Free: Contests & Raffles.
I would guess that the Rangers in my area, Klickitat County, must be deputized as the respond to incidents outside the parks all the time.
If Kretz sponsored it, IT is probably something GOOD for the People of WA!! I don't think to many "elected" Sheriff's will "deputize" a park ranger! I sure wouldn't! of the one's I have met!
Under the bill State Park Rangers would have authority in the following circumstances: ......... ...........-Throughout the state, in response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property .......... ............
so the purpose of clarification is what I am working to understand. I wonder if this stems from the fiscal park closures of the past and lack of real jurisdictional authority or overstepping the authority they had or the shooting of a Ranger in the Rainier complex?
Quote from: bigtex on January 20, 2016, 10:40:10 AM Under the bill State Park Rangers would have authority in the following circumstances: ......... ...........-Throughout the state, in response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property .......... ............This is the line that concerns me. "Threat to property" could be interpreted in many ways, and a loose interpretation could be used to cover just about anything. For example:Say a state park ranger sees me on private property climbing over a barb-wire fence. He thinks I don't have permission to be on that land. He can say that I climbed over the fence in a way that could loosen the top strand of wire, and that is a threat to property. So now he thinks he has the right to detain me until he contacts the landowner to see if I have permission.Or what if I am on federal land and pull off the road and park in a grassy open area. The state ranger can say that I am a threat to property because my hot muffler might start a grass fire. So now he thinks he has the right to fine me for parking illegally, or to detain me until the federal authorities show up.In either of the above cases, what I am doing would be none of the officer's business, because he is a state park ranger and I am not in a state park. But the new law could be twisted in such a way that would give him the right to hassle me, despite the fact that I am not in a state park. Sheesh! What a terrible bill this is!
I don't know if there's enough law enforcement rangers out there to make much of a noticeable difference one way or another.
no because our forefathers wanted each type of GOVT leo etc... to be separate. which is why were here now with lots of usurpations against our civil rights.
Quote from: csaaphill on January 24, 2016, 09:23:27 PMno because our forefathers wanted each type of GOVT leo etc... to be separate. which is why were here now with lots of usurpations against our civil rights.And when did George Washington say that the State Park Rangers shouldn't have authority outside of parks??? I seem to forget that speech....And actually Phil under current state law if a State Park Ranger wanted to they could start enforcing law anywhere in the state because the current law is so vague into what their authority actually is. If that was to happen they would be compliant with state law but not agency policy. It's only agency policy that says currently rangers cant enforce law outside parks without being deputized...
Quote from: bigtex on January 24, 2016, 09:38:49 PMQuote from: csaaphill on January 24, 2016, 09:23:27 PMno because our forefathers wanted each type of GOVT leo etc... to be separate. which is why were here now with lots of usurpations against our civil rights.And when did George Washington say that the State Park Rangers shouldn't have authority outside of parks??? I seem to forget that speech....And actually Phil under current state law if a State Park Ranger wanted to they could start enforcing law anywhere in the state because the current law is so vague into what their authority actually is. If that was to happen they would be compliant with state law but not agency policy. It's only agency policy that says currently rangers cant enforce law outside parks without being deputized... You know they set up different branches of Govt so as to check and balance each other out. It only goes along with their own distrust of Govt, and knowledge that once you Centralize all Govt into one, and that they all have the same power, then they knew then that abuse of power would exist.
I voted for less authority, I think. Those rangers at mount rainier have an attitude, I don't think they should have authority outside the parks. I almost think their guns should be taken away, but the incident when the ranger was killed keeps me in support of them having guns.
Interesting, I swear I've seen them pull people over outside the park on 410. Thanks for the info
I think each should only do what they are set up to do no more.WDFW- wildlife and making sure you have the appropriate tags for not running warrant checks which is state police, or local. Forest service making sure your not starting fires, or other destructive things, and at campsites that have pay vouchers make sure your paying. Not going around playing LEO So yes less authority make them do what they're supposed to be doing, and not crying for more money/ authority doing stuff they were never intended to do in the first place.
I am typically against expansion of LE dominion beyond their scope of competence. In this instance, it seems like more of a common sense clarification, and the limited expansion that is apparent in the OP, while creating some possibilities for potential abuse, does not seem so unreasonable. I voted yes.
I was always under the impression that most state parks officers who had done acedaemy time were commissioned officers in "the state". This must be cleaning up some language for those officers without a state law enforcement commission.
If Kretz sponsored it, IT is probably something GOOD for the People of WA!!
I've always thought it was odd that a state park had it's own Law Enforcement branch. Seemed like a waste of money. If they need patrols, work with counties--There are many small towns all over the state without police, and the only ones to respond are county deputies. But since the decided to keep the LEO in state parks, perhaps them being there could go the other way--they can help the county deputies respond in the small towns and rural areas most state parks are located in or near.
In my newsletter from Kretz I think he said this is moving forward.