I don't think there is any question that there has been a no rafting zone there for many years and that the MP have the right and duty to enforce that.
My only question of the MP is priorities. Police are always balancing where to use their limited resources. Was this the best place to use five boats and ten officers on a busy weekend afternoon? There was almost zero chance of someone being injured due to rafting. Was that choice made because of a squeaky wheel land owner?
Most of my criticism and curiosity is about no rafting zones in general. What is there purpose, is there a safety rational or is just an annoyance factor? How is it decided where to put them? How do the extra rules get added? Can the zones be removed? Can the rules be changed? It's one thing to have a no rafting zone, it's another to use that law to invent a no anchoring zone.
|