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: 7
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
It wasn't the removal of the fruit that got you arrested, it was laughing at the cops that got you arrested.

Why didn't you just let them look in your bag? What else did you have to hide? If it was me, I'd have just let them have a look, maybe offer THEM an apple, and be on my way.

Oh, and for your future consideration, there doesn't HAVE to be a sign saying not to take things from a national nature preserve - it's a national federal law.




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by agentofchaos
People keep talking about the law. However, nothing said he couldn't pick the fruit.


Actually, the law DOES say that you can't remove flora and fauna from the parks. Nothing about picking the fruit, so long as he ate it IN the park. This is to protect national parks from people who would take economic advantage.

There doesn't have to be a sign - as a visitor to ANY national park you are expected to know and abide by all the rules, it says so at the entrance to most national parks, and at the ranger stations, especially here in Canada.

And, as everyone knows, ignorance of the law is NO defence.

And as I mentioned in an earlier post, it wasn't the removal of the fruit that got him arrested, it was him laughing at the cops - NEVER a good idea.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by proteus33
 


He wasn't harassed for picking fruit. If he had of been reasonable with the cops, then he probably wouldn't have had a problem. It was him laughing at the cops making a simple inquiry that got him arrested.

Mod Note: Replaced large quote with "Reply to" tag.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 2010/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Then you really dont understand asktheanimals point. Humans already have taken the best of all habitats almost everywhere. Thats one of the reasons we set aside land for parks and wildlife, so that the animals can have some scraps of land to live on and make a living from. And here you are arguing that you should be able to take as much of their resources as you want.


29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas

So if we occupy less than 1% of of the land mass how have we taken all of the best habitats "almost everyhwere"?

Mod Note: Snipped compound quote.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 2010/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by pwrthtbe
 


Why dont you source your "humans occupy 1% of the worlds landmass" claim.

For my own argument, just look for yourself.

www.ecoprints.net...

How much of that "blank" landmass is mountain, desert, or glacier? A lot. Look at any globe you like, so that you dont have to rely on figures. You can see for your self. We arent living in great numbers in those regions because we cant make them support us.

The fact that you could cram all the worlds human standing shoulder to shoulder into a relatively small area of the worlds landmass says little about what we are doing to the biosphere. Even where we dont "live" we are disrupting, mining, drilling, logging, farming, damaging, etc. etc. habitat for other species.

Using your own numbers, 79.5% of all the "pure wilderness" is desert or has desert like characteristics. That leaves a mere 20.5% (which using your numbers is less than 5.25% of the worlds total landmass) of all "pure wilderness" that isnt desert for the animals not adapted for those conditions. Or are your numbers actually saying something else? If you are, source your data, so I can recalculate.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Have you considered this?

A few hundred years ago it was humans that placed those fruit trees there for human use. Now obviously 'the orchard' out lived its creators and nature reclaimed the area. For the last few decades the animals have been the benefactors of this 'orchard' and have been able to feed off the fruits (hehe) of those human laborers. You don't have a problem with animals eating the fruit humans placed there, so why do you have such a problem with a human eating the food his ancestors placed there? He wasn't even staking a claim, just consuming that which nature has provided.

Basically what I'm trying to say here is without humans there would be none of the extra food producing trees and bushes around the area for the animals, so if a few humans want to go make a fruit salad, fine by me.

-Light



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I agree with you. . .however the title of your thread is misleading. What you were "almost arrested for" is removing something from a protected area. I like ferns, and a nearby state park is full of them. It's against the law for anyone to remove plantlife from the park. I can't very well say that the ferns are "going to waste". Since an abandoned orchard is now part of that preserve, as stated, it has become a staple of the diets of all the critters in that area. Therefore, removing the fruit upsets the balance on which the animals have come to depend. If it were me, I too would probably get an apple or something. The cops were a little rude, though, it sounds.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pwrthtbe
 


Wow... guh.... I'm sure that when/if you ever end up in a state owned public prison, that you'll be arguing with the staff all the live long day about how you should be able to do whatever you want, at any time you want.

You must really have your head screwed on backwards.

Mod Note: Replace large quote of entire post with "Reply to" tag.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 2010/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
i'll try and get to some of the responses soon.
it's kinda' funny how it now seems to be a national park, state park etc..
it's forest service peole, not a PARK. there's a huge difference.
it also seems some would definately rather humans not eat any of the fruit.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   




Why does you being so intent on dominating other people's personal lives make them have their head screwed on backwards? Clearly people should be able to do what they wish so long as they are not harming others. Any other way is pointless violence on your part, and that makes you the one with your head screwed on backwards.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
alright, i read every thing since i was here early.
stuff from packing out your poo, instead of digging a hole far from any water source, too, basically the idea that national forest and other public lands are not ours. some of these concepts almost seems like just bowing down and taking one for the gipper.
the basic truth, one simple difference.
personal and commercial. that's it, if i'm correct only one person a page or 2 back even touched on this.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp

it also seems some would definately rather humans not eat any of the fruit.


I dont see many people saying that at all. What I see people saying is they would rather humans not pack their bags full of fruit and take it out of the park if that is not allowed. Clearly, they allow that with Pinon, according to your article, but if they dont allow that with this fruit, they just dont.

Eating ONE piece of fruit, or how ever many you eat then and there is one thing. Taking as many as you can carry, or as you said, "packloads to pass out to the poor and homeless" is another. I think you would have all of us on your side if you just got busted eating a couple fruits in the park and the rangers came down hard on you. Or if your whole post was a "heads up" that you cant take packs of fruit out of the parks rather than a rant against the idea of not being able to do and take what you like from anywhere you want if the word "public" is involved somehow.

What gets me going is the assumption that we humans should be entitled to take everything we want, from anywhere we want, no matter what harm it causes every other living thing on the planet. That attitude has collectively gotten us into a really bad spot. We dont see the full effects of it yet, but we will soon.

I personally would love to believe that there is something redeeming about humanity. And that we can evolve past being less hairy but more nasty chimpanzees into something a bit more intelligent. Its because I care about humans that I want us to try to curb our greed, our thoughtlessness and our shortsightedness. Not because I hate humans and want us to all go extinct. And one of the reasons I get so annoyed in threads about the environment is because there are always so many posters who are more than willing to force me to acknowledge that there really is very little redeeming about the majority of us.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


again, it is NOT a park. it is national forest.



I dont see many people saying that at all. What I see people saying is they would rather humans not pack their bags full of fruit and take it out of the park if that is not allowed.


show me where and how you came to this decision.

oh and the packloads to the homeless was sarcastic, but goes beyond personal useage anyhow.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by rubbertramp]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


How I came to that conclusion is all the people who said that they did not see anything wrong with your eating fruit in the park.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


that's it, the actual law has nothing to do with it?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

*snip*

What gets me going is the assumption that we humans should be entitled to take everything we want, from anywhere we want, no matter what harm it causes every other living thing on the planet. That attitude has collectively gotten us into a really bad spot. We dont see the full effects of it yet, but we will soon.

*snip*



Its not an assumption... As co-creators of this planet you all were given dominion over plants and animals. In this specific situation the OP is well within his rights to take as much fruit as he wants. He is doing no harm. It could in fact be argued that the OP was in fact the one harmed as he was threatened into being searched and detained.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 

Agreed that it's extremely counterproductive to interchangeably use terms like park, preserve, refuge, forest, etc. as they have different laws.



Originally posted by babybunnies
Why didn't you just let them look in your bag? What else did you have to hide? If it was me, I'd have just let them have a look, maybe offer THEM an apple, and be on my way.

Did you read the OP?


Originally posted by rubbertramp since i was eating an apple they actually asked me what was in my pack, 'fruit, officer, and a jug of water'. i thought he was kidding when he asked to see. 'sure, go ahead', i know this was a mistake.



Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by agentofchaos
People keep talking about the law. However, nothing said he couldn't pick the fruit.
Actually, the law DOES say that you can't remove flora and fauna from the parks. Nothing about picking the fruit, so long as he ate it IN the park. This is to protect national parks from people who would take economic advantage.

This didn't take place in a state or national park but in a nation forest which has different rules than a park. He may have been able to do what he did. As mentioned earlier in the thread:

Cibola National Forest FAQs


With the exception of lands administered by the National Park Service, invertebrate fossils, rocks, plants, fruits and berries may be collected for personal use on most public lands. For specific rules, consult the appropriate agency.




And, as everyone knows, ignorance of the law is NO defence.


Agreed and accepted but what's your opinion of this?


Originally posted by Alethea

Originally posted by Three_moons
Ignorance of the law doesn't pass for an excuse I've heard but how are people supposed to know everything?
I think this is a maxim we should all be challenging. click to see the rest



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


What on Earth are you talking about? My original comment was in reply to a comment I quote YOU saying about how people didnt even want you to eat one fruit. YOU didnt bring up law, you brought up peoples opinions, so why should I bring up law when commenting on peoples opinions?

And to the Light guy,

When a leader is given "dominion" over a nation and its people, it is generally not assumed that he is going to kill them all and squander their resources. (though that is not entirely uncommon) In general that leader is expected to act in their best interests and manage their resources wisely. It is akin to responsibility.

Where modern humans get the idea that "ruling over" somehow comes with no responsibility to those ruled is beyond me. Clearly we do feel that way, as we do not ask our leaders to be responsible for managing our resources wisely, but maybe the reason we do tolerate such shoddy leadership is church leaders promoting the idea that rulership or dominion is a free for all grab fest for the person in charge.

Not surprising since that is what many religious leaders themselves do.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


The OP said,

Originally posted by rubbertramp
there's an old homestead nearby, lots of fruit trees. apples, pears, cherries, a good assortment. it is now national forest property. i hike back up there and walk the dog. there's old spanish aquaducts that feed all the trees.


So we know we are dealing with ruins.


Originally posted by rubbertramp
then they explained to me that resources in the area are not allowed to be removed.
he got pissed when i laughed, and put me in cuffs.


Now even if you can normally pack out rocks for your own personal use, do you really think that they will feel the same way about your taking rocks out of old ruins or aqueducts? Its entirely possible that they have rules for that homestead area that they dont have in other areas. It would make perfect sense that they would not want you to take rocks from a historic homestead or Native American ruins even though they normally did not care if you took rocks.

www.preservationnation.org...

The OP did not get arrested for taking the apples. If he had not been a smart ass, and if he had just said, "Im really sorry, I didnt know, would you like me to put them back under the trees, and I promise I wont do it again," its highly unlikely they would have messed with him at all. They would have likely said, 'No its ok, keep them, just dont take any out of the area next time." For all we know, they let him keep them even though he was being kind of a jerk. He doesnt say they made him put them back.

I camped and hiked a lot in NM, and the rangers out there are just not a bunch of thugs looking to screw with everyone. NM has tons of New Agers, and hippies young and old, and it is highly unlikely he was pegged because of his hair or appearance. From his own post, it is much more likely it was because of his attitude when being given information about the rules of the area. And if he is reporting to us that he was cocky and defiant towards them, (knowing that most people try to portray themselves in a favorable light) odds are he was even more of a jerk than he is reporting to us. And he still only ALMOST got arrested.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


sorry, i mistook this.



I dont see many people saying that at all. What I see people saying is they would rather humans not pack their bags full of fruit and take it out of the park if that is not allowed.


i missed the if. read it as you saying it was illegal, so i asked where your opinion of this came from.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join