Prohibition Policy of the National Forest Service

[XLFD]

Carrying that unopened beer across some local bridges could see you potentially doing five years hard time.  Alcohol possession is now a punishable offense on three Michigan rivers starting this summer.  Bet those small canoe and kayak businesses love this decree by the National Forest Service.

The NFS announced Wednesday that alcohol will be prohibited on the following Michigan rivers within the Huron-Manistee National Forests:

AuSable
Manistee
Pine

Between May 24 and Sept. 2, alcohol will be banned on large portions of the rivers and within 200 feet of the rivers. Violators could be fined up to $5,000 or face 5 years in prison.
The Forest Service said pollution, disturbing fish/wildlife habitat and more people using the areas are the main reasons for putting this into action. The order doesn't apply to private land or designated campgrounds.

It's a crazy world we live in when somebody can be found guilty of the felony charge of fleeing an accident involving death and three misdemeanors: vehicular manslaughter, driving without a license and destroying evidence and yet face two years less prison time than somebody wanting to use, or just transporting, a legal substance an arbitrary distance away from a river in a supposedly 'public' forest.  Not to mention pay up to $5000, a rather steep fine that eclipses the fines of the worse high class misdemeanors ($2000) and fees associate with many felonies.  

The first reason the NFS gives for adopting this policy is to cut down pollution, so I guess they are implying that the can of soda or bottle of water that will replace the alcoholic beverage is somehow less likely to be discarded into nature than the beer it replaces.  For the second reason, I don't understand how alcohol consumption would negatively impact fish and wildlife habitats.  Lastly, one must agree that it would cut down on having more people use the facilities, as they take their business and pursuit of happiness elsewhere, like the very successful  Paddle for Pints event to the north, or...  

They can note that there are zero penalties for those who wish to use Mason County's lovely, meandering, Pere Marquette River without having to worry about whether they will have a federal ranger check their cooler on the back of their truck parked at an access site and take them to jail for just having a cold one inside.  

Michigan already has rather stiff penalties for boating while intoxicated, why must the NFS out of Cadillac create unilaterally-prepared edicts like this that makes the mere possession of alcoholic beverages in a public place a serious crime with penalties worse than most felonies?

[snide]

What happened here was the landowners along the river systems got tired of hearing drunk people whooping it up & playing loud music while they were coming down river. Add to it the stopping on their land to relive themselves, leaving trash, starting fires to cook or camp and seeing empty beer cans floating downstream. This did not happen overnight. Enough of them got together and showed their elected officials the problem and it got changed.... It goes back to drunk people not policing themselves... so someone had to do it for them.... A few bad apples always ruin it for the rest. Again , police yourselves.

[XLFD]

If that was the problem it is too bad Forest Supervisor Leslie Auriemmo could not articulate it plainly in the press release:  “The closure order is intended to address persistent public safety issues and protect natural resources on rivers of outstanding recreational value.  Our goal is to create a safer, more sustainable, and more enjoyable experience for the thousands of visitors who recreate on our National Wild and Scenic Rivers each year.  Our National Wild and Scenic Rivers provide ample fresh water, critical fish and wildlife habitat, and family-friendly recreational opportunities.  The Huron-Manistee National Forests are obligated to ensure that present and future generations can safely enjoy those benefits.”

When the numbers of visitors to these access areas goes down dramatically, you will see the results he wants, but it will be experienced by a lot less people who may or may not want to crack a brewski and just leave nature alone even more than one who cracks open a Snapple.  Many good-natured people who like to drink pay the taxes that maintain these parklands, why not allow them the right to enjoy them, rather than lump them all together as nature-despoiling creeps? 

[Willy]

Snide has the reasoning correct. To many drunks loudly paddling the river. To bad they have made it enough of a problem that all are banned from enjoying a cold one on a hot day. I didn't notice any ban on smoking weed while floating down the river.

[XLFD]

I''ve been looking over the original decree more fully, and have found that the penalty is only up to 6 months rather than the 5 years broadcast on numerous news sites I used in researching this like here, here, and here.  

[AQUAMAN]

Yes, it's always the few who ruin things in life for the majority, sad continuing scenario in life. But, my question is this: the current decree is only for two rivers right now. How long before it becomes law on many other rivers in Michigan? Including our own PM River? I believe this is just a distorted beginning to it, we will see with time I guess.

[Pheonix Emory]

Rest assured that by example of plenty of people who regularly break the law, no one will face anything close to the stated penalties lest they be someone who law enforcement already doesn't like.  I can imagine if your name was Charles Warren I would not dare attempt even a beer cap in my pocket on the river; everyone else is likely to be overlooked (unless of course you are a thorn in the side of the authorities).

[stump]

 Who thought up these laws?  No alcohol within 200 feet of the river?   So lets say your out driving around with a cooler in the back of your pickup. You pull into a boat launch parking lot. The DNR approaches you and wants to inspect your cooler. Wouldn't they need a search warrant to do that? 

[shinblind]

An excellent opportunity for Ludington to get the word out.

"Grab your yak or rent one from us." 

"BYOB, buy local, or spark one up if that is your thing." 

"Make some noise and get rowdy."

"The West End is now open for business*."

"Ludington on the Lake**."

*just be sure to park between the lines.

**if you mess up we have the United States Coast Guard standing by to rescue you.

[XLFD]

Score a victory for the people over knee-jerk reactions of the Federal  unelected bureaucracy it looks as if they are following Mayor Miller's ad hoc committee model:   Officials delay alcohol ban on 3 northern Michigan rivers

CADILLAC, Mich. (AP) — Federal officials are delaying a ban on alcoholic beverages along sections of three rivers in the Huron-Manistee National Forests in northern Michigan.
Supervisor Leslie Auriemmo said Tuesday the prohibition will be put off for at least a year.
Officials announced the ban earlier this month, saying it would protect natural resources and public safety on the Au Sable, Manistee and Pine rivers.

Violations would be punishable by a fine and imprisonment.
The U.S. Forest Service says many people favored the ban. But thousands signed an online petition against it. Critics said it would hurt tourism.
Auriemmo says a group representing small businesses, local governments and private citizens will develop a plan for restoring public safety on the rivers. The alcohol ban may be imposed in 2020 if conditions don't improve.

[AQUAMAN]

That's a good one. When I had an online petition to the DNR about 1-2 years ago to stop the West End development plan, they simply ignored it, and passed it anyhow, goofballs.

[Willy]

One thing about a decision such as this is that it is not a blanket rule covering all rivers. This was a local decision which is a good thing. Something has to be done to curb the bad behavior of drunks and loud obnoxious people who think that their actions have no affect on others. Disturbing the peace is unlawful. I can see both sides of this situation but as long as the bad apples continue to make themselves a pain in the _ss it will be necessary to find a solution. Banning alcohol was a good compromise. Banning access to the river is, of course, not the way to solve this but some sort of reasonable solution must be found.

[AQUAMAN]

One common sense thing landowners could do is post signage of no trespassing, and some kind of fencing blockage down by the river, at least during the summer months. Perhaps some kind of camera surveillance too. Then they would have proofs of the behavior of the few that do this kind of things.