It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:13 AM

I agree that it is a shame that man can no longer live what I think you or I would call a "natural existence". You can't just disappear into the woods, build yourself a cabin and hunt for subsistence without breaking a thousand laws.
With over 300 million Americans now there simply isn't enough wild land left for people to do this on (not that that many would be so inclined).
I do think they try to steer us away from healthy, natural foods and replace them with oil/sugar/salt/chemically soaked/overprocessed crap to make us sick.
I do not think National forest laws were designed to prevent people from living healthy lives, they were enacted to allow the forest lands to continue in perpetuity as a natural resource for all of us.
Bush made many bad changes to our environmental laws and agencies. I doubt the Obama administration will be any better, they will probably go just as far as Bush but in an over-protectionist manner instead.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:43 AM
reply to post by stars15k

After reading your first post, I was ready to scold you for being callous. After reading your entire rant, I pity you. Because you cannot possibly begin to see just how skewed your world view is. Mankind is not the disease you have been led to believe we are. We are stewards of this planet, and until we allowed the greed of a few to corrupt us, we were good at what we did. Some of us still are.

Our relationship to this planet is one of perfect symbiosis. If we take, it is only so that someday we may give back, via our bodies.

Though somehow I think this will fall on deaf ears....something tells me you are the type who would buy a toy for their child only to keep it locked in plastic so that someday the child will know it's worth.

To the OP: I say good for you, for "daring to poach on the Kings Land"! Next time, make sure you observe your right to not consent to search without a warrant. Who gives two sh**s what they may think you have got in there? Innocent until proven guilty!

*edited for typo*

[edit on 24-8-2010 by blood0fheroes]

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:56 AM
What the hell is wrong with your country? I mean I've never heard of a case someone being confronted by police just because they eat apples in some deserted place. I mean what is even police doing in such place? Searching for illegal apple eaters?

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:05 AM

Oh please, the UN controls all the parks in the world? Are you even serious? Are you a member of John Birch?

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:33 AM
Would the OP author notice a problem if everyone started eating the apples in the park? Or is he special and allowed to do what he wants so long as no one follows his example.

Well, I need some firewood, and since this is public property I should be allowed to cut a tree down if I need it.

Yes, the rangers overreacted by cuffing him, but perhaps when you're informed that your suspected of breaking a law (especially when you have a backpack full of evidence) you should plead ignorance or confusion rather than just laughing in the officer's face. Just a thought.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:43 AM

Okay, sure, there's no actual evidence or proof of that...but the lack of proof PROVES that it's true!

Am I doing it right?

I actually looked into this just now to see what tiny piece of reality has been warped into this particular delusion, and I think I've found it:

International Biosphere Reserves

Individual Biosphere Reserves remain under the jurisdiction of the countries in which they are situated. Some countries have enacted legislation specifically to establish Biosphere Reserves, while in other countries they simultaneously include areas protected under other systems (such as national parks or nature reserves) and other internationally recognized sites (such as World Heritage sites).

There are presently more than 525 biosphere reserves in 105 countries. Of these, 47 units are in the United States, of which 30 are managed by the National Park Service.

But I'm sure that the bolded bit is just what they WANT you to believe.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by State of Mind
What do you guys think about the wild asparagus that grows on the side of public country roads? Usually if its not picked its burned (they consider it a weed), so I have no problem picking it. Yum

The side of the road is the most likely place for them to spray god knows what kind of herbicide. I'd stay far away from anything along the roads....Shudders...

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:50 AM

Originally posted by archasama
What the hell is wrong with your country? I mean I've never heard of a case someone being confronted by police just because they eat apples in some deserted place. I mean what is even police doing in such place? Searching for illegal apple eaters?

It's a public park, managed by the forest service. He clarified that in his 2nd post on the first page.

In your country, are you allowed to go into a public park and just take whatever you like?Take picking flowers - what happens when EVERY visitor decides they want some flowers? You wind up with a barren field.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by Alethea

No, animals are NOT more important than humans, but at the same time neither are they LESS important. We all have to feed off of our mother earth, and the OP was in the wrong to take the fruit off of the land, not just from a legal standpoint but a moral one as well.

OP: There's nothing wrong with eating an apple from the stand while you're walking your dog, but taking a sack full home with you is, no offense, greedy. The apples are public property, not your own. As someone earlier pointed out, imagine if 100 people took a day pack full of fruit from that stand... There would be nothing left for the local fauna. This would be along the same lines as going to your local park and taking a swing set home for your kids.

Although I agree that the methods used by the officers were a little over-the-top, their underlying point is sound. That land (and the fruit on the trees growing on the land) is for everyone. If the fruit is really that good, you can always go walk the dog again and get another taste, but leave the fruit there for the next person/animal that comes along. That way, someone else can enjoy the area as much as you do.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:58 AM

So, again, what if EVERY visitor took something "so that someday they could give back?" You'd have a forest picked clean. A steward is one who takes care of the land, rather than one who exhibits dominion over it by taking what he can.

He was obviously seen picking the fruit - otherwise, why were there several people confronting him? And besides that, HE WAS EATING ONE OF THE APPLES AT THE TIME!

They had probable cause to search him, and if he had refused they would have arrested him anyway and been well within the bounds of the Constitution if they did so. If he had said he had simply pleaded ignorance and apologized, they might have let him go with a warning or a citation. But...he laughed. Not exactly the best cause when you have shown the cops ample evidence of your actions.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:08 AM
If it really was an orchard and the gov is really so intent on "preservation" they should plow the orchard under and let time fill the field.

A man-made orchard is hardly natural.

More government hypocrisy.

Having rows of apple trees isnt exactly natural for the animals in the area.

I always love how the gov draws these arbitrary lines and boundaries for their own policies. Dont take that apple or you'll damage the eco-system. But go ahead and plant a bunch of apple trees. That's okay. At least is was okay a certain number of years ago. But not now.

The "if everyone did it" line is funny as well. Like everyone would? If this guy didnt get harassed millions of people would be lining up to pick apples? As it is there are forums and boards where people post the locations of wild berries and great hunting and fishing spots all over state and federal lands and there isnt some mass run to the woods. Very few people go outside. Even fewer will eat something that isnt packaged in plastic. There will never be some fantasy run to forage by people who arent already doing it.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by mothershipzeta

Sorry, but your argument is fundamentally flawed. As we are all stewards, we should only take what we need. A backpack full of fruit from an entire orchard that belongs to no one is not wrought with the greed you are insinuating. Further, if everyone was interested and wanted to also take apples, the most extreme case i can see is the populace coming to an agreement on how many apples you can take, not IF anyone can take apples at all.

I mean come on folks, it's not as if he were taking the whole frickin tree! Picking the fruit will not endanger the trees, nor the's still going to come right on back next year, to either be picked, eaten after it falls, or left to rot. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that this cycle will continue, just to spite us, until the trees no longer bear fruit.

Freely given, freely of the "free", indeed. Hmph.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:18 AM
i live right next to delaware water gap national recreation area. we are allowed to hunt fish trap-properly lisenced of course- but it is illegal to take anything else of of park are not allowed to catch bait for fishing. your not allowed to pick flowers or fruit. you can't even take a cool looking piece of wood home wwith you. and god forbid if they catch watlking in a freshly plowed field! they harass you and search you and accuse you of looking for arrowheads

[edit on 24-8-2010 by bigfoot1212]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by bigfoot1212]

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by davespanners

that was crazy. i never imagined, yet have no problem believing.
bit af a difference between the news segmant and a day pack of fruit.
i used to pick mushrooms in montana, and always kept it legal with permits and everything. i had no problem with that, there was actually little wars between pickers for space on the forest floor.

Mod Note: Replaced large quote with "Reply tags"

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2010/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:35 AM

Originally posted by rubbertramp

i am now completely convinced there is a conspiracy to get us to stop living off the land in any way.
i'm heading back up tomarrow, let them arrest me for a pack full of fruit.

welcome to the club, alot of people believe that same thing, me being one of them.

btw, they have more right to arrest you the second time than they did the first time, your question of if there was a sign posted was a good one, but now, their previous encounter with you will serve in court as your sign,

so the defence of 'how could i have known?' was there the first time and obviously isnt there the second time.

stupid rules

"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them, so what good are they?" -Ammon Hennacy

edit, - to the above poster, the crime there is not only that they collected it, but also that they were selling it. op was not selling it.

think about all those things that companys give out for free as marketing, well those items are illegal to actual sell also,

but not illegal to collect, just as nature shouldn't be illegal to consume, although profiting off of someone elses property is an understandable reason for the law, but in this case, the property was the governments, so shouldn't we the people be allowed to decide if the OP eats an apple off our tree, that is if we the people actualy are the government like we'd been told we were.

perhaps we should not only see nature as a resource, but also as a producer of resources, a producer that allows free distribution of particular products.

we shouldnt allow the fed to declare it illegal to touch any of their property they so choose.

if we do they could and pretty much do own everything,

[edit on 24-8-2010 by pryingopen3rdeye]

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:37 AM

this is funny, your really comparing a day pack of fruit to breaking and entering and burglary of artifacts, computers and whatever, really?
you see no difference between edibles and personal private property?

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:41 AM

i'm assuming this is directed at me.
do you understand the difference between a park, reserve preserve, wilderness etc....and national forest land?
i spend most of the year in wilderness, national forest and blm land.
basically blm land is the most open to collecting stuff like fossils.
the things i will not collect are indian artifact along with cactus that are illegal etc..
so, basically your saying that on a camping trip one should pack in everything they need, not to be able to eat, fish or use anything in the forest. this is a scary concept to say the least.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

You can't just disappear into the woods, build yourself a cabin and hunt for subsistence without breaking a thousand laws.

this isn't nessessarily true. you should check into mining and prospecting law.
not only that, but in the past i worked on line cabins for cross country skiiers. the cabins were permitted and legal, they just had to be what was considered temporary. put together with bolts, and able to dismantle.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:48 AM

i wish people would stop using the terms park and preserve etc.....
that is a completely different classification of so called public land.
i would never remove a thing from a national park.

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:49 AM
Thought this was relevant and sad.

Steve Brill Arrested for picking dandelion in Central Park.

They went so far as to set up a "sting" operation.

That's a good use of resources right there.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in