Does ANPR Really Matter?

I am honored to be invited to close this Rendezvous. I must admit that it was a bit of a surprise to receive the invitation from the organizing committee. I have purposely tried to put some distance between ANPR and me. I have long thought that if ANPR is to survive as an organization, it must be what the current generation of rangers wants it to be and not what those of us who were around at the beginning would like to see. What we wanted it to be has served the organization (and I think the NPS) well for some time. ANPR membership grew, we tackled a number of difficult issues, we nurtured productive healthy relationships with a number of Directors, even if we did not agree with specific policy or program initiatives, we accepted invitations to testify in front of Congress, we published, and still do for that matter, the best magazine dealing with NPS issues in the country, and our rendezvous attracted Directors, Regional Directors and other senior NPS leaders who eagerly looked forward to the chance to discuss issues with the field personnel who were the most visible public representatives of the National Park Service.

If I read the current situation correctly, the ANPR that we built is no longer as relevant as it once was to the current generation of interpretive, resources management and protection rangers and based on recent actions on the part of the NPS leadership, they don't think it is very relevant either. Rendezvous attendees are getting older and grayer. Our membership numbers have decreased. Interest in our activities seems to be declining. One strong source of members, the protection rangers, seem to be morphing into something that I see called law enforcement rangers, complete with different badges and a whole different attitude. I have read that some of these people are in favor of stovepiping the supervision of the law enforcement function so that superintendents would no longer supervise this activity within their parks. The argument that I've seen is that only law enforcement people can supervise law enforcement activities. The logical absurd end of this argument would be that we would need five superintendents in each park, one each for interpretation, protection, resources management, maintenance and administration, and everyone up the line to include the Secretary of the Interior, I guess, would have to be LE qualified. I'm not entirely sure that ANPR can hold on to, or even wants to hold onto, these members if their interests stray too much further from the resources protection and education functions that once were the hallmarks of the protection ranger profession.

Maybe these law enforcement rangers are but yet one more example of the trend toward specialization in the ranger profession. ANPR has always appealed strongly to the generalist ranger. Perhaps its programs and services no longer meet the needs of an increasingly specialized ranger force. Many resources management rangers who are biologists belong to ESA, the Ecological Society of America. Many other resource managers join the George Wright Society. Interpreters tend to gravitate to NAI, the National Association for Interpretation. Many of our ranger historians belong to local or national historical societies. Ranger archeologists can belong to the Archeological Conservancy. Is an association that tries to appeal to all these disciplines within the ranger profession an anachronism?

Another issue may be that rangers simply have less time to devote to organizations such as ANPR. Many rangers with whom I have talked are simply frazzled and burned out. Despite the Administration's claims that there is more money per employee, per acre and per visitor than ever before, anyone who works in parks knows that this kind of largesse is not trickling down to parks. Parks are forced to deploy an ever-dwindling number of rangers across an ever-expanding set of duties and obligations, including detailing protection rangers to homeland security tasks that leave their own parks un-staffed and unprotected. It's difficult to imagine that rangers who are stretched so thin will want to participate in the professional activities of an association such as ANPR. They barely have enough time left for their families, let alone reading Ranger or attending a Rendezvous.

If this is true, this may be why it seems so difficult to attract rangers to offer themselves as candidates for offices and the Board of ANPR. No matter how high the quality of individual Board members and officers, it is not healthy for an organization to run single-name ballots for these leadership positions over and over again.

Or perhaps, another reason is that it is difficult to attract people to present themselves as candidates when they know that this Administration will not think twice about exerting pressure on them to conform to politically correct positions. The Department has fired or reassigned scientists who have articulated scientific opinions that are contrary to the Department's pre-conceived pseudo-scientific myths. They have let others go who do not regurgitate DOI positions. The NPS evidently pressured the former president of ANPR to decide whether his loyalty lay with ANPR or with his career. That is a powerful message to send to others who may wish to sometime run for the Board or for an office in an organization that at no time in its history has agreed entirely with the Director or Administration in power. In the NPS, some call it the Teresa Chambers effect; in ANPR, it's the Ken Mabery effect.

So, it would be easy to give up on ANPR, claim that it is past its prime, and either stop participating or concentrate entirely on ANPR's enviable social activities. That would be a huge mistake, I think, and here's why: ANPR is needed more now than almost at any other time in its 27-year history. But to be relevant and vibrant, it must be willing to change, and maybe to make changes larger than a few little ones on the margin. Let me try to explain why I think this.

The conservation movement is in crisis, both internationally and nationally. Let's think first on an international level. Tony Sisto, Deanne Adams, Meg Weesner, Bill Wade and I had the great good fortune of attending the 5th World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa last year as representatives of the International Ranger Federation. There was much to celebrate. Approximately 10% of the world's terrestrial surface is now under some kind of protection. There are now more than 100,000 legally established protected areas in the world. This is a staggering achievement, even if one considers that some of these protected areas exist only on paper without significant funding or staffing. Yet, the Congress organizers chose not to celebrate this achievement. Instead, they developed an agenda entitled "Benefits Beyond Boundaries." I thought this would lead to discussions regarding the environmental benefits of protected areas-protection of watersheds, prevention of erosion, maintenance of genetic diversity, and the like-to communities surrounding the protected areas, and their economic benefits-tourism income, sales of local arts and crafts, employment opportunities for local people, etc. Not so. Instead, the Congress chose to highlight the problems of sustainable development, somehow shifting the burden for the alleviation of poverty onto the backs of protected area managers. These managers are the ones who must assure that their areas have no net negative impact on local people. They are the ones who must teach local people the lessons of sustainable agriculture, grazing, and timber harvest, thus reversing literally centuries of non-sustainable practices. We are literally in danger of making the protected area manager's job impossible. He or she is expected to master (or at least employ experts in) many new and complex areas of expertise (business skills and fundraising, economics, conflict resolution, public relations, and so on) on top of natural and cultural resources management and visitor management. Now the manager is urged to think beyond the protected area's boundaries, to engage in bioregional planning initiatives and even to address wider social problems. Does this suggest that the Superintendent of YELL must be responsible for the welfare of economic interests in adjacent communities if, in fact, she were to be successful at eliminating snowmobiles there? Some (including Judge Brimmer) seem to think so.

In much of the world where park directors or managers have little experience and few resources with which to work, the burden must seem intolerable. I frankly was disappointed that the Congress was, in my humble opinion, hijacked by the sustainable development crowd. They seemed to point the finger of blame at the world conservation movement for not alleviating poverty. Sure, we all are willing to accept some of the responsibility for world poverty, but it is hardly the environmental community's fault. Nor should it be its principal goal to eliminate it.

Not all was grim, however. Due to the efforts of the 30 some person delegation from the IRF, for the first time in the history of the World Congresses, the delegates took specific note of the conditions under which rangers in most of the world work. Delegates called for increased training of rangers. They called for increased security for rangers in the field. Rangers are attacked, injured or killed with alarming frequency in many parts of the world-here, too, in fact. The IUCN and IRF established a jointly-financed "Dependents Fund" to help the families of rangers killed in the line of duty who receive absolutely no assistance from the ranger's former agency. They called for better housing and quality of life amenities. It was an amazing accomplishment. IUCN committees had spent months developing draft recommendations. Those people not on these committees had almost no chance of amending the drafts so that delegates could consider anything other than the canned recommendations. Yet, IRF was able to convince delegates that they had ignored rangers for too long and it was time to recognize their dedication and, at times, their sacrifice. At the end of the Congress, John Makumbo, a ranger from Uganda, accepted on behalf of all the world's rangers the Fred Packard Award, given once every ten years. The citation reads, "The IUCN gives this award to all the rangers who have lost their lives in defense of the world's protected areas.The fact that they live under very difficult conditions and often make the supreme sacrifice is a testament to their dedication, their commitment and their passion for the defense of nature."

Now, I want you to think back to the names I mentioned at the start of this discussion of international conservation: Sisto, Adams, Wade, Weesner, Smith. Where did they all come from and how did they get involved in the International Ranger Federation? You got it-through ANPR. This is one of the reasons I say that ANPR is needed more than ever. We owe it to the thousands of rangers in other countries who work under conditions we wouldn't tolerate for a nano-second. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with them while they struggle to obtain what we take for granted-decent salaries, good benefits, ample equipment, modern supervision and training, public support and a good-guy image. We need to tell the rangers in Bolivia that we are proud of them when they successfully demanded, for the very first time, that they be included in the planning and decision-making processes of the agency for which they work. ANPR should be at the forefront of the international ranger movement. That alone is reason enough to stay involved in this association.

I said the conservation movement was in crisis domestically also. We all know what happened on November 2nd. Whether one is a Republican or Democrat, one can't be very happy with four more years of the treatment that the parks have received under the Bush Administration. This is an Administration that has substituted a narrowly focused partisan agenda for the more bipartisan approach that previous administrations have employed when dealing with the national park system. The political appointees in the Department of the Interior are failing to uphold the mission of the National Park Service; they are actively promoting activities beyond the boundaries of park areas that threaten the very resources for which these parks were established; side-by-side with their allies in the private sector, they are adopting initiatives that are leading to the privatization of the parks that were once held in public trust for present and future generations; they are misleading the public about the amount of appropriated dollars available to fund park operations and maintain park infrastructure; they are deliberately undermining the uniqueness of the National Park Service in an attempt to transform it into just another public land managing agency; and they are ignoring the advice of senior NPS leaders and creating a crisis of confidence among NPS employees. Just think about the Regional Directors that Mainella inherited when she was appointed Director: Arnberger-gone, Wade-gone, Schenck-gone, Belson-gone, Reynolds-gone, Carlstrom-announced retirement, Rust-announced retirement. It's a clean sweep. Think about the NPS employee survey that the Retirees Coalition helped conduct with the assistance of a professional polling company: 79% of you said that morale in the park service is lower now than it was several years ago. 76% said that current NPS leadership was doing fair or poor in fulfilling the NPS mission. 85% said that the political appointees at the Departmental level were doing fair or poor in supporting the NPS's attempts to fulfill its mission. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the current leadership in the Service or the Department. Yet, Secretary Norton, while campaigning for the President in Colorado a week or so prior to the election, said that she would be honored to serve another 4 years as the Secretary. And Director Mainella has recently confided to some people that she has been assured by people at the highest levels that she will be asked to continue to serve as Director of the National Park Service. You may be looking at the same old faces for a while yet.

This is my second reason for saying that it would be a bad time to give up on ANPR. Park employees desperately need an organization that will speak out on behalf of the resources of the parks. I once said in a speech at a Rendezvous some 20 years ago that I had finally come to understand that I owed my loyalty to the national park system, not to the National Park Service. Since the National Park Service now spends a huge amount of time and money trying to make the President look good instead of trying to do what is best for the parks, there is even less reason to worry about the Service and more reason to be concerned about the parks and the resources they contain.

Looking back on that statement that I made 20 years or more ago, I would add something else: I care a great deal about the employees of the National Park Service. I suspect that ANPR also cares about them. It's important that someone does because it's obvious that the political leadership of the Service and the Department doesn't. You don't show much concern for employees when you sign an agreement with the tourist industry and the American Recreation Coalition to attract more visitors and more mechanized recreation to parks while reducing staff numbers in the vast majority of parks. You don't show your concern for park employees when you continue to insist that snowmobiles be allowed in Yellowstone and Grand Teton when NPS studies show that the use of the machines in the parks is a threat to employee safety and health. You don't demonstrate much concern for employees when you continue to push the competitive sourcing initiative, something that could easily lead to outsourcing many jobs currently preformed by professional NPS employees.

Domestically, then, people who care about parks have two problems with the activities of the current administration: resources protection and employee concerns. Both seem to me to offer ANPR a golden opportunity to regenerate interest in the organization and to play a key role in the debate about the future of the national park system. Here are a few suggestions on how we might do that.

1. Re-energize ANPR's advocacy role. For the majority of our history, ANPR has publicly advocated the protection of our nation's park system and called attention to employee issues that were not simply self-serving. At last year's rendezvous, a workshop leader offered very sound advice on how to be an effective advocacy organization. The Board ought to dust off the notes from that workshop and implement some of Carol's recommendations. You will remember that she said that there were 8 steps in issues advocacy. The first was to define the issue. The second, map out the decision process and define the key players. The third step she said was to identify support and opposition. The fourth step is to determine public opinion toward the issue and how it fits into the context of other current public concerns, issues and values. The fifth step is to develop a clear, concise message. Sixth, define organization strengths and weaknesses and look for partners who may be able to fortify the weaknesses and build upon the strengths. Seventh, prepare a campaign strategy. And finally, tell the story. I know this is a lot of work for a volunteer organization, but I think it's something that must be done. People often ask, "Why should I join ANPR." When we can demonstrate what issues we are advocating and what positions we have adopted, the answer will be easy.

2. Several years ago, Bill Wade, Rick Gale and I recommended to the Board that ANPR consider broadening its membership base to include all NPS employees, a kind of Association of National Park Stewards. I think it is time for the membership to reconsider that suggestion. As I have already talked about this morning, our membership is declining, something that gives the NPS leadership the excuse to ignore us at their convenience. We may be less attractive to our core constituency than we once were. That's probably because many of the fundamental problems of the 025 series have been at least partially resolved. Protection rangers in appropriate positions, either in law enforcement or fire management, have their 20-year retirement status guaranteed. Ranger futures brought upgrades to many 025 positions. Interpreters have implemented their core competency strategies. The natural resources challenge has dumped almost $100 million into resources management/science activities. ANPR played a leadership role in all of these initiatives. The policies, however, of the Administration are creating new employee issues that are not unique to the 025 series. An effective, energetic organization might be able to capture new members, allowing it to become the voice of NPS employees, replacing the voices lost when ANPME, the park planners association and the fledgling park administration group went belly up. This is an intriguing enough idea to cause me to recommend that the Board invest some money in hiring a marketing person to survey NPS employees in a few selected locations to determine if NPS employees would respond positively to a broader-based organization. I know we would all hate to give up the word "ranger" in our organization's title. Maybe we could even figure out a way to keep it in some prominent place in the new organization's title or mission statement or some place else so we wouldn't lose the public relations advantage the word "ranger" gives us.

3. Refocus the attention of our members on NPS traditions. I met a couple employees the other day who didn't know who Mather and Albright were. As we lose our sense of history and forget our traditions, we fall into the trap that Albright warned us about years ago about becoming just another federal bureaucracy. I suspect that would be just fine with the current political leadership. As I have said elsewhere in this speech, they are doing their utmost to make the NPS just another public land management agency. They are doing away with the special NPS training at FLETC. They are merging the Golden Eagle Passport into some kind of amorphous public lands pass. They don't want to celebrate August 25 as founders day but want us to participate in public lands day sometime in September. But, the national parks that we preserve and protect are unique. They were specifically set aside because they merited a different kind of care than other public lands. They were to be preserved in perpetuity, protected so that future generations of Americans could be awed and inspired by the natural and cultural resources they contain. That makes us, the stewards of these places, unique also. ANPR should celebrate this uniqueness and emphasize the importance of maintaining it.

4. Make a bigger deal out of ANPR's planning for the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the National Park Service. I suspect we are way ahead of almost anyone else in planning for this event. Let people know what we are doing. Invite other organizations such as NPCA to participate with us. Solicit the input of employees from other disciplines in the Service. ANPR is a leader here; let's say so publicly.

ANPR will never be what it once was. Nor should it be. It should be an organization that appeals to a new generation of park employees. Those of us who helped start ANPR want to help keep it growing and evolving. Tell us how to help.

Thanks.