Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:00:36 -0800,
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:53:54 -0500, in rec.backcountry "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Here is a tremendous leap of logic. Developers see dollars. If they believe
there are dollars to be had by wiping out a forest for buildings, they will
do so. It matters not if they "played" in the woods. MV also attempts to
paint all "development" with the same brush of contempt. MV views the ski
area the same as a clear cut for a shopping mall.




All the woods that I played in when I was a kid have been cut down and replaced
by housing developments. They cut down the forest around Holiday lake and built
houses and renamed it "Lake of the Woods".

But on the bright side there was a pond and wet land that I and all the area
kids used to try to sneak in to but were always kicked out of because the
owners were afraid we would drown. That pond and wet land has been made into a
nature area and is now open to the public and hopefully will never be developed.

It's a beautiful little pond and wet land but the traffic noise all around is
disconcerting.

That's great. But the wildlife also nbeed a way to travel to other
habitat.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:56:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"S Curtiss" wrote in message
...

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
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.

...so far so good


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.

Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife
for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human
populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African
tribes, for instance)
Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to
humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give
little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is
inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife
grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no danger.




Mike also ignores (completely) that there is a huge difference in a human
that passes by and one that builds a house or a freeway (where "house" and
"freeway" are euphanisms for development that represent a permanent presence
as opposed to a transitory presence).

When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then go
home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports,

The research proves otherwise: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

wildlife is
adversely affected by a permanant presence in the habitat. Having said that,
permanent human presence is not always adverse to the thriving of habitat
and/or species. For instance, I just finished reading an article in the
paper where racoons are attacking dogs and cats in the Venice Beach enclave
of Los Angeles. Clearly, racoons are not threatened by human presence.

Really? They get run over all the time. Naturally, you would pick a
species that CAN benefit from the presence of people. MOST can't.

I
have other examples, but Mike will ignore them too.







(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!

Here is a tremendous leap of logic. Developers see dollars. If they
believe there are dollars to be had by wiping out a forest for buildings,
they will do so. It matters not if they "played" in the woods. MV also
attempts to paint all "development" with the same brush of contempt. MV
views the ski area the same as a clear cut for a shopping mall.


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.
Wildlife can and does survive with human presence. It is the total
obliteration of habitat that is harmful. It is the killing for the
pleasure of it that is harmful. MV believes a man standing in a forest is
doing harm.

It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we
interact with nature determines how we think about it and how 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.

You get stung and all children with a treehouse are demonized...?


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.)

Again, because you can not accomplish a task you attempt to demonize all
those who can.

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.

Where do you get 99.44% ? Is that some kind of MV math only you know? You
base this on commercial or "bragging rights" videos designed to sell
excitement. Apparently, you have not watched the The Discovery Channel and
their documentaries on cycling showing smooth skills and attention to the
beauty of the surroundings. Instead, you take a sensationalist's
commercial product and use that as an illustration of the whole. Typical.
You are not interested in fact but only your support of the agenda you had
before your first attempt at "research". You have stated before (and on
your site) that you could not ride a mountain bike. That is meaningless as
countless others do it every day WHILE enjoying the scenery around them.
You choose to ignore these facts and instead use your opinion as a
determination of the activity.

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!

Opinion. There is NOTHING to support this statement


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.

Much of this research is old, faulty or of dubious origin. A simple search
of the research shows that.
Beyond that, the current phones are less powerful (more towers means they
do not need to be as powerful), are using better transmission technology,
and many have even taken these fears to the design and have the antennae
placed in the lower sections of the unit.
If MV wants to go into the woods without a phone, more power to him. I
would hope he is using 99.44% of his attention so he does not trip into a
ravine with no way to get out.

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.

Fine. That does not mean you have the right or power to demand that
everyone "enjoy" themselves the way you do.


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.

Your definition of "minimal-impact" suits your opinions. However, others
may not (and do not need to) adhere to it. There are thousands upon
thousands upon thousands of acres of land off limits to the activities you
dislike. Fortunately, the ones who make the decisions see that there must
also be areas to service a wide variety of options for natural enjoyment.


References: on original post



===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:03:23 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"Fole Haafstra" reply.to.group.not.me wrote in message
...

"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
Last Child in the Woods --
Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,
by Richard Louv
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006


HUGE IRONY HERE ...
Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit
disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with.

If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression,
we
come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and
our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature.

Or, we could build borders around special places, limit access, and call
it....now what shall we call these places? How about....NATIONAL PARKS,
with
a stress on the Nation(al).

I have often thought that the entire state of Nevada, outside of the Las
Vegas and the Reno areas, should be declared a National Park. All the
present day inhabitants should be booted out of the state and it then should
be declared a Wilderness Area. Who are these freaking people who want to
live there anyway? Why the hell don't they go to California where they so
clearly belong. I say give the state back to the wildlife and tear up all
the roads. Yea, it is really only a fit place for us connoisseurs who can
appreciate nature and wilderness. It is not for the hoi-polloi like Fole
Haafstra, an anonymous coward like all scoundrels who would desecrate
wilderness with their vile presence.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

I'm nominating you for a Macarthur Genius Grant.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:53:54 -0500, in rec.backcountry "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Here is a tremendous leap of logic. Developers see dollars. If they
believe
there are dollars to be had by wiping out a forest for buildings, they
will
do so. It matters not if they "played" in the woods. MV also attempts to
paint all "development" with the same brush of contempt. MV views the ski
area the same as a clear cut for a shopping mall.




All the woods that I played in when I was a kid have been cut down and
replaced
by housing developments. They cut down the forest around Holiday lake and
built
houses and renamed it "Lake of the Woods".

But on the bright side there was a pond and wet land that I and all the
area
kids used to try to sneak in to but were always kicked out of because the
owners were afraid we would drown. That pond and wet land has been made
into a
nature area and is now open to the public and hopefully will never be
developed.

It's a beautiful little pond and wet land but the traffic noise all around
is
disconcerting.

If you want to know what America will look like in the future, just go to
Europe. There you will see every square inch of land developed. Europe may
or may not be a garden, but it is not and has not been a wilderness for a
thousand years. It is too bad we are repeating here in the New World every
mistake that was made in the Old World.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:53:54 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
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.

...so far so good


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.

Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife
for
thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human
populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African
tribes,
for instance)
Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to
humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give
little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is
inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife
grows
accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no danger.

That a few species are forced to approach us doesn't prove that we
aren't harming them.
While much research shows human presence may cause avoidance, most prevalent
in the initial contact, other studies show wildlife adaptation to human
presence over time is much improved. However, you use these statistics to
rationalize the exclusion of activities in all areas and in every
circumstance. You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other
recreation, that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these
areas of habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving
wildlife to be more sensitive to human presence.

(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!

Here is a tremendous leap of logic. Developers see dollars. If they
believe
there are dollars to be had by wiping out a forest for buildings, they
will
do so. It matters not if they "played" in the woods. MV also attempts to
paint all "development" with the same brush of contempt. MV views the ski
area the same as a clear cut for a shopping mall.

They both destroy habitat.
To varying degrees and with differing concerns of result. The "ski area"
would concern itself with preserving much of the landscape and natural
surroundings (especially now with more conservation laws in place) as it is
this that attracts the primary customers of the facility. The shopping mall
is only concerned with retail space and parking.
However, none of this concerns your initial statement that a child who
"plays in the woods" has an inclination to become an exploitive adult.

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.
Wildlife can and does survive with human presence. It is the total
obliteration of habitat that is harmful. It is the killing for the
pleasure
of it that is harmful. MV believes a man standing in a forest is doing
harm.
Interesting how there is no MV comment here...

It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we
interact with nature determines how we think about it and how 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.

You get stung and all children with a treehouse are demonized...?

For good reason. They are only imitating adults.
Your ability to connect dots is amusing. Your leaps of logic qualify as a
"super power"! Your ability to use your experience as a measure of
experience for all humanity is quite healthy, also. Children express
independence as a natural aspect of becoming an adult. There are far too
many variables involved in growing from a child to an adult for your
statement concerning forts and "bee stings" to be any type of conclusion.

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.)

Again, because you can not accomplish a task you attempt to demonize all
those who can.

Irrelevant. You are demonstrating the domineering attitude I am
describing.
Not at all. It is you who is expressing a "domineering attitude". It is you
attempting to make your opinion of activities you dislike the benchmark for
acceptable use. It is you insisting that your experience is some kind of
measure for everyone else.

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.

Where do you get 99.44% ? Is that some kind of MV math only you know? You
base this on commercial or "bragging rights" videos designed to sell
excitement.

No, ordinary mountain bikers' self-made videos.
Again... Where do you get 99.44% ? Where do you get "ordinary"? These self
made "videos" you claim as representative of the entire group are actually
showcasing the extreme end of the activity. It is this extreme faction that
often creates the friction between "us" and other trail users. It is quite
possible the "99.44%" you mention is the real and average cyclist just out
to ride in the woods and the remaining .56% are the ones riding wild and
fast to create sensational video images.
I can make the same comparison with hiking. I've seen video documentation of
trash and hiker abuse along the Appalachian Trail so I can make the same
leap of logic that 99.44% of AT hikers are littering and damaging the
habitat and wildlife.

Apparently, you have not watched the The Discovery Channel and
their documentaries on cycling showing smooth skills and attention to the
beauty of the surroundings.

Only where the trail is smooth and straight, so that they don't have
to steer!
Incorrect. Your choice to impose your perception of the activity onto people
who actually do it shows your capacity to ignore real truth. Just as I can
say it is impossible for you to hike without lugged boots. You say you do it
with ease. I say you can not walk a steep incline with smooth shoes without
paying extreme attention to foot placement. You can not possibly notice the
rabbit 20 feet to your left if you are looking down to make sure your
footing is secure.

Instead, you take a sensationalist's commercial
product

That's a LIE.
Really...? They does show sensational and extreme activity. Many are
incorporated into commercial videos. The "LIE" is that these images
represent the majority of cyclists and their way of riding a bike in the
woods.

and use that as an illustration of the whole. Typical. You are not
interested in fact but only your support of the agenda you had before your
first attempt at "research". You have stated before (and on your site)
that
you could not ride a mountain bike. That is meaningless as countless
others
do it every day WHILE enjoying the scenery around them. You choose to
ignore
these facts and instead use your opinion as a determination of the
activity.

One look at one of those videos shows that that is IMPOSSIBLE.
Again... it your unfounded insistence that these images represent the
majority, and your insistence that individuals can not do what they
themselves accomplish, is nothing but another stain on your credibility. Do
you also say it is impossible to run 26 miles merely because you can not do
it?

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!

Opinion. There is NOTHING to support this statement

But it's true.
No. It is a statement of your opinion. My opinion is that a child initiated
into off-road cycling can develop a respect for the surroundings and an
admiration for preservation.

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.

Much of this research is old, faulty or of dubious origin. A simple search
of the research shows that.
Beyond that, the current phones are less powerful (more towers means they
do
not need to be as powerful), are using better transmission technology, and
many have even taken these fears to the design and have the antennae
placed
in the lower sections of the unit.

It's still right next to the brain, and the frequency hasn't changed.
"We performed highly sensitive, extremely well-controlled tests on living
cells irradiated with energy like that from mobile phones, but at levels 5
to 10 times higher than those set for the devices by regulatory agencies,"
says Andrei Laszlo, Ph.D., associate professor of radiation oncology and a
researcher at the Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and
Washington University School of Medicine. "We see no indication that factors
involved in the stress response increase their activity as a result of such
exposures."

Source: Washington University School of Medicine

http://www.physorg.com/news7010.html

If MV wants to go into the woods without a phone, more power to him. I
would
hope he is using 99.44% of his attention so he does not trip into a ravine
with no way to get out.

Interesting - No comment from MV here.

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.

Fine. That does not mean you have the right or power to demand that
everyone
"enjoy" themselves the way you do.

Cell phones show evolution at work.

Yes, they do. Humans continue to evolve technology to move forward.

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.

Your definition of "minimal-impact" suits your opinions. However, others
may
not (and do not need to) adhere to it. There are thousands upon thousands
upon thousands of acres of land off limits to the activities you dislike.
Fortunately, the ones who make the decisions see that there must also be
areas to service a wide variety of options for natural enjoyment.

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists to
continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.
===

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:56:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike also ignores (completely) that there is a huge difference in a human
that passes by and one that builds a house or a freeway (where "house" and
"freeway" are euphanisms for development that represent a permanent
presence
as opposed to a transitory presence).

When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then go
home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports,

The research proves otherwise: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing your own writings with references only to materials carefully
chosen to support your opinions hardly counts as a reference. Provide
INDEPENDANT review of YOUR statements and opinions. Until you do, you are
only making a "because I say so" statement.

S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Ding! We have a winner.

Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am
able to.

This encompasses both the personal inlination which is not subject to
the MJV scale of acknowledgement, and the legality of any particular
locale for riding. Obviously, I would not be able (legally) to ride in
a wilderness area. But on private timber company land, when that
company explicitly welcomes MTBers to use the human-powered-only trails
(no horses/motos), then all conditions are met. Even the MJV "habitat
damage" criteria - since it's harvest-forest land, my biking activities
are nothing in comparison to what's going to happen in 10-20 years -
clear cut, then re-plant.

Ooops, did I say something?

E.P.

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news
You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists to
continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.

The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
stated in the first two sentences.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:56:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"S Curtiss" wrote in message
...

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
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.

...so far so good


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.

Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife
for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human
populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African
tribes, for instance)
Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to
humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give
little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is
inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife
grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no
danger.




Mike also ignores (completely) that there is a huge difference in a human
that passes by and one that builds a house or a freeway (where "house" and
"freeway" are euphanisms for development that represent a permanent
presence
as opposed to a transitory presence).

When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then go
home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports,

The research proves otherwise: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.


Your OWN flawed research? That's a laugh.




wildlife is
adversely affected by a permanant presence in the habitat. Having said
that,
permanent human presence is not always adverse to the thriving of habitat
and/or species. For instance, I just finished reading an article in the
paper where racoons are attacking dogs and cats in the Venice Beach
enclave
of Los Angeles. Clearly, racoons are not threatened by human presence.

Really? They get run over all the time. Naturally, you would pick a
species that CAN benefit from the presence of people. MOST can't.


Actually, they are seldom run over. And, a bike runs over stuff less than
anything out there.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:01:14 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:53:54 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
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.

...so far so good


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.

Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife
for
thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human
populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African
tribes,
for instance)
Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to
humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give
little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is
inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife
grows
accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no danger.

That a few species are forced to approach us doesn't prove that we
aren't harming them.
While much research shows human presence may cause avoidance, most prevalent
in the initial contact, other studies show wildlife adaptation to human
presence over time is much improved.

That doesn't constitute proof that they haven't been harmed! DUH!
Crawl back under your rock.

However, you use these statistics to
rationalize the exclusion of activities in all areas and in every
circumstance. You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other
recreation, that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these
areas of habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving
wildlife to be more sensitive to human presence.

(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!

Here is a tremendous leap of logic. Developers see dollars. If they
believe
there are dollars to be had by wiping out a forest for buildings, they
will
do so. It matters not if they "played" in the woods. MV also attempts to
paint all "development" with the same brush of contempt. MV views the ski
area the same as a clear cut for a shopping mall.

They both destroy habitat.
To varying degrees and with differing concerns of result. The "ski area"
would concern itself with preserving much of the landscape and natural
surroundings (especially now with more conservation laws in place) as it is
this that attracts the primary customers of the facility. The shopping mall
is only concerned with retail space and parking.
However, none of this concerns your initial statement that a child who
"plays in the woods" has an inclination to become an exploitive adult.

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.
Wildlife can and does survive with human presence. It is the total
obliteration of habitat that is harmful. It is the killing for the
pleasure
of it that is harmful. MV believes a man standing in a forest is doing
harm.
Interesting how there is no MV comment here...

It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we
interact with nature determines how we think about it and how 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.

You get stung and all children with a treehouse are demonized...?

For good reason. They are only imitating adults.
Your ability to connect dots is amusing. Your leaps of logic qualify as a
"super power"! Your ability to use your experience as a measure of
experience for all humanity is quite healthy, also. Children express
independence as a natural aspect of becoming an adult. There are far too
many variables involved in growing from a child to an adult for your
statement concerning forts and "bee stings" to be any type of conclusion.

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.)

Again, because you can not accomplish a task you attempt to demonize all
those who can.

Irrelevant. You are demonstrating the domineering attitude I am
describing.
Not at all. It is you who is expressing a "domineering attitude". It is you
attempting to make your opinion of activities you dislike the benchmark for
acceptable use. It is you insisting that your experience is some kind of
measure for everyone else.

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.

Where do you get 99.44% ? Is that some kind of MV math only you know? You
base this on commercial or "bragging rights" videos designed to sell
excitement.

No, ordinary mountain bikers' self-made videos.
Again... Where do you get 99.44% ? Where do you get "ordinary"? These self
made "videos" you claim as representative of the entire group are actually
showcasing the extreme end of the activity. It is this extreme faction that
often creates the friction between "us" and other trail users. It is quite
possible the "99.44%" you mention is the real and average cyclist just out
to ride in the woods and the remaining .56% are the ones riding wild and
fast to create sensational video images.
I can make the same comparison with hiking. I've seen video documentation of
trash and hiker abuse along the Appalachian Trail so I can make the same
leap of logic that 99.44% of AT hikers are littering and damaging the
habitat and wildlife.

Apparently, you have not watched the The Discovery Channel and
their documentaries on cycling showing smooth skills and attention to the
beauty of the surroundings.

Only where the trail is smooth and straight, so that they don't have
to steer!
Incorrect. Your choice to impose your perception of the activity onto people
who actually do it shows your capacity to ignore real truth. Just as I can
say it is impossible for you to hike without lugged boots. You say you do it
with ease. I say you can not walk a steep incline with smooth shoes without
paying extreme attention to foot placement. You can not possibly notice the
rabbit 20 feet to your left if you are looking down to make sure your
footing is secure.

Instead, you take a sensationalist's commercial
product

That's a LIE.
Really...? They does show sensational and extreme activity. Many are
incorporated into commercial videos. The "LIE" is that these images
represent the majority of cyclists and their way of riding a bike in the
woods.

and use that as an illustration of the whole. Typical. You are not
interested in fact but only your support of the agenda you had before your
first attempt at "research". You have stated before (and on your site)
that
you could not ride a mountain bike. That is meaningless as countless
others
do it every day WHILE enjoying the scenery around them. You choose to
ignore
these facts and instead use your opinion as a determination of the
activity.

One look at one of those videos shows that that is IMPOSSIBLE.
Again... it your unfounded insistence that these images represent the
majority, and your insistence that individuals can not do what they
themselves accomplish, is nothing but another stain on your credibility. Do
you also say it is impossible to run 26 miles merely because you can not do
it?

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!

Opinion. There is NOTHING to support this statement

But it's true.
No. It is a statement of your opinion. My opinion is that a child initiated
into off-road cycling can develop a respect for the surroundings and an
admiration for preservation.

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.

Much of this research is old, faulty or of dubious origin. A simple search
of the research shows that.
Beyond that, the current phones are less powerful (more towers means they
do
not need to be as powerful), are using better transmission technology, and
many have even taken these fears to the design and have the antennae
placed
in the lower sections of the unit.

It's still right next to the brain, and the frequency hasn't changed.
"We performed highly sensitive, extremely well-controlled tests on living
cells irradiated with energy like that from mobile phones, but at levels 5
to 10 times higher than those set for the devices by regulatory agencies,"
says Andrei Laszlo, Ph.D., associate professor of radiation oncology and a
researcher at the Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and
Washington University School of Medicine. "We see no indication that factors
involved in the stress response increase their activity as a result of such
exposures."

Who paid for that research?

Source: Washington University School of Medicine

http://www.physorg.com/news7010.html

If MV wants to go into the woods without a phone, more power to him. I
would
hope he is using 99.44% of his attention so he does not trip into a ravine
with no way to get out.

Interesting - No comment from MV here.

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.

Fine. That does not mean you have the right or power to demand that
everyone
"enjoy" themselves the way you do.

Cell phones show evolution at work.

Yes, they do. Humans continue to evolve technology to move forward.

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.

Your definition of "minimal-impact" suits your opinions. However, others
may
not (and do not need to) adhere to it. There are thousands upon thousands
upon thousands of acres of land off limits to the activities you dislike.
Fortunately, the ones who make the decisions see that there must also be
areas to service a wide variety of options for natural enjoyment.

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Because I haven't seen any. SHOW me one! You CAN'T!

You have chosen to ignore the
facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists to
continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.
===


===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande