Is it just me, or is it really a sad sign of the times when the National Park Service is promoting "factory direct" body armor to its rangers, body armor that not only stops most bullets but which is "a great choice for active rangers"?
Heck, there's even a women-specific line: One of the reasons that Savvy Armor for Women fits so well is that the company requires that each officer be personally fitted by one of their technicians.
And is it merely coincidence that the following release comes as top Interior Department officials are moving to allow more guns in the national parks?
The WASO Division of Law Enforcement, Security and Emergency Services is pleased to announce the establishment of a new partnership with BAE Systems, a major government contractor and manufacturer of body armor.
BAE Systems (formerly known as Armor Holdings) has provided the NPS with special factory-direct pricing (less than GSA pricing) on soft body armor. Their products represent an exceptional value to the NPS while providing maximum safety to officers. Please note, however, that the NPS has not contracted to purchase these products and that law enforcement personnel may purchase appropriate body armor from any vendor.
RM-9 requires that all commissioned employees be provided with soft body armor. These body armor options meet or exceed minimum performance levels for ballistic protection. Two choices are available:
ABA – Xtreme HP level IIIa vest with soft trauma plate and carrier. The cost is $423.50. The new Xtreme HP soft body armor provides high performance level IIIa stopping power in a flexible, lightweight vest. Offering the latest in ballistic and fabric technology, this product is a great choice for active rangers.
Savvy Armor for Women – Flair PST level IIIa with soft trauma plate and two carriers. The cost is $696. This is a new women-run company offering an exceptionally comfortable product designed just for women. The division has been very impressed with this new company and its products. Two NPS rangers have been wearing their products for over six months and have nothing but positive remarks about the women-specific fit and comfort. One of the reasons that Savvy Armor for Women fits so well is that the company requires that each officer be personally fitted by one of their technicians. At this time, the only technician is at FLETC. They are working on establishing a road show with additionally fitting locations at various cities throughout the year. A notice will appear when this happens.
Comments
From the FBI National Crime Statistics for 2006, the last year for which data is complete:
In 2006, 257 officers from the Department of Interior were assaulted, and 62 of these officers were injured. The following provides breakdowns by agency within the DOI:
Bureau of Indian Affairs: 129 officers were assaulted, and 42 of these officers were injured.
National Park Service: 101 officers were assaulted, and 20 of these officers were injured.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: 27 officers were assaulted; however, none were injured.
210 of the 257 DOI officers were attacked with personal weapons, such as hands, fists, or feet.
28 DOI officers were attacked with vehicles.
7 officers were attacked with blunt instruments.
5 officers were attacked with firearms.
2 officers were attacked with knives or other cutting instruments.
5 officers were attacked with other types of weapons.
As far as body armor is concerned, my personal belief as a police officer is that all uniformed law enforcement personnel, including law enforcement park rangers, should wear body armor. Granted, its probably more of a necessity in border parks like Big Bend and Organ Pipe (places with high rates of drug trafficking, etc) than it is in Acadia, but the reality is that bad things can happen anywhere, so why put yourself at increased risk by not wearing it?
I don't find advertising the availability of body armor to law enforcement rangers directly related to the recent move to allow more guns. I find it to be exactly what it is: providing for the safety of your officers. If I were a park ranger, I'd wear body armor even if none of those assaults from 2006 had involved firearms.
If anyone is still looking at this sight google the names Joe Kolodski, Kris Eggle, Steve Jarrell all are Rangers who were shot to death in National Parks in the last 10 years. Of course you may think well that is only three Rangers in 10 years, but couple that with the statistics on how many Rangers that have been assaulted and an agency that sees law enforcement as a necessary evil. The other sad part is that most criminal activity in National Parks is not reported directly to the public, there are no National Park police blotters in local papers, because the parks don't want the public to hear about all of the drugs, drunks, guns, and other criminal activity that goes on in the parks. The National Park Service morning Report only provides information on incidents that parks ask to be posted, many incidents across the country never get posted on the site.
If you live near a park stop by and ask for the law enforcement statistics on gun violations, drug violations, DUI's, and use of force incidents where Rangers have had to use their guns, Tasers, or defensive equipment to make arrests. I am certain you will be suprised by the numbers that are provided to you. Oh yeah I have no problem with people carrying guns in parks if the regulation is changed and people with concealed weapons permits are allowed to carry. I know for a fact that we did not have enough rangers to properly protect the public in any National Park. Another question you might ask is how many law enforcement rangers are on duty in the park after midnight? The response will probably be none as most parks do not have the staff to operate a 24 hour law enforcement program and in most parks not even a 24 hours dispatch center.
Don't blame the short staffed Rangers for doing their jobs and enforcing the current regulations. Also most criminal activity in parks goes on in overlooks, parking lots, and in cars going down the roadway and not out in the backcountry, just like the real world outside of the parks. Yes there is always the possibility of some crazy out in the woods, but most of the law enforcement problems occur on the roadways and overlooks.
I agree....you must comply with the law. However, sometimes you must choose the safety of your family or friends at any cost. There are many "laws" that need to be changed. For example, there are many very liberal, gun hating Cities, that have strict firearm restrictions. In some cases, like the Pizza delivery man who was robbed several times, at gun point, chose to carry a gun (which was illegal in his City/State), and was robbed again at gun point and he shot the criminal (that would be the robber, but I realize some liberals might wonder which criminal now I was talking about). The liberal Prosecutor decided to prosecute the Pizza Man, and actually faced a larger sentence than the real criminal (that would be the thug).
So, I guess a criminal is not a criminal, is it? Would you blow through a red light on your way to get your child to the hospital? AND, after your description of how AT RISK Rangers are (I'll take your word on this...just because)......my God that might want to make all people blow through that Red Light..? Rangers should be tickled pink that there just might be some good people (with guns)...just in case one of those "bad guys" vacationing (presumptively with a gun too) decided to be bad.
The Rangers want to go to the party too! I mean, why shouldn't they have armor, APC's and automatic weapons? The police and law enforcement groups have gotten out of control in this country feeding us all crap "we are being outgunned by the criminals!" they say. Oh yeah? Has ANYONE seen any credible increase in the criminals using, carrying and killing with automatic weapons? With Body armor? it is a myth designed to keep their budgets high and you a second class citizen. Authorized Personal Only.
While they have been trying to disarm us, since 9/11 the government has authorized virtually every office to carry weapons when they see fit. Not just the FBI either. The FCC, SEC, FDA, State Deparntment, EPA and so on. Seriously, a note from their boss and they can carry anytime anywhere and that is that.
Editor's note: This comment was shortened for clarity.
SO WHAT? What's the big deal if National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, all State Park Rangers, Fish and Game Wardens and everyone else who does some form of law enforcementout out in woods, fields or desert wears level II or III vests and carries OC-10, batons, revolvers, semi-auto pistols, shotguns, M-4's or even full automatic weapons in the trunk. They have a NATURAL right to protect themselves against the increasing number of poachers, dope growers, meth cooks, illegal aliens, smugglers, miscellaneous criminals and all the other @#$%bags who are aware that Rangers and other conservation personnel (not to mention visitors) are often unarmed and a long ways from help.
After all (Mr. and Ms. overly sensitive America), simply seeing someone wearing body armor or a gun shouldn't be a cause for neurotic fear - it's not the gun, it's the person carrying it that decides if the gun will be used for good or evil purposes. All the personnel above are at least minimally trained to unholster a weapon only when necessary, and also only to fire when stopping an aggressor from performing "grave bodily injury or death." This kind of training is as basic to law enforcement academies as learning your ABC's is in elementary school.
Hunters are another group of people who receive firearms safety training, along with people who get CCW's, although they do receive less training (and you can't get enough training!)
But if seeing a law enforcement officer in full uniform wearing body armor carrying a gun out in the woods makes you feel uncomfortable, educate yourself about guns and firearms training to get over it - knowledge is power.
If that doesn't work, go see a shrink (or turn off liberal / sensationalist media - they are the modern sensitizing source of gun and all other fear of violence phobias).
To be quite honest, I was only on the computer looking for a site that showed a measurement sheet for my own body armor since I am about to go work in a National Park. I believe that one comment above stated "minimalist gear" that the early park rangers wore, and it made me laugh. People have this idea that rangers have always been the nature loving man in the woods. Up until the 1970's, any person who worked for a park could carry a firearm (that would be your friendly park maintenance worker too.) That didn't work out so well in Yosemite, and now only trained LE rangers can carry firearms. Imagine a park where any untrained yahoo can carry a firearm! Oh wait...2nd amendment...not yet.
I understand how people believe they have a right to their public lands- I agree. However, the park service, much like other land agencies, has a duty to more than one mission. There will always be different groups with different opinions on how they should be allowed to use their land, and there will always be groups that do not use their land appropriately. I myself would like all the protection I can get- if I am going into a drug grow/Domestic/felony car stop/etc....(insert any crime that happens in a city because those parks can be like little cities) I want to be sure that I am protected. I am appointed to protect myself, others, and my park- and I should be given all the equipment I need to accomplish that task. So, I’ll continue to look for that dang body armor measuring sheet.
Just remember...criminals recreate too.
Body armor is not a new development in the NPS. It's been around for years - and should have been made widely available to rangers even earlier. Improvements in armor continue to be made, and the equipment provided to rangers should be upgraded at intervals.
The previous comment by "Anonymous" is well stated. The least the NPS can do is properly equip and train rangers for an often difficult and sometime dangerous job.
As to some previous comments - there is a significant difference between risks to visitors and risks to rangers by criminals who happen to be in parks - which is why the rangers who have been selected and trained to perform law enforcement duties should be armed.
As has been covered on multiple posts on a variety of articles on this site, the number of park visitors who are victims of violent crime is extremely low. Even bad people who are either passing through or intentionally visiting parks don't usually accost visitors, because they don't want to attract undue attention and end up in the slammer.
However, sometimes these bozos do attract the attention of a ranger by doing something stupid - often a traffic violation. In that case, when the individual who may be wanted for another offense realizes that he is now at risk of being identified and arrested, the situation is much different, and the risk to the ranger is sometimes very real. In other cases, the person may not be wanted for a previous crime, but is simply a dangerous idiot who decides he doesn't want to be arrested.
Park visitors aren't expected to confront drunk or reckless drivers to keep them from harming innocent motorists on park roads, and visitors aren't expected to confront poachers, or drug smugglers, or dope dealers, or .... That's one reason visitors are very rarely at risk in parks - because rangers are dealing with those individuals.
There's absolutely no way to know how many rangers lives have been saved because the ranger was armed, and the criminal decided not to press his luck, or the ranger was able to keep the upper hand due to training and equipment - including body armor and weapons. However, if they are expected to perform law enforcement duties, rangers should certainly be properly equipped for the job.
A different "Anonymous" a few comments earlier said
Since you asked, and obviously need a little information:
1. Ranger Kris Eggle was shot and killed in 2002 at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona. The murderer was a criminal fleeing Mexican authorities. He reportedly used an AK-47 against the ranger.
2. Ranger Joe Kolodski was shot from ambush and killed by man reportedly armed with a .308 rifle. The incident occurred on the Blue Ridge Parkway in 1998. Perhaps not an automatic weapon, but clearly superior, long-distance firepower as compared to the ranger's handgun or shotgun.
Other ranger deaths illustrate the risk of "routine car stops" or other "routine duties."
3. Ranger Robert McGhee was shot and killed after making a traffic stop at Gulf Islands National Seashore in 1998.
4. Steve Renard Makuakane-Jarrell was killed in a small park in Hawaii in 1999. Reports said he was contacted by visitors who complained that a man had several large dogs running loose which may have been threatening other visitors. The ranger was shot and killed during the contact with this individual.
5. Ranger Ken Patrick was shot and killed at Point Reyes National Seashore in 1973. Reports indicate he made a car stop on 3 men suspected of being poachers. They turned out to be violent members of the Black Panther group and opened fire when the ranger approached their vehicle.
To those who object to the sight of a ranger wearing a firearm - at least one report of the murder of Ranger Patrick states that he never had a chance to draw his weapon in self-defense. Why? He was wearing it out of sight, under his uniform coat. A L.A. Times story about the incident said, "At the time, it was common for rangers to keep their weapons out of sight so as not to frighten park visitors."
Although everyone still doesn't agree, I'm thankful that policies no longer put that needless burden on rangers.
The current law only allows guns if they are secured and the ammo is secured separately I can have gun just not on my person or concealed or easily available. That may be a problem in the back coutry since iti s hard to secure the ammo and gun separatly in a back pack or in a campground.
I look forward to the time I can have can easily with me without it being concealed but that time is going to a long time away. The current injuction will probably stand.
The body armor is not a reaction to the proposed rule but to the fact that park rangers have a higher rate of assaults than FBI and the danger in particular parks is acute.