Multi-agency OUI checkpoint slated for weekend

From AZ Game & Fish Dept.

KINGMAN, Ariz. –– The Arizona Game and Fish Department will be part of a multi-agency enforcement effort on the Colorado River system next weekend (6/24-26), checking for individuals operating under the influence (OUI).

Arizona Game and Fish, Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be enforcing Arizona’s OUI legal limit of a .08 blood-alcohol content.

“A large number of boating accidents involve alcohol,” said Velma Holt, west sector supervisor for the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Kingman office. “Removing impaired boaters from the waterways is a critical element in creating a safe, enjoyable recreational environment for the public.”

All boaters passing through the checkpoint will be subject to a systematic safety inspection this weekend. Operators will be checked for alcohol impairment and required safety equipment, such as proper life jackets and working fire extinguishers.

“The responsibility for boating safety among watercraft users is becoming increasingly important on our waterways,” Holt said. “The area is growing quickly and we share these waterways with California and Nevada. It’s becoming very congested, which lends itself to more potential hazards.”

Holt advises boaters to review requirements in the regulations prior to launching.

“Pre-planning in regards to safety equipment is easy and cheaper than receiving a ticket and then having to meet those requirements,” she said.

Additional multi-agency OUI checkpoints will occur on the Colorado River and its reservoirs throughout the boating season.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department encourages boaters to take part in a boating education class. Interested parties can look for available classes on the Game and Fish website at


  1. You have a type 0 >>>
    you typed From AZFGD.GOV
    It’s AZGFD.GOV Just saying !

  2. You gotta fill up all those new “dui jails”!

  3. Wa, wa, wa, if law enforcement agencies did nothing just said, aw screw it let the drunks have the lake and river and kill who they may you people would come unglued that nothing was being done. This is for YOUR well being, your loved ones may very well be the next boating accident victims if that happens don’t come crying to law enforcement. Who do you call when you see a reckless boat operator? What’s the 1st number you call? Yeah thats right the police, and whine and cry “you people better get someone out here fast or this person is going to kill people”

  4. I’m not a “cop caller”! I believe there are better ways of handling things. Once again you are missing the point completely.

    I do see your point, even though I disagree with it. You think we wouldn’t be safe anywhere if we didn’t have all of these police here to protect us from ourselves.

    The government didn’t create the police state all by themselves, the citizens allowed it to happen, because of people like you. But what the people who agree with you don’t critically think about enough is that you have a VESTED INTEREST in the enslavement of your fellow citizens. You either work for the Sheriff’s office or the Courts, both of which have long forgotten what their Oath’s of Office mean

  5. You definitely show how you haven’t lived here very long Mr. Roth. If ya did, you’d remember how the river was in the 70’s and 80’s when nothing but the Coast Guard did Boating Enforcement on the River. In those days, a Memorial Day weekend where only 9 or 10 people died on the River was considered a good weekend.

    Now we go several years between deaths on the River, with OUI related boating accidents even rarer. The Sheriff’s Office and Game and Fish, through increased enforcement, have made the River a much safer place.

    Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean someone works for the Sheriff’s Office or Courts. It means they remember how the River USED to be, and don’t want it to go back to being the death trap it once was.

  6. Yes, C.S., I agree, all of this extra loving police state government is to be credited with all of this wonderfully expansive amounts of freedom and liberty we’re experiencing here in La Paz County! You are to be considered credible because of your moniker??? I’ve read all of your posts in the past and I don’t see much common sense here at all. C’mon and admit it, you’re related to the Establishment, aren’t you? (just like your friend tb!)

  7. Michael… I understand you are against the “state” and I respect that. You’ve done nothing here but say what is being done is “bad” and offered no solutions! I disagree with checkpoints on principle as well but have yet to define what is “better.”

    I get that pulling people over who’ve done nothing wrong is a bad idea. What is your alternative? Wait until some idiot gets drunk and kills someone? Then prosecute to the fullest extent of the law?

    My alternative is to keep my happy behind on shore on the big weekends. I have that option being a full-time resident. That keeps me out of harms way. That option isn’t available to those who have traveled several hours to get here. Without those visitors there’s no Parker.

    I get the enslavement angle, I really do. And for the most part I agree with it. However, what is the answer? Thrall us with your acumen Mr. Roth. Give us ideas to affect the outcome without enslaving it’s citizens… what do we do to have a safe weekend on the river without the checkpoints? How do we keep deaths from alcohol related accidents to a minimum in your ideal world? The one without the police state…

  8. RR,
    You can’t police morality or smart decision making. The problem we have today is we are brainwashed since we first get into the public education system that the “authorities” know what is best for your life. The truth of the matter is YOU know what is best for your life!

    I’m going to jump over to the boating accident that recently happened @ “idiot rock”. I bet that was colloquially named that for a real reason!

    Look, there were people who saw this incident take place, and they were probably just as capable of helping those people on the scene as those state paid people. Sure they didn’t have a helicopter, etc.. But they could’ve helped if they didn’t have the state to call. And IMHO, maybe even helped faster and better than the state if they weren’t trained from birth to depend on them. I just don’t believe the state is the best “decider” for what is the right or wrong way to do things. After all, look at the people who graviate to those positions, the Dan Field’s, and Holly and Larry Irwin’s, and John Drum’s of the world.

    I believe that individuals know what is best. Whatever happens on the river, the people involved will have to deal with it, the state only makes things worse!

    In a nutshell, let’s legalize freedom and let the individual communities decide how to handle it. If drinking and boating (and I’m not saying this is what happened here) is a problem, let us as a community decide how to handle it. Mandatory statutory ticketing and sentencing is slavery no matter how you look at it!

    Again, you can’t legislate morality or smart decision making, no matter how much your County Attorney wants to make you believe otherwise. Do you really think Sam Vederman’s Drug Court scheme is reducing drug usage and abuse? The government is the last person to tell you how to do the right thing.

  9. I must say that I agree in principle with most everything you’ve said. The problem as I see it, is that the people we’ve elected; and I’m not specifying those you have as I’m not that into local politics which is again a problem I know, have decided for us that this is a logical progression of the problem. So if we as a community decide that checkpoints are good, then what?

    I am against them in principle. I detest the fact that I am pulled over and checked for sobriety, as I would never choose to drink and drive. Given your example though of the community deciding, it’s just as possible that these checkpoints are a “group decision.”

    Personally, I believe that the first time you’re convicted of drunk driving, you lose your privilege of driving forever… enough punishment and the offenses stop. I disagree with the “people make mistakes and should be given a second chance” when it comes to DUI or OUI. I believe that if the offenders have no real consequence; and a year without driving privileges are not nearly adequate, then the problems will persist.

  10. R.R.,

    See, Freedom brings us together! Your response is perfect because if we as a community approve of checkpoints, and we are affected by this decision, let’s say people stop coming here because they don’t like them, then it bites us in the pocketbook!

    This is what happened to Quartzsite’s economy after it went through The Great Dan Field Socialism Experiment, which is now being replayed, only bigger, Countywide!

    The market always determines the best price or response to these situations. Government only pretends to control these things but ultimately the market will set things straight.

    Where I disagree with what is happening today is that we no longer are moored to the Constitution. Most of the problems we have today are because we have lost what it means to be free and independent and to put the government in a box that is chained down by a set of rules and rights, given to us by our creator and affirmed by the founders documents.

    See, I don’t view driving as a privilege. It is a right! The road you are on is paid for the moment you buy a gallon of gas. You have a right to that road because those gasoline taxes you paid for allow you free and unfettered access to the road. (It used to be this way in America! Back when we were a prosperous nation and government was limited!!!)

    I voted for Michael Badnarik for Pres. in 2004 and he doesn’t have a license plate on his car and he gets pulled over A LOT! But he’s still driving because he has shown the courts time and time again that we have a Constitutional right to free movement.

    I think checkpoints are horrendous because they violate my 4th Amendment rights. There is no probable cause for this type of thing. It’s a round ’em all up and see what shakes out thing. Part of that enslavement thing. I always make a statement at them, at least try and wake up the agents carrying out this act of insanity for a paycheck.

    Hitler had internal checkpoints too!

    Check out this youtube of Michael Badnarik on Liberty

  11. R.R. my friend, this explains the philosophy of liberty better than I ever could…

  12. Mr. Roth, so much of the libertarian ideology you prescribe to are great ideas that are how things SHOULD be. But the problem with them is that they are based on a Government model for this country that does not exist, and has not existed since 1803.

    The flaw is that you still believe the United States Government is based on what the Constitution says. But its not. Its based of what Federal Judges SAY the Constitution says. I say its been this way since 1803, because that was the year of Marbury vs Madison, when the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to Interpret the Constitution; a power the Constitution never gave the Judiciary.

    The easiest example is the second amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    This is the amendment used to say we have the right to carry guns. But the text itself says NOTHING about guns specifically. It says “arms.” So how do you interpret the word arms? The Judiciary and the Supreme Court take it to mean guns right now. But it could easily be taken to mean any weapons. If taken literally by the words themselves; Rocket Launchers, Hand Grenades, Grenade Launchers, etc…. These could all be considered arms that the constitution gives us the right to posses. Yet, they are illegal. Why? Because the Supreme Court decided “arms” does not apply to weapons of that nature. All it takes is a new batch of Supreme Court judges to “interpret” that “arms” means knives and not guns. Then guns will be gone too.

    Another example is the “right to privacy.” There is no right to privacy articulated in the Constitution. However. The Supreme Court decided that the 4th Amendments protection against “Unreasonable Search and Seizure” means “right to privacy.” So the courts today believe we have a right to privacy, so we do. But all it takes is new judges to change their minds and that goes away, even when the Constitution itself says the exact same thing is said a hundred years ago.

    All it takes is some Judges to decide that the Constitution says something, even when it doesn’t, and we gain or lose “rights” as the courts decide.

    Its a sad reality of the county. We live in a country based on Judicial Tyranny, where one Federal Judge can decide what rights we have and don’t have, even when the wording of the Constitution hasn’t changed. That judge’s decision can only be changed by…other judges. The final and absolute word on those decisions comes from…you guessed it…the Supreme Court. More judges.

    This isn’t new, its been this way for 208 years. Its just getting worse and worse as the judiciary and lawyers have gained more and more power. In just our lifetime Judges are more abusive of thier power, and make decisions based on what THEY think, not the wording of the constiuton. In the lawyers mindset, this is right. They live in a word where how they argue and make their cases is what matters, not what really happened (you of all people should understand this.) So they can “interpret” and argue the Constitution to “say” whatever they want it to say to make the laws and legal rules they want. Its made Lawyers the most powerful and richest group in the country.

    The Bar Association is a powerful lobby to Congress. Most Politicians themselves are Lawyers. Presidents can appoint Judges they know will “interpret” the Constitution to fit their ideology, not what it said or what the founders wanted it to mean.

    I’m not saying this is a good thing. Its not. Its a horrible corruption of what ideas the country was founded on. But its the sad reality of the United States of America. The constitution doesn’t give us rights, the Courts do. Its far to late to fix the problem. Maybe a hundred years ago it could have been. But the Judiciary has gained to much power to be stopped by anyone but themselves.

    The only solution would be total tort reform and a change of the powers of the judiciary. Its impossible now. Even if Congress and the Voters got the support to pass laws limited judicial power, all it takes the the Supreme Court to say those laws are Unconstitutional, and they’re gone. History shows us that when a group of people have power, they will not give it up. The Lawyers would never give up the massive amount of power they have given themselves over the past 200 years.

    The American People have allowed the Lawyers and Judges to give themselves far to much power in Government to fix it. Some people like to call for a new Revolution to fix the corruption of judicial system, but that to is impossible in a country where the majority of the public cares more about who wins American idol than what congress or the supreme court is doing. The American Public is self absorbed and doesn’t have the backbone to sacrifice for the rights of others.

    It sucks. Its disgusting. But its the country we live in today. We can’t deal with the way things SHOULD be. We have to deal with the way things really ARE. Because of all this, true Libertarian ideas will be a fantasy of a country that died long ago.

    Reality sucks. All we can do is make the best of what we have. Its only going to get worse as the years go by and Judaical power increases more and more, while the public gets more and more apathetic.

  13. WOW! What a horrible response. Thanks for letting me know what a [……] you are! Happy 4th of July, I guess…

    Please say this without insults… -JW

  14. If anyone has not had an opportunity to watch the video of the Quartzsite Town Council meeting on June 28 you should watch it. It is a good example of how government should not do things. It is really shocking. Who is advising the town council and town manager Alex Taft? It must be new town attorney Martin Brannan? Chief Jeff Gilbert should be ashamed of himself. He and Patricia Anderson seem to be clueless.

  15. Here’s the link lapazaz,
    P.S. They’re ALL clueless… Brannan is too new to this game, the main controllers are Dan Field and Alext Taft and Chief of Police Jeff Gilbert!

  16. […..] is an insult, John? This guy (who imagines himself with loads of Common Sense) said we should sit and take the tyranny because there is nothing we can do. This IS how [……] think! Methinks you are a little sensitive for your friends here.

  17. Instead of calling names and spouting insults, why not explain and give examples as to why I am wrong. Maybe use some historical and consitutional knowlege, as I did, so show why you think I am wrong. But no, instead you just called names and spout insults.

    Heres another sad reality for you Mr. Roth. Your debate tactics are no different than the far left liberals who call anyone who doesn’t support Obama a racist. If someone has an opinion you don’t agree with, rather than explain why they are wrong; you just call names. Be that calling people “yuppies” or “establishment” or anything else that you consider an insult.

    Far leftists call Conservatives nazi’s, racists, bigots, etc… all as an easy and childish tactic to ignore thier arguement without actually having to debate it. You do the same, just with different insults substituted.

    Until you realise this and learn to argue and debate without the childish hatred you currently subscribe to, you will never be anything more than a blogger who gets laughed out of board meetings by all but their close friends.

    I think the more ideas people give in politics, the better; even if I don’t agree with those ideas. I hope you learn to stop the juvenile debate tactics. You have interesting ideas that could add to political debate…..if you can learn how to articulate them without calling those who disagree poo poo heads.

  18. Michael- I don’t even know the identity of CS, let alone regard them as a “friend”! You disagree with his/her opinion; so simply disagree without name-calling.

  19. As CS advises, please articulate a counterargument. Play the ball, not the man.

  20. John: Pretty thin skinned in these parts, and you’re the media. No wonder this county is freaking doomed!

    CS, you’re not worth my time. Readers reading your weak/lame arguments will decide for themselves. And I didn’t call you a poo poo head, though that is a pretty good description of yourself.

    What’s really sad here is you are saying Americans should just give up and take it because there is nothing they can do, after all it’s the lawyers and judges that run this show. What a wimpy excuse for not standing up. Welcome to Amerika!

  21. John,
    You ever play poker? You play the man not the cards… if you want to win. The same with sports. Larry Bird was a great bball player but an even better…. never mind, I’ll get censored for telling some truth around here!

  22. (Quartzsite could drive Brigham Young to drink!)

    After MADD was founded, DUI related fatalities dropped. Then they realized they had made themselves obsolete, and had nothing left to lobby for, except increasingly lower blood alcohol levels.

    We have a societal failure to control and police ourselves, and each other. That’s why we expect the government to do it for us. We’re basically a lazy species. We don’t really care how drunk someone gets, and as long as his actions don’t affect us personally, we almost never intervene.

    If you really want to stop drunk people, stop selling alcohol to the already intoxicated…duh! Better yet, forget checkpoints and offer someone a safe ride home or duct tape them to a tree until they sober up. My favorite idea is give them their own place to play and let “Darwin” decide what happens!

  23. Oh yeah, Just try this in Parker LOL…..

    Rangers Checking Boats, Rafts, For Alcohol.
    Alcohol Prohibited On Rivers This Weekend.

    RANCHO CORDOVA, Calif. —

    Park rangers began on Saturday a three-day stretch of checking boats and coolers for alcohol as people arrive at the Sunrise Bridge access point to the American River in Rancho Cordova.

    They discovered bottles of beer with at least one man who claimed on Saturday afternoon not to be carrying alcohol as he made his way to the water. He had to dispose of the beer before he could continue. In some instances, rangers have cited people who appear to be hiding alcohol on their way onto the water.

    On the American River, the alcohol ban is in place between Hazel Avenue and Watt Avenue.

    The law prohibits alcohol consumption on busy areas of the river on holidays such as Independence Day weekend, because of the number of fights that have occurred in the past among drunken boaters and rafters, said ranger Randy Lewis.

  24. Oh the irony, this happened on “The American River”. Unless Americans wake up this is coming to a river near you. As California goes, so goes the nation!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *