Park wardens will soon be armed

[jolinar of malkshor]

Wardens in most of Canada's national parks will soon carry handguns, Alberta MP Myron Thompson confirmed Friday.

He said $12 million has been set aside in the federal budget to arm the wardens, although an exact timeframe for when they will get their weapons has not been announced.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/...arden-gun.html

About friggen time.

[Azure]

Good. I hope they get proper training too.

[CaptainCrunch]

AWESOME

"Sir, pick up that empty beer bottle"

click

[Ford Prefect]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, they do a lot of work that's pretty much the same as what police do, and they can find themselves in dangerous situations. But those dangerous situations can create a bit of catch-22 scenario. Walking in on a group of partying drunks at midnigh alone can be dangerous, and then add firearms to the mix and things could get nasty. It would be pretty easy for a group of drunks to overpower the warden and seize the weapon. Or say a lone warden encounters a poacher in the back country. If both are armed, it could be a more volatile situation than if only one side is armed.

A friend of my used to be a warden, and we've discussed this. He leans towards arming wardens, but he has reservations about it and certainly understands why some wardens don't want to be armed.

[HotHotHeat]

Guns clearly solve problems.

[GoinAllTheWay]

That's odd, I always thought they had them. Those are the guys that wear the dark green uniforms, right? Could have sworn I saw one in Fish Creek with one.

[Locke]

Has Yogi really stepped up his picnic basket stealing game this much?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Guns clearly solve problems.

Yes, clearly they do.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

That's odd, I always thought they had them. Those are the guys that wear the dark green uniforms, right? Could have sworn I saw one in Fish Creek with one.

Provincial Wardens carry sidearms, the federal ones didn't, until now.

[HOZ]

This is a good thing. 99.99999% of the time their work will never require it. But when they are out in the woods faces with a poacher or worse 991 isn't working.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by HOZ

This is a good thing. 99.99999% of the time their work will never require it. But when they are out in the woods faces with a poacher or worse 991 isn't working.

They're doing it wrong.

[Deelow]

Originally Posted by HOZ

This is a good thing. 99.99999% of the time their work will never require it. But when they are out in the woods faces with a poacher or worse 991 isn't working.

My uncle is provincial FishCop in SK. He recently told me a story about things escalating with a poacher that didn't want to give up his rifle. He was quite thankful that he had his sidearm, he almost had to use it. When you are dealing with armed criminals that are backed into a corner it's only right that you have a way to defend yourself.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

Has Yogi really stepped up his picnic basket stealing game this much?

Frick I completely missed that connection.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Locke

They're doing it wrong.

Smoke signals are hard to differentiate. 9 and 1 smoke clouds look alike.

[Montana Moe]

Wardens in the U.S. carry firearms (shocking, I know!), I personally think it's a good idea. Sometimes bear spray doesn't do the trick, and the two legged inhabitants are the most unpredictable, of course.

Bit of a threadjack, but related....
Currently, there is a policy change being implemented in the States to allow citizens to have the right to carry in National Parks. They are looking to make the National Park mirror the laws of the State Parks in which it resides. Currently, most National Parks require your firearms to be unloaded, and inaccessible (i.e. trunk of your car, etc.).

The debate should be interesting to say the least!

[Barnes]

I think they are talking about changing the firearm legislation in Canada too.

I can't think of any reason a loaded gun would be useful in a car in a National Park. Maybe if a bee flew in he window, I guess.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I think they are talking about changing the firearm legislation in Canada too.

I can't think of any reason a loaded gun would be useful in a car in a National Park. Maybe if a bee flew in he window, I guess.

I know there are a few places in Montana where you have to travel through a National Park on your way to/from somewhere else. checkpoints have been set up in the past to exploit this law in those certain areas.

I can see the argument in that case. Having to stop, unload, and secure your firearm out of reach before you enter the park, and then once you pass through the park (which may only be a couple mile stretch of road) loading, holstering or placing it back in the rack, etc. I think the argument would be that it would be an infringement on Amendment 2, since National Parks are still in the U.S. To some, it would be a big deal.

Also, there is nothing that makes Republicans turn out at the ballot box than to threaten the 2nd Amendment. (though there are quite a few on the left side of the political spectrum that it would rattle as well.)

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, they do a lot of work that's pretty much the same as what police do, and they can find themselves in dangerous situations. But those dangerous situations can create a bit of catch-22 scenario. Walking in on a group of partying drunks at midnigh alone can be dangerous, and then add firearms to the mix and things could get nasty. It would be pretty easy for a group of drunks to overpower the warden and seize the weapon. Or say a lone warden encounters a poacher in the back country. If both are armed, it could be a more volatile situation than if only one side is armed.

A friend of my used to be a warden, and we've discussed this. He leans towards arming wardens, but he has reservations about it and certainly understands why some wardens don't want to be armed.

I really don't like that arguement at all.
If a group of rowdies is inclined to beat up a cop and use his gun on him, I'd assume that the warden is going to get beat up either way.
Or if a poacher is inclined to shoot a warden, I doubt it matters is weather or not they have a gun.

The guys who would acutally use thier or the warden's guns against them, would do it no matter if the warden was armend or not, but you can bet that there will be a lot more people who will think twice about messing wth a warden if he is packing.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I really don't like that arguement at all.
If a group of rowdies is inclined to beat up a cop and use his gun on him, I'd assume that the warden is going to get beat up either way.
Or if a poacher is inclined to shoot a warden, I doubt it matters is weather or not they have a gun.

The guys who would acutally use thier or the warden's guns against them, would do it no matter if the warden was armend or not, but you can bet that there will be a lot more people who will think twice about messing wth a warden if he is packing.

Ya, I can see things going either way for sure. Like I said in my previous post, I have mixed feelings about it. In some cases it will definitely be an aid to wardens.

My buddy who used to be a warden had a couple other things he was concerned about with regards to wardens carrying firearms. For one, he argued that if you are going to use the threat of deadly force you have to be willing to use it. Not everybody wants to be put in that situation. And another issue he raised was that carrying firearms turns wardens into cops, and not all wardens want to be viewed that way. Some feel they can do their job better if they're not looked at as bascially being cops.

Still, his bottom line was that he'd prefer to carry a gun for his own personal safey, but he undestood why wardens who didn't because of various other concerns. Based on my discussions with him, I can see both sides too and that's why I have mixed feelings about it. I don't think it's a purely win situation ... there are some downsides. The bottom line though is that officer safety should come first and if the majority of wardens want to carry firearms then they should be able to.

[Bobblehead]

Aren't wardens already allowed to carry rifles and shotguns, and this was just to allow them to also carry sidearms?