I'm so inspired by Richard Louv's Last Child in the Woods and I'm relieved to be reading it now while Duncan is four. It's never too late to unplug your child (and yourself!) and spend more time in the great outdoors. Having said that, I'm glad the point was made now, and not ten years later after Duncan had turned into some video game zombie.
Louv is a big proponent of unstructured play time in the woods. The great thing about Toronto (and I'm sure many cities) is that you can find parks that haven't been paved to death. Yesterday, I took Duncan via the TTC to Sherwood Park, which is in the Mt. Pleasant/Eglinton area. This was one of the parks of my childhood and I was so happy to see that not much had changed since I was a kid.
A rugged stone wall greets you as you enter the heavily wooded park.
These were the hills where I would go tobogganing as a child. I almost got a bit emotional looking at them again as I thought back on those happy winter memories.
This is a great park to take children of any age. You can chill out on a picnic table with a book, while you let your child climb a hill or go exploring through the trees or brook. No hovering! Just let your child poke around, even if they get muddy or dinged up a little.
Here's the gorgeous Burke Brook that I used to play in as a child. My friends and I would walk from our homes, which were a few blocks away. I'd forgotten that to get from my childhood house to the park, I'd have to cross Mt. Pleasant. Thanks Mom and Dad for trusting Jodi, Tara and I!
We clambered down the muddy embankment and Duncan got busy playing in the brook. I just sat on a rock and destressed in this natural wonderland.
I used to collect tadpoles just to look at. We'd also find little minnows. Duncan didn't find any yesterday, but he still had fun.
They also have a great playground. As you can see, it's surrounded by trees and water. Isn't it great that you don't have to drive out of town to be in the woods?
Above and below: information on the water system Burke Brook is a part of.
Sherwood Park connects to many other parks, including Mount Hope Cemetery. I love taking Duncan to cemeteries to do rubbings and look the the tombstones and trees.
A totally gnarly dead tree watches over the brook.
Last Child in the Woods ––
ReplyDeleteSaving 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!", on my website (Google "Mike Vandeman").
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.
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.