GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Group rips cash-strapped Forest Service for purchasing Tasers

• 53614
  

  The Forest Service has done it's Officers a great favor by purchasing the Tasers. Why would anyone question the decision to purchase a tool that helps ensure the safety of our Officers. The vast majority of Police Departments seldom use deadly force, so the argument that you don't need a Taser because you don't use deadly force "that" often is completely ridiculous. Some people honestly have no clue! To the person that comments that maybe we should allow people to wear concealed guns in the park, you're an idiot. I would say that our parks are extremely safe the majority of the time. All it takes my friend is one dirt bag, just one to make it all worthwhile!

  Matt Posted July 6, 2008 2:31 AM
• 41258
  

  I find PEER's comments interesting and informative. I recall several articles within the last year which indicated crime and criminal activity was seeing a stellar rise on public lands due to short-handed staffing, and the encroachment of urban sprawl up on the forests. I think we should give our federal police officers every tool available to mitigate dangerous situations, and allow them to protect themselves and the public...AS THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.

  SPT Posted January 10, 2008 1:53 PM
• 39067
  

  This writer and the person providing the information have not done their research on the use of electronic control devices. The use of these devices has decreased the liability and workman's compensation costs for all major agencies.

  The types of people encountered by law enforcment officers in our public recreation areas vary from really good to really bad, just like any city in the United States. The difference in our areas is that some of the backup help can be from one hour to many hours.

  If spending $1,000 to outfit and train the women and men who are out there trying to protect visitors, like Mr. Ruch, is too much, maybe we should close all the public areas. Or would Mr. Ruch prefer the land management agencies to stop doing all enforcement activities on our public lands?

  I will agree that OHV is a major concern on the National Forest lands. But isn't protecting our employees and the visitors more important?

  This is just another tool that has been proven to help our folks in the field to do their job as safe as possible!

  Rich S Posted December 6, 2007 10:15 AM
• 38964
  

  Let this group come to a national Rainbow gathering on the Nation Forest, they might change their mind after ten minutes.

  People do not get it, federal lands are the only place left for recreation. Bad people need to have recreation too, in most cases the are using our public lands more than good people. Because the U.S. Attorneys Office does not take the CVB docket serious"petty offenses", the DOJ is making public lands the breeding ground for crime. In most cases they will not even take Felony cases unless it meets a very high threshold.

  JAJ Posted December 5, 2007 3:34 PM
• 38932
  

  ALL federal employees who wear a badge (be i park rangers, field biologists, outdoor recreation planners, natural resources specialists) are in more and more danger of their lives each year due to violent people using public lands. We just had our first ranger shot from an innocent encounter. Fortunately, he'll live. Just a park ranger doing his job. I've read about a state park maintenanace person shot and killed from just cleaning the park bathroom. Sad. We need to unify to protect ourselves; no one else is going to.

  Bonnie Posted December 5, 2007 11:41 AM
• 38929
  

  While Tasers have been heavily criticized of late by one group or another, being "tased" by an officer is far less damaging than being shot with a 357, 40 cal, or 9mm. Since shooting someone almost always results in a criminal investigation of the officer, they really do need some way to protect themselves, short of killing someone.

  Tom Posted December 5, 2007 11:05 AM
• 38904
  

  PEER again... do you understand that PEER was started by a cranky, disaffected FORMER agency employee and that their ethical stance is to find disaffected public employees or people who really need HELP, manipulate them, and then ABANDON them once their agenda is forwarded... as by publication of something like this? Please do your homework! PEER has little or nothing to do with actual agency employees.

  Karen Koppe Posted December 5, 2007 9:08 AM
• 38897
  

  The NPS officers should be equipt with the Tasers. The group criticizing the purchase is clueless. As quoted by Ruch "the Forest Service hardly ever uses lethal force" is senseless babble by an incompetent. The United States never uses nuclear weapons either, but would you feel more comfortable knowing every other rouge country in the world does and you did not? Wake up! It is a dangerous and different world, people are more apt to fight law enforcement now. The Taser is just another tool in the tool box of non lethal force.

  John Posted December 5, 2007 8:50 AM
• 38884
  

  If the crime is so bad, why doesn't the National Park Service allow Concealed carry permit holders to remain armed in the parks?

  Bruce Jackson Posted December 5, 2007 7:05 AM
• 38878
  

  The Forest Service may have overspent on Tasers. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has never arrested anyone in the history of the agency (1974-2007), has succeeded in getting DOJ to deputize its Office of Investigations personnel (the agency has no criminal authority of its own), and equipped them first with 357 Magnum revolvers, then Glocks.

  James E. Foster Posted December 5, 2007 12:00 AM