The FBI of the National Park Service | Hacker News Reader

The FBI of the National Park Service

outsideonline.com

112 pointsrmason47 comments

I had to get my car towed while out hiking a few months back. As I was chit-chatting with the tow truck driver, we got on the subject of work. I thought he was joking when he told me his time working as a park ranger was the most stressful period of his life. This was after him telling me that being a tow truck driver meant being woken up in the early morning hours to go on a multi-hour driver multiple times per week, especially when the conditions were bad.

It turned out he'd been a park ranger at a state park in a rougher, rural part of the state. He told me me that large groups of teenagers would hang out in the park in the summer. They'd get drunk and start these massive brawls with each other out in the woods, and my tow truck driver would be the only person around to respond, often in the early hours of the morning. Budget cuts meant he was the only one of course, and local police weren't going to bother driving way out to the park. He seemed like a genuinely compassionate person, but he said a lot of the time, he'd just have to let the fights happen because he was so outnumbered he couldn't break them up. He told me he only lasted a few months.

A classic case of defunding the public good. Another related problem was the change in policy to allow guns in public parks - a very perverse interpretation of the 2nd amendment that just made park rangers' life more dangerous without any real benefit to 99% of the population.

Just look at how useless the park ranger are! We should just the whole program.

I think the right to self defense is especially important in places where law enforcement cannot respond quickly and effectively. Whereas the police can respond in minutes in a densely populated city, the same cannot be said in the middle of a rural park. A person should be allowed to defend themself, with a firearm if necessary, when faced with a deadly threat.

The policy you mentioned only allows people to carry a firearm if they are otherwise allowed to carry a gun in public according to state law. This means they cannot be a convicted felon or otherwise disqualified, and in most states they are also required to have a concealed carry permit: https://www.nps.gov/articles/firearms-in-national-parks.htm

How did we ever exist prior to this policy change? Clearly people were dying in droves to wolves/bears... or not?

Aside from natural events, humans are the biggest threat to other humans in parks, and now they can pack guns legally.

Along the same lines, it is important to note that death (whether of park rangers or the general public) did not notably increase after this policy change, either, so it is not a particularly dangerous policy as you suggested.

Unless you set up security checkpoints around the parks, how would banning guns in parks prevent people who intend to harm park rangers (which is a serious crime) from bringing in guns? I don't believe that a person who intends to commit murder will be deterred because committing murder requires them to break an additional weapons possession law that cannot be well-enforced given the nature of rural parks.

As sneak said in another comment, "People who would shoot at park rangers would not be deterred by such a prohibition, so the change does not make them any less safe. It does, however, make normal park-goers a lot safer."

Normal park goers don't carry guns. Seriously. So it's a minority that's making everyone else feel less safe. Show me stats otherwise.

People who would shoot at park rangers would not be deterred by such a prohibition, so the change does not make them any less safe. It does, however, make normal park-goers a lot safer.

Are you serious? Have you spent any time ON YOUR OWN in a place like Rocky Mountain National Park, in Colorado? For one, there is the wildlife factor: Bears and moose are dangerous.

Secondly, National forests are a very important component of public lands for hunting: I for one find it awesome that I can stock 1 year worth of organic, grass-fed meat from legally harvesting an Elk on state or national forest land [1].

Finally, hunters - with our firearms and ammunition purchases - actually supply the bulk of $$$ that go towards maintaining public lands and wildlife [2]. You are welcome!

1 - https://www.fs.fed.us/visit/know-before-you-go/hunting

2 - https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-...

Same issue with California's Whiskey town. We have a lot of portable meth labs roaming the woods and trails, and only 2 rangers patrolling a huge swatch of land. They do not last long.

Coincidentally, I just learned of the existence of this organization yesterday via CGP Grey's new video about federal land: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LruaD7XhQ50

I was going to ask if that was the motivation for the post.

I just opened my YouTube app to watch this video. Guess what was the first video in my feed?

More specifically, he uses the phrase "the FBI of the National Parks" to describe this organization.

In a similar vein, NASA has its own SWAT/special operations groups, such as:

https://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/main/swat_feature.html

https://www.wearethemighty.com/news/nasa-has-a-swat-team-and...

So many federal agencies have their own SWAT teams that they have a hard time keeping the teams qualified due to limited access to suitable firing ranges around DC. Agencies like EPA, USDA, and Dept of Education have SWAT.

Seems like only FBI should have SWAT.

Eh, domain specific knowledge can be a huge win. I’d guess space swat team would be worried about rocket fuel, but usda might be worried about herbicide. I would be on board with an fbi run certification system. Organizations send agents for extra training.

I sorta like consistency though.

You don't call in SWAT for their domain specific knowledge though. You call them in to clear/pacify/etc a location.

If there's an active shooter hiding behind a hydrazine tank I would prefer a SWAT team trained in recognizing and handling different types of rocket fuel.

The funding required to train swat teams is high. A course I volunteered at was over a thousand per person not including the costs of sim-munitions, actual munitions, and experts in specific areas. That was the costs before the program decided to hire more trainers instead of utilizing volunteers. Funniest thing was though was how awful SWAT teams were against unprepared volunteers.

In the military system, this is handled differently, right? We don’t have National Park Service Army who are uniquely prepared to handle the terrain of National Parks. Or Treasury Air Force who protect the movement of large amounts of money.

Why can’t it be federal SWAT w/ Space Proficiency instead of NASA SWAT? Having a bunch of local agencies means they’ll have widely varying levels of training, rules of engagement, and abilities. That’s how you get cops playing dress-up flashbanging babies.

SWAT is a paramilitary, and its use should be as a last resort. Police departments, let alone agencies, really have no business having SWAT teams. Policing and SWAT are two very different things, and personnel should not be mixed between the two. If police need SWAT, they should have to call in SWAT from a special agency that has those teams.

The first SWAT team in the US was in LA, and if I remember correctly, it was so controversial that the police chief stepped down in protest. It's kind of unbelievable that SWAT is so accepted these days.

Makes for good TV, though.

DC would be especially hard for NASA.

So does the Department of Education: https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/beware...

Practically every branch of the federal government has an armed law enforcement unit: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/10/20/why...

I'd strongly recommend reading this report on purchases of firearms and military equipment by federal agencies: https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitar...

It's fascinating reading, it was posted to HN a couple of years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13548878

The Heritage link is in reference to the Office of Inspector General. The Office of Inspector General is independent of the Agency it oversees with a budget that Congress appropriates separately and it’s leadership is independent. Inspector Generals are political appointments and most are senate confirmed positions. Unlike most political appointments, the Inspector Generals stay on throughout Administrations and are only asked to leave if there are performance issues. The mission of the Office of Inspector General is to root out fraud, waste, and abuse. Office of Inspector Generals or OIGs perform financial audits, performance audits (program evaluations), inspections, and criminal investigations. Generally most reports are publicly available and posted on each OIGs website. OIGs are referenced in the media as the “internal watchdog.” Congress can request (and frequently does) OIGs to perform audits, evaluations, or inspections for oversight purposes. Each OIG has an anonymous hotline where employees, contractors, or the general public can report fraud, waste, and abuse. There are 73 OIGs in the Federal government with CIA being the first established by Congress. https://www.ignet.gov/

Once I get my student loans paid off I'd really like to fuck off and work for the park service.

I wonder how difficult it is to get a job with the ISB...

Given that there are 33 of them in the country, I would imagine quite difficult. I also wouldn't assume that working for the park service generally is an especially easy job. I've know people who were semi-retired who worked in parks on a part-time basis but I assume you have a lot more flexibility under those circumstances but don't get paid much, if anything.

I'm sure it's a job that many would prefer compared to sitting in an office all day but that doesn't mean it's easy.

Easiness isn't really why I am interested.

You did write "I'd really like to fuck off" which usually means you'd like to not work very hard. Of course, there are many jobs that get you involved in outdoor recreational activities but don't pay very well or offer a lot of financial security but do get you outside a lot.

That's not really what I meant...but I guess I can see how you could interpret it that way. I do work for a certain outdoor recreation retailer that I happen to love dearly, so perhaps I shouldn't complain too much - but probably contributes to my love for the outdoors.

My point was mostly that I'd love to be able to afford to be a steward of the outdoors/National Parks/Forests/Wilderness' full time, and that is something that I cannot currently do.

Even though the parent already replied to you, I'd like to clarify a mistake in your reading for others to learn from: "to fuck off" does not mean to slack or goof off. It refers to leaving some place (generally with an attitude of getting the hell out of Dodge).

You most likely have misconstrued "to fuck off" with "to fuck around." Although the former may be used interchangeably with the latter, it was fairly obvious from the original comment that that is not how it was being used.

With the modest pay, there's a joke among park rangers that "you get paid in sunsets". I was one for ten years.

You should play Firewatch.

When hiking Trans-Zion, I came across a park service trio who would hike the trails every now and then, and repair/improve as they went, using materials at hand. One was carrying a full-size axe, another had other heavy hardware, etc. Struck me as a really healthy and positive job. Wonder how readily available they are?

Is it just a criminal investigation branch or an actual secret police for parks?

Am I the only one thinking this would be the perfect job for Burt Macklin?

http://parksandrecreation.wikia.com/wiki/Burt_Macklin

Reply on news.ycombinator.com