Shelter Graffiti

[Nick]

The last time I visited Belle Isle, there were steno pads in each shelter for the purpose of leaving messages. I think they covered about three years worth. I remember being alone at Belle Isle for five days and enjoyed reading them in each shelter.

[Damon S]

Exactly...If people want to have a "connection" or "conversation" with past visitors, they can read a journal instead of a bunch of graffiti on the walls.

The journals at Belle are very cool and I've read many of them.

[Rafiki]

I'm all for writing in the journals if you would like to make it point to have them placed in each shelter However, I do not have much faith in them staying intact on the mainland The ones that are accessible by kayaks are most likely not going to have many teenagers visit them (not that all teenagers are disrespectful, please let me make that clear.) Anyways, as I have already stated, to each their own. If the shelters are found to be too offensive to some of you, I guess there is always the good old fashion tent. Plus, wouldn't it be fair to say that using a shelter in itself takes away from the backcountry experience

[Capt Don]

Backcountry experience or not, steno pads present or not, I feel a little self-restraint is called for. I agree shelters, outhouses, flush bathrooms at each end, no matter, they are not the places for artistic expression of any kind. No matter what the quality, the question should be asked... would this look just as good or be just as funny is it was on the siding of my house or my cabin or the dashboard of my car? With government bank accounts what they are and budget cutting so popular we need to start showing more respect for all public places.

[Damon S]

Amazing how people like Rafiki can post condoning defacing of the National Park Service Property!

B.S. "to each his own." What part of Leave No Trace do you not understand Rakiki?? I shouldn't have to stay out of a shelter because you chose to support people who want to make the interior look like southwest Detroit. Have you seen the shelters where the volunteers have to go in and actually cover up over incredibly raunchy crap written all over the walls. Or shelters so littered with graffiti that there's not other place for these idiots to write anything else and you wake up feeling like you just slept under an overpass in south LA?

You cannot argue that it's CRIMINAL what these people are doing and you actually support it. Funny, how many shelters have you defaced Rafiki when your "connecting" with the graffiti you read?

[Tampico]

I've never slept in a shelter, and I've only been in a couple.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I did admire someone's checkerboard on the floor of a shelter, perhaps because it was somewhat useful (compared to just scribbling or drawing something on the wall).

In a way, I'm a little surprised it happens at all, but maybe I shouldn't be. What Damon describes above does not appeal to me at all.

So, what would you do if you encountered some marking a shelter? You folks that use the shelters are ultimately going to have to police your own.

[Rafiki]

Again, I respect everyone's opinion on this delicate manner. It is a shame, if what you say is true, that some shelters have had to be made over because of idiots that write things that are crude in nature.

Now time for a complete side note. Honestly, if we are going to make it a matter of LNT, then I would like to argue that building these shelters in the first place negate the very idea of LNT. On average, I think it is fair to assume that every campsite that has shelters on their grounds has an average of about six shelters. These shelters take up about 10X8 feet worth of space. The shelters were placed there by man. The shelters occupy space that should otherwise be devoted to the animal and plant occupants of the island. However, we as people shy away from the idea of bugs and pests. Some of us would rather stay in a comfy shelter to avoid rain, heat, etc. Some of us would rather not be bothered with setting up a tent and making it a true back country experience, because we are too tired to deal with matters after a long day of hiking. So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with people stating anyone of the following: "Well, I guess a couple of shelters won't disturb the wildlife" or "Ehhh, to hell with LNT, I need my creature comforts" or "Carrying a tent adds too much weight to my pack, I'm 65 years, I need a shelter to look forward to otherwise I will have to retire my hiking poles and backpack."
Hoooooow convenient.

Please do not make this a matter of LNT, because your fooling yourself and insulting my intelligence. You are arguing that we should LNT in shelters which in their very nature "leave a trace." It boggles my mind how you can make such an outlandish argument.

Again, I completely agree with those of you that are infuriated with some of the garbage that is written on the walls of these shelters. And Ill admit, I wouldn't want 99% of the graffiti to be written on the walls of my own household. Although, I wouldn't mind having some of it in my basement bathroom, it really would make for good conversation when friends are over. That besides the point, lets make something clear here. These shelters are not anyone's permanent residence. It's not as though somebody calls anyone of these shelters "home." Therefore, I could careless if a couple of friends or a boyfriend and girlfriend want to scribble their names into the shelter walls so that they can show their kids that they were there some odd years back. Who gives a rats behind. It doesn't hurt anyone. And on a different note, I do not believe it ruins the integrity of the shelter's longevity either.

If this was such a huge deal, wouldn't the rangers post that it is against their wishes to have people draw on the wall of the shelters they stay at? If I recall, out of all the shelters I stayed at, there were plenty of printouts stating how many days one is allowed to stay in the shelters for, how campfires were allowed in the area, etc. NEVER ONCE did I see any rule that stated that writing on the walls of shelters was against national park policy. Furthermore, every time I reached the island and checked in at the rangers station, NEVER ONCE did any of the rangers make note of the fact that graffiti was a prevalent issue that they were trying to limit. Oh, and then there is the itinerary that they print out for you after you check in, you know, the one with all the rules on the back of your camping pass. NEVER ONCE did I read anything about them making a conscious effort to make others aware of the fact that graffiti will not be tolerated. Then of course, there are always the couple of rangers that stopped by our shelters to see how we are doing and to monitor the behavior of campers. Do you think they mentioned anything? Guess what, NEVER ONCE. So until that repeating mantra of "NEVER ONCE" fleas from the depths of my subconscious, I can't find it justifiable to cast a vote of guilt on the people that decide to use the shelter walls as a canvas for their artwork unless they are depicting things or using language that is not suitable for children.

I'm curious, can anyone really make a logical argument against what I have proposed? Can anyone provide me with some written documentation that casts an evil eye on these people that you'd like to accuse of as being criminals? Damon, this question especially applies to you. What proof do you have to immediately bestow guilt upon these individuals?

You cannot argue that it's CRIMINAL what these people are doing and you actually support it.

I'm all about following the law and acting within the realm of what is expected of island visitors. However, if you can't come forward with some sort of regulations guide that states what you are trying to convey, then you are doing nothing but expressing your own opinion, which in my eyes has many cracks and gaps. Whatever you do though, PLLLLLEEEASSSSEEEE don't bring LNT into this conversation. If someone was writing or carving his or her artwork into the side of a tree on the island, I would be all against that! Then you could bring LNT to the table, but seriously, don't go there otherwise.

[Rafiki]

Here is a funny little drawing I took a picture of in one of the shelter's we stayed at. I don't know why I took a picture of this one, there were a ton of other ones that were a lot more creative, but for whatever reason I did.

[Tom]

Rafiki -
Respectfully, I think you are confusing LNT to mean literally, "Leave no Trace" as opposed to the NPS definition of LNT, which is to mean to follow the guidelines set forth by the Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics. The Isle Royale specific guide I have (available at Windigo, for sure, and probably Rock Harbor) is dated November, 2004.
The guidelines recognize that there can be no human action, including just walking, that truely leaves no trace. Therefore, they look to minimize the impact of those human actions through a variety of methods. One of those is "II. Travel and camp on durable surfaces" - Which is why the shelters are provided at some sites. By having campers stay in a shelter, they minimize the impact, as best as possible, to the surrounding area. The same could be said as to why outhouses are provided, etc. So, the intent of shelters is to EMPOWER the LNT principals, not conveniently ignore them.
Another LNT prinicpal is "VII. Be Considerate of Other Visitors." - Graffiti, as noted, may be offensive. I do not think that is following the spirit of LNT.
Last, just because the IR Park Service doesn't take time to address it, doesn't mean it's permitted. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Chapter 18 United States Code, Part I, Chapter 65 addresses Malicious Mischief:

Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any
property of the United States, or of any department or agency
thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or
constructed for the United States, or any department or agency
thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall
be punished as follows:
If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the
sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not
more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to
such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under
this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Anyone who in the past stayed at Malone Bay when the previous ranger, who was a former law enforcement official, may be familiar with it. It's also why the Malone shelters might be the cleanest on the Isle...

Personally, sometimes when I see grafitti I smile, sometimes I frown. Some makes me laugh, and all might provide me with some reading material on a rainy day. Ultimately, however, I'll never personally do it. I'm not sure my talents would last long enough to become a National Park attraction itself, like pictographs and ancient carvings found in caves.

[Rafiki]

Tom, my thanks to you for providing legal documentation on the matter of graffiti in shelters or at least information, while not specifically related to the shelters, that is still probably applicable to the shelters. I loved your thorough examination of matters. It has made me all the more wiser.

Revisiting the matter of LNT, I see that my example of building the shelters in the first place as being a violation to the nature that surrounds them, may have been a bit radical. You proposed that is related to LNT because it is a matter of:

Respect other visitors and protect the quality of their experience.

The above quote was directly take from the LNT website. However, even you went on to say that:

Graffiti, as noted, may be offensive.

This is a very subjective matter.

I. We have people that would never condone marking up the walls of shelters and whom do not care to see the creative ideas and thoughts that flow through other people's minds.

II. We have people that would never condone marking up the walls of the shelters, but whom sometimes find the sketchings and illustrations of others to be amusing.

III. We have people that believe that there are far more other important things to worry about than condoning or not condoning those that mark up the walls of shelters and whom find the sketchings and illustrations to be creative ways of expression.

Therefore, since we have three categories of people, this cannot be something that is deemed objectively offensive to all people. If this is the case, are we suppose to give into the thoughts and feelings of group #1, take their position to heart, and recognize things solely from their viewpoint. Do not get me wrong, I want everyone that comes to the island to have a wonderful experience, but when do we drop the hammer. When does the confines of what one considers a good experience on the island become too excessive? When do we look at things through the microscope of how the majority of people react to certain matters? Or does, 'Respecting other visitors and protecting the quality of their experience', always take on the forefront even if it is only representative of a couple of individual's thoughts and opinions. I guess my argument here is how badly does this graffiti really ruin any one mans experience? Does it kill your trip? Does it make you not want to come back? I personally do not think that anyone would answer "yes" to any of these question, because obviously people still keep having great experiences on the island and they keep returning. Overall, these are my general thoughts on the LNT principle that was targeted for the focus of this discussion.

With regards to your quotation on federal law TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 65 (MALICIOUS MISCHIEF) - § 1361:

Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:

If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

To begin with let us bring our attention to the word "depredation" as it is used in this context.

Depredation, according to http://www.dictionary.com, means:

the act of preying upon or plundering; robbery; ravage.

Under this context of the meaning of this word, we would need to go further in depth with regards to what 'plundering; robbery;and ravaging' mean.

Plundering (or plunder), according to http://www.dictionary.com, means:

to rob of goods or valuables by open force, as in war, hostile raids, brigandage, etc.

I believe we can all agree that plundering does not apply to the context of our situation.

Robbery (or rob), according to http://www.dictionary.com, means:

the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

I believe we can all agree that robbery does not apply to the context of our situation.

Ravage, according to http://www.dictionary.com, means:

to work havoc upon; damage or mar by ravages

or it can also mean (I state both definitions because this is where the heart of our problem lies):

to work havoc; do ruinous damage.

In order to determine if the word ravage is a suitable word to declare those that write on the walls of shelters as criminals, we must further evaluate the word. To do this, I'd advise reviewing the definitions of havoc, mar, and ruinous.

Havoc, according to http://www.dictionary.com, means:

great destruction or devastation; ruinous damage.

I do not believe we can declare graffiti has "great destruction" or "devastation", to do so would be just as radical as me arguing that shelters are a direct violation of leave no trace. However, again we see that word "ruinous" brought into light within the vary definition of havoc. Let's skip to the meaning of this word, before we proceed on to analyzing the definition of mar.

Ruinous (or ruin), according to http://www.dictionary.com, means:

the downfall, decay, or destruction of anything

Some may argue a good point based off of this definition. I would expect someone to state the following: "If someone writes on the walls of the shelters, they are contributing to its destruction and decay."

However, to counter this argument, let us examine the primary objective of why these shelters were built in the first place. I think the very word shelter lends itself to the initial purposes of their construction, to provide shelter for visitors coming to the island. If this is the primary reason for putting these 8X10 shacks into place, then I do not believe people are bringing ruin to their usability and longevity, or to put it simply, I do not they are taking away from the integrity the shelters as a source of cover. I think the word ruin needs to be applied to how certain peoples behavior affect the purposes behind why the shelters were built in the first place. Having accessed matters from this standpoint, I believe that we can agree that the shelters themselves have not be ruined by those that decide to write on their walls. Now we must go on to examine our final word, mar.

Mar, according to http://www.dictionary.com, means:

to damage or spoil to a certain extent; render less perfect, attractive, useful, etc.; impair or spoil

What are we going to claim as being "less perfect" or "less attractive", because we certainly cannot claim that marring the shelters makes them less "useful". Is "perfection" a measurement that is based off of the shelter's original state of being? Do we note something as being closer to "perfection" if it is closer to it's original state? Or can we say that the shelters themselves may not have been "perfect" to begin with? Can we agree that "perfection" is often considered an unattainable absolute? Can we agree that "perfection" is a work in motion, but that actually arriving at a state of "perfection" is something that may not be achievable due to many factors that are both objective and subjective? In an objective sense, we can view something as being close to perfect during a certain period in time, but far from perfect during another period of time. Time can play an objective role on the perfection or imperfection of something that is being observed. In a subjective sense, different people will view different things as being close to perfect and far from perfect. Personal preference can play a subjective role on the perfection or imperfection of something that is being observed. Furthermore, if you would like definitions on the word perfect, I have provided them below.

Perfect, according to http://www.dictionary.com, means:

conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type

excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement

exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose

entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings

I would like to focus on the second definition, especially the part on "...beyond practical or theoretical improvement." This is what I was aiming at when I argue that perfection is something that is difficult to attain. I believe, if everyone in this forum meet in a conference room, we could all make arguments behind how we could improve the shelters or how their architects could have made it a point to focus on certain things when developing the blueprints behind their design. The point that I am trying to make here is that perfection is a touchy subject and something that may not be visible in reality. That said, I believe we need to shift back to determining if graffiti makes the shelters "less attractive."

With regard to attractiveness, I believe we can all agree that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Therefore, whether something is attractive or less attractive, is solely based on the subjectivity of an individual person. Again, just like with perfection, we have a note of personal opinion that enters into the equation. Therefore, we should only focus on the objective nature of the issue at hand. The question then becomes, "Does graffiti affect the usability of the shelters?" When I refer to usability, I am referring to the purposes that the shelters were originally intended for and to the word "useful" in our definition of mar. Looking at things from this perspective, I do not see how one can argue that graffiti takes away from the "usability" of the shelters.

If one would want to go into further depth, I'm sure we could make it an argument of were the intentions of the individuals that participated in creating these exhibits of graffiti acting in a malicious or mischievous way with regards to how chapter 65 is phrased. I believe I already went into great details trying to examine federal law TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 65 (MALICIOUS MISCHIEF) - § 1361, but if you would like to engage in a conversation about the malicious and mischievous intentions behind these people, I would be glad to entertain the idea. Very quickly, I would suggest that people that draw or write things that are unsuitable for the eyes of children are indeed acting in a malicious or mischievous manner. However, I would not argue the same case with someone that simply carves his or her initials into the wall with date so that they can revisit the shelter in the future. This is something that would have to be investigated on a case by case basis.

As I mentioned earlier, if this does become a huge issue, if a lot of people are affected by it, or if it ruins the experiences of the majority of people that visit the island; I believe it is the duty and obligation of Rangers to incorporate some kind of rule that specifically targets this offensive. I believe it is something that should be written on your camping pass or within the shelters themselves. I realize that my argument may not hold up in the court of law based off of federal law TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 65 (MALICIOUS MISCHIEF) - § 1361, but I still believe that I provide a good case for those that participate in creating graffiti on the walls of shelters. In conclusion, I believe this is something that needs to be targeted and spotlighted by Rangers if it becomes a prevalent concern of many. It is something that needs to be made apparent in writing.

If anyone has anything left to say on this matter, please speak on this issue from an objective tone like Tom did. It makes your argument representative of the facts that surround the topic rather providing people with your mere opinion. Nothing personal, I don't care if you feel as though the shelters look like an underpass from LA or like the walls of the buildings you pass by in Detroit. I don't live in Detroit. I don't live in LA, or for that matter, below an underpass in LA. You have stated your opinion, this is great, but do you plan on presenting any logical reasoning or rational behind your beliefs? Because frankly Damon, your broken record is not helping support your point of view.

[Jackfish]

Good grief, man... l can't believe you're taking the time to write a legal journal supporting graffiti in the shelters. (And no, I didn't take the time to read every word.) For the life of me, I can't understand what would possess someone to write on the walls in the first place, let alone the crude pictures and/or language. Some people have very poor morals and judgement.

[Rafiki]

Good grief, man... l can't believe you're taking the time to write a legal journal supporting graffiti in the shelters

Ha Ha Ha. I was expecting to get a reply in a likewise manner. I also completely understand your thoughts on this not being a worthy discussion to elaborate so thoroughly on. However, I always enjoy having an intellectual debate with people that have strong opinions on certain issues, provided that they can support their argument with reason and logic. Perhaps, I was mistaken to assume that people felt so deeply on this manner. I hope that this is the case, because if it is, then we can end this discussion and can agree to disagree instead of making such a big deal out of the topic of graffiti. However, since I am uncertain where everyone stands and since there does seem to be people in this forum that want to continue with trying to shed light on their point of view, I am all for discussing things in a respectful manner so long as the discussion flows around facts that support one's stance rather than repeated opinions.

[zims]

If I may add an opinion here, about the graffiti. We all first see it and smile, laugh, or frown. But after a couple visits, and you see the ink, the carved words, it kind of rips into what part of the experience is about. I personnally find the island to be a beautiful serene place. One that we all hope will stay the way it is for a very long time. People learn from example, and there is no exception to this. I would hate to see a place such as IR go to a policy for when you stay in a shelter that a ranger checks it first and after, and if you have defaced it, fines you. How is graffiti any different than people stealing wildflower seeds, or rocks or destroying trees? I once too thougt on a rainy day the pictures were amusing and poems were cool. But now I only want to say please don't do this, put these things in a journal and post them, or ask the park service put them up in a special spot for people to see, or make one huge scrap book that you can enjoy on a rainy day at one of the ranger stations.

[Damon S]

Well, sorry to burst your theatrical bubble here Rakiki...

It's not a matter of my opinion, it's a MATTER OF LAW. Your dictionary.com is not going to cut it. You obviously don't have any experience in this field and I think you need to revisit your legal opinion. Like your little rant, let me propose the following two points:

1. I have been a law enforcement officer of the last 15 years.

2. My friend who I just got off the phone with works for the National Park Service in Utah.

This is absolute fact: Writing on the walls of those shelters is considered graffiti and thus considered malicious destruction of property. I have found many people charged with similiar crimes. In Utah, people have been apprehended spray painting and carving National Park Service property...trail markers and other signage. Those same people have been arrested, charged and CONVICTED. Depending the extent of the defacing, it could amount to a FELONY charge. The shelters fall under the same consideration. There is no difference.

Once again Rakiki, it's not my opinion, it's law.

So with that in mind, let's go back to my question that you never answered. And since you don't feel there is a problem with the shelter graffiti, AND YOU HAVE CONCLUDED THROUGH YOUR DICTIONARY.COM,,, How many times have you written on the walls inside the shelters?

Why don't you travel out to Bryce or Zion National Park and take your permanent marker from your shorts, call a park ranger over and let him watch you write you name on some of their property? Then pull your Iphone from your other pocket and pull up dictionary.com. Show him all the nice definitions you posted and see if that's enough to post your bond.

[Rafiki]

First and foremost, read before you chitter chatter away about things that I have already confirmed. The point of this discussion is to debate over the context of graffiti in shelters, not to read between the lines of what other people have written just so you can let out hot air and have the chance to hold the microphone. Golly

I already agreed with you and made the following realization, but since this appears to be one of the lines you decided to read between, let me quote myself for you. Please read over everything I quoted and I promise you that you will still have the opportunity to share your two cents at the end of the day.

I realize that my argument may not hold up in the court of law based off of federal law TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 65 (MALICIOUS MISCHIEF) - § 1361, but I still believe that I provide a good case for those that participate in creating graffiti on the walls of shelters.

Can I make it anymore clearer? I already admitted that my argument was not rock solid. However, it would be the argument I would use if I was an individual being tried by the state under the Chapter 65 1361 law.

So with that in mind, let's go back to my question that you never answered. And since you don't feel there is a problem with the shelter graffiti, AND YOU HAVE CONCLUDED THROUGH YOUR DICTIONARY.COM,,, How many times have you written on the walls inside the shelters?

I am pretty sure that your question was never asked in such a direct manner, therefore, please do not play it off as though I am avoiding your question or that is was asked several times. I will admit to having participated on one account of drawing on a shelter wall. I will also admit that it was an elaborate drawing that represented a 12 inch phallic symbol that I dreamed up the night before and below it was carved "Detriot Rocks". Ya right you wish, Damon But, in all honesty, I do admit to one offense of scribbling on a wall. Go ahead Damon, have a field say with this one, skip over the rest of what I have written below so you can let out more hot air. For those of you that are not anxious to run to the microphone and be the spotlight of attention, please continue on with what little I have left to say.

Why don't you travel out to Bryce or Zion National Park and take your permanent marker from your shorts, call a park ranger over and let him watch you write you name on some of their property? Then pull your Iphone from your other pocket and pull up dictionary.com. Show him all the nice definitions you posted and see if that's enough to post your bond.

The above is what Damon had left to say on matters. Quite the character I must say, but with that aside, I am willing to bet that Bryce and Zion National Park have literature that is readily available to visitors which makes them aware of the fact that graffiti will not be tolerated. The point that I am trying to make, at least after Tom was kind enough to lay out the law for us, is that the Rangers should make it a point to post warnings about the issue either on our camping itinerary passes that all of us must carry around or in the shelters themselves. Otherwise, how are people suppose to become aware? How are things suppose to change? How are people to know that it is advised against? Personally, if you are like me, I do not see the harm in it under most circumstances. Therefore, I did not show much concern on the matter. I am willing to bet that the majority of people that draw on the walls have a likewise rational, but that if they were warned against it, most would not continue to write or carve on the walls. This would leave the few people that feel as though they are above the law and who disregard warnings. However, I am willing to bet that the ones that do ignore what the rangers have to say on this topic are also probably the ones that draw crude things that are inappropriate for children eyes. In the end, if these types of individuals are caught, punish them all to the fullest extent of the law with the satisfaction of knowing that as Rangers, you did your part to make everything known with regards to what may not have been originally perceived as obvious. This is the ideal type of justice that I wish would be administered. Damon, if you are still with me, don't assume as though everyone is on the same plane of thinking as you. Be more sympathetic and understanding, not everyone relates to things in the same manner as you do. Yes, I know, you have been in law enforcement for 15 years and I'm sure you'd love to give everyone the electrical chair for ruining your experience and marking up the shelters. Why? Because the law is the law. No ifs, ands, or buts! My argument is that the law, at times, needs to be more visible. It allows people that enforce the law to clearly be able to distinguish who is actually deciding to consciously break it.

A real quick story. I had an inflatable raft, a Coleman one that I bought for $50 at a Menards Hardware fall clearance sale. We took it out in a small lake in Wisconsin. The thing was small 6 or 7 ft at most. It did not require any registration or anything serious like that. We are talking about a kiddie raft. As it turns out, my girlfriend and I take it out into the water. We used it with the hopes of getting away from the crowded shoreline where kids were tossing balls and splashing each other. We take the raft about 150ft away from the shore. The water there was 5ft at most because it only came up to my chin. Anyways, we spend about an hour out there just basking in the sun. We get back to the shore and are immediately confronted by a Ranger. He takes my information and my girlfriend's. I was really surprised and worried what would require him to do this. I ask him if I broke any laws. He told me that I I was operating a watercraft without life jackets. He then presented me with a $162.50 fine. WOW!!! Talk about a vacation ruiner. Now let me tell you, if I knew I had to have life jackets for an inflatable raft, I definitely would have obeyed the law. Guess what though, there was no information posted at the dock of the lake. I did not have any conscious idea that I was breaking the law. I apologize, told him I had been coming the State Park for the past 25 years without any criminal offenses, and that I did not intentional try to undercut the law. He told me the law is the law and that it’s dangerous being out there with no life jackets. It continued on saying that he's seen a speed boat hit a small raft life mine before and it was devastating. The funny thing is the lake was so small that only electrical motors were allowed in the waters. So much for those gas powered sped boats. Turns out I went to court to argue the matter and to show proof that I had purchased the life jackets, but it didn't turn out to make a difference. If I want to plead not guilty or build a case, I was going to have to visit the court in the coming months so they could provide a jury and have the ranger that gave me the citation present. I was not about to drive another 4 hours to get to the court house in the dead of winter. I plead guilty, explained my situation to the judge that was to sentence me, but was given no leniency on the matter. It's a shame when good honest people who follow the law everyday of their lives, at least the law that they are aware of, get handed $162.50 tickets for minor offenses like operating an inflatable kiddie raft without life jackets. I honestly believe that the jury would have found me not guilty given my circumstances and the fact that I was compliant enough to buy the life jackets afterwards. Regardless, it is what it is and life goes go. The point of the story is, had I known about it being illegal to operate an air-blown raft without life jackets, I would not have even thought about attempting to do so just like I am sure that people would not mark up shelters if the rangers provided some sort of written documentation in the areas that I specified above (camping pass or the shelters themselves.)