This is going to be long, but everyone likes a trainwreck and there's tons of lessons to be learned from this.
I'll start with a few general thread inquiries I made after being ticketed for failing to use snowshoes on April 6, 2008.
Snowshoe regulations in other Parks thread.
ECO and Ranger arrest powers thread.
__________________________
Preface:
On April 6, 2008 at 3PM Valerie and I returned to our vehilce after summiting Algonquin on a warm, sunny early Srping day. There was still snow and ice everywhere. The trails were rock solid and at no time that day did we use, or feel the need to use, the snowshoes we carried all the way up and down the mountain. The only post holing that occurred was off the trail and in a small stretch near treeline where snow drifts likely formed and had started to rot (this was only for a few hundred feet of the 4 miles). We actually did not post hole that particular day even on this rotten section.
Valerie went inside to use the restrooms and as I moved my vehicle closer to the door of the ADK visitor's center Ranger Giglinto approached my vehicle. He proceeded to inform me of the regulations to wear snowshoes (we carried but decided to wear our crampons that day, all the way to the parking lot). I explained that I chose to wear my crampons for personal safety reasons and that we had not post-holed a single time that day. After some brief discussion I could see that this was not going to be going anywhere (the Ranger seemed convinced that I had committed some wrong) and I proceeded to inform the Ranger that I didn't wish to discuss this any further. It was at this time he asked for my identification.
This brings us to the reason I posted the topic on ECOs and Ranger arresting rights. Twice I scanned Ranger Giglinto for a sidearm and saw none, and they don't exactly dress like state troopers (sorry to say their uniform looks more like the boyscouts to this untrained eye). I was resistent and eventually outright defiant to provide my credentials to someone I did not know had the authority to request them. Of course since this time I have done my homework and discussed the situation with Ranger Giglinto, but at the time I did my best to give him every opportunity to diffuse and walk away from an escalating situation. After I rolled up my window and proceeded to pick out the next CD for the drive home he moved his vehicle in front of mine, essentially blocking all traffic to most of the main ADK visitor's center lot. There it sat for quite a while as I would presume he stewed about what he was going to do next with this, what I heard him describe me to a passerby, "guy with an attitude".
If I didn't really believe I hadn't done anything wrong and had I known that the Ranger was essentially an underdressed State Trooper things may have turned out different. But it was now at the point where I was willing to go to jail for not wearing my snowshoes if it meant that no one else would ever have to go through what I was at that moment in time (pending the inevitible litigation resulting from this incident). It should also be noted that I never raised my voice or used derogatory language, and neither did Ranger Giglinto.
Valerie returned to the car, spoke briefly with the Ranger who proceeded to go inside the Visitor's center, and convinced me to fight the battle another day. I went inside, told the Ranger that my license was in the glove box, that I had no interest in speaking with him any further, and proceeded to purchase a much needed beverage.
While issuing the ticket Ranger Giglinto expained that my failure to comply with the request of an Officer was a misdemeanor and that I was 'lucky' to only be receiving the ticket for the failure to wear snowshoes. My contention to the evolution of the events of this day was that if Ranger Giglinto had exercised more open mindedness and less "by the book" enforcement and heard what I was saying, he might have realized he wasn't scolding a novice in need of a lesson, but rather a regular hiker who had proper experience and judgement to make safety decisions for himself. I was clear to explain that my position had not changed, that my problem was with the situation and the enforcement of the regulation in a manner I did not feel was correct. When he used the phrase "I could have dragged you out of your vehicle" I knew I was dealing with someone who was, like myself, having a bad day (my knee was sore after the hike). If not wearing snowshoes can ever justify physical violence against another human being, then that regualtion needs to be addressed. Even the threat of physcial violence stemming from a situation wear someone is not wearing snowshoes still feels out of place to me.
This confrontation lasted about 30 minutes.
FWIW, valerie was not ticketed despite engaging in the exact same behavior.
___________________________
Court appearance:
May 5, 2008 was my court date in the people versus Kevin Heckeler. The charge was "failure to use snowshoes", 6NY 190.13 Officer (Ranger) was James Giglinto.
The above story was retold in a more abbreviated manner, leaving out much of the ugliness between myself and Ranger Giglinto. [though it's worth noting that he tried to paint me in an unfavorable light on more than one time during the trail, which eventually stopped by direction of the judge who requested he/we stick to the facts of the case]
I provided the judge with 3 printouts from the DEC website that clearly indicated that the use of crampons and other traction devices was encouraged when appropriate. I also provided a copy of the existing regulation:
"vii. fail to possess and use skis or snowshoes when the terrain is snow-covered with eight or more inches of snow;" Link
My argument was that, based on the letter of the law, no other traction devices could be worn at any time when there's 8 inches or more of snow. I used the example of being on 3 feet of snow with 2 inches of ice on top of it while climbing Algonquin. The regulation would mean that I MUST use snowshoes because there is more than 8" of snow. But contrary to this, the DEC website says otherwise. In that scenerio one would use crampons because the conditions warranty, and the heavy ice coat will prevent post holing.
I went on further to explain that the spirit of the regulation, as explained to me by the DEC, was to prevent post-holing. So if someone is not post-holing they cannot be fined since they're not in violation of the spirit of the regulation.
Ranger Giglinto provided a picture of a ruler in 10" of snow a week after the ticket was issued, 2 pictures of the signs at the trailhead that say "Snowshoes must be worn not carried" (or something to that effect), and one of the pictures on my website from that day.
I ended up using this picture in my favor to demonstrate to the judge that even in the lower elevations, where it was taken, nowhere on that trail in that picture were there any post-holes despite obvious tracks that indicated most people that had traveled it recently were not wearing snowshoes.
The judges decision was base don the term "possess" in the regulation. To "use" something already implies that you possess it (how can you use what you do not have?) and that the intet of the regulation includes "possess" for a particular reason. Because I possessed my snowshoes, and likely in light of the evidence that I was not damaging the trail through use of other means of traction, the judge dismissed the case.
___________________________
Immediately after the trial I asked to speak with Ranger Giglinto outside. I apologized for my behavior on April 6th, explained that I did partly act in a resistant manner because I was not sure of his authority, and that I consider myself a friend of the DEC and even volunteer to help to lighten their workload. I went on further to explain that I was not in the best of moods and that also partly contributed to my defiant attitude that day. I assured him that in the future that any requests made by him (or any Officer) would be complied with fully. The discussion ended in a hand shake. I have no intentions of pursuing any complain with the DEC regarding his part in the confrontation that day as I am partly to blame for how things transpired.
___________________________
It is not my intent that the snowshoe regulation be abolished. As a frequent winter hiker I know the value of keeping the trails in as good a condition as we can. I have taken several tumbles as a result of someone punching through and leaving a hole in the trail, and it's usually a result of someone not wearing their snowshoes. But the regulation in its current form is incomplete. That is - unless the DEC wants the regulation to mean what it currently means - which is that no one should wear crampons or stabilicers, ever, under any circumstances. Considering also that I cannot find another Park (State or National) that has a similar regulation on the books, might indicate that the attempt to do good by it may be removing from the hiker/climber an important safety measure without being fined for it. The other agencies may have reviewed the same pros and cons and realized what may be becoming more evident now. Or maybe the DEC is so forward thinking other State and Federal agencies will follow their lead.
And I'm out $30 in gas and 6 hours of my time.
I'll start with a few general thread inquiries I made after being ticketed for failing to use snowshoes on April 6, 2008.
Snowshoe regulations in other Parks thread.
ECO and Ranger arrest powers thread.
__________________________
Preface:
On April 6, 2008 at 3PM Valerie and I returned to our vehilce after summiting Algonquin on a warm, sunny early Srping day. There was still snow and ice everywhere. The trails were rock solid and at no time that day did we use, or feel the need to use, the snowshoes we carried all the way up and down the mountain. The only post holing that occurred was off the trail and in a small stretch near treeline where snow drifts likely formed and had started to rot (this was only for a few hundred feet of the 4 miles). We actually did not post hole that particular day even on this rotten section.
Valerie went inside to use the restrooms and as I moved my vehicle closer to the door of the ADK visitor's center Ranger Giglinto approached my vehicle. He proceeded to inform me of the regulations to wear snowshoes (we carried but decided to wear our crampons that day, all the way to the parking lot). I explained that I chose to wear my crampons for personal safety reasons and that we had not post-holed a single time that day. After some brief discussion I could see that this was not going to be going anywhere (the Ranger seemed convinced that I had committed some wrong) and I proceeded to inform the Ranger that I didn't wish to discuss this any further. It was at this time he asked for my identification.
This brings us to the reason I posted the topic on ECOs and Ranger arresting rights. Twice I scanned Ranger Giglinto for a sidearm and saw none, and they don't exactly dress like state troopers (sorry to say their uniform looks more like the boyscouts to this untrained eye). I was resistent and eventually outright defiant to provide my credentials to someone I did not know had the authority to request them. Of course since this time I have done my homework and discussed the situation with Ranger Giglinto, but at the time I did my best to give him every opportunity to diffuse and walk away from an escalating situation. After I rolled up my window and proceeded to pick out the next CD for the drive home he moved his vehicle in front of mine, essentially blocking all traffic to most of the main ADK visitor's center lot. There it sat for quite a while as I would presume he stewed about what he was going to do next with this, what I heard him describe me to a passerby, "guy with an attitude".
If I didn't really believe I hadn't done anything wrong and had I known that the Ranger was essentially an underdressed State Trooper things may have turned out different. But it was now at the point where I was willing to go to jail for not wearing my snowshoes if it meant that no one else would ever have to go through what I was at that moment in time (pending the inevitible litigation resulting from this incident). It should also be noted that I never raised my voice or used derogatory language, and neither did Ranger Giglinto.
Valerie returned to the car, spoke briefly with the Ranger who proceeded to go inside the Visitor's center, and convinced me to fight the battle another day. I went inside, told the Ranger that my license was in the glove box, that I had no interest in speaking with him any further, and proceeded to purchase a much needed beverage.
While issuing the ticket Ranger Giglinto expained that my failure to comply with the request of an Officer was a misdemeanor and that I was 'lucky' to only be receiving the ticket for the failure to wear snowshoes. My contention to the evolution of the events of this day was that if Ranger Giglinto had exercised more open mindedness and less "by the book" enforcement and heard what I was saying, he might have realized he wasn't scolding a novice in need of a lesson, but rather a regular hiker who had proper experience and judgement to make safety decisions for himself. I was clear to explain that my position had not changed, that my problem was with the situation and the enforcement of the regulation in a manner I did not feel was correct. When he used the phrase "I could have dragged you out of your vehicle" I knew I was dealing with someone who was, like myself, having a bad day (my knee was sore after the hike). If not wearing snowshoes can ever justify physical violence against another human being, then that regualtion needs to be addressed. Even the threat of physcial violence stemming from a situation wear someone is not wearing snowshoes still feels out of place to me.
This confrontation lasted about 30 minutes.
FWIW, valerie was not ticketed despite engaging in the exact same behavior.
___________________________
Court appearance:
May 5, 2008 was my court date in the people versus Kevin Heckeler. The charge was "failure to use snowshoes", 6NY 190.13 Officer (Ranger) was James Giglinto.
The above story was retold in a more abbreviated manner, leaving out much of the ugliness between myself and Ranger Giglinto. [though it's worth noting that he tried to paint me in an unfavorable light on more than one time during the trail, which eventually stopped by direction of the judge who requested he/we stick to the facts of the case]
I provided the judge with 3 printouts from the DEC website that clearly indicated that the use of crampons and other traction devices was encouraged when appropriate. I also provided a copy of the existing regulation:
"vii. fail to possess and use skis or snowshoes when the terrain is snow-covered with eight or more inches of snow;" Link
My argument was that, based on the letter of the law, no other traction devices could be worn at any time when there's 8 inches or more of snow. I used the example of being on 3 feet of snow with 2 inches of ice on top of it while climbing Algonquin. The regulation would mean that I MUST use snowshoes because there is more than 8" of snow. But contrary to this, the DEC website says otherwise. In that scenerio one would use crampons because the conditions warranty, and the heavy ice coat will prevent post holing.
I went on further to explain that the spirit of the regulation, as explained to me by the DEC, was to prevent post-holing. So if someone is not post-holing they cannot be fined since they're not in violation of the spirit of the regulation.
Ranger Giglinto provided a picture of a ruler in 10" of snow a week after the ticket was issued, 2 pictures of the signs at the trailhead that say "Snowshoes must be worn not carried" (or something to that effect), and one of the pictures on my website from that day.
I ended up using this picture in my favor to demonstrate to the judge that even in the lower elevations, where it was taken, nowhere on that trail in that picture were there any post-holes despite obvious tracks that indicated most people that had traveled it recently were not wearing snowshoes.
The judges decision was base don the term "possess" in the regulation. To "use" something already implies that you possess it (how can you use what you do not have?) and that the intet of the regulation includes "possess" for a particular reason. Because I possessed my snowshoes, and likely in light of the evidence that I was not damaging the trail through use of other means of traction, the judge dismissed the case.
___________________________
Immediately after the trial I asked to speak with Ranger Giglinto outside. I apologized for my behavior on April 6th, explained that I did partly act in a resistant manner because I was not sure of his authority, and that I consider myself a friend of the DEC and even volunteer to help to lighten their workload. I went on further to explain that I was not in the best of moods and that also partly contributed to my defiant attitude that day. I assured him that in the future that any requests made by him (or any Officer) would be complied with fully. The discussion ended in a hand shake. I have no intentions of pursuing any complain with the DEC regarding his part in the confrontation that day as I am partly to blame for how things transpired.
___________________________
It is not my intent that the snowshoe regulation be abolished. As a frequent winter hiker I know the value of keeping the trails in as good a condition as we can. I have taken several tumbles as a result of someone punching through and leaving a hole in the trail, and it's usually a result of someone not wearing their snowshoes. But the regulation in its current form is incomplete. That is - unless the DEC wants the regulation to mean what it currently means - which is that no one should wear crampons or stabilicers, ever, under any circumstances. Considering also that I cannot find another Park (State or National) that has a similar regulation on the books, might indicate that the attempt to do good by it may be removing from the hiker/climber an important safety measure without being fined for it. The other agencies may have reviewed the same pros and cons and realized what may be becoming more evident now. Or maybe the DEC is so forward thinking other State and Federal agencies will follow their lead.
And I'm out $30 in gas and 6 hours of my time.
Comment