# Chaffetz wants to take guns out of BLM and FS law enforcment hands



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38810837&ni...take-guns-away-from-blm-forest-service-agents

Thoughts? I think its a bit ridiculous. Maybe Jason Chaffetz needs to put himself in areas 30 miles away from the nearest help, with no weapon, and deal with criminals. Maybe then he might understand why the BLM and FS need protection. I mean seriously we are putting this much pressure on Forest Service and BLM law enforcement? There are 200 of them total for the BLM, hardly an army. Is this really the best fight these spineless politicians can wage with the government? The agencies that make up around 1% of the federal budget and not even a fraction of federal law enforcement.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

It may not be UT, but maybe Mr. Chaffetz should take a trip down to the Santa Fe Nat'l Forest around Coyote and Youngsville, NM and see just how friendly the locals are to an outsider in "my backyard", or Tierra Amarilla in the Carson Nat'l Forest for that matter...

I'll betcha he'd be pro-gun for BLM and USFS then.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I think he's wanting them out of the law enforcement business. So being 30 miles from nowhere and dealing with criminals shouldn't be an issue. 

I'm fine if the Feds need LE for them to contract it out to local agencies.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Why shouldn't they have law enforcement over their/our lands? How can they manage it if they can't enforce people to abide by the laws? What Piute County wants is to be able to break the law without any repercussions...it is the same argument that the Bundy clan made; they want to break the law without having to pay the consequences. Local sherriff departments won't enforce the law because they don't agree with it. That is BS...


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Does the EPA, Dept of Education, and BLM really need their own SWAT teams? I'm not opposed to a Forest Service Ranger, or BLM personnel being armed, especially those that work in remote areas. But does the IRS need a SWAT team? Really?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Loke said:


> Does the EPA, Dept of Education, and BLM really need their own SWAT teams? I'm not opposed to a Forest Service Ranger, or BLM personnel being armed, especially those that work in remote areas. But does the IRS need a SWAT team? Really?


I agree with this, but a forest service or BLM ranger should have at least a handgun. I don't think they need a swat team, but they should be armed. I'd feel pretty vulnerable in the middle of nowhere with backup 30 minutes away dealing with a fugitive with no weapon, it's just a ridiculous thought. Remember that state park ranger who almost got killed.... Good thing he had a gun huh? But federal employees should be left unarmed and helpless. The last game warden I ran into had 2 handguns, a short barrel shotgun, and an assault rifle.....hypocritical much?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Loke said:


> Does the EPA, Dept of Education, and BLM really need their own SWAT teams? I'm not opposed to a Forest Service Ranger, or BLM personnel being armed, especially those that work in remote areas. But does the IRS need a SWAT team? Really?


I didn't see that this was about the EPA, the Department of Education or the IRS...wasn't this thread about the Forest Service and the BLM having guns and the law enforcement capability to enforce laws?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Loke said:


> ...does the IRS need a SWAT team? Really?


Nope, neither does the EPA.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

One thing to remember that a lot of drug running and illegal drug manufacture/growing happens on BLM and USFS lands. Yeah, I think they need some sort of line of defense, semi-auto handgun and rifle at least. They are often remote and work alone.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It sound anti gun to me, I bet he can get Hillary's support on this........

And why stop there, why do city police have guns, that is government overreach, no different, disarm them all, including the Secret Service. The SS is federal and have no jurisdiction when in a state, outside of the 10 square miles of Washington DC.........


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Maybe if this works, they can start to disarm the general public starting with those with carry permits. And then we can take away the guns that hunters carry and make them get their food and animals by primitive means. We could then produce a show where we drop a man off in the wilds without any thing, not even clothes and tell him to survive. That sounds strangely familiar.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

HighNDry said:


> Maybe if this works, they can start to disarm the general public starting with those with carry permits. And then we can take away the guns that hunters carry and make them get their food and animals by primitive means. We could then produce a show where we drop a man off in the wilds without any thing, not even clothes and tell him to survive. That sounds strangely familiar.


Now that's what I'm talking about.......why stop at permit holders.......?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Just another attack on public land. Since we all hold a place in this issue, here is Mr. Chaffetz phone number if you feel the need to call and disagree with him:

(202) 225-7751


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Wait, isn't Chaffetz technically a fed? I know where we should start........law makers first........then law enforcement.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

My opinion doesn't matter much on this issue because I think EVERYONE who has the legal right and the desire should be carrying a gun.......or three if they want. My company puts me in dangerous areas all the time while forbidding that I carry any kind of protection including pepper spray. I despise this fact but not quite enough to give up the paycheck.

I think the guy that cleans the camp ground toilets should carry a gun.-----SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The guy cleaning the toilets probably needs it as much as any of them. I've heard several report of the privatized camp ground hosts catching allot of flack and harassment just like actual FS and BLM employees, just for being employed by a federal contractor in association with federal lands.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

This is the only thing I've agreed with Chaftez on in a long time. Other than the IRS should be dismantled and tax code simplified.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> This is the only thing I've agreed with Chaftez on in a long time. Other than the IRS should be dismantled and tax code simplified.


Can I ask you why?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Because in the original legislation, FS or BLM law enforcement were instructed in policy to work with local law enforcement, namely the local sheriff departments, on matters pertaining to law enforcement action. They were never intended to have SWAT, be designated "POLICE" or have a tactical enforcement branch. I don't agree with many of these old ranchers being textualists concerning the Constitution but I do agree that both the forest service and blm have outgrown their intent in regard to enforcing laws and because of the bureaucracy that they are, they are inefficient, cost way too much money, and shouldn't be in any way controversial. My reasons are long and complicated. Have you ever wondered why there isn't a single deputized BLM agent in Utah? I'll give you an asshat of an example, Daniel P. Love. HE is the best example of why the FS and BLM do not need SWAT teams.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad said:


> This is the only thing I've agreed with Chaftez on in a long time. Other than the IRS should be dismantled and tax code simplified.


You do realize that the FS and BLM LEO work with DWR during hunting seasons, as the DWR can not cover everything? Chaffetz has included USFWS in this as well, where we see the same inter-agency cooperation. These people are expected to patrol and enforce wildlife laws, while coming into contact with a large group of people that will be armed, and will be violating laws, but they will NOT be allowed to be armed or have arresting powers.

So the way this plays out on the ground is that when the FS encounters a poacher on federal lands, they do not have the ability to do anything but call the county LEO. In some counties under the current atmosphere, that means that some Sheriffs will not send help. Which is ultimately the goal here. This is a poachers paradise.

Additionally, the block grants, to have local county sheriffs replace FS and BLM LEO is no different than what Ivory is proposing with public lands. Chaffetz wants the feds to give up policing authority, and at the same time still fund it. We all know how I feel about people with their hands out.......

It is the funding part maybe more than anything that really irks me. Seriously! "Hey, I want your car, I'm going to drive it, and you can't anymore, but I want you to buy the gas and tires?" I don't think so.

If you want to talk about special agents, raids, and militarization, that is a whole other issue, that has nothing to do with disarming LEOs and taking away their ability to arrest people. That is just the cover being used to justify this. If the feds can't have firearms and arresting authority on federal property, then there is no argument that says the same thing should not be applied to UHP on Utah highways, they can call the county sheriff too, and fund them of course as well.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> Because in the original legislation, FS or BLM law enforcement were instructed in policy to work with local law enforcement, namely the local sheriff departments, on matters pertaining to law enforcement action. They were never intended to have SWAT, be designated "POLICE" or have a tactical enforcement branch. I don't agree with many of these old ranchers being textualists concerning the Constitution but I do agree that both the forest service and blm have outgrown their intent in regard to enforcing laws and because of the bureaucracy that they are, they are inefficient, cost way too much money, and shouldn't be in any way controversial. My reasons are long and complicated. Have you ever wondered why there isn't a single deputized BLM agent in Utah? I'll give you an asshat of an example, Daniel P. Love. HE is the best example of why the FS and BLM do not need SWAT teams.


While I can come to a little bit of an agreement that the BLM may not need swat teams, I do believe they need authority. I also agree they need to work with local law enforcement, but local law enforcement don't get to decide what rules and regulations are enforced on federally controlled land. There are a lot of civil crimes that occur on BLM and Forest service land and in some cases relying on local law enforcement is not feasible when enforcing some of those laws an hour from the nearest backup. As I've said before around Richfield a BLM Ranger handed out lots of DUIs and somehow he became the bad guy and got transferred out. Is it the drunk driver we should be criticizing and punishing? Or is it the BLM ranger in the wrong for enforcing laws that people have broke? I side with the person enforcing laws on the books rather the criminal committing the crime. Let me tell you, he made people aware he was there and actually did a great job cleaning things up while he was here. A lot of people hated him, but they were the ones committing crimes. With drugs growing on public land, situations like the Bundiss occurring, and the heated tensions between ranchers and Rangers, I don't know that disarming the FS and BLM will make things better right now. Tonight I went to a meeting on elk, and of course the same ranchers came to show their disgust for the number of elk, the DWR, and with the BLM and Forest service. Tensions are high, and they treat the DWR people bad, I can't imagine what it feels like to wear a DOI or Forest service logo on your shirt. These ranchers simply don't understand or listen to reason, and it's no wonder things have went south and aren't getting any better. Of course the ranchers think the state transfer is their saving grace. Currently our DWR and especially BLM and Forest Service employees are in a bad situation right now and I must say I respect them for continuing to do their job even with the pressure mounting. Leaving the meeting I heard one of those ranchers say, "we just need to start shooting the sons a *****, that's what we ought to do" speaking of elk. Vance proposed less cow tags and that heated things for a minute. He also said the Monroe elk herd has been cut into pretty significantly. These old boys still aren't happy and wanted more tags. I must say, the more I see, the more I read, the more I listen, the easier it is to see who the arrogant, selfish, stubborn group is here. They are undbudging, and will not be happy until every elk is dead, and they have non-regulated use of public lands. The Forest Service and BLM aren't perfect but I can't imagine dealing with some of those individuals and trying to have a reasonable conversation with them or try explaining how science and actual managment exist. If you told me I had to do that all without arresting authority and with very little support in rural Utah from local law enforcment, I would quite and find something else to do. This is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the BLM and Forests service and their power to enforce laws. I'm sorry I want them enforcing laws, and I don't care to let these people think they don't have to follow laws because the land managers are stripped of authority.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Actually, in Iron County there are FS LEO that are deputized for the very reason you pointed out. I agree that there is plenty of inter agency support between the FS and BLM and the state agencies on a small scale. THAT is how it is supposed to work. I agree with you on the funding. The federal government NEVER retracts "income". I guess I'll play hypocrite here and say that I believe our local law enforcement, sheriff's departments, should be armed better than the criminals and specialized equipment is a good thing especially when assisting other agencies. I don't know anyone who doesn't go into the woods without a firearm. All law enforcement should be able to protect themselves. But riot gear, hellcats, automatic ar-15, and grenade launchers? Nope. 

Sorry I'm not very good at articulating tonight.....spent some time in the crappy hospital here in Cedar and still not quite 60% back to normal.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Klbzdad, I just don't know in some areas what sort of cooperation would occur. You can't strip the BLM and FS of the ability to perform law enforcement actions. If they do are we going to see more FBI involvement? My bet would be federal law will be enforced and if it is being broken without cooperation from local law enforcement you'll end up with more FBI involvement which could just make things worse. Do they need full on tactical teams? No, I don't believe so. If that is needed I agree the FBI should be called. I don't believe stripping those agencies of law enforcement power is a good call at all. The BLM employs 200 rangers and 75 special agents to patrol over 200 million acres of land, that's hardly an army proportional to the task.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad said:


> Actually, in Iron County there are FS LEO that are deputized for the very reason you pointed out. I agree that there is plenty of inter agency support between the FS and BLM and the state agencies on a small scale. THAT is how it is supposed to work. I agree with you on the funding. The federal government NEVER retracts "income". I guess I'll play hypocrite here and say that I believe our local law enforcement, sheriff's departments, should be armed better than the criminals and specialized equipment is a good thing especially when assisting other agencies. I don't know anyone who doesn't go into the woods without a firearm. All law enforcement should be able to protect themselves. But riot gear, hellcats, automatic ar-15, and grenade launchers? Nope.
> 
> Sorry I'm not very good at articulating tonight.....spent some time in the crappy hospital here in Cedar and still not quite 60% back to normal.


Sorry to hear about your hospital stay, not many places I dislike more than hospitals, get better.

Like I said there is a lot of nuance that can be gone over here. But when it comes to guys on the front line, they get guns. And when we are talking about some parts of the world and situations, the BLM and FS need riot gear, hellcats, automatic ARs, and grenade launchers, especially the grenade launchers, specifically because it is not grenades being lobbed from them.

When I say "some parts of the world", a few examples would be the emerald triangle in Northern CA, or the Mexican or even Canadian border a few years ago.

The greater argument I think is the militarization and police abuse of power on a general scale. The BLM and FS have no monopoly on that front, if anything the case against such militarization is not at the federal level, state level or even the county level, but probably more on a municipal level.

Some perspective here, I've been beat by the police on more than one occasion, and been charged with assaulting an officer(That's what they do after they tag team you). I have plenty of cases to make about police brutality and excess. But like the case of Love, none of my examples add up to a case to disarm LEOs on a mass, agency wide basis.


----------



## Mutley (Mar 11, 2016)

klbzdad said:


> Because in the original legislation, FS or BLM law enforcement were instructed in policy to work with local law enforcement, namely the local sheriff departments, on matters pertaining to law enforcement action. They were never intended to have SWAT, be designated "POLICE" or have a tactical enforcement branch. I don't agree with many of these old ranchers being textualists concerning the Constitution but I do agree that both the forest service and blm have outgrown their intent in regard to enforcing laws and because of the bureaucracy that they are, they are inefficient, cost way too much money, and shouldn't be in any way controversial. My reasons are long and complicated. Have you ever wondered why there isn't a single deputized BLM agent in Utah? I'll give you an asshat of an example, Daniel P. Love. HE is the best example of why the FS and BLM do not need SWAT teams.


Would you trust a Colorado City or Hilldale Officer to enforce ALL laws if you lived in one of those cities? Especially if you called because you observed a leader of the FLDS with an under aged girl.

So...just because these employees work for agencies you or others may not totally agree with they should not be able to protect themselves and go home to their families at night? At no other time are these Federal employees in more danger than in our current climate right now. We all need to realize these people are enforcing the laws OUR law makers (the people we vote in place) put on the books. Just because we don't agree with some of these laws doesn't mean we should endanger our fellow citizens, yes, they are also local citizens, our neighbors, family, and friends because we don't agree with something coming from Washington.

FYI, SWAT stands for special weapons and tactics. SWAT is made up of regular Officers with extra training and gear. They are not robots. These Officers only EVER get called to come together in dangerous situations. If you were a law enforcement officer with a armed barricaded suspect, would you knock on the door with one bullet in your pocket and a vegetable tray?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

For every Daniel P. Love there is an equal and opposite Sheriff Marty Gleave.

Piute County is a very good reason why Chaffitz is crazy. Piute County wants the Feds and BLM LEO's out because they want to break the law (cattle grazing). Those rachers are all one big happy family, and they just happen to include the local sheriff. Who is going to keep that in check?

This is scary stuff.

And it won't stop at the Feds.

http://fox13now.com/2016/02/23/piute-county-sheriff-threatens-arrest-of-forest-service-personnel/#


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH nailed it right there. 

For my profession, I interact quite a bit with the public on public land management issues. I was in Las Vegas a couple months after the stand-off - facilitating public meetings for the BLM. In one meeting, I was chatting with one of the Bundy supporters. He explained to me that they were tired of BLM harassing them all the time. I asked him what he meant by harassment. He said "Well, they keep sending us letters telling us to pay grazing fees." I asked him if he had a permit to graze. He said he did. I asked him if the permit stipulated that he pay a fee for the permit. He said it did. So I asked him, "So, have you paid the fee you agreed to pay as a condition of the permit? That you signed a contract to do?" He said "No. I'm not paying any fee because BLM isn't even allowed to own land. Have you read the constitution?" so I said "Yes. I know it very well. Especially the 1st article that allows Congress to make laws, and Congress made the law, and then you accepted the law by signing your contract. But you consider them sending you a bill for what you agreed to pay, as harassment, and BLM overstepping what you see as false authority?" He replied "Yes. They have no right to harass me by sending me bills in the mail. " 

And that is really what is at the core of all of this. People don't want to pay for what they agreed to pay for. And Chaffetz is just stupid enough to listen to people that don't/Can't/won't read the 1st article of the Constitution. I went to college with Jason. Never thought much of him then. But as any football fan will tell you, Never trust a kicker. So, yea.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The guys spraying weeds for the Feds aught carry a gun. Lontree isn't making them any friends.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Every Federal employee and state wildlife employee who enters Piute County should carry a gun...they have no friends.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I guess it just depends on their intentions.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

And the irony with what you say W2U - is if the federal land agencies pulled out all federal employees from Piute County, what is left of the abysmal economy there would totally collapse.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm not so sure of that. 

Actually I'm positive that wouldn't happen. What economy that Piute has hardly depends on federal employees. Most people work in Sevier, teach, mine, ranch or are retired.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> The guys spraying weeds for the Feds aught carry a gun. Lontree isn't making them any friends.


I stop and talk to those guys and offer them cold refreshments, they are guys doing a job, working for interests further up the chain of command.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> I'm not so sure of that.
> 
> Actually I'm positive that wouldn't happen. What economy that Piute has hardly depends on federal employees. Most people work in Sevier, teach, mine, ranch or are retired.


This is probably true.

However, what would happen to Piute county's budget if the Feds decided to stop paying them their PILT payment?


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> And the irony with what you say W2U - is if the federal land agencies pulled out all federal employees from Piute County, what is left of the abysmal economy there would totally collapse.


Oh come on now--I saw some huge brand new turkey coops being built south of Marysville a month ago, Piute County is going to be the next Sanpete County--heaven help us! :grin:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Not that it proves much, but here is a snapshot of Piute's economy:
http://www.bestplaces.net/economy/county/utah/piute


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Airborne said:


> Oh come on now--I saw some huge brand new turkey coops being built south of Marysville a month ago, Piute County is going to be the next Sanpete County--heaven help us! :grin:


Those turkey coops are being built by the same guys who were shooting elk a couple years ago for coming onto their land. They have invested a butt load of money....I wonder if the FEDS have helped them with any grants or loans?


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

I believe Mr Chaffetz has been watching way to much Yogi bear. These guys are not Ranger smith. 
A simple search and you will see the numbers of blm and forest service officers killed or injured by criminals is staggering. These lands are often the areas criminals go to hide. And disarming them will lead to more officer deaths. 

Mr Chaffetz is only doing this to create an image of negativity against the officers and the recent attacks on them by the so called land patriots. These bundy types and sage brush rebellion groups. 
But what Mr Chaffetz doesn't relize is he is siding with the criminals. These men and groups are not patriots the are plan criminals. Trying to steal public land for their personal gains. 
I hope we all remember at election time MR Chaffetz is NOT a representive of the Utah people he is plain and simple a representive of special interest.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Catherder said:


> This is probably true.
> 
> However, what would happen to Piute county's budget if the Feds decided to stop paying them their PILT payment?


If the county could raise its own revenue from the land then that could care less about PILT.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> If the county could raise its own revenue from the land then that could care less about PILT.


In other words, if the county citizens could use my/your/our land more to their liking and less to my liking they could graze more cattle, sell more cattle, and slaughter more cattle for beef and increase their revenues.

What you aren't saying is that the county has every right to establish viable businesses that legally and lawfully seek to make financial gain off public land--like the ATV businesses who thrive over the summer on the Paiute trail, or the Circleville Anglers fly shop/guide service, or any other business.

What is ironic to me is that these same guys that are so against the FEDS for looking to hold them to their contractual agreements and to abide by the laws are the same guys so willing to accept Federal Government subsidies like PILT money and business loans. Doesn't that reek of hypocrisy to you?

I mean....I get it. These guys are losing AUMs and grazing permits and are thus being affected financially and their way of life is being threatened. But, is that any different than the declining mining and now defunct mines in Piute County. It reminds me of communist Germany and my LDS mission. Back in 92-94 when I was in the old East Germany not long after the wall came down, I heard a lot of people grumbling and wishing that the wall were still up because they lost their jobs and their means of income. At that time, unemployment was through the roof in East Germany and people were struggling. These same people wanted the inefficient factories to go back up and to stay open...even though the West was producing the better products via cheaper means and less destructive of the environment. The truth is that the cattle industry has changed...big cattle companies are producing most of the country's beef and it is getting more and more difficult for family-owned ranches to survive and remain viable. These smaller ranchers need to adapt or lose...but trying to "reclaim" or what I call steal public land and make it private is NOT the answer. I think the smartest solution is for these small rural Utah communities to raise their children up to get degrees in forestry and land management and have them start getting the jobs for the Forest Service and BLM. At least then, we have people sympathetic to local customs and ways. Instead, though, they steer their children away from such jobs...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> If the county could raise its own revenue from the land then that could care less about PILT.


Yeah, but can those poor, picked on ranchers pay comparable property taxes? And when they can't and the Chinese and/or the Mormons buy the Monroe, will sheriff Gleave help kick off Uncle DeVerl and Len and their cattle when the new owners don't want them there anymore?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> If the county could raise its own revenue from the land then that could care less about PILT.


They had from statehood, to the 1970's, and again in the early '80s to lay claim. And just like the vast expanses of Nevada, no one claimed it. The homestead act ran for over 100 years.

As for generating revenue, you already noted the ways in which they are generating revenue from that public land, by way of subsidized grazing and mining. Do you think the ranchers would be better off paying $15 an AUM to the state verses $1.69 to the feds. Or maybe they would prefer the going rate of $20+ to private land owners.

Paiute county is profiting from public lands. I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with them not being appreciative of that fact. If you look a gift horse in the mouth, don't be surprised if said gift gets revoked.


----------

