If You Go Down to the Woods Today, You’re Sure of a Big Surprise:
It ’s No Teddy Bear’s Picnic
Joanne F. Tynon, Ph.D.
Deborah
J. Chavez, Ph.D.
Christina
Kakoyannis
First published in Women
in Natural Resources, 2001, 22(1): 6-17.
If you go down to the woods today
You’re sure of a big surprise
If you go down to the woods today
You’d better go in disguise
Beneath the trees where nobody sees
They’ll hide and seek as long as they please
‘
Cause that’s the way the Teddy Bears have their picnic
If you go down to the woods today
You’d better not go alone
It’s lovely down in the woods today
But safer to stay at home
For ev’ry bear that ever there was
Will gather there for certain, because
Today’s the day the Teddy Bears have their picnic.1
1Excerpted from Teddy Bears’ Picnic,
(1932, B. Feldman & Company, London)
Introduction
Crime has been the subject of much study, including statistics by type of crime,
cities where crime is most likely to occur, impacts to victims, and characteristics
of criminals. Despite the fact that federal land managers are compelled to be
alert to incidents ranging from methamphetamine manufacture to more violent
crimes like arson and homicide, crime that occurs in a leisure setting on federally
managed lands has received scant research attention. A good deal of recent media
attention has focused on the safety of the recreating public, yet we have no
leisure setting model for crime and enforcement (Pendleton, 2000). Scarcity
of peer-reviewed research makes it difficult to determine whether crime on federal
public lands is really a growing problem or if it is relatively random and merely
sensationalized by the media.
Weapons confiscated during a raid at a recreation site - USFS Region 4 |
The number of serious crimes nationwide has been declining for nearly eight
years (Sniffen, 1999) and yet the USDA Forest Service (FS) reported an escalation
in violent encounters, especially against FS employees (Driessen et al. 2000).
Even so, there is surprisingly little in the literature regarding trends in
criminal activity on public lands over this same time period. Because we currently
do not have an adequate understanding of the nature and extent of crimes on
public lands and how they may affect visitor and employee safety, we may find
ourselves unprepared to manage for conflicts. This paper examines these issues
and addresses whether “the woods” are a safe place to be.
Background
What we know about the extent of criminal activities on public lands
Research on crime and violence on public lands is limited. Historically,
research on criminal behavior on public lands focused on vandalism (Christensen
and Clark, 1978), which includes graffiti and target shooting. In an article
on criminal acts on forest lands, Munson (1995) noted many types of crimes,
including the dumping of garbage and toxic chemicals, vandalism, marijuana
cultivation, and timber thefts. In 1991 alone, National Park Service (NPS)
rangers across the U.S. dealt with 17 homicides, 214 aggravated assaults,
632 burglaries, 3,897 larcenies, 185 motor vehicle thefts, 114 arsons, 1,321
weapons offenses, 501 sex offenses, 1,878 drug violations, and thousands more
minor assaults and disorderly activities (Berkowitz, 1995). Although noting
that many crimes were underreported, Fletcher (1984) found that the most frequent
violations during a five-month summer season at a typical Texas lake site
were disturbing the peace, injury, and theft, though sexual assault and holdups
occurred as well. In the FS, Driessen et al. (2000) reported that employees
are subject to “verbal threats, abuse, and harassment” (p. 2)
more often than physical attacks, although FS workers have been “victimized
by violence and threats of violence” (p. 2).
Interviews with federal law enforcement officers at national forest and national
park sites found that officers have noticed an increasing amount of forest
and park crime in recent years (Pendleton, 1996). These officers’ perceptions
were found to be consistent with documented crime statistics from this study,
which identified a 19% increase in national park crime and a 100% increase
in national forest crime from 1989 to 1992.
EarthFirst! Encampment - USFS Region 6 |
Domestic terrorism, which is defined as “the unlawful use of force or
violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or
social objectives,” has also occurred on public lands (FBI, 1995). Usually
carried out by extremist groups, domestic terrorism includes threats and criminal
damage against federal government personnel and property—such as the bombing
of a FS district office in the Toiyabe National Forest (United Press International,
1995). Ecoterrorism, a specific type of domestic terrorism, includes acts of
sabotage to mining or logging equipment, criminal trespass, and arson. Ecoterrorists
were responsible for the highly publicized arson of the Vail ski resort on FS
land in October 1999 in response to its planned expansion into a portion of
wilderness. Another example of ecoterrorism is the act of tree spiking, in which
long metal spikes are driven into trees that shatter and can cause severe injury
when they come into contact with a logger’s chain saw (Eagan, 1996).
Although many criminal activities occurring on public lands are similar to
those found in urban areas, some crimes, such as tree theft and poaching of
both wildlife and plants, are unique to rural forests and parks (Pendleton,
1997). One study of the NPS found that during 1990-1991, 99 different species
of plants were illegally collected, some with remarkably high market value.
Although the reports of illegal poaching are already significant, the NPS
estimates that only one out of every thirty cases of poaching gets detected
(Berkowitz, 1995).
What we know about the effects on visitor and employee safety
Increasing visitation, coupled with increasing criminal activities on federal
public lands, poses a management problem for visitor safety. Illegal dumps
of garbage, tires, and hazardous waste (including waste from drug labs)
have been frequently found on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and FS land.
The clean up of these dumps can be costly, and many dumps continue to remain
on public lands because agencies often do not have the funds necessary to
remove the contamination. Illegal drug plantations have also been found
in remote areas of public lands in those states where growing conditions
are favorable. Besides supplying illegal drugs, marijuana growers pose a
threat to both public visitors and federal employees. Growers are often
heavily armed and their marijuana plantations can be booby-trapped with
guns or other devices to prevent access (Munson, 1995).
Not only do crimes threaten visitor safety, but they also threaten federal
employees working on these same public lands. Pendleton (1996) found that
law enforcement officers (LEOs) and rangers encounter weapons on a routine
basis in their daily rounds. A report by the Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER) found that threats, violence, and vandalism towards
FS and BLM personnel and facilities have been increasing since the group first
began recording these types of incidents in 1995 (Anon., 1999). The PEER report
noted that most of the problems occurred in western states where the majority
of public lands are located. In 1998, 100 incidents of violence or intimidation
toward FS or BLM employees were reported (ibid). This was more than double
the 1995 figures, and many additional incidents are believed to go unreported
(Berkowitz, 1995).
The increase in criminal violations on public lands, coupled with a perceived
lack of enforcement of federal laws, may be contributing to a more dangerous
situation for federal employees on public lands. Federal law enforcement officers
may face hazards, particularly in western states where government authority
has traditionally been challenged (Pendleton, 1996). Recently, a Nevada FS
supervisor resigned in protest over what she saw as an increasing “anti-federal
fervor” that places federal employees at risk (Associated Press, 1999b).
The bombing of a FS ranger’s office (ibid) demonstrates that these concerns
are warranted. Furthermore, a law enforcement officer in Nevada complained
in frustration that federal prosecutors had not prosecuted 21 felonies and
52 misdemeanors given to them by the FS (Sonner, 1999).
Purpose of the Study
We decided it was time to find out if crime and violence are real concerns
on western FS lands, or merely the result of a few highly publicized incidents.
In this first phase of a projected multiphase study, we wanted to determine
what crimes were occurring on western National Forests, and how they were
being dealt with by managers and law enforcement agents. Further, we needed
to begin to ask the questions that would help us develop a large-scale survey
instrument for use on a national level. While we are interested in the impact
that crime and violence have on recreation management, our ultimate goal is
to determine how crime and violence affect recreationists’ decision
making and participation patterns (or, what people choose to do, where they
decide to go or not go, and why).
Methods
The research design we used is case study research (Crabtree and Miller,
1992; Hamel et al., 1993; Yin, 1993). Case study methods are appropriate
when one wants to: (1) broadly define topics, (2) investigate phenomena
within context, particularly when the boundaries between phenomena and context
are difficult to separate, and (3) use multiple sources of evidence (Yin,
1993).
In the summer and fall of 1998, we conducted face-to-face interviews with
personnel at eight FS sites in the western United States (Rubin and Rubin,
1995; Kvale, 1996; Seidman, 1998). This technique facilitates the constant
feedback and probing necessary to understand perceptions of crime and crime
impacts. We also believe this technique is more successful than survey methods—especially
at the exploratory stages of research—at eliciting responses from reticent
or reluctant interview subjects. We concur with those who promote the continued
use of qualitative methods, in general, as a way to make sense of experiences
(Howe, 1985, 1991; Gunter, 1987; Henderson, 1991; Hultsman and Anderson, 1991;
Kelly, 1991; Bogdan and Biklen, 1992; Glesne and Peshkin, 1992).
The interview team consisted of Chavez and Tynon, each taking a turn at conducting
the interviews while the other wrote notes and ran the tape recorder. We used
scripted conversations to ensure consistency in our interviews. While the
actual number of interviewees varied per site, we typically met with two to
four people at a time. We interviewed LEOs, administrators, and others. We
frequently concluded our visit with a site tour of criminal hot spots, which
we found invaluable for putting criminal activity in perspective. When LEOs
accompanied us, these trips provided us an additional contact opportunity.
Sample
Our sample included eight sites: two each from FS Region 3 (Arizona and
New Mexico), Region 4 (Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming), Region 5 (California),
and Region 6 (Oregon and Washington). We identified half of the sites as
urban proximate, or urban interface, forests. The FS defines urban forests
as wildland within an hour’s drive of a million or more people. Half
of our interviews were conducted at a FS Ranger District (RD) and half were
conducted at a Supervisor’s Office (SO). Because the sample is not
random, the results are not generalizable; that is, they do not apply to
FS areas not in this study. The primary interview subjects were LEOs, special
agents, and investigators. Secondary interview subjects included administrative
staff who directly supervise the work of LEOs, and others, such as outdoor
recreation planners and public affairs specialists, who had knowledge of
criminal activities. Conventional research protocols regarding confidentiality
and privacy were followed carefully.
Analysis
A subcontracted court reporter began transcribing the interview tapes immediately
after each interview. Court reporters use specialty shorthand equipment
and software and, therefore, they can accomplish transcriptions in less
time, and with fewer errors, than transcribers who go from tape to word
processors.
We used standard qualitative methods to analyze the narrative data. In qualitative
inquiry the purpose is to capture and understand the perspective of individuals
without predetermining their perspective through prior selection of questionnaire
categories (Patton, 1987, 1990; Bogdan and Biklen, 1992). Qualitative researchers
focus on narrative rather than numerical data and on the meanings that emerge
from analyzing the narrative data (Patton, 1990; Tesch, 1990; Henderson, 1991).
While qualitative research can be used for verification, it is more often
oriented toward the discovery or exploration of ideas and concepts (Stainback
and Stainback, 1988; Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Henderson, 1991; Kelly, 1991;
Glesne and Peshkin, 1992). Typically, qualitative analysis is not guided by
hypotheses before data collection is undertaken, but begins inductively with
questions about individual experiences in order to build toward general patterns
(Patton, 1987, 1990; Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Henderson, 1991; Bogdan and
Biklen, 1992). We analyzed the transcriptions and our notes for content, preserving
a faithful rendering of terminology. We extracted major themes or categories
(Patton, 1987; Stainback and Stainback, 1988; Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Tesch,
1990) from the narrative responses made by FS interviewees, and verified our
findings with the people interviewed. Finally, we did not analyze the interviews
for quantitative measures of the frequency of criminal activities; instead,
we examined the respondents’ perceptions as to the relative extent and
impact these activities have had on their forest site.
Findings
We began with a tentative list of crimes based on FS incident reports and
media reports (see for example: Associated Press, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a; Loux,
1996; Foster, 1997; Murphy, 1997; Sullivan, 1997). We soon found that much
more was occurring on these western National Forests than we originally
thought. At the conclusion of our analysis, we found crimes fell into five
categories:
1. Urban-associated crime, identified by FS interviewees as crimes not
typically associated with forest settings, such arson, body dumping, domestic
violence, drive-by shooting, gang activity, murder, rape/sexual assault, indiscriminant
or deliberate shooting that endangers employees or other visitors, suicides,
thefts);
2. Assaults (criminal damage, threats against personnel, threats against
property);
3. Drug activity (marijuana cultivation, armed defense of crops, booby
traps, methamphetamine manufacture and waste);
4. Takeover or violence perpetrated by members of extremist or nontraditional
groups (EarthFirst!, militias/supremacy groups, motorcycle groups, property
rights groups, satanic cults, survivalists, white power groups, wise use groups);
and an
5. Other category (armed defense of forest products, dumping of chemicals,
dumping of household waste and landscape materials, homeless people taking
up residency in the forest, and trespass by undocumented immigrants).
Urban-associated crimes like arson (e.g. torching of stolen vehicles), domestic
violence, and thefts (e.g. personal belongings) occurred in all eight of the
locations we investigated (Table 1). Body (or body parts) dumping, gang activity,
suicides, and indiscriminant or deliberate shooting that endangers others
occurred at seven of the eight sites we studied. At one forest site, we were
told that “everyone here has a weapon,” that “everyone carries
a sidearm or a rifle or a shotgun in their vehicle.” Murders were a
problem at six locations, while rapes and sexual assaults have been reported
at five sites. At half of the locations we heard reports of drive-by shooting
incidents, and three of those four reports came from rural forests. So, these
problems aren’t limited to urban interface (or, as one officer put it, “in-your-face”)
forests. In fact, in all but one interview, we heard about the effects of
what respondents termed “urban spillover.” One law enforcement
officer said, “We’re doing city law enforcement, not natural resources
law enforcement.”
In the assault category we included personal assault as well as criminal
property damage. Criminal damage occurred at all eight of the sites we visited
(Table 2), and ranged from the usual acts of vandalism (like damage to signs,
posts, and other government property) to bombs. Threats to personnel (at six
sites) included those made by militia members to kill any law enforcement
officer who shows up during their training activities on the National Forest,
to stalking, to the very real kidnap and assault of a seasonal Forest Service
employee. Interviewees at four sites reported criminal property threats.
Drug activity occurred at all eight sites (Table 3). Originally,
our drug category included only marijuana cultivation (found to occur at all
of our study sites), armed defense of marijuana crops, and booby
traps. We heard from FS interviewees that many marijuana gardens are difficult
to find and are most often located accidentally by recreationists, usually
by
hunters. While fewer plots are booby-trapped these days than in the past, we
were told they are more likely to be guarded by someone armed with an automatic
weapon (reported at four sites). In the Southwest, some gardens are even watered
via sophisticated drip irrigation systems. We added methamphetamine (commonly
known as “meth”) manufacture, meth labs, and meth chemical dumps
(reported at seven of the eight sites) to our drug category when we discovered
that clandestine meth labs and meth lab wastes are an increasing hazard on National
Forests, as they are elsewhere throughout this country. Meth labs and meth waste
materials are particularly difficult to deal with because the paraphernalia
can resemble ordinary household garbage (gallon plastic jugs, garbage bags,
and five-gallon buckets), yet it’s contaminated with highly toxic chemical
waste, requiring cleanup workers to don protective suits and respirators.
FS interviewees reported a variety of what they called “nontraditional”
users engaging in criminal acts on national forests. Interviewees identified
and ascribed responsibility for problems to members of EarthFirst!, militias/supremacy
groups, motorcycle groups, property rights groups, satanic cults, survivalists,
white power groups, and wise use groups (Table 4).
Satanic cults were mentioned at each of the eight sites, although cultists
were rarely found in the act. Most of evidence left behind was in the form
of pentagrams,
animal skulls, and other bones. Six sites reported problems with white power
groups, Earth First!, wise use groups, motorcycle groups, and survivalists.
We heard reports of problems at five sites with members of militias/supremacy
groups, and property rights groups. It’s important to note that while
FS interviewees did not incriminate all the members of these groups, they told
us that often the mere presence of some of these group members could make other
forest visitors uneasy. One LEO remarked, “We’ve had places that
we have absolutely lost, and we have taken back” (by gating and having
a strong law enforcement presence). “When I talk about taking them back,
I mean giving them back to legitimate users and taking them from people who
would ruin the experience.”
The last category, “other,” includes crimes that don’t
fit into the other four categories: armed defense of mushroom areas and other
areas where prime forest products (like beargrass) are harvested; illegal
landfills of household waste, landscape materials, and burned out cars; homeless “homesteads;” and
activities associated with smuggling undocumented immigrants into the United
States. FS employees at all eight sites experienced problems with dumping
of household and/or landscape material and with homeless people. Seven sites
had problems with industrial chemical dumping. The problems associated with
the trespass of undocumented immigrants (at five of the sites) include user-created
trails, trash left behind, pack animals left behind, and human waste. In the
Southwest, decades-old smugglers’ routes continue to be used and some
are five or more feet deep from heavy use. FS interviewees at only two sites
mentioned problems associated with the armed defense of forest product areas.
Implications
Urban vs. Rural Sites
While some documented crimes such as poaching and tree theft are specific
to public lands in rural locations (Weisheit et al., 1994), a key finding
from our study is that urban-associated crime is no stranger to National Forests
in the western United States. Although many of our National Forest study sites
are near large urban populations, we found, unexpectedly, that rural forests
also suffer from what interviewees termed “urban spillover” effects.
Urban-associated crimes and crimes that fell into the other category (e.g.
armed defense of forest products, chemical dumping, dumping of household waste
and landscape materials, homeless residency, and undocumented immigrant trespass)
occurred in both urban proximate and rural forest study sites. In fact, FS
interviewees at all eight sites said they had faced these problems, although
they reported a higher prevalence of these crimes in urban proximate areas.
We found some differences in the assault category—more occurred in urban
interface areas. And, in urban areas we found more affirmative responses to
our queries about drug activities. FS interviewees in rural areas appeared
to have more problems with members of extremist, or nontraditional user groups.
Impacts to Recreationists
Many of the people we interviewed felt that recreationists were either
completely unaware of criminal activities occurring on the forest or were
unaffected. Some interviewees, however, did feel that there was some impact
to recreationists, even though it might be minimal. We heard that the “average
recreationist doesn’t have a clue” and “recreation impacts
are short term.” Many of those we interviewed noted that few criminal
incidents were announced to the public, often because they are such common
occurrences. Especially in urban proximate areas, they told us “it’s
an urban environment so people aren’t surprised.” A few of the
people we spoke to felt there was some personal characteristic that determined
a recreationist’s reaction to criminal elements in the forests: “it
doesn’t bother the users because it’s what they’re used
to,” or, “if they live in (the) city, then they are used to
gunshots and they won’t call us.” FS interviewees thought the
public should be more concerned than they appeared to be. They were surprised
that “very violent crimes don’t seem to bother the recreationists.
It might clear a parking lot but the next day people will be out there again.”
Impacts to Management
Most of those interviewed perceived an increase of criminal activity on
FS lands and remarked on the subsequent costs to management in terms of
personnel and other resources, and the low funding levels available to deal
with these problems. Especially costly are chemical dump cleanups, and fixing
and replacing signs and facilities. Most impacts, we were told, can be traced
to gang activity, criminal damage, threats against personnel, meth manufacture,
and Earth First! LEOs stressed repeatedly that, “we’re not doing
natural resources law enforcement, we’re doing city law enforcement.” Over
and over again, we heard, “this isn’t a traditional FS” site.
Not only have National Forests “become the open space for the metropolitan
area,” they are the backyards for so many people, urban and rural
alike. “There’s so many things out there it’s hard for
people to understand,” one LEO said. “We’re doing triage
law enforcement.” This represents an inexorable, yet major, shift
in law enforcement efforts on public lands. We estimated that, on average,
each FS law enforcement officer in our study is patrolling 378,000 acres
alone, with backup often an hour or more away. Given the vast territories
that LEOs patrol, it’s no wonder that getting a police dog is a high
priority for many.
Communication
In the course of our investigation, we learned that many crimes are not
reported to the recreating public. We also discovered that many crimes are
not known to FS personnel outside of the LEOs. However, at some sites, respondents
said criminal activities are so prevalent that they are no longer mentioned
at meetings, and one supervisor told us that they might learn of a murder
or a body being dumped two to three days after the fact. We were told that “employees
become callous to reports of crime and violence, that “so much goes
on at the Forest that the staff are desensitized.” In some of the
interviews, it was clear to us that good communication existed between LEOs
and other FS personnel; in others, communication was lacking or absent.
We believe that where crime and violence are concerned, poor communication
is a problem that needs to be addressed, since it may have serious consequences
for employee and visitor safety.
Discussion
Public uses of outdoor natural areas, like National Forests in the United
States, have been undergoing change. The most apparent changes have been
increasing levels of use and nontraditional user groups (Baas et al., 1993;
Chavez, 1998; Dwyer, 1994; Hospodarsky and Lee, 1993). In part, these changes
are due to societal shifts, such as increasing populations and shifts toward
urbanization. Changes found in outdoor natural areas (ibid) may have quite
important impacts for outdoor enthusiasts and land managers. Results from
this study show that crime and acts of violence are occurring on public
lands. One federal LEO credits the crimes on National Forests to changes
in society that lead to intolerance and insensitivity. Couple this with
National Forest facilities at maximum capacity and you have a powder keg,
he told us.
Media reports reinforce the conclusion that crime and violent acts continue
to plague public land employees and visitors. The more dramatic reports include
the coverage of the three murdered visitors to Yosemite National Park in 1999
(Rogers et al., 1999), the cover story in Outside magazine which characterized
the Angeles National Forest as the most dangerous forest in the nation (Sullivan,
1997), and the Wall Street Journal’s most recent report asking, “How
Safe is that National Park?” (Gubernick, 2000). In March of this year,
the BLM reported on a double homicide when a backcountry recreationist found
a burned out vehicle with the remains of two people inside. Initial findings
indicated that both victims, who had been reported missing earlier in the
month, had possibly been murdered elsewhere and then transported to public
land administered by BLM in the Silverbell Mountains of Arizona (Anon., 2000).
While the media are likely portraying a sensationalized picture of the safety
of the public on forest lands as a whole, it is also true that these crimes
and other acts of violence have made the work of public land managers and
law enforcement officers more hazardous, and that they jeopardize the safety
of all who visit public lands or work there. It’s certainly no teddy
bears’ picnic out there anymore.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
This study is a preliminary examination of criminal activities on public
lands, and while the results cannot be generalized to other forest sites,
it is clear that our findings raise serious questions that require additional
research. First, we think much more research needs to be conducted on the
extent of the problem of criminal activities on public lands. Future research
should include quantitative data from crime records or other data sources
to more fully measure the impact of crime and violence on recreation management.
This effort should involve a nationwide, multi-agency study (FS, BLM, NPS,
etc.) to compare results across agencies and across regions of the country.
Several of those we interviewed referenced other agencies faced with similar
difficulties. For example, one interviewee said, “The Bureau of Land
Management gets many more bodies dumped and many more stolen cars are found
there because they are closer to the city.” Second, we think that
communication issues should be addressed through additional research of
both the communication and knowledge levels of the general recreating public
and that of natural resource agency personnel. Third, we suggest that additional
research on natural resources impact be conducted. Finally, we believe that
impacts to recreationists need to be examined in detail. Future research
needs to examine public opinions on the extent of crime on forest lands—and
the factors that influence these opinions—so we can better understand
how public perceptions influence the decision-making and participation patterns
of recreationists.
REFERENCES
______. 1999. Violence on the rise against resource employees. PEEReview.
Washington, DC: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Fall, p.
4.
______. 2000. Bureau Of Land Management National Law Enforcement Office Weekly
Activity Report for the Week Ending March 25, 2000.
(Associated Press). 1998a. Victims describe similar attacks. (Oregon) Gazette-Times.
23 April 1998.
(Associated Press). 1998b. Kidnapper gets 55 years. (Oregon) Gazette-Times.
9 May 1998.
(Associated Press). 1999a. Car of missing tourists found burned in forest.
(California) The Press-Enterprise. 19 March 1999.
(Associated Press). 1999b. Lawmakers will review Forest Service boss
claims that workers harassed. The Associated Press State and Local Wire.
15 November 1999.
(United Press International). 1995. Bomb damages Forest Service building.
United Press International and Local Wire. 31 March 1995.
Baas, J.M., A.W. Ewert, and D.J. Chavez. 1993. Influence of ethnicity on
recreation and natural environment use patterns: Managing recreation sites
for ethnic and racial diversity. Environmental Management, 17(4): 523-529.
Berkowitz, P. 1995. U. S. rangers: The law of the land. Redding, CA: CT
Publishing Company.
Bogdan, R.C. and S.K. Biklen. 1992. Qualitative research for education: an
introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Chavez, D.J. 1998. Demographic shifts: Potential impacts for outdoor recreation
management. Outdoor Reader for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
105th Congress, 2nd Session. ISBN 0-16-057997-7, pp. 155-160.
Christiansen, H. and R. Clark. 1978. Understanding and controlling vandalism
and other rule violations in urban recreation settings. Proceedings of the
National Urban Forestry Conference. USDA Forest Service.
Crabtree, B.F. and W.L. Miller, Eds. 1992. Doing qualitative Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Driessen, J., D.P. Doyle, and L. Outka. 2000. Personal safety awareness for
field employees, violence awareness training: Fiscal year 1999 findings and
recommendations. Tech. Rpt. 0067-2820-MTDC Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service,
Missoula Technology and Development Center.
Dwyer, J.F. 1994. Customer diversity and the future demand for outdoor recreation.
General Technical Report RM-252. Fort Collins, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station.
Eagan, S.P. 1996. From spikes to bombs: The rise of eco-terrorism. Studies
in Conflict and Terrorism 19(1):1-18.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1995. Terrorism in the United States 1995.
Terrorist Research and Analytical Center, National Security Division. Available:
http://www.fbi.gov/publish/terror/terrusa.htm [February 2000].
Fletcher, J.E. 1984. Effectiveness evaluation of management alternatives
for dealing with park safety and security problems. Trends 21(1): 31-35.
Foster, D. 1997. Uprooting the militias: Government’s covert campaign
on shaky ground. Maine Sunday Telegram. 1 June 1997.
Glesne, C. and A. Peshkin. 1992. Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction.
New York: Longman Publishing Group.
Gubernick, L. 2000. How safe is that National Park? The Wall Street Journal,
2 June 2000, pp. W1, W14.
Gunter, B.G. 1987. The leisure experience: Selected properties. Journal of
Leisure Research 19 (2): 115-130.
Hamel, J., S. Dufour, and D. Fortin. 1993. Case study methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Henderson, K.A. 1991. Dimensions of choice: a qualitative approach to recreation,
parks, and leisure research. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Hospodarsky, D., and M. Lee. 1993. A racial and ethnic user group analysis
of recreation on the Tonto National Forest. Unpublished report supplied by
author.
Howe, C.Z. 1985. Possibilities for using a qualitative research approach
in the sociological study of leisure. Journal of Leisure Research 17(3): 212-224.
Howe, C.Z. 1991. Considerations when using phenomenology in leisure inquiry:
Beliefs, methods, and analysis in naturalistic research. Leisure Studies 10(1):
49-62.
Hultsman, J.T. and S.C. Anderson. 1991. Studying leisure perceptions: A need
for methodological expansion. Leisure Studies 10(1): 63-67.
Kelly, J.R. 1991. Leisure and quality: beyond the quantitative barrier in
research. In T.L. Goodale and P.A. Witt, eds., Recreation and leisure: issues
in an era of change. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Loux, S.M. 1996. Criminals at home in the forest. (California) The Press-Enterprise.
5 May 1996.
Murphy, K. 1997. Edible gold sprout in Northwest. Los Angeles Times. 10 October
1997.
Munson, M.D. 1995. Crime in the forest: Vandals at the gate. Journal of Forestry
93(3): 28-30.
Patton, M.Q. 1987. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pendleton, M.R. 2000. Leisure, crime and cops: Exploring a paradox of
our civility. Journal of Leisure Research 32(1): 111-115.
Pendleton, M.R. 1997. Looking the other way: The institutional accommodation
of tree theft. Qualitative Sociology 20(3): 325-340.
Pendleton, M.R. 1996. Crime, criminals and guns in natural settings: Exploring
the basis for disarming federal rangers. American Journal of Police 15(4):
3-25.
Rogers, P., S. Marmion, V. Bane, U. Wihlborg, and J. Harmes. 1999. Into thin
air. People 51(11), 60-65.
Rubin, H.J. and I.S. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Seidman, I. 1998. Interviewing as qualitative research.
2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sniffen, M.J. 1999. Serious reported crime plummets 10% in first half of
year. Corvallis Gazette Times. November 22, 1999.
Sonner, S. 1999. Forest Service looks into threat allegations. The Coloradoan.
November 25, 1999.
Stainback, S. and W. Stainback. 1988. Understanding and conducting qualitative
research. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded
theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sullivan, R. 1997. Dark behind it rose the forest ...:Into the beautiful
Angeles we go, into the most dangerous national forest in America. Outside
July 1997, pp. 62-75.
Tesch, R. 1990. Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools.
New York: The Falmer Press.
Weisheit, R. D. Falcone, and E. Wells. 1994. Rural crime and rural policing.
Research in Action. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Yin, R.K. 1993. Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
back to the top
|
