It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

i was almost arrested for.........apples.

page: 10
38
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


well, according to the pamphlet i recieved at the forest service office, the law you posted is not relevant.



261.6 - Timber and other forest products. The following are prohibited: (a) Cutting or otherwise damaging any timber, tree, or other forest product, except as authorized by a special-use authorization, timber sale contract, or Federal law or regulation. Read more: cfr.vlex.com...


i'm not cutting any trees, nor am i damaging them.




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

I don't know what source you're getting your information from or what area it's pertaining to but this, posted twice, states otherwise for the area in question and it's taken from the Cibola National Forest homepage. This information was also confirmed in person by rubbertramp at the local Forest Service office. Are you disputing the law that, at least in the area in question, allows fruit to be taken?


Edit to add: Glad things worked out for you rubbertramp.


[edit on 8/25/2010 by Three_moons]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


i'll know for sure when i head back up there.
i have no doubt if law enforcement wants to make my life difficult in any way they will.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

I bold faced the pertinent information in the link I provided. We were discussing fruit and that's why I posted it. The OP never said he was packing out rocks from the homestead so I see it as irrelevant. Am I missing something?

It sounds as though I have the same or a similar upbringing as yours regarding authority figures although I fail to see why one can't question if there was a sign or where it was. Yes, you should listen, learn and move on but asking questions, for clarification or an explanation is not out of order in my opinion. There is a right way and wrong to ask it, but by asking one is learning. I can respect authority figures while still being jovial and treating them in a friendly way and as a human being. Every situation is different, but in this one, along a trail, in the forest, I see no reason to stand erect, straight eyed and hail to the authorities. Try not to misinterpret that as I'm trying to make a point.

Yes, I paraphrased your words but didn't think I was too far off track of what you were saying but my point still stands. If we're not talking about the same people, all bets are off on a generalization of rangers in the area and you even mentioned as such. Maybe they were just transferred or any number of other reasons could account for it.

We shall agree to disagree about his attitude. Not that it really matters but I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best judge of character although I also don't hastily reach conclusions. The comment about taking pack loads out for the homeless was mentioned to be sarcastic earlier. I wasn't clear enough or you misinterpreted my words regarding my support for cops or a civilian. I was speaking in general about some of the threads that make their way around here. Usually a 30 second video clip where you can't tell what happened prior to the guy getting slammed to the ground by the cops with everyone up in arms about police brutality without knowing the whole story and having a knee jerk reaction to it.

In light of the link I posted earlier which was confirmed to be true in person by rubbertramp brings us back to why he was stopped in the first place since he was allowed to take the fruit.


reply to post by rubbertramp
 

Please keep us posted on the situation. I'm curious to say the least as to the outcome.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


Uh, that is another problem.....you are not supposed to stray off the provided track.

Really, if you go to the Conservation office,, they will school you in the way of the no-impact-partaker of nature on USDA land.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


i don't think there's any truth to that, unless it's a national park, monument or other designated area.
your basically telling me bushwhacking in national forest is illegal.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


Not illegal, not recommended and able to be told by the proper authorites to stop. It's not a good idea for a very particular reason. Trails that are provided are planed out around natural features, rare specimens, and dangerous conditions.

Sometimes a tree will fall, revealing a cave, sometimes a slope is the remnants of an ancient dune, or a sinkhole that becomes an ecosystem of all sorts of things that would not have survived before. Straying off trail can and would damage all of the above. You would be told to keep to the trail. This also applies to rock collecting and fossil hunting.
In Indiana there are protected plants. Unless you know what they are, straying off trail could damage those plants. You would be told to keep to the trail. This goes for fungus, moss, floral, arboral, and ferns.
The last reason, is the most important given our litigous society. Trails are planned away from cliffs, loose rock inclines, known wildlife issues like honey trees and snake pits, areas where the trees are damaged and have the potential to fall and cause injury, where there are natural stands of poison ivy/oak, and where there is strong chance of a fire. The liablility alone makes keeping to the trails the "law" in many areas. Imagine hiking along a cliff, with loose rocks and falling. Lawsuit, based on the premise "there is no sign saying it was dangerous". How this is solved is the regulations in lots of areas that you MUSt stay on the trail. It's to protect them (ultimately all of us when someone sues the Gov) AND protect you from injury.
Really, everything you are told, whether by law or suggestion, is there for a reason. Sometimes people do not understand that. Ideally, the only impact you should make is none. Staying on the track helps keep your impact as low as possible.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


yes, in certain areas you are supposed to stay on the trail. in my national forest i spend most of the time off the trail. i've been an avid backpacker and hiker for most of my life. my home stomping grounds in the gila is millions of acres. i explore canyons no bodies been up in hundreds of years. i'm a tracker and photographer and if you think i'm on the trail for most of this your wrong.
ok, now blame me for the damage i do bushwhacking.
this is almost becoming silly, next i'll be accused of something because i like to hang my hammock over a warm creek in the national forest that is fed by a secret hot spring.

edit to add, i spend most of my back country time barefoot, is this politically incorrect also?



[edit on 25-8-2010 by rubbertramp]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by Three_moons
 


i'll know for sure when i head back up there.
i have no doubt if law enforcement wants to make my life difficult in any way they will.



But if you don't have a right to pack up bags of fruit and walk away with them, isn't it you that is causing your own difficulties?

You were not almost arrested for apples.

You were told that you cannot remove resources in the area and instead of respectfully complying or inquiring you became confrontational by asking for posted signs stating this fact and laughing when they explained the law to you.

That is what put you in cuffs.

This reminds me of a few other threads with a similar theme saying something like "Arrested for selling Milk!" or "Help The School Board Wants To Enter My Home!



Turns out they were cracking down on address fraud and needed to verify that the children lived at the residence, and the Milk sellers didn't have a license to sell anything.

That didn't stop the NWO comparisons, martial law fear-mongering and calls for the OP to go get a shotgun.

Guys come on. Be reasonable.

There are people in other places of the world being seriously brutalized by officers of the law for absolutely no reason. Looks like we're finding reasons to get a simple slap on the wrist then cry like someone forced us to crack rocks on a chain-gang inside Mount St. Helen.

You're alright, dude.

If you want to go to war over not being allowed to leave with backpacks full of apples then you might want to become an activist and go fight real corruption, or simply get a hobby.

- Lee



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


one day pack, not packfuls

i asked about a sign, and laughed when they wanted to look in my pack after telling them what was in it.
your wrong about removing the apples, that's been covered.
i always ask why an officer is restraining me.
do it if i get pulled over also.
officer, why have you pulled me over?

i'm amazed how many in this thread have made decisions based only on opinion, not even caring what the actual law/regulation is.

i'm amazed how many would just roll over at the first confrontation with law enforcement.

well, i just got back with another DAYPACK full. didn't see a sole the whole way.
i even stopped at the forest service office on the way back and gave the lady at the counter, that i met the other day, a bagfull.
she was quite appreciative.

to be honest here, i'm glad so many of you are fearful of encounters, are clueless to what you can and can't do in the woods.
i'm thankful many stay on the trail and don't bushwhack.
it only means we won't cross paths, and most likely none will ever see what is actually out there.







[edit on 26-8-2010 by rubbertramp]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by hawkiye
 


wow, what beautiful animals. not to much bigger than some i encountered in the bob marshall and around glacier.
the aggressiveness is sad, i'd always hoped us humans could just get along with wildlife.


do you think that all these wolves should be slaughtered?



Well it is sort of funny when you consider all the flap this guy has been taking over removing apples. Now consider that state protected wolves are comming out of public lands and eating livestock on private property and what the ranchers cant do anything about it? I would send them a bill.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Almost arrested for apples? After reading your story, I would say that statement is synonymous with a bank robber saying that they were arrested for money


It wasn't the apples that almost got you arrested, it was your actions.

Ha ha. That is so right. I don't think there are any public lands you can take things from without a permit. Back in the old days, yes.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


i can't believe this is still being said. there's links in this thread about the truth.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by earthdude
 


i can't believe this is still being said. there's links in this thread about the truth.



Found it, sorry, I was wrong. You can still collect fruit in some places. It sucks that you have to check the law for every little thing you do.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


through out the thread it seemed many couldn't differentiate between the different federal land designations.
national forest rules are generally less strict than national parks, state land, historical parks etc.
from my experience blm land is the most open, and least restricted.



[edit on 27-8-2010 by rubbertramp]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
This reminds me of a few other threads with a similar theme saying something like "Arrested for selling Milk!"

Turns out ... the Milk sellers didn't have a license to sell anything.


Huh? So, the milk sellers didn't have a license to sell their milk and so were arrested, but they were not arrested for selling milk. So, what were they arrested for? Selling things without a license?

I'm sorry but the act of selling things is a human right. Just like when we go to work and sell our labor to a company in exchange for a certain number of US dollars.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


selling without giving a cut to tptb, this is the risk.
i'm a vendor, flea markets, shows etc.
some places a guy has to fork out 100 bucks in permits just to vend a market.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
i've been doing this for years, literally, and this was the first encounter like this i've experienced.
i am now completely convinced there is a conspiracy to get us to stop living off the land in any way.

Pardon me for interrupting, but getting us to stop living off the land
is only a part of it.We would be taxed on the air we breath if they could figure out how to do it.
o.post is nothing new, it brought back memories from a story my dad told me about life during the depression.
People struggled just to put food on the table for their families,
times were tough. You would think that
empathy and sensibility at that time would be a given,
not so.
. . . There was a lone wild apple tree on city land,
buffering an abandoned railway not far from the house.
A few apples to make a pie for the kids would have been a special treat. But,
unlike in the original post , he was force to dump the apples on the ground and was given a fine.
To make matters worse,
when he went to pay the fine at the police station, he accidentally dropped the $20 on the floor, before he could pick it up one of the cops beat him to it and claimed that it was his.
The kids went hungry.

I would hate to think of the future when we could be
arrested for collecting shells at the beach, or forced to pay a fee
for taking a walk in the forest,
*sigh* I think that time is now



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 





To allow anyone to go in and start using these resources for themselves would only invite disaster upon the animals who live there


Do you mean to say that the native Americans caused their own extinction by using the earths natural resources ?



As a member of two tribes I find this so funny I almost choked.

Thanks for the great comment.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ToneDeaf
 


true enough, there's a book similar to your dads stories called, 'the worst hard times', forget author.
but, basically i agree, there is undoubtedly a push to put all food in the hands of a few corporations.
an example of this is the tobacco seed. for many years they've been quite difficult to come by. who has ever actually seen one.
even the apples in the o.p.
these trees are very old, they are huge, the fruit is some of the best i have ever tasted. comparing them to some insecticide sprayed, industrial waxed grocery store apple is a joke.
one of the sad things in this whole affair is i'm worried i told people about the orchard.
i wouldn't at all be surprised if one of the cops went to look for it.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join