Orígenes de la Cooperativa San Martín (SM)

dents reported there were too few LEOs in their patrol area of responsibility, and more than 7 in 10 reported too few FPOs in their patrol area of responsibility (73 percent).

median of 0.5. “Other” included Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, Game Officers/ Wardens, and Division of Wildlife/Conservation.

Perceptions about nonreimbursed services from county sheriff’s law enforce- ment for those who had them were mostly negative with more saying they were inadequate (77 percent) than said they were adequate (15 percent; 9 percent did not know). Perceptions about services from state police for those who had them were mostly negative with more than half saying they were inadequate (70 percent), and 19 percent saying they were adequate (11 percent did not know).

Region 6 respondents were negative about whether their authority and jurisdic- tion were adequate for what they felt was expected or demanded of them internally and externally (70 percent said no, 30 percent said yes). We asked those who said no to give an explanation. We received 34 responses:

• 38 percent said they had to depend on others:

- If we find someone with a felony conviction with guns or drugs, same thing, we have to call the county instead of handling it ourselves - Hand it to a state officer

• 35 percent said LEOs should be deputized: - Need state peace officer authority - Ability to be deputized

• 21 percent said they had out-of-date regulations to deal with: - Need to update Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) - CFRs we enforce are completely inadequate and outdated • 6 percent had other comments:

- We have no jurisdiction over personal property stolen from our public and no authority for other crimes committed against our forest users

Seven in ten (70 percent) reported not having adequate resources to do their job. Those who felt the resources were inadequate were asked what additional resources were needed. We received 29 responses:

• 41 percent said personnel:

- More USFS employees in the field - Increase in staffing

- Additional LEOs on the forest

- At least one rotating LEO to help cover districts when the primary LEO is

out of the area

• 31 percent said equipment:

• 10 percent said to deputize LEOs • 7 percent said fiscal:

- Budget that would allow for repair and replacement of my equipment

• 10 percent had other comments:

- Problems and numbers of incidents continue to climb while the number of

LEOs is dropping

Enforcement level and cooperation summary of responses—

A major concern for Region 6 LEO respondents was the shortage of LEOs and FPOs. Almost all reported having cooperative law enforcement agreements with county sheriff’s offices, but their perceptions were that these services were not adequate in responding to or preventing crime. Three-fourths of the Region 6 respondents said that their authority and jurisdiction were not adequate for what they believed was expected or demanded of them in their job. Those who were dissatisfied noted that they had to depend on others to enforce state violation codes, that they were not deputized, and that outdated CFRs hamper their effectiveness. A large proportion of Region 6 LEO respondents noted that they did not have adequate resources to do their job. Specifically, they noted a lack of adequate law enforcement personnel and a lack of necessary equipment to be effective.

Roles

The LEO respondents were asked to rank 1 to 4 their highest job priority (1 is highest priority) whether it is protecting forest users, protecting resources, protect- ing NFS employees, or protecting public property. The LEOs reported their highest priorities as protecting NFS employees (58 percent ranked this a “1”), protecting forest users (25 percent), and protecting forest resources (8 percent). They were also asked to rank 1 to 4 what they believed the NFS line officer with whom they most commonly interacted thought was the highest priority. The LEO respondents reported the highest priority as protecting NFS employees (58 percent ranked this a “1”) then protecting resources (13 percent).

The LEOs were asked what they believed Law Enforcement and Investigation’s (LEI’s) relationship with the rest of the Forest Service should be. We grouped their responses into the following categories:

• 45 percent said collaboration and teamwork:

- Should be willing cooperators

- Should be a close working relationship

- A close working relationship

• 18 percent said separate entity:

- Must remain separate (stovepipe organization) but keep open communication - Keep USFS employees as a “customer” base

• 8 percent said serve a protection role:

- Partner in protecting and managing national forest lands - Maintain authority and not working for local supervisors

We asked the respondents where LEI fit within the Forest Service organization and programs:

• 15 percent said they are outsiders to the agency:

- Involvement is very minimal in USFS programs - We are the ugly stepchild

• 13 percent said they are equal partners:

- They are part of the organization

- Provide law enforcement input and direction on activities planned on

the unit

• 10 percent said serve a protection role:

- Protection of the public and employees

• 5 percent said we’re well-funded and integrated • 3 percent said we’re educators of the public and NFS • 10 percent had other comments:

- Mostly as a support function

The LEOs were asked if the NFS line officer with whom they most commonly interacted in their area knows and understands what they do. We grouped their responses into the following categories:

• 28 percent said they had good relations and rapport with the NFS line officer: - The district ranger has worked in other areas with different law enforce-

ment officers and understands what I do

- Have a pretty good understanding but it varies per individual over time • 10 percent said NFS needs training and ride-alongs

• 10 percent said NFS does not want information or details

• 8 percent said NFS line officers did not understand the complexity/hazards of the LEO job: