Wolves tree DNR worker in Okanogan county

[Special T]

51.21 – Authorization for Firearms.
1. Regional Foresters, Forest Supervisors, Station Directors,
the Area Director, or the Institute Director may authorize non-law
enforcement employees to carry firearms when functions or circum-stances related to official duties necessitate such permission. https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/6709.11/FSH6709.pdf

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Special T]

We need to put pressure on USFS (Forest Service) Region 6 (PNW)- to allow forest workers to carry firearms. Firearm policies vary across regions, and our region must address the increased threat posed by the proliferation of wolves and a growing grizzly bear population. In Region 10 (Alaska) for example, every USFS work crew is required to have at least one armed member. According to Section 51.21 of the USFS Employee Health and Safety Code Handbook: "at remote work areas where bear and/or other aggressive animal populations warrant, at least one person in every work crew shall be assigned a firearm provided by the Forest Service for protection. Working in pairs or in groups is the preferred work method. Personnel who choose to work alone in bear country need appropriate line/staff officer approval. Appropriate line/staff officer may assign personnel to work alone in areas identified as low risk with employee consent." The Region 1 (Montana) Employee Handbook, section 51.21 – "Adds regional direction for authorized use of firearms by non-law enforcement employees". It is up to each region and/or district office to assess need for firearm carry. The PNW region is now a very dangerous place to work.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Special T]

I saw this posted else where and suspect 2 things....
1 probably not going to change and allow them to carry.
2 I'm skeptical this employee was actually doing salmon work.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[jackelope]

I saw this posted else where and suspect 2 things....
1 probably not going to change and allow them to carry.
2 I'm skeptical this employee was actually doing salmon work.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

What do you think she could have been doing?

[jackelope]

Maybe it's me, and I've spent plenty of time in the woods by myself, but it seems weird to have a person in that country alone....especially working for a gov entity. Seems like liability would be such a concern, they'd force some sort of buddy system setup. It is the 21st century after all.

Someone from western Washington suggesting bigger government and the buddy system, all in the name of safety.   Say it ain’t so.  Lol

We need to put pressure on USFS (Forest Service) Region 6 (PNW)- to allow forest workers to carry firearms. Firearm policies vary across regions, and our region must address the increased threat posed by the proliferation of wolves and a growing grizzly bear population. In Region 10 (Alaska) for example, every USFS work crew is required to have at least one armed member. According to Section 51.21 of the USFS Employee Health and Safety Code Handbook: "at remote work areas where bear and/or other aggressive animal populations warrant, at least one person in every work crew shall be assigned a firearm provided by the Forest Service for protection. Working in pairs or in groups is the preferred work method. Personnel who choose to work alone in bear country need appropriate line/staff officer approval. Appropriate line/staff officer may assign personnel to work alone in areas identified as low risk with employee consent." The Region 1 (Montana) Employee Handbook, section 51.21 – "Adds regional direction for authorized use of firearms by non-law enforcement employees". It is up to each region and/or district office to assess need for firearm carry. The PNW region is now a very dangerous place to work.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 


Where's that from, Special T?

[Special T]

Citizens for property rights alliance fb page comment.

https://www.facebook.com/355207934576312/posts/1783035141793577/


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Special T]

I saw this posted else where and suspect 2 things....
1 probably not going to change and allow them to carry.
2 I'm skeptical this employee was actually doing salmon work.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

What do you think she could have been doing?

I don't know what she was doing. But we know a few things. We ( sherif dept)don't have the employees name. The department hasn't exactly been truthful about this incident so far...

I'm certain that doing any work in that area is harder because of the lack of trust. So far they have done little to earn it back so I'm a skeptic. I could make a WAG but that would then change the discussion and the burden of proof.  A higher likelihood is that there will be more info on this coming out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Knocker of rocks]

Citizens for property rights alliance fb page comment.

Will the sheriff conduct an independent investigation as the state and federal wildlife biologists planned to do on hike to the site Friday?

Why does that matter?  All that is is sensational bluster.   How exactly would the results of that change anything?   Demanding to know what the researcher was doing up there would be the same as demanding when the USFS office staff has coffee and potty breaks.

And if you don't think they were doing salmon work (which could involve lots of things quite far away from any creek), what do you think they were doing?

[Cougartail]

I see the making of a thread as long as the bigfoot one..

That being said, a woman working alone in any remote area should have the option of arming herself. With all the scum running the US anymore wildlife is a small problem. I know I won't go unarmed in the woods anymore..

[Knocker of rocks]

 We ( sherif dept)don't have the employees name.

Is she accused of a crime?  What portion of the US and Washington State Constitution doesn't apply to this woman?  The same laws that apply to open carriers saying "am I under suspicion of committing a crime?" also apply to USFS employees doing their job.   Her name is probably available thru FOI requests, but is certainly nothing the sheriff can compel as part of his meaningless investigation at the behest of agitation.

[bigtex]

We ( sherif dept)don't have the employees name.

Is she accused of a crime?  What portion of the US and Washington State Constitution doesn't apply to this woman?  The same laws that apply to open carriers saying "am I under suspicion of committing a crime?" also apply to USFS employees doing their job.   Her name is probably available thru FOI requests, but is certainly nothing the sheriff can compel as part of his meaningless investigation at the behest of agitation.

Realistically, there is no reason for the sheriff to "investigate." What crime occurred? The only reason WDFW involves sheriff's departments in wolf depredation investigations is essentially to show public trust and there isn't some cover-up. If WDFW and the SO both say the cow/lamb/etc was killed by coyotes and not wolves people will believe them more than if WDFW just came out themselves and said it.

In reality, the SO is "investigating" because of political reasons, that's it.

[Knocker of rocks]

In reality, the SO is "investigating" because of political reasons, that's it.

And people want to investigate "just what she was doing up there".   What exactly is the authority for the SO to investigate how a federal agency does it's research?  Is the detective going sit down, peruse the peer reviewed literature and the research proposal and decide if it was justified?  And if he and his AA degree disagrees with the PhD biologists or geologists, then what?

[CAMPMEAT]

There is no cell phone service at Tiffany Springs.....FYI.

[Special T]

 We ( sherif dept)don't have the employees name.

Is she accused of a crime?  What portion of the US and Washington State Constitution doesn't apply to this woman?  The same laws that apply to open carriers saying "am I under suspicion of committing a crime?" also apply to USFS employees doing their job.   Her name is probably available thru FOI requests, but is certainly nothing the sheriff can compel as part of his meaningless investigation at the behest of agitation.

I only point it out because it shows lack of trust... Both directions I might add.

I've refused to provide my name before, and it has earned me extra scrutiny...  If I've been on the receiving end shouldn't she/the usfs also receive some?





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Knocker of rocks]

I've refused to provide my name before, and it has earned me extra scrutiny...  If I've been on the receiving end shouldn't she/the usfs also receive

No extra legal scrutiny is OK, no matter if it’s somebody in Compton, a government employee doing their job or you. Two wrongs don’t make a right. If she had been there, maybe she would have given her name. But she wasn’t, so the USFS was correct in declining to give her name where it wasn’t required except for rabid trolling by an deputy running for sheriff and appealing to anti government agitation.