Do We Need To Loosen Up???

Read The Article (Click Here)

An article I read today reminded me of when I was little.  I can remember sitting at the end of my driveway crushing different color rocks into powder and putting them on my and my neighbors face in the form of "makeup" or "warpaint" depending on which persona I identified with that day.  I get that this article is talking about more the destruction of living things, and not just crushing rocks but the larger picture remains.

Are we too protective of nature and letting it affect how kids play in it? 

 I have a friend whose son built a fort on conservation land (not ours) and received a call shortly there after that they needed to take it down and it was "inappropriate", and "damaging" to the preserved piece of property.  This child didn't even realize his imaginary world was on preserved land as his yard backed right up to it.   It was not in an endangered habitat, it was not on a trail.  No one even goes there because it essentially is in their back yard.  In his mind he had created a secret hide out in the woods.  So now, he associates Land Trusts with No Touch, and creative play in the woods as inappropriate use. 

Too often we go onto a trail and the very first thing we see is a laundry list of all the things we cannot do... on a big sign... in your face, and just to make sure you get the point, you may see the great big ANTI-SIGNS along the way (the red circle with a line through it)

Are we inviting people to enjoy our properties? or are we saying "we saved this so that no one could ever ever enjoy it again... ever... don't touch."

On the other hand, we love the land that we preserved, otherwise we wouldn't have thought to preserve it in the first place.  Perhaps it is special, or has endangered habitats etc...  so shouldn't we have the right to say you can't touch this?

It is an interesting debate, and I can see both sides... but perhaps there is a middle ground.  I like to think that we can find that.   Some lands can be used for mountain biking.  (I can hear the purists gasps from here) Some of land can be used for hiking, or walking dogs...(more gasps.)  But perhaps some land is simply left, as is.  A beautiful landscape that doesn't really have any access.  Maybe instead of the huge NO signs we can strive to educate that not bagging the dog poop (AND taking it with you to throw away) can be a real environmental issue.  Maybe we can all enjoy land together and become attached to it for our own reasons, then strive to want to save it.

As we read more and more about kids not getting enough "vitamin N" (Nature) and the effects on their learning and health, it is important to make that accessible.  Not just in educational forums, like walking through a museum with trees, but in free play.  Let their creativity take over, play where they can make mistakes, make a mess, and even perhaps almost eat a caterpillar that is in one hand because they thought it was the hand that the Oreo was in but it wasn't.... (yes that did happen, but I promise I didn't bite down, and the furry little thing wiggled away, perhaps a little frightened and slobbery, but no worse for wear.)

If we are to expect the next generation to want to be a part of the conservation movement, shouldn't we make nature comfortable and accessible... like the old beat up couch in the basement... not the plastic covered Chippendale silk covered couch in your grandmothers house?  Thoughts?