Anon-Dark-horsemen

12/27/2024

The Remedy to California State Parks' Power Addiction
Introduction
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) 4331, which imposes restrictions on commercial activities
within state park lands, has sparked significant controversy among equestrian enthusiasts, legal experts,
and advocates for public access. The regulation is viewed by many as a barrier to equestrian activities
and other recreational opportunities, effectively limiting public access to these experiences in state
parks—a right that has long been cherished by Californians, but most people have no clue that CCR-
4331 even exists, let alone understand how discriminatory and unconstitutional it is. I have fought for
13 years now to expose their sinister plans to phase out Equestrian activities altogether!
This manuscript delves into the conflict between CCR 4331 and the California State Parks Mission
Statement, which promises to safeguard natural resources while ensuring that all Californians have
access to the recreational opportunities the parks offer. The regulation’s impact on inclusivity, public
access, and the overall enjoyment of state parks is examined, alongside the cultural and ethical
implications of these restrictions. California State Parks Mission statement is: To provide access to
parks and open spaces, and to contribute to a healthier quality of life for Californians and people
from all over the world who visit the Golden States natural wonders. Everything about CCR-4331
stands in direct contradiction to this mission statement. It is a bald face lie, and they know it and will
stop at nothing to keep it from the public. My personal mission statement is to expose their sinister and
illegal dirty llittle secret...
This manuscript is the story of my personal on going 13 year battle in the war against the systemic
corruption and ultimate cover up behind California State Parks and CCR-4331, underTitle 14.
Illustrating the broader legal and social challenges faced by those of us advocating for Equestrian rights
in our parks and on our beaches. The manuscript also explores the legal battles fought over this
regulation, uncovering the underlying issues of corruption within State Parks administration, and how
these issues have effectively destroyed the public trust by illegally denying, 98.7% of the population
access to their own parks, beaches and open spaces. Unbeknownst to them, since at least 1983!
By bringing these matters to light, this manuscript aims to expose and remove those involved from
their positions. Then advocate to strike down CCR 4331, ensuring that California’s state parks become
truly and actually open to all Californians and to assure that California State Parks stays true to their
mission of inclusivity and a better quality of life...
Background
The California State Parks system is a vast network of natural reserves, recreational areas, and
historical sites designed to preserve the state’s rich natural and cultural heritage. The mission statement
of California State Parks emphasizes the importance of protecting these resources while making them
accessible to the public for education and recreation.
However, in recent years, the implementation of certain regulations, such as CCR 4331, has raised
concerns about the direction in which the parks are being managed. CCR 4331 specifically targets
commercial activities within state parks, imposing strict permit requirements, operational limitations
and discriminatory practices that have significantly curtailed the availability of these services to the
public.
For many, horseback riding in state parks represents more than just a recreational activity; it is a way to
connect with nature, experience the state’s diverse landscapes, and engage with a tradition that dates
back to California’s early history. Unfortunately, the restrictions imposed by CCR 4331 have made it
legally impossible for those who do not own horses to access these experiences. The regulation has
impacted 98.7% of the broader public, who now face no options for enjoying horseback riding in our
state parks and beaches.
The controversy surrounding CCR 4331 reached a boiling point when a lawsuit was filed against
California State Parks by the nonprofit group Ace 4 Safe Trails. This lawsuit, which challenges the
legality and fairness of the regulation, highlights the broader concerns within the equestrian community
about the future of horseback riding in state parks. At the heart of the issue is the belief that CCR 4331
contradicts the core values of the State Parks Mission Statement, particularly in terms of public access,
inclusivity, and the promotion of diverse recreational opportunities.
Text of CCR 4331
California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 4331 - Commercial Activities in State Parks
"No person shall solicit, sell, hawk, or peddle any goods, wares, merchandise, services, liquids, or
edibles for human consumption or distribute circulars in any unit, except as permitted by the
Department. Such prohibition shall include sales activities that utilize park property or facilities to
complete the terms of sale or provide a service as a result of the sale or that affect park operations,
facility use or visitor safety. Also included are sales activities which encroach on the sales rights of a
vendor authorized to sell such products, or services within the park or or on a state beach and pursuant
to a concession contract with the Department."
This regulation broadly prohibits all commercial activities within California State Parks unless
explicitly permitted by the Department. It covers a wide range of activities, from the sale of goods and
services to the distribution of circulars, and includes any sales that use park property to complete a
transaction or provide a service within the park. The regulation is intended to protect park operations,
facility use, and visitor safety, as well as to prevent unauthorized encroachment on the rights of
concession vendors operating under contract within the park and with the Department.
Conflict with the Mission Statement
California State Parks has long emphasized its mission to protect and preserve the state’s natural
resources while making them accessible to the public for education, recreation, and enjoyment.
However, the implementation of CCR 4331 presents a clear conflict with this mission. The regulation
imposes stringent restrictions on commercial activities within state parks,
illegally but effectively limiting the public’s access to traditional and culturally significant experiences
like horseback riding. But if you do not own a horse, you can’t do it period, even if you tried to rent
one from businesses like Seahorse Equestrian Rentals & Transport, even if the rental transaction is
done privately and not on state property. State Parks have overstepped their legal authority and
jurisdiction
Inconsistency with Public Access and Enjoyment
CCR 4331 significantly curtails the public’s ability to enjoy horseback riding and other activities in
state parks by restricting the number of permits available for commercial operations and imposing
onerous requirements on those who wish to offer these services. This restriction runs counter to the
California State Parks Mission Statement, which promises to provide diverse recreational opportunities
for all Californians. By limiting access to these activities, the regulation fails to uphold the principles of
inclusivity and public enjoyment that are central to the Parks' mission.
Impact on Inclusivity and Broader Public Access
The restrictions imposed by CCR 4331 disproportionately impact those who do not own horses,
effectively excluding them from the opportunity to experience horseback riding in state parks. This
exclusion is particularly troubling given the cultural and historical significance of horseback riding in
California. The regulation favors a small minority of horse owners while limiting access for the broader
public, undermining the mission of California State Parks to provide equitable access to all.
Cultural and Ethical Implications
The cultural impact of restricting horseback riding in state parks extends beyond the immediate loss of
recreational opportunities. Horseback riding is a deeply rooted tradition in California, with significant
historical and cultural value. By limiting access to this activity, CCR 4331 threatens to erode this
cultural heritage and diminish the public’s connection to the state’s natural and historical resources.
Additionally, the ethical implications of these restrictions cannot be overlooked. The decline in public
access to horseback riding may lead to a decrease in the value placed on horses, potentially resulting in
fewer horses being bred or maintained, and increasing the risk of neglect or abandonment. This
regulation not only impacts human participants but also has broader consequences for animal welfare.
Legal Aspects of the Case & Constitutional Arguments
A. Nondelegation Doctrine and the State’s Dual Role
The nondelegation doctrine is a principle in administrative law that prohibits legislative bodies from
delegating their lawmaking authority to administrative agencies without clear guidelines or limitations.
CCR 4331, which broadly prohibits all commercial activities within state parks unless permitted by the
Department, may violate this doctrine by granting excessive discretionary power to California State
Parks. The regulation's language specifically limits its application to activities conducted "in any unit"
of the state parks, meaning within the park's boundaries.
In Wilson v. Cook (1987), the Court of Appeals of California dealt with a similar issue where the
plaintiffs, who conducted sailboard lessons at Millerton Lake, argued that their activities were arranged
and paid for outside of the park boundaries. The court ruled that if the commercial activity was
incidental to a contract made outside the park and no solicitation occurred within the park, then CCR
4331 should not apply. This precedent directly supports the argument that CCR 4331 should not be
enforced against commercial horseback riding operations where all sales and transactions occur off
park property.
Additionally, J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928), established that any
delegation of authority must be accompanied by an “intelligible principle” to guide the administrative
agency’s discretion. The broad discretion granted to California State Parks under CCR 4331 without
specific statutory guidelines may constitute an unconstitutional delegation of power, as it allows for
arbitrary and potentially biased enforcement.
This overreach highlights the conflict of interest within California State Parks, where the Department’s
dual role as both regulator and enforcer leads to the selective and potentially arbitrary application of the
regulation. The lack of clear statutory guidelines exacerbates these issues, allowing the Parks to enforce
CCR 4331 in ways that may not align with the law’s intended limits.
B. Conflict of Interest and Unconstitutional Aspects
The selective enforcement of CCR 4331, particularly against businesses like yours that conduct all
sales off park property, raises serious constitutional concerns. By extending the regulation’s application
beyond the park boundaries, California State Parks may be infringing on your rights and engaging in
discriminatory practices that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, the State Parks' argument that your accompanying riders transforms the activity into a
"guided tour" is an overreach and misinterpretation of what constitutes a guided tour under the law.
Your primary reason for accompanying riders is to ensure the safety of your horses and to protect the
riders from getting lost or encountering danger. This is a standard safety practice, not a commercial
service that would justify categorizing the activity as a guided tour.
Additionally, it is important to highlight that there are no alternative spaces for the general public to
safely ride horses outside of the state parks. The only other option is for individuals to ride beside
roads, which is far more dangerous than riding within the controlled environment of the park. This
reality makes the enforcement of CCR 4331 even more discriminatory, as it effectively forces the
public to choose between engaging in a dangerous activity or foregoing horseback riding altogether.
This lack of safe alternatives exacerbates the exclusionary impact of the regulation, further
demonstrating its discriminatory nature.
C. Discriminatory Impact, Equal Protection, and First Amendment Rights
CCR 4331’s enforcement against your business, despite your compliance with the regulation’s
jurisdictional limits ("in any unit"), underscores its discriminatory impact. The regulation should only
apply to commercial activities conducted within state parks, yet its enforcement has been selectively
extended to target your off-property operations. This selective application creates an unjustifiable
disparity in how the regulation affects different businesses, raising significant concerns under the Equal
Protection Clause.
Moreover, the lack of alternative spaces for the public to safely ride horses means that CCR 4331
effectively eliminates the only viable option for horseback riding for many individuals. This restriction
disproportionately affects those who cannot afford to own private land or access private facilities,
furthering the discriminatory nature of the regulation.
Furthermore, your teaching of horseback riding could be considered a form of protected speech under
the First Amendment. Teaching is an expressive activity that involves the dissemination of knowledge
and skills. If CCR 4331 is being enforced in a way that restricts your ability to teach, it could be seen as
an infringement on your First Amendment rights. The courts have recognized that the First Amendment
protects not only pure speech but also expressive conduct that communicates a particular message.
In Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that general regulatory
statutes not aimed at controlling speech may still incidentally limit the exercise of First Amendment
freedoms. However, such regulations must serve a substantial government interest and be no more
restrictive than necessary. The enforcement of CCR 4331 against your teaching activities, particularly
when those activities are arranged and paid for outside the park, may fail this test, especially if it
unduly restricts your ability to engage in protected expressive conduct.
Broader Implications
A. Public Access and State Accountability
At the heart of this case is the principle of public access to state parks and the resources they offer.
California State Parks is tasked with managing these public lands for the benefit of all Californians,
ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy and utilize these spaces. However, the enforcement
of CCR 4331, which broadly prohibits all commercial activities within state parks unless permitted by
the Department, has significantly limited public access to activities like horseback riding.
The lack of alternative spaces for horseback riding outside of state parks further highlights the
discriminatory nature of CCR 4331. Forcing riders to either engage in a dangerous activity—such as
riding beside roads—or forgo horseback riding altogether disproportionately impacts those who rely on
public lands for safe, accessible recreational opportunities. This enforcement strategy not only limits
public access but also raises fundamental questions about the role of state agencies in serving the
public.
If state agencies like California State Parks can enforce regulations that effectively eliminate the only
safe option for horseback riding, it undermines the very purpose of these public lands. The fight against
CCR 4331 is, therefore, a fight for accountability and the preservation of public rights, ensuring that
state agencies are held to their mandate of inclusivity and fairness without overstepping their legal
authority.
Conclusion
This case is a call to action for legal professionals, policymakers, and the public to take a stand against
unjust regulations and to advocate for the rights of all Californians to access and enjoy the state’s
natural resources. Legal professionals have the opportunity to make a significant impact by taking on
this case, helping to secure justice for those who have been wronged, and setting important legal
precedents that will benefit future generations.
Policymakers must recognize the importance of fair and transparent regulatory processes and work to
ensure that state agencies are held accountable for their actions. Legislative and administrative reforms
are needed to prevent the kind of overreach and discrimination that has been perpetuated by CCR 4331
and similar regulations.
Finally, the public must remain vigilant and engaged, advocating for their rights and holding state
agencies accountable for managing public lands in a way that is fair, equitable, and inclusive. The fight
against CCR 4331 is not just a legal battle—it is a fight for the values that underpin our society and the
future of public access in California.
In conclusion, the struggle against CCR 4331 and the actions of California State Parks is emblematic
of a larger fight for justice, fairness, and the preservation of public rights. It is a battle that has
significant implications for the future of public access, the protection of cultural heritage, and the
enforcement of constitutional principles. This case is about more than one individual's quest for justice
—it is about ensuring that the principles of inclusivity, fairness, and transparency are upheld for all
Californians.
By addressing the issues at the heart of this case, we can pave the way for a more just and equitable
society, where state agencies are held accountable, public lands are truly accessible to all, and the rights
of every citizen are protected. This is a fight worth fighting, and the time to act is now.
Steven K. Roth
Seahorse Equestrian

10/01/2024

VIII. The Interdependence of Horses and Humans: A Relationship Threatened by Government Overreach
Horses and humans have lived side by side for millennia, each thriving in connection with the other. From transportation and labor to companionship and culture, horses have been an essential part of human life and society. It is undeniable that horses and humans share a deep interdependence, and neither can truly flourish without the other. Yet, through government overreach and restrictive regulations like CCR §4331, this vital relationship is being severed, to the detriment of both horses and humanity.

A Symbiotic Relationship
Throughout history, horses have provided humans with the means to explore, build, and expand civilizations. In turn, humans have cared for, nurtured, and valued horses as companions and partners. This bond is not just historical—it is fundamental to both species' well-being. Horses give humans a unique connection to nature, offering experiences that are therapeutic, educational, and deeply cultural.

As horses lose their place in modern society due to restrictive policies, we see the detrimental impact not just on the animals but on humans as well. The opportunity to connect with horses is fading for many people, especially younger generations who are being denied access to equestrian experiences. The result is a loss of cultural richness, a disconnection from nature, and a missed opportunity to maintain this important symbiotic relationship.

The Harmful Effects of Government Overreach
Through regulations like CCR §4331, government agencies are effectively cutting off opportunities for people to interact with horses. These policies force private horse owners out of state parks, limit access to equestrian activities, and, as a result, push healthy horses into the slaughter pipeline. Meanwhile, humans are losing the chance to experience the benefits of riding, caring for, and connecting with these magnificent animals.

As both horses and humans are driven apart by these government policies, the direction of both species' future becomes clear—horses are increasingly seen as disposable commodities, and humans are becoming more detached from a natural, fulfilling part of their heritage. The government’s restrictive hand is leading us down a dangerous path where horses are marginalized, and people are deprived of the physical, emotional, and cultural benefits that come from interacting with them.

A Future Without Horses?
If government overreach continues, we risk a future where horses are no longer a meaningful part of human society. Already, thousands of healthy horses are being forced into the slaughter pipeline, while government policies prevent them from being valued as they should be. Humans, too, are suffering from this disconnection, losing the chance to experience the healing and transformative power that horses provide.

It is imperative that we challenge these regulations before it’s too late. The relationship between horses and humans is one of mutual benefit and necessity—our futures are tied together. Government policies like CCR §4331 are not just limiting economic or recreational opportunities—they are threatening a bond that has defined human progress for centuries.

Horses and Humans: A Shared Future
As government agencies continue to restrict access to horses and limit opportunities for equestrian activities, both horses and humans face an uncertain future. It is time to restore this interdependent relationship, allowing horses to once again play a central role in human society. By overturning policies like CCR §4331, we can ensure that horses are valued and cared for, while humans regain access to the countless benefits that come from interacting with these incredible animals.

The future of horses and humans is intertwined. If we do not act now to challenge the harmful policies that divide us, we risk losing the very essence of what has made our connection with horses so powerful throughout history.

09/01/2024

08/31/2024

"Reining in the Law: Challenging CCR 4331 in the Battle for Equestrian Freedom"
----------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction
A. Personal Background and Motivation
For as long as I can remember, horses have been a central part of my life. Growing up, I spent countless hours riding in the mountains with my father, who taught me the value of hard work and the beauty of nature. As we rode, I often thought about how much others would enjoy these experiences and dreamed of one day sharing this joy with others through horseback riding tours. However, my father always reminded me that such an endeavor would require a permit, a notion that always seemed unnecessary to me. After all, these were our horses, and I believed we should have the freedom to do as we pleased with them.
This childhood frustration has stayed with me into adulthood, driving me to challenge what I see as unnecessary and overreaching regulations that limit the freedom of individuals and businesses. My business, Seahorse Equestrian, was founded to share the beauty of horseback riding with others, but it has faced significant challenges due to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 4331. This regulation, which prohibits certain commercial activities in state parks without explicit permission, has been applied in a way that I believe is unconstitutional, overbroad, and discriminatory.
B. Overview of the Legal Issue
The issue at hand is the enforcement of CCR § 4331, a regulation that restricts commercial activities, including horse rentals, within California state parks. This regulation not only impacts my business but also sets a dangerous precedent for government overreach and the arbitrary enforcement of laws. Similar regulations exist at both the federal level and in other states, and a successful challenge to CCR § 4331 could have far-reaching implications for how these laws are applied across the country.
II. Legal Background
A. Non-Delegation Doctrine
The non-delegation doctrine is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that prevents legislative bodies from delegating their lawmaking powers to executive agencies without providing clear and specific guidelines. This doctrine ensures that agencies do not overstep their authority by creating or enforcing laws that exceed the intent of the legislature.
In the case of CCR § 4331, the regulation grants the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) broad discretion to regulate commercial activities within state parks. However, the regulation fails to provide the necessary "intelligible principle" to guide the DPR’s actions, leading to arbitrary and potentially discriminatory enforcement. This lack of clear guidelines makes CCR § 4331 a prime candidate for a challenge under the non-delegation doctrine.
B. Relevant Case Law
Several key cases provide insight into how courts balance governmental regulation with individual rights. In United States v. Griefen (9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit upheld regulations restricting protests in national forests, citing the need to protect the environment and public safety. However, the case also highlights the importance of clear and consistent guidelines in enforcing such regulations.
Similarly, in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984), the Supreme Court upheld regulations prohibiting camping in certain public parks, emphasizing the government's interest in maintaining these spaces. However, this case also illustrates the need for regulations to be content-neutral and consistently applied to avoid infringing on constitutional rights.
These cases, among others, demonstrate that while courts often defer to government regulations aimed at protecting public spaces, they also require that such regulations be clearly defined and uniformly enforced. CCR § 4331, with its broad and vague language, fails to meet these standards.
III. The Problem with CCR § 4331
A. Overbreadth and Vagueness
CCR § 4331 is overly broad, prohibiting a wide range of activities without providing clear guidelines. This vagueness allows the DPR to interpret the law in ways that can be arbitrary and discriminatory. For example, while horse rental businesses like mine are heavily scrutinized and restricted, other rental services, such as bicycles or cars, are allowed to operate without similar interference. This inconsistency not only harms businesses like mine but also limits the public's ability to enjoy state parks.
B. Selective and Discriminatory Enforcement
The enforcement of CCR § 4331 has been selectively targeted at horse rental businesses, including mine, while allowing other similar activities to proceed without restriction. This selective enforcement violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that all individuals and businesses are treated equally under the law.
In my experience, the DPR has used CCR § 4331 to profile horse rental businesses, singling them out for enforcement while ignoring other rental services that operate in the same parks. This selective enforcement not only harms my business but also sets a dangerous precedent for how government agencies can wield their regulatory power.
IV. Broader Implications
A. Impact on Horse Welfare and Business
The enforcement of CCR § 4331 goes beyond just limiting business operations; it also impacts the welfare of horses throughout California. By restricting horse rentals, the DPR is indirectly determining the economic viability of horses, which can lead to negative consequences for their welfare. Horses that are not utilized in rentals may face neglect, abandonment, or even slaughter, as they become economically unviable.
State Parks should not have the power to determine the fate of horses through such regulations. This overreach is not only harmful to businesses but also raises significant ethical concerns about the role of government in managing animal welfare.
B. National Precedent
A successful challenge to CCR § 4331 could set a precedent that influences similar laws across the country. California often serves as a bellwether for legal changes, and a ruling that finds CCR § 4331 unconstitutional or overbroad could lead to challenges against similar regulations in other states and federal parks.
By challenging CCR § 4331, we have the opportunity to ensure that state and federal regulations are applied fairly and consistently, protecting the rights of businesses and individuals while preventing government overreach.
V. Conclusion
A. Summary of Key Points
CCR § 4331 is an overbroad and vague regulation that grants the California Department of Parks and Recreation too much discretion in regulating commercial activities within state parks. This regulation has been applied selectively and discriminatorily, particularly against horse rental businesses, violating the Equal Protection Clause and the non-delegation doctrine.
B. Call to Action
The court (or relevant legal authority) must consider the broader implications of upholding such regulations and the need to protect individual rights and freedoms. A ruling that challenges the constitutionality of CCR § 4331 could set a national precedent, ensuring that similar laws across the country are applied fairly and consistently. This is not just a fight for one business but a stand against government overreach and the protection of fundamental rights.

10/17/2023