Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. Association of National Park Rangers.

Operating a small park with a staff in which one person may constitute an entire division exposes both the strengths and limitations within an individual ranger’s personal skill-set. In many cases, rangers may find the opportunity to cross divisional lines refreshing and a part of the break in monotony that makes our jobs more interesting. At other times being asked to perform a task outside of the normal range of responsibility generates ire and questions about management’s decision-making process.

The traditional viewpoint of a national park ranger is one of aptitude, capability and integrity, as illustrated in William C. Everhart’s book, The National Park Service. He writes: “If the Park Service does communicate a positive image, much of the credit belongs to the rangers, who possess an extensive assortment of skills . . .”

Occasionally, it can be prudent to develop an employee in areas that will both encourage growth personally and benefit the park operationally. However, it can be a dangerous slope to traverse when not managed responsibly.

Here is a case in point. Scotts Bluff National Monument began years ago to require additional interpretive work from the park’s only protection ranger. The end result was a protection ranger many years later overburdened with interpretive responsibilities and challenged to identify time within a regular work day to effectively patrol the park.

Conversely, the interpretation operation, through natural attrition, had no full-time interpreter, relying solely on the seasonal workforce to provide only basic interpretive functions. This represents an extreme situation that effectively diluted two programs where professional standards have been identified and arguably were not being met.

On the other hand, a responsibly managed program can operate effectively using the combined protection/interpretation series when particular attention is given to each respective professional arena. Some of the best protection rangers I’ve known have been first and foremost, excellent communicators. The higher standard rangers are held to include the public’s perception that the ranger is also an educator. In order to realize this goal the ranger must be capable of successfully donning the hat of resource educator, all the while employing current acceptable practices in officer safety. It’s a lot to ask, and some feel it may be a step backward. However, the reality under today’s fiscal environment for smaller park operations is that there is still a need for generalist ranger positions.

The argument is that smaller parks are proportionally underfunded, and that the impact of the funding crisis is felt sooner because a particular program area becomes diluted more quickly or it disappears all together. Small park operations take solace in requiring not just rangers, but all types of positions, to wear the many hats necessary to answer all of the mandates, reply dues or operational requirements placed upon them today.

In Search of Excellence authors Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr. wrote:

“. . . one of the main clues to corporate excellence has come to be . . . incidents of unusual effort on the part of apparently ordinary employees.”

In this case, the authors were impressed with employees who by action, were systematically and routinely going the extra mile to ensure the satisfactory experience of the customer. This works until the point of maximum returns is superseded, at which time employee satisfaction, morale and productivity suffers. An ineffectively managed combined position would result in an unbalanced workload, and it could sacrifice the quality of work and possibly quell the enterprising spirit of an otherwise productive ranger.

Much of the problem lies within expectation. A protection ranger hired specifically under that series has a contract with the park. The contract states that the park wants the ranger to perform all of the safety, security and protection functions commonly associated with a law enforcement program. Conversely, an interpretive ranger hired under a non-commissioned job announcement has no reasonable belief of being required to perform the duties of a law enforcement ranger. Both are good at what they do, but neither can transpose roles and remain effective.

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument is a good example where the combined series could be beneficial. The park experiences a low number of case incidents. However, it occasionally falls victim to criminal activity. Currently there isn’t enough caseload to justify the full-time dedication of a protection ranger to solely perform patrols and security assignments. On the other hand, the combined series would enable the ranger to complete the required protection functions, maintain a small fire cache, manage the EMS component and still augment the interpretation operation.

The key is in responsible management. Just as the ranger needs opportunities to maintain protection skills, the ranger also needs the chance to gain accreditation in interpretive program development. Opportunities such as regional special-event teams can provide an avenue for developing and maintaining protection skills; identifying specific interpretive competencies can further development in public speaking and program presentation skills.

To support one function at the expense of the other is counterproductive both to the ranger and the park operation. Experience has shown that the specialized protection ranger will become bored in a low-volume, law enforcement park and move to a park with a more active protection operation; not filling vacant protection positions may result in irreparable damage, loss or injury that could have been avoided. Park management is looking for professional delivery of visitor services with some degree of continuity in personnel; the ranger is looking for an enriching experience that provides opportunity for growth and the development of professional skills.

At no point should we consider eliminating the current position descriptions that created the more specialized protection and interpretation ranger series. These positions are necessary and should continue to be the norm for most park purposes. A healthy debate regarding the need for another series may simply reinforce that we have already made the best decisions possible in position management.

I am a staunch supporter of both professional series, and I wouldn’t advocate diluting the protection series and place the incumbent at risk to physical injury or worse. Evaluation of FLERT impacts would also have to be accounted for, and acceptable parameters would need to be identified.

The protection/interpretation series, when managed responsibly, may be the only alternative for the operational survival of smaller parks. There remains a need for the specialized skills of the protection ranger and the interpreter, and the combined series is not a substitute for those positions. The combined position would allow for the augmentation of both specialized visitor service areas.

While the statement may draw fire for potentially weakening both the protection and the interpretation professions, it remains a reality that small parks cannot fully fund every position for which some relative need may exist. It could be a healthy process to reassess our generalist roots for any potential application to our future challenges.

Pete Swisher has worked with the National Park Service for 15 years. Currently he serves as the chief park ranger for both Scotts Bluff and Agate Fossil Beds national monuments. He began as a volunteer at Rocky Mountain, and has worked at Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Effigy Mounds, Lincoln Home and Mount Rushmore. An alumni of the Midwest Region Special Events Team (nine years), he is a defensive tactics instructor, firearms instructor and fitness coordinator.

If you enjoyed reading this excerpt from Ranger magazine and want to receive Ranger year-round for a modest price, please join the Association of National Park Rangers.