Networking for resource protection.

The mass of visitors to our national, state, and local parks and recreation areas are applying additional stress on natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources.

With the reduction of personnel and decreasing budgets that many parks are experiencing, parks face a monumental challenge--the protection of the very resources that vistors come to enjoy. As a result, many parks are discovering that a more proactive approach is necessary to protect their resources. And networking may prove to be invaluable when applied to resource protection.

Fundamentals of Management and Protection

Effective resource management and protection require two fundamental components:

* Park systems must employ professionals who are highly trained in the technical skills required to identify, monitor, manage, and protect natural, historical and cultural resources; and

* Park systems also will need the financial resources to make effective resource protection a reality. (It is in this arena that there is less cause for optimism.)

Many park systems are operating with reductions in both budgets and personnel; at the same time, the task of resource management and preservation is growing in magnitude and complexity. Resource protection is a primary job responsibility and often gets considerable attention from the park staff. However, staff dedication alone is not enough to protect and manage these significant resources. In addition to these two components, a third should be considered: park systems should encourage community support and involvement in resource protection through networking.

In an era of meager budgets and decreasing personnel, the difficulty of protecting the resources has been greatly exacerbated. Most parks cannot afford to suffer setbacks concerning their natural resources. Thus, preservation through protection is much more environmentally sound and cost-effective than restoration.

While networking is not particularly new to park and recreation professionals, the extent to which a resource protection network may be established is worth investigating because of its potentially far-reaching benefits.

How do we protect the park, while enabiling the public to enjoy its facilities? Any park that contains significant natural, cultural, historic, or recreational resources should be concerned with exploring alternatives to the traditional methods of protection. It is not enough merely to designate personnel as "resource protectors;" they also must initiate a network for the protection of these resources. When considering a network for resource protection, park staff first should identify and monitor the resources that need protecting. Once this has been done, an appropriate plan of action can be developed that would help protect the resource once it is threatened or abused. The benefits of networking are numerous; and while it sometimes takes little effort to initiate these networks, they must be cultivated continually.

A number of methods, such as research, monitoring, education, interpretation, and law enforcement can be employed when protecting natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources. In larger parks, the resource management division conducts most of the studies that monitor and research park resources. The resource management staff often consults with colleges and universities and collaborates on research interests.

While effective resource management involves research, it also includes education and enforcement. Visitors may learn the proper way to care for park resources through education and interpretation, or sometimes care for the parks is managed through enforcement. Signs, brochures, personal contacts, and special programs are some of the methods used to convey resource objectives. It sometimes is necessary to issue visitors citations or mandatory court appearances for their extremely good and extremely bad actions.

Networking System at Acadia National Park 

Resource protection and visitor management are functions that are inherent in the duties of the park ranger or resource protection ranger. Park managers must identify whether a park protection staff is capable of providing both of these functions. For many parks, especially the national parks, the role of the ranger often has been focused on visitor management. With the millions of visitors to the national parks, these staff members often find their days consumed by traffic accidents, emergency medical incidents, search and rescue operations, and law enforcement (including the issuance of speeding citations, arresting drunk drivers, investigating theft reports, and handling other criminal activity). In many parks little time is left for resource protection. And in larger parks the backcountry areas usually are the first to suffer. Damage to these areas includes destruction of natural resources, theft of cultural and historical resources, poaching, and illegal fires which pose a major threat to all park resources.

Acadia National Park, with its 2.9 million annual visitors, consists of approximately 35 thousand acres and a protection staff of 23 law enforcement rangers, 15 of whom are seasonal employees. A major concern for Acadia's management has been the protection of the significant resources in the park. These resources include fragile island ecosystems, threatened and endangered species, and historic and cultural resources such as shell middens and historic homes.

With the increasing numbers of visitors traveling into the "backcountry" areas of Acadia, park managers recently placed added emphasis on protecting its resources. During the summer of 1994, Acadia National Park initiated a resource protection program that enabled rangers to perform job tasks that were dedicated solely to resource protection. The program, Protecting Acadia's Resources Through Networking, Enforcing, and Reporting System (PARTNERS), centered much of its efforts on the networking component.

For years, the resource protection effort had been dominated by front country patrol duties and the need to manage a host of park visitors. PARTNERS represented an attempt by the park to alleviate this problem. A proposal was drafted that sought funds for two resource protection rangers. They were to be assigned to resource protection, and their first priority would be to protect and investigate crimes against the natural, cultural, and historical resources of the park. The two rangers were to be commissioned law enforcement rangers, so that they would be able to provide the element of enforcement as well as education.

It was evident from the beginning that two new rangers would not be adequate to provide the necessary protection. The challenge was to design a program that would include a more comprehensive model for resource protection. It was determined that the program model should center around networking, among the park's divisions and between the park and community.

Step One: Briefings

The first step in the networking process was to brief all park divisions on the PARTNERS program. Meetings were organized for the protection, maintenance, resource management, and interpretive divisions. These sessions included the presentation of goals, objectives, and strategies that would be implemented during the summer months. The program's success would be determined by the degree of participation and cooperation among the various divisions. Throughout the summer, the resource protection rangers sought input from the various park divisions on issues that they felt were important to include in the program, problem areas that they knew about, and any assistance that they could offer.

Step Two: Involvement

The next step was to involve local groups; kayak, canoe, and bicycle guides and outfitters in the local communities were contacted, and a series of meetings were scheduled. In these meetings, many of the specifics were discussed regarding resource protection. For example a meeting with local kayak outfitters included listing the fragile islands and wildlife included on each island. Eagle and colonial nesting seabird islands and seal colonies that are sensitive to human disturbance were identified. The kayak group was asked to contact the park about illegal activities on the islands and shoreline.

Another concern at Acadia was the large number of bicyclists using the park roads and carriage road system. In May, the park became an active participant in meetings of the newly formed Mount Desert Island Bicycle Association (MDIBA). Through these meetings, this group heard about and accepted park goals and policies. The recent closure of private carriage roads may have encouraged the group's organization to protect cycling interests in and out of the park. The group did not want to see the park close any carriage roads and, hence, was ready to assist. There was open discussion on what the bicycle outfitters could do to help protect the sensitive areas of the park. In this case, they discussed strategies on how to help reduce user conflict and keep the bicycles on the established road system and off of the trails and out of the backcountry. A number of strategies were formulated, and many of the outfitters were receptive to discussing some of the "rules of the road" pertaining to Acadia when they rented bicycles to visitors. Brochures containing park rules were also made available in local bike shops. Several members of the MDIBA began "volunteer" bicycle patrols on the carriage road system. They serve as resource observers and disseminators of information.

A number of groups were issued informational literature on protecting Acadia's resources and were enlisted to help in the dissemination of such information. These brochures were distributed on their hikes and bikes when opportunities presented themselves. An observation from also was developed and used.

This observation form was new to Acadia; it consisted of the 12 most common resource violations ranging from "dog off of leash" to "collecting archaeological artifacts." The new observation form was unique as never before was there a form that non-enforcement staff or volunteers could routinely use for documenting resource violations. The non-enforcement staff was instructed on the proper ways to record resource violations. They were to give only verbal warnings or simply record the observation on the card and return it to the resource protection staff. There was a 90% return rate on the initial set of observation forms that were distributed into the field.

Step Three: Getting the Word Out

The next step involved getting the world out to the community, in general. The editor for the local newspaper (The Bar Harbor Times) was especially willing to assist. The paper described the PARTNERS program in an article, complete with a photograph of the resource protection rangers. The article described some of the new protection methods that would be employed during the summer to help curb resource damage. In subsequent issues, the paper published editorials commenting on the success of the new resource protection program. One article even commended Acadia's superintendent for initiating such a program. Periodically, results from this newly developed program were printed in the paper.

Exposure Has an Effect

For example, a kayak outfitter turned in a party of illegal campers on one of the more pristine park islands. There were a total of 16 illegal campers, five boats, nine tents, and open latrines and fires on the island. This report resulted in numerous citations, significant fines, and future restrictions on these campers in Acadia. Each week, the newspaper would print the resource violations, citations, or other relevant details. This exposure had an effect on many of the boaters and campers in the area. The word was out that illegal camping would not be tolerated and that there were many more people assisting the park; homeowners, summer visitors, local businesses, and volunteer groups all now had an opportunity to help protect the resources of Acadia.

After each report and investigation, follow up procedures were implemented. Rangers would stop by the kayak and bicycle shops to discuss the details and results that stemmed from the group's reports. Homeowners who reported resource destruction were briefed on the results of their reports. PARTNERS also thanked volunteer groups--considered to be vital assets--for their dedication.

After the PARTNERS program's first summer season, the management staff felt that it made very positive steps toward protecting Acadia's resources. Some of the problems handled by the networking system and PARTNERS project included: 12 illegal camps with various levels of resource damage (one case involving felony arrests), numerous illegal fires, one case where a local resident was identified and cited for collecting park plants to supplement a landscaping business, a major "organized" trail cutting effort (not approved by the park) that included four miles of trail and involved numerous individuals, and a large commercial dump site near the boundary of the park. During the summer, 30 citations for violations were issued, and hundreds of observations and warnings were recorded.

The response and support from the various divisions, businesses, and the community were over whelming factors in the success of the Acadia program. It became evident that what had worked for Acadia indeed may work well for other parks that are experiencing the same challenges in protecting park resources. The networking system described here is suggested as a complement to current park practices, whether the park is a "crown jewel" of the National Park Service or a small county recreation area. All parks concerned with resource protection should be able to productively pursue a suitable network for furthering their efforts. While some park areas may not have significant natural, cultural, or historical resources, many will have large investments in recreational and athletic facilities. These facilities also are prone to abuse, vandalism, and theft. A similar network many be established for these recreational areas, thus providing an added protection component.

While some parks may have long traditions of "networking," others may have minimal experience when it comes to communicating with park neighbors or collaborating with local businesses. For the park manager who is interested in developing a network or strengthening an existing one, several steps should be involved.

Step One: Secure Support

The first step must be to secure the necessary park support. Before soliciting for "outside" assistance, park managers should look carefully at their own park and support staff. Managers need to ask themselves if they are "networked" internally as a park. For instance, does the maintenance division know what the protection or interpretation division is doing? Does everyone know what special resources require protection? Is there a sense of inter-divisional support? Total support is not required, but a general environment of collaboration is needed. If the park manager does not have this support, then avenues need to be made to enhance collaboration.

All divisions should be concerned with the mission or goals of the park and should be willing to "work together" to achieve these goals. Oftentimes support is not the problem; rather, it is lack of knowledge about a certain activity or plan. All divisions should be included during the formation of a new proposal or new project. A simple series of brief meetings among all divisions may alleviate this problem. While initial meetings are a good start, meetings should be continued as needed based on newly acquired information.

Step Two: Use Local Support

The second step involves using the community and local support groups as resource protection observers. Some park areas have developed a "park watch" much like neighborhood watch programs in many communities. Consultation with community and local groups is a very important step in initiating a network. These local groups should include anyone who has an interest in the park or recreation area. Often these groups would include concessionaires, businesses, and outdoor professionals such as river guides, climbing instructors, horse group leaders, kayak and canoe liveries, bicycle shops, fishing guides, boat rentals, and scuba shops. Other groups to be included would be local volunteer groups or "friends of the park."

These groups may include local chapters of the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Appalachian Mountain Club, hiking clubs, bicycling clubs, trail crew volunteers, and living history groups.

Once these groups are identified and resource protection initiatives have been prioritized, meetings may be scheduled. These meetings may include one or more of the groups but generally are targeted to one specific interest pertaining to resource management. For instance, if illegal camping on park shores is a problem, a park manager could enlist the help of the local kayak and canoe guides. These meetings may include procedures for reporting any illegal activity or resource damage to the park, as well as monitoring and reporting visitor use and activity. The meetings could include discussions of fragile areas that the guides could be aware of while on their trips. They could be instructed to report back to the park any time they found illegal campers in these fragile areas. This type of assistance usually is well received by the guides. The reporting method is one that does not involve any confrontation between the guides and the visitors. The guides, or any other individuals offering assistance, are merely an extension of the "eyes of the park."

Step Three: Using Volunteers

The third step involves the community and local groups but is based on a method that uses the volunteer groups for resource protection and is proactive in its approach. Many of the groups that are out in the park may serve as information disseminators. These groups can provide a needed service and may do it during their work as volunteers. Often, the bicycling and hiking groups see many more visitors on the trails and roads than do the actual park staff. The idea here is to take advantage of this opportunity. For example, if a park is experiencing off road bicycle use, the local bike groups can disseminate information on the accepted methods of cycling in the park. While the park will benefit, it is also in the bicyclists' best interest, as alternatives may be stricter enforcement and could result in closures.

Possibly the most important fact to remember when collaborating with the volunteer groups and other non-law enforcement staff is that they are at potential risk if anything should happen in their role as a park volunteer. For this reason it is imperative that volunteers understand the extent of their responsibility while volunteering for the park.

Park managers should include in their meetings a session on "how to interact" with the visitor when it comes to resource protection. The volunteer needs to have some instruction on handling visitors who become agitated or aggressive. The volunteer may hand out information and inform individuals of their abusive behavior, but their responsibility stops at this point. They have no enforcement authority and are acting merely as information disseminators. When faced with confrontation, their primary concern should be for their own safety. The last thing a park manager wants is a conflict between park volunteers and park visitors. For this reason, appropriate training prior to the field work is essential.

The park manager may elect to design the volunteer program in such a way that it does not, on the surface, appear to be directly connected with the park. The volunteers may be seen as "peers" and as non-authoritative figures to most visitors. By organizing themselves in this manner, they appear as "cooperators" interested in protecting their "special interest" through educating other visitors.

Universities and colleges should not be overlooked when establishing a network. They can provide expertise in numerous areas and are a good source for supplying seasonal employees and volunteers.

Step Four: Get Press Involved

The fourth step is to get the press involved. Most editors are very supportive of their local parks and recreation areas and would welcome the opportunity to assist, especially with protecting park resources. The media can become involved one step at a time. A cover story may start the coverage on a particular topic that the park staff feels is important to the protection function. Editorials are also an excellent way for the local paper to show support and become a positive factor in resource protection. Updates and various other articles may be used throughout the year to follow the park's progress or identify other concerns for resource management. News coverage may include local television and radio networks, which often are interested in covering park and recreational programs.

Step Five: Positive Reinforcement 

The fifth step is positive reinforcement (reward). It is imperative to recognize network participants for their performance and dedication. Follow-up meetings are necessary to maintain interest and ensure future cooperation. The groups that have been identified need to have some type of recognition that what they are doing has been and will continue to be important to the park. In many cases, follow-up may be in the form of a letter from the park superintendent thanking them for their dedication and effort. Or, it may be on a larger scale and include a barbecue and awards ceremony. It simply may mean stopping by the canoe shop and thanking the guides for the tips they gave the park on illegal activities. Regardless of the type of follow up, it is important to take the opportunity to continue to strengthen the network.

As the network develops, there may be more groups or individuals who could assist the park in protecting the resources. More meetings probably will be necessary to bring the community volunteers up-to-date on what strategies are being deployed. This form of networking is actually a cycle that becomes more involved each time it repeats itself. The networking system evolves around resource protection. Its primary function is to assist in the protection of the park's natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources. The network cycle always is being influenced by new staff, new volunteers, new projects, and new issues. The network is developed to help or assist in identifying resource violations and to establish a firmer understanding of the challenges facing the park. Each stage in the cycle is related directly to the resource protection function and may be of significant benefit in and of itself. The cycle leads to education and enforcement, both of which directly affect resource management.

Networking Works

Networking is one very positive method that, when used properly, can help identify and address resource threats, while actively pursuing community collaboration and support. A properly established and maintained network can provide the field staff with an opportunity to pursue investigations as well as putting the word out that there are park "friends" who are closely involved with the park and its resource protection program. The PARTNERS project enabled Acadia's management staff to get a comprehensive view of the use and demand being put on the resources. It also played an important role in establishing a "base network" from which to direct future efforts.