Thank you for reporting both the good and bad of Professor Dennis Desjardin's experiences back home ("Mushroom man: Ex-Del Norter has become fungi expert").
I'm one of his admirers here in the Bay Area, and was dismayed to read about his recent run-in with the law there (but not entirely shocked, having heard similar stories elsewhere). I did a little research you might be interested in.
Redwood is a hybrid National and State Park, so the federal rules apply. The part of the Code of Federal Regulations they charged him under (which says nothing about fungi, however) contains this little gem: "as otherwise provided in this chapter." Further reading reveals that the statute gives broad leeway to (federal) land managers to set rules for the collection of forest products (and to make all kinds of exceptions).
In the case of national parks and recreation areas, it's up to the
superintendents to set the rules, which are found in the
Superintendent's Compendium for each park; here it is for Redwood:
At the bottom of page 6, it gives the rules for collecting deadwood
and limits for all species of edible berries (one gallon per person per
day), apples (five per day) and acorns (10 gallons per day) and
hazelnuts (one gallon). It doesn't say anything about fungi.
The only other rules I found prohibiting collection are on page 5,
under "Activities that Require a Permit," which refers to "Specimen
collection (take plants, fish, wildlife, rocks or minerals)" - no
mention of fungi here or anywhere else.
I think the only sane interpretation of these rules is that you can
pick all the mushrooms you want in Redwood National and State Parks
without a permit. According to our constitution, U.S. citizens are
presumed to be free to do whatever they want, unless it's specifically
prohibited by law (as opposed to nations like China, where citizens are
presumed to be allowed to do nothing without government permission,
except things that are on the short list of officially approved
Desjardin clearly should not have paid that ticket, and there was no
need to appear in court. A letter to the court citing the law should
have been sufficient.
Those officers should be reprimanded, although it sounds like their
boss has the same bad attitude; after stating all the serious
law-enforcement problems they have there, the chief ranger went on to
say, "... a ranger comes upon you, it's easy to say, 'I was just moving
them to take a photo.' That puts us in a difficult spot because any
criminal could say that they were just moving them to take a better
photo. That really sounds kind of sketchy."
What sounds sketchy to me is that he apparently thinks we're all
criminals, guilty until proven innocent. If they have all those serious
problems out there, why are they wasting time and (federal) taxpayer
money harassing a professor, or anyone for that matter, who is obviously
not doing anything wrong? It's ridiculous, and they should be ashamed
Of course, it's much easier to bully passive intellectual types than
to get out there and try to catch real criminals, who may actually shoot
at you, like that nut in Jackson State Forest. I realize that real cops
do face dangers out there, but I expect them to show good judgment
since we're issuing them firearms.
The heavy-handed, macho, militaristic attitude of our law enforcement
officers has gone from bad to way over the top. Once they decide you're
a "perp" rather than a citizen, forget about serve and protect and you
can kiss any idea of being treated with respect goodbye - just ask the
kids who got pepper-sprayed at UC Davis last week, or the professors who
got clubbed at UC Berkeley.
We need to constantly assert our rights if we expect to keep them.
This story sure doesn't make me want to visit the Redwood parks
anytime soon, so you can thank your local National Park Service
officials for discouraging tourism too.
David Lubertozzi is an Oakland resident.