U.S. Rangers, Park Police Sustain Record Levels of Violence

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

WASHINGTON, DC, September 1, 2004 (ENS) - Attacks, threats, harassment against National Park Service rangers and U.S. Park Police officers reached a all-time high in 2003, according to agency records released Tuesday by an association of federal employees, keeper of the country's only database documenting violence against federal resource protection employees. At the same time, "scores" of park law enforcement personnel have been reassigned to desks, rangers say.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reports that National Park Service commissioned law enforcement officers were victims of assaults 106 times in 2003. More than one-quarter of these encounters resulted in injury to the officers. This figure tops the 2002 total of 98 assaults but parallels the 2001 previous high of 104 violent incidents. "Law enforcement officers in the National Park Service are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents – a rate triple that of the next worst federal agency," said Randall Kendrick, executive director for the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

A midnight shift with only one ranger, a nuclear power plant threatened by terrorists, rangers sent out on patrol without dispatch, without backup, without even pepper spray - these are real situations that place the defenders of America's public lands in grave danger, the officers' association warns. On their 2003 "Most Dangerous National Parks" list, released in June, the Fraternal Order of Police handed the Number One spot to Arizona's Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument for the third year in a row.

After the murder of 28 year old NPS Ranger Kris Eggle on August 9, 2002, the park service bolstered its force at the monument with tactical teams, since removed, and has failed to restore staff levels to previous levels, the officers' association reports.

From Environment News Service link here: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2004/2004-09-01-02.asp


So the Rangers and the Park Police aren't safe, but us normal folks should only be worried about Grizzly Bears and Mountain Lions. Since the Rangers are having trouble protecting themselves and are hugely understaffed, is it unreasonable for people who are legally allowed to carry a firearm in the State of the Park they are visiting, to be allowed to do so in the Park? I would love to hear a rational argument against this. I hope someone steps up to do so.

David

[Cleita]

1. A ranger girl friend of mine quit because they stopped allowing them

to carry guns. How stupid is that? I was a campground host and felt sometimes vulnerable because I couldn't carry a gun either. Yet, during hunting season every visitor's tent was full of guns and ammo.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Pretty stupid.

I hope she found a better job.

David

[Cleita]

3. She and her husband bought a ranch in Nevada and started raising horses. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. That's a much better job.

[rangersmith82]

11. Why would anyone need a gun in a national forest??

Before it was illegal to have a gun in a national forest.

Since there are laws baning them she should be safe as nobody would disobey the law right???

All she has to do is get a Concealed weapons permit and she will be able to carry one anywhere she wants in the forest.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. You have confused national forest and national park. n/t

[JonQ]

5. If you feel threatened

when you're in the back woods just call the cops. The whole point of having trained professionals is that they will always be able to protect us, all the time, without delay or error. Just hope your cell phone has enough bars and your potential killer is willing to wait a few hours/days for them to arrive.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. That's always an option.

[MichaelHarris]

7. Guns have nothing to do with

violence in campgrounds, beer does. Popcorn anyone?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Those rarely result in more than a charge of simple battery.

[lib2DaBone]

9. On a family picnic you never know when you might need a .50 cal..

Republican Family Values...

[rangersmith82]

12. Where did it say anything about a 50 cal??

I have never heard of a 50 BMG pistol.

[tburnsten]

15. There was the Maadi-Griffin

But I think that was more of a project just to see if they could make it work than anything else. Not neccessarily a useful or even good idea. It was a single-shot.


And if it is just handguns with a boresize of .50", than there are several calibers that use that boresize. All are heavily hunting-oriented though, with the exception of the .50 GI, but that is no more and possibly less powerful than an ordinary 10mm (.40 caliber) or any moderately warm .45 ACP loads. It is really, really slow compared to the other, more common defensive calibers, but it costs more and holds less rounds in the same sized pistol. I don't know if the JHP bullets made for it could even expand at the low velocities they achieve.

[benEzra]

13. No, but one might need a 9mm...

On a family picnic you never know when you might need a .50 cal...Republican Family Values...

No, but one might need a 9mm or a .223/.30 caliber, and I'm not a Republican.

FWIW, my father had a "save" via a lawfully carried pistol on National Forest land late one night in the early 1970's, when I was a child. He didn't have to fire the gun, and didn't even have to draw it; his would-be assailants saw he was armed, looked at each other, backed off, and left. And yes, he was a registered Democrat.

No-carry laws don't stop drug cartels from growing drugs deep in National Parks and killing hikers and campers who stumble upon them. No-carry laws don't stop sexual predators and other violent individuals from going armed in the back country and stalking hikers and campers. No-carry laws don't disarm poachers. They just disarm the lawful and responsible.

The new rules don't legalize park carry; they ALLOW YOUR STATE TO DECIDE, the same way states have always set their own carry policies on National Forest lands and BLM lands. If your state decides not to allow carry in National Parks, that's up to your state.

[dalus]

16. Not a .50, but maybe a Ruger Alaskan

in .454 Casull or .480 Ruger. Just about as good as a .50 and you can pocket it.

[SteveM]

14. Cat crept into the crypt, crapped, crept out again (nt)

[TPaine7]

10. Facts are irrelevant under the

gun control reality distortion field.

I think you will find most anti-gun zealots immune to factual evidence and logic grounded in it. Unless, of course, that evidence appears to support their beliefs.

There are the rare few, however, who will step outside the field and think.

[iverglas]

17. just curious, Davey

So the Rangers and the Park Police aren't safe, but us normal folks should only be worried about Grizzly Bears and Mountain Lions.

Looked in a mirror lately?

When you did, was there a park ranger or a cop looking back at you?

I can think of risks that park rangers and cops are exposed to that you aren't.

Or ...

"Law enforcement officers in the National Park Service are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents – a rate triple that of the next worst federal agency," said Randall Kendrick, executive director for the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

were picnickers in national parks also 12 times more likely to be killed or injured than FBI agents?

I can also think of rules and regulations that park rangers and cops are subject to that you aren't.

And duties that park rangers and cops are under, and risks they are required to take, that you aren't.

So many differences between you and park rangers and cops that I'd think they'd be kind of obvious, even if you don't have a mirror handy.

[gorfle]

18. Nonetheless.

I can think of risks that park rangers and cops are exposed to that you aren't.

Nonetheless, if the places where park rangers normally conduct business are dangerous, and normal citizens visit those same places, then it is logical that normal citizens could be exposed to similar dangers.

I can also think of rules and regulations that park rangers and cops are subject to that you aren't.

Does this somehow entitle them to better means to self-defense than ordinary citizens?

So many differences between you and park rangers and cops that I'd think they'd be kind of obvious, even if you don't have a mirror handy.

I believe the point that was being made was about the similarities, not the differences. They're pretty obvious, too.

[iverglas]

19. such amazing sophistry

I can think of risks that park rangers and cops are exposed to that you aren't.
Nonetheless, if the places where park rangers normally conduct business are dangerous, and normal citizens visit those same places, then it is logical that normal citizens could be exposed to similar dangers.

And as I was saying, if the danger is associated with their status as park rangers and has nothing to do with the "places" in question other than the fact that parks are where park rangers "conduct business", which is too bleeding obviously the case, then Dave doesn't look like a park ranger.


I can also think of rules and regulations that park rangers and cops are subject to that you aren't.
Does this somehow entitle them to better means to self-defense than ordinary citizens?

Does no one here have a STITCH of fucking sense? Does no one here EVER read words for meaning??

What it does is provide the public with assurances that the use of firearms in the possession of park rangers is subject to PUBLIC OVERSIGHT, that park rangers are ACCOUNTABLE to the public for their use of firearms, that there are RULES that park rangers who carry firearms are required to abide by. And that, for one great big honking difference, the IDENTITY of park rangers and the FACT that they are carrying firearms are KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.

Park rangers carry firearms IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES assigned to them by the public and accepted by them. Park rangers are at risk of assault BECAUSE OF THEIR STATUS as park rangers, and BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES as park rangers.

NONE of this applies to Dave, or anybody else who might need to look in a mirror.


So many differences between you and park rangers and cops that I'd think they'd be kind of obvious, even if you don't have a mirror handy.
I believe the point that was being made was about the similarities, not the differences. They're pretty obvious, too.

I believe you have failed to make a point.

There are whopping great similarities between apples and oranges, but I'm not going to use oranges if I want to make an apple pie.

[gorfle]

20. Comments.

And as I was saying, if the danger is associated with their status as park rangers and has nothing to do with the "places" in question other than the fact that parks are where park rangers "conduct business", which is too bleeding obviously the case, then Dave doesn't look like a park ranger.

And as I was saying, if the danger is associated with their place of business, it doesn't really matter if Dave is a park ranger or not if he's in the same dangerous place.

Does no one here have a STITCH of fucking sense?

Most of the pro-firearm folks seem to. :)

Does no one here EVER read words for meaning??

Doesn't it surprise you that time and again everyone who reads what you write comes away with a different impression than what you thought you said? Of course we all know the answer to this - you aren't surprised at all. Every time someone translates what you say into plain English you complain about how misunderstood you are.

What it does is provide the public with assurances that the use of firearms in the possession of park rangers is subject to PUBLIC OVERSIGHT, that park rangers are ACCOUNTABLE to the public for their use of firearms, that there are RULES that park rangers who carry firearms are required to abide by. And that, for one great big honking difference, the IDENTITY of park rangers and the FACT that they are carrying firearms are KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.

Oh yes, that "public oversight" song again. Like there is no public oversight, accountability, rules, or publicly known identities for concealed carry permit holders. :eyes:

I know you think so, Iverglas, but there is nothing magical or otherwise special about park rangers or police officers. They are citizens just like you or me. But even if there was, so what? If I can carry a gun downtown surrounded by thousands of my fellow citizens, why not in a park in the middle of nowhere?

Park rangers carry firearms IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES assigned to them by the public and accepted by them.

So? Citizens carry firearms because it is their Constitutional right to do so enumerated by our founders and ratified by our states.

Park rangers are at risk of assault BECAUSE OF THEIR STATUS as park rangers, and BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES as park rangers.

Well that's a relief! Next time some average joe trips across a still, or a pot field, or a poacher, or who knows what other sort of nefarious person or animal in a park, it's a relief to know that they are perfectly safe since they aren't park rangers. :eyes:

I believe you have failed to make a point.

I believe you are wrong.

There are whopping great similarities between apples and oranges, but I'm not going to use oranges if I want to make an apple pie.

And I'm not going to ignore the similarities when we are discussing fruit or get all huffy when the similarities are pointed out.

[iverglas]

21. how about some straight talk

I didn't actually say "if" anything. I said:

I can think of risks that park rangers and cops are exposed to that you aren't.

You say:

if the danger is associated with their place of business

and I say: stop right there. It isn't.

If the sun were blue, I would wear orange sunglasses. It isn't, and I don't.

So:

it doesn't really matter if Dave is a park ranger or not if he's in the same dangerous place.

you can stop again. He isn't in the same dangerous place, because THERE IS NO DANGEROUS PLACE.

Unless you'd like to dig up some statistics showing the horrifically disproportionate numbers of robberies and murders committed in National Parks last year ...


Oh yes, that "public oversight" song again. Like there is no public oversight, accountability, rules, or publicly known identities for concealed carry permit holders.

That's right. Exactly like that.

Or have you started getting forehead tatoos that say "CCW"? For starters.

You wander about the world, going exactly where you please and doing exactly what you please, with exactly whomever you please, exactly whenever you please, with your trusty gun as your constant companion.

That actually isn't quite the case for park rangers carrying firearms, is it? Not if they plan to have their job next day, anyhow. Yup, the oversight is a deterrent rather than a preventive or controlling measure, but it is oversight, and a deterrent, that simply does not exist for you and your pals.


If I can carry a gun downtown surrounded by thousands of my fellow citizens, why not in a park in the middle of nowhere?

I dunno. If it was legal to own a person with black skin, why shouldn't it have been legal to own a person with white skin?

Did you completely miss that TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT bit?


Park rangers carry firearms IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES assigned to them by the public and accepted by them.
So? Citizens carry firearms because it is their Constitutional right to do so enumerated by our founders and ratified by our states.

And I eat pizza because I like it.

And an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange, but you are apparently fruit-blind.

And NO ONE does ANYTHING BECAUSE s/he has a right to do it. Having a right to do something is NOT a REASON to do it. For the love of fuck.


Next time some average joe trips across a still, or a pot field, or a poacher, or who knows what other sort of nefarious person or animal in a park, it's a relief to know that they are perfectly safe since they aren't park rangers.

Your park rangers surely must be dolts. Average joes constantly running into bad guys doing things in national parks that it is actually park rangers' job to detect and deal with, and yet park rangers never seem to run into them.

Can you give me some statistics on this one? How many average joes are we talking, in a year?


And I'm not going to ignore the similarities when we are discussing fruit or get all huffy when the similarities are pointed out.

Bully for you. Now tell me you're going to make apple pie with oranges.

[gorfle]

22. You're wrong.

You say:

if the danger is associated with their place of business

and I say: stop right there. It isn't.

And I say: stop right there. It is.

If the sun were blue, I would wear orange sunglasses. It isn't, and I don't.

And this has nothing to do with anything. Just more smoke and verbosity for obfuscation and to make yourself seem clever.

you can stop again. He isn't in the same dangerous place, because THERE IS NO DANGEROUS PLACE.

You can stop again. You're wrong.

Unless you'd like to dig up some statistics showing the horrifically disproportionate numbers of robberies and murders committed in National Parks last year ...

This data has been provided to you before. No one has claimed "horrifically disproportionate numbers" of robberies and murders committed in National Parks last year. Nonetheless, they occur. If someone wishes to lawfully carry a concealed weapon as insurance against these happenings, they should be able to.


Oh yes, that "public oversight" song again. Like there is no public oversight, accountability, rules, or publicly known identities for concealed carry permit holders.

That's right. Exactly like that.

Or have you started getting forehead tatoos that say "CCW"? For starters.

The fact that CCW permit holders are anonymous as they travel about with their concealed weapons does not mean that there is no public oversight, no accountability, no rules, or no publicly known identities for CCW permit holders. Now if you would prefer that all CCW permit holders check in at the park gate and announce that they are CCW permit holders, I guess I'm OK with that, but why bother after all the paperwork and background checking you've already gone to the trouble to do with such people?

You wander about the world, going exactly where you please and doing exactly what you please, with exactly whomever you please, exactly whenever you please, with your trusty gun as your constant companion.

That actually isn't quite the case for park rangers carrying firearms, is it?

There's no reason why it can't be the case for park rangers if they decide to get a CCW permit, too.

Not if they plan to have their job next day, anyhow. Yup, the oversight is a deterrent rather than a preventive or controlling measure, but it is oversight, and a deterrent, that simply does not exist for you and your pals.

I believe that the consequences of breaking the rules by CCW permit holders is every bit a deterrent as it is for a park ranger or a police officer. The simple fact is that contrary to your claim, for anyone who carries a firearm, whether they are a park ranger, police officer, or a CCW permit holder, there are rules, public oversight, accountability, and publicly known identities, and there is accountability for breaking those rules.

You just seem to think that park rangers and police officers are somehow more beholden to the rules than other people, evidently because their job is at stake. How about those little inconveniences called "jail time" and "police records"? Those don't tend to be very career-enhancing assets.

In any case I suspect it's usually not the rules that drive these kinds of people to do the right thing anyway. Police officers, park rangers, and CCW permit holders tend to do the right thing because they tend to be responsible, upstanding, moral people interested in defending the helpless and generally being good stewards.

If I can carry a gun downtown surrounded by thousands of my fellow citizens, why not in a park in the middle of nowhere?

I dunno. If it was legal to own a person with black skin, why shouldn't it have been legal to own a person with white skin?

If it were legal to own a person with white skin, then of course it would be legal to own a person with black skin. But it isn't, so it's not. And of course the reason it isn't is because it is immoral to own people.

Of course it is legal to carry concealed firearms in most places, and there is no moral reason not to.

Did you completely miss that TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT bit?

Did you completely miss that firearm ownership and concealed carry isn't wrong?

Park rangers carry firearms IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES assigned to them by the public and accepted by them.
So? Citizens carry firearms because it is their Constitutional right to do so enumerated by our founders and ratified by our states.

And I eat pizza because I like it.

And an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange, but you are apparently fruit-blind.

It is annoying how every time you are on the losing end of an argument you dissolve into non sequiturs.

And NO ONE does ANYTHING BECAUSE s/he has a right to do it. Having a right to do something is NOT a REASON to do it. For the love of fuck.

The nice thing about rights is I don't have to have a reason to exercise them. But this is beside the point. There are valid, moral reasons to carry concealed weapons, namely personal self-defense. Park rangers are not a special case of firearm carrying simply because they need a firearm to carry out their duties assigned to them by the public and accepted by them.

Your park rangers surely must be dolts. Average joes constantly running into bad guys doing things in national parks that it is actually park rangers' job to detect and deal with, and yet park rangers never seem to run into them.

If park rangers never run into them, then why are they carrying firearms? And if park rangers are running into them (and obviously they are, if they are carrying firearms), then why couldn't an average joe run into them?

Can you give me some statistics on this one? How many average joes are we talking, in a year?

I'm not going to bother looking because I don't think it matters. Even if parks were perfectly safe places and park rangers didn't carry firearms I would still say people with CCW permits should be able to carry in such places. Generally, we don't allow or disallow concealed weapon carrying based on the probability of whether or not they will need to use their weapon. If a person is an upstanding, law-abiding citizen they are, in most places, allowed to carry a concealed weapon if they so choose.

Bully for you. Now tell me you're going to make apple pie with oranges.

There's that old non sequitur again.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

30. and your serious and worthwhile purpose here

... is ............. ?

Ignored is obviously only here to disrupt.

How does one reply to a post one can't see???


Edit - I get it; wasn't paying attention.

Busy violating more than one rule here, I see. Not replying to me; talking about me. Most discourteously, I fear. For shame, forsooth.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. "There is no dangerous place."

Then why do we have law enforcement in the National Parks? And why are they armed? I'm sure if a lone hiker came across a poacher in the middle of gutting his kill inside a National Park they wouldn't be in any danger. If they had a uniform on they would be, but if not they would be fine.

David

[benEzra]

25. Or worse, coming across a clandestine drug plantation or meth lab... (n/t)

[gorfle]

27. Why they are armed.

Then why do we have law enforcement in the National Parks? And why are they armed?

According to Iverglas, they are armed because only park rangers, by virtue of being park rangers, will encounter dangerous things in national parks. No one else will ever encounter such dangers.

Now Iverglas is probably correct in that park rangers, who work in parks and who's job it is to police them, will probably encounter more dangerous things than your average national park visitor.

But this is no reason to disallow concealed carry in national parks. As I said before - we don't generally issue CCW permits based on how dangerous the places the permit holder visits are.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. It's like this, Ivy.

When did I compare myself to a park ranger or a cop? When did I say my risks were the same or worse? Please realize this whole thread was prompted by another thread in which it was stated that the only thing people had to worry about in the national parks was the wildlife of the non-human variety. I do appreciate the personal attention, it lets me know how important I am to you.

David

[Indy Lurker]

26. Law enforcement is spread very thin in national parks

GAO reported that "the department's law enforcement staff is already spread thin ... averaging one law enforcement officer for about every 110,000 visitors and 118,000 acres of land."


by comparison:

City of Chicago - 2,833,321 population
City of Chicago Police - 13,619 sworn
City of Chicago 151 680 acres of land (and water)

1 officer per 208 persons and 11.13 acres of land (and water)


Statically speaking, the odds of having a cop around when you need one in a national park is about 500 times less likely than you would in Chicago. and that's going by population.

If you went by area, you would be 10,600 times less likely to find a cop.



Just as an aside, I can't believe Chicago has so much crime with that many cops. They have enough cops to place one every 700 ft in any direction and cover the whole city. (obviously that doesn't allow any for admin and such, but that's a lot of cops)