National wildlife refuges are not usually the destinations for vacations of a week or two. Instead, most people visit just for the day, are from the local area or are just traveling through. National wildlife refuges are community assets, providing economic and environmental benefits, as well as the intangible aesthetic benefits of having an abundance of wildlife and natural scenery as a part of the community landscape. National wildlife refuges evoke a deeply meaningful sense of place for local communities.
The economic benefits of wildlife refuges are undeniable. As an example, recreational use on wildlife refuges generated almost $1.7 billion in total economic activity in 2006. In addition, property values surrounding Refuges are higher than equivalent properties elsewhere. Cities and communities are more frequently recognizing the value of ecosystem services. Regarding the benefits of nature, they are realizing that it is less expensive to preserve the function of providing clean water, for example, than creating technological solutions to mitigate societal impacts. The value of the ecosystem services the National Refuge System provides has been estimated at almost $27 billion per year.
Recommendation: The Refuge System should continue studies and publish and share results on the economic benefits of wildlife refuges to communities, the economic benefits of ecosystem services from wildlife refuges, and the beneficial effect they have on property values.
Humans all share requirements for food, water, oxygen, and shelter. Every person – regardless of religion, political affiliation, age, or economic status – must have these things. National wildlife refuges provide these benefits and services from nature that help meet human needs. Wildlands like wildlife refuges are places where the rain and snow fall freely to the soil and are filtered through plant roots into the Earth. Natural processes on wildlife refuges clean the air and water that communities need. Trees and other plants prevent runoff and erosion and recycle heat-trapping gases. Bees, bats, and butterflies live and breed in these natural places and pollinate food crops. Game species such as moose, turkey, bass, and grouper thrive on the lands and in the waters of national wildlife refuges. The Service needs to better communicate such benefits and engage neighbors hand-in-hand in efforts to better understand and expand the impact of those benefits.
Recommendation: Engage communities to identify what is important to them and articulate the ecosystem services that their wildlife refuge(s) provide(s). As a pilot effort to quantify these benefits, the Refuge System will prepare an ecosystem services benefit report for 10 wildlife refuges in every region within the next 10 years. If successful, these benefit reports will become a standard part of the Refuge System comprehensive conservation planning.
National wildlife refuges are community assets in other ways that no currency could ever measure. Well-trained employees of the Service are often first on the scene following natural disasters like hurricanes, floods and tornadoes. In times of crisis, Service employees help local emergency response officials with specialized skills and equipment. Service employees are integral in their community, whether they are a member of the local nature club or active at a religious, senior, or community center. Being a Service employee means being a good neighbor.
Many national wildlife refuges are successfully collaborating with community groups and are a consistent, engaged, and fully integrated presence in their communities. Local visitors, volunteers and community leaders have banded together to form locally chartered, nonprofit wildlife refuge Friends groups that work in partnership with the Service. Friends organizations help build links between wildlife refuges and local communities. Refuge Friends epitomize the idea that all conservation is local: they do everything and anything imaginable to advance conservation and serve the visiting public. All of them pour their heart and sweat into the wildlife refuge they love.
Blossoming over the past 25 years, there are now over 230 supporting Friends groups around the nation helping bridge the interests of the local communities with refuge operations and management. The Service will continue to build on this successful model and reach out more broadly in the community and create relationships with people that may not have traditional links to wild lands and wildlife.
Recommendation: Every staffed national wildlife refuge should have a Friends organization.
Support from Friends organizations is a benchmark of effective public-private partnerships that leverages resources, saves money and better serves the public. Friends organizations are a consistent, engaged and fully integrated presence in their community and are an excellent vehicle for involving a new generation in making a real difference on-the-ground for wildlife conservation. Strong connections to local communities come naturally in some areas and must be nurtured in others.
Recommendation: The Service will support Friends organizations with education, training, and capacity building resources and provide incentives for Service staff to work closely with Friends and volunteers.
Recommendation: The Service will provide assistance and networking opportunities to fledgling Friends groups in marketing and diversifying their membership and leadership.
Recommendation: The Service will partner with the National Wildlife Refuge Association to create a campaign to grow the Refuge Friends membership to 100,000 people within a decade.
Not all individuals who want to help at a wildlife refuge are members of Friends organizations. The Refuge System has succeeded in building a cadre of more than 42,000 dedicated volunteers – more than 10 times larger than the entire Refuge System workforce – who participate in every aspect of stewardship. The Refuge System could recruit yet more volunteers, but lack of staff to organize, recruit, and engage volunteers is one limiting factor. Development of additional recreational vehicle sites with hook-ups could attract more volunteers, as would travel support and reimbursement and construction of bunkhouses and other facilities.
Recommendation: To fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer Improvement Act, signed January 4, 2011, the Refuge System must develop a national strategy for the coordination and utilization of volunteers.
Comment below and/or move on to next section of Chapter 4 - The Next Generation of Conservationists
21 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Fabulous! Well-written and well-said!
I agree, this section is very well written!
Re: reporting on ecosystem services. I would guess that most people don’t have a clue what an ‘ecosystem service’ really means, nor do they care how many dollars of services a refuge provides. It is not something that they face in their daily life.
On the other hand, such a report may be of interest to local city/business leaders or planners?
I just worry that creation of such a report may look to the public like the refuge is in jeopardy and thus is trying to justify its existence by putting its value in “corporate terms”. Refuges are not corporations, I don’t believe their primary purpose is to provide services to local residents. Their main purpose is for the wildlife, and people need to understand that.
The ‘ecosystem service’ quantification bothered me too. I agree that most folks won’t know what the heck it means. Why don’t we find out what our visitors/users think is important – why they think conserving refuges is important? Social science studies could help us get at that.
The National Park Service has partnered with Stephen F. Austin University and others to use social science studies that try to get at the values and meanings that visitors hold for park resources.
The employees of the NRWS aren’t a mirror image of our visitors. It’s possible that users value refuges in a different way than we do – and I would argue that someone with different values may still be a good steward of the resource. I wouldn’t argue that we allow folks to engage in activities that harm habitat or wildlife, but that we take the time to learn more about how users feel/think about and value refuge resources. This will inform how we manage lands and enable us to be better facilitators and communicators.
Yes, many folks don’t know what “ecosystem services” are, so if we do explore that avenue and create trial ecosystem reports, we would have to be sure to explain what ecosystem services are. Another great point you bring up, is that ecosystem services is really only one way of looking at or valuing the refuge system…there are many other ways than just this view. And I would go further still, and say that “we,” the employees of the NWRS, each hold our own unique ideas and values about the refuge system, and that there really isn’t one collective value or group of values that all employees of the System hold collectively. Maybe the key is finding out how to honor and connect the variety of values held by the public and employees (and everyone involved with the NWR System) to stewardship of refuge lands and waters. If we can find a way to connect all values to “stewardship,” then we can ensure a wide range of supporters that will value the Refuge System…not all for the same reasons, but the outcome is the same; Caring about and supporting the System.
I agree with other commenters that this section is well expressed. I would add, however, that another important community asset under the stewardship of the NWR System is the sense of place in human experience and the quest for life and livelihood. Refuges in one way or another have served as staging grounds for people throughout human history to seek a “living” – whether through harvesting wild resources, raising stock, farming, or related occupations. In some cases, these have profoundly altered the landscape of a refuge.
The NWR System should interpret the human history of the area as part of the interpretation of the whole panorama of life – and not just particular historical landmarks that happen to be on the refuge. This serves as a valuable resource for surrounding communities and populations in appreciating their past, as well as the larger population centers nearby in understanding the impact of humankind on the region, its environment, and its life. The impacts of humankind – farms, roads, canals, buildings, fences, etc. – can be seen most vividly in a refuge (or in contrast with surrounding areas) and most effectively appreciated there.
I would suggest adding a recommendation to: Interpret the past and ongoing human presence on the lands and wildlife on and around each refuge to provide an understanding of how human activities have affected the landscape and wildlife of a refuge.
I love Phil’s comment about interpreting the past. I think it is vital to tell the human story when you tell the refuge story and it is a great way to celebrate community involvement. This can be done by naming roads and buildings after people, using common place names and local language or recognizing founders by naming trails after people or historical events. Interpreting the past is a great way to preserve history, support the service of refuges to people and tell the story of common goals. Many refuges are located near small communities where a refuge can help to preserve a rural way of life, so valuable to communities being impacted by development and growth. Easements can also help preserve a rural way of life and can be used to tell a great story of cooperation through land conservation. Easements can allow farming to continue, or can preserve a place for families to continue to hunt and fish in ways their fore fathers fished and hunted. Bottom line, linking refuges to the people of communities with stories and names can go a long way to building community support.
I know first hand the importance of Friends groups …
Recommendation: Every staffed national wildlife refuge should have a Friends organization.
I aggree with this recommendation, but just make sure there are adequate staff time and commitment to help flourish this group. Ideally there is someone devoted to be that lasion between the Friends group and refuge staff.
Recommendation: The Service will support Friends organizations with education, training, and capacity building resources and provide incentives for Service staff to work closely with Friends and volunteers.
Recommendation: The Service will provide assistance and networking opportunities to fledgling Friends groups in marketing and diversifying their membership and leadership.
In addition to these recommendations: Service staff should be trained in and commit to yearly strategic planning with the Friends group. Subsequent strategic planning sessions should evaluate the previous year’s progress, make necessary adjustments and establish goals going forward.
Kathy,
I strongly agree with your suggestion for yearly strategic planning for the refuge/Friends partnership. Thanks for bringing it up. So many times, staff and friends do this and that with no apparent goal or outcome…this can go on for years. We need to plan!
“Recommendation: Every staffed national wildlife refuge should have a Friends organization.”
I agree with Toni Westland that without staff time and commitment, it will not be a successful partnership. I suggest changing this recommendation to: Every staffed national wildlife refuge will evaluate the viability of working with others to develop a Friends organization on an ongoing basis and include accomplishments towards that goal in annual reporting.
This is not something you can just wave a magic wand and create across the board. You need the right people, enthusiasm, community culture, and timing to develop and nurture.
“4.19 Recommendation: The Service will support Friends organizations with education, training, and capacity building resources and provide incentives for Service staff to work closely with Friends and volunteers.”
My response to this recommendation is two fold. First, the Service is already providing education, training, and capacity building resources for Friends organizations. How is this any different from what we are already doing? The national and regional offices host biennial Friends conferences that provide networking opportunities and workshops focused on capacity building and more. The National Wildlife Refuge Association provides a huge extension of support for our Friends organizations. The National Conservation Training Center have developed several Friends specific training courses (Friends Academy, Sales Outlet, Developing and Working with Friends Groups) for both staff and Friends and are currently looking at creating new courses and Webinars for Friends based on shifting needs of both our base of Friends organizations and staff experience in working with Friends organizations. Capacity building, strategic planning, and board and membership development are key needs right now. We need to look at ways we can modify our existing support program to address these changing needs. There’s been a national mentoring program through the national office for Friends for years, but the demand for mentoring has outgrown the existing program and we need to look at new ways to provide mentoring to a growing number of Friends Groups with declining budgets.
Since the release of Fulfilling the Promise, the needs and emphasis of the overall Friends program…generally speaking…has changed from support of new, start up organizations to support for well established organizations that are going through difficult life cycle issues. I ask for your engagement in helping us determine how to meet their changing needs alongside of declining budgets.
My second comment is in regards to the other half of the recommendation: “…provide incentives for Service staff to work closely with Friends and volunteers.” Focusing in on just Friends…What does this mean? What incentives would be offered to Service staff?
There is a gross assumption made in this recommendation, and I plea with this team to address what I’m about to reveal. The recommendation, as worded, assumes that Service staff don’t need education and training on how to manage their half of the partnership. A Refuge/Friends partnership program should not focus solely on training Friends. What good is it if only one organization in a partnership focuses on improving themselves? If we are going to task all refuges to look at developing Friends Groups, then we need to get serious about also providing Service staff with the education, training, and support needed to manage these partnerships effectively. Many Friends organizations that are currently struggling are in-part doing so because of lack of “know how” on the Refuge side of the partnership.
I agree with Joanna’s point about “providing Service staff with the education, training, and support needed to manage these partnerships effectively.” Many Friends representatives go to these regional and national Friends conferences and return to their refuges full of ideas and questions, but without the support or guidance of the refuge, many Friends groups flounder for a role. I advocate for on-site mentoring of the partnership, where the refuge project leader, Friends liaison, and other staff can sit down with the Friends to define their role, expectations of both parties, potential projects, etc.
Leigh Ann,
Several other people have mentioned this “on-site” level mentoring for the partnership. The current national mentoring program can only help, at best, 12 partnerships a year and we just can’t justify the exclusiveness of this program any more. Others just don’t get in or have to wait a year to receive help. This is not good enough. We need to be able to at least “throw a line” when the cry for help is heard. We need to look at new ways to work together to mentor our community of partnerships. I would love to chat with you about this and get your ideas. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here!
Personal email with contact information to follow.
“4.20 Recommendation: The Service will provide assistance and networking opportunities to fledgling Friends groups in marketing and diversifying their membership and leadership.”
Similar comment here as with Recommendation 4.19. The Service is already providing assistance and networking opportunities to fledgling Friends Groups in marketing and diversifying their membership and leadership, so I don’t see how this is visionary. I wholeheartedly agree that we somehow need to shift a larger portion of our support from start-up to capacity building, but this recommendation suggests that we aren’t doing it at all. We provide biennial conferences, both nationally and regionally, that provide an excellent source of networking opportunities for Friends and staff alike, and at those conferences, we partner with others to offer training and workshops on many capacity building topics, including marketing and diversifying membership and leadership. I also wonder why the term “fledgling” groups were included in this recommendation. There are well established Friends Groups that are struggling with capacity building.
I ask that this recommendation be modified to exclaim “The Service will increase the amount of assistance and networking opportunities for Friends Groups and refocus a large portion of training and support to meet the increased needs of organizational life cycle issues, such as marketing, and diversifying membership and leadership.” Although extremely valuable, providing increased networking opportunities implies increased travel expenses which might be a challenge for both the Service and our Friends organizations. We need to determine how we can provide assistance to an ever growing number of Friends organizations spread across the country alongside of flat and declining budgets.
“4.21 Recommendation: The Service will partner with the National Wildlife Refuge Association (Association) to create a campaign to grow the Refuge Friends membership to 100,000 people within a decade.”
I had a somewhat negative reaction and comment to this recommendation in the first draft and I am still struggling with this recommendation. In and of itself, this is a “bold” idea, but it is just not resonating with me at this time for several reasons which I’ll attempt to articulate here now that we are at the 11th hour.
As the new national Friends and Partnership Coordinator for the Refuge System for the past two months, I have been focused on informally evaluating our Friends Program…where we started, where we’ve been, and where we need to go. I’ve been talking with as many people as I can, including Friends themselves, regional friends coordinators, the National Conservation Training Center, the National Wildlife Refuge Association, and more. Much more conversation is needed. First, I agree that it would be good to have a constituency of 100,000 members, but I think suggesting it in this document is a slippery slope to walk on. I could be wrong, but since the goal of this recommendation is not stated, my reaction lies in my perception, which is that this recommendation is leading to numbers for advocacy purposes. Although completely appropriate for the Association to pursue a campaign, how and why should the Service focus on this when we are currently not able to meet the basic needs of our existing Friends?
Membership recruitment is in fact a high priority need for our existing Friends organizations and I applaud the Association for what I interpret as their commitment in assisting with this since it is a recommendation in this document. However, I’m really struggling buying-in to this recommendation as written in this draft report. This report is not addressing the core of what our Friends and staff need as it relates to managing these partnerships effectively. Some of them are, as I type, literally falling apart, not because of lack of membership, but because both sides of the partnership are struggling with communication, and not getting the mentoring, training, networking, and other skill building tools that they so desperately need to move in a positive direction.
Regions may be struggling to fund biennial Friends conferences next year, which are currently the best source of networking between Friends and staff. Regional friends coordinators (FWS staff) are struggling to deliver the amount of support that is really needed for these partnerships because they aren’t “Friends Coordinators” by title or single duty…they wear many hats, such as Fee Coordinator, Volunteer Coordinator, Youth Employment Coordinator, Hunting and Fishing Coordinator, Challenge Cost Share Coordinator. And two of the eight are actually staff at a refuge that have add-on responsibilities as their regions’ friends coordinator.
So I challenge you instead to bring your attention to inside the Service and Friends when making recommendations for this report. The other three Friends recommendations in this report are basically saying that “the Service will do” what we are already doing. The recommendations need to define what we are going to do more of, improve upon, or change.
Here’s some suggestions to think about:
*What about creating “real” Regional Friends Coordinator positions that focus solely on these partnerships?
*What about investing in developing virtual tools for Friends network and training opportunities since they are spread across the country and travel expenses are always an issue…an enhanced Service Friends website with tool kits of “how to”, and NCTC Friends Specific Webinar Courses to mention a couple.
*What about coming up with a vision for long-term mentoring for our Friends since the current program (and funding for it) is no longer meeting the needs of the increased number of Friends/Refuge partnerships needing mentoring.
*What about partnering with other organizations, like the National Wildlife Refuge Association and Association of Partners for Public Lands, and the National Conservation Training Center, to develop and deliver Friends training (versus a “campaign”) in skill building, capacity building, leadership development, and membership recruitment. If we focus on assisting these partnerships with the above organizational life cycle issues, the organizations themselves will be more effective in everything they do, which will naturally attract more members.
*What about investing in training our own staff to manage these partnership more effectively. Many staff are struggling because they are just told to manage these existing partnership without any training in managing a “Friend” partnership. Knowledge, skills, and even enthusiasm in managing a Friends partnership for a Refuge is not necessarily inherent in our staff. It must be built through training, self study, and networking.
Thanks for your work incorporating Friends recommendations into this report. I hope I have effectively communicated my thoughts and reactions here, in a way that is helpful to your process. Overall I just feel that these four Friends-related recommendations are missing the mark.
I was hoping to see refuge volunteer programs addressed more. Refuge volunteers are essential to helping us accomplish our goals in Visitor Services at Aransas NWR. They staff our Visitor Center and run the Friends Nature Store, which brings in thousands of dollars for the refuge. Our volunteers also assist in maintenance, administrative and biological projects. They donate thousands of hours equal to several full-time staff positions. As more and more baby boomers retire and want to “give back”, we will have great opportunities to get more work accomplished and provide meaningful work opportunities for them resulting in a win-win situations for all. We need more appreciation/ support for this great resource particularly when funding is down and the economy is sluggish. When we invest a little time in training, support and supervision and can provide amenities such as RV pads and WiFi, we will have much, much help available to us.
Thanks for your great work on this document.
Regarding the economic benefits studies — I strongly agree with the need to do more documentation of the economic impact of refuges. I cite the 2004 study in nearly every grant application and information packet for our politicians. Sure we would love everyone to appreciate our refuges for their value to wildlife and habitat, but when you can say that our birding festival is the single greatest income generating event for the economy of our region, it speaks to a wider audience.
“The Refuge System could recruit yet more volunteers, but lack of staff to organize, recruit, and engage volunteers is one limiting factor.” This is very true statement but there is not a recommendation to address this specific issue. Which, I agree, is huge! I agree with Bernice – volunteers are integral to day-to-day operations on so many stations – from mowing fields to counting birds. They are very often the only person a visitor will talk to while on a refuge. And they are usually the source of the board and membership of Friends groups.
Maybe this section isn’t well developed because we feel like we’re already doing a pretty good job with volunteers – but I’m sure there’s room for improvement. How about providing some kind of “continuing education” for volunteers – through Master Naturalists programs or the National Association for Interpretation certification programs? How about making a concious effort through our websites, facebook, or twitter accounts to promote what our volunteers do and how important they are to us? Sure, there’s a dollar value to the work they do on stations, but in my experience the right group of dedicated, happy, engaged, valued and sometimes kind-of-crazy volunteers is priceless. And usually a ton of fun to work with!
And ditto to the comments from Joanna and Leigh Ann about Friends groups!
I fully agree that every staffed refuge should have a friends group. These groups provide support to their local refuge and the national system. Locally they provide their expertise in various ways (fund raising for specific projects, sponsorship of school outings, camps, fishing rodeos, etc., clean-ups, educational opportunities, birding and wildlife observation tours, and just about anything else our area refuge asks us for our assistance). On a national level we provide a united effort to voice our support to our government regarding any initiative to enhance our refuge system and to voice our collective disapproval of any matter that would be harmful. As a volunteer group that genuinely cares for our natural resources, there is no greater galvanizing force than our passion to take care of our environment.
The service has been exceptional in providing support and assistance toward building greater educational opportunities as well as offering training and capacity building incentives to friends groups and volunteers. The wisdom of the service to partner with organizations that support the refuge system is obvious in their national accomplishments. Having a goal to create a campaign to grow the friends membership to 100,000 is laudable.
Developing a national strategy to coordinate and utilize volunteers is crucial for the refuge system as a whole since they are seriously understaffed. Our local refuge has problems with volunteer coordination as this is very time consuming and usually requires supervision and instruction. Therefore, often times volunteer offers are declined due to a lack of service personnel and that is unfortunate.
Wondering if comments can still be added on the website…it’s April 23 now…just testing…