Whatever you do, don't ride bikes in the Grand Canyon as these guys found out.
http://www.bikingbis.com/blog/_archi...2/2775982.html
:eek:
Whatever you do, don't ride bikes in the Grand Canyon as these guys found out.
http://www.bikingbis.com/blog/_archi...2/2775982.html
:eek:
the 5 years ban sounds very very unfair and the jail sounds a bit much too. I don't know why they didn't just get a ticket/fine.
Duh! if you really need to do something illegal at least don't take photos and brag about it on the internet......
Yes, the punishment is hefty, but I can also see the feds wanting to send a STRONG message to those who may be "inspired" by these three. I cannot even imagine going on those trails on a bike, with the steep drops and switchbacks. . .
Tha rangers in GCNP don't fool around. Most stories I know regard river trips through the Grand Canyon, but they are just as amazing. Try to catch up with your party after lauch - jail time. Misdemeanor drug possession - entire trip cancelled, etc. Not that the perpetrators don't deserve some sort of punishment, but often the punishent affects people who are not guilty or involved in the crime.
If the US government put this kind of effort and attention into any number of national problems, we might actually move forward on an issue or two. How about corporate crime....
sarah
As a hiker who did the Grand Canyon rim-to-river and back hike last May, I am glad their punishment was not just a hand slap (though I do agree that it was probably overly harsh -- jail time was not really necessary to make a point). I also ride mountain bikes, but riding peds-only trails and breaking rules in national parks is something that makes all cyclists look bad. Yes, Bikes Belong, but not in the Grand Canyon.
Emily
So these boys perhaps could have hurt themselves. Ok, they should have been fined but jail time? Come on!!! There are way worse crimes that go unpunished every day...:mad:
Having hiked the Canyon, and worked in the Canyon, 48 hrs in jail and a lovely donation to the SAR fund, plus the posting on the internet the punishment seems fair. There is NO place on the trails for hikers and bikers in the canyon, and in most places if you take much more than a light tumble, you're dead. They were probably told when they entered the Park the rules and they chose to break them. The two wider, and heavily used trails also have the mule trains. Mules, hikers, bikes, not a good mix. And the mules have the right-of-way.
Backcountry rescues are pretty dang expensive. I do definitely agree with the fine they had to pay to search and rescue.
Any of you EMT trained folks relish the thought of packing a biker/hiker collision victim (or a plain ol' bike vs. gravity victim) on a backboard to an accessible point in Grand Canyon?
Yowza!
(and if anyone's never been there, you've gotta go! You wouldn't believe how intense and vertical-crazy it is, or how incredibly crowded it is year round! And beautiful! Photos and videos can never do it justice.)
Have been an EMT worked SAR, would NOT, repeat NOT want to drag someone out of The Canyon, the desert of Arizona was fun enough. Only place I know where the litter picker-uppers need climbing skills. There is a reason there are still parts of crashed planes in the canyon - too hard and expensive to get them out of there.
Like others, I've hiked quite a lot in the Canyon, doing rim-to-rim-to-rims about once a year (heading there again in May!), I would not want to encounter a bike on some of those sections. I believe the Arizona Trail uses the South Kaibab trail, which isn't particularly narrow, but there are sections with dropoffs, and it is used daily by mule trains. What those animals would do if they encountered bikes is completely unknown, and I doubt good. I think the punishment does fit the crime, mainly, as most of our punishments, to prevent others from following suite.
I don't have any problem with the punishment. But it just makes me sick that drivers (one in particular) can drive carelessly and kill a cyclist and the punishment is just a slap on the wrist. The punishment should be at least as much as cycling in the Grand Canyon. Better yet, he could spend jail time with the cyclists.
I was wondering, do you think they snuck through w/o going through the main gates? and then a ranger caught them? I think the 5 yr ban is silly- maybe keep them out og GC for 5 yrs, but the other is over the top. I do agree with the $500 fine to the rescue groups. We've had too many wilderness rescues lately(Mt. Hood). and posting your findings/pics on the internet was dumb. As others have said, if they give more harsh fines and punishment to those who commit worse crimes, we might actually make some progress.
While I agree that the punishment is often too light (or non-existent) for drivers who endanger cyclists, I believe that the punishment in this case is deserved.
There are several issues here, including endangering others who belong on the trail, endangering rescue personnel, and destroying sensitive areas that the National Park Service is trying to protect. Perhaps the 5 year ban is over the top, but I believe the $500 fine is too low.
--- Denise
I would assume that they entered the park at an ordinary gate. How else would one enter the park? I would therefore assume that they paid the ordinary fee (for instance a day use fee), and were given the usual packet of information brochures, which probably included several references to the ban on biking below the rim. After all, bikes ARE allowed on the roads above the rim, so the ranger at the gate would have had no reason to stop them entering.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannaduacentury
And I do think the sentence is fair enough. $500 is not an enormous amount, and 2 days in prison is a "lost" weekend (or perhaps more to the point, a weekend's lesson), not a lost lifetime. And the 5-year ban from all nat'l parks is probably pretty standard for infractions of national park rules. Those rules are enforced by the park ranger service, which has police authority over the entire park system. This would not be the only context in which the parks are viewed as a single, collective unit.
As to the balance between the punishment and the impact "value" of the crime: I've walked just a small stretch of those narrow, switchback trails below the rim. Not only would I not want to encounter a cyclist along those trails, and not only would I worry about a cyclist's safety, but there's also the issue of erosion. The Grand Canyon is a delicate treasure to be cared for on behalf of us all. It is already overburdened with users, and let's face it -- off road biking does add to erosion. So it's not just about their own safety. It's about the safety of others and the preservation of this delicate environment.
While I agree that car driver punishments are beyond just light, you can't use that as guage on this one. If you did, pretty soon, no crime would have a punishment.
I think the punishment was fair. These guys didn't make a little "oops", they knew what they were doing. Trails that are marked for hiking only are marked that way for a reason and bikers need to respect that. A message was being sent by the punishment and valid message. There are trails that bikes simply don't belong on.
While I suspect the trails in the Grand Canyon are more durable than those up in tree cover north, there is also the cost of trail maintenance. We have a long distance hiking trail that is maintained by volunteers. Whether we want to admit it or not, bikes are harder on trails than people. I suspect that there are a few of those volunteer trail maintainers silently cheering and wishing we could do more than slap a $100 fine <sigh>only if they get caught</sigh>
I didn't mean to imply that I thought that the grand canyon punishment should be gauged by the car driver punishment.
Just the opposite....shouldn't the careless car driver have at least the same punishment that these guys had.
I definately agree with the Grand Canyon incident punishment.
I was just saddened by the disparity of it all. :( :( :(
I also believe the punishment was fair for the various reasons stated in previous posts.
Sorry, Silver, didn't mean to misinterpret.
It is sad that there is such a disparity in punishments. Reform is long and tedious, although I'm not sure why it has to be.
Still, while most people thought the 48 hours in jail was excessive (perhaps, but the law says you can be held for 48 hours and, just maybe it was meant to make them slow down and think), I liked the fact that they tailored the punishment to the crime. "You disrespect our parks? Then we won't let you back in." But, mostly, I like the forcing them to remove all postings that were inviolation and to post the apology. That's creative on the judge's part. And, while the 48 hours in jail gets them sympathy from some, my gut feel is the web site changes affected them more.
I agree with most posters here that the punishment fit the crime. The thing that really gets me about these young boys is that activities like this hurt bicycle advocacy and trails access more than they know. These kinds of infractions make it to the forefront of the media and then the people who would like to block access to national parks, etc. that might be good places for bikes get a lot of negative ammunition and hurt the fight for access for bicycles to parks (not saying that bikes should have access to the grand canyon).
I think it is too harsh and wastes resources better used on violent offenders. Communty service fixing trails or something would better serve community and miscreants. But then again - I am a criminal defense attorney.
I think the punishment is a fitting one. And I think it matters.