Can anyone point me to the law that says accessing ruins with tech gear is a no-no? I'd like to read what it actually says just to makes certain I don't wander into an illegal situation.
Printable View
Can anyone point me to the law that says accessing ruins with tech gear is a no-no? I'd like to read what it actually says just to makes certain I don't wander into an illegal situation.
Are you searching for loop holes? :)
I hope you're not trying to pull a Dean Potter on us. :nono: :haha:
Anyway:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-20532.pdf
Quote:
No camping in cultural sites; and ropes and other climbing aids not allowed for access to ruins, cultural sites, and nesting raptors.
Also, from the BLM and NPS management plans:
Quote:
Ropes and other climbing aids are not allowed to access ruins or other cultural sites
I'm not looking at doing anything sinister.... here is the deal....
First I was reading Kelsey's book "Canyon Hiking Guide to the Colorado Plateau" (5th edition) and noticed on page 190 he recommends the use of a rope if you want to access what he calls "Hidden Ruins" (better known as "Eagles Nest" from the I.A.E.E. of 1892). I also seem to recall similar recommendations from him in regards to other ruins but don't have exact passages memorized....
Next.... I was talking with anther feller who told me about some "really cool ruins" that required a rope to access. I mentioned that was illegal and he asked me to show him where that was written.... at which point I realized I'm not sure if I had ever actually seen or read the law but that I might just be parroting what I was told by others.
In regards to what Scott posted.... that is heading in the correct direction, but a memo out of context and buried inside an "Environmental Concerns" document is not exactly the official rules and regulations that I was looking for.
Anyhoo.... I'd like to read the actual law for myself to see exactly what it says. Is a log propped up against the cliff (like we all do at times) considered a ladder or climbing equipment? Is a rope used as a safety measure but not actually used to assist access considered climbing equipment? Yes, I know these might be minor details to many, but I explore a lot of ruins and I want to know exactly what the fine prints says. I would also like to make certain that the info I pass along to others is factual and not just parroting some urban legend.
:cool2:
And a little FYI: I've been through both the documents below and could find no mention of accessing ruins with climbing aids.
National Historic Preservation Act
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm
List of regulations that apply to BLM-managed lands
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...43cfrv2_02.tpl
.
Scarfed this from the coinslab deleted thread about "repelling" into ruins.
"taken from this source. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-20532.pdf
Vehicle access, including OHVs/mechanized, limited to designated
routes; unavailable for private/commercial use of woodland products
except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires, driftwood
collection only would be allowed within floodplains; available for
livestock use October 1
As a quick example, I pulled up Montecello's BLM website, did a quick search of their management plan...and the "no ropes" thing is referenced everywhere there is a culteral resource reference.
From their record of decision summary:
"For law enforcement purposes, the Approved RMP also aligns closely with statute, regulation
and policy, such as restricting domestic pets and pack stock from inside important cultural sites,
not allowing ropes or other climbing aids to access a cultural site, not allowing camping in a
cultural site and closing sites when visitation is risking the integrity of a site or has become a
safety hazard."
-Brian in SLC
Iceaxe ~ I can't show you the specific law.....but it is clearly stated here on the "official" Grand Gulch and Cedar Mesa BLM site.
"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
There are numerous cultural sites on the Grand Gulch/Cedar Mesa Plateau. The larger sites in Grand Gulch are marked on the map, but keep your eyes open for smaller less visible sites scattered throughout the canyons. It is unlawful to use climbing equipment to access archeological sites."
http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/monti...archaeological
I know what you are saying....I just had this discussion with some friends of mine. Where is the "cut off" point?? I mean to take it to the "extreme" I have to drive my car to the trailhead to access the ruin...what could be more mechanical than that.
Your reference to what Mr. Kelsey says in his book.....maybe that is one reason why the BLM park rangers despise him so much.
As far as Eagles Nest is concerned.....people have made it in there without a rope.......just make sure your life insurance is paid up.
Everyone on the web I can find.... official and unofficial.... are all using the same cut-n-paste quote:
"It is unlawful to use climbing equipment to access archeological sites."
I've been all over the Monticello BLM website and every other website and government document I can find.... I have only a small doubt that such a law exists, I'd just like to see it....
It would not be the first time that I have seen a government officials, law enforcement or land managers "recommendation" or "policy" be twisted and turned into "internet law" (it's on the internet so it must be true). I would just like to read the law for myself and have a look at the fine print. If such a law exists I'm sure it contains more than the cut-n-paste paraphrase that everyone has posted. Is it a mistermeanor or felony, what are the fines or do you go away to prison and become some big guy named Rocko's bitch?
I'm still hoping someone around here can point me to the actual law. So far I can't find it and no one has been able to point me in the proper direction.
:blahblah:
have you called and asked what you would be cited for if you were caught doing it? that might be the best way to get the actual law instead of the interweb law :ne_nau:
IE what is the exact wording etc.. you should then be able to look it up easily at your local law library...
If you get that I am sure some of us with access to web based law librarys could look it up
I hear ya Iceaxe ~ I have felt the same way. I think it is more of a rule than a law. I have had friends tell me that if they catch you...you don't get arrested or a fine. They say the BLM will just "blacklist" you and you can not get a hiking permit again in there. Again, I do not know if this is true or not...just what someone has told me.
Actually, if you read the BLM site, they also frown on even naming a site when you post a photo of it on the Internet. I wonder is this a "LAW" too?
Many of us have our own feelings about this and I have to say that I have lost many hiking friends for posting my sites. I respect their position.....but it is not one that I share. I do name names.....but not locations. This is "public land" I could go on and on about all this. But in a nutshell....the way I feel about it is....if someone was to ask me for directions to a bank here in town and I gave it to them, then they go and rob it. IT IS NOT MY FAULT! Same goes for the ruins. I cannot be responsible for everyone in the world who may be dishonest. I know the argument.....the banks have security guards and ruins do not. I also know that this is not practical for the BLM and they are trying (like all of us) to keep these ruins from being damaged. It is very hard for me to believe this ...when I have seen more cows knocking down ruin walls (scratching their backs) than I have seen damage by honest visitors to the sites. So....just some thoughts on all this. The debate "rages" on.
And you are right.....blah, blah, blah :blahblah:
I believe its a law, and, the penalties are as outlined below.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Try United States Code, Title 16, Chapter 1B. See section 470ee for criminal penalties.
Took me something like 5 seconds on the 'net to find this....and I don't have "mad skillz, yo".
-Brian in SLC
16 U.S.C. 470ee(d),
Penalities
(d) Any person who knowingly violates, or counsels, procures,
solicits, or employs any other person to violate, any
prohibition contained in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this
section shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than
$10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both:
Provided, however, That if the commercial or archaeological
value of the archaeological resources involved and the
cost of restoration and repair of such resources exceeds
the sum of $500, such person shall be fined not more than
$20,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. In
the case of a second or subsequent such violation upon conviction
such person shall be fined not more than $100,000,
or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
from my quick purusal these are the penalties for damaging said sites, or taking thing from them not for using technical gear to visit themQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
I believe (or did believe) it is also.... I just can't prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Basically that is the penalty for grave robbers and has little or nothing to do with visiting a site. You could even make the argument that visiting the site from above is actually more environmentally friendly that hiking in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
I understand the law on pot hunting/grave robbing, and it
And the more I research this the more I think there is no actual law and this is more an internet legend...... I keep finding this more akin to the rumor that you must take a sobriety test if requested by a police office if they think you are DUI. It sounds like a good law, it makes sense, the police do nothing to dispell the rumor as it makes their job much easier.... But in the end, you can refuse the test and there is no law against that.
Fine Print: Yes I'm against drinking and driving and there are some other ramifications to refusing to take the test. But bottom line, you are way ahead of the game to respectfully refuse the test and ask for your lawyer if you have been stopped for a DUI and think you might be guilty. The part I find similar between the two items is that you have a major advantage in actually knowing the law and not just going by what you are told/read/heard.....
.
My bet is this is how it kinda works. Congress passes a law, giving the land manager the responsibility for, say, in this case, protecting culteral resources. Land manager crafts the management plan which outlines how they protect the culteral resource. The US code would define the outline for penalties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
So, they have a rule, regulation, whatever you want to call it that says no using a rope to rappel into a ruin. You get caught, they site that rule and the penalty would be referenced to the code? Probably a huge amount of wiggle room here for the law enforcement guys. If you bummed them out, they could toss the book at you. If you were super nice, maybe gave them a stale donut or some such, they'd give you a verbal warning.
My thinking is that they have a regulation that says no climbing aids, including ropes, to access ruins. That way they are protecting the resource, just like they're supposed to. You get caught, get a ticket, you take it to court with your fancy lawyer and argue that you didn't damage the resource. But, the BLM has photo's of your rappelling in an accidently caving in a wall. You go to jail and pay a huge fine.
Sure, just like trespassing. You get caught, and, as long as you didn't damage the property or cause the landowner any financial loss, they maybe toss the case if it got as far as a judge/jury (like they did in the trial I pulled jury duty on).
My take is that it is pretty clear that rappelling into a ruin is illegal. They're are regulations in the management plans and there's a reference available for penalty. At least I know it won't cost me more than 10k and a year in the clink.
The whole process is pretty interesting, though.
My bet is your good friends over at SUWA probably have a law guy or two that knows how all this stuff kinda works. Maybe if I run into one of them skiing in the next week or two I'll remember to ask...
-Brian in SLC
Mod Note: The stuff below is where the stupid moderator screwed up Brians orginal postQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
From Iceaxe:
I knew this would grow, which is why I put it in it's own post.... so I can slice it out if it continues.... but....
Killpack screwed up by not refusing the field sobriety test.... which provides the judge a reason to issue a warrant.... yada, yada.... I'm not a lawyer...
But one of the best DUI attorney's in Utah issues these guide lines if pulled over and you have been drinking....
Guide for Drivers Stopped for DUI in Utah
1. Do not answer any questions other than name and address. Ask for your lawyer immediately.
2. Do not agree to perform roadside tests.
3. Do not agree to have your eyes tested.
4. Do not agree to blow into a handheld breath tester.
5. Do NOT consent to a breath or blood test, if you are asked to take one, if you have been drinking.
6.Be polite. Produce requested documents.
Call: your attorney
Glen W. Neeley, Attorney at Law, P.C.
801-612-1511
If you follow those guidelines you will not end up with a DUI. You will end up losing your licence for 90 days, probably a smaller diving offense on your record, but if you are DUI you are going to lose it for longer then 90 days anyways.... I was also told that if you are asked to take the field sobriety test you are already presumed guilty.... from that point on they are just gathering evidence to use against you later.
:friday:
Just remember.. even if you are not drunk and refuse to take the breathalyzer they can suspend your license just because you refused.. and even if you go to court and win.. you still have no license.. it all has to do with that evil thing that driving is a privilege not a right so they can take away said privilege for failing to comply.. but no you do not have to take the test :)Quote:
Fine Print: Yes I'm against drinking and driving and there are some other ramifications to refusing to take the test. But bottom line, you are way ahead of the game to respectfully refuse the test and ask for your lawyer if you have been stopped for a DUI and think you might be guilty. The part I find similar between the two items is that you have a major advantage in actually knowing the law and not just going by what you are told/read/heard.....
back to ruins..
I don't think the blm, FS etc can just create a regulation and say.. we will use these penalties.. there has to be a law somewhere..
I'm beginning to think this "It is unlawful to use climbing equipment to access archeological sites" might be more along the lines of a conversation I had with the Zion Rangers in regards to canyoneering Kolob. I mentioned to the Zion rangers that since Kolob Creek was also the park boundary I didn't need a permit so long as I stayed on the north side of the creek. At which point Ranger Ray politely informed me that if I tried it he would issue me a ticket and I could argue the finer points before a judge.
:popcorn:
Shane, you screwed up my post (!).
But, wow, that's pretty interesting. So, you refuse. "Sorry ossifer, I don't want to take any test right now."
Here's where I think that law is (back to the US Code):Quote:
Originally Posted by TooeleCherokee
**************
TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 1B >
Dang.... I'm sorry about that.... the quote and edit button here on my master control panel are right next to each other.... and if I push quote really fast while moving my curser across it sometimes snags edit. To make matters worse the quote and edit screen look exactly the same when they pop up.... It's not the first post I've messed up accidently and It will not be the last....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Or we can just go with.... Stupid Moderator....
.
I agree they are probably using the Archaeological Resource Protection laws. It's just not what I expected to find when I first started looking for an answer.
And for your other question.....
Yeah.... if you want a good understanding of a DUI read this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
http://www.utah-dui.com/
Lots of really interesting information. Fun to read... particularly the Survival Tips.
.
I have defended hundreds of DUI's and I have yet to see one person follow the advice of Mr. Neeley. Just doesn't happen. See, the beer convinces people that they can pass the tests and that they will get out of there faster. Nope. What usually happens is that the suspect does the field tests, realizes he is in trouble and then refused the breath/blood tests. At that point, that is just about the worst thing to do. Then the prosecutor will use the argument to the jury that "if he wasn't guilty, then why didn't he take the test." Nail in the coffin. Field sobriety tests are enough to convict particularly if there is a driving error or pattern. BTW, all the driver's license penalties have just changed. I will try to post them if anyone is interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Scott, I'd be interest in knowing the law.... what originally led to my research on DUI was I pulled out of a restaurant after dinner with the wife and a cop pulled me over for not using my turn signal. First question the cop asked was "have you been drinking".....Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Card
This lead me to an instant realization.... and a quandary.... correct answer would have been "yes, I had ONE beer with dinner", but I figured that is also the same answer every DUI in town used and I didn't feel like doing a sobriety test on the side of the road and I also surmised that I didn't need to volunteer information. So I answered "we just had dinner", which was the truth and dodged the actual question.....
Anyhoo.... no harm, no foul, the cop just told me to start using my signals and let me go.... But the next day I called a lawyer buddy and asked how I should have answered the question. He pointed me to Neeley's survival tips page....
I also find the games the cops play (with all crimes) very intriguing..... it reminds me of what a crooked used car salesmen once told me..... "You buy maybe 10 cars in your life, I sell 10 cars every week. Who do you think has the upper hand in any deals we make?"
:cool2:
from 47 CFR
Sec. 7.4 Prohibited acts and criminal penalties.
(a) Under section 6(a) of the Act, no person may excavate, remove,
damage, or otherwise alter or deface, or attempt to excavate, remove,
damage, or otherwise alter or deface any archaeological resource located
on public lands or Indian lands unless such activity is pursuant to a
permit issued under Sec. 7.8 or exempted by Sec. 7.5(b) of this part.
Sec. 7.31 Scope and authority.
The regulations in this subpart are promulgated pursuant to section
10(b) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C.
470ii), which requires agencies to develop rules and regulations for
carrying out the purposes of the Act, consistent with the uniform
regulations issued pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act (subpart A of
this part).
----
So BLM or the Park Service has the authority to develop a rule that would protect an archaeological resource. A rule might be no climbing into such sites. It's not a reg so you won't find in the CFRs but the regs provide the agency the authority to establish the rule to further the protection of the resources. So if you break the rule, you break the law. Then again I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
as in India?Quote:
Originally Posted by erial
"The American police are involved in psychological warfare against those Americans who don't frighten them with imposing papers and threats." -Jack KerouacQuote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Last time I was pulled over it was because my bike rack was partially obscuring my license plate. When Officer Percival said he could smell alcohol on my breath I reminded him that saying so was SOP for anybody that was chewing gum when they were pulled over. He looked at me like I had just shot his dog.
http://www.bia.gov/Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I had an experience near the Dry Fork TH on Hole in the Rock road. I saw a couple college age kids moving the "No Camping" signpost a couple hundred yards farther out from the TH! (This eliminates a few great camping spots)....When they were finishing I asked who they were. USU students was the reply, they were intern's for SUWA or some such, had not ties to the BLM or any other presiding authority in the area. They were in charge of some study, and unilaterally decided it would be wise to move the blasted sign!.....There's moron's that ruin the ruines ;) but there's some out of control activists out there that will do anything without authority.....
Another experience: BLM had a ORV usage in the west desert years back. The girl that conducted that study, sited bald eagle nests as reason for trail closure recommendation at a handful of areas where there are no eagle nests. When called on it by multiple rancher's and trailrider's, she admitted to her supervisor that she hadn't actually seen the nests, but had been told there were some.
ORV usage meeting years back
I also love that our tax $$'s paid for a huge FBI sting that collared a bunch of 70-80 y/o Blanding residents for possessing artifacts that they've had for years!....That said, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on theifs, and vandals that are ruining protected lands now!