• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump administration abruptly ends key law enforcement program at wildlife refuges

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,856
Reaction score
8,334
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Gee, I wonder why the administration wants to reduce the number of wardens allowed to carry firearms in wildlife refuges.

Trump administration abruptly ends key law enforcement program at wildlife refuges

The Trump administration is abruptly ending a decades-long program that trained national wildlife refuge managers with law enforcement capabilities to police often remote spots of public land.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced to employees on Sept. 21 that refuge managers who were also trained to police the area would no longer be able to act in any enforcement capacity and would be stripped of their firearm, according to an internal FWS email shared with The Hill.

Sources said the decision came as a shock to many of the people who have worked in the position, known as dual-function officers (. . .) The announcement will strip 51 refuge employees of the enforcement role in two stages between Oct. 1 and Jan. 1, according to the memo.
Click to expand...

Oh look, it's all because of budget cuts :roll:
FWS officials say they plan to replace the vacant dual-officer positions with 15 full-time officers in 2019 as a way to modernize the enforcement ranks and save costs.
Click to expand...
 
So....



In this case....guns good?
 
KevinKohler said:
So....



In this case....guns good?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, guns are good when they belong to hunters willing to pay for access to restricted areas in order to kill animals that were once protected by previous administrations.

Dozens of refuges in the short-term, they say, will now not have police, and in the long run many of those refuges will only see a law enforcement presence intermittently.

The move comes as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has increased access for more hunters and anglers across various wildlife refuges. In early September, he announced that 251,000 new acres on refuge lands would be open to hunting or fishing. By the 2018-2019 hunting season, 377 refuges will allow hunting and 312 will allow fishing.
Click to expand...

Then there are land usage environmental issues
. . . without the dual-officers, owners will take advantage of the opportunity to break their easements and drain the wetlands, which could lead to negative environmental impacts for waterfowl and migratory birds that breed there.

“They are trying to do everything in their power to violate the terms of that easement. Once they realize there is going to be void in that law enforcement presence, there is going to be a tremendous impact — that’s a given. That’s an absolute,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Gee, I wonder why the administration wants to reduce the number of wardens allowed to carry firearms in wildlife refuges.



Oh look, it's all because of budget cuts :roll:
Click to expand...

This will cost in good wardens that know they need a firearm for protection from both four and two legged threats, not to mention he lives of wardens that are now defenseless.BAD idea..
 
Somerville said:
Gee, I wonder why the administration wants to reduce the number of wardens allowed to carry firearms in wildlife refuges.



Oh look, it's all because of budget cuts :roll:
Click to expand...

Under the new plan, he worries that full-time officers won't be able to cover all the refuges that need policing and that the remaining refuge managers will now have to sit back and witness any violations they see.

“They just have to watch. There is nothing they can do. They can see the violation and their hands are tied,” he said.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't buy this argument. If they see a violation they don't have to sit back and not do anything. They can report the violation. They can assist the LE. Heck, they could even try to talk the violator out of doing whatever they are doing. They can also serve as credible witnesses in court cases.

If this new move does result in saved costs, I see that as a good thing.
 
Casper said:
This will cost in good wardens that know they need a firearm for protection from both four and two legged threats, not to mention he lives of wardens that are now defenseless.BAD idea..
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything in the article that said a warden was not allowed to protect themselves from threats.
 
I don’t have a problem with them losing law enforcement duties as a result of staff restructuring, but people working in remote areas like that, particularly when they already have the training, should be allowed to arm themselves.
 
Somerville said:
Oh yeah, guns are good when they belong to hunters willing to pay for access to restricted areas in order to kill animals that were once protected by previous administrations.



Then there are land usage environmental issues
Click to expand...

They're adding 15 people...they just won't be armed, and dual purpose.
 
Mycroft said:
I didn't see anything in the article that said a warden was not allowed to protect themselves from threats.
Click to expand...

Well, let's be real, here. Would you want the job of trying to keep tabs on and possibly confront poachers(armed people) with nothing but, say, a good camp knife?
 
Somerville said:
Gee, I wonder why the administration wants to reduce the number of wardens allowed to carry firearms in wildlife refuges.



Oh look, it's all because of budget cuts :roll:
Click to expand...

Do you disagree with this statement from your linked article:
""In the 21st Century the threats facing visitors and wildlife are more complex than ever. Protection of the National Wildlife Refuge System now requires a full-time officer corps that combines a concentrated effort on conservation protection, traditional policing and emergency first response to protect, serve and educate the public and Service staff.”
 
Who wants to bet this is inaccurate?

...would be stripped of their firearm, according to an internal FWS email shared .
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Oh yeah, guns are good when they belong to hunters willing to pay for access to restricted areas in order to kill animals that were once protected by previous administrations.



Then there are land usage environmental issues
Click to expand...

Hunters are the best guardians of nature than any other segment of our society.
 
Mycroft said:
I didn't see anything in the article that said a warden was not allowed to protect themselves from threats.
Click to expand...

Really, did you miss the strippef if their firearms part? I guess they can use a big stick, that will work great against a Grizzly, Moose, or criminal. Feel free to try it, one of us beloved Wardens or Citizens have the right to protect themselved, strange I used to think you did so also, learn something new every day.
 
Casper said:
Really, did you miss the strippef if their firearms part? I guess they can use a big stick, that will work great against a Grizzly, Moose, or criminal. Feel free to try it, one of us beloved Wardens or Citizens have the right to protect themselved, strange I used to think you did so also, learn something new every day.
Click to expand...

Their "firearm" is their issued weapon for their law enforcement duties. The article says nothing about them not being allowed to be armed.
 
KevinKohler said:
They're adding 15 people...they just won't be armed, and dual purpose.
Click to expand...

Jeez - try to read the link!! They are taking firearms and law-enforcement responsibility away from 51 wardens presently qualified to carry firearms and replacing them with 15 law enforcement officers who will be armed but won't have the environmental training.
 
mike2810 said:
Do you disagree with this statement from your linked article:
""In the 21st Century the threats facing visitors and wildlife are more complex than ever. Protection of the National Wildlife Refuge System now requires a full-time officer corps that combines a concentrated effort on conservation protection, traditional policing and emergency first response to protect, serve and educate the public and Service staff.”
Click to expand...

No, I don't disagree with the statement. So why are they reducing the total number of wardens?
 
Mycroft said:
Their "firearm" is their issued weapon for their law enforcement duties. The article says nothing about them not being allowed to be armed.
Click to expand...

Good grief, just never mind, no matter what I say you will defend this stupidity, now had Obama done this you would be all outraged, and rightly.
 
Somerville said:
Jeez - try to read the link!! They are taking firearms and law-enforcement responsibility away from 51 wardens presently qualified to carry firearms and replacing them with 15 law enforcement officers who will be armed but won't have the environmental training.
Click to expand...

It is as if some just cannot process the issue or the words explaining it, sometimes this is just a waste of time.
 
Holy ****...you are ****ting yourself over THIS????

OHMYGAWSH!!! Do you SEE what Trump is trying to do? Do you KNOW what it will mean to have less armed officers...at...at...wildlife reserves. No...stop laughing...I'm serious! Do you KNOW (STOP LAUGHING!!) what kind of violent crime (HEY!!! IM SUPERSERIOUS HERE...STOP LAUGHING!!!) occurs at those places??????


FFS......
 
VanceMack said:
Holy ****...you are ****ting yourself over THIS????

OHMYGAWSH!!! Do you SEE what Trump is trying to do? Do you KNOW what it will mean to have less armed officers...at...at...wildlife reserves. No...stop laughing...I'm serious! Do you KNOW (STOP LAUGHING!!) what kind of violent crime (HEY!!! IM SUPERSERIOUS HERE...STOP LAUGHING!!!) occurs at those places??????


FFS......
Click to expand...

It's not even close to funny, I live a half mile away from the upper Mississippi River refuge. It is open to hunting and fishing with just a few areas closed during hunting season.

The amounts of back waters and islands making it perfect for poaching and meth labs.

We have one warden in Wisconsin to cover over a hundred miles of river, not to mention three counties of land, one warden on the Iowa side, with the same, sheriff's department who do not patrol but only go out for emergencies, and two fish and wildlife wardens.who patrol the river more than any of the others.

If anything that should be expanding LE not getting rid of it.

The stupidity of this administration just never ceases to amaze me...
 
I'm sure wardens patrolling remote areas are really concerned with what some distant president thinks regarding their having weapons. :lamo
 
GDViking said:
It's not even close to funny, I live a half mile away from the upper Mississippi River refuge. It is open to hunting and fishing with just a few areas closed during hunting season.

The amounts of back waters and islands making it perfect for poaching and meth labs.

We have one warden in Wisconsin to cover over a hundred miles of river, not to mention three counties of land, one warden on the Iowa side, with the same, sheriff's department who do not patrol but only go out for emergencies, and two fish and wildlife wardens.who patrol the river more than any of the others.

If anything that should be expanding LE not getting rid of it.

The stupidity of this administration just never ceases to amaze me...
Click to expand...
Just how gainfully employed is that ONE WARDEN? Do you know? And what happens when that ONE WARDEN goes on vacation? Or sick leave?

Do you know how many non-or underutilized government positions are being reviewed right now and how many cuts the entire federal government is facing?
 
Casper said:
Good grief, just never mind, no matter what I say you will defend this stupidity, now had Obama done this you would be all outraged, and rightly.
Click to expand...

Oh. Off to whataboutism.

Dismissed.
 
Somerville said:
No, I don't disagree with the statement. So why are they reducing the total number of wardens?
Click to expand...

You are not understanding the article. No one is loosing their job. What was in place is there was refuge managers who also as a collateral / extra duty carried out law enforcement duties. This was addition to their full time job. What is going to happen is the refuge managers are going back to doing full time resource management work on the refuge.

Instead of 52 employees doing two jobs (resource management and law enforcement part of the time) the FWS will hire 15 additional full time law enforcement officers for the refuges. This is a net gain of 15 employees to the refuge system. There is no reduction in number of employees.
 
"Dozens of refuges in the short-term, they say, will now not have police, and in the long run many of those refuges will only see a law enforcement presence intermittently."

Sort of like what they have now.

"they plan to replace the vacant dual-officer positions with 15 full-time officers in 2019"

So...is it even AFFECTING ANYONE? like...at all?

But...I get it.


TTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom