Louis Murrillo and Zane Johnides were able to distinguish themselves this week in both their lack of values and intellect. The two men were busy vandalizing a historical military structure at Battery Yates, a historic military building along the water at Fort Baker, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge when they were spotted by park officers. The two attempted to escape by climbing over the cliff where they promptly got stuck — triggering a massive rescue effort including the lifting of one of the men of the cliff face with a helicopter.
Fort Baker is a beautiful 335 acre facility built in 1905. I love the area and will be taking my family to see if during a planned visit to San Francisco this summer. While most of us just love to walk around the beautiful grounds, Murrillo and Johnides allegedly saw it as an opportunity to do some damage and leave their mark on the historical site.
One made it 50 feet down and the other was 100 to 150 feet down before they panicked and called for help.
The rescue included parks rangers, Southern Marin Fire Department officers, a CHP helicopter and a Coast Guard boat. All to save two men who considered it fun to vandalize a historic site.
Both now face vandalism-related charges.
Source: Mercury News
David I do agree that there is too much regulation especially on the casual sportsman/woman. However, living where I do and having been a hunter I have seen the abuses. We have had the Vietnamese coming in and literally destroying entire species in some areas with the waste of taking only the parts that they desired. Fortunately this has pretty much ceased.
In the trout streams where there are native trout, there are severe restrictions on the numbers you can take and the way you can catch the fish. Again, this was put in place to prevent wholesale depredation of the fish in certain streams. I don’t agree with catch and release, though. It just harms the fish once you put it back in the river, it is about 90% guaranteed to die. Besides, I think that if you are going to fish or hunt, you should EAT your kill.
Same restrictions for wildfowl. To keep people from filling up the back of their pickup truck with illegal wild swans or other birds by the hundreds. The limit is there to prevent mass slaughter and to allow for breeding. I do have to say that it is somewhat difficult to miss the swans in a flock of Ross Geese when you are shooting from behind a levee when they all arise up in mass. Oooops 🙁 In that instance, there were 8 of us hunting so we were able to —–ahem—-place the unfortunate swans on the bottom of the pile of legal ducks and geese and hope we didn’t get caught. No point in wasting the meat….right? Swan IS DELICIOUS btw.
I haven’t done any ocean fishing in many years, so I can’t speak to the rules there.
Is there too much regulation and too much petty micromanaging. Yes. It is ridiculous in many cases. We should as sports persons do something about it to keep the regulations reasonable but not overwhelming. Are the licenses too expensive in some cases …..YES. When that happens only the rich are able to enjoy sport fishing or hunting. When that happens then people will resort to illegal and damaging practices.
The option of having no rescue missions instead of surety bonds would play out the same way it does for kidnapped kids. The rich mountain climbers will get the publicity and the rescue mission. The regular folk, SOL.
When John John took the incredibly risky flight that took his and 2 others lives there was a enormous search and rescue. My daughter was in grade school. She and I watched a press conference where the Coast Guard captain was asked if this extensive search and rescue would be done for anyone. With a sincere look he said, “O course.” My daughter said, “That’s a lie.” We brought the girl up to think for herself. The irony being, after they pulled John Johns body from the Atlantic, they had a funeral and dropped him right back in the Atlantic!
Olly, I am only talking about these folks who do the winter summit of Denali and incredibly risky stuff like that. Excursions where the chances are high you will need a rescue mission.
‘can have job opportunities for these people.”
Actually, I am for leaving the dumb b’stards to freeze to death on the side of the mountain, rather than having other people put their lives in jeopardy trying to save them from their own stupidity.
If we MUST save these dopes then they should have to pay for it in some way. They caused the trouble…..they should be responsible for it. If I were a serious mountain climber….that would be after I lost all of my marbles and am drooling into my oatmeal……I would find a surety bond to pay in the event of a disaster a small price.
Hunting or fishing licenses are not expensive and they make sure that the hunter is aware of safety and make sure that the hunting is spread out properly over the eco system. For instance deer hunting licenses in California have zones. This is to limit the numbers of hunters in certain, more desirable, areas and prevent the decimation of the deer herds. The X zones are the most desired and popular because the deer are larger and have more impressive racks (horn displays). If they weren’t limited by the hunting licensing, the deer would be annihilated. Same thing for the fishing. In our area the native trout are catch and release only and there are limits as to where and when you can fish. This is to keep the fish population healthy and to prevent over fishing.
DBQ, I’m better aligned with you leaving them there to freeze to death than forcing them to buy insurance that they don’t want.
As for the permit stuff, it all sounds good, but the way it works out in practice is anything but good. Take the Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fisherman can catch their limit in 10 minutes. They travel offshore for 1 or 2 hours, and in 10 minutes catch all the government allows them to catch. Do you realize how much they spend on fuel to get there? On top of that, they only let them fish 9 days out of the entire year. That is just messed up. When you bring it to their attention, it does no good. They will look at fish catch numbers, and if the amount of fish caught exceeds what they predicted to be the quota that should be caught, they reduce the season for the next year, supposedly so we do not decimate the populations. In other words, the better the fish are doing, the more they clamp down on allowing them to be caught. Again, it makes no sense.
There are so many rules and regulations, it is impossible to keep up with them for the average person that might only go out once a month. The cost isn’t much, but it is a nuisance to keep the licenses up, to have them available at all times. I bought a five year license last time, but now I’m scratching my head, do I need a new one this year or next year? I need to check the license. Then I have to decide, do I want the lobster stamp? What about the Snook stamp? Tarpon tags are $50 each. Do I really want to spring $50 in case I catch that one great trophy fish of my life? I didn’t catch any lobster last year, but what if I come across some, I will want to keep them. And do I really need to buy the freshwater license as well as the saltwater licence when I haven’t fished freshwater in the last 5 years, but maybe once this year I might want to go on the lake and try it again? It is a nightmare trying to figure out what you need to be legal to fish. The rules and regulations take all the fun out of it. And then you have that moment where you have the catch of a lifetime. You want to bring it home for your family to see. Never have you caught such a fine fish. You want to eat it and feed your family and neighbors with it for the next month. Too bad, it’s too big. The Wildlife people have determined that the fish cannot be brought home. It has a 50/50 chance of being a big breeder. Even if the fish will die if you release it because he swallowed the hook too deeply, it is against the law to bring it home. Sometimes it is not that the fish is too big, but the season does not open until tomorrow. Best catch of your life, but you have to throw it back because the bureaucrat made the rule that they are only allowed to be taken between certain dates.
Enough of my rant. You just touched a sore point with me because my background is in the ecology and evolution of vertebrates and I know what these government environmental agencies are doing. I am an environmentalist too, but the enforcement side is way messed up. I haven’t even begun to talk about the conflict between commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen and how the rules apply.
Nothing says liberty like requiring insurance to go and enjoy nature. What’s next, pass a physical to leave your house? Bring on the food police!
DBQ, I agree. What good is sending a bill if there’s little chance of collecting. Some of these extended search and rescues have to get into heavy 6 figure and even 7 figure amounts. And, I’m sure you will be happy to sell these surety bonds.
It is not reasonable to require a bond before they go in the first place.
Why not?. Climbing a mountain is not something you do on the spur of the moment. The sport requires specialized equipment, training, guides and sometimes you need to register and obtain a permit to climb.
A surety bond that would cover the costs of search and rescue operations, if you were so unfortunate as to need it, would be a minimal cost. Obtaining that would be no more burdensome than getting the permit to climb. Plus……it would weed out the moron day trippers who are the main cause of trouble and who generally ignore the rules and go without guides..
A surety bond would be to protect the public,(we the taxpayers who have to fund the operations to rescue these morons,) from losses by having to expend money where it wouldn’t ordinarily be spent.
DBQ, if the government is going to fund a search and rescue operation, then it should be available to everyone on the same terms. The poor or the rich should have equal access to it. There are lots of climbers that cannot afford a bond. So you disenfranchise the poor through a law like that. I would rather the government not have any search and rescue operation at all than to burden the citizenry to buy insurance. If you are going to go that route, then just let private businesses find their niche selling the insurance to come rescue those who are insured.
Oh, and in regard to permits, I am against them too. I am against fishing and hunting licenses. You have to be a good lawyer these days to enjoy nature. That is just wrong.
I hope they get the bill for the rescue and the cleanup. Maybe if they have to work 20 hours a day to pay for their stupidity, they won’t have time for any more stupid acts. In AZ there is a stupid driver law for folks who go around the traffic barriers and then get stuck in flood waters. It works – the number of people having to be rescued for this behavior has gone down.
Isaac
Challenge yourself all you want. I enjoy the outdoors as well, like to hike, fish and hunt…… but I don’t purposely put myself in mortal danger and then expect everyone to do the same to save me. I also know my limits.
There are plenty of accomplished outdoors people who are competent and safely climb mountains, hang glide etc. It is the dopes who have no training and have a Pollyannish view of the world. They go out unprepared, unskilled, unthinking and imagine that the wilderness is a Disneyland theme park.
If we MUST save you from yourself, then I think that you should be expected to pay for the costs of search and rescue.
DBQ, it is reasonable to send them a bill *IF* they call for assistance and receive it. It is not reasonable to require a bond before they go in the first place.
Don’t mess with our historic military bases!!! That’s the concern. But when a homeless man is killed, again, it’s probably just police business. (Rule-of-law)
DBQ
I detect a little bias against those that challenge themselves out there in the wild. If mountain climbers, mountain bikers, skiers, swimmers, had to post bonds then where would it stop? In certain circumstances perhaps but the world is open and it likes those who do this stuff. It’s all part of what we do. When I reach 75, I am going to solo navigate the globe in whatever I have available. Chichester lives.
They should also be charged with the cost of rescuing their sorry @sses.
We have morons who decide to go mountain climbing, who are totally unprepared for the task. They even go in the middle of winter….because nothing says stupid like climbing a glacier in a snow storm. When they get stuck and call out on their cell phones for help……… other people have to put their lives in danger to get them down. It costs a lot of money to rescue them
Now, mountain climbing, while being stupid, is not illegal. I have suggested that if they are going to climb, they should post a bond to cover the cost of saving their idiotic selves. If they don’t post a bond, they need to pony up for the thousands and thousands of dollars it takes to send out helicopters, planes and personnel to get them down from where they have no business being in the first place.
This is a Great spot, do visit
I assume they were going to paint something on the side of the building. There isn’t much else one can do in that situation. This is the equivalent of painting a pot leaf on the water tower, scrawling initials on public buildings, etc. Fine them to the maximum and have them pay for the rescue. If this was nothing more than an act of machismo goofiness then leave the criminal record out of it.
Now THAT is a story book ending.
San Diego has great lifeguards. I can think of few more fulfilling jobs. They routinely save people’s lives. I’ve gotten to know a few. They understand that swimmers are going to get caught in rip currents and need saving. What they have real problems w/ are having to save idiots who get caught on cliffs in Ocean Beach, Pacific Beach and La Jolla. I’m sure in their darker days, they would like to do what has been suggested, let the idiots spend a few hours on the cliff. But, these men and women are consummate pros. The areas are well marked to stay off the cliffs. But, what can you do, put razor wire around the cliffs? It would then look like Normandy before the invasion.
Why does the park service close areas like this to the public? People want to see it, but they have to break the law to visit.
They should have let them hang out for half a day and get good and cold and tired. I hope that they will be charged for the cost of the rescue as well. That should run to thousands of dollars in addition to some jail time.
That is really too bad. Those are lovely forts. However, from experience, I do know that scenic view means precipitous drop into the ocean.