— Horace Albright, Acting Director, Annual Report to the Secretary of the Interior, 1917

Partnerships with Your Human Resources Office — As a follow-up to the article I wrote for Winter 2003-04 Ranger, Yosemite National Park received our Human Resources Office review report (we hadn’t received it by Ranger publication last fall). The process used by the review team was similar to the old “operations evaluations.” It didn’t surprise me to see a whole section dedicated to management support and partnerships. Following is some of the text taken directly from the report:

“Management support of the Human Resources Office is critical to its success. We strongly encourage the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and Administrative Officer remain engaged in monitoring and encouraging the progress of the HR office improving their customer relations and the quality and timeliness of services provided. We strongly recommend all supervisors and managers foster an environment in which the HR staff is given the opportunity to improve their services and succeed in this effort. Managers and supervisors must work together with human resources to achieve desired results. Human resources is an invaluable tool to managers in the current climate of a greater number and variety of hiring flexibilities but which also have greater consequences.”

After receiving the report from the review team, it was distributed to park staff, who were asked to comment. Some of the comments we received were disturbing and disappointing.

“Partnerships are important when needed or required, but sometimes partnerships are not needed. There is a lot of talk of partnerships, management involvement. What does that entail? What does HR have to do with the park’s mission outside of HR related issues? This is misleading. HR should stick to customer service and advising roles in HR related issues? HR cannot do anything for the park resources or quality of the visitor experience, which is the park mission, except make sure that the personnel needed to accomplish this job are hired in a timely fashion.”

I think I was most disappointed with these comments because of my involvement with the NPS Fundamentals courses over the last few years, knowing the focus on partnerships, working together, and mission dedication and accomplishment by all park staff. To realize that some of the employees in Yosemite feel that having a partnership with the HRO is not important or needed indicates that we will have our hands full in turning our HR operations into the best in the NPS. But, we are forging ahead in that direction.

We developed a mission statement for our HRO: Yosemite’s Human Resources Office mission is to operate as a service-oriented, professionally managed program that provides high quality, dynamic, innovative, timely, and accurate human resources management services through partnerships with managers, supervisors, and employees. The mission statement for our Administrative Services Division is: …to provide competent, quality support services to facilitate the National Park Service’s ability to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

In future Ranger articles, I plan to explore the “disconnect” some employees have with administration. Additionally, I’ll talk with administrative employees throughout the NPS to hear how they support mission accomplishment and what things they do to be contributing and productive members of the NPS team.

Interpretation

Ode to the Obsolete Carousel — Last year, Kodak announced that it would cease manufacturing slide projectors and their accessories after 2004. Kodak will provide parts and support for existing projectors through 2011, but after that, projectors will be an anachronism, used until the remnants are unserviceable. So, like it or not, Kodak’s decision heralds the inevitable arrival of a new technology for interpretive slide shows — multimedia digital projectors. Many parks have already begun to adopt this new technology; others are contemplating the switch. Here are some thoughts to ponder as you consider converting your amphitheaters and slide libraries.

Old Slides: Don’t toss your old slides just yet — digitize them. Many flatbed scanners come with an attachment that will allow you to scan slides, but the resulting scan is generally of a poor quality. Though more expensive, several digital imaging companies manufacture scanners specially designed to scan slides. Some are even able to scan photo negatives. The output quality from these slide scanners is exceptional, most models exceeding 2400 dpi. If you have original slides, scan them. Duplicate copies of originals tend to produce a grainy digital image.

New Computers: Faster processor speeds, gratuitously-sized hard drives and, of course, Microsoft PowerPoint are almost standard issue with new laptops these days. Some machines claim to be water resistant or completely waterproof and weatherproof, which might be a worthwhile feature if your projection booth is somewhat exposed to the elements.

As for digital image storage, digital files take up much less room than your current slide files. You may choose to store your image files on CDs, a hard drive (with several backups) or a network server, but you will also want at least as many desktop computers (with CD burners) as you currently have light tables so interpreters can develop their PowerPoint programs.

New Projector: There are several things you should look for in a digital projector. Most importantly, most digital projectors are designed to be placed eight to 10 feet from the projection screen, but most amphitheaters have their projection booths 50 to 70 feet from the screen. Manufacturers generally do not sell projectors with such a long throw that come out of the box ready to use. Instead, you must buy a projector with a removable lens and then purchase an additional lens that will throw an image across your amphitheater onto your projection screen. These special lenses generally cost as much as the projector itself but are better than setting the projector on a box 10 feet from your screen. I won’t endorse one here but if you want a tried and true suggestion, contact me at rickendall2@yahoo.com for the vendor and specs.

You will also, for obvious reasons, want a projector with a remote control for advancing your program. Most digital projectors also project a brighter, more concentrated image than slide projectors and you may choose extra-bright models if you want to begin outdoor programs before dusk. Replacement bulbs can run $300 or more but last a long time.

New Format: Yale professor Edward Tufte published a pamphlet in 2003 entitled “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint.” He argues that PowerPoint requires presenters to simplify their ideas to the point that each slide is a hollow, superficial representation of what the presenter hoped to convey. In effect, the restrictiveness of the format makes PowerPoint ineffective at presenting complex ideas, causing presenters to dumb down slide content. The New York Times Magazine notes that NASA identified an unhealthy reliance upon PowerPoint as a causal factor in the space shuttle Columbia disaster. Engineers used PowerPoint to convey important facts, flow charts, schematic diagrams and other information in planning meetings. The minimalist nature of the presentations led to the omission or obfuscation of key points. Though Tufte’s criticism is focused at the corporate world where PowerPoint is used to flash rudimentary pie charts and bulleted lists to muckety mucks, his perspective should give interpreters pause.

PowerPoint presentations in the corporate style do exude “an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.” And since visitors come to parks to escape the workaday routine, it would be a shame to have your audience tune you out because you resorted to clip art or a bulleted list. Just because we can put anything on a PowerPoint slide doesn’t mean we should. So, whether you use PowerPoint like a traditional illustrated program or get creative with the format, leave the bulleted-list sales pitch for stewardship to the junior executives.

The switch from slides to digital will be a slow and pricey process for parks. Fortunately, we have several years to either implement the switch or wait for the next big technological innovation that makes PowerPoint obsolete.

Maintenance

Safety: You Have a Choice — Thirty years of experience in maintenance in the national parks has helped me understand one constant when it comes to employee safety. That constant is a personal belief that safety is not only a right as a part of employment but a personal responsibility and commitment. This personal commitment almost always results in employees that rarely get hurt at all, much less lose time from work for serious injuries. Everyone knows someone who has made this personal commitment to work safely. See if this sounds familiar.

• This person is usually the first one to ask about the safety issues at the time of a work assignment. Usually, they will lead the safety discussion.
• This person is never shy or reticent about informing the supervisor or manager about safety concerns and needs and has positive suggestions for managing safety issues.
• This person never says “we can’t do that job because it is unsafe” rather, “how can we work safely and complete this job?”
• To this person safety is not something “extra” to do, but an integral and critical part of every job or work assignment.
• And, this person is usually one of the most productive and respected staff members.

Do you work or lead people with these qualities and most importantly, how are these qualities instilled into others?

It’s my opinion that what one has to do to create good, safe working habits is to commit to the idea that it’s OK to work safe. That working safely does not cost more money, it cost less. Working safely does not need management or supervisor approval, it is an expectation and obligation of employment and an employee’s right. But really to demonstrate the importance and support of safety in the work place you need to lead by example. You don’t have to be a supervisor to lead others, but you do need to demonstrate a commitment that working safe is a part of everything you do. This builds peer respect and reinforces positive safety behaviors.

Without a full, complete personal commitment by you and everyone you work with no amount of management speak, thick binders full of good safety information and procedures or even all the money in the National Park Service for safety training is going to improve a parks safety record and eliminate the pain and suffering of employees.

That’s really what it is all about, preventing the pain and suffering to yourself and to your fellow workers. Do you think of safety in that way, many don’t, but the real result of an accident is that someone gets hurt, often times, seriously. Working in a national park the chances of your coworker or yourself of being hurt or worse is high, higher than the national average for private industry. Up to now the National Park Service as a whole has not done a very effective job eliminating or even reducing employee injuries.

Every accident is preventable. Most of us have heard that phrase, but what does it mean? For me it means that I and I alone have 100 percent control over how safe I chose to work. As a manager, it means I have the responsibility to lead staff everyday in a manner that promotes and rewards safe behaviors.

You only need to ask yourself the following questions to gauge your personal commitment to safety today.

As a National Park Service employee, what choices have you made to make the working environment safer for you and your coworkers? What responsibilities have you accepted that will help eliminate accidents? You do have a choice, a choice that can and will make a difference for you and your coworkers and result in a safer, more productive working environment. Please make that choice.

Protection

Carry a Backup — William Wallace would never go into battle with only one weapon. Neither should we. Not that we go into battle every day, but on any given day, we could, and on that day we should be as well armed as we are authorized to be. Our laws and policies, contingent upon the approval of chief rangers at the park level, permit us to carry a secondary, concealed pistol.

Chapter 6-2, Section 3.10.1 of RM-9 governs which handguns are authorized for concealed carry: The Sig-Sauer Models P230 and P232 (.380 ACP) and Model P245 (.45 ACP), none of which are full size. Section 3.10.5 of that same chapter outlines the standards for using personally-owned firearms for official duties, and Section 2.2 Paragraph 4 of the Personal Property Management Handbook #44 further explains those parameters.

The main points are:

1. the weapon must be RM-9 approved;
2. rangers must qualify with it using the NPS Secondary Handgun Qualification Course (and they should practice ripping old shirts open to retrieve it); and
3. chief rangers must approve rangers carrying a secondary handgun.

Why is it then, that most rangers don’t carry a backup? Some of the more common explanations:

• Secondary pistols are expensive.
• Another pistol will be an added burden and will hamper my agility.
• Secondary pistols don’t offer adequate stopping power.
• I doubt I’ll ever need one.

Each of these is a valid concern, but none constitutes a sound reason for not carrying a backup. The rationales for carrying one are simply too compelling. Here’s a “pro backup” analysis of each concern:

Too expensive: My stainless steel P232 with three magazines and night sights cost $469.00. The holster was ten bucks. Reserve parachutes cost a lot more, yet I used one on every jump. Bad analogy? Negative. One day on duty without a backup pistol may just be the one day you need it . . . kind of like a reserve parachute. It’s worth five hundred dollars to go home at the end of your shift. Besides, it’s deductible come tax time.

Too burdensome: I wear a P232 on duty every day, even on backcountry patrols. It’s in no way burdensome, nor does it restrict my ability to move quickly. Though excellent ankle holsters are available, I carry mine in a body armor holster, and I hardly know it’s on me. Therefore, rangers using a body armor holster, who are accustomed to wearing body armor (that is another story altogether), will not be burdened by a backup pistol.

Inadequate stopping power: .380 is a small caliber. The 80-105 grain, jacketed-hollow-point, standard velocity round we’re approved to use will not usually reach twelve inches of penetration, and therefore may not stop a combatant with the first round. Both good points. But to not carry a secondary firearm — actually a tertiary firearm if we’re using a long gun first — because it might not stop the suspect is simply irresponsible . . . to ourselves and our loved ones. It’s like not using a seatbelt with an airbag because it might not add much protection. Besides, we’re also authorized to carry a concealed .45 caliber, the P245, which has a lot more stopping power.

I doubt I’ll ever need it: I could write a book on this one. Any ranger who says s/he will never need a backup pistol is lying to him or herself and is bordering on arrogance. Any number of things can go wrong in an armed confrontation:

• We could drop our handgun in a ditch, a creek, or simply in the dark.
• Our handgun could experience a stoppage that’s un-remedied with immediate or secondary action.
• We could be shot in the hand that’s holding our handgun, resulting not only in a gun-hand injury, but possibly a disabled pistol.
• Finally, the unspeakable could happen: We could be disarmed. No matter how good, fast, strong we think we are, there is always somebody better, faster, stronger. What if we encounter that person, and by some twisted turn of circumstance s/he manages to disarm us? We must be smarter. Odds are good s/he won’t count on us having a backup.

Sound reasoning tells us to carry a backup, but the decision ultimately rests on individual rangers, and of course their chief. A special note to chief rangers: If you don’t allow the rangers you work for to carry concealed a secondary pistol, maybe it’s time to rethink the issue. I know one chief who actually purchased secondary pistols for each ranger in his park. No one can ever tell that chief he doesn’t care about the safety of rangers.

It’s time we rewrite a fundamental truth of law enforcement: “On every scene we respond to, there’ll be at least two handguns present.”

~ Kevin Moses, Big South Fork

Resource Management

Recently, I transferred (really, after 15+ years!) to a new park — and this has prompted much brain activity in new directions. OK, you could say (as one of my friends did) that it doesn’t count because I didn’t change time zones — or even ecosystems, moving from Yellowstone to Grand Teton.

Yet, these two parks with very similar resources have very different histories, especially of human use and management practices. In the “Y” place, I sometimes countered those who said “the park is so complex” with, “on the contrary, it’s very visible and controversial, but I think it’s quite simple — lacking the more complex jurisdiction, land ownership patterns and resource-affecting aberrations in land use that exist in the smaller park to the south.”

So, from the land of exclusive jurisdiction and no private inholdings, I came to help oversee, among other things, a dammed-up lake where the state has traditionally stocked the same non-native trout NPS is trying so hard to remove from Yellowstone Lake, the largest commercial airport in a national park and a legislatively permitted elk “reduction” program.

This leads me to think a lot about wildlife management, especially while riding the morning feed trucks on the neighboring National Elk Refuge. I won’t debate the pros and cons of their feeding program (unless we meet for bar talk someday at a Rendezvous). But despite being gently chided during my first ride for a comment about feed-line elk not being “wild,” I can’t help but disagree. Elk on feed grounds are not tame, but in my observation they’re several notches down the road to domestication, and it makes me uncomfortable, as with other habituated wildlife.

Representatives from the NPS and other federal, state and Canadian agencies met with academics in Missoula, Montana, last October to discuss management of habituated grizzly bears — a situation that makes managers similarly uncomfortable for various reasons. Habituated bears and other predators, especially cougars, as noted in David Baron’s new book, “The Beast in the Garden” (Norton & Co., 2004), are more likely to frequent areas occupied by humans and thus pose an increased threat to both themselves and our species. They may rightly dispel those Disneyesque notions that “wild animals are more afraid of us than we are of them.” Maybe. Maybe habituated animals can’t quite qualify as “wild,” or maybe the predatory ones, at least, see anything weaker than themselves as food, quite dispassionately, without regard for our well-meaning attempts to save them and their habitat.

Habituated animals also occupy a disproportionate amount of management attention and public notoriety. Parks use various “management” strategies with habituated animals — “babysitting” them at popular viewing spots; attempting to scare them away with noisemakers or by pelting them with rocks, water or rubber bullets; trapping and translocating them to distant locations; and finally, “removal,” even if it means survival but banishment to a life in captivity. Efforts to “aversively condition” animals have seldom succeeded in truly teaching them a lesson, though they may cause some change in an animal’s behavior that gives managers a breather, at least temporarily. We dislike admitting that we can’t use our vast technologies to keep dangerous, or merely annoying, animals away from park guests and residents, and the public increasingly will not support a “final solution” to habituated wildlife issues.

I think, too, of sage grouse, a not yet listed species whose decline in my new park is marked in part by the loss of 60 percent of their historic leks, where males undergo breeding displays each spring. I still recall, in the wee morning hours of a college field trip decades ago, going out on the runway at the Jackson Hole Airport to see the birds strutting in the nearby sagebrush. That lek is one of few that remains in the park. Why, I wonder, does the species remain there and not in less evidently disturbed habitats? (Why, I also often wondered, does Yellowstone’s most viewed wolf pack annually den within a stone’s throw of a main road, prompting extra efforts at animal tracking and human traffic control, when they have the entire Lamar Valley at their disposal?)

I don’t want to imply that these examples mean wildlife can adapt to whatever humans throw at them. Certainly, all these instances and more remind observers of the variability, even within species, in animals’ tolerance of humans, and our relative inability to peg them, despite reams of research and management effort. But, the risks associated with letting humans and wild animals chance threatening each other make frustrated rangers spend ever more time tending “bear (or wolf, or alligator or javelina) jams.” And trying to educate humans in how to share habitat while still protecting themselves when necessary. Are there other solutions someone can share?

~ Sue Consolo Murphy, Yellowstone