The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) has officially transitioned into a frontline immigration enforcement partner, detaining at least six individuals for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since signing a memorandum of agreement in May. This partnership, established under the federal 287(g) program, empowers wildlife officers to investigate, apprehend, and transfer suspected immigration violators to federal custody, even in cases where no criminal charges are filed.
A Massive Expansion of State-Level Immigration Enforcement
The LDWF’s integration into federal immigration efforts marks a significant shift in the agency’s traditional scope. Under the 287(g) program—named after a specific section of the Immigration and Nationality Act—state and local employees receive the authority to perform functions typically reserved for federal immigration officers. Records show that LDWF is one of only three state wildlife agencies in the nation to join this program, alongside the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources.
This move reflects a broader national trend. As of December 3, 1,205 agencies have partnered with ICE through 287(g) agreements. The program has seen an unprecedented 693 percent surge in enrollment compared to the end of 2024, with 1,053 agreements signed this year alone. Despite this rapid expansion, the operational impact on local communities has remained largely under the radar until recent documentation surfaced.
Joint Patrols and the Role of Customs and Border Protection
Documents reveal that LDWF agents are not working in isolation. At least one “joint patrol” occurred in a Louisiana wildlife management area involving officers from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard. While the formal agreement between ICE and LDWF does not explicitly mention CBP, internal communications suggest that the partnership with ICE facilitated a working relationship with border agents.
Following an August 11 patrol, a CBP lieutenant expressed interest in “future patrol opportunities” with the LDWF. Federal agents noted the value of the wildlife officers’ “local knowledge” in navigating specific waterbodies and identifying new routes. Internal emails from LDWF Regional Captain Tim Fox suggest that CBP sought to continue these operations on a “less formal basis,” raising questions about the future transparency and documentation of these joint efforts.
From Civil Citations to Federal Custody: Case Studies
The practical application of this agreement shows that even minor civil infractions can lead to federal detention. In several documented cases, individuals came into contact with LDWF for non-criminal issues but ended up in ICE custody.
The Maurepas Swamp Incident
On October 23, LDWF officers patrolling the Maurepas Swamp Wildlife Management Area encountered three men in their twenties who were target shooting. Although the men cooperated and their firearms were confirmed not to be stolen, they lacked the specific permits required for the area. The officers issued civil citations—not criminal charges—for the permit violations. However, citing “unknown immigration status” and the possession of firearms, the LDWF contacted Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Despite reports that one of the men had legal parole to remain in the U.S., ICE agents arrived on the scene and decided to take all three into custody. The men were handcuffed and transported to detention centers. Current records from the agency’s detainee locator suggest they are no longer in ICE custody, though their current legal status remains unknown.
Littering Citations Triggering ICE Referrals
In another instance on October 6 near Cypress Lake, a man was issued a civil citation for “gross littering” after allegedly discarding roofing materials. Although the individual was cooperative, the incident report flagged his “unverified citizenship.” An LDWF spokesperson confirmed that the agency forwarded the citation and the report directly to ICE. The agency currently claims to have no further information regarding the man’s location or potential deportation.
Data Gaps and Lack of Agency Transparency
The full scale of these detentions remains difficult to quantify due to vague responses from federal and state agencies. When presented with specific names, dates, and locations of seven detained individuals, ICE spokesperson Angelina Vicknair claimed the agency lacked sufficient information to determine their status. Vicknair further characterized the request for information on seven people as “too large a query,” requesting that the investigation be narrowed down.
While LDWF provided specific details on certain incidents, they have not addressed the broader implications of their agents detaining individuals who have not committed crimes. The documents confirm that at least two individuals known by ICE to be in the country legally were still taken into custody following their interactions with wildlife officers.
