Wider net cast for boozing on water - Page 4 - Mountain Buzz
 



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-06-2008   #31
 
denver, Colorado
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 29
I for one am outraged!!
One of your personal freedoms was just taken away folks...
SNAP OUT OF IT!!
Stop being so complacent "...just be cool...keep it on the down low..."
This is America!! What happenned to stand up and fight for what you believe in.
Last time I checked, we call this place the Land of the Free
Well, everyday it seems to be getting less and less Free
Yessir, the good old days when we used to be able to take a cooler on the river and people acted responsibility. Thing is...the good ole days were last weekend and people were still acting responsibly.

"It would seem the new regulations are not that onerous. They may be common sense. To be enforced after something occurs."
ARE WE ALL OUT OF OUR MINDS?? Yea, let's outlaw everything and leave it up to the cops to decide...you can't be serious.
(sorry Durangotang...i'm sure your intentions were in the right place)

I'm sorry folks, but I had to say something
There is no way that having an ice cold beer on a hot day on a cool river can be a threat to public safety or the greater good.
They try to rope you into submission with the alcohol is bad thing...you must need alcohol to have fun...how sad and pathetic...
wake up!! This has nothing to do with unhealthy/excessive/reckless substance abuse...it has to do with freedom. At some point, it might be nice to be free enough to enjoy that icy beer after reeling in a trophy trout or popping some bubbly on an anniversary trip.
Sure, they might not enforce it right now, but I don't ever want them to.
what's next...we can't boat at all...for fear 'something' might happen.
Fear is an irrational reaction to something that hasn't happenned yet.

mlmercer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008   #32
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7
Good point Matt J, but remember in a DUI you give your expressed consent to a blood or breath test when you sign your drivers license. When kayaking or rafting I have signed nothing expressing my consent to submit to these tests.

Remember, while driving and in this case boating, a portable breathalyzer and roadside motor skill tests are completely voluntary. They are only used to establish probable cause. Only a blood test or a certified breathalyzer in a cop shop can be used to determine BAC as far as the courts are concerned.

In a DUI, if you refuse all tests they suspend your license for one year. While boating what can they suspend? Besides, who carries ID on them when they are boating? I know I don't.

If I were on a jury I know I would not be able to convict somone of a BUI if there were no chemical test proving that their BAC was .08 or higher. I certintaly wouldn't want to be the test case, but, I would think your chances would be pretty good of beating the charge if you refused all tests. Especially on miltiday trips where I do the majority of my boozing. Yee haw!
JustinCider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008   #33
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18
The two legislative sponsors are named below. They have written a sloppy law and deserve to be hammered in the same we all are about to be hammered by the police.
If you live near Boulder or Summit County, please send a reasoned email, stating why jet skis are different from river-powered soft rubbery inflatables. How one law applies to both is unimaginable.
Striking how Boulder is out front on this one. So yes, it is safe to say that tubes are a large part of this.
Rep Tupa: you just became no more than a lowly tax collector.
Needless to say, don't vote for these people. They have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic freedom and liberty. This is a deal breaker.

RON TUPA
Colorado State Senator, District 18 (Boulder, Gunbarrel, Niwot, parts of Longmont)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4872
E-Mail: ron.tupa.senate@state.co.us

DAN GIBBS
Colorado State Senator, District 16 (Silverthorne)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4873
E-mail: dan.gibbs.senate@state.co.us

Gibbs & Tupa Pass Bill Decreasing
Legal Alcohol Limit for Boaters

DENVER—Today the Senate Transportation Committee passed Senate Bill 159, which would improve public safety on Colorado’s waters by lowering the legal limit for blood alcohol content (BAC) from 0.10 to 0.08 for boat operators.

Sponsored by Senators Dan Gibbs (D-Silverthorne) and Ron Tupa (D-Boulder), the bill stipulates that boaters above the .08 threshold would be charged with boating under the influence. The bill also expands boating under the influence to include all vessels, not just motorboats or sailboats.

“Drunk boating is as serious an issue as drunk driving, and just as dangerous,” Tupa said. “Senate Bill 159 will help ensure public safety on Colorado waterways by applying the same blood alcohol content limit for boats as we have for cars and motorcycles.”

“I’m happy to see this bill pass unanimously out of committee today,” said Gibbs. “This bill will help reduce instances of dangerous activity so that Coloradans can safely enjoy our state’s beautiful lakes and rivers.”

The penalty for operating a motorboat or sailboat under the influence would include a mandatory five days in jail and up to one year in county jail. Additionally, lawbreakers could face fines between $200 to $1,000 as well as community service.

In 2007, there were 27 reported cases of boating under the influence. Currently, 36 other states have similar regulations for boating.

The bill next moves to the full Senate for consideration.
Jon-O is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008   #34
 
ski_kayak365's Avatar
 
Mountains on the river!!!, Idaho
Paddling Since: 2002
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 702
Count...day two on cat wont matter since its Utah law and also NPS rules, which I'm not sure on.

Dave...Utah rules..from what I understand after spending enough time in Junction is that its illegal to bring anything over 3.2 into Utah in the first place. Not that it has stopped us. The rules I was told, was drinking is NOT legal on the water, ONLY when you are on shore in Utah. That was our rules at the school for Outdoor Program trips.


As for the rest, it seems a dumb law. Granted I have seen trips where people are so drunk they are falling off rafts, getting second degree sunburns from passing out, ect..but that should be our responsibility as boaters to take care of our selfs and friends.

From that article though, most of it seemed to relay to lake use. Watch out for the rangers on Ruby Horsethief, they seem to find a reason to ticket people for any reason, this just adds on.
ski_kayak365 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008   #35
 
Matt J's Avatar
 
Leadvillian, Colorado
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlmercer View Post
I for one am outraged!!
One of your personal freedoms was just taken away folks...
SNAP OUT OF IT!!
Stop being so complacent
Perhaps your anxiety over loss of personal freedoms would be better focused on the the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.


American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law
Matt J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008   #36
 
Boulder, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2000
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 96
Send a message via AIM to david23
I think it's silly that this applies to river vessels. It all comes down to personal responsibility. When people start getting ticketed for paddling after a few beers, we're fucked. This could lead to us being ticketed for endangering ourselves by dropping a 25 footer or intentionally entering a powerful hydraulic (read: playboating).

On the other hand, it's about time they crack down on people motorboating under the influence (all Wedding Crasher jokes go here). Seriously though. I had a buddy that was being pulled in an inner tube up at Reudi reservoir when a drunk boater ran over his rope, between him and his boat. That's unbelievable.
david23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008   #37
 
denver, Colorado
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 29
Believe me. I'm very outraged by the FISA issue, but that's a subject for another forum.
mlmercer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008   #38
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18
Alright. Here is my letter that will be sent to Tupa and Gibbs later today. I may drop the second graph because there is legal carve out excluding 'single chamber vessels,' yet I have every suspicion this will be lost on cops. Feel free to let me know of any edits. And feel free to cut and paste for your own letter.

Rep Tupa:
There is considerable debate among the rafting community on the new BUI law which took effect yesterday and was sponsored by you and Senator Gibbs. Some, including myself, feel this is poor legislation because it casts an overly broad net over boating activities that have virtually no relation to one another. In this case it is jet skiing and rafting. One vessel is hard and fast, the other soft and slow. The law is appropriate for jet skis, which have a propensity to hurt others, while inappropriate for rafts which are often powered by a sole operator and have yet to claim an injury of a second uninvolved party. In short, injuries are unheard of when one is 'run down' by a raft operator. And there is no use for a law that protects oneself from oneself only.

Alternatively, there is healthy criticism that this law serves the purpose of providing extra revenue for certain jurisdictions, such as on Boulder Creek, in connection with tubing. I hope we can agree that this is not a good reason for writing law. Moreover, if tubing is the issue, then why have you included rafters?
There is some consensus that enforcement of this law will result in a court challenge. Before the river community gets too uptight about this issue, I invite you to explain the reasoning applied to this law and its relation to rafting. Please offer re-assurances that a solo rafter on, say, the upper Colorado class II (replete with authorized PFD, throw rope and other safety equipment) will not be cited for exceeding the consumption of one beer.
Proponents of the ambiguous concept of 'safety' have run amok in this legislation. The law prioritizes state interest (citation revenue) over public interest, such as the right to enjoy certain freedoms absent harm on others. Colorado rafters, including myself, believe this would not be difficult to challenge in court using a few simple statistics.
We look forward to your response.
Jon-O is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008   #39
sj
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 498
Jeez notice how the 2 inciters here are on their 2nd and 3rd post. Hmmm. Are they just board buzzards or more. I mean we all know Law Enforcement has people who work the web. Admin? Not one for conspiricy theories but something here is amiss. sj
sj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2008   #40
 
mr. compassionate's Avatar
 
conifer, Colorado
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 941
Imagine that, 2 democrats involved.
mr. compassionate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NEW interview on KAYAKSURF.NET kayaksurf Whitewater Kayaking 0 06-22-2007 10:37 AM
Please!!!Cast Your Party Vote - How Does The Buzz Swing? TimWalker The Eddy 28 10-12-2006 11:07 AM
www.fibark.net Ken Vanatta Whitewater Kayaking 0 03-22-2005 07:11 PM
fibark.net updated... Mike Harvey Whitewater Kayaking 1 04-11-2004 10:45 PM

» Classified Ads
Wavesport Fuse 56...

posted by SummitSurfer

Wavesport Fuse 56 "Medium" barely used in great condition. ...

Fluid Flirt (med)

posted by dlanci

Medium Fluid Flirt. Bought brand new in 2007. Great river...

Jackson 4Fun

posted by peterholcombe

Jackson Kayak 4fun. A great all around river running kayak....

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.