Kai Petainen

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 9:23 a.m.

i'd think it would be hard to convict either incident. in the canoe case, it might be fun to watch the court case on that. i'd be quite surprised if they were convicted of leaving a canoe on the route, with all the gear in the canoe. this can't be the first time this has happened, is it? in the petro case, it is unknown who spilled it (but whomever spilled it, presumably would know) and the city is not going to pursue it further. it's amazing how much one can spill into the river and have "no evident environmental impact". someone got away with a spill. people are given all sorts of fines for enviro things in ann arbor, but have an event like this... and no fines, or charges, and it sucks. my main point, was that more press/news/comments were made on an incident of a canoe being left in the water, and less press/news/comments were being made on a petro spill in a presumably tough enviro friendly town. it's quite shocking to me. and it'll be amazing to me if these canoeists were charged, but no one was charged for spilling petro into the river. in some ways, it reminds me of the movie 'Up'. There is a scene that plays out where everyone turns their head to look at a squirrel. Important things happen and someone yells 'squirrel' and everyone turns their head and is fascinated by it. If I felt like being sarcastic and I knew how to draw satirical cartoons... I'd draw a picture of petro floating down a river, someone yelling 'canoe'... and everyone turning their head to look at the canoe and ignoring the petro.

actionjackson

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 7:56 a.m.

@jcj No you don't get it. As much as you try to "convict" these folks of wrongdoing it doesn't have the evidence you are looking for Sitting on a jury would be a hoot with you I am sure. "book em Danno"

Ann English

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 6:18 p.m.

I guess today you're supposed to tell the boat renters at Argo Park if you intend to paddle upstream or downstream. This couple was expected to paddle downstream. If they had abandoned the canoe at Island Lake Road in Dexter instead of Island Park in Ann Arbor, I see why they would have been tired of canoeing. When I took a canoe trip on the river at Argo Park in the sixties, we first went upstream. From Foster Bridge today, I still see kayakers and canoeists paddling upstream.

Kai Petainen

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 5:38 p.m.

from my vantage point it covered the width of the river for at least 2 hours (it could have lasted longer, but night fell). on the portion of the river that i see, it spanned the width of the river. the portion of the river that i saw, went from just upstream from the rock canoe passageway at the arboreteum, past the train and foot bridges and along the bend that follows beside the paved trail that leads to gallup (i could see up the start of the next s curve in the river). so yes, from my vantage point, it covered the width of the river and the length of that section for at least 2 hours. booms were placed at the hospital and at gallup. http://www.huronriverspill.com/Photos.php

jcj

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 4:17 p.m.

@Kai So the oil spill "covered" the river? These are your words not mine "i just don't get it." I get it!

Kai Petainen

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 2:34 p.m.

i'm perplexed. seriously perplexed. missing canoe on huron river. 60+ comments. at least 3 news articles. ann arbor police investigate. citizens want fines. uofm police list it on police website. different agencies respond. petroleum spill/ (and at first a 88% confidence of chemical spill). spill covers river to gallup. 20+ comments. 2 news articles. ann arbor police do not investigate. little public outrage. uofm police do not list it on police website. many/multiple agencies respond. takes a few days to clean up. epa does not show up (but they investigate vegetable spills in saline). *sigh* why? is it in the public eye... that an abandoned canoe gets more press and public anger than a spill? how is this worthy to be on the UofM dps website, but not the spill? i just don't get it.

AACity12

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.

Once again Amalie you left out the Ann Arbor Fire Dept. They were out there with their rescue boat. The same boat you wrote an article on that drew lots of criticism.

HaeJee

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 1:31 p.m.

It's a canoe people! I find reading the thread of comments far more interesting than the real story. Really....Roman law? It is bad enough that our laws are hundreds of years old, now we are going back thousands. No harm was done and you cant prove the intent. Good luck taking this one to court. The embarrassment is their punishment and others will think twice before ditching a canoe trip without notice after this incident.

Jay Allen

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 11:58 a.m.

@Lynn. I was NOT trying to excuse it. However, it is undeniable that young(er) folks tend to use worse judgment than old(er) folks. I can admit fault, I can and will admit it better than 99% of you that read this. I fully read this piece and I skimmed through the original article. If an age was posted, I missed it but the age is NOT here in THIS article that I posted in. Thank You, Please Drive Thru.......

debling

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 11:35 a.m.

I would just add that the police force (Ann Arbor City I believe) should be commended for promptly and thoroughly investigating this. Glad everyone is ok.

Lynn Lumbard

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 11:21 a.m.

007, Young is not really an excuse for the actions of these canoeists, however, the original article said the canoeists were a 43 year-old Whitmore Lake man and his companion. I assume this information came from a drivers license left at the livery.

huh7891

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 10:02 a.m.

Seriously people is it worth so much time and effort for you to all post your would have's, could have's, should haves?? Good gosh... I do have to say I think Jamies theory nailed it.

Jay Allen

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.

Jamie that is very funny.......

jcj

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.

@actionjackson Did you ever think about reading the previous post! That senario has been touched on. The canoe livery was open at 10am Sunday. If they had been injured so bad that they could not use their cell phone. somebody would have had to get them to the ER. Make all the excuses you want It does not wash!

Jay Allen

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 9:27 a.m.

My guess is the folks who did this are young(er) and used poor judgment. While their acts are juvenile, IMHO their actions are not criminal. What I have issue with is they did not let Argo or Gallup know. Obviously they had land transportation at one of the spots and it would have taken less than 1 minute to let people know what they had done. To abandon the canoe is reckless. Then what to do about all of the law enforcement? There are/were countless hours used in an attempt to find these people. Perhaps this is a case where they should pick up the tab. Time to make some popcorn.......

actionjackson

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 8:41 a.m.

Anyone think of possibly an emergency! Maybe someone was injured by a branch or broken glass while out of the canoe. Could have been sitting in emergency room at the hospital without abililty to contact now closed livery?

Jamie Weeder

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 8:34 a.m.

Maybe they had to poop. And while they were off pooping, there canoe floated away. Then they were too embarrassed to go back to the livery and explain what happened. Then they got into a fight about it, walked home in silence only to awake to this story and become even more embarrassed.

MjC

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 7:51 a.m.

These two canoers need to be interviewed (and fined). At least make sure both of them are still alive (sorry, I've been watching too many Lifetime movies). When someone rents something, the owners expect the item to be returned. That's a duh. I'm glad that the police were called and took action. I'd hate to think that Argo Canoe Livery would just call it a day without any concern whenever a renter didn't return to home base.

GRANDPABOB

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 7:31 a.m.

If your children are not home within hours of expected times I'll bet you start trying to find them! Same here with the boaters, they weren't where they should have been hours later so someone responsible notified the proper autorities. The article says canoe was found on an island?

Homeland Conspiracy

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 6:39 a.m.

It's a wonder they didn't call out S.W.A.T. & use their high powered police boat!

Elaine F. Owsley

Mon, Sep 20, 2010 : 6:35 a.m.

Please give them a ticket, a bill for the cost of the search, some kind of punishment for abandoning property of another party, and a publication of their names. It's only fair to warn others of this duo's lack of consideration.

NorthsideZak

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 9:57 p.m.

Enjoyed reading the comments on this one, gave me a good laugh. I just wanted to add that what @Julie mentioned about leaving your keys or a drivers license at the livery is absolutely true. I have done this run many times and have always been required to leave one or the other behind as deposit. As recent as a month ago this policy was still in place so I dont understand how they could have pulled this off, or at least done so without abandoning one of these items in the process.

jcj

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 9:11 p.m.

Lets assume that the police have more evidence than we do as to what happened. "From all evidence, Zazula said,(Police Sgt. Andrew Zazula) it appears they simply got tired of canoeing and decided to leave it. @Breadman There have always been deep spots but overall the river was not that much deeper than it is now during a normal year. I would guess(only a guess)it is on average 12" to 18" more shallow now. I was wading in the river in the 50's from Dexter to Ann Arbor fishing.

breadman

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8:59 p.m.

Oh! come on grow up on the issue........ That Huron River is so dried up. When I paddled a canoe down the river some 36 years ago it was much deeper and wider. Use to jump in the river off the rail road tracks, jump off the Foster Bridge. Come on those were the days when you could have some real fun, tie our potato sack behind us for a cold drink. The river was very deep at one time. Back in the good old 70's.........

Basic Bob

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8:48 p.m.

@ERMG, thanks for explaining to us how failing to be responsible is otherwise OK. All it would take is a call to the canoe livery to report there was a problem, for example: "we needed to stop at Island Park and hike over to the hospital because of chemical burns from an unidentified substance in the river".

jcj

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8:46 p.m.

From the original article "When they failed to show up, an employee called police at about 8 p.m. Ann Arbor police, University of Michigan police, city firefighters and a dive team searched along the river for the couple or the canoe, Zazula said." So the poster that mentioned the dive team was better informed than you were aware on this subject. I never said I thought it was theft. I said: "BTW I am not saying that they were involved in theft of the canoe." I just said your definition of theft does not fit real well with some of the common charges of theft. Yes it is possible that they fell in the water and got wet. It is possible that someone got ill. It is also possible that they had ample time to contact the livery if they so desired. And finally it is possible that they were just inconsiderate and did not care. But there is not much of that going on around here these days right?

jcj

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8:20 p.m.

@ERMG Nice dodge of the question. You were the one that defined "theft" with the following. "Theft: "Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken." The key here is "intent to permanently deprive." Now does this hypothetical fit your description of theft? ""Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value" While a canoe may not have a motor I contend it is something of value.

Kai Petainen

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8:16 p.m.

Ed.. "Last time I checked, a canoe doesn't have a motor in it. Nope. Not a motor vehicle." Ha... good point. But, perhaps they are very fast paddlers. =)

Kai Petainen

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8:14 p.m.

"If the source of the discharge could be easily traced, then of course the offenders would be subject to fines" The point at which the petro entered the river from land (a particular outfall) is known. The source, where it enters the outfall that runs to the river (as far as I know) is unknown. If people at the livery are annoyed that they had to work overtime, and want someone fined to pay their salary... then perhaps they should be upset that they worked overtime at cleaning the petro spill too? If you complained about the canoe $$, then I hope you complained about the petro spill $$ too? This is (the canoe story) is actually rather interesting. Is it a joy ride or not? The arguments for/against are interesting to read. I'd have to wonder. Hypothetically, if someone rents a canoe and they start canoeing down the river, but the river has very low flow... and they get tired of canoeing, and it gets dark... then could they not argue that it was safer to stop the canoe on the island? The canoe is still in the path that they paid to use it. How should they be punished? Take away their scout badges and make them take a canoeing course. As for the dive team. Although it is about 2 feet in spots, I would presume that they would be called if it was suspected that there could be something more serious.

jcj

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8:11 p.m.

@ERMG OK let me give you another hypothetical. So you can enlighten us again. Lets say you give me permission to drive your car to the grocery store. You expect but do not say I must come right back. I decide I need to go to a grocery store in Mackinaw City. And decide to leave the car there and hitchhike into Canada. I do not bother to tell you but just disappear. Your car is found 2 weeks later. Do report it stolen?

Julie

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8:02 p.m.

I just did this run. I had to leave either a drivers license or my car keys with the livery as deposit. I don't get it.

Scylding

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 8 p.m.

Okay, Ghost, go with Michigan Penal Code "750.414 Motor vehicle; use without authority but without intent to steal," where the definition starts with the following sentence: "Any person who takes or uses without authority any motor vehicle without intent to steal the same, or who is a party to such unauthorized taking or using, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $1,500.00." I can't say for sure whether "motor vehicle" excludes water craft or not; have to find def and can't, 'cause I want to watch Masterpiece Mystery. Key words: "without authority," not "without knowldge. The website is the Michigan Legislature's: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(grpmbf450zctu2assdly3zni))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-414

Speechless

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 7:56 p.m.

Apparent priority ratings for various questions posed thus far by a missing municipal canoe, later found abandoned but floating and still in possession of both oars and life vests, if not its presumed passengers: High: Will the renters pay for time spent locating said boat, and how much? High-Medium: Should these errant canoe renters be charged with property theft? Medium: Could the errant ones also be hit with a vehicle joyriding charge? Medium-Low: Is this still news? Low: Is it true the canoe users were later found alive, not floating face down? N/A: Might they have become frightened after paddling into an oil spill?.... Holy balloon boy!

Scylding

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 7:03 p.m.

No, ERMG, not "without the owner's knowledge", but "without his/her consent." See: http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/web/page/joy_riding and many other definitions, easily found with an internet search. The livery did not give consent for these people to use it beyond the stipulations of the contract, which most certainly did not include abandoning it on an island all night, so maybe it's not so clear that this isn't "illegal use of...vehicle" (Section 154A(1)(a), which applies to " [a]ny person who:...(b) knowing that any conveyance has been taken without such consent, drives it or allows himself or herself to be carried in or on it..." "Conveyance" includes "any ship, or vessel, whether decked or undecked..."

Sarcastic1

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 5:57 p.m.

Dive team for the Huron River. Isn't it like 2 feet deep?

tdw

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 5:51 p.m.

Just a side note car theft is called UDAA -unauthorized driving away an automobile

jcj

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 5:39 p.m.

"someone leaves a canoe in the river and people want them to be fined? come on ann arbor... get your priorities right." I think most posters just want them to be held accountable to some degree. This was according to the known facts a willful act of selfishness and immaturity. I don't care if they fine them. I would like to see the names published so they can be ridiculed publicly! And so that any that come in contact with them will know what type of individuals they are dealing with. "have a petroleum spill on the river, but no fines, no one is charged, and it is hardly mentioned in the news?" Do you know who caused the spill? Has there been a cover up? You can be sure there would be a fine if they could prove where it came from! Or are you just looking for publicity for the web site. Maybe you and the hot dog man should get together!

tdw

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 5:36 p.m.

@Kai I don't understand the connection.If they don't know who was resonisble for the spill can they fine them?

amlive

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 5:36 p.m.

Kai - the oil discharge on the river resulted in potential damage to public property, and cost to the public in terms of the investigation. If the source of the discharge could be easily traced, then of course the offenders would be subject to fines. The source is unfortunately near impossible to trace however, therefore arguing as to why they weren't fined is a rather moot point. These individuals caused no harm to public property, but they did inflict a cost to the public both to the Parks and Rec department (maybe an hour or two overtime waiting for their return and recovering the canoe - not a big deal at likely a few dollars cost), and in the police search and cost of bringing in divers, which I assume to be not so trivial a cost. Yes, I think they should deserve to be fined (though they probably won't, so another moot point). I see no conflict of priorities to exist between the two situations you mention here.

townie54

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 5:35 p.m.

Last time I rented a canoe I had to put down a fifty dollar deposit and it might be more now.You have to be pretty wimpy or lazy not to want to paddle another hour to get your money back.Maybe one of them got seasick or something

amlive

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 5:25 p.m.

We all know it's not an situation of theft, or of joy-riding, so no need to bother with those issues. If anything, it's an issue of breech of rental contract, by renting a boat and neglecting to return it to the agreed location by the agreed upon time. On top of that, it's an issue of falsely triggering a police search, when any reasonable person should have had the foresight to see that failure to arrive at the end of a canoe trip without any contact or explanation to those awaiting your return would have triggered such a response. It's not theft, it's breech of contract (I assume - haven't seen the contract personally), and simple negligence which inevitably had to result in an emergency search.

Kai Petainen

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 5:11 p.m.

interesting story. people want them to be fined? do i understand this correctly....? have a petroleum spill on the river, but no fines, no one is charged, and it is hardly mentioned in the news? but... someone leaves a canoe in the river and people want them to be fined? come on ann arbor... get your priorities right. http://www.huronriverspill.com/

Scylding

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 5:06 p.m.

@Lauren: your criticism is merited. I guess I just mentioned the Roman connection because I thought it was interesting. However, it did jog my memory a bit, and then jcj's comment about the unauthorized use of a vehicle jogged it even further, and I recalled that our charge of joyriding is very similar to how the Romans would have viewed the unauthorized use of property of this kind. Then I found that website that verifies that joyriding is indeed a form of theft. So, sorry for the abstraction, but at least it appears to have been somewhat profitable.

The Watchman

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 4:59 p.m.

@20/20 Ms. Nash's report does not give a timeline. Nor do we know if the sequence she wrote the article is the timeline. She writes: "A local live action role-playing (LARPing) game enthusiast group found the canoe by Island Park along the river." Could have been Saturday or Sunday. That should have been noted in the story. But don't you think that either way, the police should look for missing conoeists? I believe the canoeists should be responsible for the time and cost associated with the search. Their behavior was irresponsible and put other people in jeopardy.

Lauren

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 4:58 p.m.

@scylding I most definitely agree with your statements. However, I wasn't sure what to take of the Roman law reference- how does this "support" that it was theft or not? I am aware much of our legal system references/models that of the Romans, but I'm not sure that makes it relevant that the Romans "would almost certainly consider what these folks did theft". If anything, I was just confused as to the purpose and it threw me off when reading your post.

Scylding

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 4:48 p.m.

@jcj: this is a most interesting case. The scenario you pose (car left at Briarwood) is called "joy-riding," the definition of which is taking someone's car without their permission, but also without the intent of depriving him of it permanently. According to http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/joyriding.html, joyriding can take place in/on various vehicles, including boats and bicycles, and "is considered a form of theft..." The key question here is, at what point could these irresponsible renters be considered to have been using the boat without the permission of the livery, albeit with no intent to deprive them of it permanently? I suppose it could be argued that the moment they decided to abandon the canoe, they were operating it outside of the permitted conditions of usage, and so were using it in a way that was essentially without the permission of the livery. Their subsequent abandonment of the canoe does indeed seem an awful lot like the typical outcome of joy-riding. I'm not absolutely positive that this could be called joyriding (after all, they did pay to use it orignially), and that it therefore is indeed theft, but I wouldn't want to stake my life on the premise that it definitely is NOT. Talking about it is so much fun, however, I wonder if I shouldn't have become a lawyer...

amlive

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 4:32 p.m.

Murrow's Ghost - though larceny may be defined as intent to "permanently deprive" someone of property, I have a feeling there has to be some breach of contract in canoe rental. If not, the liveries really need to rewrite their contracts. If I rent a one-way Enterprise rental car, and decide to abandon it along I-75 half way through the trip, I have a feeling I would be subject to some penalties. Unless an emergency or equipment failure can be demonstrated, I think this couple should bear similar responsibilities to return the boat to the location agreed upon before they got in the water. Like I said though, if not, then the contracts should be looked at for rewriting. My main issue is not even cost to the canoe livery for recovery, but cost to the city for police and dive search and rescue. This is not a difficult stretch to complete. I paddled Argo to Frog Island and back in my own canoe a few weeks ago. I know not everyone is not that enthusiastic, but come on - if you drift and occasionally steer, it shouldn't take more than two hours to get to the end of this trip. At the very least they should have been able to figure out that this may trigger a search and rescue mission, and called the canoe livery with some sort of excuse like injury or medical emergency. Whether it were a real or made up emergency, it could have at least saved the public cost for the police and diver search.

jcj

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 4:29 p.m.

BTW I am not saying that they were involved in theft of the canoe. Just saying that by the definition given it might be hard to get a conviction for grand theft auto. As long as the suspects just abandon it somewhere!

jcj

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 4:22 p.m.

@ERMG You put your foot in it this time! "Theft: "Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken." The key here is "intent to permanently deprive." " So if you leave your keys in your car and I come and take it fora ride with no "intent to permanently deprive" you of it and leave it at Briarwood. No Harm no foul?

Scylding

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.

Thank you, Stefanie (A2.com), for restoring my original comment. Very decent of you. Sorry if I came across as testy, but this seems to happen to me a lot, and usually without explanation, so I was starting to feel a little put out. After saying that I didn't understand why the original disappeared, however, I did remember that I had bestowed on the renters a name that indicates that I did not think they are "paddling with both oars", as they say, which I suppose could be considered name calling, albeit it wasn't a terribly harsh form thereof. Nevertheless, I shall try to refrain from such terms in future. Thanks again.

20/20

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 3:07 p.m.

I think maybe they should be held civially liable. However, the question I have is: Do the police divers respond to all abandoned boats?, or was there other factors involved, such as the canoe was capsized, etc... Was the canoe livery checked for the people, prior to the extensive/expensive search?

CountyKate

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 3:04 p.m.

@Scylding, I totally agree with you. Abandoning someone else's property is bad enough. When you take something and don't return it, isn't that theft? Even if police recover stolen jewelry or cars later, it's still theft. Same should apply here. In addition, they should have to pay for the dive team and extra effort by police agencies. How thoughtless and irresponsible!

Scylding

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 2:37 p.m.

@zuzupeddles: well, my first comment, which was perfectly respectful and on-topic got nixed. Maybe it wasn't brief enough? So I will try again. I take issue with your implication that these people should be absolved of all wrongdoing. The way they behaved would appear to me to be a perfect example of very poor citizenship. Whether they could be charged with theft, I doubt, but I know that the livery charges extra for every hour you have their equipment beyond the 2 or 3 hours that are in the contract for the trip. These folks should, at a minimum, be charged for all the extra time that canoe was out of the livery. Its not like this was a six hour paddle; its a 1.5 hour float. You barely have to paddle to make it in 2 hours. Yet "it appears they simply got tired of canoeing and decided to leave [the canoe]." In addition to having to pay the extra rental costs, I think it would be appropriate for them to be fined heavily in partial deferment of the costs expended by the community to field the emergency personnel to search for them (divers, police).

amlive

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 2:28 p.m.

Amalie - Is there any way you can get some numbers for the city as to how much the search and divers cost the taxpayers above and beyond standard patrol costs?

Scylding

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 1:56 p.m.

@zuzupeddles: Like Kimberly (1st comment on thread), I am glad these people are okay, but as I commented on the first story, I did not really think they could have come to much grief, given likely, current water conditions. I find it interesting how eager you are to excuse their irresponsible behavior. I recently did the same paddle with my nine-year-old daughter in our own canoe. My eleven-year-old son paddled a rented kayak from the livery. Wife and 14-year-old daughter were in a rented canoe. We all made it with no problem; it is a leisurly, 1.5 hour paddle. There was never a doubt in our mind that we were responsible for the property of the livery, and that we were most certainly to return it in good order. I suspect that if the canoe had not been recovered, the renters would indeed have been liable for the property, according to the contract, although I cannot prove it as I don't have a copy of the agreement on hand. Regardless, they should certainly have been held responsible for it, had it not been recovered. I also find it interesting that you said no theft was committed. I wonder. I am currently studying Roman Law, and I can tell you that the Romans would almost certainly consider what these folks did theft. You can say a lot of bad things about them, but the Romans knew their law. This, of course, completely overlooks the expenses to the community for the emergency and law enforcement personnel who certainly had better things to be doing than scrambling because of these nitwits' irresponsibility. This is a perfect example of very poor citizenship, and I think they should be heavily fined, if at all possible.

Honest Abe

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 1:35 p.m.

No Crime was committed. I am sure the canoes will go back home and this will be over. I am sure the paperwork did not state that you MUST complete your trip. Obviously no theft is involved.

Kimberly

Sun, Sep 19, 2010 : 1:34 p.m.

Glad they are ok. How rude that they didn't notify the park. Too bad the divers and police had to go through so much trouble.