Mitchell Fox
The image of the
Game Warden, Park Ranger or other law enforcement officer who deals with fish
and game regulations has one view from the public and for the most part I feel
that it is a negative connotation. With the upcoming shift in age groups,
generations and the changing times, one could have a chance to change the face
of Law Enforcement. I feel that there are or have been a large amount of people
who entered the field of Natural Resources Law Enforcement (LE) and made a
great impact on the career field and done it a fantastic service. From the new
era approaching I feel that there may be a changing perspective on the Game
warden or LE positions in Natural Resources.
I know from personal experience
as well as work related interactions that no Law Enforcement Officer is the
same, and that’s the way it should be. However, there are those who I feel can
come across as being on a power trip simply because they wear a badge and can
write you a ticket and those who use education as a second tool. From one
contact to another with game wardens from different states I can say that I
have had experiences with both types of officers. By no means am I getting on
any individuals case or throwing egg in any ones face, the purpose is simply
informational and an interpretive view that responses are welcome. I know that
there are those people who deserve legal ramification for violations regarding
fish and game laws or other violations however; there are a decent number of
first time people that get contacted by an officer and have a negative
experience.
From summer jobs I
have had, there have been both instances where I could have used either an
education approach and the stiffer penalty approach. I tried both for many
situations and regardless of if the person was actually intentionally violating
rules or they truly did not know, the education/stern reinforcement of the
rules helped to resolve the problem at the time. Now true, these are not always
going to work but I feel that approaching someone with an open mind to the
worst possible situation but trying the easier approach first is not too hard
to do. When users of a resource get contacted by an officer and his facial
features as well as tone set the contact in a pre-assumed view of what will
occur. From what I have seen throughout a couple of the agencies that have game
wardens, is that more and more people are viewing the wardens as people who are
out to get you and write you a ticket.
With the negative
view in mind, I think that it is important for LE to try and make the situation
start off as a positive one and end on more of an educational note rather than
a negative ticket. The fact that the warden can make an explanation and still
give the contact a ticket, the individual if approached properly can still view
the interaction as being educational rather than a “hear is your ticket, don’t
do it again” kind of contact.
With the changing
views and goals of the new generations, I would think that education might be
more of a tool that can be used when contacting certain individuals when it
comes to violations in the natural resources. I know that there is a time and a
place for certain actions however not all people are intending to violate and
for the most part regulation books are not the easiest in the world to read
sometimes. But with the high number of people using natural resources that are
either from the city or have never been out in the woods before, I think that
for the most part a first impression is a lasting impression for most people.
With that said now, I would tend to think that the new generations of LE might
be more apt to try education first rather than whipping out the ticket book
right off the bat. The situation is never the same and certain situations do
call for different measures, however I don’t feel that all contacts should
start off as if they are violating on purpose or breaking every rule in the
book.
