Policing the Poachers in a Western State: Game Wardens and the Use of Discretion

Abstract

Game wardens are specialized law enforcement officers responsible for enforcing hunting and fishing laws designed to protect wildlife resources. While performing their duties they encounter a variety of wrongdoers that range from first time offenders to those who are chronic violators of the law. Little research exists on the use of discretion by wildlife law enforcement officers, or their attitudes toward offenders. This study took a qualitative approach to data collection and examined the use of discretion by game wardens in Montana and their perceptions of habitual poachers. Factors that were associated with the use of discretion included intent of the violator, seriousness of the offense, and age of the violator. The majority of wardens in the study expressed negative opinions toward violators that were chronic offenders. Findings contribute to our understanding of law enforcement attitudes and decision making.

Conservation Officers’ Perceptions of Their Working Conditions and Their Enforcement of Environmental Law in a Territory of High Environmental Protection

“…Despite the above limitations, this work can contribute to the understanding of the role played by psychosocial processes in the implementation of environmental laws in natural contexts, as proposed by authors such as Forsyth and Forsyth [13] and Eliason [11,12]. The results support a model consistent with the previous research from other areas, and which shows the impact of norms, goals, self-efficacy and collective efficacy on the behavior of professionals in charge of enforcing environmental laws.…”

“…The professionals in charge of enforcing environmental protection laws go by a range of names, such as game wardens, forest rangers, gamekeepers, wilderness officers, wildlife officers, wildlife troopers, conservation agents, conservation officers and other like terms. Therefore, researchers have decided to use the generic term of conservation officers (COs) to refer to all of them [12,14]. COs usually engage in three types of activities: (1) active patrolling-consisting of continuously policing protected areas under their charge, to act as a physical deterrent to potential offenders; (2) passive observation-involving observation of a specific area or environment from a certain fixed location; and (3) investigative checksfocusing on thoroughly investigating any illegal activity after signs of such activity have been detected [15].…”

“…Research aimed at studying the individual and group characteristics of COs influencing their enforcement of environmental protection laws is limited. Most have focused on examining officers' intervention styles and discretion [12,19], as well as stress, motivation, and job satisfaction [11,14,[20][21][22]. Forsyth [19] establishes two types of COs in terms of their intervention styles: (1) bookers, who strictly apply the law, and (2) peacemakers, whose styles are more oriented towards solving problems and preventing crime.…”

“…Forsyth [19] establishes two types of COs in terms of their intervention styles: (1) bookers, who strictly apply the law, and (2) peacemakers, whose styles are more oriented towards solving problems and preventing crime. Factors that condition their behavior may include the type of crime, its severity and previous interactions with the offender, as well as the offender's behavior, age, social class, recidivism, honesty, intent and justifications [12,19,23].…”

“…Research on law enforcement has focused almost exclusively on urban crime and the behavior of police officers. Professionals who deal with environmental laws have received less attention, not only because they are located in rural areas, but also because these laws are designed to protect nature (plants and animals) rather than humans [11][12][13].…”