On Kootenai River - Compliments of Richard Reeves
This seems like a strange question to be asking while living in a country where everybody talks about going “green.” (Green of course tends to symbolize and idealize lush vegetation and trees like the planet Pandora in the movie Avatar). From the government, TV advertising and even in casual conversations with friends, I hear plans of “saving the planet” or “I’m very serious about ecology” or expressing fear that “global warming” might destroy life on earth (which is about as un-green as you can get.)
It has been my observation that many more people are interested in saving the wilderness than are interested in really experiencing nature and the wilderness. That’s too bad, because experiencing nature (and forests for that matter) is what it is all about. Nature, the wilderness and the forests, are something one cannot really understand without experiencing them. Without this experience, any appreciation of nature can only be mental abstracts. Without enough experience to be comfortable in the woods, the feeling often is fear – fear of dangerous animals like bears, or cougars (many city dwellers have nervously asked me if there are bears where I live). I’m not sure anybody can be effective at saving the wilderness and the forests unless he/she has really experienced them.
I see this from a unique perspective, at least in a country where some 90% of the population are raised and live in officially designated urban centers. I was born and raised in north Idaho, a very rural part of the country, and after several years of urban living have returned. This was where and when for me a Saturday recreation might consist of a 20-mile round trip hike to the top of a mountain visible from home, just for the joy of being outside appreciating the trees, vegetation and forest critters that might come my way.
Upon graduation from high school, my summer was spent on a forest service lookout on top of a mountain for early detection of forest fires. The common highlight of a day was dangling my feet over the edge of a catwalk of a 50 foot high tower, watching the rapidly changing shades and colors of the sunset on the horizon and surrounding mountains. Later in the season it would be watching the deer and elk playing just below the tower on the summit, or learning to bake huckleberry pies on the wood stove from berries picked just below the tower. Or, living 50 feet above the ground in the middle of a summer lighting storm that rocked the tower, on occasion hitting the tower. Amazingly, an important part of the deal was they paid me enough for this summer of work to pay for a year of college, – tuition, books, room, board and incidentals (this was before college tuition and expenses skyrocketed of course).
My upbringing gave me a deep personal appreciation for nature, forests and the wilderness through years of experiencing it. I’ve found this is no longer very common in this country, especially among young people. They seem to have adopted the 1974 first wilderness preservation national legislation concept that wilderness (and thus nature) is something to be set aside to be protected from human involvement. Many seem to feel that wilderness is a place that is dangerous and unnatural. Others seem to see the vast wilderness expanses of the American West as something like a big park, an environmentally controlled place to be visited on a weekend through carefully developed areas like highways, well defined pathways or patrolled campgrounds. There is something distorted about it when young people see the streets and highrises of the city as more natural than the wilderness or forests.
There is even a term coined to describe this lack of experience of the woods and nature. Richard Louv, in his book “Last Child in the Woods” used the term “Nature-Deficit Disorder” as a cause for many of the problems young people have such as the rise of obesity, attention-disorders and depression. In other words, Nature-Deficit Disorder is the lack of experiencing the woods or nature.
There are efforts to address this problem by numerous wilderness programs. One of the most interesting are the wilderness therapy programs for troubled teens. Although officially most credit for their success is attributed to the therapists, actually, most wilderness workers tell me the most profound and healing impact comes just from the students experiencing the wilderness. They tell me while all the rest is important, it is still supplementary to the basic wilderness experience.
Pacific Quest on the Big Island of Hawaii in this blog post explains their program in the context of their students experiencing nature through their unique approach of “back to the land” in their gardening. There are several dozen wilderness therapy approaches based on the concept of using the nature experience to heal struggling teens (pre-teens and post-teens also). These pioneering efforts have been well received and many students testify to having the experience of their lives, usually referring to their getting introduced to the wilderness as the highlight.
For those without behavioral problems, Outward Bound, National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) and many other programs offer opportunities for city dwellers and others to get a taste of experiencing the wilderness.
The movement to teach experiencing the wilderness is even expanding to include pre-schools, as reported by the New York Times in For Forest Kindergartners, Class Is Back to Nature, Rain or Shine.
As usually happens in a dynamic society when a problem presents itself, such as teens with self-destructive activities, numerous individuals step forward with solutions. The most effective will thrive, as wilderness therapy programs have done despite the recession. Experiencing the wilderness and the woods seems to be making a comeback. Even public and various mental health institutions are seeing the success of these wilderness therapy programs and are adapting some elements to their own institution like sponsoring climbing walls, wilderness trips, ropes courses etc.
What do you think?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
As usual, a nice, well thought out essay Lon. Your refelections of growing up and the experiences you shared were reminiscent to my growing up in rural Alabama, where my playground as a child was miles and miles of woods, creeks, cow pastures, and fields. Also, growing up in the 1950′s -1960′s, I too, was able to work in the summer and make enough money earning minimum wage to pay for my college tuition and books, and a few other incidentals, but my summer work was working in textile mills. My, how times have changed. Is it called inflation??? Oh, well, I digress, as usual.
Experiencing Nature or Conserving Nature. Of course, I have some thoughts on that. Global warming and the Green Movement are the Hot Political Items today, but, for the most part, they are nothing but scams being pushed by people with a political agenda that has little or nothing to do with “saving the planet.” Again, I have digressed.
As for Outdoor Therapeutic Programs, I have experience as a wilderness therapist and as a teacher in a wilderness program, and as you stated, while the wilderness is a great arena for emotional growth to take place, it is the therapist and the stressors of the day to day chores, backpacking, etc. that make the experience useful and beneficial in causing a “shift” in emotional growth through experience.
An outdoor therapeutic program experience can be one of the most rewarding things that any person could ever experience if properly facilitated with professional, knowledgeable therapists who fully understand the dynamics of group therapy and also have a full understanding and awareness of the wilderness and the inherent dangers if not properly prepared and if you do not have a full understanding of the other elements of the wilderness, including the “critters.”
While I taught our campers the importance of conservation, that was not our primary focus or purpose. And conservation was not just of the wilderness, it was about conserving your own personal strength and energy which is needed to hike humping a pack, and in paying attention to every step you take, so as to avoid needless falls and resulting injuries. Kids learn to conserve their own energy while learning to stay focused on where they are putting their feet for the next step over roots, in ruts, on slippery rocks, etc. Kids learn to conserve the water in their canteens. They learn to conserve their food, and to follow a menu, since all their food for as much as a week is in their backpacks. They learn to conserve firewood, since they are the ones picking it up. We never cut down trees for firewood. We picked it up off the ground or used a bow saw to cut up downed and dead wood which had fell naturally. They learn to appreciate the wilderness and nature, just by living in it and adapting to it. And, the wilderness experience, also gives them more appreciation for the conveniences they have at home. But, of all the children the children that I took on these wilderness trips, I never had even one who did not come to love the wilderness and the experience they had there. And, while all we did was follow our itenerary, and go from point A to B to C to D, etc. each day as our 10 day trip progressed, and deal with what ever occurred during this time, the emotional growth and expeiriential learning is taking place, and these, mostly urban kids, are learning a great awareness, appreciation and love of the woods and almost every one of them wanted to come back and do it again. And, of course, the Wilderness Therapist is the trail guide, the therapist, the first aid dispenser, and the facilitator of the entire trip, but the key to making it work is that you, in the early part of the trip begin to build a positive peer support group that works together and as the trip progresses, I, the therapist, was almost invisible as my group was running itself. That was my goal on every trip. To become invisible, but to be there to observe and to step in and get things back on track when the children struggled with a problem, and most times by the end of the trip, mostly what I was doing is telling them what a great job they were doing. And, that is why I kept going back to the woods 10 days every month, year in and year out with a different group of struggling teens from juvenile detention centers, adolescent psychiatric hospitals, other wilderness schools, alcohol and drug treatment centers, psych-education programs etc. for 3 years running. The emotional growth that I witnessed and shared in the experience made it all worth while. And, of course, I grew a lot as well. That was the hardest and yet, the most rewarding work I had done in my life up to that time. And, the things I learned and the growth that I made in myself, has allowed me to be a very effective teacher and therapist for many years, and I still use my Direct Methods to make the most impact in those I counsel in the shortest period of time. And, all I did was make sure that we had a successful trip and reached our goals, while dealing with whatever happened along the Trails. Happy Trails to all–M. Jerome Ennis, MAed
Thank you Jerome for sharing. I think you also show that to really appreciate the wilderness enough to be valid in a wish to save it, a person must have a real experience of it first. -Lon
I have heard it said: “We save what we love, we love what we know and we know what we are taught”.
It is such a complex issue that I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with almost everyone.
Just because someone experiences nature/wilderness in a different way than we would prefer to do, does not mean their experience is any less valuable. In younger days I would scoff at the 40 foot RV’s and their track-suited inhabitants, stepping out for a scenic view and then back in without touching soil. But I soon realized that these people were having an experience that was important to them, plus they were paying taxes, voting for preservation and to my selfish joy, not stepping more than ten feet from the parking lot. While we recreate differently, they are great neighbors, and who is arrogant enough to tell people how to enjoy nature? Of course I realize the impact of the exhaust of an RV, but everyone impacts to some degree. Do we concentrate impact in one area to minimize it in the others?
Which brings me to my second point. Some view themselves as a part of nature, while others view themselves as apart from nature. Are we so arrogant to think that we are above and apart from nature, or that we can exist without impacting our environment. When a beaver builds a dam and changes its environment to suit its needs is it good or bad? It is neither, it just is. How are we any different? If we were to walk in the woods and toss a branch in a stream we might create a habitat and shelter where the was none, or we might destroy a critter’s home. We can’t hope to ever know every consequence or any action, history has many examples of unintended consequences of the best intentions. You can even take this to an extreme: clear cutting an old growth forest seems like the ultimate sin, but if you view the health of an ecosystem by the number and diversity of species, then after the clear cut will have an explosion of new plants and animals where as an old growth forest is ideal habitat for a relatively small number of species. Again litter is a pet peeve for me, but a can thrown out a window might be seen by us as ugly litter but might seen by mouse as quite an ideal home. Of course I agree that we must minimize our impact and preserve these wild places for the future, but if hiking (which I love) is the only approved use, then the public will soon begin to see less value in what we treasure and stop protecting it. We cannot exist without impact, but to be conscious of that impact and seek to minimize unnecessary impact should always be a goal.
I agree that in my perfect world everyone would have the same deep, passionate love for the outdoors that I do. The would also be completely in-line with my opinions about how to use and preserve the the outdoors as well, but let’s not get carried away. I’ve never been to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but I believe it should be protected from oil exploration. Must I step on some tundra to truly feel that way? My vote counts as much as the next one, hopefully. Of course if everyone was out hiking around I might miss the peace and tranquility I value so much. It’s almost like a secret you hope doesn’t go public, but it must if it is to survive.
In conclusion of a rambling stream of pompous opinions, I think we must do everything in our power to help get new people out into the wild places in a responsible way that considers and minimizes the impacts. We must focus on the children and young people, if they don’t experience nature they’ll have little reason to care about its preservation in the future. We must always promote multi-use and tolerance of others and their activities, while seeking to educate and understand. Most of all we must learn to discuss and debate in a civil manner and with an open mind, even with people we feel are the anthesis of ourselves. I hope you don’t trip on my soapbox on your way out. We save what we love, we love what we know, we know what we are taught.
Hi Joe. Not pompous at all. Thanks for contributing.
I do not think these two questions can be seperated. If our children do not save the wilderness, who will? Why would they want to if they don’t experience it. They go hand in hand.
You are exactly right Regina. My point is that many who want to “save the forests” not only haven’t experienced the forest, but are actually afraid of a real forest. To me, the important thing is experiencing it, and then any effort to save it will be more solidly grounded. -Lon
I got here through a tweet by @Strugglingteens . I’m very glad I did. The post and the comment helped me clarify a notion that’s been rumbling around for a bit.
The “saving” meme is destructive. It assumes that man has the power to “save” the planet. In fact, the planet will survive but perhaps without mankind or mankind with a very reduced presence. I’ve seen the same meme used to “save the poor.” The unintended consequence of assuming that poor people need saving by rich people is as old as there have been both rich and poor.
It’s a natural story. One could probably make the argument that it has persisted so long because it is so self serving.
In any case thank for the time for the post and the comment.
Thanks Michael. Intresting point. I think another implication of your point is that it could be considered pretty arrogant to try to save the poor, the forests – with an implication that the person doing the saving is better than the saved.
-Lon
Last Child in the Woods ––
Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,
by Richard Louv
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006
In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species.
But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building “forts”, farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what’s to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists!
It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though (“conveniently”) never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, “Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!”, at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.
It should also be obvious (but apparently isn’t) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how we learn to treat it. Remember, children don’t learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building “forts”, mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could.
On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: “Nature has been taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to take nature back.” Then he titles his next chapter “Where Will Future Stewards of Nature Come From?” Where indeed? While fishing may bring one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.) Mountain bikers claim that they are “nature-lovers” and are “just hikers on wheels”. But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos, it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to controlling their bike, or they will crash. Children initiated into mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. It’s not!
On page 184 Louv recommends that kids carry cell phones. First of all, cell phones transmit on essentially the same frequency as a microwave oven, and are therefore hazardous to one’s health –- especially for children, whose skulls are still relatively thin. Second, there is nothing that will spoil one’s experience of nature faster than something that reminds one of the city and the “civilized” world. The last thing one wants while enjoying nature is to be reminded of the world outside. Nothing will ruin a hike or a picnic faster than hearing a radio or the ring of a cell phone, or seeing a headset, cell phone, or mountain bike. I’ve been enjoying nature for over 60 years, and can’t remember a single time when I felt a need for any of these items.
It’s clear that we humans need to reduce our impacts on wildlife, if they, and hence we, are to survive. But it is repugnant and arguably inhumane to restrict human access to nature. Therefore, we need to practice minimal-impact recreation (i.e., hiking only), and leave our technology (if we need it at all!) at home. In other words, we need to decrease the quantity of contact with nature, and increase the quality.
References:
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House, 1981.
Errington, Paul L., A Question of Values. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1987.
Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier — An Ecological History of North America and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press, 2001.
Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books, 1991.
Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, 1995.
Louv, Richard, Last Child in the Woods — Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2005.
Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, California, 1994.
Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1973.
Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ecocity3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sc8, and http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/goodall.
Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.
“The Wildlands Project”, Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic Society, 1994.
Wilson, Edward O., The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.
Thank you Mike for your thoughtful essay. You are right, eliminating people from the wilderness is not the answer, but full use of low-impact activities and full exposure to it by many is important. -Lon