Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:A:American Journal of Police:Vol15.Issue4.1996:
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
3
CRIME, CRIMINALS AND GUNS IN “NATURAL
SETTINGS”: EXPLORING THE BASIS FOR
DISARMING FEDERAL RANGERS
Michael R. Pendleton
University of Washington
Obscured by an urban ethnocentric view of criminal justice is the
growing hostility and overt challenge to federal police authority in rural
settings. Although the Oklahoma City bombing is an extreme example of
this hostility, direct threats to the legal authority and physical safety of
federal officers are increasingly evident particularly in the western United
States. While there has always been a visible suspicion of “outsider”
government in rural areas (Weisheit, 1993) confrontations are reportedly
escalating through encouragement by members of the “wise use”
property rights movement (Margolis, 1994) and other more extreme
separatist groups (Walter, 1995).
Most recently these challenges have focused on land management
officers in national forests, parks and other federal lands. A growing
number of public threats of violence to Forest Service officers have
accompanied legal initiatives by rural counties in the west to adopt
ordinances prohibiting federal land managers from exercising legal
authority over federal land within county jurisdictions (Margolis, 1994;
Williams, 1991).
A symbolic if not direct threat to the authority of federal police
powers on federal lands is the recent introduction of national legislation
to disarm the 7,500 federal land management police officers who patrol
650 million acres of federal forests, parks and range lands. Explicit in the
rationale for this legislation, introduced by western legislators, are
assertions that natural settings such as forests and parks are crime-free,
there are no dangers to forest officers or visitors that would justify an
armed police presence and guns are only within the purview of federal
officers reinforcing an aggressive style of enforcement (Keil, 1995;
Sonner, 1995).
4
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
Absent a systematic body of research on forest crime and
enforcement, these assertions remain unchallenged assumptions more
consistent with urban views of what constitutes crime, criminals and
police. The research reported below is designed to address the
assumptions behind the initiative to disarm federal land management
officers while broadening our understanding of crime and enforcement in
America beyond both our urban and rural boundaries. Specifically this
research addresses the following questions: What is the nature of crime in
federal forests and parks? Who are the offenders? What is the nature of
guns and law enforcement in these settings?
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Assuming the rural nature of most national forests and parks, the
question of crime and enforcement in theses settings may be informed by
the limited but available literature on rural crime and policing.
While rural crime includes the full array of conventional crime
types, there are special crimes that are peculiar to rural areas (Weisheit
et al., 1994). Among those special crimes are offenses likely to occur
within forests and parks such as timber theft (known as an agriculture
crime) and poaching (known as wildlife crimes). These crimes are
believed to be “enormously costly”, with linkages to organized crime
(Swanson and Territo, 1980). Although the overall rate of rural crime
has been declining since 1980 (Ronet, 1992) specific crimes such as
domestic violence, gang activity and substance abuse are thought to be
increasing, owing in part to the “ripple out” effect from urban settings
(Wiesheit et al., 1994).
Both rural crime and enforcement are shaped by the special
features of the rural setting. Large and often remote geographic areas
extend police response time and limit timely backup during
emergencies (Weisheit et al., 1994). Officer isolation, combined with
the findings that guns are twice as prevalent in rural communities than
urban environments (Wright et al., 1983) and that 72.2 percent of game
conservation officers have faced the threat of deadly weapons (Walsh
and Donovan, 1984), suggests that private citizens may not be the only
people with reason to fear the presence of guns in the forests or parks.
While research consistently shows that urban officers are more likely to
be assaulted than rural and game conservation officers, when assaults of
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
5
these officers occur it is twice as likely to be with a weapon (Chandler,
1986).
The danger to rural officers may, however, be mitigated by the
fact that officers are part of a local community which enables them to
know the offenders they encounter and their criminal history
(Weisheit, 1993). Although the difficulty of predicting the
dangerousness of offenders is consistently confirmed by research
(Monahan, 1975), police professionals are constantly forced to make
this judgment to enable personal safety. The single best and most often
used predictor of dangerousness is the criminal history of the offender
(Rappeport and Lassen, 1965; Williams and Miller, 1977). There are
indications, however, that federal officers may not enjoy the same
access to local knowledge because of local mistrust of “outsider” state
and federal government (Swanson et al., 1979), a tendency for local
residents to not report problems to the police (Smith, 1980) and tension
between rural police and federal police (Bishop, 1990). In part, the
lack of external support may explain why federal land management
police are encouraged to identify with their organizations as a
condition of professional acceptance (Charles, 1982; Soden and
Hester, 1989) and assume a “low key” approach to enforcement to
further the image of the ranger as a public servant and not a police
officer (Charles, 1982).
One of the problems with the existing literature on rural crime and
enforcement is the stereotypical definition of rural police as the small
town “sheriff” (Weisheit et al., 1994). Obscured by the misconception of
rural police are the range of rural crimes encountered and the distinctions
between the many different types of enforcement agencies and their
jurisdictions.
METHODOLOGY
The research reported here is part of a larger international study of
crime and enforcement in natural settings (forests and parks). This
portion of the field study took place in the western United States during a
24 month period in 1992-94. The research area included both a national
forest and a national park that share contiguous boundaries. Both the
United States Forest Service and National Park Service served as host
agencies providing complete access to their daily operations, personnel
6
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
and records. Standard confidentiality protocols were established to
protect human participants.
Participants
The primary participants in this study were the Forest Service
Law Enforcement Officers, known as LEOs, assigned to each of the four
ranger districts within the national forest. Each of the districts within the
research forest is assigned one officer who patrols several thousand acres
of land. The LEOs are fully commissioned federal law enforcement
officers trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC) located in Glencoe, Georgia. The LEOs wear uniforms
complete with the standard police insignias, and they carry equipment
including a firearm. The officers patrol in a marked four wheel drive
sports utility vehicle containing standard emergency and communication
equipment. The forest patrol is scheduled and determined solely by the
officers who work alone without direct communication with other LEOs.
Secondary participants consisted of special agents and
investigators assigned to the research forest to investigate and prosecute
cases. These participants are also sworn federal police officers with
standard police authority. In addition, key civilian administrative staff
who directly supervised the LEOs and other agency supervisors who have
responsibility for the law enforcement program were interviewed. It is
significant that during this research the LEOs were supervised by nonlaw enforcement supervisors. One of the distinguishing features of
natural setting (forest and parks) law enforcement is that it is only one of
several functions performed within a multi-purpose agency.
Indirect participants included numerous Forest Service
employees both supervisory and staff, community members and visitors
whose identities are unknown. Indirect participation consisted of simply
being present during the observation of the primary participants which
allowed for direct observation and conversation.
A blend of ethnographic and quantitative methods were utilized to
collect data.
Field Observations and Interviews
The four ranger districts within the national forest comprise the
four major research areas. Researchers trained in observational research
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
7
methods accompanied the LEOs during their normal daily routines. A
total of 60 observations were systematically scheduled to rotate equally
through each of the four research areas. These observations were
conducted at all hours of the day and night, all days of the week including
holidays, and every month of the year. Field observation periods ranged
from a few hours to several consecutive days. These observations
occurred in the forest, offices, homes, automobiles, courtrooms and
various local community settings.
During the observations, conversation interviews with each
LEO were conducted. In addition, interviews were scheduled and
conducted with key administrative employees, including special
agents, investigators and supervisors. Interviewees were asked to
describe their career history, the enforcement system and its role in the
Forest Service, factors influencing crime and enforcement in the
forest and their views on a range of observed and reported incidencerelated crime and enforcement issues. In total, over 600 hours of
observations and interviews provided the data for the Forest Service
portion of this study.
Community Observations and Interviews
A series of community observations and conversation interviews
were conducted with community members and general citizens
encountered within four research areas. These observations occurred at
all times, during travel, social gatherings, special events, in restaurantstaverns and normal daily life.
Official Records
The United States Forest Service and the United States Park
Service provided access to official records. These documents included
memos, reports and other documents related to crime and law
enforcement. Specific crime data were obtained directly from agency
records. The quantitative data are based on crime and enforcement data
collected directly from the files in one of four randomly selected Forest
Service districts within the research forest for the years 1989 through
1992. In addition, all the automated crime and enforcement records
retained by the National Park Service within the research park from 1986
through 1993 were analyzed. While each agency operates under
8
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
different jurisdictional parameters and operational philosophy,
enforcement in both agencies is based on the Federal Code of
Regulations known as CFR-36.
Basic quantitative analysis was conducted based on the
quantitative data. To address the question of prior offenses of the natural
setting offender, a 50 percent random sample was drawn from the known
offenders who were arrested and/or given a Notice of Violation (citation)
for an offense by the Forest Service. A criminal history records check was
completed on each of the offenders to determine the extent and nature of
their prior criminal history.
In addition, a similar sample of known offenders from the
national park which surrounds the national forest was selected for a
criminal history analysis. National park offenders were matched with
national forest offenders on the basis of the initiating offense for which
they were cited/arrested by each agency. This comparison is considered
relevant for several reasons, of which the most important may be the fact
that to access much of the national park the offenders must pass through
the surrounding national forest under study.
It is important to note that this data reflects official records of
action taken by enforcement officers/rangers. These offenses and
offenders are only those discovered and reported by the officers and may
be influenced by a variety of organizational and personal factors. Caution
is warranted when considering these data alone, as they may not be a
complete representation of the crimes and trends within the study but
only those discovered and recorded.
Community Records
Subscriptions to community newspapers were obtained to
provide a news account of relevant events. Records, news releases,
reports and other documents from local activist groups were also
obtained and received.
It is important to note that the generalizability of these findings is
limited by the relatively small unit of study (one national forest and
national park). While systematic study across the full range of natural
settings was beyond the scope of the present research and perhaps any
single study, comprehensive research is important to enable
generalizability of findings.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
9
RESULTS
Crime and Criminals in National Forests and Parks
A Spectrum of Natural Setting Crimes
The crimes encountered during this study form a spectrum that
ranges from interpersonal crimes, to property offenses, to environmental
crime. Interpersonal crime was frequently observed and reported. For
example, there were several homicides reported by participants,
including a woman who was thrown off a 300-foot cliff by her husband
and two friends to collect several life insurance policies recently
purchased by the husband. The forest is often utilized as a body dumping
ground for homicide victims killed in other locations and transported to
remote locations, as was observed directly during the research. Also
during this research a multiple offense sexual predator was placed by the
State Department of Corrections within an “inholder” community (homes
and cabins constructed before the creation of the park where ownership
rights are grandfathered into the park jurisdiction) in the national park by
the state to live while completing a term of probation. Finally, fugitives
from the law often hide out in the forest to avoid detection and
apprehension. An LEO in this study reported his apprehension of an FBI
“ten most wanted” fugitive from a forest campground in his district.
Property crime was consistently encountered. The most frequent
type is referred to as a “car clout”. These generally occur at trailhead
parking areas and consist of breaking into the car to steal items including
the car itself, left behind while the owners are on a hike or some other
activity. During this research, one small district within the national park
had $35,000 worth of car clouts. The person responsible (who was later
apprehended) was considered the nation’s number one campground thief.
The 51-year-old white man, paroled in 1991 off a 15-year sentence for
burglary, was characterized by his probation officer as: “A genuine career
criminal, a sociopath with a true criminal mind. He will be back”.
When the man was arrested he had in his possession over 50,000
stolen items, including 10,000 compact discs and 5,000 backpacks. This
man operated all over the western United States and was connected to
1,200 break-ins with losses over $1 million.
Environmental crime reflecting the biophysical nature of the
natural setting was also consistently encountered. A thriving black market
in stolen trees, mushrooms and other forest products used in European
10
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
florist markets was reported as common knowledge in the research area.
This form of theft is extremely lucrative. An old growth cedar tree is
worth $20,000 and can be taken in about three days. In one case of illegal
moss picking, over 900 pounds of moss was taken in a three day period.
On the retail market, four ounces of moss sells for $2.50 (Olson, 1994).
Within this spectrum a definite hierarchy exists based on
frequency of occurrence. As Table 1 indicates, various forms of
environmental crime and stealing are the most frequent crimes
documented by the agencies. In contrast, interpersonal crimes are less
apparent, particularly in the Forest Service data.
Destination Crime within an Opportunity Setting
The most fundamental finding in this research is that the unique
set of conditions and circumstances of the physical setting defined the
opportunity and thus the nature of crime. These “natural settings” are
distinguished by the interaction between social and biophysical forces
commonly ascribed to “nature” or the “environment”.
As a natural environment, forests and parks contain three
opportunity settings within which crime was observed and reported.
•
Front country opportunity settings have the highest degree of
human presence and influence. Paved roads, fully developed
campgrounds, Forest Service buildings, concessions and other
types of human development predominate these settings. These
Table 1
FREQUENCY AND RANKING OF NATIONAL FOREST AND NATIONAL PARK
CRIMES AND OFFENCES
Crime
USFS
1989 to 1992
n = 572
No.
(%)
Crime
Environmental
Stealing
Property damage
Alcohol/drugs
Weapons
Violence
Miscellaneous
292
79
79
26
13
7
76
Stealing
1,095
Environmental
514
Alcohol/drugs
477
Property damage
433
Violence
153
Weapons
140
Miscellaneous
799
51
14
14
5
2
1
13
NPS
1986 to 1993
n = 3611
No.
(%)
30
14
13
12
4
4
22
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
11
areas draw the largest number of people and a corresponding level
of crime.
•
Transition country opportunity zones contain those areas that
separate the primitive from the developed. Semi-developed
campgrounds, gravel roads, logging sites and trailhead parking
lots commonly define a transition zone. It is within these areas
that people generally leave many of the technological
dependencies of human-built environments and assume more
individual based obligation and responsibility.
•
Back country opportunity settings are generally reserved for foot
or horse travel. These settings contain both maintained and “way”
trails to semi-remote, often rugged areas. Human-built structures
are rare to non-existent. Predictably, the biophysical forces of
nature (weather, animals etc.) dominate the back country, making
these the most natural opportunity areas.
Within the crime opportunity zones, natural conditions combine
with enhanced legal requirements to shape and constrain access. In effect,
human access is provisional. Unlike urban environments, few people live
inside forests and parks and must leave after limited periods of time.
Therefore, these settings are destinations rather than residential areas.
In spite of the constraints on human access, people regularly
travel to these settings. The national park in this study averages close to
3.5 million visitors per year. Similarly, Forest Service LEOs who patrol
vast and remote areas alone are in frequent contact with a significant
number of people each patrol shift. During the 60 research patrol
observations, 219 direct contacts (where more than passing contact
occurred) were recorded, averaging 3.7 contacts with people per patrol
shift. Of these 219 contacts, 116 or 53 percent were multiple person
contacts (in which more than one individual was involved during the
contact). The vast majority of law enforcement contacts occur in front
and transition country areas and range from simple information exchange
to crime and enforcement encounters.
Crime Trends
Throughout the research, forest and park crime was consistently
thought to be increasing. An LEO summed up the prevailing view:
12
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
We feel crime has increased dramatically in recent years. I
have noticed a particular escalation in more city type crime.
But there have also been increases in the standard forest crimes
as well… so I guess it’s just plain going up.
This view is consistent with a 1992 report to the US House of
Representatives, in which the Chief of the Forest Service attributed
increases in law enforcement personnel to “increased criminal activity on
national forest lands within the past 10 years” (US Forest Service, 1992).
As Figure 1 indicates, the data collected from Forest Service files in one
of the four participating districts and the national park support the
reported increase in crime.
During the four years from 1989 through 1992 (the only years
available for interagency comparisons), documented crime within the
national park has increased by approximately 19 percent while
documented crime in the national forest has more than doubled. A
separate analysis of a single national forest district tree/forest product
theft showed a 400 percent increase (from ten in 1989 to 40 in 1992).
During the same period, environmental offenses in the national forest
increased 314 percent from 42 offenses in 1989 to 132 offenses in 1992.
Again, caution is warranted given limited data points and the self-report
nature of the data.
Figure 1:
US FOREST SERVICE AND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OFFENSE TREND
1989 TO 1992
Number of offenses
600
500
457
436
517
411
400
NPS
300
211
200
100
106
119
138
USFS
0
1989
Year of offenses
1992
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
13
“Takings” Tension and the Socio-Political Climate of
Natural Setting Crime
Although it is difficult to account for fluctuations in crime, many
participants attribute the perceived increase reported in this research to
the closing of national forest land to timber harvest. As both the
qualitative and quantitative data indicate, frequencies of natural setting
offenses increased during the forest closure period beginning in 1991.
Considered by virtually all the community participants as a “takings
issue,” the political and social unrest associated with the closing of the
national forest in 1991 to protect the Northern Spotted Owl reportedly led
directly to a variety of offenses. To protest the closure, a local “arson
committee” was formed and several fires were set and buildings
destroyed in the national park to express frustration over being locked out
of the forest. During the research, the arrest of protesting loggers for
illegal cutting of forest trees as a mass civil disobedience for being locked
out of the national forest was observed directly. Community sentiment on
this issue was further punctuated by a multi-shot drive-by shooting of a
nearby park ranger station where the offenders made several passes and
even stopped to reload in order to complete their work. A park naturalist
narrowly escaped the shooting.
THE NATURAL SETTING CRIMINAL OFFENDER
The Demographic Profile of the National Forest Offender
Analysis of Forest Service data has provided a general profile of
known offenders as presented in Table 2. In one district alone, during a
four year period 248 people committed some type of federal offense. As
indicated, the vast majority of these offenders are white males who live
within the local area. The average age of natural setting offenders is 29.9
years. It is notable that unlike urban settings ethnic minority offenders are
rare in the forest.
Criminal History Profile
Table 3 reports the results of offender criminal history analysis. As
the data indicates, 54 percent of those in the Forest Service sample and
14
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
Table 2
US NATIONAL FOREST OVERALL OFFENDER PROFILE 1989 TO 1992
Profile category
Age
Sex
Male
Female
Race
Caucasian
Hispanic
Afro-American
Asian
Residence
Local
Non-local in-state
Out of state
a
Percentage of known
offenders
No. of known
offendersa
Mean = 29.9 (sd 11.25)
248
91
9
244
23
93
6
0.08
0.08
236
14
2
2
85
10
4
255
31
13
Includes offenders who received written warnings, citations and/or were arrested
44.3 percent of those in the national park sample have criminal histories.
Of those with histories, approximately half have felony records. Among
the felony offenses are drug, robbery and numerous violent offenses
including homicide. The offender profile is dominated by local white male
residents with substantial prior criminal histories, half of which are felony
Table 3
CRIMINAL HISTORY PROFILE OF US FOREST SERVICE AND NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE OFFENDERS
Offender
categories
Criminal
Of those with criminal histories
Prior felonies
Misdemeanors only
Average no. of prior offences
Number/type offences
Felony
Misdemeanor
Total
US Forest Service
1989 to 1992
n = 61
54
(33)
45.45
(15)
54.55
(18)
3.7 (sd 5.39)
51
71
122
1
US National
Park Service
1986 to 1993
n = 72
44.3
(33)
60.6
(20)
34.9
(13)
4.6 (sd 4.07)
46
105
51
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
15
offenses. Of the 51 felonies committed by the national forest offender, 23
or 45 percent are for drug offenses and another six are for violent offenses
including rape and assault. Of the 46 felonies committed by the national
park offenders, 15 are drug offenses and 11 are violent offenses including
murder.
The finding that 20 weapons offenders accounted for 155 offenses
averaging 7.8 crimes per person, to include numerous violent offenses
suggests that a small number of offenders may be accounting for the
majority of crime in these areas.
Local Outlaws
Every research area in this study had at least one local individual
who is well known by the participants as an outlaw. These people,
exclusively men, have earned a local reputation through a long history of
crimes that include violence and weapons. All of these outlaws have had
at least one violent encounter with local law enforcement officers and
often promise to fight and/or kill any “cop” who attempts to take them in.
An LEO noted the importance of the outlaw to an officers professional
reputation: “They [other law enforcement officers] never tell you about
these guys in advance. They want to see how you handle them. It’s sort of
a right of passage to bring one in.”
GUNS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN NATURAL
SETTINGS
During the field observations, guns observed during direct
contacts where LEO’s stopped to interact with people were recorded
(minimal contacts were excluded). As Table 4 indicates, guns were
observed 1.3 times per each patrol shift.
On average there was at least one gun observed per person
encountered during gun contacts. Almost once per patrol shift, LEOs, on
the average, were involved in a multi-person contact where guns were
observed.
Guns were observed visibly stored or carried in vehicles, in the
possession of individuals on foot or horseback, and/or actively being
used to target practice or shoot animals. Guns not readily visible were
also discovered in many vehicles subsequent to visual or physical
16
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
Table 4
THE OBSERVED PRESENCE OF GUNS IN THE US NATIONAL FOREST
Gun contact
category
Mean
Total Percentage of
no.
gun contacts
Percentage of
total forest
contacts
Gun present contacts
1.3 per patrol
shift
80
100
37
Number of guns
1.8 per contact
147
100
n/a
People involved
1.8 per contact
146
100
41
Multi-person gun
0.92 per patrol
shift
55
69
47
searches. The visible presence of guns fluctuates with the time of year,
the most notable period being hunting season. Due to the fact that guns
are loud when discharged (with the sound traveling well in the forest),
awareness of their presence is increased.
While all types of guns were observed, the most common were
high caliber rifles and pistols. Recent arrivals to the forest are assault
weapons. One LEO, in the defense of another officer, came very near to
shooting a man brandishing an assault rifle.
Weapons Offenders
With the presence of guns comes the possibility of weapons
offenders. To understand more fully who these offenders may be, a
separate analysis of national park data was conducted to profile those
offenders who were cited and/or arrested within the national park on
weapons violations (ranging from illegal possession to use in a crime).
Again, the significance of the park offender to LEOs on this particular
forest is found in the fact that to reach much of the park the offender
must first pass through national forest. Once more, all the offenders
were identified and a 50 percent random sample was selected for
analysis. Table 5 presents the demographic profile of the national park
weapons offender. Although white males continue to be the most
represented group, there is a greater representation of ethnic minorities
and women in this category than in other profiles in this study. Unlike
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
17
Table 5
GENERAL PROFILE OF US NATIONAL PARK WEAPONS OFFENDER
1986 TO 1993
n = 70
Demographic category
Mean age: 26.2 years (sd 10.17)
Sex
Male
Female
Race
Caucasian
Asian
Native American
Hispanic
African-American
Residence
Local
Non-local in-state
Out of state
Descriptive data
%
(No.)
87
13
61
9
84
7
6
3
59
5
4
2
39
57
4
27
40
3
the other offenses categories, the majority of these offenders are not
locals but come from outside the area.
Also of special interest are those people who are known to carry
weapons and have a criminal history. To address this question, the
weapons offenders were checked for criminal histories. Table 6
presents the results of this analysis. As the data indicate, a relatively
small number of people account for a large number of crimes, as the
average offense history of 7.8 per person indicates. Further analysis
revealed that four people have ten or more offenses, with the high of 48
crimes and offenses committed by one person.
Law Enforcement In Natural Settings
Rights of Nature, Enhanced Legal Status and a Policy of “Soft”
Enforcement
Natural setting law enforcement is shaped by the unique legal
status of these areas. In most of these areas, “nature” is afforded elevated
18
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
Table 6
CRIMINAL HISTORY PROFILE OF US NATIONAL PARK
WEAPONS OFFENDERS
1986 TO 1993
n = 70
Offender categories
Descriptive data
Criminal history
28.6%
(20)
Of those with criminal histories
Felonies
Misdemeanors only
Average no. of prior offences
50%
50%
7.8
(10)
(10)
(sd 12.15)
Number/type of offenses
Felony
Misdemeanor
Total
40
115
155
legal status approaching that of natural rights (Nash, 1989). In addition to
the full complement of traditional criminal law, additional crimes and
offenses are linked to enhanced legal status of the environment. Access is
often controlled by gates or staffed checkpoints, and it is common to
require a written permit before being allowed entry. Personal
identification and other identifying information may be required as a
condition of access. In national parks guns are not allowed, pets are not
permitted, and it is illegal to take any natural item (bones, rocks, plants,
etc.). In 1991, a federal court ordered the closure of the national forest in
this research area to the harvest of trees to protect the endangered
Northern Spotted Owl (Dietrich, 1992). In effect, national forests and
national parks are among the most regulated areas in America.
Although the matrix of law applied to these areas is large, the
enforcement of these statutes is determined, if not constrained, by the
nature of the agencies’ enforcement authority. For example, the National
Forest Service, by law, has proprietary jurisdiction where as the National
Park Service, in most cases, has exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the
National Forest Service must share its enforcement role with state and
county police while the Park Service does not.
It was consistently emphasized by participants that law
enforcement is, at best, a secondary role for the federal land management
agencies. Within these agencies there is significant ambivalence about
performing the police role. Quite simply, most agency administrators and
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
19
employees do not see themselves as cops or the forest as a crime
environment. As one senior administrator noted: “I don’t want to be that
close to it [enforcement]. I don’t understand it…and I have no expertise.
Consequently I am very uncomfortable with it. There is not output how
are we supposed to measure it? Besides, it’s not who we are”.
The conventional image of crime, criminals and the police are
inconsistent with the prevailing professional model of the forester,
biologist, or recreational specialist. The organizational ambivalence
combined with limited resources results in a “soft” enforcement policy
that minimizes official action. As one senior supervisor noted: “We don’t
want them [LEOs] out there playing cowboy. We prefer the social
relations approach which emphasizes public relations. We have evolved
from the days where we cuffed and stuffed them [offenders]”.
The impact of the soft enforcement philosophy was consistently
observed in the predominately accommodating behavior of LEO’s. For
example, in spite of the fact that many of the offenders in this study had
criminal histories it was rare for national forest officers to run criminal
history computer checks. The common reason given for this omission
was the proprietary jurisdiction of the national forest officer. If people
were found to have a state warrant for their arrest, the officer could not
serve the warrant because of the limits on their authority. Yet rather than
hold the offender until local officers could arrive, (which the LEOs could
do), they simply avoided the issue by failing to run records checks. The
one LEO in the study who refused to comply with the informal policy of
avoiding records checks was viewed as too aggressive and not “in step”
with the agency. Organizational sanctions and pressures were
consistently brought to bear on this officer to encourage a soft
enforcement approach.
A reason for not running criminal history checks surfaced during
this research. Most LEOs are dependent on local sheriff’s departments for
computer and radio communication. It was believed that local offenders’
criminal histories provided to state and federal agencies from local police
departments were incomplete. In effect, the criminal histories were
considered to be inaccurate. To test this assertion, an exploratory analysis
of ten randomly selected Forest Service offenders without criminal
histories was conducted. These offenders were checked by a local agency
employee for a local record. Four of the ten offenders had local criminal
records totaling 13 offenses of which six were for violent or disorderly
behavior. These data suggest that, in fact, criminal histories are
incomplete. What might appear as a lack of cooperation was considered
20
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
the result of limited resources within the largely rural based local police
agencies.
In reality, during this research, field interactions with local law
enforcement agencies was observed to be generally very supportive. In
addition, it is significant that virtually every LEO in this study had several
local “informants” who regularly provided information that led to the
apprehension of offenders. This observation is surprising given the
common finding that rural communities are reluctant to involve the
police, instead preferring to handle offenders in an informal way
(Weisheit, 1993).
Guns and Natural Setting Law Enforcement
The constant presence of guns is considered by LEOs and rangers
to be the most persistent threat to their safety. All of the national forest
officers in this study had been confronted either accidentally or
purposefully with guns. One officer was injured while conducting a gun
status check on an offender. Because of the constant contact with guns in
the field, officers remain openly wary of the potential danger. The fact
that officers are among the first to respond to shooting accidents in the
forest, which are common, accentuates their awareness of the dangers.
Several hunting related accidents were reported during this research,
including one fatality. Given the high powered nature of the guns
common to the forest, simply being in a protected area such as the
national park is no guarantee of safety. In one district, a visitor from
Germany hiking in the national park was accidentally shot in the neck
from across a valley by a person who was “sighting in” his rifle within the
national forest. The bullet had traveled across a valley before hitting the
victim. Predictably, many officers wear bullet proof vests.
Law Enforcement Weapon Events
Undoubtedly a “weapons event” is the most serious of all
encounters faced by the natural setting officer. In face of the constant
presence of weapons in natural settings and their meaning to officers, it is
surprising that officers were rarely observed to draw their weapons. In
only one case did a National Forest Service officer draw their weapon
during this research. This was a hostile situation where the officer was
grossly outnumbered and offender weapons were visible. To pursue
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
21
further the question of officer use of firearms, additional analysis was
conducted. Table 7 reports the results of this analysis.
The National Park Service requires a report to be filed whenever
a ranger pulls his/her weapon and points it at more than a 45 degree angle
from the ground toward a person or animal. In all cases where a weapon
is fired, a report is required. Since 1986, 19 ranger weapon reports have
been filed and entered into the data system of the park. All 19 cases were
analyzed, including a criminal history check of those suspects/offenders
involved. As the data demonstrates, the majority of cases involved the use
of a weapon by a ranger to dispatch an animal that had been hurt and/or
was threatening people. Once again the suspects/offenders were all male.
Although the majority of suspects/offenders were Caucasian, there are a
greater number of cases involving ethic minorities than found in other
profiles. The initial incidents that led to the drawing of the weapon by the
ranger included two weapons violations, assault, attempting to elude,
game violation, drug violation, serving of a warrant, and a traffic
violation. Of the cases involving people there were no shots fired by the
ranger.
Table 7
DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF WEAPONS DRAWN CASES US NATIONAL PARK
1986 TO 1993
n = 19
Weapons drawn categories
Drawn to kill animals
Demographic profile of suspects/offenders
Average age: 28.0 (sd 6.28)
Sex: male
Race
Caucasian
Cambodian
Native American
African American
Offenders with criminal history
Felony(s)
9
Misdemeanor(s) 26
Total
35
Descriptive data
%
(No.)
58
42
11
8
100
16
44
31
19
6
50
63.5
37.5
100
7
5
3
1
8
5
3
8
22
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
CONCLUSION
The conventional view of national parks and forests as pristine
“natural settings” available as refuges from the realities of social life is a
distortion. Participants in the study consistently report that crime is
common in the forest and park and reflects “anything that occurs in the
city”. This too is a distortion. Although many urban type crimes were
observed and reported during this study such as homicide, rape and
burglary, many others were not. Conversely, many crimes reported and
observed during the research such as tree theft and animal poaching
rarely, if ever, occur in cities. The type of crimes encountered in this
research are clearly shaped by the unique physical, legal and social
characteristics of this environment.
The destination, rather than residential, nature of these settings
link crime to specific reasons for coming to forests and parks. During this
study the people encountered in these settings could be placed into
classifications based on the reason that they came to the setting:
(1)
commercial and scientific utility;
(2)
social and recreational pursuits;
(3)
environmental management and preservation;
(4)
individual subsistence;
(5)
spiritual development and religious ceremony;
(6)
criminal pursuits.
The fact that people must leave these areas to accommodate
residential needs dictates a temporal presence which is dependent on
specialized knowledge, ability and equipment. These unique
requirements are reflected in the types of crimes encountered in natural
settings.
The impression that the people who come to natural settings are
exclusively reasonable people minding their own business in the face of
federal government oppression is not supported by the data. It is tempting
to view the natural setting offenses and the offenders as “folk” crime and
criminals. The criminal history analysis, however, suggests something
other than an image of Robin Hood out to serve the oppressed. Among
those “reasonable” people who come to natural settings are criminal
offenders.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
23
The view that federal land management law enforcement officers
are “jack booted thugs” pursuing a policy of heavy handed enforcement
is simply not supported by the observations in this research. While there
is a clear tension between local residents and federal employees enforcing
the shut down of the forest to logging, there is a clear cooperation
between local residents, local police and federal officers. Finally, to
consider disarming federal land management law enforcement officers
seems unwarranted given the presence of guns in natural settings and the
clear restraint employed by the officers observed during this research.
To suggest the disarming of federal officers and rangers creates
powerful political capital for those local (Gardner, 1995) and national
politicians anxious to capture and encourage the image of federal
oppression brought on “reasonable” law abiding folks (Sonner, 1995).
Yet when the findings of this research are combined with the limited but
established research on rural criminal justice, the view that natural
settings are crime-free with little reason for fully equipped officers is
suspect as incomplete if not politically self-serving. The effects of an
incomplete understanding of crime is to distort the nature of harm and
those who commit these acts. It follows that these distortions will
promote irrelevant means to manage the full array of crime that exists,
often vilifying some to the exclusion of others. In these ways the initial
harms are magnified. To suggest that land management law enforcement
officers are heavy handed, unreasonable for carrying a firearm, and
should be disarmed is inconsistent with both the data and sound
judgment. Such proposals are clear examples of the biases served by
urban images of what constitutes “real” crime, criminals and police.
REFERENCES
Bishop, K. (1990), “Military takes part in drug sweep and reaps criticism and a
lawsuit”, New York Times, August 10, p. A-11.
Chandler, W. (1986), “State wildlife law enforcement”, Audubon Wildlife Report,
pp. 593-628.
Charles, M. (1982), “The Yellowstone Ranger: the social control and socialization
of federal law enforcement officers”, Human Organization, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 216-26.
24
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
Dietrich, W. (1992), The Final Forest: Battle for the Last Great Trees of the
Pacific Northwest, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Gardner, T. (1995), “Bombings tied to land dispute with feds”, The Daily
Telegram, August 12, Superior, WI, p. A-8.
Keil, R. (1995), “The story of 7,500 armed federal rangers: 19 shots fired since
‘91”, The Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 5, p. A-3.
Margolis, J. (1994), “Enforcing environmental laws risky business”, The Spokane
Review, November 25, p. A-8.
Monahan, J. (1975), “The prediction of violence”, in Chappell, D. and Monahan,
J. (Ed.), Violence and Criminal Justice, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Nash, R. (1989), The Rights of Nature, The University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison, WI.
Olson, R. (1994), “Illegal moss harvest”, National Park Service Internal Memo.
Rappeport, J. and Lassen, G. (1965), “ Dangerousness-arrest rate comparisons of
discharged patients and a general population”, American Journal of Psychiatry,
Vol. 121, pp. 776-83.
Ronet, B. (1992), Crime Victimization in City, Suburban and Rural Areas, Report
for the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Soden, D. and Hester, W. (1989), “Law enforcement in the National Park Service:
the ranger’s perspective”, Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Sonner, S. (1995), “Senator: take away guns from forest rangers”, Valley Daily
News, May 5.
Smith, B. (1980), “Criminal victimization in rural areas”, in Price, B. and
Baunach, P. (Eds), Criminal Justice Research: New Models and Findings, Sage,
Beverly Hill, CA.
Swanson, B., Cohen, R. and Swanson, E. (1979), Small Towns and Small
Towners: A Framework for Survival and Growth, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Swanson, C. and Territo, L. (1980), “Agriculture crime: its extent, prevention and
control”, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 8-12.
US Forest Service (1992), Response to Report Forest Service Administration of
Timber Contracts, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Walsh, W. and Donovan, E. (1984), “Job stress in game conservation officers”,
Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 333-8.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
25
Walter, J. (1995), Every Knee Shall Bow: The Truth and Tragedy of Ruby Ridge &
The Randy Weaver Family, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Weisheit, R. (1993), “Studying drugs in rural areas: notes from the field”, Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 213-34.
Weisheit, R., Falcone, D. and Wells, E. (1994), “Rural crime and rural policing”,
Research in Action, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
Williams, T. (1991), “He’s going to have an accident”, Audubon, Vol. 93 No. 2,
pp. 30-9.
Williams, W. and Miller, K. (1977), “The role of personal characteristics in
perceptions of dangerousness”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 241-53.
Wright, J., Rossi, P. and Daly, K. (1983), Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and
Violence in America, Aldine Publishing, New York, NY.
3
CRIME, CRIMINALS AND GUNS IN “NATURAL
SETTINGS”: EXPLORING THE BASIS FOR
DISARMING FEDERAL RANGERS
Michael R. Pendleton
University of Washington
Obscured by an urban ethnocentric view of criminal justice is the
growing hostility and overt challenge to federal police authority in rural
settings. Although the Oklahoma City bombing is an extreme example of
this hostility, direct threats to the legal authority and physical safety of
federal officers are increasingly evident particularly in the western United
States. While there has always been a visible suspicion of “outsider”
government in rural areas (Weisheit, 1993) confrontations are reportedly
escalating through encouragement by members of the “wise use”
property rights movement (Margolis, 1994) and other more extreme
separatist groups (Walter, 1995).
Most recently these challenges have focused on land management
officers in national forests, parks and other federal lands. A growing
number of public threats of violence to Forest Service officers have
accompanied legal initiatives by rural counties in the west to adopt
ordinances prohibiting federal land managers from exercising legal
authority over federal land within county jurisdictions (Margolis, 1994;
Williams, 1991).
A symbolic if not direct threat to the authority of federal police
powers on federal lands is the recent introduction of national legislation
to disarm the 7,500 federal land management police officers who patrol
650 million acres of federal forests, parks and range lands. Explicit in the
rationale for this legislation, introduced by western legislators, are
assertions that natural settings such as forests and parks are crime-free,
there are no dangers to forest officers or visitors that would justify an
armed police presence and guns are only within the purview of federal
officers reinforcing an aggressive style of enforcement (Keil, 1995;
Sonner, 1995).
4
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
Absent a systematic body of research on forest crime and
enforcement, these assertions remain unchallenged assumptions more
consistent with urban views of what constitutes crime, criminals and
police. The research reported below is designed to address the
assumptions behind the initiative to disarm federal land management
officers while broadening our understanding of crime and enforcement in
America beyond both our urban and rural boundaries. Specifically this
research addresses the following questions: What is the nature of crime in
federal forests and parks? Who are the offenders? What is the nature of
guns and law enforcement in these settings?
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Assuming the rural nature of most national forests and parks, the
question of crime and enforcement in theses settings may be informed by
the limited but available literature on rural crime and policing.
While rural crime includes the full array of conventional crime
types, there are special crimes that are peculiar to rural areas (Weisheit
et al., 1994). Among those special crimes are offenses likely to occur
within forests and parks such as timber theft (known as an agriculture
crime) and poaching (known as wildlife crimes). These crimes are
believed to be “enormously costly”, with linkages to organized crime
(Swanson and Territo, 1980). Although the overall rate of rural crime
has been declining since 1980 (Ronet, 1992) specific crimes such as
domestic violence, gang activity and substance abuse are thought to be
increasing, owing in part to the “ripple out” effect from urban settings
(Wiesheit et al., 1994).
Both rural crime and enforcement are shaped by the special
features of the rural setting. Large and often remote geographic areas
extend police response time and limit timely backup during
emergencies (Weisheit et al., 1994). Officer isolation, combined with
the findings that guns are twice as prevalent in rural communities than
urban environments (Wright et al., 1983) and that 72.2 percent of game
conservation officers have faced the threat of deadly weapons (Walsh
and Donovan, 1984), suggests that private citizens may not be the only
people with reason to fear the presence of guns in the forests or parks.
While research consistently shows that urban officers are more likely to
be assaulted than rural and game conservation officers, when assaults of
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
5
these officers occur it is twice as likely to be with a weapon (Chandler,
1986).
The danger to rural officers may, however, be mitigated by the
fact that officers are part of a local community which enables them to
know the offenders they encounter and their criminal history
(Weisheit, 1993). Although the difficulty of predicting the
dangerousness of offenders is consistently confirmed by research
(Monahan, 1975), police professionals are constantly forced to make
this judgment to enable personal safety. The single best and most often
used predictor of dangerousness is the criminal history of the offender
(Rappeport and Lassen, 1965; Williams and Miller, 1977). There are
indications, however, that federal officers may not enjoy the same
access to local knowledge because of local mistrust of “outsider” state
and federal government (Swanson et al., 1979), a tendency for local
residents to not report problems to the police (Smith, 1980) and tension
between rural police and federal police (Bishop, 1990). In part, the
lack of external support may explain why federal land management
police are encouraged to identify with their organizations as a
condition of professional acceptance (Charles, 1982; Soden and
Hester, 1989) and assume a “low key” approach to enforcement to
further the image of the ranger as a public servant and not a police
officer (Charles, 1982).
One of the problems with the existing literature on rural crime and
enforcement is the stereotypical definition of rural police as the small
town “sheriff” (Weisheit et al., 1994). Obscured by the misconception of
rural police are the range of rural crimes encountered and the distinctions
between the many different types of enforcement agencies and their
jurisdictions.
METHODOLOGY
The research reported here is part of a larger international study of
crime and enforcement in natural settings (forests and parks). This
portion of the field study took place in the western United States during a
24 month period in 1992-94. The research area included both a national
forest and a national park that share contiguous boundaries. Both the
United States Forest Service and National Park Service served as host
agencies providing complete access to their daily operations, personnel
6
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
and records. Standard confidentiality protocols were established to
protect human participants.
Participants
The primary participants in this study were the Forest Service
Law Enforcement Officers, known as LEOs, assigned to each of the four
ranger districts within the national forest. Each of the districts within the
research forest is assigned one officer who patrols several thousand acres
of land. The LEOs are fully commissioned federal law enforcement
officers trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC) located in Glencoe, Georgia. The LEOs wear uniforms
complete with the standard police insignias, and they carry equipment
including a firearm. The officers patrol in a marked four wheel drive
sports utility vehicle containing standard emergency and communication
equipment. The forest patrol is scheduled and determined solely by the
officers who work alone without direct communication with other LEOs.
Secondary participants consisted of special agents and
investigators assigned to the research forest to investigate and prosecute
cases. These participants are also sworn federal police officers with
standard police authority. In addition, key civilian administrative staff
who directly supervised the LEOs and other agency supervisors who have
responsibility for the law enforcement program were interviewed. It is
significant that during this research the LEOs were supervised by nonlaw enforcement supervisors. One of the distinguishing features of
natural setting (forest and parks) law enforcement is that it is only one of
several functions performed within a multi-purpose agency.
Indirect participants included numerous Forest Service
employees both supervisory and staff, community members and visitors
whose identities are unknown. Indirect participation consisted of simply
being present during the observation of the primary participants which
allowed for direct observation and conversation.
A blend of ethnographic and quantitative methods were utilized to
collect data.
Field Observations and Interviews
The four ranger districts within the national forest comprise the
four major research areas. Researchers trained in observational research
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
7
methods accompanied the LEOs during their normal daily routines. A
total of 60 observations were systematically scheduled to rotate equally
through each of the four research areas. These observations were
conducted at all hours of the day and night, all days of the week including
holidays, and every month of the year. Field observation periods ranged
from a few hours to several consecutive days. These observations
occurred in the forest, offices, homes, automobiles, courtrooms and
various local community settings.
During the observations, conversation interviews with each
LEO were conducted. In addition, interviews were scheduled and
conducted with key administrative employees, including special
agents, investigators and supervisors. Interviewees were asked to
describe their career history, the enforcement system and its role in the
Forest Service, factors influencing crime and enforcement in the
forest and their views on a range of observed and reported incidencerelated crime and enforcement issues. In total, over 600 hours of
observations and interviews provided the data for the Forest Service
portion of this study.
Community Observations and Interviews
A series of community observations and conversation interviews
were conducted with community members and general citizens
encountered within four research areas. These observations occurred at
all times, during travel, social gatherings, special events, in restaurantstaverns and normal daily life.
Official Records
The United States Forest Service and the United States Park
Service provided access to official records. These documents included
memos, reports and other documents related to crime and law
enforcement. Specific crime data were obtained directly from agency
records. The quantitative data are based on crime and enforcement data
collected directly from the files in one of four randomly selected Forest
Service districts within the research forest for the years 1989 through
1992. In addition, all the automated crime and enforcement records
retained by the National Park Service within the research park from 1986
through 1993 were analyzed. While each agency operates under
8
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
different jurisdictional parameters and operational philosophy,
enforcement in both agencies is based on the Federal Code of
Regulations known as CFR-36.
Basic quantitative analysis was conducted based on the
quantitative data. To address the question of prior offenses of the natural
setting offender, a 50 percent random sample was drawn from the known
offenders who were arrested and/or given a Notice of Violation (citation)
for an offense by the Forest Service. A criminal history records check was
completed on each of the offenders to determine the extent and nature of
their prior criminal history.
In addition, a similar sample of known offenders from the
national park which surrounds the national forest was selected for a
criminal history analysis. National park offenders were matched with
national forest offenders on the basis of the initiating offense for which
they were cited/arrested by each agency. This comparison is considered
relevant for several reasons, of which the most important may be the fact
that to access much of the national park the offenders must pass through
the surrounding national forest under study.
It is important to note that this data reflects official records of
action taken by enforcement officers/rangers. These offenses and
offenders are only those discovered and reported by the officers and may
be influenced by a variety of organizational and personal factors. Caution
is warranted when considering these data alone, as they may not be a
complete representation of the crimes and trends within the study but
only those discovered and recorded.
Community Records
Subscriptions to community newspapers were obtained to
provide a news account of relevant events. Records, news releases,
reports and other documents from local activist groups were also
obtained and received.
It is important to note that the generalizability of these findings is
limited by the relatively small unit of study (one national forest and
national park). While systematic study across the full range of natural
settings was beyond the scope of the present research and perhaps any
single study, comprehensive research is important to enable
generalizability of findings.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
9
RESULTS
Crime and Criminals in National Forests and Parks
A Spectrum of Natural Setting Crimes
The crimes encountered during this study form a spectrum that
ranges from interpersonal crimes, to property offenses, to environmental
crime. Interpersonal crime was frequently observed and reported. For
example, there were several homicides reported by participants,
including a woman who was thrown off a 300-foot cliff by her husband
and two friends to collect several life insurance policies recently
purchased by the husband. The forest is often utilized as a body dumping
ground for homicide victims killed in other locations and transported to
remote locations, as was observed directly during the research. Also
during this research a multiple offense sexual predator was placed by the
State Department of Corrections within an “inholder” community (homes
and cabins constructed before the creation of the park where ownership
rights are grandfathered into the park jurisdiction) in the national park by
the state to live while completing a term of probation. Finally, fugitives
from the law often hide out in the forest to avoid detection and
apprehension. An LEO in this study reported his apprehension of an FBI
“ten most wanted” fugitive from a forest campground in his district.
Property crime was consistently encountered. The most frequent
type is referred to as a “car clout”. These generally occur at trailhead
parking areas and consist of breaking into the car to steal items including
the car itself, left behind while the owners are on a hike or some other
activity. During this research, one small district within the national park
had $35,000 worth of car clouts. The person responsible (who was later
apprehended) was considered the nation’s number one campground thief.
The 51-year-old white man, paroled in 1991 off a 15-year sentence for
burglary, was characterized by his probation officer as: “A genuine career
criminal, a sociopath with a true criminal mind. He will be back”.
When the man was arrested he had in his possession over 50,000
stolen items, including 10,000 compact discs and 5,000 backpacks. This
man operated all over the western United States and was connected to
1,200 break-ins with losses over $1 million.
Environmental crime reflecting the biophysical nature of the
natural setting was also consistently encountered. A thriving black market
in stolen trees, mushrooms and other forest products used in European
10
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
florist markets was reported as common knowledge in the research area.
This form of theft is extremely lucrative. An old growth cedar tree is
worth $20,000 and can be taken in about three days. In one case of illegal
moss picking, over 900 pounds of moss was taken in a three day period.
On the retail market, four ounces of moss sells for $2.50 (Olson, 1994).
Within this spectrum a definite hierarchy exists based on
frequency of occurrence. As Table 1 indicates, various forms of
environmental crime and stealing are the most frequent crimes
documented by the agencies. In contrast, interpersonal crimes are less
apparent, particularly in the Forest Service data.
Destination Crime within an Opportunity Setting
The most fundamental finding in this research is that the unique
set of conditions and circumstances of the physical setting defined the
opportunity and thus the nature of crime. These “natural settings” are
distinguished by the interaction between social and biophysical forces
commonly ascribed to “nature” or the “environment”.
As a natural environment, forests and parks contain three
opportunity settings within which crime was observed and reported.
•
Front country opportunity settings have the highest degree of
human presence and influence. Paved roads, fully developed
campgrounds, Forest Service buildings, concessions and other
types of human development predominate these settings. These
Table 1
FREQUENCY AND RANKING OF NATIONAL FOREST AND NATIONAL PARK
CRIMES AND OFFENCES
Crime
USFS
1989 to 1992
n = 572
No.
(%)
Crime
Environmental
Stealing
Property damage
Alcohol/drugs
Weapons
Violence
Miscellaneous
292
79
79
26
13
7
76
Stealing
1,095
Environmental
514
Alcohol/drugs
477
Property damage
433
Violence
153
Weapons
140
Miscellaneous
799
51
14
14
5
2
1
13
NPS
1986 to 1993
n = 3611
No.
(%)
30
14
13
12
4
4
22
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
11
areas draw the largest number of people and a corresponding level
of crime.
•
Transition country opportunity zones contain those areas that
separate the primitive from the developed. Semi-developed
campgrounds, gravel roads, logging sites and trailhead parking
lots commonly define a transition zone. It is within these areas
that people generally leave many of the technological
dependencies of human-built environments and assume more
individual based obligation and responsibility.
•
Back country opportunity settings are generally reserved for foot
or horse travel. These settings contain both maintained and “way”
trails to semi-remote, often rugged areas. Human-built structures
are rare to non-existent. Predictably, the biophysical forces of
nature (weather, animals etc.) dominate the back country, making
these the most natural opportunity areas.
Within the crime opportunity zones, natural conditions combine
with enhanced legal requirements to shape and constrain access. In effect,
human access is provisional. Unlike urban environments, few people live
inside forests and parks and must leave after limited periods of time.
Therefore, these settings are destinations rather than residential areas.
In spite of the constraints on human access, people regularly
travel to these settings. The national park in this study averages close to
3.5 million visitors per year. Similarly, Forest Service LEOs who patrol
vast and remote areas alone are in frequent contact with a significant
number of people each patrol shift. During the 60 research patrol
observations, 219 direct contacts (where more than passing contact
occurred) were recorded, averaging 3.7 contacts with people per patrol
shift. Of these 219 contacts, 116 or 53 percent were multiple person
contacts (in which more than one individual was involved during the
contact). The vast majority of law enforcement contacts occur in front
and transition country areas and range from simple information exchange
to crime and enforcement encounters.
Crime Trends
Throughout the research, forest and park crime was consistently
thought to be increasing. An LEO summed up the prevailing view:
12
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
We feel crime has increased dramatically in recent years. I
have noticed a particular escalation in more city type crime.
But there have also been increases in the standard forest crimes
as well… so I guess it’s just plain going up.
This view is consistent with a 1992 report to the US House of
Representatives, in which the Chief of the Forest Service attributed
increases in law enforcement personnel to “increased criminal activity on
national forest lands within the past 10 years” (US Forest Service, 1992).
As Figure 1 indicates, the data collected from Forest Service files in one
of the four participating districts and the national park support the
reported increase in crime.
During the four years from 1989 through 1992 (the only years
available for interagency comparisons), documented crime within the
national park has increased by approximately 19 percent while
documented crime in the national forest has more than doubled. A
separate analysis of a single national forest district tree/forest product
theft showed a 400 percent increase (from ten in 1989 to 40 in 1992).
During the same period, environmental offenses in the national forest
increased 314 percent from 42 offenses in 1989 to 132 offenses in 1992.
Again, caution is warranted given limited data points and the self-report
nature of the data.
Figure 1:
US FOREST SERVICE AND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OFFENSE TREND
1989 TO 1992
Number of offenses
600
500
457
436
517
411
400
NPS
300
211
200
100
106
119
138
USFS
0
1989
Year of offenses
1992
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
13
“Takings” Tension and the Socio-Political Climate of
Natural Setting Crime
Although it is difficult to account for fluctuations in crime, many
participants attribute the perceived increase reported in this research to
the closing of national forest land to timber harvest. As both the
qualitative and quantitative data indicate, frequencies of natural setting
offenses increased during the forest closure period beginning in 1991.
Considered by virtually all the community participants as a “takings
issue,” the political and social unrest associated with the closing of the
national forest in 1991 to protect the Northern Spotted Owl reportedly led
directly to a variety of offenses. To protest the closure, a local “arson
committee” was formed and several fires were set and buildings
destroyed in the national park to express frustration over being locked out
of the forest. During the research, the arrest of protesting loggers for
illegal cutting of forest trees as a mass civil disobedience for being locked
out of the national forest was observed directly. Community sentiment on
this issue was further punctuated by a multi-shot drive-by shooting of a
nearby park ranger station where the offenders made several passes and
even stopped to reload in order to complete their work. A park naturalist
narrowly escaped the shooting.
THE NATURAL SETTING CRIMINAL OFFENDER
The Demographic Profile of the National Forest Offender
Analysis of Forest Service data has provided a general profile of
known offenders as presented in Table 2. In one district alone, during a
four year period 248 people committed some type of federal offense. As
indicated, the vast majority of these offenders are white males who live
within the local area. The average age of natural setting offenders is 29.9
years. It is notable that unlike urban settings ethnic minority offenders are
rare in the forest.
Criminal History Profile
Table 3 reports the results of offender criminal history analysis. As
the data indicates, 54 percent of those in the Forest Service sample and
14
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
Table 2
US NATIONAL FOREST OVERALL OFFENDER PROFILE 1989 TO 1992
Profile category
Age
Sex
Male
Female
Race
Caucasian
Hispanic
Afro-American
Asian
Residence
Local
Non-local in-state
Out of state
a
Percentage of known
offenders
No. of known
offendersa
Mean = 29.9 (sd 11.25)
248
91
9
244
23
93
6
0.08
0.08
236
14
2
2
85
10
4
255
31
13
Includes offenders who received written warnings, citations and/or were arrested
44.3 percent of those in the national park sample have criminal histories.
Of those with histories, approximately half have felony records. Among
the felony offenses are drug, robbery and numerous violent offenses
including homicide. The offender profile is dominated by local white male
residents with substantial prior criminal histories, half of which are felony
Table 3
CRIMINAL HISTORY PROFILE OF US FOREST SERVICE AND NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE OFFENDERS
Offender
categories
Criminal
Of those with criminal histories
Prior felonies
Misdemeanors only
Average no. of prior offences
Number/type offences
Felony
Misdemeanor
Total
US Forest Service
1989 to 1992
n = 61
54
(33)
45.45
(15)
54.55
(18)
3.7 (sd 5.39)
51
71
122
1
US National
Park Service
1986 to 1993
n = 72
44.3
(33)
60.6
(20)
34.9
(13)
4.6 (sd 4.07)
46
105
51
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
15
offenses. Of the 51 felonies committed by the national forest offender, 23
or 45 percent are for drug offenses and another six are for violent offenses
including rape and assault. Of the 46 felonies committed by the national
park offenders, 15 are drug offenses and 11 are violent offenses including
murder.
The finding that 20 weapons offenders accounted for 155 offenses
averaging 7.8 crimes per person, to include numerous violent offenses
suggests that a small number of offenders may be accounting for the
majority of crime in these areas.
Local Outlaws
Every research area in this study had at least one local individual
who is well known by the participants as an outlaw. These people,
exclusively men, have earned a local reputation through a long history of
crimes that include violence and weapons. All of these outlaws have had
at least one violent encounter with local law enforcement officers and
often promise to fight and/or kill any “cop” who attempts to take them in.
An LEO noted the importance of the outlaw to an officers professional
reputation: “They [other law enforcement officers] never tell you about
these guys in advance. They want to see how you handle them. It’s sort of
a right of passage to bring one in.”
GUNS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN NATURAL
SETTINGS
During the field observations, guns observed during direct
contacts where LEO’s stopped to interact with people were recorded
(minimal contacts were excluded). As Table 4 indicates, guns were
observed 1.3 times per each patrol shift.
On average there was at least one gun observed per person
encountered during gun contacts. Almost once per patrol shift, LEOs, on
the average, were involved in a multi-person contact where guns were
observed.
Guns were observed visibly stored or carried in vehicles, in the
possession of individuals on foot or horseback, and/or actively being
used to target practice or shoot animals. Guns not readily visible were
also discovered in many vehicles subsequent to visual or physical
16
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
Table 4
THE OBSERVED PRESENCE OF GUNS IN THE US NATIONAL FOREST
Gun contact
category
Mean
Total Percentage of
no.
gun contacts
Percentage of
total forest
contacts
Gun present contacts
1.3 per patrol
shift
80
100
37
Number of guns
1.8 per contact
147
100
n/a
People involved
1.8 per contact
146
100
41
Multi-person gun
0.92 per patrol
shift
55
69
47
searches. The visible presence of guns fluctuates with the time of year,
the most notable period being hunting season. Due to the fact that guns
are loud when discharged (with the sound traveling well in the forest),
awareness of their presence is increased.
While all types of guns were observed, the most common were
high caliber rifles and pistols. Recent arrivals to the forest are assault
weapons. One LEO, in the defense of another officer, came very near to
shooting a man brandishing an assault rifle.
Weapons Offenders
With the presence of guns comes the possibility of weapons
offenders. To understand more fully who these offenders may be, a
separate analysis of national park data was conducted to profile those
offenders who were cited and/or arrested within the national park on
weapons violations (ranging from illegal possession to use in a crime).
Again, the significance of the park offender to LEOs on this particular
forest is found in the fact that to reach much of the park the offender
must first pass through national forest. Once more, all the offenders
were identified and a 50 percent random sample was selected for
analysis. Table 5 presents the demographic profile of the national park
weapons offender. Although white males continue to be the most
represented group, there is a greater representation of ethnic minorities
and women in this category than in other profiles in this study. Unlike
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
17
Table 5
GENERAL PROFILE OF US NATIONAL PARK WEAPONS OFFENDER
1986 TO 1993
n = 70
Demographic category
Mean age: 26.2 years (sd 10.17)
Sex
Male
Female
Race
Caucasian
Asian
Native American
Hispanic
African-American
Residence
Local
Non-local in-state
Out of state
Descriptive data
%
(No.)
87
13
61
9
84
7
6
3
59
5
4
2
39
57
4
27
40
3
the other offenses categories, the majority of these offenders are not
locals but come from outside the area.
Also of special interest are those people who are known to carry
weapons and have a criminal history. To address this question, the
weapons offenders were checked for criminal histories. Table 6
presents the results of this analysis. As the data indicate, a relatively
small number of people account for a large number of crimes, as the
average offense history of 7.8 per person indicates. Further analysis
revealed that four people have ten or more offenses, with the high of 48
crimes and offenses committed by one person.
Law Enforcement In Natural Settings
Rights of Nature, Enhanced Legal Status and a Policy of “Soft”
Enforcement
Natural setting law enforcement is shaped by the unique legal
status of these areas. In most of these areas, “nature” is afforded elevated
18
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
Table 6
CRIMINAL HISTORY PROFILE OF US NATIONAL PARK
WEAPONS OFFENDERS
1986 TO 1993
n = 70
Offender categories
Descriptive data
Criminal history
28.6%
(20)
Of those with criminal histories
Felonies
Misdemeanors only
Average no. of prior offences
50%
50%
7.8
(10)
(10)
(sd 12.15)
Number/type of offenses
Felony
Misdemeanor
Total
40
115
155
legal status approaching that of natural rights (Nash, 1989). In addition to
the full complement of traditional criminal law, additional crimes and
offenses are linked to enhanced legal status of the environment. Access is
often controlled by gates or staffed checkpoints, and it is common to
require a written permit before being allowed entry. Personal
identification and other identifying information may be required as a
condition of access. In national parks guns are not allowed, pets are not
permitted, and it is illegal to take any natural item (bones, rocks, plants,
etc.). In 1991, a federal court ordered the closure of the national forest in
this research area to the harvest of trees to protect the endangered
Northern Spotted Owl (Dietrich, 1992). In effect, national forests and
national parks are among the most regulated areas in America.
Although the matrix of law applied to these areas is large, the
enforcement of these statutes is determined, if not constrained, by the
nature of the agencies’ enforcement authority. For example, the National
Forest Service, by law, has proprietary jurisdiction where as the National
Park Service, in most cases, has exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the
National Forest Service must share its enforcement role with state and
county police while the Park Service does not.
It was consistently emphasized by participants that law
enforcement is, at best, a secondary role for the federal land management
agencies. Within these agencies there is significant ambivalence about
performing the police role. Quite simply, most agency administrators and
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
19
employees do not see themselves as cops or the forest as a crime
environment. As one senior administrator noted: “I don’t want to be that
close to it [enforcement]. I don’t understand it…and I have no expertise.
Consequently I am very uncomfortable with it. There is not output how
are we supposed to measure it? Besides, it’s not who we are”.
The conventional image of crime, criminals and the police are
inconsistent with the prevailing professional model of the forester,
biologist, or recreational specialist. The organizational ambivalence
combined with limited resources results in a “soft” enforcement policy
that minimizes official action. As one senior supervisor noted: “We don’t
want them [LEOs] out there playing cowboy. We prefer the social
relations approach which emphasizes public relations. We have evolved
from the days where we cuffed and stuffed them [offenders]”.
The impact of the soft enforcement philosophy was consistently
observed in the predominately accommodating behavior of LEO’s. For
example, in spite of the fact that many of the offenders in this study had
criminal histories it was rare for national forest officers to run criminal
history computer checks. The common reason given for this omission
was the proprietary jurisdiction of the national forest officer. If people
were found to have a state warrant for their arrest, the officer could not
serve the warrant because of the limits on their authority. Yet rather than
hold the offender until local officers could arrive, (which the LEOs could
do), they simply avoided the issue by failing to run records checks. The
one LEO in the study who refused to comply with the informal policy of
avoiding records checks was viewed as too aggressive and not “in step”
with the agency. Organizational sanctions and pressures were
consistently brought to bear on this officer to encourage a soft
enforcement approach.
A reason for not running criminal history checks surfaced during
this research. Most LEOs are dependent on local sheriff’s departments for
computer and radio communication. It was believed that local offenders’
criminal histories provided to state and federal agencies from local police
departments were incomplete. In effect, the criminal histories were
considered to be inaccurate. To test this assertion, an exploratory analysis
of ten randomly selected Forest Service offenders without criminal
histories was conducted. These offenders were checked by a local agency
employee for a local record. Four of the ten offenders had local criminal
records totaling 13 offenses of which six were for violent or disorderly
behavior. These data suggest that, in fact, criminal histories are
incomplete. What might appear as a lack of cooperation was considered
20
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
the result of limited resources within the largely rural based local police
agencies.
In reality, during this research, field interactions with local law
enforcement agencies was observed to be generally very supportive. In
addition, it is significant that virtually every LEO in this study had several
local “informants” who regularly provided information that led to the
apprehension of offenders. This observation is surprising given the
common finding that rural communities are reluctant to involve the
police, instead preferring to handle offenders in an informal way
(Weisheit, 1993).
Guns and Natural Setting Law Enforcement
The constant presence of guns is considered by LEOs and rangers
to be the most persistent threat to their safety. All of the national forest
officers in this study had been confronted either accidentally or
purposefully with guns. One officer was injured while conducting a gun
status check on an offender. Because of the constant contact with guns in
the field, officers remain openly wary of the potential danger. The fact
that officers are among the first to respond to shooting accidents in the
forest, which are common, accentuates their awareness of the dangers.
Several hunting related accidents were reported during this research,
including one fatality. Given the high powered nature of the guns
common to the forest, simply being in a protected area such as the
national park is no guarantee of safety. In one district, a visitor from
Germany hiking in the national park was accidentally shot in the neck
from across a valley by a person who was “sighting in” his rifle within the
national forest. The bullet had traveled across a valley before hitting the
victim. Predictably, many officers wear bullet proof vests.
Law Enforcement Weapon Events
Undoubtedly a “weapons event” is the most serious of all
encounters faced by the natural setting officer. In face of the constant
presence of weapons in natural settings and their meaning to officers, it is
surprising that officers were rarely observed to draw their weapons. In
only one case did a National Forest Service officer draw their weapon
during this research. This was a hostile situation where the officer was
grossly outnumbered and offender weapons were visible. To pursue
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
21
further the question of officer use of firearms, additional analysis was
conducted. Table 7 reports the results of this analysis.
The National Park Service requires a report to be filed whenever
a ranger pulls his/her weapon and points it at more than a 45 degree angle
from the ground toward a person or animal. In all cases where a weapon
is fired, a report is required. Since 1986, 19 ranger weapon reports have
been filed and entered into the data system of the park. All 19 cases were
analyzed, including a criminal history check of those suspects/offenders
involved. As the data demonstrates, the majority of cases involved the use
of a weapon by a ranger to dispatch an animal that had been hurt and/or
was threatening people. Once again the suspects/offenders were all male.
Although the majority of suspects/offenders were Caucasian, there are a
greater number of cases involving ethic minorities than found in other
profiles. The initial incidents that led to the drawing of the weapon by the
ranger included two weapons violations, assault, attempting to elude,
game violation, drug violation, serving of a warrant, and a traffic
violation. Of the cases involving people there were no shots fired by the
ranger.
Table 7
DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF WEAPONS DRAWN CASES US NATIONAL PARK
1986 TO 1993
n = 19
Weapons drawn categories
Drawn to kill animals
Demographic profile of suspects/offenders
Average age: 28.0 (sd 6.28)
Sex: male
Race
Caucasian
Cambodian
Native American
African American
Offenders with criminal history
Felony(s)
9
Misdemeanor(s) 26
Total
35
Descriptive data
%
(No.)
58
42
11
8
100
16
44
31
19
6
50
63.5
37.5
100
7
5
3
1
8
5
3
8
22
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
CONCLUSION
The conventional view of national parks and forests as pristine
“natural settings” available as refuges from the realities of social life is a
distortion. Participants in the study consistently report that crime is
common in the forest and park and reflects “anything that occurs in the
city”. This too is a distortion. Although many urban type crimes were
observed and reported during this study such as homicide, rape and
burglary, many others were not. Conversely, many crimes reported and
observed during the research such as tree theft and animal poaching
rarely, if ever, occur in cities. The type of crimes encountered in this
research are clearly shaped by the unique physical, legal and social
characteristics of this environment.
The destination, rather than residential, nature of these settings
link crime to specific reasons for coming to forests and parks. During this
study the people encountered in these settings could be placed into
classifications based on the reason that they came to the setting:
(1)
commercial and scientific utility;
(2)
social and recreational pursuits;
(3)
environmental management and preservation;
(4)
individual subsistence;
(5)
spiritual development and religious ceremony;
(6)
criminal pursuits.
The fact that people must leave these areas to accommodate
residential needs dictates a temporal presence which is dependent on
specialized knowledge, ability and equipment. These unique
requirements are reflected in the types of crimes encountered in natural
settings.
The impression that the people who come to natural settings are
exclusively reasonable people minding their own business in the face of
federal government oppression is not supported by the data. It is tempting
to view the natural setting offenses and the offenders as “folk” crime and
criminals. The criminal history analysis, however, suggests something
other than an image of Robin Hood out to serve the oppressed. Among
those “reasonable” people who come to natural settings are criminal
offenders.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
23
The view that federal land management law enforcement officers
are “jack booted thugs” pursuing a policy of heavy handed enforcement
is simply not supported by the observations in this research. While there
is a clear tension between local residents and federal employees enforcing
the shut down of the forest to logging, there is a clear cooperation
between local residents, local police and federal officers. Finally, to
consider disarming federal land management law enforcement officers
seems unwarranted given the presence of guns in natural settings and the
clear restraint employed by the officers observed during this research.
To suggest the disarming of federal officers and rangers creates
powerful political capital for those local (Gardner, 1995) and national
politicians anxious to capture and encourage the image of federal
oppression brought on “reasonable” law abiding folks (Sonner, 1995).
Yet when the findings of this research are combined with the limited but
established research on rural criminal justice, the view that natural
settings are crime-free with little reason for fully equipped officers is
suspect as incomplete if not politically self-serving. The effects of an
incomplete understanding of crime is to distort the nature of harm and
those who commit these acts. It follows that these distortions will
promote irrelevant means to manage the full array of crime that exists,
often vilifying some to the exclusion of others. In these ways the initial
harms are magnified. To suggest that land management law enforcement
officers are heavy handed, unreasonable for carrying a firearm, and
should be disarmed is inconsistent with both the data and sound
judgment. Such proposals are clear examples of the biases served by
urban images of what constitutes “real” crime, criminals and police.
REFERENCES
Bishop, K. (1990), “Military takes part in drug sweep and reaps criticism and a
lawsuit”, New York Times, August 10, p. A-11.
Chandler, W. (1986), “State wildlife law enforcement”, Audubon Wildlife Report,
pp. 593-628.
Charles, M. (1982), “The Yellowstone Ranger: the social control and socialization
of federal law enforcement officers”, Human Organization, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 216-26.
24
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
Dietrich, W. (1992), The Final Forest: Battle for the Last Great Trees of the
Pacific Northwest, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Gardner, T. (1995), “Bombings tied to land dispute with feds”, The Daily
Telegram, August 12, Superior, WI, p. A-8.
Keil, R. (1995), “The story of 7,500 armed federal rangers: 19 shots fired since
‘91”, The Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 5, p. A-3.
Margolis, J. (1994), “Enforcing environmental laws risky business”, The Spokane
Review, November 25, p. A-8.
Monahan, J. (1975), “The prediction of violence”, in Chappell, D. and Monahan,
J. (Ed.), Violence and Criminal Justice, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Nash, R. (1989), The Rights of Nature, The University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison, WI.
Olson, R. (1994), “Illegal moss harvest”, National Park Service Internal Memo.
Rappeport, J. and Lassen, G. (1965), “ Dangerousness-arrest rate comparisons of
discharged patients and a general population”, American Journal of Psychiatry,
Vol. 121, pp. 776-83.
Ronet, B. (1992), Crime Victimization in City, Suburban and Rural Areas, Report
for the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Soden, D. and Hester, W. (1989), “Law enforcement in the National Park Service:
the ranger’s perspective”, Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Sonner, S. (1995), “Senator: take away guns from forest rangers”, Valley Daily
News, May 5.
Smith, B. (1980), “Criminal victimization in rural areas”, in Price, B. and
Baunach, P. (Eds), Criminal Justice Research: New Models and Findings, Sage,
Beverly Hill, CA.
Swanson, B., Cohen, R. and Swanson, E. (1979), Small Towns and Small
Towners: A Framework for Survival and Growth, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Swanson, C. and Territo, L. (1980), “Agriculture crime: its extent, prevention and
control”, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 8-12.
US Forest Service (1992), Response to Report Forest Service Administration of
Timber Contracts, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Walsh, W. and Donovan, E. (1984), “Job stress in game conservation officers”,
Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 333-8.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4 1996
25
Walter, J. (1995), Every Knee Shall Bow: The Truth and Tragedy of Ruby Ridge &
The Randy Weaver Family, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Weisheit, R. (1993), “Studying drugs in rural areas: notes from the field”, Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 213-34.
Weisheit, R., Falcone, D. and Wells, E. (1994), “Rural crime and rural policing”,
Research in Action, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
Williams, T. (1991), “He’s going to have an accident”, Audubon, Vol. 93 No. 2,
pp. 30-9.
Williams, W. and Miller, K. (1977), “The role of personal characteristics in
perceptions of dangerousness”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 241-53.
Wright, J., Rossi, P. and Daly, K. (1983), Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and
Violence in America, Aldine Publishing, New York, NY.