However, it is distinctly possible that the Park has overstepped its authority by arbitrarily banning kiting. Whether this argument is valid, and to what degree, will depend on interpretation of the Rules and Regs. Before being able to argue about any particular interpretation, it would be beneficial to find out the Park's interpretation and the legal basis for its interpretation. This is why I wrote to the Chief Counsel. It is his job to provide these interpretations etc.
Richard, you don't seem to get it. Over the years many of us, myself included, have been down this road with the NYS Park people. They did NOT arbitrarily ban
kiting. They didn't have to. Because it not an allowed use (or however they phrase it in
their bureaucrat-ese), kiting was defacto banned from the start. This is not about reversing a ban
, it's about getting the bureaucrats to allow a new
use. This is exactly the issue that Surfriders faced at Montalk. Surfing wasn't banned, it just wasn't allowed. The only thing that was
allowed was fishing. The SurfRider struggle was to fight the fishing lobby to get surfing allowed. This sounds wierdly backwards, and it is, but that's how they have the system set up. Hence there is no overstepped authority or interpretation.
Sorry, Raueda, but apparently, you don't seem to get it.
The Rules and Regs apply to THE PARK SERVICE every bit as much (or more) as they apply to the public.
The rules which MIGHT apply to kiting are specifically in
the "Regulated Activities" section (377.1), NOT the "Prohibited Activities" section.
A liberal interpretation indicates that kiting SHOULD be allowed SOMEPLACE at SOMETIME in
By LAW, the park service MUST make any and all rules which they enforce conform to the Rules and Regs under which they have authority to operate. Whether or not they have done so will effectively depend on interpretation of various terms used in
section 377.1. In
the (unlikely but possible) event that the Chief Counsel's interpretation ALLOWS regulated kiting, then the Park Service is LEGALLY REQUIRED to permit it.
Just because it may be legally required to permit kiting, DOESN'T mean that you HAVE to USE this argument. If you believe a kiss ass approach will be more productive (it might be), go for it.
However, it might be nice to have a legal opinion stating that the Park MUST allow regulated kiting in
the likely event that you are turned down by Director Gorman.
I outlined the MANY potentially serious (possibly fatal) problems associated with the approach advocated by krazedkiter in
my previous post. I find it telling that his only counter arguments had to do with the movie and the possibly justified fear that the Park Service will become more antagonistic if shown to be doing something wrong.
And BTW krazed, although it doesn't really have any bearing here, Dalton sure didn't "ended up with the hot girl, a great new
home with family and friends, and he got rid of the bad guy." by kissing ass. He did it by kicking butt. Also, while he was wasting time being "nice", his 2 friends got killed by the bad guy.
Malibu Kitesurfing - since 2002
(310) - 430 - KITE (5483)http://www.MalibuKitesurfing.NETkfRichard@MalibuKitesurfing.NET