Patrolling the peaks and the plains: an examination of big sky game wardens

Wild Life Protection.—The first wild life protection law in Malaya was passed in 1884 when Strait Settlements Ordinance No. III gave protection to wild birds; nothing further was done until 1896 when Pahang extended certain protection to Elephant, Seladang, and Rhinoceros. Other States followed with various measures but conservation was not put on a practical footing until 1921 when the Federated Malay States Wild Animals and Birds Protection Enactment was introduced. From then on a Game Department was in being, though much of the work was performed by honorary game wardens; among them the late Mr. Theodore Hubback.

Download Full-text

throwing the book versus cutting some slack: factors influencing the use of discretion by game wardens in kentucky

Deviant Behavior ◽

10.1080/01639620390117219 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 24 (2) ◽

pp. 129-152 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

Stephen L. Eliason

Keyword(s):

Factors Influencing ◽

Book Versus ◽

Game Wardens

Download Full-text

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

International Journal of Rural Criminology ◽

10.18061/ijrc.v6i1.8628 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 82-95

Author(s):

Stephen L. Eliason

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Law Enforcement ◽

Data Collection ◽

Law Enforcement Officers ◽

Qualitative Approach ◽

Western State ◽

Chronic Offenders ◽

Game Wardens ◽

First Time ◽

Hunting And Fishing

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.

Download Full-text