Proposed Legislation: Increase Authority of DNR Law Enforcement

[Bean Counter]

I'm not sure I like the sound of this. In general  I am a fan of government being pushed down as local as practical. If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

[bigtex]

If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?

[Swannytheswan]

I would be ok with it as long as A) they don't start crying for a raise. B) they are confined to the DNR lands as the parks are. Their resources need to be used on the DNR lands and not elsewhere

[Jerbear]

Jingles, I am with Iceman on this one.  There are several law enforcement people on this site as well as a bunch of us retired law enforcement people.  This site is heads above most ofhers, because we respect the people who enforce the laws.  I resent your calling me and others, past or present, law enforcement officers chicken s##t.  We expect an apology. 
By the way, thank you for your service inn our nations military.

[Elkaholic daWg]

If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?

  Barney Fife eh?
 So just as  everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.  What is wrong with a county sheriff making  policy for his county?
 Are we not ALREADY far enough down the slippery slope to a police state yet?

[bigtex]

If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?

So just as  everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.

The legislators who have sponsored the bill are Stanford (Bothell area), Moscoso (Bothell area), Crouse (Liberty Lake), Pollet (North Seattle), Liias (Lynnwood), Kline (Seattle), Delvin (Kennewick and Richland), Carrell (Lakewood), Ranker (San Juans and Anacortes). These are reps from both the eastside and westside, both Dem and Republicans. Can't pull the "pugetropolis" card on this one!

[Bean Counter]

If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?

If I were a sheriff I would probably commission most outside agencies. I like the idea of it. However, there are plenty of reasons a community may not want it. Some LEAs don't play nice with others. Sad, but true. Also, some residents of some counties don't want it. My point is that the decision should be made by the sheriff; this is a big government power grab.

[iusmc2002]

If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?

If I were a sheriff I would probably commission most outside agencies. I like the idea of it. However, there are plenty of reasons a community may not want it. Some LEAs don't play nice with others. Sad, but true. Also, some residents of some counties don't want it. My point is that the decision should be made by the sheriff; this is JUST ANOTHER big government power grab.

Fixed it for ya   
Sheriffs are elected by the people.  DNR, Game cops et al, are not.  The sheriff should have the right to determine what outside agencies do in his jurisdiction.  Just like someone else said, lots of LEA don't play well together, and it's all political.  If the DNR wants the OK to enforce laws in a certain county, maybe they could kiss a little butt and do what they need to in order to get that authority.  But just blindly giving them the blanket ability to usurp an elected official's policies is baloney.

[HardCorpsHuntr]

I'm for giving them a full commission!  And, supervisors should dictate there enforcement focus efforts to the reason of there existence!  We're only talking a handfull of guys anyhow... and several are retired LEO's... no brainer for me! 

[Bean Counter]

If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?

If I were a sheriff I would probably commission most outside agencies. I like the idea of it. However, there are plenty of reasons a community may not want it. Some LEAs don't play nice with others. Sad, but true. Also, some residents of some counties don't want it. My point is that the decision should be made by the sheriff; this is JUST ANOTHER big government power grab.

Fixed it for ya   
Sheriffs are elected by the people.  DNR, Game cops et al, are not.  The sheriff should have the right to determine what outside agencies do in his jurisdiction.  Just like someone else said, lots of LEA don't play well together, and it's all political.  If the DNR wants the OK to enforce laws in a certain county, maybe they could kiss a little butt and do what they need to in order to get that authority.  But just blindly giving them the blanket ability to usurp an elected official's policies is baloney.

Too funny--I put those words in first, did a preview, and decided to take them out.

[BOWHUNTER45]

 

[Elkaholic daWg]

If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?

So just as  everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.

The legislators who have sponsored the bill are Stanford (Bothell area), Moscoso (Bothell area), Crouse (Liberty Lake), Pollet (North Seattle), Liias (Lynnwood), Kline (Seattle), Delvin (Kennewick and Richland), Carrell (Lakewood), Ranker (San Juans and Anacortes). These are reps from both the eastside and westside, both Dem and Republicans. Can't pull the "pugetropolis" card on this one!

6 from Puget Sound area 3 more from liberal eastern  areas  that think like they belong there. I will still play the card. Which one came up with the idea?  Govt. power and money grab.

[bigtex]

If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?

So just as  everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.

The legislators who have sponsored the bill are Stanford (Bothell area), Moscoso (Bothell area), Crouse (Liberty Lake), Pollet (North Seattle), Liias (Lynnwood), Kline (Seattle), Delvin (Kennewick and Richland), Carrell (Lakewood), Ranker (San Juans and Anacortes). These are reps from both the eastside and westside, both Dem and Republicans. Can't pull the "pugetropolis" card on this one!

money grab.

Really a money grab?
Which form of government benefits the most from state agencies writing tickets??? COUNTIES. Very little goes back to the state government.

Besides there are less then 10 DNR Officers. How much more money could be generated by 10 officers by simply allowing them to write tickets for all offenses.

[iusmc2002]

If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?

So just as  everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.

The legislators who have sponsored the bill are Stanford (Bothell area), Moscoso (Bothell area), Crouse (Liberty Lake), Pollet (North Seattle), Liias (Lynnwood), Kline (Seattle), Delvin (Kennewick and Richland), Carrell (Lakewood), Ranker (San Juans and Anacortes). These are reps from both the eastside and westside, both Dem and Republicans. Can't pull the "pugetropolis" card on this one!

money grab.

Really a money grab?
Which form of government benefits the most from state agencies writing tickets??? COUNTIES. Very little goes back to the state government.

Besides there are less then 10 DNR Officers. How much more money could be generated by 10 officers by simply allowing them to write tickets for all offenses.

Too much, that's how much. 
Whether it's a money grab or not is debateable, what's NOT up for debate is this is another boneheaded attempt by the .gov to take power away from the people.  Like I said before, "the people" elect the sheriff.  If "their" sheriff doesn't want a state or federal agency playing in his backyard, he's exercising the right of the people, until the people decide he's not playing right and get him to reverse his decision through democratic methods. 
If there is "less than 10" DNR cops now, they sound like a pretty ineffective force.  Why keep them?  What's the point?  I'm not saying I want them to lose their jobs, but if they're small and ineffective and feel they could be more effective by forcing local governments to allow them to work where ever they want, why not merge them into the State Patrol?
We keep giving our rights up, little by little.  The government says "It's just this little thing...., no big deal, nothing to see, move along" and they continue to erode our world.  If a sheriff has the political intestinal fortitude to tell a state agency to get bent and stay out of his AO, good on him.  He deserves a pat on the back 

[bigtex]

If the.residents of a county want this then the can apply pressure on the sheriff. That just sits better with me than a legislature reaching in and grabbing it.   

I disagree. A sheriff can make whatever policies for his office as he see fits. I think some people would be shocked to find out which sheriff's have policies against commissioning outside agencies. I am sure most are probably surprised to see King County won't commission outside agencies. Why should a law enforcement officer not be allowed to work certain cases simply because the sheriff doesn't want him to?

So just as  everything else, folks in Pugetropolis will be making policy for counties all over the state.

The legislators who have sponsored the bill are Stanford (Bothell area), Moscoso (Bothell area), Crouse (Liberty Lake), Pollet (North Seattle), Liias (Lynnwood), Kline (Seattle), Delvin (Kennewick and Richland), Carrell (Lakewood), Ranker (San Juans and Anacortes). These are reps from both the eastside and westside, both Dem and Republicans. Can't pull the "pugetropolis" card on this one!

money grab.

Really a money grab?
Which form of government benefits the most from state agencies writing tickets??? COUNTIES. Very little goes back to the state government.

Besides there are less then 10 DNR Officers. How much more money could be generated by 10 officers by simply allowing them to write tickets for all offenses.

If there is "less than 10" DNR cops now, they sound like a pretty ineffective force.  Why keep them?  What's the point?  I'm not saying I want them to lose their jobs, but if they're small and ineffective and feel they could be more effective by forcing local governments to allow them to work where ever they want, why not merge them into the State Patrol?

Merge them into the WSP? Obviously you have not been paying much attention the past three years. There have been numerous proposals to move both DNR and WDFW Enforcement to the WSP and it caused a huge uproar that pissed off the sheriffs association (they dont want to see more "power" given to WSP, having them not only be the big traffic agency but also fire marshal, fish and wildlife, and state forests patrol) and all hunting and fishing groups.

How can you say they are ineffective simply by how many officers they have? There are only 2 BLM LE Rangers in all of WA, does that mean they are ineffective?