This is a quotidian problem throughout the universe of parks, museums, and
recreation areas.  We have often addressed it with special reference to
archaeological resources, especially earthen forts or preContact temple mounds.

We have found there is no broad brush solution.  If we indulge ourselves by
proclaiming the resources to be so precious they cannot withstand public
attention, we put ourselves out of business and lose funding for preservation
of the very resources we seek to preserve.  If we become too subtle with
planting poison ivy, smilax, and Spanish bayonet, we sometimes inadvertently
create a challenge for bmx-ers.  Somehow the law of unintended consequences
kicks in with a vengeance directly proportional to our cleverness.

Our efforts at preservation have been most successful when staff, including
volunteer staff, has been indoctrinated about the values we are attempting to
communicate by opening resources to public contemplation and enjoyment.  We
then provide for training (and retraining) in effective techniques for
interpreting the resources and methods for talking to visitors who may show
signs of wanting to make public resources more public.

Our archaeological resources cannot be moved, unless by the teaspoonful or by
the individual brick.  However, a valid question, one which I have overheard
other visitors ask at sculpture gardens, is whether the artist's act of putting
a new work on exhibit in an outdoor gallery isn't inherently a statement that
some of the patina of visitor wear and tear is welcome -- and the institution.
And if the patina should overwhelm the work, perhaps it is time the curators
and administrators addressed the institutional question of location
appropriateness.

John Scafidi
Florida State Parks
[log in to unmask]