We lost access to a park recently, maybe we didn't sell it right or could do more.
Basically, while flagging control locations, I talked about what I was doing, potential route choices into controls, how the control would be placed to make it navigationally challenging, and looking at any potential impacts. I made a point of picking up some trash which we removed from the woods, showed interest in the botanicals that he stopped to examine, and made a point of taking us to check a great horned owl nest platform for signs of current occupancy (none found), including first observing from a distance then moving in to look for any pellets underneath the platform. We shared some common interests about birds and nature, and I repeatedly queried him about any concerns or objections that he might have. He realizes (as some do not), that an important part of preserving natural areas is the support of public users, and that to get / keep support of people for preserving natural areas, you have to get them outdoors experiencing those areas, and he also understood that an orienteering event, as a single day activity with widely distributed participants is of minimal impact. He mentioned that other park employees had initially expressed concern about the large number of control points (65 or 70 for a national meet), but that he was seeing why that was actually desirable in terms of spreading out the impact with different courses and routes.
This was a follow-up to a conference room face-to-face meeting a couple weeks ago with several other park staff including this naturalist, a reservation specialist, and a couple other key administrative and conservation people.
Thanks, Mike! Lot of good stuff in there.