you may even educate a few for the price of paper - or be a genius and use email).

My record came back perfectly clear, the tension dropped. I prodded with more questions about access points - no real answers.

He said the ticket was $130 for fishing on a closed beach. At that point, sitting on the ground, pleading my case, I was ready to pay the ticket get out of there without causing myself any more risk of harm. I would find my license and show it to the judge along with all the ones from years past. But the officer was no longer interested in my fishing license (maybe not his jurisdiction) and simply told me not to come back. He then inquired about the other fishermen on the rocks.

At this point I could tell he was attempting to enforce a law he thought to be bogus and was more interested in playing hide and seek, skidding around in our tax payers’ vehicle. To me that is not exemplary professionalism or a wise use if our tax dollars. I wondered about his data entry skills.

By that point the officers got the drift that I may be the kind of guy that could ruin all their fun through an appropriate legal process, so they were ready to move on.

------------------------------------

I have worked for the government. Sometimes bureaucracy make rules that they don’t really expect people to follow. Regulations are deliberately left ambiguous and overly complicated. This allows for another avenue of revenue - the fine. If the average sportsman can not figure out where he is allowed to fish or what species of rockfish is what, or he is told he can’t fish the waters he grew up fishing, a crazy thing happens - people lose respect for the laws.

This is a dangerous situation. When normal people sit around the camp fire and say f**k it, I’m going to fish where I want, how I want, for whatever I want, we are all in trouble. From a policy standpoint, the resource is then much more difficult to manage.

Although I do not believe it  just to close this beach, if you must sign the area correctly to avoid confusion, only two roads lead to B. Point. Try there. Put two big signs with a large color map that indicates where the color is and the laws that make such a closer legitimate. It’s not going to happen, because then someone would challenge the closure and then the cat and mouse fun would end.

---------------------------------

One of the rangers was actually easy going and leaned against the truck and talked to me like a human being. He could handle his job. The contrast of his relaxed facade sparked me to ask if he was a government scientist. He then pulled a badge from under his sweater. He had his hands on his binoculars, and to his credit, did not wear a visible gun. But unfortunately, he just appeared slightly embarrassed at the car skidding and the other officer ordering me to the curb, ready to blast me, doing nothing more than body language to diffuse the situation.

Many occupations exist that people face potential danger from other people - but few wear deadly weapons to work. Lets get real, the law enforcement profession is a choice and a personal sacrifice to put yourself in harms way - I believe guns aggravate situations and would prefer the company of those who fight with their brains and word; Less crossfire that way.

I acknowledge this forum is about fishing - but due to the amount and ferocity of response, I felt compelled to comment further ...

Although I am not sure if the individual officers’ order for me not to come back was by definition criminal, it was for sure not classy and in my opinion, definitely not the kind of message we want those whom have an opportunity to educate the public about laws and regulations to give to the public.

Treat me like a man, give me the ticket if you truly believe my behavior was malicious  - or let me go, inform me of the basis of your actions and show me you believe in your duty. Looking for an easier target may be interpreted as predatory.

Some may think I’m just a punk kid that mouthed off to some real heroes (that’s fine, I am), but where I come from, you stick up for what you believe in. Life is a balance and everyone plays their part. Diversity of thought is the true power of a republic, not a limitation. I thank you all for your thoughtful comments and apologize to those whom lost their cool because of their passion.

-------------------------------

I found a study done by the DOJ that may elude to why so many people feel put off, or even enraged about the use of deadly force and aggressive police procedures:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm#contents

This Department of Justice study on homicides in America gives me a better understanding of the risks of death during an violent interaction with law enforcement.

Nationwide, in 2005, 55 police died as a result of felonious homicide. The same year, Police “justifiably”  killed 343 citizens (I’d assume this # does not include accidental or felonious homicides committed by law enforcement).

So, on average, in a life and death confrontation with police, citizens are more than six times more likely to be killed than the officer - Just numbers.

Good, bad - right and wrong aside, one could make a numbers argument that police are much more likely to kill than be killed in a confrontation with the citizens and people they serve (remember this is America - you are still innocent until proven guilty). From these facts, one could claim that police, when armed like the bad guys, can clearly be very dangerous.

The study did not mention the use of a fishing rod as a weapon ( I think fishing rods were grouped in with other weapons along with dress shoes, chinese fans and oprah) But in all seriousness, what the study does make abundantly evident is the role of guns in homicide here in America.

I believe that the real bad guys can get you no matter what - doesn’t matter if you have a gun, rigid procedures, body armor, or even brains. The right thing to do in an encounter with one of these kinda of people is to run and run for you life and never look back. If I thought the lawman was a really bad guy, intent on wiping me out, I would have run. Where would I be now?

Having encountered one of these really bad guys (not an officer to be very clear) in my life, I have once felt the need to arm and protect myself as a result someone wanting to kill me for no reason. I’m sure police get that feeling from a real bad guy every few months. The experience burns a hole in your brain and all you want to do is never feel that hopeless again. This is fear, and I understand how it can infect thinking. You think you’re doing your best to stay alive - but fear can cloud judgment and get you in trouble. It can turn a nice guy into a guy that is poised to shoot and kill a guy in a park holding a fishing rod and tackle box.

I agree, lawmen have different levels of tolerance with the public - but if the average joe makes you reach for your weapon, please get a different job - one that makes you feel happy and safe again. Plenty of other officers can take the heat, keep a smile, and operate with a solid sense of duty  always serving the pubic with dignity.

Fear is no way to live. Peace, I’m goina go fish.

Good call & action Bill.  Thanks...

I'm gonna kind of miss Judd, his pionts of views were ?...o.k. i won't miss him. Never met or saw him, and i doubt he kayaked or fished anywhere close to here, EVER!  
Goodbye Mr.Smith

and way to come back and type your mind ITSONICE.....FREEDOM!   yeah, right.    

Well Spoken Itsonice...

Good response, Itsonice. It's always good to get both sides of the story.
But I am kinda surprised to hear you didn't have your fishing license during the interaction. And even more surprised you didn't get cited, if that was the case. (And no, its not a valid excuse for rude behavior by the rangers, but it IS a major part of the story which was left out the 1st time)

If I was approached by a state park ranger while fishing in a closed area w/out a license, I would fully expect to receive a fat fine. So I'd be stoked to get off w/just a warning, even if they treated me like a scumbag.
PK

ITSONICE, that was one of the best posts I've read that wasn't a fishing report.

I do feel lucky, I'd have given myself a ticket (maybe). I'd be in trouble too, I have not been able to find it, so now it looks like after all this I'm going to have to buy another one for the last 4 months of the year. I guess that is the cost of speaking my mind about this behavior and not being an outlaw. I still think it would be smart for DFG to keep track of such things though. You are right, I did not mention the my lack of fish id, I will take responsibility for that omission - was still angered at the time of the first post. And yes, my foul does not excuse the officer's actions.  

Nationwide, in 2005, 55 police died as a result of felonious homicide. The same year, Police “justifiably”  killed 343 citizens (I’d assume this # does not include accidental or felonious homicides committed by law enforcement).

So, on average, in a life and death confrontation with police, citizens are more than six times more likely to be killed than the officer - Just numbers.

Good, bad - right and wrong aside, one could make a numbers argument that police are much more likely to kill than be killed in a confrontation with the citizens and people they serve (remember this is America - you are still innocent until proven guilty). From these facts, one could claim that police, when armed like the bad guys, can clearly be very dangerous.

I don't understand your reasoning here.  Police use deadly force with the intent to kill.  I've asked a number of my patients who are policemen, "Why do police have to shoot to kill?  Can't you just injure/disable the person?"  I've always been told that they are trained to only resort to deadly force when the threat of harm to self/others is sufficient high to warrant killing the target. (Of course we all have read about incidents where the judgement to use deadly force is called into question. But that is a separate issue.)  So why wouldn't you expect the overwhelming outcome in deadly force incidents to favor police over targeted victims?

Now, in a police shootout, say in Mexico, you'd expect the numbers to be more equal, but that's because that's evolved into more of a military-type action where the "bad guys" have equal or superior firepower.

Back here, I'd be worried if they guy who is supposed to protect my life had only a fifty-fifty chance of coming out on top in a deadly force encounter.

I'd be worried if they guy who is supposed to protect my life had only a fifty-fifty chance of coming out on top in a deadly force encounter.

worried is an understatement, I'd be f'ing freaked if a guy who has had a whole slew of training with a weapon and the situations on when to use it only had a 50/50 chance...

Marmite, I certainly believe that police should have the right to protect against attack, but believe a more diplomatic style of police procedures would save lives and ease tention all around. And if you look at the study, things are getting better. I was simply saying that guns kill people, I don't think they usually defuse tense situations - but rather aggravate them. I didn't want to really anger people and bring up wrongful death at the hand of law enforcement. People get really angry when people die, and I am the kind of person in the belief that even the really bad guys don't deserve to die, but rather be brought to justice in a trial by their peers. Another problem of killing bad guys is it makes it a lot harder to find out more informantion from a corps.

I'd would perfer law enforcement hold back a little and let the courts and process decide (not perfect either), but maybe less death. I think it would save officers too.

Dr., I don't know where you got your numbers on Mexico. I still travel there frequently (maybe foolish). Just so you know, the police there have machine guns on and drive around with 50 caliber machine guns in the back of their trucks. Look how good it is working for them. You're right, more firepower, more death. I think best way to catch criminals is to outsmart them, not outgun them.