safe from other visitors and mostly physically safe from site features, while about one-quarter noted that these conditions varied within the patrol area. The LEOs nevertheless believed that recreation visitors were safe from others and from site features. The three types of crime or law enforcement violations cited most often by LEOs as those that most commonly affect recreation visitors were urban-associ- ated crimes (e.g., theft, weapons violations, and break-ins); drug activity; and motor vehicle violations. In general, LEOs noted that, in protecting forest users, they were hampered by their patrol areas’ large sizes and remoteness, coupled with a lack of resources (e.g., inadequate numbers of law enforcement personnel, equipment, and lack of backup).
Natural Resources
The LEOs were asked about their perceptions about the quality of the natural resources during the time they have worked at their current forest and about the level of maintenance of Forest Service facilities and developed areas. They also were asked about media portrayals of crime against resources and fire crimes.
Most of the responding LEOs reported that they thought the quality of the natu- ral resources in their patrol area of responsibility had declined (61 percent) during the time they worked there. Others said it has remained the same (26 percent). Some said it had improved (10 percent).
Most of the LEO respondents said the maintenance of Forest Service facilities and developed areas in their patrol area of responsibility had declined (58 percent) during the time they worked there. Equal numbers said the maintenance had improved (19 percent) and it had remained the same (19 percent).
The LEOs perception of media portrayal of crimes against resources in the patrol area of responsibility was mostly positive (42 percent) or nonexistent (34 percent). The media portrayal of fire crimes in the patrol area of responsibility was mostly positive (55 percent) or nonexistent (22 percent).
They believed that forest users wanted to be assured of hav- ing a safe and enjoy- able experience while on the forest.
Natural resource summary of responses—
For their patrol areas, most LEOs reported that the quality of the natural resources had declined during the time they worked there, as had maintenance of Forest Service facilities and developed areas. Nearly half of the responding LEOs believed that the media portrayal of crimes against resources was mostly positive, and just over half believed that the media portrayal of fire crimes was mostly positive.
Success Stories
A few LEOs shared success stories (22 percent). They provided 79 comments about successes; many were related to solving crimes and getting convictions. In addition, the comments the LEOs provided were grouped into the categories good coopera- tion, proactive programs, positive feedback/gratitude, operations work, and other. Some examples follow:
• 24 percent said solving crimes/getting convictions:
- Resource theft dropped after use of zero tolerance policy - Recovering items stolen from federal property
- Eradicating marijuana plants - Forest product thefts have decreased - Closed a dangerous place
- Caught a career criminal with a large amount of drugs and money • 16 percent said good cooperation:
- With local tribes over burial sites
- With Department of Fish and Game and Forest Service over poachers - With state conservation officers
- 2002 Olympics cooperation • 15 percent said proactive programs:
- Developing a K-9 program - Alternative patrol methods
- Use of Geographic Information System to help close and rehabilitate illegal trails
• 14 percent said positive feedback/gratitude: - LEOs make a difference
- Have received letters of thanks
- Lots of positive feedback from the community related to drug cases • 9 percent said operations work:
- Search and rescue operations • 21 percent had other comments:
- Ability to overcome many obstacles to become a LEO - Staying in the job many years
- Being able to get lots of training
Nearly half of the LEO respondents described special policing programs that have worked well (47 percent). The LEOs provided 163 comments about those programs. About one-third of the programs were categorized as related to patrol/ visibility. Other categories were cooperation with other agencies, public education, public contact, community involvement, specialized equipment, and other. Some examples of comments follow:
• 34 percent said patrol/visibility:
- Attention to problem areas, enforcement programs • 16 percent said cooperation with other agencies • 16 percent said public education:
- Public events - Scout meetings
• 12 percent said public contact: - Getting to know people
• 11 percent said community involvement: - Volunteers
- Youth programs
• 3 percent said specialized equipment • 8 percent had other comments:
- K-9 program - Added FPOs
- Personal belief that it is better to gain future compliance than to write a
ticket
We asked how LEOs measure the success of the policing programs. Most of the responses were related to positive perceptions and reductions in violations. Other comments were:
• 28 percent said public/employee/cooperator perceptions are positive: - Measure by the public perception
We asked how LEOs measure the success of the policing programs. Most of the responses were related to positive perceptions and reductions in violations.
- Accolades received by cooperating agencies - Word of mouth from local citizens
- Feedback from other agencies • 25 percent said reduction in violations:
- Measure by the number of violations - Reductions in violations
- Fewer incidents
- Public follows the rules
• 2 percent said cases are up-to-date: - Cases filed and tickets written
- We produce a lot of paper, reports, cites to show our work • 2 percent said preservation of natural resources:
- Resource damage is down • 9 percent had other comments:
- Visitors feel safe going there
- Develop community awareness program and watch people join in - No good way to measure
We asked what policing programs LEOs had tried (if any) that were not suc- cessful. We received 48 comments that differed widely. These were grouped into categories of problems deriving from law enforcement scheduling, increased patrols, drug policing, off-highway vehicle management, education of users, and other. Some examples follow:
• 20 percent said law enforcement scheduling:
- FPO coverage is inconsistent and they get called away - Attempted to place FPOs across too large an area • 18 percent said increased patrols:
- Saturation patrols can never get the resources together when the weather is right
• 8 percent said drug policing: - The war on illegal drugs
• 8 percent said off-highway vehicle management: - Illegal off-highway vehicle use
• 4 percent said education of users • 42 percent had other comments:
- Timely response to ongoing resource calls
- Programs that operate in a vacuum that result in little contact with people, other than violators, are unsuccessful
- Being proactive has been discouraged because you have to let the public know exactly where the line is and hold that line
- Fix-it tickets give the wrong impression to the public - Abandoned vehicles
The LEOs also were asked why they thought these programs were unsuccess- ful. Together they provided 48 comments that were mostly related to lack of support and too few officers. Other topics were not being popular with users, slow response time, too busy/too many priorities, and other. Some examples follow:
• 35 percent said lack of support: - Managing from the office
- Other agencies don’t always do what they should
- Lack of support from local district on designating closures or restricting areas - Court system fails us when people are caught
- Forest supervisors and district rangers need to see some direction for the FPOs before the program will actually work
• 19 percent said too few officers: - Inadequate coverage
- Too many users and not enough officers • 6 percent said not being popular with users:
- They don’t like closures and find new ways to get into areas we don’t want them in
• 4 percent said slow response time
• 2 percent said too busy/too many priorities: - Unclear what we should be focusing on
- Triage enforcement does not work if you don’t have the people needed to do it
• 31 percent had other comments: - Lack equipment
- One way to do things does not fit all, such as zero tolerance - Get caught up in the “we’ve never done it that way” syndrome
- No good way to count success because if we do our job then violations go down but low numbers don’t count as success
Success stories summary of responses—
LEOs who volunteered law enforcement success stories reported successes in solving crimes and getting convictions, good cooperation, and proactive programs. Almost half of the LEO respondents described special policing programs that worked well. These included visible and concentrated patrols, cooperation with other law enforcement agencies, public education, public contact, and community policing and involvement. They measured their success by the positive perceptions held, or the lack of complaints made, by the public, NFS employees, and their cooperators, and by a reduction in violations. Programs perceived as less successful were thought to be so owing to lack of support and too few officers.