turtle watch volunteer arrested

It's a matter of perspective--a backed up, fully-loaded toilet in the eyes of a plumber is Shangri-La.

.

:dothewave:

Nuff Said!

How are teheabandoned, upside-down tent skeletons not an eyesore?

They were full tents prior to slasher turtle lady.

does anyone know what this woman was charged with? If it was in the article, I did not see the actual charge stated...

If the "stuff" had been abandoned on the beach, then what law did she break?

Are the beaches in that area claimed as "private"? If not, can there be private property on a public beach?

Did the ordinance apply to the "stuff"? Does anyone know whose "stuff" it was?
Did they have the responsibililty to remove it overnight?

How did there happen to be a video? Did someone plan to photograph the incident, or did it just "happen".....This whole incident sounds a little strange to me, so I am just interested to know what specific charge was filed; and what law was broken according to authorities?


Anybody know?

I guess we all have different pet peeves. I honestly think the area looks pretty good but obviously I've seen better. I myself think vehicles on the beach are an eyesore but that's just me. The point is we all perceive things differently. [Edit]honestly, I cant' make out half the stuff in that picture. The only thing that stands out is the tent frame which could possibly be a tent in the process of being set up for all I know. I'm just saying that a good picture says 1000 words. In this case you need 1000 words to explain the picture. Lose the captions and take some closeups if you're trying to persuade is all I'm saying.

Maybe this is part of the problem, but that's just me.

does anyone know what this woman was charged with? If it was in the article, I did not see the actual charge stated...

If the "stuff" had been abandoned on the beach, then what law did she break?

Are the beaches in that area claimed as "private"? If not, can there be private property on a public beach?

Did the ordinance apply to the "stuff"? Does anyone know whose "stuff" it was?
Did they have the responsibililty to remove it overnight?

How did there happen to be a video? Did someone plan to photograph the incident, or did it just "happen".....This whole incident sounds a little strange to me, so I am just interested to know what specific charge was filed; and what law was broken according to authorities?


Anybody know?

Post 197 quotes an article from Kimberly White of the NWF Daily News stating it was two counts of criminal mischief. I wonder if there will be anything in the Walton Sun tomorrow that has more information? They haven't posted anything online yet.

yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I saw the item you mention; just wondering which law was broken resulting in "criminal mischief"...if the property is abandoned iaw the Walton Co. Ordinance...

I really wish that one of the newspapers would do an expose..with full color photographs...showing just what is happening to the beaches--it would probably be picked up by AP and Facebook and Twitter and we would make the International News...to think that we have such a treasure in our natural habitat and we are destroying it...by neglect, laziness, and lack of government regulations that are appropriate or elected officials who have the courage to enforce the rules they've written.

It is disgraceful IMO.

Why not mount our own grassroots facebook/twitter/blog.etc campaign and get viral about it?

does anyone know what this woman was charged with? If it was in the article, I did not see the actual charge stated...

If the "stuff" had been abandoned on the beach, then what law did she break?

Are the beaches in that area claimed as "private"? If not, can there be private property on a public beach?

Did the ordinance apply to the "stuff"? Does anyone know whose "stuff" it was?
Did they have the responsibililty to remove it overnight?

How did there happen to be a video? Did someone plan to photograph the incident, or did it just "happen".....This whole incident sounds a little strange to me, so I am just interested to know what specific charge was filed; and what law was broken according to authorities?


Anybody know?

So if someone abandons their car on the side of the road I can stop and puncture the tires and bust out the windows?

I don't know. What I am asking is:

What law governs abandoned stuff?

What law was broken?

I don't know. What I am asking is:

What law governs abandoned stuff?

What law was broken?

Abandoned or not, I do not believe you can legally destroy something that is not yours. The Florida theft statute is pretty comprehensive, basically taking of possession of anything that you know not to belong to you is theft.

And if destroying abandoned stuff was for the good of the turtles, how did it help to destroy it and leave the stuff in place, the turtle knows no difference between a float with air and a flat float.

Wrobert, I am simply asking what specific statute, ordinance, or whatever, the woman was charged under--I am asking for specific information if anyone knows...that's all.

Maybe this is part of the problem, but that's just me.

Well the fact is that a crowded beach on a busy day with lots of people and lots of stuff doesn't look all that great, even when all laws are being obeyed. That's just my opinion, but what are you going to do?

Abandoned or not, I do not believe you can legally destroy something that is not yours. The Florida theft statute is pretty comprehensive, basically taking of possession of anything that you know not to belong to you is theft.

Like a turtle habitat or public property?

And if destroying abandoned stuff was for the good of the turtles, how did it help to destroy it and leave the stuff in place, the turtle knows no difference between a float with air and a flat float.

While what she did was probably not done in the best judgment, she was making the point that the beach and its view is not something that tourists or residents have the right to destroy on a nightly basis. I can tell the difference between a flat float and one with air, and they have no business on the beach overnight.

Couldn't you:

A. Contact authorities
B. Confront owners of beach crap
C. Complain to the Condo mangers (I know, this probably won't work)
D. Move it WITHOUT destroying it.

Btw, I like your quote...

JD,
All very good points and I think that is why Mary snapped. All of this has been done over and over again. But, again keep in mind we all do not have the full story. I feel that way surfing sometimes in double red flags (in which I have a surfboard attached to my leg). You can tell people on vacation to stay out of the water and they just give you a blank stare. That all changes when they are drowning and you paddle up to them to save them. Now, I have their full attention. They now listen to every word I tell them. Something radical has to happen to wake them up. Mary made a radical move and has peoples attention. Right or wrong.

Wrobert, I am simply asking what specific statute, ordinance, or whatever, the woman was charged under--I am asking for specific information if anyone knows...that's all.

[SIZE=-1]806.13 Criminal mischief; penalties; penalty for minor.-- [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](1)(a) A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism thereto. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b)1. If the damage to such property is $200 or less, it is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2. If the damage to such property is greater than $200 but less than $1,000, it is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3. If the damage is $1,000 or greater, or if there is interruption or impairment of a business operation or public communication, transportation, supply of water, gas or power, or other public service which costs $1,000 or more in labor and supplies to restore, it is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]4. If the person has one or more previous convictions for violating this subsection, the offense under subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](2) Any person who willfully and maliciously defaces, injures, or damages by any means any church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, or any religious article contained therein, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the damage to the property is greater than $200. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](3) Whoever, without the consent of the owner thereof, willfully destroys or substantially damages any public telephone, or telephone cables, wires, fixtures, antennas, amplifiers, or any other apparatus, equipment, or appliances, which destruction or damage renders a public telephone inoperative or which opens the body of a public telephone, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084; provided, however, that a conspicuous notice of the provisions of this subsection and the penalties provided is posted on or near the destroyed or damaged instrument and visible to the public at the time of the commission of the offense. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](4) Any person who willfully and maliciously defaces, injures, or damages by any means a sexually violent predator detention or commitment facility, as defined in part V of chapter 394, or any property contained therein, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the damage to property is greater than $200. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](5)(a) The amounts of value of damage to property owned by separate persons, if the property was damaged during one scheme or course of conduct, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense under this section. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) Any person who violates this section may, in addition to any other criminal penalty, be required to pay for the damages caused by such offense. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](6)(a) Any person who violates this section when the violation is related to the placement of graffiti shall, in addition to any other criminal penalty, be required to pay a fine of: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1. Not less than $250 for a first conviction. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2. Not less than $500 for a second conviction. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3. Not less than $1,000 for a third or subsequent conviction. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) Any person convicted under this section when the offense is related to the placement of graffiti shall, in addition to any other criminal penalty, be required to perform at least 40 hours of community service and, if possible, perform at least 100 hours of community service that involves the removal of graffiti. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](c) If a minor commits a delinquent act prohibited under paragraph (a), the parent or legal guardian of the minor is liable along with the minor for payment of the fine. The court may decline to order a person to pay a fine under paragraph (a) if the court finds that the person is indigent and does not have the ability to pay the fine or if the court finds that the person does not have the ability to pay the fine whether or not the person is indigent. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](7) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, if a minor is found to have committed a delinquent act under this section for placing graffiti on any public property or private property, and: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](a) The minor is eligible by reason of age for a driver's license or driving privilege, the court shall direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke or withhold issuance of the minor's driver's license or driving privilege for not more than 1 year. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) The minor's driver's license or driving privilege is under suspension or revocation for any reason, the court shall direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to extend the period of suspension or revocation by an additional period of not more than 1 year. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](c) The minor is ineligible by reason of age for a driver's license or driving privilege, the court shall direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to withhold issuance of the minor's driver's license or driving privilege for not more than 1 year after the date on which he or she would otherwise have become eligible. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](8) A minor whose driver's license or driving privilege is revoked, suspended, or withheld under subsection (7) may elect to reduce the period of revocation, suspension, or withholding by performing community service at the rate of 1 day for each hour of community service performed. In addition, if the court determines that due to a family hardship, the minor's driver's license or driving privilege is necessary for employment or medical purposes of the minor or a member of the minor's family, the court shall order the minor to perform community service and reduce the period of revocation, suspension, or withholding at the rate of 1 day for each hour of community service performed. As used in this subsection, the term "community service" means cleaning graffiti from public property. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](9) Because of the difficulty of confronting the blight of graffiti, it is the intent of the Legislature that municipalities and counties not be preempted by state law from establishing ordinances that prohibit the marking of graffiti or other graffiti-related offenses. Furthermore, as related to graffiti, such municipalities and counties are not preempted by state law from establishing higher penalties than those provided by state law and mandatory penalties when state law provides discretionary penalties. Such higher and mandatory penalties include fines that do not exceed the amount specified in ss. 125.69 and 162.21, community service, restitution, and forfeiture. Upon a finding that a juvenile has violated a graffiti-related ordinance, a court acting under chapter 985 may not provide a disposition of the case which is less severe than any mandatory penalty prescribed by municipal or county ordinance for such violation. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]History.--s. 27, ch. 74-383; s. 20, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 82-21; s. 1, ch. 86-281; s. 1, ch. 88-273; s. 183, ch. 91-224; s. 1, ch. 95-164; s. 1231, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 98-93; s. 1, ch. 98-415; s. 5, ch. 2001-244; s. 117, ch. 2002-1; s. 1, ch. 2002-163. [/SIZE]

JD,
All very good points and I think that is why Mary snapped. All of this has been done over and over again. But, again keep in mind we all do not have the full story. I feel that way surfing sometimes in double red flags (in which I have a surfboard attached to my leg). You can tell people on vacation to stay out of the water and they just give you a blank stare. That all changes when they are drowning and you paddle up to them to save them. Now, I have their full attention. They now listen to every word I tell them. Something radical has to happen to wake them up. Mary made a radical move and has peoples attention. Right or wrong.

I agree Bobby.

In some cases, it's been called Civil Disobedience.

I do think it is important to remember that we do not have the SPECIFIC INFORMATION about this particular case.

Like a turtle habitat or public property?



While what she did was probably not done in the best judgment, she was making the point that the beach and its view is not something that tourists or residents have the right to destroy on a nightly basis. I can tell the difference between a flat float and one with air, and they have no business on the beach overnight.

Are the tourists destroying the habitat? I thought this stuff was just blocking the way for the turtle to get to the habitat. And no you can not destroy public property. And while you can tell the difference, I do not believe a turtle can, I figure an obstruction is just an obstruction to them. That is why I thought that being able to put a tag on something and then leave it on the beach was a pretty dumb law.

Abandoned or not, I do not believe you can legally destroy something that is not yours. The Florida theft statute is pretty comprehensive, basically taking of possession of anything that you know not to belong to you is theft....

I can think of exceptions to that rule -- garbage. People are constantly taking other's property when they pick up garbage. You may be missing the point that many people leave their crap on the beach, even when they are heading back to where ever they live, thinking that others may be able to use it.

[SIZE=-1]806.13 Criminal mischief; penalties; penalty for minor.-- [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](1)(a) A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism thereto. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b)1. If the damage to such property is $200 or less, it is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2. If the damage to such property is greater than $200 but less than $1,000, it is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3. If the damage is $1,000 or greater, or if there is interruption or impairment of a business operation or public communication, transportation, supply of water, gas or power, or other public service which costs $1,000 or more in labor and supplies to restore, it is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]4. If the person has one or more previous convictions for violating this subsection, the offense under subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](2) Any person who willfully and maliciously defaces, injures, or damages by any means any church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, or any religious article contained therein, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the damage to the property is greater than $200. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](3) Whoever, without the consent of the owner thereof, willfully destroys or substantially damages any public telephone, or telephone cables, wires, fixtures, antennas, amplifiers, or any other apparatus, equipment, or appliances, which destruction or damage renders a public telephone inoperative or which opens the body of a public telephone, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084; provided, however, that a conspicuous notice of the provisions of this subsection and the penalties provided is posted on or near the destroyed or damaged instrument and visible to the public at the time of the commission of the offense. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](4) Any person who willfully and maliciously defaces, injures, or damages by any means a sexually violent predator detention or commitment facility, as defined in part V of chapter 394, or any property contained therein, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the damage to property is greater than $200. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](5)(a) The amounts of value of damage to property owned by separate persons, if the property was damaged during one scheme or course of conduct, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense under this section. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) Any person who violates this section may, in addition to any other criminal penalty, be required to pay for the damages caused by such offense. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](6)(a) Any person who violates this section when the violation is related to the placement of graffiti shall, in addition to any other criminal penalty, be required to pay a fine of: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1. Not less than $250 for a first conviction. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2. Not less than $500 for a second conviction. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3. Not less than $1,000 for a third or subsequent conviction. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) Any person convicted under this section when the offense is related to the placement of graffiti shall, in addition to any other criminal penalty, be required to perform at least 40 hours of community service and, if possible, perform at least 100 hours of community service that involves the removal of graffiti. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](c) If a minor commits a delinquent act prohibited under paragraph (a), the parent or legal guardian of the minor is liable along with the minor for payment of the fine. The court may decline to order a person to pay a fine under paragraph (a) if the court finds that the person is indigent and does not have the ability to pay the fine or if the court finds that the person does not have the ability to pay the fine whether or not the person is indigent. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](7) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, if a minor is found to have committed a delinquent act under this section for placing graffiti on any public property or private property, and: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](a) The minor is eligible by reason of age for a driver's license or driving privilege, the court shall direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke or withhold issuance of the minor's driver's license or driving privilege for not more than 1 year. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) The minor's driver's license or driving privilege is under suspension or revocation for any reason, the court shall direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to extend the period of suspension or revocation by an additional period of not more than 1 year. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](c) The minor is ineligible by reason of age for a driver's license or driving privilege, the court shall direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to withhold issuance of the minor's driver's license or driving privilege for not more than 1 year after the date on which he or she would otherwise have become eligible. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](8) A minor whose driver's license or driving privilege is revoked, suspended, or withheld under subsection (7) may elect to reduce the period of revocation, suspension, or withholding by performing community service at the rate of 1 day for each hour of community service performed. In addition, if the court determines that due to a family hardship, the minor's driver's license or driving privilege is necessary for employment or medical purposes of the minor or a member of the minor's family, the court shall order the minor to perform community service and reduce the period of revocation, suspension, or withholding at the rate of 1 day for each hour of community service performed. As used in this subsection, the term "community service" means cleaning graffiti from public property. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](9) Because of the difficulty of confronting the blight of graffiti, it is the intent of the Legislature that municipalities and counties not be preempted by state law from establishing ordinances that prohibit the marking of graffiti or other graffiti-related offenses. Furthermore, as related to graffiti, such municipalities and counties are not preempted by state law from establishing higher penalties than those provided by state law and mandatory penalties when state law provides discretionary penalties. Such higher and mandatory penalties include fines that do not exceed the amount specified in ss. 125.69 and 162.21, community service, restitution, and forfeiture. Upon a finding that a juvenile has violated a graffiti-related ordinance, a court acting under chapter 985 may not provide a disposition of the case which is less severe than any mandatory penalty prescribed by municipal or county ordinance for such violation. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]History.--s. 27, ch. 74-383; s. 20, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 82-21; s. 1, ch. 86-281; s. 1, ch. 88-273; s. 183, ch. 91-224; s. 1, ch. 95-164; s. 1231, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 98-93; s. 1, ch. 98-415; s. 5, ch. 2001-244; s. 117, ch. 2002-1; s. 1, ch. 2002-163. [/SIZE]

Okay. Are you saying that you know she was charged under this and that the authorities know that the property she affected "belonged to another" or was it abandoned on the beach for the TDC to pick up?

I can think of exceptions to that rule -- garbage. People are constantly taking other's property when they pick up garbage. You may be missing the point that many people leave their crap on the beach, even when they are heading back to where ever they live, thinking that others may be able to use it.

The exception may be in that no one would prosecute you. But the law as written use to be pretty explicit. Have not looked at it lately so maybe it has changed.

Thank you OLL! Miss Sallie Williams would be proud! For those of you who just got here, Miss Sallie was a realtor who "developed" Seacrest in the early 1970's. She was passionate about the beach, and protecting the natural beauty that we enjoy. Pick up the trash, fill in the holes, explain things to our visitors, don't look to government or someone else to do it all -- and enjoy the beach once again. Life could be so good.

Miss Sallie sounds like a person I could respect and a realtor that cared about the area and not just making a sale. Sadly that is not the case with all realtors in the area.

Many wonder why some beach front property owners feel they "own" the beach. Well that is because that is what their realtor sold them. I have personally witnessed someone being told by a realtor that there is no reason to be concerned about others using the beach between their property and the Gulf, and that they don't need to be concerned about leaving their belongings over night on their property. And before anyone says that someone investing that much money should know the local situation, they hired a local "expert" to provide that info.

So maybe part of the problem is not just the tourists.

Littering on the feeder roads to 30A (also Scenic Hwy) carries a fine up to $500 per incident. Why the hell are our beaches not also protected like this? Seems to me that the biggest reason why our roads are designated as "scenic" is because they are the route to some of the prettiest beaches in the world. Leaving your crap on the beach overnight should be considered "littering" and should carry a fine at least as heavy as those issued for littering on the roads getting to the beach, IF NOT GREATER. The only problem with that is enforcement, because no one in their right mind is going to be laying claim to a $99 canopy and three year old plastic chairs with rusty frames, in exchange for a $500 fine. But, at least then, the abandoned property would really be abandoned as no owner is laying claim.

...and for the absent-minded yahoo who happens to leave his Rolex watch in the ice cooler on the beach overnight, he could lay claim to his watch and pay the $500 fine for littering and reclaim his watch.

Miss Sallie sounds like a person I could respect and a realtor that cared about the area and not just making a sale. Sadly that is not the case with all realtors in the area.

Many wonder why some beach front property owners feel they "own" the beach. Well that is because that is what their realtor sold them. I have personally witnessed someone being told by a realtor that there is no reason to be concerned about others using the beach between their property and the Gulf, and that they don't need to be concerned about leaving their belongings over night on their property. And before anyone says that someone investing that much money should know the local situation, they hired a local "expert" to provide that info.

So maybe part of the problem is not just the tourists.

I too, have heard one, but only one, Realtor shouting that the owner had full rights to all their property. The only problem with that particular Realtor is that he/she is not an attorney, but sounded as though he/she was giving legal consultation. Property rights are not determined by Realtors. ;-)

Abandoned or not, I do not believe you can legally destroy something that is not yours. The Florida theft statute is pretty comprehensive, basically taking of possession of anything that you know not to belong to you is theft.

And if destroying abandoned stuff was for the good of the turtles, how did it help to destroy it and leave the stuff in place, the turtle knows no difference between a float with air and a flat float.

Since it was already DISCARDED than it belonged to no one. IMO no law was broken other than maybe if she left it behind and "Littered"

a⋅ban⋅doned

  /əˈb?ndənd/ Show Spelled [uh-ban-duhnd] Show IPA
?adjective 1.forsaken or deserted: an abandoned building; an abandoned kitten.
2.unrestrained or uncontrolled; uninhibited: She danced with abandoned enthusiasm.
3.utterly lacking in moral restraints; shameless; wicked: an abandoned and dissolute ruler.


Origin:
1350?1400; ME; see abandon 1 , -ed 2

?Related forms a⋅ban⋅doned⋅ly, adverb

?Synonyms
1. discarded, rejected. 3. See immoral.

Littering on the feeder roads to 30A (also Scenic Hwy) carries a fine up to $500 per incident. Why the hell are our beaches not also protected like this? Seems to me that the biggest reason why our roads are designated as "scenic" is because they are the route to some of the prettiest beaches in the world. Leaving your crap on the beach overnight should be considered "littering" and should carry a fine at least as heavy as those issued for littering on the roads getting to the beach, IF NOT GREATER. The only problem with that is enforcement, because no one in their right mind is going to be laying claim to a $99 canopy and three year old plastic chairs with rusty frames, in exchange for a $500 fine. But, at least then, the abandoned property would really be abandoned as no owner is laying claim.

It is all about money.

The only reason that the ordiance to keep the beaches clean is not being enforced is that they are afraid to offend a paying guest that wants to be lazy and leave their crap on the beach overnight.

And years ago it probably was not that big of a problem for two reasons. One fewer people came to the area and people were just generally more responsible and caring about the impact their actions have on the area.

Now you have more visitors and more that simply do not care. Until the county truly begins to care, it is not going to improve. You can educate all you want but those willing to be educated are not the ones causing the problems.

A fine is a great idea on paper but will have no effect without enforcement and therein lies the problem.